EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:49 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:11 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20474
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Ann Vole wrote:
And don't forget to equalize the rights for single people...


No indeed. That's the main reason I scoff at all whole marital "rights" production. It discriminates against those who don't marry.


But many of the rights have no meaning without some partner other than a family member. Family members already have some of the rights marriage should provide.

Quote:
Wayne wrote:
The option to have a legally recognized religious or civil leader...


I have to cut it off right there. Religious leaders should not be endowed by the state to perform procedures with legal ramifications.


So a religious leader cannot be a notary public? I have to disagree. Any religious leader who is registered as such who wishes to perform a marriage ceremony and attest said ceremony was performed by them and with the two witness signatures, I have no problem with that at all. It is more or less a notary position, but it can be attached to any civil or religious ceremony as long as the license and supporting documentation was sufficient and correct.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:33 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
But many of the rights have no meaning without some partner other than a family member. Family members already have some of the rights marriage should provide.


Like I said--"rights". If you were single, would you not want to be duly compensated for a benefit you could get if only you were married? I pay some but not all of my family health insurance premium. The company for which I work pays most of it. That most is of particular interest to me. Am I worth more as an employee when I'm married with a family than I am when I am single? To me, it sounds like single folks are getting the shaft.

Quote:
Wayne wrote:
So a religious leader cannot be a notary public? I have to disagree. Any religious leader who is registered as such who wishes to perform a marriage ceremony and attest said ceremony was performed by them and with the two witness signatures, I have no problem with that at all. It is more or less a notary position, but it can be attached to any civil or religious ceremony as long as the license and supporting documentation was sufficient and correct.


Yeah I'll have to backpeddle on that one. What I said is not what I meant and I should not have cut you off. If the paperwork is in order, I have no problem with clergy functioning as described.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:50 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:21 pm
Posts: 2
Hey everyone,

I really appreciate your discussion and the fact you're not having an arguments or anything, but can I get some more answers to my question? :P

Thanks

Patrick


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:22 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20474
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
But many of the rights have no meaning without some partner other than a family member. Family members already have some of the rights marriage should provide.


Like I said--"rights". If you were single, would you not want to be duly compensated for a benefit you could get if only you were married? I pay some but not all of my family health insurance premium. The company for which I work pays most of it. That most is of particular interest to me. Am I worth more as an employee when I'm married with a family than I am when I am single? To me, it sounds like single folks are getting the shaft.


That is a benefit, not a right. the employer may be required to provide some benefits, such as workers comp insurance, but they do not have to pay for family insurance coverage if they do not wish to do so. So that would not be affected.

Quote:
Quote:
Wayne wrote:
So a religious leader cannot be a notary public? I have to disagree. Any religious leader who is registered as such who wishes to perform a marriage ceremony and attest said ceremony was performed by them and with the two witness signatures, I have no problem with that at all. It is more or less a notary position, but it can be attached to any civil or religious ceremony as long as the license and supporting documentation was sufficient and correct.


Yeah I'll have to backpeddle on that one. What I said is not what I meant and I should not have cut you off. If the paperwork is in order, I have no problem with clergy functioning as described.


So we have solved the problems of the world already? :mrgreen:

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:27 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Rainbow Warrior wrote:
Hey everyone,

I really appreciate your discussion and the fact you're not having an arguments or anything, but can I get some more answers to my question? :P


I only saw one and thought we had answered it already. I'm not going to say that humans will never marry outside the species. I'm pretty sure it will be a while, if ever, and that we'll see certain things before then such as the eventual widespread acceptance of gay marriage. Other things that follow might be the marrying of kin, polygamous relationships, and perhaps civil unions between teen minors, even minors and adults. None of that, however, interests me as much as relations between humans and technology itself, be it lifelike cyborgs or some form of interactive and tactile virtual reality.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:41 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
That is a benefit, not a right.


I know. That's what it boils down to--employers recognizing homosexual partnerships as they do traditional marriages.

Quote:
So we have solved the problems of the world already? :mrgreen:


Actually that lends to the problem. There's too much overlap between church and state in such instances.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:50 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20474
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
That is a benefit, not a right.


I know. That's what it boils down to--employers recognizing homosexual partnerships as they do traditional marriages.


