|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
Hmm.... let me ask the forum this:
How do you feel about public nudity? Certainly, we could and should categorize those who are members of nudist camps as a minority. However, we are enforcing our morals and values on them by requiring them to wear clothes in public. It would not harm me any more to see a nudist practicing their philosophy than it would to allow gay marriage, but I am against both because I believe both to be detrimental to a society based upon family cohesion. We, as a society, hold to certain values. Any and every law could be considered discrimination if we want to take it to ridiculous levels. However, I don't think we want to take it there. I think we, as a society, have every right to have our voice heard by popular vote as to what we do and do not find acceptable. The people have spoken.
With respect Sandman, I believe your analogy is flawed. If the right to be naked in public was enjoyed by all citizens, except a minority of them - then that minority could possibly claim discrimination.
If the rule, right or law is universal, ie: no exceptions, then there is no minority to consider in the application of that rule, right or law. I believe this would be the case in your scenario.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Actually there are very very few laws regarding public nudity except in cases where it'd done to harm someone such as exposing one's self to children. In areas where there are nude beaches for example there is no exemption from the law for them, they are just places that are 'understood' to be places where those of us who do not want to experience it should not go.
We as a culture have accepted that public nudity is generally not to be practiced, and we often get up in arms when it is, however it is rarely a technically illegal practice unless a prosecutor can prove it was done, or could be construed as being done, with the lewd intent of harming someone.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 772
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 772 |
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
Originally posted by DrGonzo:
FWIW, I have no problem with civil unions. I see "marriage" more as a cultural religious act. Perhaps we need civil unions for hetero's as well.
Originally posted by Sandman333:
Just to be clear, I pretty much agree with Jato on this one. Call it whatever you want. Allow them their equal rights. But do NOT, under any circumstances, allow them to invade and defile the institution of marriage.
No offense to the authors here â?¦ but I found the first quote on page 40, and the second on page 42 of this thread. Now I know that I and others have mentioned this a number of times before â?¦ but here goes.
There currently does not exist any other legal term for what most of us here agree should be called â??civil unionâ?, except for the word â??marriage.â? You cannot go to city hall and apply for a civil union license â??? it simply doesnâ??t exist.
To DrGonzo's point, civil unions do certainly already exist for heteros â??? thousands of civil ceremonies in city halls across the nation every day attest to that fact â??? not to mention casinos, ships and God knows where else. (Sorry, couldnâ??t help myself.)
But, and here it is again, our civil authorities and every statute concerning the issue, insist on calling it â??marriageâ? even when no church or religion is involved. And there is a significant history and heritage to this definitiion of marriage, as there is with the religious one.
And to Sandmanâ??s point, I think you are at the point where most informed citizens are about this issue right now; at least those who are trying to reconcile the civil rights issues with their religious beliefs. And thatâ??s where I have a big problem with the amendments.
They have the effect of forcing the religious definition of â??marriageâ? onto the not-so-similar meaning and intent of the civil definition of â??marriageâ? which really should be called â??civil unionâ? for everybody, IMO.
Moreover, to further exacerbate the debate, many amendments also made civil unions illegal â??? and that to me is the wedge thatâ??s going to crack this whole thing open in the courts.
I guess you didn't get my point...and you contradicted yourself in paragraphs 2 and 3 of your post (but I'm just picking there.  )
I believe the government should have nothing to do with marriage. I believe it is a social, cultural, and/or religious institution. The very fact that government allows a minister to administer the LEGAL act of marriage is an endorsement of religion.
We seem to agree...the legal recognition should be called a "civil union" for everybody. Let people have whatever the hell kind of ceremony they want to acknowledge their relationship and commitment.
Yes, the adm.'s that made civil union illegal are going to be a problem. The possibly of compromise on the issue disappeared because the side seeking change was not seeking compromise. Both sides have framed the arguement as absolutes. That is a mistake.
And you read my comment 40 pages into the thread because I have a life and didn't have time to read every damn post.
former owner, 95 SE MTX
02 Ford Explorer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228 |
Depends on your point of view. The right to marry heterosexually is available to all, gays included.
The right to go out in public is available to all, so long as you are not indecently exposed.
We hold that the values of modesty (non-nudist) and heterosexual marriage are acceptable. Counter culture on these issues is not acceptable in our society. It may be in other societies, but not in ours.
95 Contour SE ATX V6- SOLD
2001.5 VW Passat GLX V6 Tiptronic
2004 Honda VTX 1800N1
There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
Originally posted by DrGonzo:
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
There currently does not exist any other legal term for what most of us here agree should be called â??civil unionâ?, except for the word â??marriage.â? You cannot go to city hall and apply for a civil union license â??? it simply doesnâ??t exist.
To DrGonzo's point, civil unions do certainly already exist for heteros â??? thousands of civil ceremonies in city halls across the nation every day attest to that fact â??? not to mention casinos, ships and God knows where else. (Sorry, couldnâ??t help myself.)
