[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
I'm only asking we afford the same rights to all couples
[/QUOTE]
Why stop at 'couples'? Why stop at monogamous? Since you are taking morality (religious or otherwise) out of the equation, shouldn't you be asking for equal rights to all human beings, regardless of what kind of relationship they are in?
Come on.. pick up your position and stick with it. Don't stop half way. Else, another Seminole, 20 years from now, will be posting the same comments to allow incestous couples have same rights as you. Are you willing to give it to them?
Seminole:
I will champion a gay’s right to vote. I will champion a gay’s right to sit at the front of the bus and use public accommodations. He/she can even drink from the same water fountain as me. As to those fundamental civil rights that we all possess regardless of race, color, religion, or sexual preference, I’m on your team. There are other things that we offer as a society that are benefits and privileges and do not rise to the level of fundamental civil right. I agree with Faisal’s comments above.
You know, there are stable, monogamous heterosexual relationships outside the context of marriage too. Why shouldn’t the “right of inheritence, extention of health benefits, pension and social security benefits” also be extended to them if this is a “civil right?” Why should monogamous committed heterosexuals be forced to marry to receive these benefits? Why not just get rid of the whole concept of marriage and civil union and extend all these benefits to any two people sharing a residence for over thirty days?
And why stop at two people sharing a residence? For decade upon decade, the Mormon church promoted stable, polygamous relationships. While you or I might find that offensive, it worked for them for a very long time. But our society wanted to promote monogamous relationships so polygamy was outlawed. The Mormons have a better argument that their free exercise of religion was interfered with by outlawing polygamy than gays have that they are deprived of civil rights by not being allowed to marry or form civil unions that bring with them a whole host of privileges and benefits.
As Faisal noted, you don’t seem to have any problem at all with the government extending benefits and privileges to people based upon their lifestyle so long as the lifestyles you think are beneficial or non-detrimental are included. As to others, you’ve got no problem excluding them. Apparently, we don’t really disagree about the overall concept so much as we disagree about who to include in our benefit program and where we draw the line.
Some people argue (based on their religious beliefs or whatever) that homosexual lifestyle is immoral, ab initio. And therefore state should not encourage it.
You don't think that morality of their lifestyle, or absence thereof, really should be a factor in giving them equal spousal rights. Therefore, you did exclude morality from your argument. Now take it all the way. Why apply the brakes at monogamous?
Some people argue homosexual is immoral based on their religion. Some also argue the same for alcohol and gambling but that doesn't stop the government from promoting it and making billions of dollars while doing it.
I didn't take morality out of it, I am taking out others' interpretation of scripture and forcing it as morality onto others.
You still have not answered the question. On what basis do you argue equal spousal rights for a gay couple, and oppose the same rights to an incestous couple or those in a polygamous relationship?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
You still have not answered the question. On what basis do you argue equal spousal rights for a gay couple, and oppose the same rights to an incestous couple or those in a polygamous relationship?
[/QUOTE]
It's not uncommon in the Arab/Muslim world for cousins to marry one another, what's next will Muslim brothers and sisters marry each other!!??
The slippery slop argument is weak, it's been used against blacks, women and now gays Faisal.
underthedome.. lets focus on American laws, and not bring irrelevant issues in the discussion. If you want to discuss how muslims base their laws on their religion, feel free to open a thread in here or in Religion forum. Thank you :)
Coming back to the topic at hand, either you or Seminole have not provided a response to the question I asked in my last post. What do you have against polygamous people or incestous couples, who are (to quote Seminole) "They work, pay taxes, have traditional values (?) and have commited themselves to a life together. They aren't asking you to change your lifestyle, values or bigotry one bit."
Faisal Bhai, I think utd & Sami bring up a valid point and question is, would you also support a state or US constitutional amendment on 'cousin marriages' because such union is considered to be against 'traditional (American) values'? How about denying such cousin-married couples the rights being denied to gays?
If my memory serves me right, cousin marriage is already against the law in several states. Going by Seminole's argument, the state should provide equal spousal rights to all people who "work, pay taxes, have traditional values (?) and have commited themselves to a life together".
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
UTD writes: "myvoice, intolerance goes on throughout the world, nothing really groundbreaking here."
Is there any issue that people can disagree with you or the liberal, left wing democrats without you and the left wing democrats believing those people are "intolerant" or "uneducated" or "extremist?" I guess on the issues of gay marriage, gay adoption and abortion, the majority of the people around the world are all intolerant and you are not.
[/QUOTE]
I just want to remind you of the latest crises at the EU council when one of the Italien Commissioner said some harsh words against Gays......he was not TOLERATED!
