The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[FoolKiller]

Gay marriage aside for a moment, you can't escape the fact that if being married qualifies you for certain government benefits that you don't get while single, then it certainly is the government's business to ensure that people aren't scamming the system to gain an advantage.

This would be government being involved in marriage. You can allow legal documents that can grant the same privileges to any two consenting adults, making it fall under contract law.

The issue is that two long-term roommates rely on each other financial as much as a married couple, but they have no legal benefits because they are just two good friends under the same rough. Now we discriminate against single people.

And yes, it is discrimination. We provide benefits for being married and having children. Government involvement in marriage is purely to encourage a lifestyle deemed to be good in society some 100 years ago.

Remove this government endorsement of marriage and you can solve a lot of problems.

Personally, as a married man, the legal marriage certificate means jack all to me other than just another way for my county to charge me $20. I said my vows an hour before I signed that certificate. I was married at the ceremony, not when I turned in my signed marriage certificate.

To say marriage is determined by the state is to diminish what marriage really is. Currently you must pay some public official if you want to get eloped. Why? Why can't two people declare themselves married, sign contracts that allow shared wealth and family medical benefits, and live their life together?

Gay marriage is a whole different thing IMO, more of a human rights issue, because once it's accepted as a natural human right for any two or more humans to form a legal union, then the marriage part comes as a natural extension of that. IMO anyway.

But two people of any kind could, via contracts, form a legal union now. Just not the one defined as marriage by the government. Marriage is so much more than a legal union. The state has no say in that matter.

Simply put, a few forms printed off a Web site and notarized when signed could provide all the legal rights you think the state should be in charge of.

 

[Johnnypenso]

This would be government being involved in marriage. You can allow legal documents that can grant the same privileges to any two consenting adults, making it fall under contract law.

The issue is that two long-term roommates rely on each other financial as much as a married couple, but they have no legal benefits because they are just two good friends under the same rough. Now we discriminate against single people.

And yes, it is discrimination. We provide benefits for being married and having children. Government involvement in marriage is purely to encourage a lifestyle deemed to be good in society some 100 years ago.

Remove this government endorsement of marriage and you can solve a lot of problems.

Personally, as a married man, the legal marriage certificate means jack all to me other than just another way for my county to charge me $20. I said my vows an hour before I signed that certificate. I was married at the ceremony, not when I turned in my signed marriage certificate.

To say marriage is determined by the state is to diminish what marriage really is. Currently you must pay some public official if you want to get eloped. Why? Why can't two people declare themselves married, sign contracts that allow shared wealth and family medical benefits, and live their life together?


But two people of any kind could, via contracts, form a legal union now. Just not the one defined as marriage by the government. Marriage is so much more than a legal union. The state has no say in that matter.

Simply put, a few forms printed off a Web site and notarized when signed could provide all the legal rights you think the state should be in charge of.

All contracts have to be witnessed and signed without duress to be legal no? The act of obtaining a marriage license provides the witness and the appearance of agreement between the parties. IMO if you're going to expect special government treatment afforded to married couples in terms of tax breaks/credits, pensions etc., it's not too much to ask to go through a formal registration process to formally identify the parties to the contract. On the other hand if you don't want to lay claim to any additional benefits, do as you please.

 

[FoolKiller]

All contracts have to be witnessed and signed without duress to be legal no?

Yes, and can have zero government interference so long as it doesn't break any other laws.

The act of obtaining a marriage license provides the witness and the appearance of agreement between the parties. IMO if you're going to expect special government treatment afforded to married couples in terms of tax breaks/credits, pensions etc., it's not too much to ask to go through a formal registration process to formally identify the parties to the contract.

I may not have made myself clear. There should be NO tax breaks or credits for married people. It discriminates against non-married people.

