Archive for Thursday, August 2, 2007

Gay couples celebrate registration

August 2, 2007

Advertisement

Over a dozen couples take advantage of new registry

A landmark day in Lawrence, as the city launches the state's first legal recognition for same-sex couples. A total of 14 gay and heterosexual couples have logged on and applied to Kansas' only domestic partnership registry. Enlarge video

It wasn't exactly a walk down the aisle, but couples who registered as domestic partners at Lawrence City Hall on Wednesday found cause for celebration.

"It's not marriage, but we're getting there," said Teri Herberger, who's been with her partner, Angela Richmond, for three years.

Both dressed in white blouses, and Richmond donned a white hat, as the two typed their names in a computer set up for the first day of the registry. They provided proof they live together and paid the $75 fee. After clicking "submit," a crowd of about two dozen people cheered.

"We knew that it would be special for people and wanted it to feel celebratory," said Lori Messinger, an organizer of Wednesday's kick-off event.

According to City Clerk Frank Reeb, the first application to the city's new domestic partnership registry came in at 7:31 a.m. By 5 p.m., 14 couples had logged onto lawrenceks.org and applied to become among the first legally recognized same-sex couples in Kansas.

"We fought, and we worked for this day, so it's only natural we'd be here for the ribbon-cutting, for the opening of the registry," said Stephen Maceli, a Lawrence business owner who has supported the registry since the idea first started late last year.

With his partner, John P. Connolly, Maceli registered Wednesday at City Hall. "I think we would marry for the benefits you get when you get married. With this we get no benefits, but it is public recognition, which is pretty important," Connolly said.

Lawrence's registry is open to people who can't marry in the state of Kansas as well as those who choose not to, such as Janet Horner and Michael Eravi, a Lawrence couple of four years.

"We're committed to each other. That's what matters, not going through a marriage ceremony," Horner said. "But we're happy to declare ourselves to the world as being domestic partners, and it should be something that everybody has the ability to do."

"With or without that registry, we're still a couple," Eravi said. "The registry provides us the opportunity to prove that we're a couple. That's all it is."

Horner said she had to provide a list of documents, such as proof that she shared bank accounts, tax returns and property with Eravi, when she tried to add him to her employer's health insurance plan.

"Those are the things that you need to do when you're not married, and it's offensive to me that married people don't have to do that," Horner said. "If it (the registry) had been in place already, then I would have been able to use that as proof of our relationship."

Approved applicants will receive a certificate and two laminated cards in the mail, but they won't get any additional legal rights. Some employers may recognize the registry as proof of a domestic partnership and extend benefits, such as health insurance, to their employees' partners.

No one at Wednesday's event had to brave picket lines in front of City Hall, but organizers with the Kansas Equality Coalition requested Lawrence police be present during the event.

"I think what that means is while people may disagree, they're not disagreeable about it. That's very comforting," said Mayor Sue Hack at the event.

However, the absence of protesters doesn't mean the registry is without opposition.

"I probably wouldn't have picketed, but I may have stood outside to pray," said the Rev. John McFarland, a pastor with the Christ Covenant Church and member of the Lawrence Association of Evangelicals.

McFarland spoke against the registry when the City Commission approved it in May. He believes its approval makes society view marriage less seriously.

"There's a difference between what's legal and what's right. I think that's outside what they should be doing," he said.

Most couples who registered thanked city leaders for approving it. Hack, who voted for the registry, said: "I think we're saying that we're a welcoming and open and diverse community, and I think we're a community that recognizes families come in a lot of different forms. I'm proud to be a member of a commission that recognized that."

Comments

kansasfire911 8 years ago

One more reason to move from Lawrence.

bige1030 8 years ago

I wonder how the church leaders can even think this makes society view marriage less seriously...it's not as if society views marriage seriously in the first place, anyway. I mean, look at the divorce rate! And look at many celebrities...especially Britney Spears who had a marriage that lasted two days!

Veritas 8 years ago

I grew up attending a church that was led by a pastor who committed adultery. So it's my experience that even religious leaders can't take a marriage seriously.

Nate Poell 8 years ago

I know a few of the folks pictured in yesterday's and today's article(s). It makes me glad to see them happy. Cheers to Teri and Angela!

fletch 8 years ago

"I think we're saying that we're a welcoming and open and diverse community, and I think we're a community that recognizes families come in a lot of different forms. I'm proud to be a member of a commission that recognized that." - Sue Hack

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

Satirical 8 years ago

I just read that the domestic partnership registry is only allowed for TWO individuals. How dare they! I thought the city wanted to be progressive, but it still chooses to discriminate against people who are in favor of bigamy, polygamy, and group marriage/recognized relationships.

The city can't define how 13 adults love each other. People in poly-relationships want to be happy too, and will not be happy until recognized by paying $75 to have their names on a registry with absolutely no legal significance, and having their pictures on the front page of the LJ-Wolrd. You are a bigot hater if you disagree with my opinion or don't think its socially acceptable for a picture of groups of people kissing to be on the front-page of the paper, open to be seen even accidentally by anyone. Bigoted!

In fact, how dare the government define any relationship, it has no right! If someone loves their pets, or furniture, who is the government to discriminate or say that is not true love. Discrimination is wrong and should NEVER be allowed!

P.S. Definition of a bigot from Dictionary.com - a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 8 years ago

Many have been in love with a toaster, FT. They all got burned. I hope this doesn't happen to you, but it's almost inevitable. Whatever you do, DON'T use metal implements when y'all "interact"!

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

"The city can't define how 13 adults love each other."

Indeed, nor can any government.

However, the city and government do recognize marriage between two individuals and grant benefits to those individuals.

Denying these same benefits to some, because of sexual orientation or simply not choosing to marry, is unconstitutional and goes against the equal protection under the law guaranteed in the Constitution.

Please show me how the state of Utah grants marriage benefits to more than two people in a polygamist marriage. It doesn't.

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

"In fact, how dare the government define any relationship, it has no right!"

You have a point here. I personally think that the government should be neutral toward marriage of any kind, and married people should get no special rights and benefits. Leave marriage to religious or social institutions.

Tychoman 8 years ago

Congratulations to all the happy couples--gay AND straight!

Baille 8 years ago

I tell my kids that they love each other. Of course I am trying to raise children who don't grow into bigots.

i_have_only_valid_opinions 8 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

jehovah_bob 8 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Jake Esau 8 years ago

As a gay man in Lawrence, I'm very glad to see this happening. This is a very good step in the right direction for Lawrence. Eventually people will get used to the fact that gay people can be and often are normal, caring, loving people just like anyone else.

Lets just hope the state is able to recognize that before it starts waving the constitution in front of us.

Tychoman 8 years ago

"What happens when my grandchildren see two homosexuals kissing in public? What do I tell them?"

It's easy, unless you're a bigot. You tell them that they love each other just like their own mommy and daddy. It's that simple.

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Satirical 8 years ago

yourworstnightmare... "Please show me how the state of Utah grants marriage benefits to more than two people in a polygamist marriage. It doesn't."

That doesn't make any sense.

Also, If "the city and government do recognize marriage between two individuals and grant benefits to those individuals" (quote from yourworstnightmare) and does not grant the same benefits to multiple individuals than by your (yourworstnightmare's) definition it would be in breach of the 14th amendment's due process clause of the U.S. Constitution, incorporated to the States. "Denying these same benefits to some, because of sexual orientation or simply not choosing to marry, is unconstitutional and goes against the equal protection under the law guaranteed in the Constitution." (quote from yourworstnightmare) Because denying these same benefits to some, because of their sexual orientation to group marriage, or preference for such would also be unconstitutional.

institches 8 years ago

I have a question. The City of Lawrence has issued cards as part of this registry. What do the registry/cards mean, exactly? Do the registry cards mean that businesses summarily agree with the registry and allow the partner to be covered with their insurance, will any hospital recognize the registry card so the partner can make those difficult decisions for emergency surgery, etc. - will they be recognized as " family"? Outside the city of Lawrence, what will the cards mean?

