Party "A" and Party "B"

[Oversoul]

The problem is that the government is telling me that I have to like it and agree with it now....And there lies the problem.

When did this happen?

 

[Mooseman]

You don't have to like it or agree with it, but you must accept it and deal with in a "legal" manner.....

The real solution is that the government would just grant civil unions and the church would preform marriages that are also civil unions, just a restricted subset. Non-marriage civil union forms would have Party A and Party B and marriage forms would have whatever the churches wanted.

 

[rokapoke]

Would anybody have an issue with the government definition of a pair of people who share benefits, etc., being "civil union"? Wouldn't this solve the issue? Your church recognizes your marriage, as it is a religious institution. Your government recognizes your civil union, which promotes equality.

Then my wife and I would have both a marriage and a civil union. And the religious debate of whether or not gay couples should be "married" becomes moot, as each religion could decide for themselves.

 

[Oversoul]

Would anybody have an issue with the government definition of a pair of people who share benefits, etc., being "civil union"? Wouldn't this solve the issue? Your church recognizes your marriage, as it is a religious institution. Your government recognizes your civil union, which promotes equality.

Then my wife and I would have both a marriage and a civil union. And the religious debate of whether or not gay couples should be "married" becomes moot, as each religion could decide for themselves.

Like I already said, I'd be amenable to this sort of arrangement. I doubt it's going to happen, though.

 

[Mooseman]

Now, the question is what benefits do marriages give and what do civil unions give..... that is at the heart of the debate. Are insurance companies forced by law to extend benefits to all civil unions? Are they allowed to charge different rates based on behavior? Could they say that gay unions are more risky that non or the opposite? Or is that discrimination? They do it for people who base jump or hang glide or an myriad of other behaviors.

 

[BigBlue]

Insurance companies use statistics to determine the risks for them w/ respect to those insured.

Life Insurance doesn't matter - because you can name whomever you want as a beneficiary, doesn't have to be a spouse or even a family member... If you have a spouse, you have to get a signed waiver to assign someone other than the spouse - also it depends on percentage paid out... But, without a spouse, there's no limitation as to beneficiaries.

Health Insurance is where Civil Unions etc come into play... because if you want a "family" plan, they almost always require the other insured people to be spouse or minor children. This is regulated by the state... some states allow civil unions (which may or may not be same-sex), while others only allow traditional marriages. (I believe CA is one where same-sex is allowed for coverage.)

Mythosx... I think I'm missing something... are you saying the governent is forcing you to accept homosexuality? Most of society accepts homosexuality, not that they practice it, or even condone it... but, they live with the fact that some people do and as long as it doesn't interfere w/ their lives, it isn't really their business.

Saying homosexuality is a sin against God is not hate crime. I don't want to get into a religious discussion about this... but stating something like this isn't "hate"... Homosexuals do not have a "right" to be included in any specific church. And, there are plenty of christian churches which allow it - and even allow their leaders to be openly gay. Someday, there may even be tolerance in the Catholic church...

 

[Oversoul]

Saying homosexuality is a sin against God is not hate crime.

He could say that breathing is a sin against God and it wouldn't be a crime.

 

[Spiderman]

Would anybody have an issue with the government definition of a pair of people who share benefits, etc., being "civil union"?

Sounds fine to me. Too bad we're not in charge

I think that's really the crux of the matter anyway. Heck, it could even help those who live together a long time and for all intents and purposes are "married" but don't want to go through the formality of it.

 

[EricBess]

Would anybody have an issue with the government definition of a pair of people who share benefits, etc., being "civil union"? Wouldn't this solve the issue? Your church recognizes your marriage, as it is a religious institution. Your government recognizes your civil union, which promotes equality.

The option for "civil union" already exists in California. The laws don't allow insurance companies in California to discriminate based on civil unions and they may share the insurance benefits, along with anything else, such as survivorship rules, tax benefits, etc. Why then are they not happy with that status quo in California?

BTW - these same people that aren't happy with the status quo would argue that saying "homosexuality is a sin" does constitute a hate crime. How dare you judge them like that, etc, defamation of character and all that. There are groups already starting to attack the Bible in Canada and if the current legislation in Colorado passes, the same could happen there.

As far as "who cares", you kind of have to care. Society is built on the strength of families and the God-given right (yeah, I know it's not a "legal" right) of children to be born into a family with a father and a mother. Last I checked, God still isn't naturally sending children to two moms or two dads... The further society moves from that, the more there is a breakdown.

