The gay marriage debate in the US these days
Posted by: ErikL on 15 February 2004
Isn't it just a civil rights issue, or am I missing something?
I don't understand all the fuss.
I don't understand all the fuss.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by BrianD
For those that missed it, can I just repeat what I said earlier, because nobody has mentioned it. Perhaps it's because nobody can moan about me saying it........
"Having read the arguments put forward, I can be persuaded that gay couples, and also cohabiting men and women, should be entitled to certain legal rights afforded to married men and women."
"Having read the arguments put forward, I can be persuaded that gay couples, and also cohabiting men and women, should be entitled to certain legal rights afforded to married men and women."
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by ErikL
quote:
Originally posted by BrianD:
And what exactly is wrong with that, Ludwig?
Nothing's wrong with it. I'll accept it, but as I said I think it's odd to accept parents' beliefs without challenging or testing them at some point.
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by ErikL
Oh, you might have overlooked my other question but I'm curious if you've witnessed tons of same-sex couples who are awful parents, raising hateful, destructive, immoral children (i.e., bad ones).
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by matthewr
BrianD -- If you had only made the point that you are against same-sex marriages becasue you believe traditional family strcutures are the basis on which our society is built we might have avoided 4 pages of trying to wring blood from a stone.
Briefly I disagree with your view for the following reasons:
-- Most same-sex couples will not have children and would never have children or start a traditional family of their own. By allowing same-sex marriage you are not reducing the number of potential tradititional familes at all (apart from arguably a couple of the ones that end up with Dad running off with somone bloke he met on the Internet)
-- Adoption by same-sex couples is really a different topic and should be considered separately from marriage. Suffice it to say that as same-sex couples do manage to raise healthy and happy adopted children then they should be allowed to adopt subject to the same stringent guidelines as other couples.
-- A solid family unit based around a same-sex couple is obviously better than the endless broken homes and diastrous families that are so common these days. The gender of the parents seems less important in predicting this success than other issues.
Brian said "Economics is not a reason to be married, at least not for me" and Rasher said "the main argument being put forward here is equality with regard mainly to the economic legal situation, which is a rather cynical reason for marriage"
1. People get married becuase they love each other and wish to make a public and formal commitment to staying together for the rest of their lives. They do not, in the main, get married for tax breaks.
2. The argument being made is a moral one not an economic one. Specifically same-sex couples are morally entitled to the same rights as other couples unless you can come up with a very ood reason why not. Some of these rights are financial but many are not -- the right to visit your spouse in hospital as next of kin for exmaple.
(The rest of Rasher's argument seems based on the idea that econmoics is a primary motive for marriage and seems thus flawed to me and the only other thing I would note is that "gay couple" is a perfectly reasoinable term to my mind and the reason we say "same-sex marriage" is to include Lesbian relationships as well).
Brian said "For those that missed it, can I just repeat "Having read the arguments put forward, I can be persuaded that gay couples, and also cohabiting men and women, should be entitled to certain legal rights afforded to married men and women."
Well I personally don't think it should apply to co-habiting couples. You have to have some way of determining the point at which a couple becomes a more than just a couple and that seems the apppropriate point to formalise that relationship civicly and in law. Also I believe that the idea of a couple making a formal commitment to each other has value for society and should be encouraged regardless of the genders involved.
On the second point I refer you to the Vermont ruling which said that "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal". Although as has been said the word "marriage" and its associated baggage is something of a red herring. It's important I beleive that same-sex couples should be considerd the equivalent and equal of traditional couples and not somehow regarded as a sort of second-class union. And again you need a good reason not to grant them the same status -- you can't, really, just say it's got to be a man and a woman.
Matthew
[This message was edited by Matthew Robinson on WEDNESDAY 18 February 2004 at 10:30.]
Briefly I disagree with your view for the following reasons:
-- Most same-sex couples will not have children and would never have children or start a traditional family of their own. By allowing same-sex marriage you are not reducing the number of potential tradititional familes at all (apart from arguably a couple of the ones that end up with Dad running off with somone bloke he met on the Internet)
-- Adoption by same-sex couples is really a different topic and should be considered separately from marriage. Suffice it to say that as same-sex couples do manage to raise healthy and happy adopted children then they should be allowed to adopt subject to the same stringent guidelines as other couples.
-- A solid family unit based around a same-sex couple is obviously better than the endless broken homes and diastrous families that are so common these days. The gender of the parents seems less important in predicting this success than other issues.
Brian said "Economics is not a reason to be married, at least not for me" and Rasher said "the main argument being put forward here is equality with regard mainly to the economic legal situation, which is a rather cynical reason for marriage"
1. People get married becuase they love each other and wish to make a public and formal commitment to staying together for the rest of their lives. They do not, in the main, get married for tax breaks.