Satirical 8 years ago

There does not exist a legitimate logical argument of why two homosexual couples should be allowed to marry or have civil unions and group marriage/polygamy/bigamy should not. Any argument you try to give me would be discriminatory (P.S. some forms of which ARE allowed by the U.S. Constitution, read a U.S. Supreme Court case sometime).

Satirical 8 years ago

Words most overused and least understood by Kansas liberals......survey says!

Bigot.... 73.289% Discrimination....25.711% Other....2%

Total = 101%

Yabut 8 years ago

So what about bi-sexuals? Again, as in the poly situation, this is discrimination. Why can't someone marry both their male and female partner? After all, as has been justified before ....... "they love them". Satirical is right. If you alone one, you must allow all who are capable of making the choice. Otherwise the argument of discrimination against gays falls apart.

And is the city doing anything to check to see if those on the registry are already married ...... to somene else?

Baille 8 years ago

No. No. And no.

Some insurance policies will insure domestic partners - hetero or homo. It is simply a coverage offered. The registry allows people wanting to purchase to coverage establish that they are in fact the domestic partner of the primary insured.

That's it. The full force and scope of the domestic registry in Lawrence, KS.

Gay couples want to have any sort of say over their partners medical care, finances, or other important parts of life that married couples take for granted need to see an attorney and get a Durable Power of Attorney crafted for the individual situation, A DPOA for Healthcare Decisions, a DNR Order if necessary, and a living will. The property of the couple should also be catalogued, contracts written up to deal with teh disposition of teh property upon dissolutin of the partnership, and wills and trusts created to handle such property in the event one partner dies.

The registry does ABSOLUTELY nothing about any of this.

Baille 8 years ago

bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

No. Think I got it down. Bigot in this sense is one who is utterly intolerant of homosexuals. I think I am leaving out the word "ignorant," though. "Ignorant bigot" seems much more accurate. Thank you, sir.

calnvy 8 years ago

"summer's eve - Its the dependable douche"

Oh my lands... what will i tell my grandchildren??? Give me a break!! Your grandchildren have already seen it 5000 times on MTV.... Tell your grandchildren??? Im sure your grandchildren could teach you something.... Go back in your cave and dont come out until Jesus comes back to take you home!

calnvy 8 years ago

parkay - i prefer butter actually

I will gladly take your offer of the handbasket and sit by and watch you go by on your rocketsled.... watch for my wave... ill be sure to only use one finger so you can see it clearly at that speed... :)

Satirical 8 years ago

Baille I think you are confusing intolerance for non-approval.

It is not bigoted to not-approve of homosexuals. It is bigoted to hate, or physically attack homosexuals. It is also bigoted to call other people bigoted because they tolerate but choose no to accept the homosexual lifestyle, or liberal point of view. Because that would be "one who is strongly partial to one's own....politics and is intolerant to those who differ"

Also, one is not ignorant simply because they disagree with YOU. Or perhaps you were just ignorant of that fact.

calnvy 8 years ago

satirical.... those are all quite simple terms actually....

I think that the most over-used and abused word by Kansans and US citizens in general is Christian.... few people know what it truely means, but it seems everyone will freely call themselves one.

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

"There does not exist a legitimate logical argument of why two homosexual couples should be allowed to marry or have civil unions and group marriage/polygamy/bigamy should not."

I think you meant two homosexuals, not two homosexual couples.

Focus really hard, and put on your thinking cap here:

Polygamy is against the law. Polygamists receive no benefits akin to those of two married people.

However, a married couple does receive benefits from the government.

If polygamy was also so favored by the government, then homosexual polygamists should be eligible as well.

You are confusing the rite of marriage with government recognition of a civil union. Any church should be allowed to refuse to perform same-sex marriages as they see fit. However, the state cannot discriminate in cases of civil union. It is simply unconstitutional.

Baille 8 years ago

No I am not. People who choose to treat other people differently becuase of their orientation and refuse to offer them equal rights and privilegese are not accepting that class of people. There is absolutely no substantive difference between "intolerance" and "non-approval." Your argument is one of sematics not substance.

Bigot was both fair and accurate. However, if you would like to label me a bigot because I find people who champion discrimination based on sexual orientation to be ignorant bigots then I gladly and proudly accept the label.

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

You have two choices: 1) Provide marriage benefits to same-sex couples in civil unions.

2) Eliminate any benefits the government gives to married couples.

Anyhting short of these is discrimination against citizens whose rights are guaranteed in the Constitution.

ksdivakat 8 years ago

The thing about this registry is that just like the article said earlier from the insurance industry, its not gonna do what the gay community hopes its gonna do. The vast majority of people who will "recognize" the couple is the gay community itself. And no Im no bigot so dont start slinging off with that mess. My daughter happens to be a lesbian, but this is an attempt from the gay community to "force" the recognition of the relationship on everyone else. That is my problem with it. It comes with absolutely no legal rights, and as baile mentioned, it still gives them no legal rights when it comes to their partners healthcare. Look at the case of Terri Shivo, she was legally married, and STILL her family was able to keep him tied up in court for a very long time, ultimately he won but they were legally married. So imagine how hard the fight would be if it were a gay couple and one of them whipped out some little plastic card!! The courts would laugh them back out the door! Im not saying im against the registry, it doesnt affect me one way or another, what I am saying is that all this fuss and cuss mess has done nothing but make those who are bigotted even more against it, so nobody is winning here is my point! When can we all just sit down together like civilized people and allow whatever will be to be??

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

Here is the text of the 14th amendment.

AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

As a strict constructionist, it is impossible to deny that the amendment means that all citizens must be treated equally under the law.

This is the simplest explanation.

Any exceptions stink of constitutional liberalism and overinterpretation.

Godot 8 years ago

If the World Co. had established a video recording service of all gay-bi-lesbian-transgender relationship commitment rituals, and had it agreed to post the rituals in the paper and on-line editions, the city would have saved a bunch of money.

This really is not about benefits, is it? Public recognition is what this is all about, right?

Let us all have photos of people kissing, and names published in the paper, and all will be well.

This can be done without a municipal proclamation, and without subsequent lawsuits.

Satirical 8 years ago

yourworstnightmare....

Polygamist enjoy more benefits akin to those of two married people. In fact they enjoy more benefits than those in civil unions because the government recognizes they are married to one of their spouses.

The government is not forced by the DPC of the 14th amendment to recognize people married to more than one person as having the same rights as those married to a single person. The government also does not have to recognize and give the same rights to those who are married and to those who are in civil unions (which are not recognized by the State of Kansas) any more than they have to give these aforesaid rights to pen pals, best friends, or people with a driver's license.

If you allow the rights currently enjoyed by married couples to those in civil unions, according to your logic and interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, you would have to give those rights to anyone who wants them. Unless you are only allowing those who are allowed civil unions to be given those rights and not would-be polygamist, which is an arbitrary and pointless distinction, with no basis in reason.

Satirical 8 years ago

Baille

Your definition of Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ

I will use your argument to show anyone who does not accept NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) is a bigot.

I do not accept NAMBLA, therefore I am a bigot. I think it is morally wrong what they espouse, therefore I am a bigot.

There is a difference between intolerance and non-approval/non-acceptance. I tolerate NAMBLA to think thought, but not act on those thoughts (which are crminal). I in no way approve or accept what they believe.