And yes, it's about our children. There are already laws in place that say that sex education must be taught in schools. And most of these talk about abstinance as an afterthought. Now they will also be teaching that homosexuality and lesbianism are also equivalent choices and just as natural. How does that not effect my authority as a parent?

BTW - I don't know how many of you have kids or how old your kids are, but my oldest two are a 14-year-old boy and a 12-year old girl. One thing you realize very early is that your children respond to authority figures outside of the home far more redily than they respond to their parents. So if you are teaching one thing inside the home and the schools are teaching the opposite, it will lead to a lot of confusion for a lot of kids and problems for a lot of families.

So they seriously said that even though there was no constitutional problem with the initiative, that they were striking it down because they didn't like it. I'm skeptical that a state supreme court would actually do that.

They claimed that the constitution affords them the right to dignity and respect for their relationship. It was incredibly long, so I didn't read the whole thing, but I got far enough to read that. Prior to that, they awknowledge that legally, the terms "marriage" and "domestic partnership" already afford all of the same legal rights.

It is possible that they go on to explain why they believe that dignity and respect are constitutional rights.

 

[Mooseman]

And yes, it's about our children. There are already laws in place that say that sex education must be taught in schools. And most of these talk about abstinance as an afterthought. Now they will also be teaching that homosexuality and lesbianism are also equivalent choices and just as natural. How does that not effect my authority as a parent?

Why did you list these two behaviors? You do know that one is a sub set of the other... right?
I personlly don't think that sezuality needs to be taught in schools. The whole purpose of sex-ed is tho teach kids about the consequences of sex. Period.... Teach them how things happen, how to prevent problems, all forms of prevention and take the mystery out of it.

BTW - I don't know how many of you have kids or how old your kids are, but my oldest two are a 14-year-old boy and a 12-year old girl. One thing you realize very early is that your children respond to authority figures outside of the home far more redily than they respond to their parents. So if you are teaching one thing inside the home and the schools are teaching the opposite, it will lead to a lot of confusion for a lot of kids and problems for a lot of families.

Teach your kids to think independently and critally, then most problems will become apparent to them at an early age. And children take after their parents the most. Most of all, teach them to question everything, even faith, because it will only strengthen those things that can hold up under close examination and shed light on all thing that can't.

 

[Spiderman]

As far as "who cares", you kind of have to care. Society is built on the strength of families and the God-given right (yeah, I know it's not a "legal" right) of children to be born into a family with a father and a mother. Last I checked, God still isn't naturally sending children to two moms or two dads... The further society moves from that, the more there is a breakdown.

There is a fallacy inherent in the first statement that a family has to be strictly a father-mother relationship. As long as it's a "family", society is fine.

And you know, the second breaks down with the abundance of orphans/children given up for whatever reason/basically without parents. If there is a pair of people to love and take in those children, it does not matter what sex the parents are. *This* is more the cause of society breaking down, the lack of families period, rather than what sex the parents are in said families.

And yes, it's about our children. There are already laws in place that say that sex education must be taught in schools. And most of these talk about abstinance as an afterthought. Now they will also be teaching that homosexuality and lesbianism are also equivalent choices and just as natural. How does that not effect my authority as a parent?

It shouldn't, if you're educating your children correctly. If you're teaching your children that homosexuality is wrong and the people are going to hell, frankly, I'm more worried about that kind of "Christian" message you're sending in the first place.

BTW - I don't know how many of you have kids or how old your kids are, but my oldest two are a 14-year-old boy and a 12-year old girl. One thing you realize very early is that your children respond to authority figures outside of the home far more redily than they respond to their parents. So if you are teaching one thing inside the home and the schools are teaching the opposite, it will lead to a lot of confusion for a lot of kids and problems for a lot of families.

Again, there shouldn't be confusion if there's open discussion and explanations with open minds between both ends.

 

[BigBlue]

Stating a fact is not hate crime... The interpretation of the Catholic Church (and others) is that Homosexuality is a sin against God.

Now, I realize that this opens up other things potentially... At this time... Free Speech is Free Speech... You don't have to listen, and you are allowed to debate any issue publicly by exercising your own right of Free Speech. So, to me regardless of how inflammatory hate "speech" goes... it is tough to call it a crime... Calling people or groups of people names may show your closed-mindedness... but it isn't necessarilly hate crime.

