Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30
Thanks Tree15Thanks

Thread: A Simple Question for Those Who Oppose Same Sex Marriage

  1. #11
    Moderator jacobfitcher's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    6,978
    Thanks
    5877

    From
    Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by John T Ford View Post
    I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that the children's best interest was served in this case.

    I have no problem with some sort of civil union to give people equal rights under the law.

    My issue is with calling it marriage.

    It is not.

    To say so would be to redefine the term marriage.
    So your only objection is the use of the word "marriage"? You're fine with all the same rights, obligations, and privileges as a heterosexual married couple?

  2. #12
    Voice of Reason ProgressivePatriot's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,744
    Thanks
    1102

    From
    The liberal commie infested, queer loving north east USA
    Quote Originally Posted by pragmatic View Post
    If the OP is a true story it sounds like a tragic loss for the kids. Do hope they end up with the "angela" player.

    Never had an issue with civil unions. As i recall that was the goal of the movement at one point. Goal posts moved.

    Would have preferred the word (and institution) of "marriage" be reserved for one man and one woman.


    But that isn't the way it turned out. No biggie, i'll survive it.
    It's interesting to see how many people are finding so many ways of avoiding the question regarding the best interests of the children in the OP

  3. #13
    Voice of Reason ProgressivePatriot's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,744
    Thanks
    1102

    From
    The liberal commie infested, queer loving north east USA
    Quote Originally Posted by pragmatic View Post
    If the OP is a true story it sounds like a tragic loss for the kids. Do hope they end up with the "angela" player.

    Never had an issue with civil unions. As i recall that was the goal of the movement at one point. Goal posts moved.

    Would have preferred the word (and institution) of "marriage" be reserved for one man and one woman.


    But that isn't the way it turned out. No biggie, i'll survive it.
    The push for marriage equality came about in part because civil unions were not working. Even if equal on paper it did not mean that they played out that way in the real world. Then with the Windsor ruling requiring the Federal government to recognize same sex marriages - those was not longer any ability to even pretend that civil unions were legal because the feds did not recognize then.

    In addition, you might recall that there were many people who opposed any form of legal recognition - so gay rights advocates figured that they might as well go all the way.

    Civil Unions are a Sham and a Failure - by Progressive Patriot 5. 7. 16

    Long after Obergefell, I’m still hearing that gay people should have been satisfied with civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of pushing the issue of marriage. This is the familiar separate but equal argument reminiscent of the Jim Crow era. To begin with, the simple fact is that even if they are equal on paper, in reality they are not equal if for no other reason, because they are called by different names. “Marriage” is universally understood to mean a certain thing… a bond and a commitment between two people. “Civil Unions” carry no such instantly understood meaning. Now, I know that there are those who will say that marriage is understood to mean a man and a woman, but those people are living in a bygone era. Similarly, there are those who contend that marriage is a religious institution, but they too are living in a world that no longer exists, if it ever did. While there were times and places in history where it was-and for some still is -for the most part it is anything but religious. Therefore, neither heterosexuals nor the religious own “marriage”
    I firmly believe that those who claim that they believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians but are against marriage in favor of civil unions are using that story line so as not to appear to be anti -equality while not really believing in equality at all. This may be conscious process that is deliberately deceptive, or a rationalization to make themselves feel good about how magnanimous they imagine themselves to be, but the motive, and the outcome is the same.

    Words are powerful. Consider the word “Citizen” In this country anyone who is born a citizen -as well as those who are naturalized – are simply” citizens” They all have the same rights and responsibilities. But let’s say that we decided that naturalized citizen could not and should not be called “citizens” but rather they must be distinguished from those who were born into citizenship by calling them something like Permanent Legal Domestic Residents. Still the same rights and responsibilities but are they equal in reality? How many times will they have to explain what that means? For instance, will hospital staff understand when there is an issue with visitation or making a medical decision regarding a spouse?

    Consider this:
    Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it
    Civil unions are in no way a legitimate substitute for gay marriage.

    They fail on principle, because - as America should have learned from racial segregation - separate is never equal.

    And they fail in practice, because couples who enter into this second-class marriage alternative in New Jersey and elsewhere are constantly denied the rights and benefits that married couples take for granted.

    Which brings up a third way in which they fail - verbally. Imagine getting down on one knee and saying, "Will you civilly unite with me?"

    All kidding aside, semantics matters when it comes to labeling our most important and intimate relationships. Denying gay and lesbian couples the right - and the joy and the responsibility and the ordinariness - to use the M-word is a profound slap in the face.
    "When you say, 'I'm married,' everyone knows who you are in relation to the primary person you're building your life with," says Freedom to Marry director Evan Wolfson. " 'Civil union' doesn't offer that clarity, that immediately understood respect."

    Why civil unions aren't enough: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it - NY Daily News


    Monday, April 20, 2009, 5:00 PM

    We had experience with civil unions here in New Jersey. It did not go well:

    Since New Jersey’s civil union law took effect in February 2007, many employers across New Jersey have refused to recognize civil unions as equal to marriage, and therefore do not grant equal health benefits to partners of employees. Employers and hospitals say that if the legislature intended for the civil union law to be the same as marriage, the legislature would have used the same name.
    Because these employers and hospitals don’t recognize civil unions as they would marriage, many same-sex couples go without adequate health insurance – a horror in this economy. And because of the real-world disparity between civil unions and marriage, some hospitals do not allow civil union partners to make medical decisions for one another, or even to visit one another in the emergency room. http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/civilunions/

    Here is more:

    Report: Civil union law fails to achieve goal of equality

    This article first appeared in The Sunday Star-Ledger on Feb. 17, 2008.
    When civil unions became available one year ago, Gina Pastino of Upper Montclair was "thrilled" to form one with her partner of a dozen years, Naomi Cohen.

