Oh crap - I don't think Fint's been around long enough to know that's unintentionally funny.

We (our politicians, actually) recently introduced civil unions and redefined de-facto relationships within our legislation to include same-sex couples. There was plenty of coverage and discussion here, and the main issues are:

- ability to publicly recognise the relationship - the majority of same-sex couples don't seem to need it to be "marriage", they just wish to be able to express the commitment in a similar way to marriage; and

- access to the same rights and entitlements, and protection through the same laws as heterosexual couples.

ie, exactly what Rick said.

From a sense of fairness I totally understand. From a religious perspective, I worry it isn't the right thing. I find this one pretty difficult.

Side issues that always jump out at me in this topic:

- gay marriage/civil unions are argued as "destroying the sanctity of marriage" ---> what is the current divorce rate and pre-nuptial agreements doing for the sanctity of marriage?

- I believe AIDS in rampant in Africa because of unprotected heterosexual sex.

- from a Christian standpoint (stop reading if this irritates you), just how much worse is homosexual sex (by definition, sex before marriage as well as homosexual sex) than pre-marital heterosexual sex? Does God differentiate? All sin is equal?

In your opinion that is the ideal. Not everyone would agree that is *the* ideal.

In my opinion, the ideal is based on the quality of the couple, not on their gender.

Not sure God ever pronounced anything about premarital sex. I remember condemnation for homosexual activities, and adultery.

Cam-- The answer to that question depends on what religion you follow. The Catholics believe in different levels of sin (i.e. mortal and venial sins) and some protestants agree. I personally don't really think God differentiates, but that's just me.

As far as Africa and AIDS, you are correct in that the majority of HIV spread in Africa is through heterosexual contact, mostly from HIV positive men. Those of you who know something about the state of HIV in Africa know that there are major cultural hurdles to overcome before we can try and stem the tide over there. Case in point, many African men think the way to cure themselves of AIDS is to have unprotected sex with a virgin. Therefore there is a significant trade in young virgin girls which these men then infect with the virus. Prostitution is also rampant. It's exceedingly difficult to get the men to use condoms.

Lastly, as far as degrading marriage, I think it does degrade marriage. The fact that marriage in the US has degraded on its own is irrelevant to me. Sorta like legalizing cocaine just because large numbers of people do drugs. Legalizing gay "marriage" and using that term along with all that it connotes religiously would simply degrade the state of marriage in this country even further.

I really can't see why civil unions for gay couples and "marriage" for heterosexual couples is not a completely workable solution.

Kang, I agree. I prefer life in the "center". I think our only differnce in opinion on this is just where "center" is. I think it has shifted a great deal during my lifetime. I tend to agree with Rick in the seperation of long term trends from short term. Not just in our lifetimes, but over the course of the entire history of "civilized" man, I believe the natural progression has been "left".

The changes fought for and seen by one generation as progressive and liberal become the status quo as they age. Things that were shocking and unnacceptable to one generation as seen as normal by the next. I think we will always progress in that direction as a society, at least on some fronts, when looking at long term trends. Right now, though, there is a push back against the direction liberalism has chosen to take. Granted, there always has been in the past as well, but this time it "feels" different.

I'm not sure our descendants will look back upon today's liberal causes and assign them the same stature of others from our past. In the past, when liberal ideas were brought forth to the populace, there was always initial resistance followed by gradual acceptance. The acceptance came as the populace saw that these ideas made sense, and in most cases were long overdue. These modern liberal causes do not, I believe, pass muster in this regard.

They have been in front of us for a long time, perhaps a generation or more, without notably increasing support. What seems to be increasing is the polarization these issues are causing; very few seem to run lukewarm in their views on these. The support seems to have peaked, and forced to choose, the fence-sitters in the middle choose more often to oppose them than to support them.

The die-hard supporters will keep pounding away at it, but unlike causes of the past, they are building opposition rather than support through their relentless actions. The more they "raise awareness" through their efforts the more it seems to backfire on them. As common folks that were not paying attention before all the hoopla become aware of the details surrounding the more polarizing issues, they have demonstrated they tend to oppose them.

