Rove: Bush to AGAIN Push Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Last Conformist:
as far as I know interracial mariages have occured worldwide for all ages. In The Netherlands, for example, interracial mariages have never been forbidden.
To not allow interracial mariage is racism and discrimination. Since it says: "A white man can marry a woman, if she's white."

How's that different form "a man can marry a person, if that person is a woman"?

The law doesn't say: "A white man can marry a woman, if she's heterosexual."

Homosexuals are equal to the law as heterosexuals are.
The different races weren't equal to the law, to a black man other rules applied then to white men.
Since black men could only marry black women while white men could only marry white women.

I'm still not getting how banning interracial marriage discriminates in a way banning gay marriage does not. How is banning black women from marrying white men more discriminatory than banning a man from doing it?

Thus:
- there's no history of worldwide, ancient, ban on interracial mariage

There's a practically worldwide, ancient tradition of acceptance of slavery. Does that mean we should resurrect it?

- interracial mariage IS discrimination

Please tell me that's misworded ...

concluding: there is a difference.

Well, you've not convinced me.

It's just that I wonder, why not just allow the heterosexuals to have their marriage?

Because denying large number of people legal benefits so as not to offend against traditionalism is not acceptable.

[Atahualpa]

CyberShy's last post left a feeling of ambiguity...

[Robert]

Thank you society for choosing to instead treat me as a second class citizen.

Well, I don't know how things are at your place, but overhere, or better: in my situation: I do not treat gay people as 2nd class citizen.
I'm sorry that there are still people who do see you that way. I do very condemn that.

But heterosexual men dont' tend to fall in love and want to marry other men. Straight women don't tend to want to walk down the aisle with another lady in tow.

I can see your point.
That's why I say that I do not object gays from marying men.
The thing I just want to make clear is that mariage is just a ceremony. It's been a heterosexual ceremony for ages. Why just not let the heterosexuals keep it?

Again, it doens't matter to me.
I'd rather have two faitfull maried gays then 2 heterosexuals who are unfaithfull.
But it's still just a ceremony.

I don't want you to change opinion, I just hope that you want to open your eyes for the opinion of others.
I am quiet moderate on this issue. I'm a christian, I'm a very orthodox christian, but nevertheless I don't want to oppose gay-mariage, and I'm sad that much christians make gay-mariage as one of their key-issues.

And I sence the same close-minded way of reasoning on BOTH sides of the line.
Please start to respect each other. Respect that some people want to keep mariage heterosexual.
Let's remove the discussion from the "queers vs fundamentalists" region and get it into the civil debate area.

Too much people think that their opinion is the only possible opinion, and that everybody who disagrees defenitely sucks big time and is an idiot.
If you tell the anti-gay-mariage people that they shouldn't be so stubborn, don't be it yourself as well.
That's my point.

Of course that point of view I have puts me in the "Fundamentalistic anti-gay bigot" group in the eyes of the gays.
And it puts me in the "dirty queer group" by the other group. It's so easy to put people in a group and label them.

You can bet your cojones there are. I can't even give blood despite having a safer sex life than a lot of my straight friends.

I agree with you that that's madness.
Anyway, I'd rather get blood from a monogame person (gay or hetero) then from someone who has a wild sexlife. I must admit that in advance I expect on first sight a gay to have a more wild sexlife then a hetero.

I'm sorry, but if my life depends on it I allow myself to have such a shortminded opinion.
And if I receive blood from a guy who sleeps with 30 girls everyweek, and I get aids through it, and you laugh about it. You're right to do so. I admit.

You've got no clue what it's like to be a minority, do you?

I'm a christian, an orthodox christian, in The Netherlands.
I very am a part of a minority.

We have gay clubs and bars, gay university societies, gay games because it's our chance to actually be with other gay people. To be in an environment where no one's going to judge you on your sexuality.

I understand you do so. I do not condemn it.
My point is, you are different. You know you're different. You ACT like you're different. Don't be surprised that people treat you as being different.

BUT: eventhough you are different, to me you're equal.
Oh well, everybody is different. I'm different because I'm a christian. I visit the church twice per sunday. I don't curse, I pray to God. I visit christian meetings during the week. I AM different. I won't be surprised that people think that I'm different.

In fact I'm happy to be different. I even wish you guys were all like me. I'm happy to be different.

And everybody is different. Some people prefer heavy metal, others prefer Bach.
You guys prefer same sex, others prefer cross-sex relations. Just live with it that same-sex relations do not include mariage.
Mariage has been invented by heterosexuals for heterosexuals. It's just a ceremony.

But again, if it's that important to you, you'll have my vote for it.
But would you dare to say to the anti-gay-community: "If it's that important to you, you'll have my vote against it?"
Or am I the only one who wants to be the lesser person to make someone else happy?

[Robert]

How's that different form "a man can marry a person, if that person is a woman"?

Not allowing black men to mary white women is a restriction the USA has put on a long-existing thing as mariage.

That's the difference to me.
Of course, it makes no sence, but again, mariage makes no sence. It's just a ceremony.
You can live together and be happy without mariage.
You can celebrate it without having it named an official mariage.
You can wear a white dress or a suit, without it being official.
But if it is official? What's the difference?
Overhere in The Netherlands there is no difference between being maried or living together.

I'm still not getting how banning interracial marriage discriminates in a way banning gay marriage does not.

Ok, you're right. My arguments are not right.
But the ultimate argument is: in all times in all places all men have been allowed to mary all women.