Now, speeches and printed matter which directly incite violence... that would to me (and probably most juries) constitute hate crime... "Vvvv Nnnn!" (Insert whatever "Violent" Verb for Vvvv you want and Noun in Nnnn you want) is debatably hate crime, and would not be protected as free speech - eg Beat Beggers, Kill Homosexuals, Rape Women, Rob the rich, etc... Of course this is non-exclusive, but I'm just simplifying for the sake of discussion. And yes, I think there is certain "art" which oversteps these bounds, which shouldn't be allowed regardless of intent. (see Gangsta Rap for example) If you ask/tell people to do something, no matter how ridiculous it is, someone will do it eventually for whatever reason...

Family.... is different for every "Family"... there may be a "traditional" definition which is a mother and a father + children...

But, given the number of single households, second marriages, no children households (If you asked them, they'd call themselves a family), unmarried life partners (regardless of sex, MM, MF, or FF), extended families which may include siblings, grandparents, etc... to me, family is defined in every family and these days, most are not "traditional".

 

[mythosx]

So much posted... I'll try to keep up...

The goverment is going to step in after prop 22 and lean one way or the other. My point is that the government shouldn't...It shouldn't say that marriage is between only a man or a woman. And it shouldn't say that Homosexuals can marry. The government should have no say about it period. That is what I am saying.


The goverment imposes education on minors all the way up to age 18. They force a certain cirriculum on the students I don't agree with. Some of the things they teach as fact that aren't. And when I or anyone else disagrees with these "psuedofacts" I am assumed to be wrong. That's my beef. I am sorry that I didn't make it clear before. These psuedofacts span all subjects. I am objecting to all of them. Not just the ones I like or dislike. I swear if another kid comes up to me and tells me Magellan circumnavigated the globe first........

 

[Spiderman]

When you say "government", is that state or federal?

 

[mythosx]

In the case of education...I believe that's state. In the case of prop 22, its state I believe.

 

[Spiderman]

Ah, okay.

It's not clear if you're disagreeing with what the state, or secular, education is teaching vs you, as a religious? own beliefs? educator is teaching but...

It seems to me the best you, as an educator can do, is offer your beliefs and let your students come to decision themselves on what they want to believe. If your beliefs happen to differ from the state's, offer supporting evidence of why yours is different.

If you merely teach that yours is right and the state is wrong, that's simply doing what you're arguing that the state is doing and "indoctrinating" the students to your point of view rather than the states.

 

[mythosx]

I definitely concur...

It's a shame that we can not understand that as a society. I have no problems having children taught that way. The powers that be can not embrace it. Facts are facts and should be taught. Opinions are opinions and should be labeled as such.

 

[Mooseman]

I swear if another kid comes up to me and tells me Magellan circumnavigated the globe first........

He was killed during the voage.... so who was the first? The deckhands? The second in command? The Magellan expedition was the first. Who do you give the credit to? Or are you alluding to someone else?

I know this is off subject, but it seems interesting.

The government should have no say about it period.

Then who should? And if I get you right, then benefits should not be given to any one in any "union"? That is what the gov does.

 

[Oversoul]

The option for "civil union" already exists in California. The laws don't allow insurance companies in California to discriminate based on civil unions and they may share the insurance benefits, along with anything else, such as survivorship rules, tax benefits, etc. Why then are they not happy with that status quo in California?

Well, I don't know. The fact is, I'm not a mind-reader. I could suppose that there is some area in which California civil unions are unequal to California marriage. I could suppose that it's because separate institutions are inherently unequal. I could suppose that they want that word "marriage" for reasons similar to your reasons for wanting them not to have it (because really, you're both getting hung up over a word--so you criticizing them for getting hung up over a word is hypocritical). Or maybe they, as you're about to suggest, have some sort of "homosexual agenda" and want to push it on the rest of you. The truth is, I don't know. And I don't care. If they want a word so much, it seems unfair for the state to give the word to some people but not others based on the religious conviction of some people. After all, that's respecting an establishment of religion.

But like I already said, if the extent of their "pushing" an "agenda" is that two words on a piece of paper get changed from traditional terms to legalese, then that's no problem at all. That's not an agenda. That's just bureaucracy. And don't say that there will be more and "mark my words." There can't be "more" until there is something actually there. Legalese isn't something. This is nothing. I highly doubt that "bride" and "groom" were legally defined terms in the first place. They were probably just on the paper as a formality and because those were the words people generally used. No one lost any rights here.

BTW - these same people that aren't happy with the status quo would argue that saying "homosexuality is a sin" does constitute a hate crime. How dare you judge them like that, etc, defamation of character and all that. There are groups already starting to attack the Bible in Canada and if the current legislation in Colorado passes, the same could happen there.