As for anything else, such as social security and retirement, your beneficiaries are declared long before you die. In fact, estate law does not require a will to be witnessed by the state until it is being executed upon death. Same for living wills and medical surrogates. There is no need for the state to have previous knowledge of your personal life to know who receives your benefits or has legal powers when you are incapacitated.

And when you give the state power to be the authority in forming a marriage you give them the power to say who can't be married. Like it or not, every marriage certificate is a request for approval of marriage. Until that is abolished they will always have the power to discriminate.

But if you feel that government must be involved (almost always a bad idea IMO) then you declare the next time you fill out tax forms or any of the other numerous things the government requires you to fill out paperwork to give them money. It is just a legal declaration of your new situation. Nothing they can have any say in.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yes, and can have zero government interference so long as it doesn't break any other laws.


I may not have made myself clear. There should be NO tax breaks or credits for married people. It discriminates against non-married people.

As for anything else, such as social security and retirement, your beneficiaries are declared long before you die. In fact, estate law does not require a will to be witnessed by the state until it is being executed upon death. Same for living wills and medical surrogates. There is no need for the state to have previous knowledge of your personal life to know who receives your benefits or has legal powers when you are incapacitated.

And when you give the state power to be the authority in forming a marriage you give them the power to say who can't be married. Like it or not, every marriage certificate is a request for approval of marriage. Until that is abolished they will always have the power to discriminate.

But if you feel that government must be involved (almost always a bad idea IMO) then you declare the next time you fill out tax forms or any of the other numerous things the government requires you to fill out paperwork to give them money. It is just a legal declaration of your new situation. Nothing they can have any say in.

As I said, take away the tax breaks and incentives to be married and I could care less who is married and who isn't at that point. But that's not reality is it? The tax breaks and incentives aren't going anywhere and never will, the political will will never be there for that, and so we're left with the system we have. To me it's the same argument with helmet laws on bicycles and motorcycles here in Canada. You are required to wear one on both a motorcycle and a bicycle. I personally don't care if you wear a helmet or not, if you want to add risk of death or injury to your experience go for it. Just don't show up at the entirely tax funded hospital or doctor when you get hurt and expect my taxes to fix your stupid head if you fall off of your bike and bounce your noggin off a curb. Since that isn't an option, we are all forced to wear helmets whether we want to or not.

If you want the government benefits, you have to play by the government's rules.

 

[FoolKiller]

As I said, take away the tax breaks and incentives to be married and I could care less who is married and who isn't at that point. But that's not reality is it?

Which would be the point of me saying that I think it should be different. No new ideas or changes would occur if every proposal was met with, "But that's not reality is it?"

"African Americans should be full citizens."
"Well, you'd have to not have slavery,but that's not reality is it?"

The tax breaks and incentives aren't going anywhere and never will, the political will will never be there for that, and so we're left with the system we have. To me it's the same argument with helmet laws on bicycles and motorcycles here in Canada. You are required to wear one on both a motorcycle and a bicycle. I personally don't care if you wear a helmet or not, if you want to add risk of death or injury to your experience go for it. Just don't show up at the entirely tax funded hospital or doctor when you get hurt and expect my taxes to fix your stupid head if you fall off of your bike and bounce your noggin off a curb. Since that isn't an option, we are all forced to wear helmets whether we want to or not.

Helmet laws. Nice example to show that change can happen. Kentucky repealed helmet laws in 1998, if you have medical insurance.

If you want the government benefits, you have to play by the government's rules.

Yes, as government wants to use to be involved it must be equal.

Unfortunately, marriage benefits are an incentive to help shape society. You want benefits you need to meet the government's view of what society is. Sometimes that might include saying who can be married. And that is the power you give government, to discriminate so long as a majority of the citizens agree.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Which would be the point of me saying that I think it should be different. No new ideas or changes would occur if every proposal was met with, "But that's not reality is it?"

"African Americans should be full citizens."
"Well, you'd have to not have slavery,but that's not reality is it?"


