The emotional side of Prop 8 :: Free Realms

#102 REDACTED, Posted: Nov 14 2008 at 10:41 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Let's turn this around then. If you are not using science as the basis for equal marital rights for gays, then on what are you basing a need for special treatment?

Quote Reply

#103 Nov 14 2008 at 10:47 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

I don't see how it's special treatment, honestly.

Elinda wrote:

Hey, if a man has had a sex-change operation, completely switching over to a woman. Can she legally become a woman and marry another man?

Just wondering.

No, because they go by the gender listed on the birth certificate. There was a debate on same-sex marraige at a college here in Nashville and I asked about that.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#104 Nov 14 2008 at 10:48 AM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1657498616216

View User Forum

Scholar

10,012 posts

Totem wrote:

Let's turn this around then. If you are not using science as the basis for equal marital rights for gays, then on what are you basing a need for special treatment?

Yes, let's turn it around. Why are you so damn stuck on 'special treatments'? A human being, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, sex, ancestry, disability, national origin or sexuality, deserves the same basic rights as everyone else in this country.

Anything outside of that and you automatically lose the conversation. If you can't get on board with that, take a hike to the bushs, bigot.

▲ Page top

#105 REDACTED, Posted: Nov 14 2008 at 10:49 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) To the best of my knowledge, here in Kali-for-nee-a, yes, a transgendered person can marry someone ostensibly of their (now) opposite sex. Crazy, I know.

Quote Reply

#106 Nov 14 2008 at 10:52 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

Totem wrote:

To the best of my knowledge, here in Kali-for-nee-a, yes, a transgendered person can marry someone ostensibly of their (now) opposite sex. Crazy, I know.

Totem

Hmmm. Maybe things have changed, or it's different state to state.

▲ Page top

#107 REDACTED, Posted: Nov 14 2008 at 10:52 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Kaelesh, you're right! We shouldn't exclude unborn people from basic human rights just because they have the disability of an as of yet completely unformed and mature body!

Quote Reply

#108 Nov 14 2008 at 10:53 AM Rating: Decent

Elinda

View User Forum

Skelly Poker Since 2008

16,781 posts

Totem wrote:

Let's turn this around then. If you are not using science as the basis for equal marital rights for gays, then on what are you basing a need for special treatment?

After all, if this is just about wants or desires, someone then could make the argument that a precocious 13 or 14 year old is able to make the decision to enter into a relationship with another much older person. Just because you think they are not qualified to make that decision, in their particular case they may indeed be able to rationally decide for themselves what is best for them.

Or polygamy. Polygamists say that their's is just as much a right as anyone else's to marry who they choose or how many.

On what are you basing this particular segment of society's needs, yet excluding others?

Let's not use feelings or wishes here either. Give me a solid, reasonable basis for homosexual unions that excludes these others, because I don't hear you clamoring for their inclusion.

Totem

Children are out of the discussion. It's not valid as they are not yet given adult rights - they can't marry anyone let alone someone of the same sex - you're stretching. Polygamy disperses the rights and responsibilities given to a spouse. Personally I don't care if a man or woman wants to have multiple spouses but from the standpoint of a state sanctioned marriage it would be a nightmare to try and decide 'which' spouse had the final say in any particular issue.

This is clearly not a special right that is being sought, only an equal right - enough of the false rhetoric. We have recognized a right for two people to commit to each other under the auspices of their government and to thereby be granted household rights and responsibilities that are now inherent in that union.

There is not one piece of evidence to suggest that households run by two adults of the same sex are any more or less advantageous to society, but there is plenty of evidence that households with two adults are more stable and more able to be donors to their community versus single adult households which are much more likely to be beneficiaries.

____________________________

Alma wrote:

I lost my post

▲ Page top

#109 REDACTED, Posted: Nov 14 2008 at 10:56 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The only reason I am aware of this is because there is a helicopter pilot in a nearby program who is a transgendered... woman. He, err, she was a man, but is now an incredibly ugly woman. Her flying license states she is a woman and her operation and mental condition was not subject to the normal battery of medical and psychological exclusions that mere hay fever or depression would force a typical pilot to lose their license from.

