This is America

[Klast Brell]

Blah blah blah...
No one thinks they are a bigot. No one thinks they possibly could be discriminating. Just look at all the column inches used to rationalize denying rights for people who are different.

[Riggen]

Respectfully I disagree, Alannia.

I don't remember if it was you that brought it up, but I'd liken this in some ways to the topic of gender changing as it was previously mentioned in this thread. There is a gestalt of difference between men and women that superficial structural modification with drugs and surgery cannot address. Consequently, it's just not possible to change from one sex to another. A man who undergoes gender reversal is still simply a man modified to resemble a woman. The individual in question might consider themself to be female, but DNA testing would amply demonstrate that in reality they were still male. I'm sure sufficiently detailed tests to analyze past growth patterns and neurological development or any of a host of other factors would be similarly revealing.

For all practical purposes, they're merely pretending to get married like a gender reversed individual pretends to be the opposite sex. You can argue that within the confines and context of that particular church they would be "married", and nobody can rightfully stop them from privately considering themselves to be married. But they cannot force anyone else to accept that union as marriage.

[Relbeek Einre]

and nobody's trying to, Riggen. We just want gay couples to have the same damn rights.

[Beestyall]

But they cannot force anyone else to accept that union as marriage.

No single person, that is correct. But they have every right under the current Civil Liberties to get the exact same treatment, because you can't discriminate against sexual preference and by saying they can't marry their chosen partner, then you are simply discriminating. With all due deference to The Court, they've tried to tightrope this issue for far too long, they need to get off their collective asses and rule one way or the other.

And this isn't a word we're talking about here, it's a whole set of rights automatically granted under a single word. Somehow the hill-billy bumbkins think that only their prejudical ignorance should be protected under a religious *cough* idea.

[Alannia_Raindancer]

Haha. And this is where the circles start in again, and everyone on all sides starts complaining that the Merry-Go-Round is going too fast.

We've got the folks objected to the use of the word "marriage" in regards to homosexuals...We have the folks that don't care what it's called, as long as they get the benefits, and we've got the folks that adamantly want to be called "married" by the rest of society. So, the first group yells "Don't you be pushing your values on ME, infringing on my marriage rights, I refuse to recognize your union", and the last group yelling "YOU'RE the one pushing YOUR values on ME! I demand to be called "married" by society!" Would you say I've assessed this fairly accurately? That both sides of the extreme believe that rights are being infringed upon, all thanks to a single word?

In the end, a bunch of us are sitting here in the middle not knowing whether to laugh or to cry, at how complicated the word "marriage" makes an issue that would otherwise seem so simple.

Relbeek: That's true, we just want gay couples to have the same rights, as do a fair number of folks on both sides. However, the sticking point keeps coming back to the "best way to go about giving those rights". You yourself (at least appeared to, I don't typically pick apart posts, and don't plan to start now) support the use of "marriage" over "civil union", and DID say specifically that you were against two separate terms, even knowing that sometimes, getting your foot in the door facilitates a bigger sale later on.

The most frusterating part about this whole issue for me is that I don't see a resolution, until people from all sides stop being so full of themselves and wrapped up in the definition of a word, that quite frankly, has been mangled by heterosexual couples for generations. Unfortunately, I have lost so much faith in humanity over the past several years, that I simply don't see that happening.

[Relbeek Einre]

Alannia: I don't really care what it's called, as long as EVERYONE who enters into the union is called the same thing -by the government.- Two different legal statuses, even if functionally identical, will inevitably lead to "separate and unequal."

What 'society' - or the individuals therein - call it is none of my concern.

[Rsak]

Amazing how more and more are supporting the view that Marriage should be removed and Civil Unions put in place for everyone.

The reality is that marriage regardless of your religious background has some unique definition that you will always be able to find some pariing that will lead to objection.

The traditional christian view of one man and one woman object to polygamy and homosexual relationships.

The traditional muslim culture objects to single homosexual couples.

The simplest solution is to avoid these terms and use one that is religiously neutral. Civil Unions is one such term.

These very arguments occured over a year ago on this board and this solution was dismissed as one that would never occur, but as evident from the shifting views on this board I continue to hold to the belief that it will be the solution that will find the most acceptance among our society and be the ultimate conclusion of this social debate.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Alannia: I don't really care what it's called, as long as EVERYONE who enters into the union is called the same thing -by the government.- Two different legal statuses, even if functionally identical, will inevitably lead to "separate and unequal."