Homosexuals have the exact same rights as I do, in fact they have more because if they get physically attacked they can claim it a hate crime, if they have any adverse employment action they can claim they are being discriminated based on their sexual orientation. Homosexuals can't marry someone of the same gender and neither can I. We have the same rights.

They can't marry anyone they choose just like polygamist can't marry as many people as they want. If you allow one you are logically forced to allow the other.

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

"The government is not forced by the DPC of the 14th amendment to recognize people married to more than one person as having the same rights as those married to a single person."

I agree. However, married couples are recognized.

"The government also does not have to recognize and give the same rights to those who are married and to those who are in civil unions (which are not recognized by the State of Kansas) any more than they have to give these aforesaid rights to pen pals, best friends, or people with a driver's license."

Agreed, as long as the pen pal, best friend, or person with a driver's license has not entered a marriage or civil union, which is given government benefit.

"If you allow the rights currently enjoyed by married couples to those in civil unions, according to your logic and interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, you would have to give those rights to anyone who wants them."

Indeed, to anyone who wants them and is married and/or in a civil union, as is done for heterosexual married couples.

"Unless you are only allowing those who are allowed civil unions to be given those rights and not would-be polygamist, which is an arbitrary and pointless distinction, with no basis in reason."

As I said before, polygamy is against the law. Marriage is not.

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

"If you allow one you are logically forced to allow the other."

Incorrect. Polygamy is against the law. How many times do you need to be reminded of this?

Emily Hadley 8 years ago

this anonymous "parkay" character is really scary... I just linked to his other comments. I hope he doesn't actually live in Lawrence, or at least that he is safely far away. He is obviously disturbingly obsessed with homosexuals.

Tychoman 8 years ago

"Homosexuals have the exact same rights as I do, in fact they have more because if they get physically attacked they can claim it a hate crime, if they have any adverse employment action they can claim they are being discriminated based on their sexual orientation. Homosexuals can't marry someone of the same gender and neither can I. We have the same rights."

Oh you are so wrong. You can marry the person you love, I can't.

If I am fired because I am gay, I can seek justice, just as if you're fired because you're a woman or a man or because of your race. Discrimination is discrimination. But sexual orientation discrimination laws are much, much less prevalent than everything else like gender, race, religion, etc. Get over yourself.

Satirical 8 years ago

Logicsound04

You are quite right my argument was flawed. Thank you for pointing it of. What I meant to say was, it is not bigoted to not-approve of homosexual ACTS.

Also, Calling someone's moral beliefs ignorant flows from the point of view that your moral/ethics are somehow superior.

I don't agree with Muslims morals but I don't think they are ignorant or hate them for their beliefs. I believe I am right and they are wrong but I tolerant them and profoundly respect their right to believe and worship how, where and what they may.

Perhaps if you read the case law you would discover why it is difficult to prove that a governmental ban on gay marriage might be unconstitutional. Again, you cannot logically allow same-sex marriage and not allow polygamy unless you create an arbitrary and unconstitutional line of marriage between only two people (similar to the argued arbitrary line between different and same-sex).

Tychoman 8 years ago

Why are you Biblethumpers so obsessed with bringing in polygamy? Notice how every gay rights advocate on this forum says "two people who love each other," not "people who love each other." Learn to freaking read!

Baille 8 years ago

I don't disagree, Satirical. One call call those who oppose NAMBLA a bigot. I would gladly wear that label as well.

Why so touchy?

In addition to hopefully being a bigot when it comes to pedophiles, you also sound like a bigot when it comes to homosexuals. While the former is laudable, the latter is disgustingly ignorant and narrow minded and causes unnecessary and unjustifiable pain for those who were born homosexual.

I would assume that you find your bigotry toward homosexuals to not be disgusting, ignorant or narrow minded. That's fine. It's not like I am going to try and convert you. But when your bigotry becomes pupblic policy I am duty-bound to speak out against you. Nothing personal. Well, it's a little bit personal, I guess.

By the way, I have read the case law and the constitution several times. Case law does not support the proposition that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional. However, the 14th Amendment seems pretty clear and the legal reasoning in those cases is awful. As a crit-theorist might posit, those cases are infected by the biases and bigotry of the times in which they were decided.

Satirical 8 years ago

yourworstnightmare...

Your argument is: People in Civil Unions should be allowed the same rights as married couples because civil unions are legal (polygamy is not legal, and neither is same sex marriage). But polygamist should not be allowed the same rights as same-sex marriages and separate-sex marriage.

So, if the government slaps the Civil Union sticker on people wanting the be polygamist, then by your logic it they should get the same rights as those who are in monogamous marriages.

But what you don't answer is why this Civil Union sticker is not an arbitrary separation between homosexuals wanting to be married and would-be polygamist wanting to be married.

Somehow homosexuals in civil unions are included in the due process clause but homosexuals are not?

Satirical 8 years ago

Tychoman...

"Oh you are so wrong. You can marry the person you love, I can't"

You are incorrect. If I loved a child, I could not marry him/her because s/he is too young. If I loved more than one person I could not marry them because only marriage between one man and one woman is allowed. If I loved someone who was the same gender, I could not marry them.

We have the same rights.

"sexual orientation discrimination laws are much, much less prevalent than everything else like gender, race, religion" (quote from Tychoman) I am guessing you have some sort of data to back that sweeping generalization.

If someone attacks me the prosecutor doesn't have the choice to charge him/her with a hate crime. Therefore homosexuals are protected more than heterosexuals. I am not saying this extra protection shouldn't exist, only that it does.

I like how when people can't create logical arguments they resort to petty attacks like "Get over yourself"

minko245911 8 years ago

I doubt any gays in the military will be registering, don't you?

Satirical 8 years ago

Tychoman.....

I am not sure why you called me a Biblethumper. Perhaps it is easier to label me than attack my argument. I never said anyone here was advocating polygamy.

My argument, which I will repeat because some people would prefer to ignore because they can't refute, is....

You cannot give me a legitimate logical argument of why two homosexual couples should be allowed to marry or have civil unions and group marriage/polygamy/bigamy should not. Any argument you try to give me would be discriminatory (P.S. some forms of which ARE allowed by the U.S. Constitution, read a U.S. Supreme Court case sometime).

Unless you make up some arbitrary distinction (see yourworstnightmare) that because polygamy (like same-sex marriage) is illegal it should not be given the same protection and rights as only those homosexuals, and none others, that are allowed into civil unions.

ksdivakat 8 years ago

Tychoman....Perhaps you need to examine your predjuices as well as advising others of the same. You as a gay person want to have your rights, and thats ok, but what is wrong with a poligimist wanting their rights too? I agree using beastality as a comparison is over the line, but the point is, in my experience, the gay community just wants to throw a fit to get their own way. If your stand is that all people should be created equal then why are you so angry that people are bring up poligimist? Because its Illegal? Well are you aware that Sodomy is illegal?? Im not against this registry, asi mentioned earlier my daughter is gay, and im perfectly fine with her life choices, its her life, my beef with this is that you as a gay person and many like you only want YOUR opinion heard, and if somebody else disagrees, instead of a civil, intelligent conversation about it, people start going into left field with beastality and knocking christianaity! Why is it you hate the bible so much? You are a bigot towards christians, and the point ot all of this is that until everyone can accept everyone else...including christians then there is always going to be bigots and predjuices. Just a thought...............

minko245911 8 years ago

consensual homosexual acts between adults are illegal in only 70 out of the 195 countries of the world, FYI it's legal in the US.

Satirical 8 years ago

Baille...

I am not touchy, this is just the way I argue. I appreciate the opportunity to have a discussion with people of opposing views. While disagreement.

However, I think that you are incorrectly and too loosely using the words bigot. I disagree with the way many Kansas liberals use the term bigot incorrectly to label anyone who disagrees with them (which ironically is the exact definition of a bigot). Again a bigot is intolerant, not merely disagreeable.

If you were INTOLERANT against those in NAMBLA you would attack them physically, and take away most of their rights, or put them all in jail for thinking a certain way. Verbally bashing anyone who disagreed with you.

If you simply DISAGREE, and DON'T ACCEPT them. You would try to discourage the acts, say it is morally reprehensible, and give logical argument of why it should not be allowed or recognized by the government.

My guess is you are in the latter group.

However, then a NAMBLA backer would, using your words, say you are disgustingly ignorant, narrow minded, and cause unnecessary and unjustifiable pain to those that were born pedophiles.

You have not backed up how someone who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle is ignorant, or narrow minded. You simply call them names. Please avoid name calling and use logical arguments.

Tychoman 8 years ago

What the hell makes you think I'm bigoted against Christians?

I'm angry that people bring up polygamy because polygamy isn't the issue. It really is that simple.

And by the way, the Supreme Court knocked down sodomy a couple of years ago in Lawrence v. Texas. What kind of experience makes you believe that me wanting to be able to marry the man I love is equivalent to throwing a fit to get my own way? What's WRONG with me wanting to marry the man I love, divakat?

Satirical, I ignore your ridiculous argument about polygamy for two reasons: first, it's a non-issue. Only a small percentage, a small FRACTION of people engage in it, in Utah. The practice has been illegal for decades. No one's asking for it. Second, it doesn't affect me, nor any other homosexual that I've ever heard of. It's a non-issue. If you think that if gay marriage should be legal only if polygamy is legalized as well, by all means start advocating for legalized polygamy. Leave us out of it.

minko245911 8 years ago

...and don't use the word beef in the same sentence you tell us your daughter is gay in, it seems contrary.

Tychoman 8 years ago

Okay, here's some backing for why you're narrowminded: you refuse to believe that two men or two women can share the same capacity for love that a man and a woman do in their own marriage. Why do you refuse to believe that it is possible?

minko245911 8 years ago

gays want to be able to marry who they choose. polygamists want to be able to marry who they choose. only a small fraction of humans are gay. only a small fraction of humans are polygamists. sodomy is illegal in some countries. polygamy is illegal in some countries. I wanna marry my beloved dog!

minko245911 8 years ago

I think we all believe two gays guys or two gay girls could love each other. The point is your belief is no different than a polygamist believing he can love his three wives.

Satirical 8 years ago

Tychoman...

Your Point 1: You say that "Only a small percentage, a small fraction of people engage in it, in Utah." So, therefore, if the minority is small enough they don't deserve the same rights as everyone else?

"No one is asking for it" Polygamist are asking for it. (and I am called ignorant?)

Also, the homosexual population is not that large, if there were a correct census done there might be more polygamist than homosexuals.

Your Point 2: I don't think you realize how the approval or denial of polygamy affects you which is what I am trying to say.

Polygamy (like same-sex marriage) has been illegal for decades.

The argument is, if you allow gay marriage, you by logical extention must also allow polygamy, bigamy and group marriage. If you (like many Americans) don't want polygamy and such, you are using the same arguments against polygamy as I can use against same-sex marriage. You can't advocate the one and not advocate the other, it is logically impossible.

minko245911 8 years ago

I bet we gots some gay polygamists floating around town too!

minko245911 8 years ago

This registration ends up being a big pain in the butt for at least 50 percent of all male registrars I bet.

Satirical 8 years ago

Tychoman...

I do not refuse to believe that two men or two women can share the same capacity of love that a man and a woman do in their own marriage. I fully recognize that their feelings may be sincere and true.

However, there is a difference between love and marriage (insert your own punch line here). The government is not needed to recognize love, nor should it ever tamper with such a thing. However, the government always has recognized which marriages are legitimate.

So if you are seeking government recognition of your love, which seems to be the case with this ridiculous domestic partnership registry than it is folly. The government has no right to put their stamp of approval on who I love.

Tychoman 8 years ago

If there is a group of polygamists advocating for polygamy, by all means, let them advocate. I don't care. Because it's not ABOUT polygamy. It's about equal rights.

I don't advocate for polygamy because it doesn't affect me. How does it not affect me? Because I personally don't understand how someone could have the capacity to share their life and soul with more than one person. And I don't try to understand it, it doesn't matter to me whether polygamy is legal or not because I don't ever intend on entering a polygamous relationship. Big deal.

What I DO understand is that I have the same capacity to share my life and soul with another man and gain rights and responsibilities the same way you do with your own spouse. What I don't understand is why you insist on denying me the right to do so.

I've spent enough of my day arguing with circular-minded people like yourself. I'm out of here.

i_have_only_valid_opinions 8 years ago

Richmond, if we have to look at your picture in the paper, get a better hat and don't molest your partner in public. It's a registry to show you are partnered with someone, not a license for public indecency.

Satirical 8 years ago

My guess is Tychoman didn't read my last post, because I answered his question of why polygamy affects same-sex marriage.

If you argue against one, the same arguments are used against the other. You can't logically argue against one and advocate the other. You either have to advocate them both or disagree with both.

PapaB 8 years ago

Satirical is making a great point. I love the polygamy argument because it's pointing out the obvious contradictions in these arguments. If you don't want anyone else to define your relationships, then you can't define theirs. Bigot is the wrong word for all of this, but hypocrite fits perfectly.

If you want to turn to Bible thumping, homosexual behavior is pretty clearly not approved by the Holy Book, while polygamy was practiced by various prophets in the old testament.

After all of this, my employer still recognizes homosexual partnerships for benefits and not unmarried heterosexual relationships, whether they're "registered" or not.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 8 years ago

I speculate (It's what we're doing, right?) that the main argument against polyandry/polygamy would be that, historically, it's more rife with abusive behavior, jealousy, power imbalances, etcetera. I can also see that there could be additional societal costs, depending upon what kind of benefits were bestowed by "the state". It would probably be good to simply do away with all benefits, without regard to the flavor of marriage/union.

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

satyrical,

Now your starting to get it, but you are still misguided.

"So, if the government slaps the Civil Union sticker on people wanting the be polygamist, then by your logic it they should get the same rights as those who are in monogamous marriages."

Close, but no cigar.

If the government decides to give benefits to those in polygamist relationships, then it would be unconstitutional to deny anyone those benefits based on sexual orientation, race, etc.

"But what you don't answer is why this Civil Union sticker is not an arbitrary separation between homosexuals wanting to be married and would-be polygamist wanting to be married."

I have answered this about five times, but here goes again. Read carefully and think.

The government gives benefits to married couples. The government does not give benefits to polygamist marriages (aside from the standard marriage benefit). Indeed polygamy is illegal.

A civil union would provide benefits to same-sex or non-married couples that married couples already enjoy.

Also, the would-be polygamist is not barred from marriage benefits. He/she would be eligible for the standard marriage benefit.

And satirical, stubborness and insistence are not substitutes for argument. I have twice now demonstrated how polygamy is not relevant in this argument.

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

"The argument is, if you allow gay marriage, you by logical extention must also allow polygamy, bigamy and group marriage."

This is a ridiculous statement. There is little the government can do to prevent marriage of more than two people. Indeed, it occurs in churches across Utah and the US consistently.

The government can decide how it will recognize marriage. Right now, the government provides benefits to heterosexual married couples. It is unconstitutional to deny same sex couples these same benefits.

Marriage is a rite carried out by churches, synagogues, etc.

The governmental benefits of marriage are secular responses to these unions.

Baille 8 years ago

Satirical is a poopyhead.

And those who seek to continue the oppression of homosexuals are bigots.

