Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If the components of both relationships were equal, then I would tend to agree. The problem is that the are obviously not equal (or the same), so we differ on that.

Every City has a Fire Department. Every City has a Police Department. They both serve public safety purposes so they are alike in that respect, but they are different enough that we designate them differently. I doubt you will find a firefighter that Thinks he is demeaned because he is not called a Police Officer.

Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. Gays do not want to be called straight, they want to be treated equally under the law.

Where I'd I write that Gays could not be Called Gay?

You said they didn't want to be called "partners", you answered the wrong post?

My response to that post was that there is no law saying that they must be called partners, that I know of. Are there?

My response to the above post was that things that have some things in common are treated differently because, although there are some common components, there are also striking differences.

Peace

It would be a lot easier to type: ‘I have no idea what I’m talking about.’

 

[Pop23]

If the components of both relationships were equal, then I would tend to agree. The problem is that the are obviously not equal (or the same), so we differ on that.

When compared like comparisions would need to be used.

Therefore could you explain, from a legal and equal treatment perspective, what the compelling government interest is in treating law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in a different-sex couple is as compared to law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in a same-sex couple?

Every City has a Fire Department. Every City has a Police Department. They both serve public safety purposes so they are alike in that respect, but they are different enough that we designate them differently. I doubt you will find a firefighter that Thinks he is demeaned because he is not called a Police Officer.

Incorrect comparison, your comparison is like comparing a members of the Electrical Union with volunteers of the Red Cross.

A better comparison would be to say that you have two Police Officers one straight and one gay. The straight officer is referred to a "Officer" and for the one that is gay calling them a "meter maid/main".


>>>>

Interesting that you placed fertility in your first point. I would point out a basic difference. For a child to be conceived within the heterosexual coupling it is necessary for both parties to be fertile. It is a moot point in the same gender relationship. Fertility has its pluses and minuses depending on the heterosexual couple, but not applicable to the same gender couple.

Don't get your Electrical Union/Red Cross comparison. Apples and oranges. I compared two public safety entities, both with the goal of protecting the public, but, other than that they are different enough that we designate firefighters as those that work to fight fires and police officers as those that enforce law.

Peace

 

[Pop23]

if both gay people declare themselves heteros, would they then be able to marry each other in every state? Hetero marriage is ok, isn't it?

Except marriage is based on gender, not a subset of same.

 

[Pop23]

Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. Gays do not want to be called straight, they want to be treated equally under the law.

Where I'd I write that Gays could not be Called Gay?

You said they didn't want to be called "partners", you answered the wrong post?

My response to that post was that there is no law saying that they must be called partners, that I know of. Are there?

My response to the above post was that things that have some things in common are treated differently because, although there are some common components, there are also striking differences.

Peace

It would be a lot easier to type: ‘I have no idea what I’m talking about.’

Or just make a terse comment and walk away.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If the components of both relationships were equal, then I would tend to agree. The problem is that the are obviously not equal (or the same), so we differ on that.

When compared like comparisions would need to be used.

Therefore could you explain, from a legal and equal treatment perspective, what the compelling government interest is in treating law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in a different-sex couple is as compared to law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in a same-sex couple?

Interesting that you placed fertility in your first point. I would point out a basic difference. For a child to be conceived within the heterosexual coupling it is necessary for both parties to be fertile. It is a moot point in the same gender relationship. Fertility has its pluses and minuses depending on the heterosexual couple, but not applicable to the same gender couple.

Fertility was specifically included because different-sex couples are not denied Civil Marriage because they are infertile, as a matter of fact there are Civil Laws in this country that require the couple being infertile prior to receiving a Civil Marriage license.

Therefore infertility is a characteristic that is common to compare like groups and then to justify why those like groups are treated differently.


So, care to give it another crack on a legal and compelling government interest as to why like situated groups are treated different solely on the gender composition of the couple?


>>>>

 

[boilermaker55]

Still no response to all the shit you pulled out of your ass!
What gives.
Elaborate for us , just this once.

Aren’t couples in Civil Unions hit with gigantic estate taxes when the other dies (as opposed to 0% if you're married)? They aren’t equal, so unless you’re out there in Washington trying to amend “some aspects” you should probably just quit worrying about the whole thing and get on with your own business.

You don’t have to like gay marriage, you don’t have to support it, you don’t have to teach your kids that it’s an OK option – that’s your prerogative. But when it comes to the lives of other people, why do you have to stick your nose in their business?

,

Gays are grasping little things, too. The bottom line is that they are after government benefits designed to protect women and children,

Such as? Please elaborate. I mean, we both know you can't because you've made this up, but I find it funny to ask and have you ignore it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

the state issues marriage licenses and recognizes marriages. a civil union is a marriage

religious institutions do not own the term

 

[Pop23]

When compared like comparisions would need to be used.

Therefore could you explain, from a legal and equal treatment perspective, what the compelling government interest is in treating law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in a different-sex couple is as compared to law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in a same-sex couple?

Interesting that you placed fertility in your first point. I would point out a basic difference. For a child to be conceived within the heterosexual coupling it is necessary for both parties to be fertile. It is a moot point in the same gender relationship. Fertility has its pluses and minuses depending on the heterosexual couple, but not applicable to the same gender couple.

Fertility was specifically included because different-sex couples are not denied Civil Marriage because they are infertile, as a matter of fact there are Civil Laws in this country that require the couple being infertile prior to receiving a Civil Marriage license.

Therefore infertility is a characteristic that is common to compare like groups and then to justify why those like groups are treated differently.


So, care to give it another crack on a legal and compelling government interest as to why like situated groups are treated different solely on the gender composition of the couple?


>>>>

Other than within one group infertility is not applicable. I got nothing.

But what interest would the government have, or why should an infertile heterosexual couples be allowed to marry, when same gender is denied?

I came to this forum to (believe it or not), discuss issues that I have not completely made my mind up on. That's why I chose to participate in this discussion. This thread, and not the other, same sex threads.

You speak of "groups", one group can, and often does produce children. They can produce the children from within the "united" couple. It takes a male component plus a female component to produce that child. That child grows up to be a job creator, a taxpayer, farmer, soldier and on and on. Is that a compelling enough interest for the difference? That is the question to be answered in my mind. Is that primary difference enough to have same gender unions separate from marriage?

Again, if I I'm wrong, point out where I am wrong. I am open to hearing the discussion advanced.

 

[Cowman]

Gay couples can still have children. It may not be both of their genes producing them, but that's still another couple raising a child that would have not otherwise been there. Just because the baby wasn't completely birthed by them, doesn't mean anything.

It's no different than a heterosexual couple who do in vitro fertilization as well.

 

[Pop23]

Gay couples can still have children. It may not be both of their genes producing them, but that's still another couple raising a child that would have not otherwise been there. Just because the baby wasn't completely birthed by them, doesn't mean anything.

It's no different than a heterosexual couple who do in vitro fertilization as well.

A same gender couple can adopt or do in vitro. An opposite gender couple can adopt, go the in vitro route or conceive through intercourse.

The same gender couple however, never has to worry about the unplanned while the opposite gender couple does.

Not making lite of your post (although I have a feeling some will think I am), but that still looks like the relationships are quite different.

Peace cowman

 

[ima]

if both gay people declare themselves heteros, would they then be able to marry each other in every state? Hetero marriage is ok, isn't it?

Except marriage is based on gender, not a subset of same.

So then it's simple sex discrimination. That's already not allowed.

 

[Pop23]

if both gay people declare themselves heteros, would they then be able to marry each other in every state? Hetero marriage is ok, isn't it?

Except marriage is based on gender, not a subset of same.

So then it's simple sex discrimination. That's already not allowed.

How so.

 

[bodecea]

if both gay people declare themselves heteros, would they then be able to marry each other in every state? Hetero marriage is ok, isn't it?

Except marriage is based on gender, not a subset of same.

So then it's simple sex discrimination. That's already not allowed.

Exactly.

As to the OP...let's ask this question:


"Why can't Straights accept civil unions and just be done with it?"

 

[WorldWatcher]

Interesting that you placed fertility in your first point. I would point out a basic difference. For a child to be conceived within the heterosexual coupling it is necessary for both parties to be fertile. It is a moot point in the same gender relationship. Fertility has its pluses and minuses depending on the heterosexual couple, but not applicable to the same gender couple.

Fertility was specifically included because different-sex couples are not denied Civil Marriage because they are infertile, as a matter of fact there are Civil Laws in this country that require the couple being infertile prior to receiving a Civil Marriage license.