.

I think that's a boogeyman.

[Partha]

See "Jim Crow".

[vaulos]

Keebler has a valid point. It is NOT a boogieman, and we can see many examples in our own history. There is no practical-thing which can be given the attribute "seperate but equal".

That is not to say that seperate and unequal is not something which we often wish to create. Look at how we seperate degrees of punishment in criminal law. They are seperate and unequal. Murderers are not treated the same as robbers. And in tort law, we seperate degrees of responsiblity for making dangerous products, based often on tangintal reasons. We even seperate responsibility and punishment for crossing the boarder illegally based on which country you are from! And generally, these distinctions are made for very practical reasons.

The question arises, however, as to whether there is any benefit in seperating marriages into classes based on sexuality. I suppose that there could possibly be some good and wise reason to do so (though I honestly don't see it atm). However, if you want to make the case FOR such a distinction, that is where you need to focus and not on whether it is seperate but equal (because it is not).

[Relbeek Einre]

I don't know really what to add, Embar, except to say I strongly disagree with you.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I don't know really what to add, Embar, except to say I strongly disagree with you.

Look at it this way, Beek.

Affirmative Action - A set of policies that give a certain level of access and treatment to one group, yet not another, while still claiming we are all "equal"

Taxes - Different rates for different people, yet we are all "equal"

There are plenty of other broad-reaching examples in our society where "separate" and "equal" work. As long as fundamental rights aren't restricted.

[Relbeek Einre]

You've mis-defined affirmative action, but that's a separate issue.

Those are as cited, in fact, UNEQUAL levels of treatment. And there are specific reasons for each of those, specific problems to remedy. In the former case (as you describe it), it's meant to remedy unequal treatment by society towards various groups. Taxes are meant to remedy the issue of people of different income levels being able to afford different tax burdens, and the government needing revenue to funciton.

There is no problem remedied or addressed by separating legal statuses for gays and straights who want to unite with a life partner.

[Riggen]

and nobody's trying to, Riggen.

I think this says you're either not hearing what I'm saying.

You've been a big help while I order my thoughts and clarify the articulation of my opinion, and I thank you for that. But I think we're done.

Happy new year folks!

[Alannia_Raindancer]

I don't think the "separate but equal" route is the way to go on this issue either, but I also think that there are times when a primary goal is more important than how we achieve it, within reason.

IF it's true that a majority of the homosexual community simply wants the benefits and not the verbage, then who the hell am I to say they can't have it? And IF that means creating a separate term ( "marriage" versus "civil union") so that these unions will be recognized in that fashion, then I guess I don't really see the harm there either.

Then again, I wouldn't say boo if the government decided that my marriage was a legal "civil union", and that the church was the only one who could recognize my spouse and I as wedded. I simply don't care what it's called, although others do, and with a vehemence that prevents people from getting the LEGAL rights to such unions.

[Relbeek Einre]

I wonder what the "or" clause was in that either, Riggen.

In any event, I know what you're saying - you're saying that codifying marriage as two adults of any gender uniting in a legal sense equals "forcing people to accept it." I disagree that's the case. Marriage as a legal status is very different from marriage as a spiritual/religious institution. For example, the Catholic Church doesn't 'accept' any marriage not performed by a Catholic priest as valid, but the legal status remains. Many churches don't accept divorce either, but it's legally valid. Etc. etc.

[vaulos]

Embar- You are confusing "equal" and "fair" (or "just" if you perfer). No one contends that our tax code taxes people equally. They admit inequality, but claim that it is "fair". The same goes with affirmative action. That isn't to say that they ARE fair, but it is to say that they are "unequal" treatments.

Thier purpose is to equal out a current inequality- but that requires unequal treatment. In fact, most laws actually work that way.

[Riggen]

Don't fret, it was a completely different sentence to start with.

I disagree that's the case.

Somehow I knew you'd say that.

Marriage as a legal status is very different from marriage as a spiritual/religious institution.

Here you are in essence agreeing with something I've already said in another context. Is it any wonder that it seems to me you're not really hearing what I'm saying?

As Alannia has observed, we're about to start rephrasing the same arguments over again. I've already gotten what I needed out of this discussion, so I'm good with agreeing to disagree.

[Rsak]

This is a rants board and agreeing to disagree is not allowed!

[Relbeek Einre]

Then I'm very confused, Riggen, because it seems to me you were saying something very different - It seemed to me you were suggesting that changing its legal nature impacts its religious nature.