Homosexuals are born homosexual. There is nothing inhrently defective or wrong with them. The don't hurt anyone else by living as they were born.

True pedophiles may be born that way. If they act on their sexual attraction, they hurt people unable to consent. They leave victims and they belong segregated from those they hurt if they are unable to control their impulses. Active pedophilia is malume in se.

Polygamists choose to be polygamists. They are not born that way; however, there is nothing inherently harmful in their relationships. Those polygamists who do not abuse children by marrying them at 14 have every right to be married. You want 14 wives and they are all over 18? Go for it, Mohammed. Whether polyganists derive any extra benefit from the government by having more than one spouse is a question of policy, but polygamy is not malum in se.

Our government confers certain privileges and benefits on those couples with an official civil union that we unfortuenately refer to as marriage. The fact that these privileges ande benefits are denied homosexual couples is inherentlt discriminatory. Just like the court found in Loving v. Virginia in regards to miscegenation, our current pubic policy oppressing homosexuals is inhrently immoral and wrong. Those who champion the staus quo are unjustifiably bigoted against homosexuals.

Personally I don't care if you marry a dog, a man, three women (or ladies - whatever), and a toaster. Your church, your Tori Spelling, or your group of like-minded individuals can marry whatever and whoever they want - providing everyone or thing is able to give legal consent. Civil unions - if we are going to have them and there is plenty of good public policy reasons why we want them - should be available to all comers. I see nothing wrong in limiting those benefits to a single couple - even though there may be more than one married spouse to the guy or gal (better?) - but limiting the people who can be in the couple because of inherent characteristics is wrong. It is morally unjustifiable so long as one of those characteristics isn't the biologically desire to victimize children.

Baille 8 years ago

Now look, Satirical, if you don't like the word "bigoted" to the point that you must argue semantics over substance, then insert whatever other word you want for the concept of "one who has unjustifiable opposition to homosexuals have the equal rights, equal access to the same privileges and benefits afforded heterosexuals, and who enjoy equal protection under the law and champions the continuation of the oppression of homosexuals in teh United States."

For my part, I am going to label those people as "bigots" for the purpose of this discusion because it is shorter than "one who has unjustifiable opposition to homosexuals have the equal rights, equal access to the same privileges and benefits afforded heterosexuals, and who enjoy equal protection under the law and champions the continuation of the oppression of homosexuals in teh United States."

You can label them "cantaloupe" for all I care.

George_Braziller 8 years ago

If you feel that you need to make any comment at all you might try being honest and just say, "Because they love each other."

"Summers_Eve (Anonymous) says:

I'm sure not celebrating this. What happens when my grandchildren see two homosexuals kissing in public? What do I tell them? That it's OK? No, it's not OK. How depressing. Shame on you Lawrence."

Kodiac 8 years ago

Satirical,

On top of what my colleague YWNM is saying I would also like to point out to you that there are reasons for why polygamy (or incest, or pedophilia or child abuse for that matter etc) is illegal. Historically, polygamy has lead to coercion, imbalance of power, financial burdens to the state etc. Certainly many of us could easily argue about the irreversible harm of child abuse, pediophilia and incest. And beastiality? Animals can't give consent so by definition, they can't enter into a contract. But how is any of this connected to same sex unions? I challenge you to give us hard examples of where incest, child abuse, or polygamy is the equivalent of a lifetime of loving, faithful commitment between two individuals of the same sex. I challenge you to rationally argue this from this standpoint. You are getting off way too easy here Satirical. You are cleverly staying on the side of what could happen, the future rather than looking back at the past. The law cannot know what long-term social effect legalizing gay marriage will have. You can't go out and prove a negative which is precisely what you are trying to do. Many countries have some sort of same sex marriage unions in some form or another and have reported better stabilization of marriage overall. Try this link here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

All of the examples you give us are still only metaphors. Cases aren't argue in out courts based on metaphors. You have to look at the case in front of you. You have not shown us how same sex civil unions "harm" the individual. Quite the contrary Satirical, the actual evidence shows the opposite of "harm".

Kodiac 8 years ago

"The argument is, if you allow gay marriage, you by logical extention must also allow polygamy, bigamy and group marriage. If you (like many Americans) don't want polygamy and such, you are using the same arguments against polygamy as I can use against same-sex marriage. You can't advocate the one and not advocate the other, it is logically impossible." Satirical

"My guess is Tychoman didn't read my last post, because I answered his question of why polygamy affects same-sex marriage. If you argue against one, the same arguments are used against the other. You can't logically argue against one and advocate the other. You either have to advocate them both or disagree with both." -- Satirical

Um where I get lost satirical is where you say "by logical extension" or "can't logically argue".

You have no basis for this argument. Polygamy and homosexuality are not the same as Baille has eloquently pointed out. In fact, the argument you are making would be exactly the same for a heterosexual union. There is no difference in saying same sex or opposite sex. Essentially what you are saying is that if you are going to argue against 7 people being together, then you must argue against 2 people being together.

George_Braziller 8 years ago

What people also seem to conveniently ignore is that the registry is for ANYONE who is in a domestic relationship. A man and woman who are both widowed and living in a long term relationship that they can't have "leagally" recognized because it would have an impact on survior's benefits, social security benefits, pension benefits, etc. are also eligible to sign up.

Most of the comments that have been posted come from just being pathetically uninformed.

Satirical 8 years ago

I only have time for a short response to each of your (poor) arguments

Yourworstnightmare:

It seems you are being purposefully pretending not to understand my clear argument so you don't have to actually refute it. You cannot separate polygamy and same-sex marriage unless you make an arbitrary distinction, be it a civil union or by a number out of a hat. Civil Unions are legal, but they are arbitrary. The reasons for granting civil unions and/or same-sex marriage are the same exact argument for advocating for polygamy. The rest of your argument don't merit a response.

Baille:

You can define bigoted however you want, just like I can say being a racist = jumping rope, but you are using the word incorrectly. So you might want to think before you call someone a word that you personally changed the definition to, in order to suit your purpose. Your definition of bigot is wrong, plain and simple. You say I am argue semantics, but I am arguing separation. Line drawing is how we define anything, such as what marriage is and is not. If you want to move the line that is fine, but don't pretend the line doesn't exist.

Kodiac (the only decent argument yet):

The historical arguments have been used against same-sex marriage, saying it leads to pedophilia and coercion. Most of your historical arguments were fabricated as a scare tactic and never true or no longer apply. Polygamist does not inherently lead to pedophilia any more than homosexuality does. Polygamy can, and have, in some cases for generations lived in loving, faithful relationship for all their life.

It seems the only real difference any of you can make between polygamy and same-sex marriage is the number of individuals involved.

If same-sex couples deserve "equal rights" so do polygamist. If same-sex couples deserve to be with the person they love, then so do polygamists. You can't say two homosexuals deserve all this but three people (homo or hetro) do not. Your only distinction is an arbitrary number (2) which you picked out (probably because society tells you that is the correct number).

I also think you are all mistaking my person beliefs with what I am arguing., a terrible fallacy which probably led to many of your personal attacks (which it seems most people do when they can't argue). I will not inform you how I really feel because that is irrelevant.

If you learn to argue the other side it will not make you so narrow minded.

Satirical 8 years ago

Also, if you are going to cite a judicial opinion, please learn to cite it correctly so I can look it up. Giving the name of the case w/o the cite is totally pointless unless it is well know. i.e. Roe v. Wade

ndmoderate 8 years ago

Satirical, minko (and of course the perennial R_T),

The dividing line between homosexuality and polygamy has already been brought up, but I'll repeat it:

Polygamists (would-be or otherwise) choose to want to be with more than one person at the same time (historically, by marriage and in a heterosexual way).

Homosexuals are born to want to be with one person of the same sex.

The difference is between choosing and being born that way.

I know there are folks who don't buy into the "but they're born that way" argument. I buy into it, and here's why: If someone asks me at what point in time I chose to be a heterosexual, my answer would be.....well, I was born that way.

ndmoderate 8 years ago

OK R_T,

When did you choose to be a heterosexual?

Kodiac 8 years ago

Satirical (the name does give your game away)

"The historical arguments have been used against same-sex marriage, saying it leads to pedophilia and coercion. Most of your historical arguments were fabricated as a scare tactic and never true or no longer apply" -- Satirical

2 false statements here. History has never been shown to say that same-sex marriage leads to pedophilia and coercion. Historical arguments by definition cannot be fabricated because you can go back and look at actual examples. Scare tactics are in the realm of projections into the unknowable future. There has been no historical evidence or studies for that matter that demonstrate that homosexuality "harms" children or the individual. You misunderstand what is actually being said satirical. Notice how its not "see how this same sex marriage messed up these kids" but always "this WILL happen in the future".

"Your only distinction is an arbitrary number (2) which you picked out (probably because society tells you that is the correct number)." -- Satirical

Yes indeed, 2 is a number. Our court system has clearly defined the right to sexual privacy as being between 2 consenting partners regardless of sex. Certainly I cannot argue against 3 or more "consenting adults" but I challenge you to find an actual case of polygamy where this is happening. As I said before, you are at a disadvantage here Satirical because the evidence of the "harm" of polygamy is against you. Every court case you will find regarding polygamy has demonstrated coercion, and "harm" to individuals.

Again, you are being an activist by trying to shape the law based on hypothetical future cases. The case for same sex marriage has merit and deserves to be considered on its own standing. Homosexuality is not illegal. Everything else you are talking about is illegal. You cannot get around this fact. You are wrong in your analysis. YWNM is correct. Polygamy is illegal and homosexuality is not. This alone destroys your whole argument. Why are you ignoring this? You don't even acknowledge this? How can you say the comparison of a CLEARLY legal activity to a CLEARLY illegal activity is arbitrary.

Again I challenge you to give us hard examples of where incest, child abuse, or polygamy is the equivalent of a lifetime of loving, faithful commitment between two individuals of the same sex.

The onus of proof is on you Satirical.

Oh and "narrow-minded" and "poor" seems to suggest that you can't argue?

Satirical 8 years ago

Are you suggesting that men or women were born with a desire to be with only one person? And once they have met that person their desire is gone? Someone should tell Bill Clinton.

You are confusing someone being sexually attracted to someone else, with concept of marriage.

Chosing to be a polygamist is like chosing to be in a monogomous marriage (same-sex or any other way). By your logic if anyone "chooses" to get married, they are making a choice and therefore cannot be married because they were not born that way. Unless most people are born with a desire to be with only one person, to which I would counter that maybe polygamist were born with the desire to be sexually attracted to more than one person, and therefore they are not making a choice either and should have equal rights.

ndmoderate 8 years ago

Satirical,

"Are you suggesting that men or women were born with a desire to be with only one person?"

Nope.

"And once they have met that person their desire is gone?"

Nope.

"You are confusing someone being sexually attracted to someone else, with concept of marriage."

Again, nope. If you'll glance back at my original post you'll see that I'm not arguing about the concept of marriage. I'm taking about an in-born triat vs. its opposite (choice). If my wording seemed a little vague, I apologize.

"...to which I would counter that maybe polygamist were born with the desire to be sexually attracted to more than one person..."

If you choose to believe that, I can't necessarily refute it.

ndmoderate 8 years ago

R_T,

"The first time I got a you-know-what looking at my big brothers Hustler and had a pretty 'solid' idea I liked girls. And then, it was confirmed when I couldn't wait to get into my first girlfreinds' 'you-know-whats'. Is that a satisfactory answer?"

Not really. So you're saying your options were up in the air until said Hustler incident? Were you weighing your options until Mr. Flynt sealed the deal for you?

ndmoderate 8 years ago

Satirical,

When did you choose to be a heterosexual? (If you are a homosexual, insert that word instead)

George_Braziller 8 years ago

I thought the topic was supposed to be the Lawrence Domestic Partner Registry. As usual it has turned into a "says you" debate of three or four people who will never change the others' opinions. What's the point?

Satirical 8 years ago

Ndmoderate:

You are still incorrect.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that both homosexuality and heterosexuality is an in-born trait. What does that have to do with the number of people you choose to be attracted to?

Again here is your argument Premise: I was born attracted to a certain gender, and did not choose that Conclusion: Therefore, someone can only be attracted to one member of that gender. Because you choose to be attracted to multiple people and don't choose (its in-born) to be attracted to only one person.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

To answer another question: I will repeat that my personal beliefs about homosexuality/heterosexuality are irrelevant.

Baille 8 years ago

Loving v. Virginia is the seminal case on miscegenation. If you don't know it or can't find it without the cite, then you are a pretty piss poor legal scholar.

Not only can you look up cases on Westlaw by party name, you can google or wiki "loving v. virginia" and read the opinion.

These has devolved into a complete waste of time. I am done until something interesting happens.

Satirical 8 years ago

Kodiac:

Thank you for being the only one who seems to understand my argument.

The "poor argument" comment was not a personal attack. It was a description of arguments that was explained.

The "narrow minded," comment was also not a personal attack. It was a (miswritten) fact about the benefit arguing both sides (not being narrow minded).

Historically, it was argued that homosexuality and sodomy should be illegal because it leads to pedophilia. While you are correct that this was not the case, it was an argument made in the past, similar to the incorrect pedophilia correlation/causation argument made today and in the past about polygamists. While it is true there are some widely publicized polygamist that are pedophiles, there are also homosexual that are pedophiles (see NAMBLA).

"Historical arguments by definition cannot be fabricated because you can go back and look at actual examples." Historical arguments are arguments made in the past, they are not facts based on historical evidence, those are just called facts. There is a difference.

Scare tactics (while some are more plausible than others), as you define them predict future events, are used against both homosexual marriages and polygamy/group marriage for the harm it will do to children.

There is no evidence of the harm of polygamy. You say there are mythical cases but give not citations or credible evidence to back-up that claim. Even if there were cases, it would be based on a judge's belief not necessarily actual facts unless there are verifiable statistics, which often is only correlational.

I am not trying to shape any laws, I am simply stating that you cannot logically distinguish the advocacy of polygamy from homosexuality unless you draw an arbitrary numerical distinction.

While the case for same sex marriage may have merit, those are the exact same merits and arguments used to advocate for polygamy/group marriage. That is what you don't understand.

"Polygamy is illegal and homosexuality is not. How can you say the comparison of a clearly legal activity to a clearly illegal activity is arbitrary"

This is your argument with only a slight change: Homosexual marriage is illegal and homosexuality is not. Therefore, homosexual marriage and homosexuality are different and not arbitrary.

However, I am comparing homosexual marriage and polygamy not homosexuality itself and polygamy.

While it is true that polygamy is illegal and homosexuality is not, you forget that you are advocating not for homosexuality, but for homosexual marriage, similar to marriage to several individuals. That is where you and ndmoderate are confused. You are confusing the sexual attraction with marriage.

I will say it again. The arguments for and against polygamy/group marriage (illegal) cannot be legitimately logically separated from argument advocating on behalf or against homosexual marriage (illegal) (and not homosexuality the practice).

Satirical 8 years ago

Baille:.

First off, I never claimed to be a legal scholar.

Secondly, even if I were, legal scholars don't know every case about every subject. If I worked in employment law I would doubtfully know about a case on miscegenation.