    But the couple are frustrated after a year of trying to explain -- at the bank, the passport office and repeatedly in hospitals -- that their civil union entitles them to be treated like spouses.

    "People don't understand what civil unions are," said Cohen.
    Judy Ford of Port Norris formed a civil union last April to add her partner to her health insurance plan. But the medical center that employs Ford used a loophole in federal law to deny coverage to her partner, Yvonne Mazzola.
    Now, because of her civil union, she would be liable for her partner's uninsured medical bills. They might dissolve their civil union.

    "It only puts us in a precarious legal situation," said Ford. "Now we have a civil union with no benefit and only detriment." Report: Civil union law fails to achieve goal of equality | NJ.com






    And New Jersey is not the only state to experience a failure to achieve equality through civil unions:

    Equality Illinois Says State Civil Union Law a Failure Equality Illinois Says State Civil Union Law a Failure | Chicago Illinois Family Law Blog

  4. #14
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    47,017
    Thanks
    13738

    Quote Originally Posted by ProgressivePatriot View Post
    It's interesting to see how many people are finding so many ways of avoiding the question regarding the best interests of the children in the OP
    I think it goes without saying where they belong, with what is now their mom and where they want to stay.
    Thanks from ProgressivePatriot

  5. #15
    Voice of Reason ProgressivePatriot's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,744
    Thanks
    1102

    From
    The liberal commie infested, queer loving north east USA
    Quote Originally Posted by zaangalewa View Post
    Example? Marriage was always in history the foundation of a family from a man and a woman.

    Marriage is still the foundation of the family. And the family is the foundation of society. But now families are different than they were in the past. Two people of the same sex have as much a right to call themselves a family as anyone else. Times change, society as well as sexual and social norm and standards evolve, even if some individuals do not. Your appeal to tradition logically fallacy with change nothing.
    Last edited by ProgressivePatriot; 18th November 2017 at 11:58 AM.

  6. #16
    Council Member Djinn's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    43,343
    Thanks
    27960

    From
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by zaangalewa View Post
    Example? Marriage was always in history the foundation of a family from a man and a woman. ...
    In some cultures, marriage was between a man, and several wives. And the wives were considered "married" to each other, in a fashion.

  7. #17
    the "good" prag pragmatic's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    29,463
    Thanks
    17857

    From
    between Moon and NYC
    Quote Originally Posted by Pragmatist View Post
    I think it goes without saying where they belong, with what is now their mom and where they want to stay.

    Yep. Seems to be the consensus from what i am reading.

  8. #18
    Polemicist Supremum Monk-Eye's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,763
    Thanks
    412

    From
    Yesod

    Joint Custody With Will Full Intents"

    " Joint Custody With Will Full Intents"

    * Comparative Solutions *

    What are the rules of child custody when someone remarries but the children are not adopted their significant other ?

    The feel good happy ending scenario is only one of many possible outcomes faced by the children who might otherwise find themselves in the care of someone who does not have their best interests in mind .
    Thanks from pragmatic

  9. #19
    Voice of Reason ProgressivePatriot's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,744
    Thanks
    1102

    From
    The liberal commie infested, queer loving north east USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk-Eye View Post
    " Joint Custody With Will Full Intents"

    * Comparative Solutions *

    What are the rules of child custody when someone remarries but the children are not adopted their significant other ?

    The feel good happy ending scenario is only one of many possible outcomes faced by the children who might otherwise find themselves in the care of someone who does not have their best interests in mind .
    Maybe.....if Kathy had a will and named Angela as the guardian. But she was young and never thought of that. In this case it is not a done deal. Aside from that, having married parents who are both the legal guardian of the children in life has many other legal, financial and social benefits.

  10. #20
    Voice of Reason ProgressivePatriot's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,744
    Thanks
    1102

    From
    The liberal commie infested, queer loving north east USA
    Quote Originally Posted by zaangalewa View Post
    Example? Marriage was always in history the foundation of a family from a man and a woman.

    What is perhaps most interesting about the evolution of this issue is that to date all the courts addressing the question have missed one remarkably simple proposition:

    Bans against same-sex marriage are unconstitutional as a matter of law because they punish children in an effort to control the conduct of adults.

    Punishing children for matters beyond their control is patently impermissible as a matter of Supreme Court precedent regarding the constitutional rights of children. In the first of these cases, ( Levy vs Louisiana – )

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...1/68/case.html

    The court considered a Louisiana law that forbade children born out of wedlock from receiving benefits upon the wrongful death of their mother. Louisiana argued that the law was a perfectly legitimate means of expressing moral disapproval of extramarital liaisons. The Supreme Court, however, determined that the law violated equal protection because it is fundamentally unfair and irrational for a state to deny important benefits to children merely to express moral disapproval of the conduct of adults—or to incentivize adults to behave in a particular way.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Simple question.
    By Czernobog in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 298
    Last Post: 14th July 2014, 12:09 PM
  2. Simple question #1...
    By Raoul_Duke in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 18th October 2013, 10:35 AM
  3. Simple question:
    By Czernobog in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 243
    Last Post: 19th September 2012, 02:35 AM
  4. Question for those who oppose abortion
    By Blueneck in forum Abortion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 17th November 2011, 09:35 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed