Gay is the new black
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 32,283
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, OH
Originally Posted by Elistan,Nov 24 2008, 01:17 PM
- joint parenting;
- joint adoption;
- joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
- status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
- joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
- dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
- immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
- inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
- joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
- inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
- benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
- spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
- veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
- joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
- wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
- bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
- decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
- crime victims' recovery benefits;
- loss of consortium tort benefits;
- domestic violence protection orders;
- judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
- joint adoption;
- joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
- status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
- joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
- dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
- immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
- inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
- joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
- inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
- benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
- spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
- veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
- joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
- wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
- bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
- decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
- crime victims' recovery benefits;
- loss of consortium tort benefits;
- domestic violence protection orders;
- judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 6,592
Likes: 0
From: Yorba Linda, CA
Originally Posted by al4t1gbundy,Nov 24 2008, 11:25 AM
Does this prohibiting of marriage really going to stop gays from being gays?
But, then, nobody here has suggested that it would, nor that it should, nor that it could.
Originally Posted by al4t1gbundy,Nov 24 2008, 11:25 AM
Secondly, so its better to help your family morals by teaching hate?
[QUOTE=al4t1gbundy,Nov 24 2008, 11:25 AM]And for those who say that you don't want the gays to get marriage benefits ... why the F not?
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 32,283
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, OH
Originally Posted by magician,Nov 24 2008, 03:12 PM
If California allowed civil unions for gay couples and such civil unions would convey all of the legal rights (those enumerated above plus any others the author may have omitted), so that the only difference would be that the legal description of the situation would not be called "marriage", would you find that acceptable?
I have a friend - a Mormon - who said that he would vote for that in a trice, as would most of his Mormon acquaintences.
I have a friend - a Mormon - who said that he would vote for that in a trice, as would most of his Mormon acquaintences.
personally since marriage is apparently such a polarizing issue among people of religious backgrounds, i'd rather the gov. stepped out of it entirely and made civil unions the definition for all marriages, straight OR gay. that way, religious groups could administer a marriage and you could go get a civil union license and be happily 'married' while a gay couple would skip the religious ceremony and just get the license. Of course, that'll never happen.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 6,592
Likes: 0
From: Yorba Linda, CA
Originally Posted by thebig33tuna,Nov 24 2008, 12:27 PM
that is not equality.
Originally Posted by thebig33tuna,Nov 24 2008, 12:27 PM
personally since marriage is apparently such a polarizing issue among people of religious backgrounds, i'd rather the gov. stepped out of it entirely and made civil unions the definition for all marriages . . . .
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 32,283
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, OH
Originally Posted by magician,Nov 24 2008, 03:34 PM
I didn't suggest that it was.
Originally Posted by magician,Nov 24 2008, 03:34 PM
That's possibly the best idea yet on this thread.
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 6,647
Likes: 0
From: Fajardo
So it all boils down to the control of another person, am I right? No matter what you call it or how you see it that's what it is. If I don't see things the way you (people who support PROP 8) see it then I'm in the wrong and don't deserve the same things that you have, a marriage. Who cares what you call it, marriage, civil unions, or a contract between 2 people. It goes against YOUR religious beliefs so I am wrong. Am I correct on this statement?
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,349
Likes: 0
From: anaheim
Originally Posted by magician,Nov 24 2008, 12:07 PM
It sounds as though you're trying, obliquely, to say that discrimination is illegal, or, at the very least, wrong.
Alas, discrimination in many forms is legal, and in many forms necessary. Eighteen-year-olds may vote, but seventeen-year-364-day-olds may not. That's discrimination: legal discrimination. There are scores of other examples, but that's one that's easy for most people to embrace.
Alas, discrimination in many forms is legal, and in many forms necessary. Eighteen-year-olds may vote, but seventeen-year-364-day-olds may not. That's discrimination: legal discrimination. There are scores of other examples, but that's one that's easy for most people to embrace.
17 year olds are not believed to be an adult yet, so in other words they are not believed to be able to make adult decisions. 21 year old drinking age is the same thing ... society believes that if we should make 21 the minimum because we believe by this time, they are able to make rational choices/decisions.
How would we get affected if say there were no limits? "Kids" who are irresponsible would be drinking w/o regard and in turn can harm others. (Now I know that adults are also irresponsible and that kids can still get their alcohol .. but this is not the point). Laws are there to protect the public etc.
Now .. marriage. If gays are allowed to be married, what harm is that to others? How is this legal discrimination justified? What reasons are there that this should be illegal and that in turn would benefit/protect society as a whole?
I'm sorry but I believe that when the laws were written, gays were still a "secret society." As in not everybody embraced that there are such things as Gays. Today the world is different and the law should reflect that.
My issue is that I still do not see a real legitimate reason as in why gays should not be allowed to do a personal thing such as marry BETWEEN themselves. How marrying between themselves can affect you and or me.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
Originally Posted by ace123,Nov 22 2008, 11:20 PM
I'm Mormon. We're pretty low key Christians in most ways. Our view on gay marriage is a political hot button, although it's been the same forever. I'm going to catch hell for trying to explain the view of the Church, but I'll still try in case anybody really wants to understand... please don't slander me too badly.
_____________________
First, the Mormon church doesn't care about Democrat or Republican, and it doesn't care who we vote for or what we vote for. But it does care about abortion. It does care about adultery. It does care about marriage. It's a church--IT SHOULD!
The Mormon church has no issue with homosexuals as people. None. People are people, and we as Christians are trying to learn charity for everyone, no exceptions. We're supposed to love even our enemies, so obviously homosexuals (who are friends in my mind) should be loved and respected as our brothers and sisters. It's not a deliberate strike against homosexuals. The issue is with marriage and the sanctity of the family unit.