2. The argument being made is a moral one not an economic one. Specifically same-sex couples are morally entitled to the same rights as other couples unless you can come up with a very ood reason why not. Some of these rights are financial but many are not -- the right to visit your spouse in hospital as next of kin for exmaple.
(The rest of Rasher's argument seems based on the idea that econmoics is a primary motive for marriage and seems thus flawed to me and the only other thing I would note is that "gay couple" is a perfectly reasoinable term to my mind and the reason we say "same-sex marriage" is to include Lesbian relationships as well).
Brian said "For those that missed it, can I just repeat "Having read the arguments put forward, I can be persuaded that gay couples, and also cohabiting men and women, should be entitled to certain legal rights afforded to married men and women."
Well I personally don't think it should apply to co-habiting couples. You have to have some way of determining the point at which a couple becomes a more than just a couple and that seems the apppropriate point to formalise that relationship civicly and in law. Also I believe that the idea of a couple making a formal commitment to each other has value for society and should be encouraged regardless of the genders involved.
On the second point I refer you to the Vermont ruling which said that "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal". Although as has been said the word "marriage" and its associated baggage is something of a red herring. It's important I beleive that same-sex couples should be considerd the equivalent and equal of traditional couples and not somehow regarded as a sort of second-class union. And again you need a good reason not to grant them the same status -- you can't, really, just say it's got to be a man and a woman.
Matthew
[This message was edited by Matthew Robinson on WEDNESDAY 18 February 2004 at 10:30.]
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by Rasher
Matthew, for the record, my son's Godmother is one half of a lesbian partnership, and has a daughter produced by artificial means. She refers to herself as in a "Gay partnership".
My argument was not to suggest that economic reasons are the basis for marriage, but just addressing Brians point that this appears to be, in his opinion, the main motivation in this case. My point is that all couples married or not, hetrosexual or not, should have the same rights without having to use marriage as a point of law, which kind of muddles and devalues marriage in the eyes of the cynical. I know you say Brians problem is a moral issue, but it would be good to remove the other factor.
My argument was not to suggest that economic reasons are the basis for marriage, but just addressing Brians point that this appears to be, in his opinion, the main motivation in this case. My point is that all couples married or not, hetrosexual or not, should have the same rights without having to use marriage as a point of law, which kind of muddles and devalues marriage in the eyes of the cynical. I know you say Brians problem is a moral issue, but it would be good to remove the other factor.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Matthew
You just can't stop, can you? I ask you again, do you speak face to face to people in the same manner you post from behind your PC? In retaliation, I can say that it's taken you SIX pages to finally post what might be your own views on the subject.But then you may have read this somewhere, since I'm not convinced you have any opinions of your own.
Why not?
Ok, why can't that determination be based on a period of time living together? For example, 2, 3, 5, 10 years. Why does it have to be based on marriage? Why not just grant what we see now as, 'married' benefits to any couple living together for 'x' period of time? Leave the marriage ceremony and everything it means to a man and a woman?
quote:
If you had only made the point that you are against same-sex marriages becasue you believe traditional family strcutures are the basis on which our society is built we might have avoided 4 pages of trying to wring blood from a stone.
You just can't stop, can you? I ask you again, do you speak face to face to people in the same manner you post from behind your PC? In retaliation, I can say that it's taken you SIX pages to finally post what might be your own views on the subject.But then you may have read this somewhere, since I'm not convinced you have any opinions of your own.
quote:
Well I personally don't think it should apply to co-habiting couples.
Why not?
quote:
You have to have some way of determining the point at which a couple becomes a more than just a couple and that seems the apppropriate point to formalise that relationship civicly and in law.
Ok, why can't that determination be based on a period of time living together? For example, 2, 3, 5, 10 years. Why does it have to be based on marriage? Why not just grant what we see now as, 'married' benefits to any couple living together for 'x' period of time? Leave the marriage ceremony and everything it means to a man and a woman?
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Ludwig
No. But why should I?
How many 'awful' parents do you think are out there? Obviously they exist, but allowing same sex marriages is not going to do anything about awful parents, so I'm not sure I see why you're mentioning this.
quote:
Oh, you might have overlooked my other question but I'm curious if you've witnessed tons of same-sex couples who are awful parents, raising hateful, destructive, immoral children (i.e., bad ones).
No. But why should I?
How many 'awful' parents do you think are out there? Obviously they exist, but allowing same sex marriages is not going to do anything about awful parents, so I'm not sure I see why you're mentioning this.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by matthewr
"You just can't stop, can you?"
For God's sake Brian get over yourself already. It's like talking to some bizarrely paranoid child.
"I ask you again, do you speak face to face to people in the same manner you post from behind your PC?"