[quote] Rocco Buttiglione, the Italian Christian Democrat in the proposed new Commission, said during his grilling by the European Parliamentary: "I may think that homosexuality is a sin; this has no effect on politics, unless I say that homosexuality is a crime."
[/quote]
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ahmadjee: *
Faisal Bhai, I think utd & Sami bring up a valid point and question is, would you also support a state or US constitutional amendment on 'cousin marriages' because such union is considered to be against 'traditional (American) values'? How about denying such cousin-married couples the rights being denied to gays?
The polygamy issue is another one.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, that's not a good example supporting UTD.
Faisal still has a better point. People/states make decisions based upon their beliefs as to what marriages ought to be recognized and permitted. Two heterosexual first cousins living together in a caring monogamous relationship because they can't get married are also deprived of the benefits Seminole and UTD want gays to have.
You see, most states don't permit first cousins to marry by statute. You don't need a consitutional amendment. So why aren't Seminole and UTD supporiting marriages or civil unions for heterosexual first cousins? Aren't first cousins entitled to the same civil liberties as gays? If not, why not.
Your memory does serve you right bhaijaan. But if you (in general terms) married your cousin in Pakistan & then came to the states you are given the same rights as any other married couple. Would it be ok if the states take away some of those rights?
ahmadjee... we are not talking about one state recognizing the marriage in another state/country. Thats a whole different topic and I am sure its very interesting as well.
Lets focus on one issue at a time. I am not about to totally confound Seminole and underthedome. They still haven't answered the basic question about their position.
I just want to remind you of the latest crises at the EU council when one of the Italien Commissioner said some harsh words against Gays......he was not TOLERATED!
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for sharing that. I hardly see how the statement "I may think that homosexuality is a sin; this has no effect on politics, unless I say that homosexuality is a crime" can be considered "harsh on gays." Buttiglione's comment seems to be a very tolerant attitude regarding gays that reconciles his religious beliefs with his political duties.
Are people no longer tolerant enough that they can allow someone to express faithfulness to his religious code on moral issues?
I believe a person does not have a choice in their sexual orientation, so why should we deny them a chance at stability, security and legitimacy? Homosexuality is not a disease. What does providing spousal benefits have to do with incest or polygamy? You have a choice to sleep with multiple partners or marry your cousin. This Sean Hannity line of questionning makes no sense.
Attitudes are changing in the US, with private industry leading the way in recognizing partnerships. People under 30 even favor gay marriage , so it won’t be too far in the future before this becomes a reality. Those righteous among you with impeccable morals, traditional values and heterosexual genes are going to have to deal with it.
^ Did your definition of 'traditional values' just changed, cz the previous definition is so wide, all of us and you are happily sitting in the same HMS Traditional Values. :)
You said: *What does providing spousal benefits have to do with incest or polygamy? You have a choice to sleep with multiple partners or marry your cousin. *
Do I take it that you are now saying that similar spousal benefits and the right to "marry" should be given to those who want to practice polygamy and those who want to marry their brothers and sisters? Come on, say it, and then we will move on to the next one.
Thanks for sharing that. I hardly see how the statement "I may think that homosexuality is a sin; this has no effect on politics, unless I say that homosexuality is a crime" can be considered "harsh on gays." Buttiglione's comment seems to be a very tolerant attitude regarding gays that reconciles his religious beliefs with his political duties.
Are people no longer tolerant enough that they can allow someone to express faithfulness to his religious code on moral issues?
[/QUOTE]
The "harsh on gay" statement should be also under "". Quoted by me from those who have criticized and rejected him for the Commission selection, my pardon.
Regarding tolerance, I dont think these moral issues should be discussed by you. Especially not then when RELIGION/FAITH has a important role to play.
Because when its comes to ISLAM you turn tables.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
^ Did your definition of 'traditional values' just changed, cz the previous definition is so wide, all of us and you are happily sitting in the same HMS Traditional Values. :)
[/quote]
No, that was a sarcastic way of saying your bias clouds your definition of 'traditional values'. There are all kinds of values we all hold dear, you pick up on one aspect of a person's lifestyle as if it negates all their other values.
[quote]
Do I take it that you are now saying that similar spousal benefits and the right to "marry" should be given to those who want to practice polygamy and those who want to marry their brothers and sisters? Come on, say it, and then we will move on to the next one.
[/QUOTE]
Where did you come up with that? One more time, for you and Sean Hannity... Incest and polygamy have nothing to do with affording spousal rights to same sex couples
, so it won’t be too far in the future before this becomes a reality. Those righteous among you with impeccable morals, traditional values and heterosexual genes are going to have to deal with it.