Rick,

Holding marriage as a religious value would lead me to use the term of marriage only for church sanctioned unions of man and woman, civil unions for EVERYONE else.

Steve--fine with me.

I agree with most of this. I also think the definition of center is certainly drifting left over the years.

I don’t know that I agree with your statement that “I'm not sure our descendants will look back upon today's liberal causes and assign them the same stature of others from our past.” I think it depends on the issue. I think that in a relatively short period of time, say less than 50 years, gay marriage will be the accepted norm. I’m not so sure on abortion.

I also don’t know that I agree with “They have been in front of us for a long time, perhaps a generation or more, without notably increasing support.” A lot of things that have changed in the last couple hundred years were the status quo for centuries. Look at women’s right to vote. That’s relatively recent, but for thousands of years women were practically a separate caste from men. Gays have also been around for thousands of years, but had to hide in the closet, for fear of persecution, until recently. Now almost everyone agrees there is a right to at least “be” gay.

I also don’t know that there is any evidence for “the fence-sitters in the middle choose more often to oppose them than to support them.” It might seem that way with the short term shift to the right that we’ve had since 9/11, but overall I don’t know that it is true.

I also agree with this: “What seems to be increasing is the polarization these issues are causing; very few seem to run lukewarm in their views on these.” The polarization is indeed increasing, and it is distressing. I wish we could get past it. Maybe when we have an administration that’s not so far to the right we will. But when you say “The more they "raise awareness" through their efforts the more it seems to backfire on them,” I think that the backfires you see might just be the “initial resistance followed by gradual acceptance.” Likewise “the fence-sitters in the middle choose more often to oppose them than to support them” is just more “initial resistance.” Raising awareness is the first step in any civil rights campaign. Like you said, most common folk don’t pay attention.

Time will tell. Neither of us can predict the future. But I think we both agree that the general tendency, over the long term, is more liberal. In the long run, I think this is a good thing, and I think, based on what I hear you saying, that you agree. Sure, some steps to the left have been mistakes, but we’re human and we make mistakes. We learn from and correct our mistakes. Some steps to the right have been mistakes. But the long term trend to the left is mostly the elimination of the mistakes of the generations before us.

Again, given that the "quality of the couples" is comparable to the extent that it can be determined, it's better to have a mother+father, rather than two-mothers, or two fathers. The majority of people in this country would acknowledge that.

I notice that no one, NO one has shown the other side respect in this thread. Notice that in commenting on homosexuality, I did NOT show any disrespect to anyone. I just stated that basically that no man and man or woman and woman can produce a child, period. Therefore such unions are of no interest to society in general.

The problem is that the h.mo, qu..r, .ag society does not RESPECT the rights of the majority. They are trying to FORCE, down our collective throats, their view of the world. They KNOW that their position is disrespectful, yet they still force it upon us. THAT is Un-American.

Notice that I used disrespect in the above comment. That was intentional. It was intended to show the same level of respect that their community is showing the rest of us. IE NONE.

A true AMERICAN would argue that they (the ho.., f.gs) want more recognition in our society, but they would also RESPECT the views of the majority. They would, out of consideration for the majority, demand something unique to achieve their goal, not something that they KNOW derogates all of us. Their current position is an UP YOURS position that is totally unsupportable and will never win.

As to the good for nothing liberals, that are lazy, I hate to have to spell it out, but apparently they are to stupid to understand, that it also means intellectual, in addition to material development. Just because you know everything at 18 doesn’t mean that you no longer have to think, because you don't know very much. Now that your are older and still lay back on your 18 year old conclusions means that you are a lazy, good for nothing , sob.

There are a few, very very few liberals that can justify their stand. It is usually because they incomplete data to deal with, eg all their info comes from the democratic party or some other equally biased source of nonsense. Given real data they usually change their minds.

Sorry if I don't personally know of any drunk latino, black or asian trailer trash....I speak from my experience which is basically a white world.