Yes. When I am having a discussion with someone I make my points forcefully and as I've said a number of times the problem here seems to be your over-sensitive and defensive response not my postings which I stand by. If you just get it out of your head that everyone is persuing some bizarre hidden agenda against you might enjoy the forum more and get more out of the dicsussions.
"I can say that it's taken you SIX pages to finally post what might be your own views on the subject"
I think my views on the subject were fairly clear -- certainly it was clear that I was in favour and on what basis.
"But then you may have read this somewhere, since I'm not convinced you have any opinions of your own"
I can't think of an approriate response to that beyond a *sigh*
"Ok, why can't that determination be based on a period of time living together?"
Well it could and to some extent it is under the rules of Common Law marriages. But:
1) Since rights invariably come with responsibilities as well it seems reasonable to require a proactive step by the couple than just allowing it to happen by accident like the incurring of a library fine.
2) If you agree that a formalised state for a long term relationship is a good thing and something you wish to encourage then that seems the obvious point at which to put the relationship on a more formal legal and civic footing.
3) It is of course important that peole can get married in a civic as well as religous ceremony.
"Leave the marriage ceremony and everything it means to a man and a woman?"
Again we are back to you seeking to deny priviliges and status you enjoy for no apparent reason. Your position now appears to be let them have the legal niceties but Man & Woman must remain "Special" and same-sex second class -- which is unjust and unjustified IMHO.
Matthew
For God's sake Brian get over yourself already. It's like talking to some bizarrely paranoid child.
"I ask you again, do you speak face to face to people in the same manner you post from behind your PC?"
Yes. When I am having a discussion with someone I make my points forcefully and as I've said a number of times the problem here seems to be your over-sensitive and defensive response not my postings which I stand by. If you just get it out of your head that everyone is persuing some bizarre hidden agenda against you might enjoy the forum more and get more out of the dicsussions.
"I can say that it's taken you SIX pages to finally post what might be your own views on the subject"
I think my views on the subject were fairly clear -- certainly it was clear that I was in favour and on what basis.
"But then you may have read this somewhere, since I'm not convinced you have any opinions of your own"
I can't think of an approriate response to that beyond a *sigh*
"Ok, why can't that determination be based on a period of time living together?"
Well it could and to some extent it is under the rules of Common Law marriages. But:
1) Since rights invariably come with responsibilities as well it seems reasonable to require a proactive step by the couple than just allowing it to happen by accident like the incurring of a library fine.
2) If you agree that a formalised state for a long term relationship is a good thing and something you wish to encourage then that seems the obvious point at which to put the relationship on a more formal legal and civic footing.
3) It is of course important that peole can get married in a civic as well as religous ceremony.
"Leave the marriage ceremony and everything it means to a man and a woman?"
Again we are back to you seeking to deny priviliges and status you enjoy for no apparent reason. Your position now appears to be let them have the legal niceties but Man & Woman must remain "Special" and same-sex second class -- which is unjust and unjustified IMHO.
Matthew
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Matthew
It appears that you are unable to make a post to someone without some kind of derogatory comment in there. Try sticking to the debate and keep the personal stuff out of it and things will move along nicely. Strange how I have the impression that your constant sniping is somewhat childlike, while you believe I'm a 'bizarrely paranoid child. Perhaps you should look back to your original snipe at me to realise why I reply to you in the way I do rather than wondering what is wrong with me.
It is entirely possible to put forward your opinions in a forceful manner without appearing to portray yourself as superior and be condescending to those you are replying to.
quote:
For God's sake Brian get over yourself already. It's like talking to some bizarrely paranoid child.
It appears that you are unable to make a post to someone without some kind of derogatory comment in there. Try sticking to the debate and keep the personal stuff out of it and things will move along nicely. Strange how I have the impression that your constant sniping is somewhat childlike, while you believe I'm a 'bizarrely paranoid child. Perhaps you should look back to your original snipe at me to realise why I reply to you in the way I do rather than wondering what is wrong with me.
It is entirely possible to put forward your opinions in a forceful manner without appearing to portray yourself as superior and be condescending to those you are replying to.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
quote:
Again we are back to you seeking to deny priviliges
No, I'm not. Stop mis-representing my position.
quote:
and status you enjoy for no apparent reason.
Again, you show arrogance in your belief that I have no reason based only on the fact that you don't agree with my reason. Who do you think you are?
quote:
Your position now appears to be let them have the legal niceties
Doesn't this show I've read the debate and have moved my position somewhat? Perhaps this escapes you for some unknown reason. If these people have what they want, which is the benefits that married men and women now have, what is there to complain about.
quote:
but Man & Woman must remain "Special" and same-sex second class -- which is unjust and unjustified IMHO.
Why do you say 'second class?'