Some already do that. It is the rights which are not applied that cause so much trouble. The medical decisions cannot be made by anyone other than family unless there is a specific medical power of attorney, for example. Even then in some cases the family still has a significant say. Visitation in the hospital again is limited to only family .. legal family. the probate laws, child custody, support, medical coverage for governmental workers, and a whole list of issues come from not having the same legal recognition. In fact, some of the new laws may prevent insurance companies from providing partner benefits because there is a limit on what is now a legal partner.

Quote:
Quote:
So we have solved the problems of the world already? :mrgreen:


Actually that lends to the problem. There's too much overlap between church and state in such instances.


Of course, and to add insult to injury, the church gets out of paying taxes on income producing property in addition to impacting politics. Representation without taxation ....

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:12 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Some already do that. It is the rights which are not applied that cause so much trouble. The medical decisions cannot be made by anyone other than family unless there is a specific medical power of attorney, for example. Even then in some cases the family still has a significant say. Visitation in the hospital again is limited to only family .. legal family. the probate laws, child custody, support, medical coverage for governmental workers, and a whole list of issues come from not having the same legal recognition. In fact, some of the new laws may prevent insurance companies from providing partner benefits because there is a limit on what is now a legal partner.


So expand the scope of what a civil union can be. Surely if two consenting adults can form a legal "married" arrangement, they could just as well engage in a parent-child partnership. Furthermore, why limit ourselves to two-person relationships?

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:20 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20474
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Some already do that. It is the rights which are not applied that cause so much trouble. The medical decisions cannot be made by anyone other than family unless there is a specific medical power of attorney, for example. Even then in some cases the family still has a significant say. Visitation in the hospital again is limited to only family .. legal family. the probate laws, child custody, support, medical coverage for governmental workers, and a whole list of issues come from not having the same legal recognition. In fact, some of the new laws may prevent insurance companies from providing partner benefits because there is a limit on what is now a legal partner.


So expand the scope of what a civil union can be.


As in something different than marriage or just expanding what a marriage/civil union may be?

Quote:
Surely if two consenting adults can form a legal "married" arrangement, they could just as well engage in a parent-child partnership.


Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

Quote:
Furthermore, why limit ourselves to two-person relationships?



I have no problem with that, but the laws would have to still be modified.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:29 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Didn't catch this before...

Quote:
Representation without taxation ....


I believe the argument was "no taxation without representation." I don't have any problem with it backward. :mrgreen:

Wayne Stollings wrote:
Quote:
Surely if two consenting adults can form a legal "married" arrangement, they could just as well engage in a parent-child partnership.
Not sure what this is supposed to mean.


It means, with relationships formed legally, we can move beyond what is considered marriage. In this instance, we'd effectively have adoption involving adults. Two good friends might even "join" to become brothers, etc.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:53 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20474
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Didn't catch this before...

Quote:
Representation without taxation ....


I believe the argument was "no taxation without representation." I don't have any problem with it backward. :mrgreen:


For those with the representation without taxation, that is great, but not so much for the rest who are taxed. It is truly the case of spending other people's money. :-k

Quote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Quote:
Surely if two consenting adults can form a legal "married" arrangement, they could just as well engage in a parent-child partnership.
Not sure what this is supposed to mean.


It means, with relationships formed legally, we can move beyond what is considered marriage.


But marriage is not a single definition, which is why there is confusion. In the Old Testament period marriage was often inclusive of multiple wives who had little to no say in the process. In the Bible Belt it is one man and one woman in a church. In some areas of Utah it is more like the Old Testament but with the consent of all. Marriage is really only what the law says it is when discussing rights.

Quote:
In this instance, we'd effectively have adoption involving adults.


Which would involve a change in the definition of adoption and rewriting reams of existing laws to reflect the new changes.

Quote:
Two good friends might even "join" to become brothers, etc.


Again requiring massive changes in the existing laws to reflect a new paradigm that is more easily handled with the use of the term marriage which is already listed in the legislations.

Not very cost effective or efficient as the missed changes will have to either require court rulings or more changes in legislation as those impacted discover they are impacted.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:46 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Not very cost effective or efficient as the missed changes will have to either require court rulings or more changes in legislation as those impacted discover they are impacted.