I'm sure there are some crazy people out there who think saying something constitutes a crime. But in this country, they're wrong. And they generally show it by being pretty crazy in other ways too. I'm sure not everyone in California who wanted legalized gay marriage is this deluded about our constitution.

Whatever groups you're talking about in Canada (and I find Canada irrelevant to this discussion, since they're a different country from us with their own laws and not everything that applies there applies here and vice versa) can't actually be the same ones as in California, unless you'd have us believe that they're flying back and forth between Canada and California.

How did Colorado enter into this?

As far as "who cares", you kind of have to care.

Nope.

Society is built on the strength of families and the God-given right (yeah, I know it's not a "legal" right) of children to be born into a family with a father and a mother.

No. I happen to have been born into a family with a mother and a father. And I'm happy to say that they're both still alive and healthy. But there's no such thing as a "God-given right." And our society certainly isn't built on this "right." I kind of consider your statement an insult to people whose fathers died before they were born or while they were still very young, whose mothers died in childbirth or while they were still very young, or who were born into a same-sex family or some some other arrangement. You make it seem as though something must be wrong with such people.

Last I checked, God still isn't naturally sending children to two moms or two dads... The further society moves from that, the more there is a breakdown.

Last I checked, you still have not a shred of evidence to support one detail of this ridiculous claim. You can say it a hundred times. That won't make it true.

Oh, and supposing that your god really is sending children to people (another claim for which you have no evidence), why is he sometimes sending them with congenital disorders? Why is he sometimes sending them to a fallopian tube instead of a uterus, leading to ectopic pregnancies? Why is he sometimes pretending to send them only to spontaneously abort them during pregnancy? Why is he sometimes sending them, then taking them away after a month or two with SIDS? And why does he send them to people who don't them and then fail to send them to people that really, really do want them? Personally, I don't see any reason to believe that there's "sending" going on at all. But if there is, well, some of us take issue with this stuff.

And what does ANY of this have to do with marriage anyway? Legally, marriage isn't tied to procreation. We don't ban people who are elderly, infertile, or just plain don't want kids from marriage. And we certainly don't stop unmarried couples from procreating. We don't stop gay couples from adopting or receiving artificial insemination. So what exactly is your argument?

And yes, it's about our children. There are already laws in place that say that sex education must be taught in schools. And most of these talk about abstinance as an afterthought. Now they will also be teaching that homosexuality and lesbianism are also equivalent choices and just as natural. How does that not effect my authority as a parent?

That's not true. Public schools tend to stress abstinence as the only 100% effective form of contraception and STI prevention. And despite the fact that abstinence only sex education just doesn't work, many schools still use it. I don't know what you mean about homosexuality being "equivalent" to heterosexuality. Equivalent in what way? But it is just as natural. And no, that's not my opinion. It's the reality of the situation. You can disagree, but that won't be your opinion either. It will just be you being wrong.

I'm assuming that you meant to ask "How does that not affect my authority as a parent?" because asking about how it doesn't effect your authority is a very different question (you'd be asking how it isn't the source for your authority). And I'll say that this is a legitimate argument. I'm slightly ambivalent about it. I'd be on the other side, but I'll at least acknowledge that there's a concern here that needs to be addressed. But again, it has nothing to do with marriage. This is a complaint about the school system. Take it beyond the school system and into society as a whole, and you're saying, "My right to indoctrinate my children in exactly way I want to supersedes your right to live the way you want to. You must live in a way that doesn't influence my children."

Why did you list these two behaviors? You do know that one is a sub set of the other... right?

Why did you call it a behavior again? I did point out to you earlier in this thread that sexual orientation isn't a behavior.

I personlly don't think that sezuality needs to be taught in schools. The whole purpose of sex-ed is tho teach kids about the consequences of sex. Period.... Teach them how things happen, how to prevent problems, all forms of prevention and take the mystery out of it.

So why don't you think it should be taught in schools? It's certainly important stuff to know and probably the vast majority of parents wouldn't be able to teach it accurately.

Stating a fact is not hate crime... The interpretation of the Catholic Church (and others) is that Homosexuality is a sin against God.

Stating a fiction isn't a hate crime either. Nothing special about facts when it comes to free speech.

Now, speeches and printed matter which directly incite violence... that would to me (and probably most juries) constitute hate crime... "Vvvv Nnnn!" (Insert whatever "Violent" Verb for Vvvv you want and Noun in Nnnn you want) is debatably hate crime, and would not be protected as free speech - eg Beat Beggers, Kill Homosexuals, Rape Women, Rob the rich, etc... Of course this is non-exclusive, but I'm just simplifying for the sake of discussion.