Quote Reply

#110 Nov 14 2008 at 10:57 AM Rating: Decent

Elinda

View User Forum

Skelly Poker Since 2008

16,781 posts

Totem, how would gay marriage negatively impact you?

____________________________

Alma wrote:

I lost my post

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#111 Nov 14 2008 at 10:58 AM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1657498616216

View User Forum

Scholar

10,012 posts

Totem wrote:

We agree, see? We each get a half a loaf, politically. You get your gay rights, children get their unborn child's rights. It's win-win for everyone!

Totem

As soon as they are a person, you got my vote.

But that isn't what this is about. You can't toss hamburger and an apple into a bowl and call it fruit salad. One has no business with the other.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#112 Nov 14 2008 at 10:59 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

Totem wrote:

The only reason I am aware of this is because there is a helicopter pilot in a nearby program who is a transgendered... woman. He, err, she was a man, but is now an incredibly ugly woman. Her flying license states she is a woman and her operation and mental condition was not subject to the normal battery of medical and psychological exclusions that mere hay fever or depression would force a typical pilot to lose their license from.

Crazy, I know.

Totem

Very interesting.

▲ Page top

#113 REDACTED, Posted: Nov 14 2008 at 11:04 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Elinda, I am only putting forth that there are going to be 13 or 14 year olds who are mentally, emotionally, and psychologically advanced for their age and could easily be far more mature than many 21 year olds I know.

Quote Reply

#114 Nov 14 2008 at 11:06 AM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1657498616216

View User Forum

Scholar

10,012 posts

Totem wrote:

I'm just using the very argument homosexuals use to advocate other more or less reasonable points of view (if you consider gay rights reasonable).

Totem

I consider Equal Rights very damn reasonable.

▲ Page top

#115 REDACTED, Posted: Nov 14 2008 at 11:08 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Kaelesh, they ]are people, by any definition of the word, except political. It is utterly illogical to think that that fetus is not human! A woman isn't going to give spontaneously give birth to a monkey or aardvark.

#116 REDACTED, Posted: Nov 14 2008 at 11:11 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I consider human rights very reasonable too, K. To the point of including another set of people you and others are so eager to deny basic human rights!

Quote Reply

#117 Nov 14 2008 at 11:14 AM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1657498616216

View User Forum

Scholar

10,012 posts

Totem wrote:

A fetus is a human, just albeit, a very young and incomplete one. You wouldn't kill off handicapped people just because they are young and not in possession of all the "normal" facilties a typical human has, would you?

Totem

I'm going to start a campaign for Gays, Lesbians and Trasngenders to bash in the heads of fetuses with a rock until they get equal rights. It's the only sensible thing to do.

Totem wrote:

Kaelesh, they ]are people, by any definition of the word, except political.

What exactly do you think is the point here? Politically gay people are not human because they refuse to give them equal rights. That's what's utterly illogical.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#118 Nov 14 2008 at 11:16 AM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1657498616216

View User Forum

Scholar

10,012 posts

Totem wrote:

I consider human rights very reasonable too, K. To the point of including another set of people you and others are so eager to deny basic human rights!

See the hypocrisy of your position? I'm the inclusionary one here, and the Left leaning, pro-abortion, gay rights advocates are the exclusionary ones here.

Totem

Oh come on. You can stop with the devils advocate here. It's beneath you. What people are you even talking about? Unborn children? Like I said, when they become people (born) they can have all the rights they want.

▲ Page top

#119 REDACTED, Posted: Nov 14 2008 at 11:18 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) And I already have met you halfway when I said I'd be all in favor of giving gays all the rights heteros have when unborn children have them too. Seems extremely fair and reasonable to me.

#120 REDACTED, Posted: Nov 14 2008 at 11:21 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) So traveling through a birth canal is what determines if an unborn... creature is a human being?!? Do you realize how crazy that sounds? Is it some right of passage or hazing process that earns a child the merit of being considered human??

Quote Reply

#121 Nov 14 2008 at 11:25 AM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1591962888149

Sage

2,086 posts

Totem,

The reason gay people should be allowed to marry is that the core problem is about the free will to enter into a companionship with financial security and stablity. That should be universal.