How about this then. All people in same-sex relationships can now be married, but, there will be no 'benefits' because that's now going to be changed and benefits given to men and women who live together after a period of 2 years. Are you seriously telling me that under this circumstance these people, and you, would still crave for them to be allowed to marry?
That was obviously a hypothetical situation, but, in something that could be a real situation, such as people in long term same-sex relationships and also men and women in long term, unmarried relationships but who now are legally entitled to everything a married man and woman get, why exactly are they 'second class' and why is this unjustified? What are they being deprived of that they have to trample all over the opinions of probably millions of married men and women, as though those opinions are of no concern in this?
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by matthewr
Brian said "No, I'm not. Stop mis-representing my position"
Well you did say "Leave the marriage ceremony and everything it means to a man and a woman?" [emphasis added]. Does this not imply that you are denying the "everything it means" bit to same sex couples? If so, why?
"Why do you say 'second class?'"
Well its like being married except you are not allowed to call it being married -- which is either an absurd triviality (in which case why make the distinciton) or else you are implying some difference in status. As the Vermont ruling said "separate rarely means equal".
"What are they being deprived of that they have to trample all over the opinions of probably millions of married men and women"
This is just absurd -- how does the marriage of same-sex couples remotely affect traditional married comples?
Matthew
Well you did say "Leave the marriage ceremony and everything it means to a man and a woman?" [emphasis added]. Does this not imply that you are denying the "everything it means" bit to same sex couples? If so, why?
"Why do you say 'second class?'"
Well its like being married except you are not allowed to call it being married -- which is either an absurd triviality (in which case why make the distinciton) or else you are implying some difference in status. As the Vermont ruling said "separate rarely means equal".
"What are they being deprived of that they have to trample all over the opinions of probably millions of married men and women"
This is just absurd -- how does the marriage of same-sex couples remotely affect traditional married comples?
Matthew
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Matthew
Just as many issues of concern to various minority groups in the UK are considered by the silent majority to be absurd, but in fact aren't considered so by the loud minority PC faction you love so much.
If a member of a minority group is offended by something and they complain, action is usually taken to remove whatever the cause of offence. Often the cause of such offence isn't even realised by the person causing it, it is something to do with the beliefs of the person in the minority. We know this goes on. Now I'm not that bothered by this, it's not really a problem removing the cause of offence because there is often no harm done to anybody at all, but someone is left wondering what all the fuss was about because they can't see what possible harm they were doing. It's a matter of understanding and accepting that the other person is offended even if you don't understand why, and doing something about it. However, in this case, we aren't talking about a minority group, so you suddenly don't understand that a certain group may be offended by same-sex marriages. Even if you do understand, you don't have any respect for the concerns of that majority group and so you don't care. This is because it is a majority group and they are oppressing a minority group, in your opinion.
What I'm saying to you is that IF all married couple rights were extended to gay couples, with the only exception being that of the marriage itself, what possible harm could that do to the gay couple? Everybody should be happy, the gay couples get the rights they want and the traditionalists maintain marriage as something between men and women. What could be wrong with that? In this situation I don't believe gay couples would be chomping at the bit to be married in any case. No evidence of that of course, just a suspicion which I believe nobody could dispute other than offer their own suspicions of the opposite.
At the start of this thread, I held the view that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry and that they shouldn't be allowed access to any of the benefits afforded to married couples. Well, I've read the posts and I can see there are legitimate points made by various people concerning the rights of gay couples. I have shifted my view. I would be prepared to accept willingly that these people, if they are in a long term relationship (goodness knows how that would be assessed) should be afforded certain rights in line with those granted to married men and women. I simply cannot budge on the idea of being against allowing these people to marry.
Finally Matthew, I don't believe you really give a damn about things you say you do, you merely like to be seen as a champion of what you perceive to be the oppressed. That is the only thing you believe in, supporting the minority no matter what. I've also no doubt that in real life you do not speak to people the way you post to them on a forum. If you did, I've little doubt you would have been up for a few kickings in your time. I have known many people during my time in the Services, through travelling around working in different parts of the world and meeting all kinds of people. I have never heard anybody speak to somebody else in the condescending manner in which you formulate responses on this forum. Perhaps I've just been fortunate.
[Just so Matthew doesn't think I've edited out some kind of insult. I've edited a spelling error.]
[This message was edited by BrianD on WEDNESDAY 18 February 2004 at 17:32.]
quote:
This is just absurd -- how does the marriage of same-sex couples remotely affect traditional married comples?
Just as many issues of concern to various minority groups in the UK are considered by the silent majority to be absurd, but in fact aren't considered so by the loud minority PC faction you love so much.
