Advertisement
Controversial, no?
So:
Should unmarried gay couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples?
Should gay marriage be legal, and just give all married couples the same rights?
Should unmarried couples be given the same rights as married couples?
And, should people in a position of trust and care (i.e., bishops) be able to publically urge gay people to be "cured" through aversion therapy (which involves electro-shock treatment, solitary confinement, etc)?
So:
Should unmarried gay couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples?
Should gay marriage be legal, and just give all married couples the same rights?
Should unmarried couples be given the same rights as married couples?
And, should people in a position of trust and care (i.e., bishops) be able to publically urge gay people to be "cured" through aversion therapy (which involves electro-shock treatment, solitary confinement, etc)?
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Same-sex Marriages
Thu, December 4, 2003 - 9:42 AMTo your first 3 questions:
Everyone should have equal protection under the law. Period. Married, unmarried, gay, straight, twisted, whatever, the law should apply equally to all. Certain laws involving issues like inheritance, insurance, health care, and such, deal with spousal type relationships. Our legal system should not discriminate against anyone because their relationship doesn't adhere to a particular religious doctorin. At the same time the government doesn't have the authority to tell a religious body that it much change its doctorins. Personally, I think the answer is to get the government out of the marriage business. Establish a process by which people can enter into or dissolve a legal relationship ('civil union') for the purposes of dealing with the aforementioned laws. Let churches, synagogs, temples, mosques, & whatnot deal with 'marriage' for the purposes of tradition and religion.
As to your last question: Yes, the first admendment does (and should) guarantee the right to freedom of speech, no matter how stupid. The real issue with 'aversion theapy' isn't whether or not some bishop says it's a good thing, but whether or not people are coerced or forced into it. If someone is kidnapped, confined and forced through electro shock treatment, we already have laws against those things and should apply them to the criminals who carry them out. If someone voluntarily enters into one of these programs, well that's sad, but not criminal.
r.m. -
-
Re: Same-sex Marriages
Fri, December 5, 2003 - 1:28 AM> Our legal system should not discriminate against anyone because
> their relationship doesn't adhere to a particular religious
> doctorin.
I think you'll find (in the UK) that a civil marriage has nothing to do with religion. You're explicitly not allowed any religious content.
Although you talk about the first amendment so you appear to have a leftpondian view of things.
-
Re: Same-sex Marriages
Sun, December 7, 2003 - 1:41 PMActually, that isn't the real issue. Free speech laws don't come into it a whole lot (be it the First Amendment, or the local equivalent; please bear in mind that this is an international forum, after all). Consider what would happen if you replaced "gay people" with "black people". What would the response be?
And as I think Dave mentioned, marriage isn't a religious concept necessarily. I wouldn't be at all suprised if it predates many organised religions (though naturally I have nothing to back that up whatsoever) - in the UK we have "registry office marriages" which are a simple legal affair, rather than a religous one. I have to confess that I don't know if a similar set-up exists in the US (though I'm guessing it would be down to the individual states to decide if they would do it). -
-
Re: Same-sex Marriages
Sun, December 7, 2003 - 5:55 PMI disagree. You specifically asked:
And, should people in a position of trust and care (i.e., bishops) be able to publicly urge gay people to be "cured" through aversion therapy (which involves electro-shock treatment, solitary confinement, etc)
Free speech is at the heart of that question. Bishops (and anyone else) should be able to say pretty much whatever the heck they want to. It doesn't matter if I think what they're saying is racist or sexist or just plain stupid. We don't have the right to regulate speech for those reasons.
Now, if some Bishop was urging people to commit a crime (like kidnapping, lynching, whatever), then he's gone beyond his rights to express his opinions and entered into the realm of criminal action. But, if he thinks that homosexuality is a sin or mental defect he's got the right to say it. If he want to urge people to get 'treatment' to 'cure' what he perceives as a problem, then that's his right. It's our job to stand up and tell him he's wrong, not to stop him from expressing himself.
r.m. -
-
Re: Same-sex Marriages
Mon, December 8, 2003 - 4:03 AMJust because one has the right to do something, that doesn't mean one should do it, or that it's a good thing.
Maybe you have the right to say you think gay/black people can be "cured" but that doesn't mean you *should*.
I'm reminded of the idiots in /Bowling For Columbine/: "I have the right to bear arms. (So I'd better go off and do it.)"
-
-
Re: Same-sex Marriages
Mon, December 8, 2003 - 4:08 AMI agree. The law is not there to be a moral guideline, even if many people these days treat it as such.
Basically, if everyone was nice to each other, we probably wouldn't need laws. -
-
Re: Same-sex Marriages
Mon, December 8, 2003 - 4:11 AMPeople should be less concerned about their rights and more concerned about their responsibilities. (I'm thinking primarily of USAians here, constantly banging on about their rights.) -
-
Re: Same-sex Marriages
Mon, December 8, 2003 - 8:23 AMNo one is saying that these yahoos *should* go out and say the crap they say, only that we *shouldn't* try and stop them from saying something because we disagree with it. This is especially important right now to us "USAians" because the yahoos are the ones in power and I certainly don't want them trying to restrict what I have to say.
r.m.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Same-sex Marriages
Fri, December 5, 2003 - 1:48 AM> Should unmarried couples be given the same rights as married
> couples?
No. For example, one's spouse can make decisions about the treatment one receives in hospital. There needs to be some way of proving the person has a right to make this decision. -
-
Re: Same-sex Marriages
Fri, December 5, 2003 - 6:56 AMI think that was implied in 'couple', perhaps meaning 'cohabiting couple' rather than 'boyfriend and girlfriend', if you see what I mean.