Thirdly, my experience with Westlaw tells me that searching by case name using Loving v. Virginia without narrowing the database search by date or court will likely bring up about 10,000 hits.

Fourthly, I don't trust Wikipedia

Lastly, if it is so easy, why don't you give the cite yourself since you are the one claiming it advocates your argument. I am sure I would eventually stumble upon it, since I have experience using legal research websites; it is not my job to do your research. If you can't back up your claim, then you are just blowing smoke. I can make up case names too and claim they say all sorts of things.

Yabut 8 years ago

Great. So when will the hetero registry for married couples be available? What? There isn't one? And only unmarrieds can sign up for the current registry? Well, that would mean the city of Lawrence is giving a special benefit to one particular class of citizens over another. Thats D-I-S-C-R-I-M-I-N-A-T-I-O-N!!! Whose going to be first in line to bring a lawsuit agains the city?

The propenents of this registry used as their main argument that it would enable to partner to receive health insurance. Another article in today's LJW says that according to the insurance industry the registry is not acceptable to enable a partner to receive it. And as stated in the article, "It's not marriage, but we're getting there," said Teri Herberger, who's been with her partner, Angela Richmond, for three years." Can anyone say hidden agenda?

Seriously, I am torn on this issue. Homosexuality is completely offensive to my religious beliefs, but taking that out of the equation, I can find no good reason why homosexuals shouldn't be able to have a civil union (and for the record, Kansas does recognize common law marriages, at least for heteros: http://www.unmarried.org/common.html). Should the fact that my consumption of alcohol is offensive to some people's religious beliefs mean that it should no longer be offered for sale in this country (state, city, whatever)? Should the fact that a white man marrying a black woman is offensive to some mean that it should be outlawed? How is this different? Any thoughts here?

ndmoderate 8 years ago

Satirical,

"Let's just say for the sake of argument that both homosexuality and heterosexuality is an in-born trait. What does that have to do with the number of people you choose to be attracted to?"

Ah. Now we're getting somewhere. My answer to this question is that it has nothing to do with how many people you're attracted to........

Thus negating your original argument that polygamy has anything to do with homosexuality. A person can no better control their being attracted to someone than be able to control, for example, when they feel hungry.

It's how a person acts on their attraction--in the context of our discussion, a polygamist is a heterosexual. Further, he wants to act on his attraction to multiple women by having them all as wives at the same time. In contrast, a couple is comprised of two people that are either hetero- or homosexual. There is no "further" clause to the relationship.

Another difference between polygamy and homosexuality can be considered: When a couple divorces, their joint possessions are divided equally (unless there's a prenup., or abuse, children, etc.). In a hypothetical polygamist divorce, what would logic tell us? That the husband receives %50 and the other half is divided equally among the wives? Or that all parties get an equal share?

And this: "To answer another question: I will repeat that my personal beliefs about homosexuality/heterosexuality are irrelevant."

Nice dodge. I wasn't asking about your personal beliefs. I was asking about an event that occurred in your life. I don't care if you are homosexual, heterosexual, or anything else. It's supposedly a free country.

I'll press, and ask again: When did you choose to be a heterosexual?

Satirical 8 years ago

ndmoderate....

I could respond to most of your previous post but you contradicted yourself so many times I don't think you even remember what you were previously arguing (that I proved flawed). And your argument that deciding how property is divided is a legitimate distinction for why polygamy shouldn't be allowed and homosexual marriage should is the funniest thing I have read all day.

Also, If or When I chose to be heterosexual is completely irrelevant to the conversation. I have not claimed that hetero or homosexuality is a choice, nor have I claimed that it can never be choice. You seem to be trying to pull the conversation towards me when I just want to discuss the issues.

Perhaps I should wait for Kodiac to have a decent discussion.

Satirical 8 years ago

Yabut, you make some good points, the registry to me seems to simply be the government putting their stamp of approval same-sex love, since there are no legal rights provided. I am of the opinion that the government should not, and does not need to approve of who I or anyone else loves. Marriage, unlike this registry, is a combination of rights and obligations.

No one is saying homosexuality is offense, therefore homosexuality should be banned. Some may be saying homosexuality is morally wrong, and while I have no right to regulate what goes on in the bedroom, society does have the right, to define who can be married. You can vote for or against same-sex marriage for any reason, just like you can vote for President for any reason. This is a free country, and everyone is free to vote their conscience.

I think it is a misconception that someone's religious, moral, or ethical beliefs should be totally severed from politics. Ethics drive both liberals and conservatives. So I resent someone telling me that my religious, moral, or ethical beliefs should not play a role in politics. If I believe 'X' based on religious reasons and think it should be made law, and you believe 'not X' for non religious, but ethical reasons, then whoever wins is, as some put it, "forcing their beliefs on others."

However, to be more persuasive it is beneficial to have ration arguments for why your religious, moral, or ethical beliefs should be civilly made law (not civilly required that you believe such law is moral).

One reason argued that marriage should not be allowed between a homosexuals is because is redefines the definition of a family, which has stood the test of time and is strong (even though it suffers through trials) and which historically in the U.S. is two parents of opposite gender and children.

Another argument is that if you alter the definition of marriage for homosexuals, you will also have to allow polygamy and group marriage (which many same-sex marriage advocates also appose).

Another reason argued is that statistically, for the well-being of a child, it is best to have both a male and female example/influence. If you look at the infidelity rate on the African American population along with the crime rate, and other problems in the African American community, you can see a correlation that could be traced to a lack of a good male role model in the home.

Kodiac 8 years ago

Well Satirical,

I don't really have any more time to give your comments more thought but I do have some parting thoughts regarding these arguments.

"I will say it again. The arguments for and against polygamy/group marriage (illegal) cannot be legitimately logically separated from argument advocating on behalf or against homosexual marriage (illegal) (and not homosexuality the practice)." Satirical

You first....The arguments for and against polygamy "marriage" can be "legitimately logically" separated from arguments against homosexual marriage from a societal, physical, and cultural standpoint. Show us how they cannot be separated. Just saying so doesn't cut it. Essentially what you are saying is that these arrangements would have the same effects (whatever) they may be on our society. You have not shown any evidence for this statement (and it makes no sense to call this legitimtely logical? What exactly is legitimate and what is logical anyway?). Again, in order for you to make a statement like this, you have to show evidence of it. Otherwise this is simply your fallacy not based on any facts or "legitimate" logic.

I think the nature vs nurture arguments are pointless and have nothing to do with homosexuality vs polygamy or same sex marriages vs polygamous marriages. While I am not saying you can't be born a certain way, I think it is beside the point. Who cares if you were born that way or not, if you are happy with a partner of the same sex then I say you should be able to do that and that such a union be granted the same rights as any other union. This is a religious argument and irrelevant to civil unions.

I do think cutural and societal needs are far more important regarding this issue.

Polygamy was more widespread in the past than it is today. Polygamy was often encouraged especially in societies where a dearth of men existed due to wars etc. In fact (while I have no supporting documents this) I bet you will find that the majority of societies in human history have been polygamous. This was considered to be "a natural activity" simply because populations depended on it to survive. It made economical and societal sense to do so as well. It didn't matter whether it was legal or not, you needed to do it. I mean heck if you really think about it, we are biologically set up that way (this is where the SkyGod believers should be outraged). You ever wonder why men produce millions upons millions of little guys every single day and yet females ovulate just once a month. Animal population practice polygamy all of the time. If anything is natural here, it most certainly is polygamy.

Continued...