But, and here it is again, our civil authorities and every statute concerning the issue, insist on calling it â??marriageâ? even when no church or religion is involved. And there is a significant history and heritage to this definitiion of marriage, as there is with the religious one.
/quote]
I guess you didn't get my point...and you contradicted yourself in paragraphs 2 and 3 of your post (but I'm just picking there. )
Sorry I missed your point, I'll re-read. And yeah, I can see how my statement appears contradictory - a failure of language, not logic, however. What I meant to say in paragraph three is - civil unions exist in the sense that many marriages are currently performed that have no religious affiliation; and therefore are true to the definition of "civil union." These unions however are forced to be called "marriage" because that is currently the only legal term available to be used.
Originally posted by DrGonzo:
I believe the government should have nothing to do with marriage. I believe it is a social, cultural, and/or religious institution. The very fact that government allows a minister to administer the LEGAL act of marriage is an endorsement of religion.
I agree with your first statement ... for there to be true separation of church and state, your second point would have to change IMO.
Originally posted by DrGonzo:
And you read my comment 40 pages into the thread because I have a life and didn't have time to read every damn post.
I'll ignore in good humor the implication that I don't, but reading everything is an occupational hazard for me.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
Originally posted by Sandman333:
Depends on your point of view. The right to marry heterosexually is available to all, gays included.
This is a really good point and for myself one of the most difficult to reconcile with my own beliefs.
The conclusion I hold to so far, is that the qualification dictated by the term "heterosexually" is in itself discriminatory.
In other words, that statement should hold true without qualification whatsoever.
Consider how your statement is different than saying "the right to marry is available to all, gays included." The difference is in the qualifying word which has the effect of exclusion.
For a rule to be truly non-discriminatory, it should be applicable without qualification; ie: you shouldn't have to qualify for a right.
The effect of the qualification is to exclude a minority and is therefore discriminatory, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Wow..43 pages. You guys have this figured out yet?
For my 0.02, this is not an issue of banning anything, it is about changing a definition, a longstanding and very emotional one. Civil unions or whatever you call them can potentially have whatever benifits you want to include..up to every legal perk that relates to marriage. It can be called whatever, "union", "coupling," "joining", plenty of pleasant terms..except the name marriage. Gay unions are the same and yet different than marriage.
Black is not dark grey, yet both are colors and one is not intrinsically better than another. They are close but a little different. Shall we call them the same?
Frankly, it is not a big deal to me what it is called. I do not really want to change the constitution for this (and seriously doubt it will happen). But I personnally think it is odd that the focus is NOT about simply keeping the institutional benifits comparable, making sure that whatever name is selected..it is a respected entity, and LESS on the name itself.
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Quote:
Depends on your point of view. The right to marry heterosexually is available to all, gays included.
Why should you even have to qualify the statement with "heterosexually". Shouldn't the statement be "The right to marry is available to all"?
Marriage shouldn't have any qualifications besides being able to enter into a legally binding contract -- i.e. not a minor.
Adding the qualification "heterosexually" is no different than me saying "The right to marry intra-racially is available to all, so why are you complaining you can't marry that black woman. Just go find you a white girl and stop complaining."
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 772
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 772 |
No implication at all. But damn these threads get looooong.
I knew what you meant. Again, just picking.
The law uses the term marriage because, frankly, the law assumes everyone knows what it meant by that term, i.e between a man and a woman. You can bet an explanation would have been written into law otherwise. And that is why there is an attempt to make legal such definition.
Again, we seem to agree on the issue.
former owner, 95 SE MTX
02 Ford Explorer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
Wow..43 pages. You guys have this figured out yet?
For my 0.02, this is not an issue of banning anything, it is about changing a definition, a longstanding and very emotional one. Civil unions or whatever you call them can potentially have whatever benifits you want to include..up to every legal perk that relates to marriage. It can be called whatever, "union", "coupling," "joining", plenty of pleasant terms..except the name marriage. Gay unions are the same and yet different than marriage.
Black is not dark grey, yet both are colors and one is not intrinsically better than another. They are close but a little different. Shall we call them the same?
Frankly, it is not a big deal to me what it is called. I do not really want to change the constitution for this (and seriously doubt it will happen). But I personnally think it is odd that the focus is NOT about simply keeping the institutional benifits comparable, making sure that whatever name is selected..it is a respected entity, and LESS on the name itself.
If I understand you correctly, I actually think you've got it figured out.
1) Institute a form of union called "civil union," available to all without qualification; with essentially the same benefits of the union now known as "marriage."
2) Let religious groups sanctify a union as they see fit, according to their principles, to be known as "marriage" but with no associated civil rights or obligations.
3) Let civil institutions administer the requirements for licensing, as in a "civil union" license, but get out of the business of issuing "marriage licenses."
4) Repeal any amendments banning "civil unions."
5) Amend the constituion to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
I think that about does it.
|
|
|
|
|