There needs to be some way that a non-married partner can make decisions about e.g. the treatment his/her partner receives in hospital, too. -
-
Re: Same-sex Marriages
Fri, December 5, 2003 - 7:13 AM> I think that was implied in 'couple', perhaps meaning
> 'cohabiting couple' rather than 'boyfriend and girlfriend', if
> you see what I mean.
I do; I just see it as a trickier thing to prove/rely on.
> There needs to be some way that a non-married partner can make
> decisions about e.g. the treatment his/her partner receives in
> hospital, too.
<glib>There is; it's called marriage.</glib> -
-
Re: Same-sex Marriages
Fri, December 5, 2003 - 10:56 AMIm straight... and Im never getting married. I think if I write on a piece of paper "listen to this person if anything happens to me", that should be good enough. -
-
Re: Same-sex Marriages
Fri, December 5, 2003 - 5:22 PMIt is good enough. It's called a power of attorney. In the United States, a power of attorney enables the holder to make decisions for the granter in the case of incapacitation. I think the only rule for who you can assign power of attorney to is that they have to be 18 or older and mental competent to handle the task. At least, in most jurisdictions, that's my understanding of the requirements. -
-
Re: Same-sex Marriages
Sun, December 7, 2003 - 1:31 PMPower of attorney (on both sides of the pond) also allows the holder to make decisions in other cases, too - it's far more wide-reaching than the rights given by marriage, and something to be very careful about.
-
-
Re: Same-sex Marriages
Mon, December 8, 2003 - 3:59 AMWhy not get married? That can be your "piece of paper". -
-
Re: Same-sex Marriages
Mon, December 8, 2003 - 4:08 AMYou might be already married (but separated), you may for whatever reason wish to give the decision to someone who /isn't/ your married partner, you might not be able to get married if the country you live in does not permit it (same-sex marriages in this country, for example, which are currently not legal; this goes for male/female relationships where one partner is transsexual, too, regardless of whether that makes it male/female, male/male or female/female). -
-
Re: Same-sex Marriages
Mon, December 8, 2003 - 4:10 AM> you may for whatever reason wish to give the decision to
> someone who /isn't/ your married partner,
If you give such rights to >1 person, what happens if they disagree? Are you supposed to put them in a hierarchy?
> (same-sex marriages in this country, for example, which are
> currently not legal; this goes for male/female relationships
> where one partner is transsexual, too, regardless of whether
> that makes it male/female, male/male or female/female).
Then the same-sex legislation will fix this, and there's no need for the unmarried couples bit.
Tada! -
-
Re: Same-sex Marriages
Mon, December 8, 2003 - 4:14 AM> If you give such rights to >1 person, what happens if they
> disagree? Are you supposed to put them in a hierarchy?
If that's what turns you on, yes.
> Then the same-sex legislation will fix this
It'll fix /one/ of the points I made, about marriage not being possible for same-sex couples. It doesn't address the others ;-)
Tada! -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Same-sex Marriages
Mon, December 8, 2003 - 4:21 AMWell, the same-sex marriage legislation ought to fix the transsexual issues. I don't know if it does, but it ought to.
One's country not permitting it isn't a problem here since we're talking about legislation to fix that.
If one is separated from one's spouse, one should probably get divorced. I don't see why anyone would want to let the marriage continue. -
-
Re: Same-sex Marriages
Mon, December 8, 2003 - 4:24 AMTakes time, especially with no more "quickie" divorces.
In the meantime, whilst it may be preferable to keep marital status for some reasons (he handwaved, not being able to think of anything concrete offhand, but plenty of couples split up and see no need to get immediately divorced if it's amicable) it could be utterly inappropriate in others. If I'm separated but with another partner, I wouldn't want my ex to be responsible for decisions made about my health in hospital, yet legally I'm sure it would be them rather than my current partner who had that choice. -
-
Re: Same-sex Marriages
Mon, December 8, 2003 - 4:34 AM"Quickie" divorces were still happening in November.
Anyhow, one can arrange "Cohabitation Contracts", so I imagine these could provide whatever the people in this thread want.
www.compactlaw.co.uk/relatsf14.html
Maybe we should discuss the rights on unmarried fathers, rather than unmarried couples; it's a lot easier to find information about that ;)
Oh, maximum depth reached, maybe another time (stupid tribe code).
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Same-sex Marriages
Thu, December 18, 2003 - 3:27 AM"Why not get married? That can be your "piece of paper". "
Because maybe I want that person to be my sister? Or a best friend who is married to someone else? Or whatever the case may be... I just wouldnt want to be legally bound to have a personal relationship with anyone other than children (Which I dont have and am not currently sure I want). Although I would make an exception.. I would marry a gay man if he were going to raise my kids with me (and we could have our own relationships, of course).
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Same-sex Marriages
Thu, January 20, 2005 - 3:17 PMHow about the government stops licensing marriages all together? Domestic partnerships for everyone...same sex, opposite sex. Let the church have their "marriage" and let's keep the government out of it. Give the Domestic Partners all the benefits that marriage has now. Seperate church and state.
-
Re: Same-sex Marriages
Wed, August 24, 2005 - 11:20 AMI feel that the bigger issue here is that the government is telling a certain group that they can't do something because they are whatever they are.................This is a direct violation of civil rights. Telling two gay people that they cant get married because they are gay..............is no different then telling a little black child that they cant go to school with white kids or telling a woman that she can't vote because she is a woman. I find this to be wildly unfair and I don't understand why the American public continues to let our government make these desicions for us.