Kodiac 8 years ago

Currently, the natural situation of low males (almost always the case vs low females) does not exist virtually everywhere. Any practice of polygamy are almost always restricted to struggling populations with low numbers such as some cultures in Africa. When you have dense populations that are essentially 50% males and 50% female, then from a societal standpoint, polygamy does not work too well. The policy against polygamous "marriage" (do I really have to keep saying this satirical?) has NOTHING to do with same sex unions. Polygamy should be contrasted with monogamy because this is where the distinction is being made from a societal standpoint. Monogamy is society's correction for the "natural" condition of polygamy.

The fact that same sex couples want to create a civil union for their relationships is quite admirable and very much in line with values perceived to be a part of traditional marriages. How ironic is it when you have a group of people who advocate certain "traditional" values trying to stop individuals from making those same values a part of their own relationships???????

At any rate, I am off to bed because it is late and as George says..."What is the point"

Your buddy Kodiac

Satirical 8 years ago

To all who are trying to refute my argument:

For future reference please do not point out the distinction between homosexuality (not illegal) and polygmay (illegal)... when the question was clearly, what is a legitimate logical difference between allowing homosexual marriage(illegal), and polygamy (illegal)

You make yourself appear foolish because you are not answering the question I asked.

deec 8 years ago

If I loved more than one person I could not marry them because only marriage between one man and one woman is allowed. Actually you can. You can do the serial marriage thing so very popular with good conservatives like Reagan, Gingrich, etc.

Satirical 8 years ago

Kodiac....

What is more ironical is you making the argument that what is "traditional" (monogamy, hetero or homo) has precendence over what is not " traditional" (polygamy). You made this argument when you viewed monogamous homosexual unions as "traditional" as justification for it being allowed and polygamy "not traditional" not being allowed. This is ironcial because that is the exact same argument "traditional" v. "non traditional" that is used against homosexual unions. Same sex marriages are not traditional.

Thank you for supporting my argument that if you appose polygamy, the exact arguments can be used to appose homosexual unions, and the exact same arguments are used to advocate polygamy and homosexual unions.

ndmoderate 8 years ago

Satirical,

"...when the question was clearly, what is a legitimate logical difference between allowing homosexual marriage(illegal), and polygamy (illegal)"

A person can no better control their being attracted to someone than be able to control, for example, when they feel hungry. It's how a person acts on their attraction-in the context of our discussion, a polygamist is a heterosexual. Further, he wants to act on his attraction to multiple women by having them all as wives at the same time. In contrast, a couple is comprised of two people that are either hetero- or homosexual. (now pay attention, because here's the difference) There is no "further" clause to the relationship.

Now, since you have chosen to devolve our discussion by spewing insults, I am done with you.

ndmoderate 8 years ago

p.s.

It's "ironic", not "ironical."

ndmoderate 8 years ago

p.p.s.

Wow, 30 posts and just your "first day" on these boards. Something tells me you're not...."new."

deec 8 years ago

Why would anyone give a rat's rump if other people were in poly-relationships? Don't like sharing your old man/woman? Don't get in a poly-relationship. Ditto gay/lesbians. That doesn't mean they should be denied the legal protections that a civil union imparts. Why are the traditionalists opposed to other people who want to make a legal commitment to each other?

deec 8 years ago

Where'd ferdball go? Satire is so much fun.

Kodiac 8 years ago

Satirical,

"Thank you for supporting my argument that if you appose polygamy, the exact arguments can be used to appose homosexual unions, and the exact same arguments are used to advocate polygamy and homosexual unions." _-satanical

Guess you will have to point out to me where I specifically did that?

Kodiac 8 years ago

Satanical,

Also your statement to me doesn't make any sense. Sorry you lost me.

Kodiac 8 years ago

Dang did it again

I did mean "satirical" of course.....

davidnta 8 years ago

My reason for opposing polygamy is for personal feminist reasons in the fact that it is one man with multiple women which seems totally unfair to me. Now if the ratio were the same between the sexes and that they all had an equal emotional and sexual attraction to each other, then I couldn't care less what they do. The fact is that most polygamist are sexist and that God is telling them to take up more wives when the reality of the situation is that they are promiscuous people looking for justification to sleep with multiple people.

As far as same-sex monogamous couple, it depends on the individual viewing it as to it being traditional in their eye or not. I personally view it as traditional. There is nothing wrong with gay people and there will never be anything wrong with gay people. It's just people who tell them that they are somehow broken is one of the cause to the harm and it's bigoted.

But really your polygamy argument is framed as an anti-gay argument designed to show that gay people are somehow "wrong". This argument isn't really new, and these types of arguments aren't really working because more the youths of America are more accepting and the trend will continue until the LBGT receive the same rights and protections and straight people. Sorry. Well actually...not really.

Baille 8 years ago

"First off, I never claimed to be a legal scholar"

Obviously.

"Secondly, even if I were, legal scholars don't know every case about every subject. If I worked in employment law I would doubtfully know about a case on miscegenation."

If you took Con Law, you know Loving v. Virginia.

"Thirdly, my experience with Westlaw tells me that searching by case name using Loving v. Virginia without narrowing the database search by date or court will likely bring up about 10,000 hits."

You are wrong. There is only one Loving v. Virginia. I just looked it up using the party name search and found it rioght away.

"Fourthly, I don't trust Wikipedia"

You don't have to trust it. You are looking for the citation not the explanation. I had assumed you would read the actual case itself. If you don't want to wiki it, the google it. Takes 10 seconds and Loving is on Findlaw.

"Lastly, if it is so easy, why don't you give the cite yourself since you are the one claiming it advocates your argument. I am sure I would eventually stumble upon it, since I have experience using legal research websites; it is not my job to do your research. If you can't back up your claim, then you are just blowing smoke. I can make up case names too and claim they say all sorts of things"

I thought you might want to learn something. My arguments don't rely on the legal authority of Loving, although Loving does support my argument. I could give you the cite right now b/c I just googled it, but you need to do your own research. You want to stop blowing smoke and start having an educated discussion about the subject look it up and read it. The people around know I am not making up any cases and if anyone suspects as such they can look it up as well.

2 seconds. Google.com. Have fun.

Veritas 8 years ago

I just gagged after reading right_thinker's praises of the female whatsits. Care to give us any more details about your only sexual encounter?

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

Sartorial is simply digging in his heels like a third-grader. I guess he thinks that by repeating the same line over and over, that makes it true.

His arguments have been rebutted and deconstructed six ways to Tuesday.

I think we all have tired of making him look foolish. Even a cat tires of playing with a dead baby rabbit.

halfgreengirl 8 years ago

I've never understood why people can't just be happy that there are other people in the world who are happy. Everyone, just put aside all your personal animosity and be thankful that there are people out there who aren't dying of famine, suffering in war, locked up in prison, committing murder, or strung out on drugs - instead, they're just happy and in love. Be thankful, everyone. No matter what your religion or beliefs are, see the beauty and appreciate it. That's what it is - a beautiful thing. I wish every last one of them all the happiness in the world.

Kodiac 8 years ago

In the Church Lady's voice....

"Hmmm. Now I wonder whose favorite topic homosexuality is? Could it be gay people? Nooooo. Could it be..mmmm..SATIRICAL???????"

"Aren't we special"

werekoala 8 years ago

What's really funny is that, despite all the doom and gloom being generated on these forums, in a few months people will have forgotten about this controversy, it will have moved to the realm of "just the way things are" and the world will not have ended.

Gay people will continue to be gay, homophobes will continue to be homophobes, and Lawrence will go on being Lawrence. And all the wailing and gnashing of teeth will just seem silly.

Oh wait, it already does.

Michael Capra 8 years ago

SO WHO IS RUNDLES LIFE LONG PARTNER THAT DIDNT REGISTER 14 OUT OF 100,000 WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY FOR STAFF AND PEOPLE

Commenting has been disabled for this item.