Helmet laws. Nice example to show that change can happen. Kentucky repealed helmet laws in 1998, if you have medical insurance.


Yes, as government wants to use to be involved it must be equal.

Unfortunately, marriage benefits are an incentive to help shape society. You want benefits you need to meet the government's view of what society is. Sometimes that might include saying who can be married. And that is the power you give government, to discriminate so long as a majority of the citizens agree.

The Kentucky example is not relevant to me. We don't have private hospitals, they are all publicly funded. So if you fall off your motorcycle and you have to go to a hospital, I pay for it. You'd actually have to create more government regulation to allow a citizen the option of private insurance to exempt themselves from helmet laws and that's what you're trying to avoid isn't it? The slavery angle is cute but also not relevant.

Anyway, I'm back to the same point. Take out the government incentives and then I don't care what anyone does. If you want to line up to collect your benefits and tax incentives, then you have to register, pay your fee and make it all nice and legal like and let us have a look at your papers so we know you aren't marrying your sister just get a shot at her pension when she kicks off in a few years.

 

[Rich S]

I don't think that any government anywhere should be involved in any marriages being legal or illegal. It's none of their gorram business.

And the Kentucky case started as a case where they refused to recognize marriages in other states. That does fall under equal protection. If I go across the river to a casino my state officials can't arrest me for illegal gambling and confiscate my winnings when I come home. Kentucky should not be able to revoke marriage status just because you are in the state.

An important point about this case is that you will not see Kentucky's attorney general involved. After they lost their last ruling he refused to defend the state any longer on this case. He claims it's because he refuses to defend discrimination, but he defended it up until a year ago. My guess is that he doesn't want to be the guy to lose this case and be seen as a failed AG, as this is the highest profile case he has ever worked on. It could be that he is seeking higher political office (his name is rumored for a gubernatorial run) but he already defended the case and that will stick to him in a primary.

Yeah I suppose it can be interpreted as meddling in other state's affairs but equal protection of the laws in theory is given to gays even though their sexual preferences are banned in those states, they still have the right to have heterosexual relations as the anti gay likes to say. Anyways the equal protections is very vague and argued over alot and I'll add didn't change much as much of the South stayed the same for many years.... If only the weimar republic would have passed an equal protections clause.

I will say that I think any state or culture that opposes gays, or other sexual minorities the most vehemently at this point in time also tend to be the poorest, crappiest, most useless throwaway cultures with the exception of maybe Singapore which is based on old British law...

Hey I got the 6,666 reply I think! 6667th post though.

 

[FoolKiller]

The Kentucky example is not relevant to me.

Considering the gay marriage debate and relevant court case that started this conversation are in the US it is far more relevant than Canada.

 

[Ken]

So I have a bit of pissed off rant. Quick back story for those not in the now. My father is transgender and bisexual. He was been such since I was 17. He also has three young kids, ages 15 and two 11 year olds. He has the kiddos in a Christian school. Kids he can't pick up anymore. Why? Because a parent complained that a "he-she" is a parent. Great! I guess Christians don't believe in "judge not. ....". Needless to say, I'm 🤬 pissed.

 

[FoolKiller]

I guess Christians don't believe in "judge not. ....".

My biggest issue with current Christianity, and a good part of the reason why I don't attend church services very often. It is not very Christ-like, and the last thing I want when in a place of worship is a political speech.

It is one thing to believe it is a sin. It is another thing to be rude about it in various ways.

In this particular case, I am guessing this school is a private school, so they can kind of make their own rules. If it is an option, I would suggest looking at other schools.


The strange bit here is that the person they see as a heathen and sexual deviant is sending their kids to a Christian school and is allowing them to receive a religious education, and the school's response is to ban the parent from the premises. Clearly your dad isn't raising them in an anti-religious environment. They can choose to encourage that or punish the kids for not agreeing with who their parent is.