Therefore infertility is a characteristic that is common to compare like groups and then to justify why those like groups are treated differently.


So, care to give it another crack on a legal and compelling government interest as to why like situated groups are treated different solely on the gender composition of the couple?


>>>>

Other than within one group infertility is not applicable. I got nothing.

But what interest would the government have, or why should an infertile heterosexual couples be allowed to marry, when same gender is denied?

I came to this forum to (believe it or not), discuss issues that I have not completely made my mind up on. That's why I chose to participate in this discussion. This thread, and not the other, same sex threads.

Well, thank you very much for admitting that. It takes a big man (or woman) to admit they got nothing. There are many on this forum and in the world in general that don't have that level of honor and commitment to honest debate and the exchange of ideas.

You speak of "groups", one group can, and often does produce children. They can produce the children from within the "united" couple. It takes a male component plus a female component to produce that child. That child grows up to be a job creator, a taxpayer, farmer, soldier and on and on. Is that a compelling enough interest for the difference? That is the question to be answered in my mind. Is that primary difference enough to have same gender unions separate from marriage?

Again, if I I'm wrong, point out where I am wrong. I am open to hearing the discussion advanced.

The ability to procreate though is not an issue as it pertains to Civil Marriage because no State in the Union requires any proof of fertility prior to being issued a Civil Marriage license, nor to they require procreation for continuation of the Civil Marriage, and as a matter of fact Civil Marriage licenses are commonly issued when the couple knows they are infertile.

In addition there are conditions where proof of infertility is required before the couple is allowed to Civilly Marry.

Finally, in the Prop 8 case it was pointed out that there were (IIRC) 40,000 children in California - the parents of whom were being denied Civil Marriage.

I speak of "groups" because that is the functioning of the law. The ability to Civilly Marry is not defined in terms of the individual, the ability to be examined is the ability of the couple. In the Loving case Mr. Loving was able to marry as an individual, Miss Jeter were able to marry as an individual - but as a couple they were denied Civil Marriage. If the evaluation was made solely on the condition of the individual, the SCOTUS would not have ruled in Loving v. Virginia. The idea that the law did not discriminate because they were treated the same as individuals was proposed by the Commonwealth of Virginia - the court rejected that logic.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Except marriage is based on gender, not a subset of same.

So then it's simple sex discrimination. That's already not allowed.

How so.

Because all the laws are written as a function of gender, not sexual orientation.


>>>>

 

[Cowman]

Gay couples can still have children. It may not be both of their genes producing them, but that's still another couple raising a child that would have not otherwise been there. Just because the baby wasn't completely birthed by them, doesn't mean anything.

It's no different than a heterosexual couple who do in vitro fertilization as well.

A same gender couple can adopt or do in vitro. An opposite gender couple can adopt, go the in vitro route or conceive through intercourse.

The same gender couple however, never has to worry about the unplanned while the opposite gender couple does.

Not making lite of your post (although I have a feeling some will think I am), but that still looks like the relationships are quite different.

Peace cowman

What does any of that matter though?

 

[rightwinger]

Gay couples can still have children. It may not be both of their genes producing them, but that's still another couple raising a child that would have not otherwise been there. Just because the baby wasn't completely birthed by them, doesn't mean anything.

It's no different than a heterosexual couple who do in vitro fertilization as well.

A same gender couple can adopt or do in vitro. An opposite gender couple can adopt, go the in vitro route or conceive through intercourse.

The same gender couple however, never has to worry about the unplanned while the opposite gender couple does.

Not making lite of your post (although I have a feeling some will think I am), but that still looks like the relationships are quite different.

Peace cowman

About 5% of the population is gay. About 5% of married couples are infertile. Yet one group is allowed to be married, the other isn't

 

[ima]

Except marriage is based on gender, not a subset of same.

So then it's simple sex discrimination. That's already not allowed.

How so.

A women can marry a man but not another woman, that's discrimination based on gender, which isn't allowed.

 

[Meister]

So then it's simple sex discrimination. That's already not allowed.

How so.

A women can marry a man but not another woman, that's discrimination based on gender, which isn't allowed.

I gay woman can marry a man, can't she?

 

[Cowman]

How so.

A women can marry a man but not another woman, that's discrimination based on gender, which isn't allowed.

I gay woman can marry a man, can't she?

Happens all the time.

It's discrimination that a gay woman can't marry another woman.