If a member of a minority group is offended by something and they complain, action is usually taken to remove whatever the cause of offence. Often the cause of such offence isn't even realised by the person causing it, it is something to do with the beliefs of the person in the minority. We know this goes on. Now I'm not that bothered by this, it's not really a problem removing the cause of offence because there is often no harm done to anybody at all, but someone is left wondering what all the fuss was about because they can't see what possible harm they were doing. It's a matter of understanding and accepting that the other person is offended even if you don't understand why, and doing something about it. However, in this case, we aren't talking about a minority group, so you suddenly don't understand that a certain group may be offended by same-sex marriages. Even if you do understand, you don't have any respect for the concerns of that majority group and so you don't care. This is because it is a majority group and they are oppressing a minority group, in your opinion.
What I'm saying to you is that IF all married couple rights were extended to gay couples, with the only exception being that of the marriage itself, what possible harm could that do to the gay couple? Everybody should be happy, the gay couples get the rights they want and the traditionalists maintain marriage as something between men and women. What could be wrong with that? In this situation I don't believe gay couples would be chomping at the bit to be married in any case. No evidence of that of course, just a suspicion which I believe nobody could dispute other than offer their own suspicions of the opposite.
At the start of this thread, I held the view that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry and that they shouldn't be allowed access to any of the benefits afforded to married couples. Well, I've read the posts and I can see there are legitimate points made by various people concerning the rights of gay couples. I have shifted my view. I would be prepared to accept willingly that these people, if they are in a long term relationship (goodness knows how that would be assessed) should be afforded certain rights in line with those granted to married men and women. I simply cannot budge on the idea of being against allowing these people to marry.
Finally Matthew, I don't believe you really give a damn about things you say you do, you merely like to be seen as a champion of what you perceive to be the oppressed. That is the only thing you believe in, supporting the minority no matter what. I've also no doubt that in real life you do not speak to people the way you post to them on a forum. If you did, I've little doubt you would have been up for a few kickings in your time. I have known many people during my time in the Services, through travelling around working in different parts of the world and meeting all kinds of people. I have never heard anybody speak to somebody else in the condescending manner in which you formulate responses on this forum. Perhaps I've just been fortunate.
[Just so Matthew doesn't think I've edited out some kind of insult. I've edited a spelling error.]
[This message was edited by BrianD on WEDNESDAY 18 February 2004 at 17:32.]
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by matthewr
That's just absurd only with more words and a dash of Daily Mail rhetoric. Seriously your arguments leave my head-spinning with all those tortuous, contradictory and surreal logical leaps.
Anyhow, suffice it to say that I am more than willing to support your views that marriage should be exclusively reserved for different-sex couples if you can give me a good reason.
"IF all married couple rights were extended to gay couples, with the only exception being that of the marriage itself, what possible harm could that do to the gay couple?"
Well all I can do is repeat what I said previously:
1. It marks same-sex couples as somehow different and less legitimate than different-sex couples.
2. Either the idea of being married is either just a trivial bit of ceremony (in which case why deny it to some couples?) or else it does contain some "benefit" (for want of a better word) that should in all fairness also be available to same-sex couples.
FWIW I do applaud your change of mind on the legal status of same-sex marriages. It seems this thread may well have been worth it after all.
Matthew
Anyhow, suffice it to say that I am more than willing to support your views that marriage should be exclusively reserved for different-sex couples if you can give me a good reason.
"IF all married couple rights were extended to gay couples, with the only exception being that of the marriage itself, what possible harm could that do to the gay couple?"
Well all I can do is repeat what I said previously:
1. It marks same-sex couples as somehow different and less legitimate than different-sex couples.
2. Either the idea of being married is either just a trivial bit of ceremony (in which case why deny it to some couples?) or else it does contain some "benefit" (for want of a better word) that should in all fairness also be available to same-sex couples.
FWIW I do applaud your change of mind on the legal status of same-sex marriages. It seems this thread may well have been worth it after all.
Matthew
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by ErikL
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
FWIW I do applaud your change of mind on the legal status of same-sex marriages. It seems this thread may well have been worth it after all.
Does this also mean his reasoning behind his initial belief, i.e. that only a man and a woman can found a decent/"normal"/solid/etc family, is also gone now?
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by JeremyD
Brian,
As a more general point, Brian, I urge you to read through your own posts in this thread and make a note of how many times you have made assumptions about other people's thoughts, motives and future responses. We all do it, to some extent, but you seem to do it far more than most. By assuming the worst about others as much as you do, you only hurt yourself and offend others. I don't know what you think or how you think but from the way you behave it seems as if you have an idea about another person's thought processes and, having had that idea, take it as fact.
Even in cases where one genuinely has every reason to assume the worst [e.g. various "discussion" with Stallion on racism and other topics] I learnt the hard way that the only effective way to deal with them is to pretend that they are well-intentioned.
