Evidently that paperwork did mean something in the long run...
http://news.change.org/stories/sonoma-county-pays-for-shameful-treatment-of-gay-couple
AD versus Common Era
- Thread starter Ultramann
- Start date
- Status
Evidently that paperwork did mean something in the long run...
http://news.change.org/stories/sonoma-county-pays-for-shameful-treatment-of-gay-couple
isn't it about time this thread was locked and we all moved on since it's so far off the topic it's going to take 70 years at maximum warp just to get back to the topic. no one is changing anyone's opinions and it's just a stupid arguement now that should never have been dragged in here in the first damn place.
Evidently, Sci is having trouble understanding a very basic concept here.
What we, on this side of the fence, are advocating is hitting the big red reset button on the whole shebang.
So, legally speaking, no straight marriage, no gay marriage, EVERY UNION IS A CIVIL UNION! Everybody has the same rights and privileges that go with that little piece of paper, regardless of the gender of the two signatories on the form.
Anything after that, like whether or not there was a church service, if the presiding officer was a justice of the peace, a minister, or Bozo the Clown, is nothing but superfluous details. And you get to call it whatever the hell you want, a marriage, a civil union, or a jelly donut, knock yourself out.
GET IT NOW!?!
What we, on this side of the fence, are advocating is hitting the big red reset button on the whole shebang.
So, legally speaking, no straight marriage, no gay marriage, EVERY UNION IS A CIVIL UNION! Everybody has the same rights and privileges that go with that little piece of paper, regardless of the gender of the two signatories on the form.
Anything after that, like whether or not there was a church service, if the presiding officer was a justice of the peace, a minister, or Bozo the Clown, is nothing but superfluous details. And you get to call it whatever the hell you want, a marriage, a civil union, or a jelly donut, knock yourself out.
GET IT NOW!?!
LOL
It's an international board. We have members from across the globe and what is a right and what is a privilege effects not just the 300 million or so people who live in America. So yeah, if you want to debate this with just Americans, do it somewhere else, a board that only allows Americans to take part or do it in private in PM.
Until then, remember, it's an international board and if someone from The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Mexican States or Republic of Indonesia (to name but three nations) wants to come in and tell you the laws of your land that you hold so dear mean fuck all to the rest of the world and then give their opinion on the subject at hand, they are fully with in the conditions of use of this board to do so.
Anyway, this has no place in Treklit and I'm seriously not understanding why the mods haven't locked this thread down way before you built up so much self righteous steam Sci.
If that's the case, I'm very happy to hear that that particular story wasn't the abuse of power I'd previously heard described.
I've gotten it since the first time it was described. I've explained why I think it's a bad situation. Not all forms of disagreement are the result of inadequate understanding of what the other person is saying.
Yes, it is, which is why you are welcome to debate what rights and privileges the British legal system uses in this same thread. And, similarly, I have a right to debate U.S. law in this same thread.
I don't recall saying it was not within the conditions of use of the board for you to do so. I simply explained that I was restricting my conversational entries to American law -- which is also within the conditions of use of this board.
Sci has every right to be as indignant as the rest of us.
Thank you.
Well, at the end of the day, one could argue that we're discussing what marriage laws would work for the Federation.
Well, at the end of the day, one could argue that we're discussing what marriage laws would work for the Federation.
Sometimes I just flat enjoy a discussion that takes on a life of its own.
Well, at the end of the day, one could argue that we're discussing what marriage laws would work for the Federation.
Sometimes I just flat enjoy a discussion that takes on a life of its own.
Well, at the end of the day, one could argue that we're discussing what marriage laws would work for the Federation.
Sometimes I just flat enjoy a discussion that takes on a life of its own.
Since we agree Sci. It might be time to start up that parka business because it's surely snowing in hell right now.
Sci, if/when you ever run for office, you have my vote. Or at the very least, a campaign donation.
Since we agree Sci. It might be time to start up that parka business because it's surely snowing in hell right now.
Indeed!
Now...not to steal everyone's chance for a collective sigh of relief, but...as Yogi Berra said, it ain't over 'till its over.
NOW--
Simply this: I have yet to hear of a situation in which a heterosexual couple who did not have sex with anyone until their marriage--and then, only with one another--would contract an STD through the "normal" process. (I.e., they might get it through a tainted needle, etc.--but not through sex.)
By contrast, those engaged in premarital and/or extramarital sex do risk contracting STDs through the normal process. Dittos for homosexual relationships--married or otherwise, "gays" in general have a shorter average life span than "straights".
I'm just saying it's an odd coincidence....
I do not deny that they certainly won't contract them if they abstain--completely.
But are you flat-out saying, then, that sexually responsible LGBTs have no risk of contracting STDs?
Sci, even with sex ed and contraception, I feel the need to point out the fine print on all condom ads, to the effect of "This product protects from such-and-such a percentage of STD and pregnancies if used properly."
Whatever the heck "if used properly" means. And even if it is "used properly", it's still a percentage; the risk still exists.
The #1 100% guarantee against any such trauma is simply: abstinence.
Now, to the inevitable challenge to this:
Actually, it can. You mentioned the importance of sex ed. I actually agree on that--provided such education has as its primary emphasis the importance of abstinence.
By all means educate on how to use contraceptives "properly"--but also stress that it is not foolproof by any means--and that the only method which truly 100% works is...abstinence.
Furthermore...a major reason for the widespread sexual activity involves the culture. Casual sex is advertised like mad throughout the media. It is glamorized; it is encouraged.
Fix the culture--make promiscuity "uncool"--and you make more and more of the youth think twice about sexual activity prior to marriage. Therefore, the rate goes down.
And yet...whenever such repairing of the culture is advocated...curiously, said advocates are called "self-righteous", "old-fashioned"--and my personal favorite, "intolerant".
I honestly don't think using STD's is a fair barometer for whether a certain group of people should be eligible for marriage.
I can see that people can be against gay marriage and yet not be bigoted towards gay people in general. I think part of the barrier to gay marriage is that some feel like their position on the matter is being ignored. Change frightens people and change to something that people feel ownership over can create the kind of furor we're seeing over gay marriage.
One way or another the gay and straight communities will be on equal legal footing in regards to the legal uniting of two individuals in the near future... it'll be interesting to see how we get there.
I can see that people can be against gay marriage and yet not be bigoted towards gay people in general. I think part of the barrier to gay marriage is that some feel like their position on the matter is being ignored. Change frightens people and change to something that people feel ownership over can create the kind of furor we're seeing over gay marriage.
One way or another the gay and straight communities will be on equal legal footing in regards to the legal uniting of two individuals in the near future... it'll be interesting to see how we get there.
Amendment 10, United States Constitution:
The states have a broad range of powers, including the registration of vehicles and the licensing of drivers, the regulation of the practice of law and medicine, regulating and licensing businesses, and issuing marriage licenses. That’s how things work over here. In fact (and I’m not expressing my personal opinion one way or the other), many Americans think the Federal government has far too much power as it is.
Unless of course it involves "interstate commerce" which is basically the enabling act for 90% of what the federal government does now domestically...
Then again, many Americans would be shocked to learn Australia has no bill of rights.
- Status