Yes, the Supreme Court has addressed speech that directly incites violence. Look up "fighting words" or just Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. They ruled that it's not protected by the First Amendment. It's a bit of a grey area, though, as to whether a particular incident falls into this category. But it's not a "hate" crime. Hate crime laws tend to cover actual acts of violence.

And yes, I think there is certain "art" which oversteps these bounds, which shouldn't be allowed regardless of intent. (see Gangsta Rap for example) If you ask/tell people to do something, no matter how ridiculous it is, someone will do it eventually for whatever reason...

Doctrine on "fighting words" only applies to DIRECT incitements to violence. Music is, by its nature, indirect. It's protected.

The goverment is going to step in after prop 22 and lean one way or the other. My point is that the government shouldn't...It shouldn't say that marriage is between only a man or a woman. And it shouldn't say that Homosexuals can marry. The government should have no say about it period. That is what I am saying.

Like I've already said, legally marriage is a state institution. You may not like it. I may not like it. But that's the way it is.

The goverment imposes education on minors all the way up to age 18. They force a certain cirriculum on the students I don't agree with.

Cool. You're very much allowed to disagree.

Some of the things they teach as fact that aren't. And when I or anyone else disagrees with these "psuedofacts" I am assumed to be wrong. That's my beef. I am sorry that I didn't make it clear before. These psuedofacts span all subjects. I am objecting to all of them. Not just the ones I like or dislike. I swear if another kid comes up to me and tells me Magellan circumnavigated the globe first........

Pseudofacts? It looks like you're trying to contrive your own complaint about the school system when really you're just saying that you have a problem with inaccuracies being taught, which really makes you like everyone else on the planet. No one wants falsehoods being taught in our schools. I don't get the part about being assumed to be wrong, though. Maybe you just had some bad experiences. I corrected teachers all the time in school. It annoyed a lot of them and sometimes they would blow it off until I brought a source to back myself up. Others would take it upon themselves to make sure they had their facts straight.

He was killed during the voage.... so who was the first? The deckhands? The second in command? The Magellan expedition was the first. Who do you give the credit to? Or are you alluding to someone else?

The truth is, no one knows for sure. And it depends on what you count as a circumnavigation. Magellan himself or his slave, Henry the Black, may have been the first to actually cover all 360 degrees of latitude. Or it's possible that neither of them did so (the historical record isn't clear enough) or that someone else did long before them and it wasn't noted. But they didn't do it by literally sailing in a ship all the way around the world. It would have been by sailing halfway around the world on one voyage and then, in another voyage years later and unconnected to the first, sailing halfway around the other way.

But probably it was Juan Sebastián del Cano.

 

[EricBess]

How did Colorado enter into this?

Colorado has an initiative on the balot very similar to the law already passed in Canada regarding hate speach.

No. I happen to have been born into a family with a mother and a father. And I'm happy to say that they're both still alive and healthy. But there's no such thing as a "God-given right." And our society certainly isn't built on this "right." I kind of consider your statement an insult to people whose fathers died before they were born or while they were still very young, whose mothers died in childbirth or while they were still very young, or who were born into a same-sex family or some some other arrangement. You make it seem as though something must be wrong with such people.

No, there is still a father an a mother. the fact that a parent has died is sad, but irrelevant to the point I was making.

Last I checked, you still have not a shred of evidence to support one detail of this ridiculous claim. You can say it a hundred times. That won't make it true.

Oh, and supposing that your god really is sending children to people (another claim for which you have no evidence), why is he sometimes sending them with congenital disorders? Why is he sometimes sending them to a fallopian tube instead of a uterus, leading to ectopic pregnancies?

Why was my child still-born? We could get into another whole discussion here, but just because bad things happen is hardly disproof of God.

I don't know what you mean about homosexuality being "equivalent" to heterosexuality. Equivalent in what way? But it is just as natural. And no, that's not my opinion. It's the reality of the situation. You can disagree, but that won't be your opinion either. It will just be you being wrong.

Interesting how my facts are dismissed, but yours are absolute with no more evidence than I have. Perhaps we live in different realities. Men having sex with men is not natural and never will be. Many serial killers get to the point where they feel compelled to kill. Is that natural also?

Why did you call it a behavior again? I did point out to you earlier in this thread that sexual orientation isn't a behavior.

Another one of your facts where I'm just wrong, then? There are nature and nurture arguments and no solid evidence that directly ties it exclusively to one over the other.