Your accusation against Matthew that the only thing he believes in is "supporting the minority no matter what" does not stand up to a moment's scrutiny. It has no basis in fact and is utterly bizarrre - and I use that word advisedly. Did you give it even a moment's thought before you said it - or was it simply intended to cause offence? Do you really expect a polite response to such an accusation?
quote:I imagine Matthew doesn't associate with the sort of people who would give someone a kicking because they didn't like the way he spoke to them.
Originally posted by BrianD:
Finally Matthew, I don't believe you really give a damn about things you say you do, you merely like to be seen as a champion of what you perceive to be the oppressed. That is the only thing you believe in, supporting the minority no matter what. I've also no doubt that in real life you do not speak to people the way you post to them on a forum. If you did, I've little doubt you would have been up for a few kickings in your time.
As a more general point, Brian, I urge you to read through your own posts in this thread and make a note of how many times you have made assumptions about other people's thoughts, motives and future responses. We all do it, to some extent, but you seem to do it far more than most. By assuming the worst about others as much as you do, you only hurt yourself and offend others. I don't know what you think or how you think but from the way you behave it seems as if you have an idea about another person's thought processes and, having had that idea, take it as fact.
Even in cases where one genuinely has every reason to assume the worst [e.g. various "discussion" with Stallion on racism and other topics] I learnt the hard way that the only effective way to deal with them is to pretend that they are well-intentioned.
Your accusation against Matthew that the only thing he believes in is "supporting the minority no matter what" does not stand up to a moment's scrutiny. It has no basis in fact and is utterly bizarrre - and I use that word advisedly. Did you give it even a moment's thought before you said it - or was it simply intended to cause offence? Do you really expect a polite response to such an accusation?
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by Markus S
FWIW, in Germany we have had much the same debate recently. The solution our government came up with:
Same-sex couples can enter a "registered partnership" which gives the same legal status as being married. The term "marriage" is reserved for different-sex couples, in deference to the traditional meaning of the word.
Same-sex couples can enter a "registered partnership" which gives the same legal status as being married. The term "marriage" is reserved for different-sex couples, in deference to the traditional meaning of the word.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
quote:
That's just absurd only with more words and a dash of Daily Mail rhetoric/QUOTE]
Off you go again. Can you ever post a reply without some kind of ridiculous snipe? As for the Daily Mail snipe directly, I must be a natural then, since I've never bought a Daily Mail in my 45 years of life. I'm a Sunday Sport man, myself.
[quote]Seriously your arguments leave my head-spinning with all those tortuous, contradictory and surreal logical leaps.
Seems to me that if I post something that doesn't support a minority, you are immediately jumping up and down in disgust. Maybe that's your problem. I see nothing contradictory in what I'm posting.
quote:
1. It marks same-sex couples as somehow different and less legitimate than different-sex couples.
But they are different. I'm going off topic here, but when people talk about racism for example, they think they are solving it by telling everybody they are the same when in fact we are all different.
The fact is, not only is a gay couple different to a man and woman, 2 women together is different to 2 men together. What makes you think these various 'couples' are not different? As for being less legitimate, well all I can say is, the thought doesn't enter my head that people of the same sex who are living together are 'less legitimate' than a man and woman living together. I just don't want people of the same sex to marry, that's all. As a couple, I have no problem with them living together and don't see them as 'second class' as you like to imagine.
quote:
2. Either the idea of being married is either just a trivial bit of ceremony (in which case why deny it to some couples?)
If it is considered trivial, then why do gay couples want to marry? Is this simply because other people can so they want to as well?
quote:
or else it does contain some "benefit" (for want of a better word) that should in all fairness also be available to same-sex couples.
Yes, it obviously does contain some benefit, they have been described by others and I've acknowledged it by my change in position.
I think it's been established by those in favour of this, that the major complaints levied toward gays not being allowed to marry, is concerned with lack of benefits that are currently afforded to 'traditional' marriages. If those benefits are afforded to gay couples then I see this as meeting them halfway in their requests. If this was offered they should accept the benefits and changes and forget for now about being married. Perhaps they should consider taking the view that this is a battle won but that they haven't yet won the war. View it as a stepping stone instead of wanting everything all at once. Maybe in 'x' years time they may move on to the next step and be allowed to marry. Who knows.
Matthew, why don't we call it a day on this now? We will be going around in circles because you will call every post I make absurd, and I will imagine your agenda is simply one of backing up the minority no matter what the topic.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Jeremy
LOL.
How very fortunate for Matthew, then.