 

[Daniel]

VICE two-part series on Gay Conversion Therapy. (Language warning)

It's cringe-inducing. "So the beanstalk is mean to represent a penis?"

 

[Imari]

VICE two-part series on Gay Conversion Therapy. (Language warning)

It's cringe-inducing. "So the beanstalk is mean to represent a penis?"

I got as far as the bit where the guy explains that they're not really interested in reforming people who are happy to be gay, they're just there to provide support to gay men who want to be able to suppress or minimise their gayness.

I have no problem with that.

I strongly object to the camps that parents send their kids to in order to de-gay them, that stuff is just messed up. Anything where someone is pressured to go against their will isn't right. But for adult men who have made a decision that they want to change something about themselves, I don't see anything wrong with that. People pay money to learn Reiki and dowsing and all sorts of entirely useless things, and if some men want to pay money to try and learn how to be less gay because they think it'll make them happy, then best of luck to them.

Maybe it gets into something more objectionable later on in the video, but all I saw was a group of people doing something that they thought would make their lives better. And it well might, because it's less about what they do and more about the fact that they're taking action and trying to make themselves into what they want to be. I respect that.

 

[Carbonox]

He's cute when he's mad, tee hee.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...execute_all_gay_people_by_bullets_to_the_head

 

[Jet Badger]

"Every offender will be fined $1 million per occurence, and/or imprisoned for up to 10 years"

Is that before or after they're shot dead?

 

[Aki Ko]

He's cute when he's mad, tee hee.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...execute_all_gay_people_by_bullets_to_the_head

It would be very scary if it gets even a fourth of the votes required by others...

People are ridiculous.

 

[squadops]

"Every offender will be fined $1 million per occurence, and/or imprisoned for up to 10 years"

Is that before or after they're shot dead?

It's a proposed punishment only for propaganda distribution. Still ridiculous.

It would be very scary if it gets even a fourth of the votes required by others...

People are ridiculous.

It won't.

____

At least he isn't taking maters into his own hands as some others are

 

[Rich S]

It would be very scary if it gets even a fourth of the votes required by others...

People are ridiculous.

He might get 10%. Support towards gay rights now though is through the roof when you compare it to past rights issues, like inter-racial marriage and non-arranged relationships. I dont know how accurate this is but when you leave minority issues up for a vote it almost always goes against the minority so its remarkable the support gays have, its really HUGE. There's been no movement towards change that has had as much support as gay marriage. SSM has 50% support in the USA, or even higher, 54% in some polls. For a minority issue this is like a super typhoon of support. This just doesn't happen in history. The Anti gay people I think rested on the fact that minorities are always unpopular this poll shows that:

I think the libertarians are right on this issue, it is primarily one of economics as rich countries have gay rights and poor countries do not and the same holds true in the USA where poor states wish not to have any rights for gays and rich states do with some exceptions where Oil is big business. Switzerland legalized gays during WWII 61 years before America did which is curious, I'm not sure what is behind that but nobody really seems to have gotten to the bottom of it. The NAZI's themselves were against gays, they got rid of the gay brown shirts and replaced them with the SS and made a national spectacle of it although its doubtful all the SA guys were gay, it was likely a political character assassination to justify the power shift.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Just when the straight folks are starting to get comfortable with gay marriage, along comes gay polygamy to mix things up a bit.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...ree-way-gay-marriage-takes-place-in-thailand/

 

[Liquid]

I have no problems with polygamy as long as there is no deception involved.

 

[DK]

Just imagine how messy polygamists' divorces might be.

 

[TheCracker]

I think the libertarians are right on this issue, it is primarily one of economics as rich countries have gay rights and poor countries do not and the same holds true in the USA where poor states wish not to have any rights for gays and rich states do with some exceptions where Oil is big business. Switzerland legalized gays during WWII 61 years before America did which is curious, I'm not sure what is behind that but nobody really seems to have gotten to the bottom of it. The NAZI's themselves were against gays, they got rid of the gay brown shirts and replaced them with the SS and made a national spectacle of it although its doubtful all the SA guys were gay, it was likely a political character assassination to justify the power shift.