All the gays that I know with kids are white....all the scum sucking bottom feeders I know that have kids are white.....sue me.

As to gays not reproducing???? Horse pucky....just because the gay thing overides the desire to fit in doesn't mean the parenting thing, the testicles and ovaries aren't the same.....

Remember that Horse'sPatootie Huffington? Ran against Feinstein for CA Seante?

Married to Arianna? He suddenly became gay after fathering two three children.....does his offspring become illegitimate?

Mikez,

Your posts are nonsense. I must be pretty stupid cause I don't get anything you say.

Thanks....

By the way what does anything here have to do with a Porsche, other than the Porcupines driving them?

OR what is the difference between a Porcupine and a Porsche? With a Porsche the prick is on the inside.

LOve those lame old jokes.

That, of course, was not the question. The question asked about new or additional rights necessary to allow gays to marry.

Please explain how this has anything to do with the rights of blacks? There is no parallel.

Sherwood,

Its SIMPLE, cause homos cannot have childen of their own. And thats because mother nature says so. And MOther nature is a bitc...h.

If you have any argument with this, please take it up with Mother nature. Good luck convincing her of anything.

Please don't argue with the rest of us as we have nothing to do with MOther and her nature.

Whites are white, blacks are black, but homos are by choice and it dosen't agree with MOTHER.

Say its not choice, then argue with MOTHER, not us.

And good luck, cause remember MOTHER is a bitc...h.

"Its SIMPLE, cause homos cannot have childen of their own. And thats because mother nature says so."

Not so simple. Gay women can have children, just like a straight woman. All you need are a pair of fertile fallopian tubes and you're in potential business. By your logic, one can only be accepted into society if you can reproduce. You realize not everyone with fallopian tubes can reproduce. What does that make women w/o children (by choice or circumstances), second-class citizens too?

Did you notice that men, gay or straight, can't reproduce either? I suppose that puts you in that same category since I assume you're either gay or straight and not a woman. Nothing personal by that statement, btw.

My civil rights analogy was that the majority of society back then thought giving blacks the right to vote, equal access under the law, etc. were special rights too. They're not special rights as we've learned over the years - even some die-hard segregationists have accepted this. If you believe providing equal legal status to couples of any sexual or racial persuasion constitutes "special rights" then that's your perogative. That's where we differ. Your difference of opinion doesn't make it right. Even a majority view in society doesn't make it right, just as denying blacks the right to vote, to sit anywhere on a public transport or to deny them many other basic rights was the prevelant view just a few years ago.

Maybe Mother Nature created gays to reduce the birth rate to manage population growth. By that estimation we might need more gays in China. I didn't ask or argue, but who's to say Mother Nature (since you brought her up) isn't planning that too? BTW, is Mother Nature gay or straight?

If being gay is a matter of choice, then being heterosexual is a matter of choice as well. And by that logic, man must be bisexual, bound only by the choice of Saturday night dates are available to him.

Sherwood

Wow. Did anyone else realize how suddenly this thread jumped the shark?

If I defined "Liberalism" the way a.m. radio talk shows define it, or the way Faux News defines it, then I'd be opposed to it also. That caricature is created deliberately to foster the divisive and hate-filled political partisanship we have today. "Liberal" is being marketed to be a nasty, ridiculous, insane set of beliefs. While there are certainly wackos at both ends of the political spectrum, the reality of what liberals believe is very different from the propaganda surrounding what they believe. As Techweenie said in a recent post, roughly 50% of Americans vote like liberals. Is it just possible that these people might actually be sane and responsible in their beliefs and hopes for our nation?

Nope, If you don't believe it just ask Mul or Fint :)
Seriously, I'd much prefer that both extremes lighten up just a bit (both here in OT and everywhere), as each are out of touch with most of us imo. I'm a Republican, despise what the current administration has done on MANY fronts, never visited Moveon.org in my life, couldn't care less about the Democratic party, etc. Who's representing many other folks just like me?