BTW I don't need to read back through the thread. I know that I have a problem with Matthew, from the moment I saw his post about me being "that BrianD", I knew he would be sniping at every post I make. I am also acutely aware of the number of people who have either commented that my views are absurd or bollix, what do you expect from me in return? I am replying mainly to posts where someone has already made pretty disparaging remarks about my views, I am bound to end up adding bits of cynicism to my comment. You, of all people, should understand that. You have had your own problems on this forum in the past. Instead of advising me to re-read the posts, you should re-read the posts I have replied to, perhaps then you might understand. After saying that, I do realise that I should not include this kind of stuff in my posts.
[This message was edited by BrianD on WEDNESDAY 18 February 2004 at 18:46.]
quote:
I imagine Matthew doesn't associate with the sort of people who would give someone a kicking because they didn't like the way he spoke to them.
LOL.
How very fortunate for Matthew, then.
quote:
By assuming the worst about others as much as you do
BTW I don't need to read back through the thread. I know that I have a problem with Matthew, from the moment I saw his post about me being "that BrianD", I knew he would be sniping at every post I make. I am also acutely aware of the number of people who have either commented that my views are absurd or bollix, what do you expect from me in return? I am replying mainly to posts where someone has already made pretty disparaging remarks about my views, I am bound to end up adding bits of cynicism to my comment. You, of all people, should understand that. You have had your own problems on this forum in the past. Instead of advising me to re-read the posts, you should re-read the posts I have replied to, perhaps then you might understand. After saying that, I do realise that I should not include this kind of stuff in my posts.
[This message was edited by BrianD on WEDNESDAY 18 February 2004 at 18:46.]
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Markus
Thank you. I wish I'd known this. You have said in one paragraph what I've been on about for 7 pages.
I wonder if some will now start questioning this? I also wonder why nobody else posting on here who has this knowledge of what has happened in Germany bothered to post the information.
quote:
Same-sex couples can enter a "registered partnership" which gives the same legal status as being married. The term "marriage" is reserved for different-sex couples, in deference to the traditional meaning of the word.
Thank you. I wish I'd known this. You have said in one paragraph what I've been on about for 7 pages.
I wonder if some will now start questioning this? I also wonder why nobody else posting on here who has this knowledge of what has happened in Germany bothered to post the information.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Ludwig
Are you talking to me when you say 'his'? If you are, please be polite enough to direct the comment toward me by name, rather than 'his'.
quote:
Does this also mean his reasoning behind his initial belief, i.e. that only a man and a woman can found a decent/"normal"/solid/etc family, is also gone now?
Are you talking to me when you say 'his'? If you are, please be polite enough to direct the comment toward me by name, rather than 'his'.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Jeremy
My attitude toward Matthew comes from past experience going back to the old forum. It was brought back to me when he said on page 3.......
quote:
Your accusation against Matthew that the only thing he believes in is "supporting the minority no matter what" does not stand up to a moment's scrutiny.
My attitude toward Matthew comes from past experience going back to the old forum. It was brought back to me when he said on page 3.......
quote:
Although there are few people more deserving of contempt and ridicule than the "It's PC Gone Mad!" brigade.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by matthewr
"If it is considered trivial, then why do gay couples want to marry? Is this simply because other people can so they want to as well?"
Well of course it's not considered trivial by those who want to marry.
"Yes, it obviously does contain some benefit, they have been described by others and I've acknowledged it by my change in position"
Disregard the now accepted right to legal equivalence (which is obviously the most significant part) and consider the point again:
Either the idea of being married is either just a trivial bit of ceremony (in which case why deny it to some couples?) or else it does contain some "benefit" (for want of a better word) that should in all fairness also be available to same-sex couples
"I know that I have a problem with Matthew, from the moment I saw his post about me being "that BrianD" I knew he would be sniping at every post I make"
You persist in fighting these imaginary ghosts -- I recognised who you were and recalling your previous contributions to debates the way this one was going made more sense. That was all it meant.
And I am not sniping at your posts. I think your arguments are weak, poorly argued and almost certainly without foundation. I am simply pointing this out in the manner think best exposes these shortcomings.
Matthew
Well of course it's not considered trivial by those who want to marry.
"Yes, it obviously does contain some benefit, they have been described by others and I've acknowledged it by my change in position"
Disregard the now accepted right to legal equivalence (which is obviously the most significant part) and consider the point again:
Either the idea of being married is either just a trivial bit of ceremony (in which case why deny it to some couples?) or else it does contain some "benefit" (for want of a better word) that should in all fairness also be available to same-sex couples
"I know that I have a problem with Matthew, from the moment I saw his post about me being "that BrianD" I knew he would be sniping at every post I make"
You persist in fighting these imaginary ghosts -- I recognised who you were and recalling your previous contributions to debates the way this one was going made more sense. That was all it meant.