BUT the USA have restricted this, by not allowing interracial mariages. That's a restriction on a long-existing ceremony. And it is restricted because people wanted there to be differences between black and white people.

Mariage has never been made to make a difference between gays and heterosexuals.

There's a practically worldwide, ancient tradition of acceptance of slavery. Does that mean we should resurrect it?

slavery does harm people.
Having a specific ceremony in a specific cultural way does not.

CS: - interracial mariage IS discrimination

Please tell me that's misworded ...

uh, yeah, it is.
I mean: banning interracial mariage IS discrimination.

Well, you've not convinced me

But you HAVE convinced me
There is no difference indeed, BUT the fact that mariage is just an old ceremony between men and women.

CyberShy's last post left a feeling of ambiguity...

ok, I don't understand the world 'ambiguity'.....
I'm only dutch

[Last Conformist]

@CyberShy: Where I live, there are considerable legal and economical benefits for married couples over cohabitants. I believe that goes for most of the places where the people in this discussion live. Indeed, based on Stapel's comments on CFC, I thought it went for the Netherlands too. Denying these very really benefits to people just 'cos it's traditonal is what I find unacceptable.

My prefered solution would be tying these benefits to a state-sanctioned civil union, and leaving religious marriage ceremonies wholly private affairs (which would allow churches/mosques/temples/free-ranging holy men to accept or reject couples for marriage as they see fit) without any legal implications. I believe the Netherlands have something along these lines? Not that it matters much if mere cohabitation provides the same rights.

[alva]

Mariage has always been something between a man and a woman.

So?

Why not just be happy that after thousands of years homosexuality is accepted by most people, and forbidden by law.

If it's (still) forbidden by law, how can you make the argument that it is accepted by society?

If it is accepted by society, how can you make the argument that is forbidden by law?

[Robert]

Last Conformist: that sounds like a great idea to me.

alva: I mean: "not forbidden by law"

[alva]

I read it as "Gay marrige is forbidden by law", so it still makes sense.
(Not in Holland, Denmark and Belgium (any others?) where it is perfectly legal for gay people to marry, but that's beside the point. We can't expect every country to be as enlightend as us. )

[monolith94]

Oh come no, calling the amendment "anti-gay" is painting things in such a negative light. It's not anti-gay... it's pro-bigot!!!

[Asher]

uh, yeah, it is.
I mean: banning interracial mariage IS discrimination.

and restricting marriage to "intergender" marriage is discrimination as well...

[Bosh]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Last Conformist: that sounds like a great idea to me.

alva: I mean: "not forbidden by law"

That's all that we want, the vast majority of us pro-Gay Marriage people don't get all hung up on what the relationship is called as long as it gets the same legal benefits that marriaged couples get (inheiritance, hospital visitation, insurance etc. etc. etc.). Sematics isn't worth it.

What's really worrying is that a lot of the anti-gay marriage thingies that're happening now in the states ALSO ban any kind of civil union, that are often written in broad-enough language to preclude some types of purely-private arraignment between a couple.

It was a real tactical blunder in the part of the left to get the word marriage involved instead of using civil unions, it gets a lot of fundies much more worked up than they otherwise would be and make real progress much more difficult.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
@CyberShy: Where I live, there are considerable legal and economical benefits for married couples over cohabitants. I believe that goes for most of the places where the people in this discussion live. Indeed, based on Stapel's comments on CFC, I thought it went for the Netherlands too. Denying these very really benefits to people just 'cos it's traditonal is what I find unacceptable.

My prefered solution would be tying these benefits to a state-sanctioned civil union, and leaving religious marriage ceremonies wholly private affairs (which would allow churches/mosques/temples/free-ranging holy men to accept or reject couples for marriage as they see fit) without any legal implications. I believe the Netherlands have something along these lines? Not that it matters much if mere cohabitation provides the same rights.

Yep. That´s also my Opinion.
Strict Separation of civil union which gives all benefits you can get by a marriage (adoption, being considered as relatives, taxes)
from the purely religious marriage which is just a ceremony without granting any further rights and isn´t restricted by Law.
So that gays can freely enter a civil union, whereas the churches can decide for themselves if they accept gays for a marriage or not.

This way christian fundamentalist would also have no basis t6o demand that gay marriages should be forbidden by law,
as gay couples are eligible to adopt and raise children and therefore deserve all the benefits, heterosexual couples have, and christian priests are, on the other hand, eligible to deny gay couples a religious marriage.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Boshko
It was a real tactical blunder in the part of the left to get the word marriage involved instead of using civil unions, it gets a lot of fundies much more worked up than they otherwise would be and make real progress much more difficult.

While I think that gays should be allowed to get married by any Institiution that will allow it... I have to agree with Boshko. The word "marriage" is the problem. Gays should focus on get the legal rights, no matter what it is called, because that's what' is important. While I will continue to support the right for Gays to get married, I would also suggest they "crawl before they walk" and their primary focus should be for getting civil unions (with all the same rights as marriage) passed...

[Winston]

Originally posted by alva
(Not in Holland, Denmark and Belgium (any others?) where it is perfectly legal for gay people to marry, but that's beside the point. We can't expect every country to be as enlightend as us. )

Denmark is only enlightened as you put it to the point that gays can enter civil unions, they can't get married here.

[Robert]

I do oppose adoption by gay-couples btw.
In nature gay-couples do not get children. Keep it that way. If nature says that it's better for a child to have a father and a mother, don't mess up with that.

About tax / being relatives / etc.: give it to the gay-couples