As if that's any different than what we're going through now with the gay community. If we're going to be fair, the only reasonable government solution must apply to any type relationship desired, in any quantity or combination. It may not be practical, but it isn't fair either to cater to a limited group of people either just because they're the ones complaining. Years from now (or sooner) you'll have another bunch start whining about the same thing and do it all over again. Illegal aliens are at it now. They're effectively citizens. They function like them, work like them, live like them, etc., just like a same-sex partner is a spouse, so they argue what the difference really is and we start having to redefine "citizen". Despite being defined clearly, it's still questioned. So no, I don't buy the argument that the problem is an unclear definition. We're talking about fringe groups asking for special recognition under the guise of civil/human rights. Maybe had we not already had a genuine civil rights movement...

At the end of the day, we've got 3 choices--band aid for gays, make civil unions/marriage encompassing of any desired relationship, or simply keep the traditional man-woman marriage as is. Personally, I don't have a problem with the last option.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:48 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20474
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Not very cost effective or efficient as the missed changes will have to either require court rulings or more changes in legislation as those impacted discover they are impacted.


As if that's any different than what we're going through now with the gay community. If we're going to be fair, the only reasonable government solution must apply to any type relationship desired, in any quantity or combination. It may not be practical, but it isn't fair either to cater to a limited group of people either just because they're the ones complaining. Years from now (or sooner) you'll have another bunch start whining about the same thing and do it all over again. Illegal aliens are at it now. They're effectively citizens. They function like them, work like them, live like them, etc., just like a same-sex partner is a spouse, so they argue what the difference really is and we start having to redefine "citizen". Despite being defined clearly, it's still questioned. So no, I don't buy the argument that the problem is an unclear definition. We're talking about fringe groups asking for special recognition under the guise of civil/human rights. Maybe had we not already had a genuine civil rights movement...

At the end of the day, we've got 3 choices--band aid for gays, make civil unions/marriage encompassing of any desired relationship, or simply keep the traditional man-woman marriage as is. Personally, I don't have a problem with the last option.



The problem should not be resovled with a band-aid, nor should we ever consider another "separate but equal" approach, so there has to be some variation on the second option. Just like when interacial marriage was illegal in many states, but not all, we had a position where there was discrimination. That should be a lesson learned in this case and the solution should not be as hard to apply.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:15 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
The problem should not be resovled with a band-aid, nor should we ever consider another "separate but equal" approach, so there has to be some variation on the second option. Just like when interacial marriage was illegal in many states, but not all, we had a position where there was discrimination. That should be a lesson learned in this case and the solution should not be as hard to apply.


Yes, it's just like you describe. However there was much more to the issue than simply marriage, like where you sat, where you went to church, which water fountain you used, if you voted...if you even registered to vote., who you looked at the wrong way, etc. The dresssing room arrangement really throws me with regard to homosexualism. Marriage or not, we need seperate bath/locker rooms for gay males and lesbian females. If a gay guy is permitted to shower with other presumably heterosexual guys, then I should be allowed to do so with other women (lesbian or not, I don't care). :twisted:

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:34 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20474
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
The problem should not be resovled with a band-aid, nor should we ever consider another "separate but equal" approach, so there has to be some variation on the second option. Just like when interacial marriage was illegal in many states, but not all, we had a position where there was discrimination. That should be a lesson learned in this case and the solution should not be as hard to apply.


Yes, it's just like you describe. However there was much more to the issue than simply marriage, like where you sat, where you went to church, which water fountain you used, if you voted...if you even registered to vote., who you looked at the wrong way, etc.


Yes, but the fact your marriage was not recognized in some states created a larger issue than whether you had to eat at a different counter or drink from a different fountain. The marriage was a criminal act in some states, many of which would take the same approach with homosexuals if allowed. The fact certain citizens are being discriminated against shouold be more of a problem than it is, which scares me a little in thinking how easy it would be to start loosing freedoms to the new theocracy being created.

The US Supreme Court did not strike the laws until 1967 and the last state to amend its constitution to remove the separation clauses was Alabama in 2000 by a relatively slim margin, 59%.

The dresssing room arrangement really throws me with regard to homosexualism. Marriage or not, we need seperate bath/locker rooms for gay males and lesbian females. If a gay guy is permitted to shower with other presumably heterosexual guys, then I should be allowed to do so with other women (lesbian or not, I don't care). :twisted:

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group