And I am not sniping at your posts. I think your arguments are weak, poorly argued and almost certainly without foundation. I am simply pointing this out in the manner think best exposes these shortcomings.
Matthew
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by ErikL
BrianD,
Does this mean your reasoning behind your initial belief, i.e. that only a man and a woman can found a decent/"normal"/solid/etc family, is also gone now?
If not, does this mean you'd now accept same-sex couples to marry but not to raise children?
I ask because your initial line of reasoning for opposing gay marriages was that you believe same-sex couples can't raise a family in a respectable/decent/"normal" fashion (please correct me if I have that wrong).
Does this mean your reasoning behind your initial belief, i.e. that only a man and a woman can found a decent/"normal"/solid/etc family, is also gone now?
If not, does this mean you'd now accept same-sex couples to marry but not to raise children?
I ask because your initial line of reasoning for opposing gay marriages was that you believe same-sex couples can't raise a family in a respectable/decent/"normal" fashion (please correct me if I have that wrong).
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Matthew
But that's under the present system of no access to certain financial and other benefits.
Which sends a clear negative message to anyone fairly new who has never read a post from me before. Well done, Matthew. Are you suggesting that if any other single individual has posted that they are against same-sex marriages that this thread would have gone any other way? The reason it has gone this way is simply because I disagree with you and others and have spoken up and said so. I'm fairly certain that among the other many members of this forum there will be others with far stronger views than me on this topic but who refrain from saying so for fear of incuring the wrath of people such as yourself.
LMFHO. Methinks pots and kettles here.
It really is disgusting that you fail to show any tolerance toward someone who has a different opinion to your own. Since I've moved on the 'benefit' aspect you must clearly feel that my belief that marriage is a sacrosanct union between a woman and a man to be without any foundation. How exactly do you work that out? Oh yeah, I forgot, you just think it shouldn't be. Same as I think it should be. I see no foundation in your argument, mate.
quote:
Well of course it's not considered trivial by those who want to marry.
But that's under the present system of no access to certain financial and other benefits.
quote:
You persist in fighting these imaginary ghosts -- I recognised who you were and recalling your previous contributions to debates the way this one was going made more sense. That was all it meant.
Which sends a clear negative message to anyone fairly new who has never read a post from me before. Well done, Matthew. Are you suggesting that if any other single individual has posted that they are against same-sex marriages that this thread would have gone any other way? The reason it has gone this way is simply because I disagree with you and others and have spoken up and said so. I'm fairly certain that among the other many members of this forum there will be others with far stronger views than me on this topic but who refrain from saying so for fear of incuring the wrath of people such as yourself.
quote:
And I am not sniping at your posts. I think your arguments are weak, poorly argued and almost certainly without foundation. I am simply pointing this out in the manner think best exposes these shortcomings.
LMFHO. Methinks pots and kettles here.
It really is disgusting that you fail to show any tolerance toward someone who has a different opinion to your own. Since I've moved on the 'benefit' aspect you must clearly feel that my belief that marriage is a sacrosanct union between a woman and a man to be without any foundation. How exactly do you work that out? Oh yeah, I forgot, you just think it shouldn't be. Same as I think it should be. I see no foundation in your argument, mate.
Posted on: 18 February 2004 by BrianD
Ludwig
Earlier you asked....
My reply then was...
I have 2 children and I know the kind of pressures they suffer at school, where comparisons with others are made all the time. I don't believe it can be in any way helpful for a child to be surrounded by other children who have a father and a mother while they have a family consisting of either 2 women or 2 men. This is not to say that the adults concerned are unable to be good parents, I have no idea whether they could be and I daresay they would have as much chance of making a good fist of it as anybody else. Enough people go wrong as it is.
If you put the children first, as you should, then you should understand the potential problems they may come across if this was their environment. So, in summary the answer to your question is that my gut feeling is that the problems for the children would probably make this unsuitable.
Earlier you asked....
quote:
but is it safe to say that you're uncertain whether same-sex couples can successfully raise responsible children (adopted or otherwise) loved by the couple and the couple's parents, and who later contribute positively to society?
My reply then was...
quote:
Yes, it's safe to say that. I don't believe a same-sex marriage is a proper environment in which to raise a child.
I have 2 children and I know the kind of pressures they suffer at school, where comparisons with others are made all the time. I don't believe it can be in any way helpful for a child to be surrounded by other children who have a father and a mother while they have a family consisting of either 2 women or 2 men. This is not to say that the adults concerned are unable to be good parents, I have no idea whether they could be and I daresay they would have as much chance of making a good fist of it as anybody else. Enough people go wrong as it is.
If you put the children first, as you should, then you should understand the potential problems they may come across if this was their environment. So, in summary the answer to your question is that my gut feeling is that the problems for the children would probably make this unsuitable.