I think the economics lean on this is largely coincidental. Gay rights have a higher approval rating in countries or states where religion is less of a factor. Although it is no coincidence that religion keeps a better foot-hold in countries/states where the general population is less wealthy.

 

[Imari]

I have no problems with polygamy as long as there is no deception involved.

It always struck me as one of those things that is illegal for no particularly good reason.

 

[Liquid]

It always struck me as one of those things that is illegal for no particularly good reason.

I always thought the stigma attached to it was because the most common scenario people imagine is Partner A cheating on Partner B with Partner C. Deception. Which is wrong but morally, not legally.

But the scenario of "Well I love you both, why don't all three of us be happy together?" doesn't appear in the national consciousness as often as it perhaps ought to be, whether you are comfortable or perplexed with the scenario or not.

 

[Lizard]

It always struck me as one of those things that is illegal for no particularly good reason.

Because law follows societies norms and values. Not morality.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It always struck me as one of those things that is illegal for no particularly good reason.

It'll be interesting to see how the family law plays out in this area, especially concerning child support and alimony. If I am the second husband for example, the first husband impregnates our wife and she has a baby, do I pay child support if I divorce them? Would I pay less child support or the same as I would pay as the biological father? Is child support even necessary given that they are still a family unit? What if there are two husbands and we both divorce the wife, how do we work out visitation? Joint custody? If it's joint custody is it split 1/2 and 1/3 or 1/3, 2/3 given there are 2 of them and only 1 of me? If there's a divorce, am I divorcing both the husband and wife and if so, am I entitled to alimony from both or are they considered a single unit because they are married? Can I divorce only one of them? Can I be married to 2 different women at the same time, but they aren't married to each other? How do we divide up the property?

💡

 

[niky]

There are pitfalls to polygamy and communal marriages... and it's sometimes easy for partners to take advantage of the weak-willed.

Then again... this is also true of monogamous marriages... so that's not a black-and-white situation.

I'm not against polygamous civil marriage contracts, but the legal framework would be a right pain.

 

[Rich S]

I think the economics lean on this is largely coincidental. Gay rights have a higher approval rating in countries or states where religion is less of a factor. Although it is no coincidence that religion keeps a better foot-hold in countries/states where the general population is less wealthy.

Rich countries do have a strong religious presence, just not religious political influence necessarily. I don't believe Switzerland has any separation between church/state. They are more secular but I feel that's primarily due to wealth. I think Wealth has a snow ball effect on science & knowledge. Minorities tend to take the brunt of anger during periods of strife as knowledge takes a back seat to survival. Most christians in the USA support the gays now.

Russia I feel is not "anti gay" because of religion but lack of wealth and high corruption. They were not so 'anti gay' before the 2008-09 recession. I use that in quotes because I can think of plenty of worse places to live than Russia.

 

[Danny]

So this is pretty cool.

 

[Epic B]

So this is a thing. Some attorney wants to legalize the murder of homosexuals in California. Some people want him disbarred. I'm okay with this I wonder how something like this got any traction at all. How did this even get past the initial approval stage? I'm not entirely familiar with the legal system, but I'm sure at least one person thought this was a terrible idea. All I can ask are "how" and "why".

 

[squadops]

So this is a thing. Some attorney wants to legalize the murder of homosexuals in California. Some people want him disbarred. I'm okay with this I wonder how something like this got any traction at all. How did this even get past the initial approval stage? I'm not entirely familiar with the legal system, but I'm sure at least one person thought this was a terrible idea. All I can ask are "how" and "why".

It's been discussed just a few posts above yours.

He's cute when he's mad, tee hee.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...execute_all_gay_people_by_bullets_to_the_head

How many people do you think would sign on to see it get to the ballot box?