I'll highlight the case of 2 sisters
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3837715.ece

In this case, they live together all their lives. They are not lovers (well duh) but as companions wish for some of the rights that only marraige can bring, like not paying inheritence tax when one of them dies.

Currently the only way to gain the rights these sisters need is by marraige or a civil partnership. The law has no way to cope with cohabiting siblings. Obviously that is not a route open to them so they are excluded by law and when one of them dies the other will be both heartbroken and in a terrible financial decision which will likely lead to an early grave.

There should be a way to enable legal protection of companionship (whether marraige, gay, platonic like the sisters). This would be where the "other" has responsibility and the right to act by proxy and to inherit and manage the others financials affairs and gain the rights normally given to a spouse.

So while you say why should gays gain the right to marry, I ask the question, why should everyone not gain the right to name a trusted "someone" in their life to pass the current legal and financial rights of a spouse to? That someone being a friend or direct relative? Why must you be in love and lust to gain those rights? Answer me that.

▲ Page top

#122 REDACTED, Posted: Nov 14 2008 at 11:28 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) "It's beneath you." --Kaelesh

Quote Reply

#123 Nov 14 2008 at 11:29 AM Rating: Decent

Elinda

View User Forum

Skelly Poker Since 2008

16,781 posts

Totem wrote:

Elinda, I am only putting forth that there are going to be 13 or 14 year olds who are mentally, emotionally, and psychologically advanced for their age and could easily be far more mature than many 21 year olds I know.

My point is, we are setting aside restrictions and prohibitions for a particular minority, when there are reasonably expected to be mature young people. The very age limitation we palce on our young is a political decision, as it is quite acceptable in other cultures for very young people to marry, enter into relationships, and be expected to bear children, etc etc.

In the same way, homosexual unions are a political decision. There's no particular reason outside of politics that I am aware of to give this particular small segment of society new rights that don't already cover all of our citizens-- unless you are willing to make an exception for homosexuals., but not sex offenders, NAMBLA advocates, polygamists, etc.

The definition for today's sex offender can reasonably be expected to change in the future-- as we have already seen proof of in present society's attitude towards homosexuality. All based on squishy science, of course.

I'm just using the very argument homosexuals use to advocate other more or less reasonable points of view (if you consider gay rights reasonable).

Totem

If you want to fight for 13 year olds to have the same rights as adults so be it, but I think their parents will have something to say about it.

There are valid reasons why 13 year olds are not allowed to drink, get driver's licenses, etc. What is the valid reason for singling out a couple and excluding them from marriage because they happen to be of the same gender?

____________________________

Alma wrote:

I lost my post

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#124 Nov 14 2008 at 11:31 AM Rating: Decent

Elinda

View User Forum

Skelly Poker Since 2008

16,781 posts

Totem wrote:

I am just applying the same logic and reason to another human rights issue that gets short shrift in favor of a so-called "woman's right to choose."

A human is a human is a human. I'm allowing for gays to be genetically predisposed towards homosexuality, yet we can't even agree on that a fetus is human?

You can't determine when a fetus becomes a human, so we arbitrarily set the birth day as the moment when it is afforded all the rights of a "normal" human being, even though babies are proven by actual medical cases to be viable looooong before gestation is complete.

Utterly and completely illogical. Not to mention political with no grounding in medical science. It's the equivilent of arbitrarily declaring homosexual deviants and criminal based on something esoteric as sexual orientation. That too is utterly and completely illogical.

Totem

If you or I or the courts decide a fetus, at some certain stage is a human, then when that fetus becomes of age, why can't they marry someone of the same sex?

____________________________

Alma wrote:

I lost my post

▲ Page top

#125 REDACTED, Posted: Nov 14 2008 at 11:37 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Gyn, free will has nothing to do with the legal issue of human rights. These are as we are supposedly in agreement on, inalienable right, ie, you can't take them away.

#126 REDACTED, Posted: Nov 14 2008 at 11:39 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) An addendum to my last post: Basic human rights which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life. Yeah, that most basic of human rights. You know, the one denied unborn children.

The emotional side of Prop 8Follow