We are trying to become like the God we worship, or like the Christ we read about in the New Testament. To become like God the Father, we have Christ as an example. In many ways, we have small steps in our life that help us become like Him. We are reborn as commanded through baptism. Our personal challenges may equate to a small Gethsemane. We make sacrifices, we try to have charity and love others, we try to quash the weakneses (ie 7 deadly sins) in ourselves. We try to become like the God we have as a role model. We believe He is our Father and we are His Children.
If we want to become like God, we need to understand God. To understand God, we need to experience life in ways that will let us glimpse what our God is, we will try to live in the way God would and see things as he does. Having children will naturally parallel to God having us as His children. Being a parent is a good way to learn about and develop divine nature!
Homosexual couples are, by definition, incapable of sexual reproduction. Therefore, they cannot naturally have a family save by adoption, insemination, etc. Placing homosexual marriage on the same level as a traditional marriage degrades the sanctity of the traditional family (+their own kids) unit. Yes, there are exceptions for infertile people and yes, I do think they should adopt. But infertile couples are different--exactly the same way as a blind person is different from someone who can see.
The Mormon Church has no issues with homosexuals being together as couples, voting, riding together with us on the bus, owning property, or anything at all. Homosexuals are fellow citizens and our brothers and sisters. They should be treated just the same as anyone else. But putting marriage of homosexuals as an equivalent to traditional marriage is seen by our Church as a degradation of the societal view the sanctity of the family (parents+their kids) unit. This perceived degradation of the importance of family is the issue for the Mormon Church.
And I'm just a lay member of the church, so please don't take this as Mormon Doctrine. It's not. It's how I see it and how I think the Chuch sees it as someone who has been an active member all my life.
_____________________
On how much funding dollars were raised, I have no idea. I had heard the homosexual rights groups were much better funded than the oppostion, so (assuming that's correct) I think it's a moot point.
And it's funny to me that blacks voted so strongly against gay marriage. I wonder where that stems from.
_____________________
First, the Mormon church doesn't care about Democrat or Republican, and it doesn't care who we vote for or what we vote for. But it does care about abortion. It does care about adultery. It does care about marriage. It's a church--IT SHOULD!
The Mormon church has no issue with homosexuals as people. None. People are people, and we as Christians are trying to learn charity for everyone, no exceptions. We're supposed to love even our enemies, so obviously homosexuals (who are friends in my mind) should be loved and respected as our brothers and sisters. It's not a deliberate strike against homosexuals. The issue is with marriage and the sanctity of the family unit.
We are trying to become like the God we worship, or like the Christ we read about in the New Testament. To become like God the Father, we have Christ as an example. In many ways, we have small steps in our life that help us become like Him. We are reborn as commanded through baptism. Our personal challenges may equate to a small Gethsemane. We make sacrifices, we try to have charity and love others, we try to quash the weakneses (ie 7 deadly sins) in ourselves. We try to become like the God we have as a role model. We believe He is our Father and we are His Children.
If we want to become like God, we need to understand God. To understand God, we need to experience life in ways that will let us glimpse what our God is, we will try to live in the way God would and see things as he does. Having children will naturally parallel to God having us as His children. Being a parent is a good way to learn about and develop divine nature!
Homosexual couples are, by definition, incapable of sexual reproduction. Therefore, they cannot naturally have a family save by adoption, insemination, etc. Placing homosexual marriage on the same level as a traditional marriage degrades the sanctity of the traditional family (+their own kids) unit. Yes, there are exceptions for infertile people and yes, I do think they should adopt. But infertile couples are different--exactly the same way as a blind person is different from someone who can see.
The Mormon Church has no issues with homosexuals being together as couples, voting, riding together with us on the bus, owning property, or anything at all. Homosexuals are fellow citizens and our brothers and sisters. They should be treated just the same as anyone else. But putting marriage of homosexuals as an equivalent to traditional marriage is seen by our Church as a degradation of the societal view the sanctity of the family (parents+their kids) unit. This perceived degradation of the importance of family is the issue for the Mormon Church.
And I'm just a lay member of the church, so please don't take this as Mormon Doctrine. It's not. It's how I see it and how I think the Chuch sees it as someone who has been an active member all my life.
_____________________
On how much funding dollars were raised, I have no idea. I had heard the homosexual rights groups were much better funded than the oppostion, so (assuming that's correct) I think it's a moot point.
And it's funny to me that blacks voted so strongly against gay marriage. I wonder where that stems from.
[B][I]"Don
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,560
Likes: 1
From: Albuquerque, NM
Originally Posted by magician,Nov 24 2008, 12:12 PM
If California allowed civil unions for gay couples and such civil unions would convey all of the legal rights (those enumerated above plus any others the author may have omitted), so that the only difference would be that the legal description of the situation would not be called "marriage", would you find that acceptable?
I have a friend - a Mormon - who said that he would vote for that in a trice, as would most of his Mormon acquaintences.
I have a friend - a Mormon - who said that he would vote for that in a trice, as would most of his Mormon acquaintences.
On the other hand, that would not stop what the supporters of Prop 8 are afraid of. It is 100% guaranteed that there would be plenty of ordained ministers willing to marry gay couples, and that very idea affects the way the Prop 8 supporters feel about the concept of marriage.
In the end, I have my opinions, and hope I have expressed them clearly; it is too bad I offer nothing in the way of a solution--but that's why we got to this point, isn't it? The issue is so polarizing that it's not currently possible for all parties involved to reach a middle ground...