Doogie Howser is Gay!

[windovervocalcords]

Thanks. Yes, he is. I just talk about the other guy the same as anyone else. If they DID move somewhere and get married, I would not support it, but I would still talk to them, etc. Same for any of my gay relatives. I never have supported ostracizing people. I think gay sexual intercourse is sin, not being gay itself. But I have enough sins that I can't pretend I am better than them, lol. And I don't agree with them getting married as that is a religious concept, in my view, created by God. Otherwise, they have the same civil rights as the rest of us. It isn't the same as what blacks went through with seperate drinking fountains, schools, voting, etc. Not even close, really. And many black leaders have said the same thing.

And I don't see loving the sinner but not the sin as condescending, as that SHOULD be the policy of any Christian towards ANY one. Not just gays. *shrugs*

Do you support civil unions for gay couples?

 

[Dark Knight]

Do you support civil unions for gay couples?

It's nearly the same thing, much like a hetero "civil marriage" by a justice of the peace or judge or whatever, which I also don't care for either, really. So I don't see MUCH difference, no.

 

[windovervocalcords]

It's nearly the same thing, much like a hetero "civil marriage" by a justice of the peace or judge or whatever, which I also don't care for either, really. So I don't see MUCH difference, no.

Ok position is clear. No civil unions for gays. So no equal rights either. Ouch, even for your own family members. Its ok to you that they are second class citizens?

 

[Nova]

It isn't the same as what blacks went through with seperate drinking fountains, schools, voting, etc. Not even close, really. And many black leaders have said the same thing.

What the blacks went through isn't the same thing as what Native Americans went through with being actively exterminated and confined to reservations far from their homelands. And many Native American leaders have said the same thing.

Glad we got that cleared up. I'm sure African-Americans will now agree they do not require equal rights.

 

[Dark Knight]

Ok position is clear. No civil unions for gays. So no equal rights either. Ouch, even for your own family members. Its ok to you that they are second class citizens?

Well thats the ONLY "civil right" they don't seem to have. But as I said, even if they ran off and got married somewhere, I wouldn't treat them any differently. That's between them and God at that point.

 

[Dark Knight]

What the blacks went through isn't the same thing as what Native Americans went through with being actively exterminated and confined to reservations far from their homelands. And many Native American leaders have said the same thing.

Glad we got that cleared up. I'm sure African-Americans will now agree they do not require equal rights.

Take it up with the various groups of black civil leaders who have very publically condemned the correlation between the two.

 

[Nova]

Well thats the ONLY "civil right" they don't seem to have.

Alas, that isn't one right, but an umbrella term for MANY rights.

 

[Nova]

Take it up with the various groups of black civil leaders who have very publically condemned the correlation between the two.

If we're simply going to pick and choose the authorities that support our own positions, then I'll take Mrs. Dr. MLK, who argued that equal rights are equal rights, and we needn't get into a contest over who has suffered most.

 

[Details]

Details, I trust you read the respect and affection that lay beneath my mock-indignation. (I mean I meant what I said, but I understood your intent and took no offense.)



Actually, heterosexuals do it all the time, but because their relationships are socially sanctioned, they are afforded symbols (wedding rings, anniversaries, wedding showers, etc.) that allow them to announce their sexuality without referencing sexual positions.

During the election coverage last night, I heard endless commentary on the spouses appearing with the winners and losers. There were opinions on where the spouse should stand, how s/he should behave, etc., but NObody questioned whether a spouse belonged on the dais. Heterosexuality gets announced all the time. One only needs to step outside a bit to see it.

Heterosexuality is automatically accepted all the time - but announced? Homosexuals do have wedding rings, wedding showers, anniversaries, and they too can be the spouse who is being told where they should stand, how they should behave as their spouse wins or loses an election. The only difference is the gender of the spouses.

 

[windovervocalcords]

Heterosexuality is automatically accepted all the time - but announced? Homosexuals do have wedding rings, wedding showers, anniversaries, and they too can be the spouse who is being told where they should stand, how they should behave as their spouse wins or loses an election. The only difference is the gender of the spouses.

Heterosexual marraiges ARE announced and published in newspapers.

 

[IrishMist]

Heterosexuality is automatically accepted all the time - but announced? Homosexuals do have wedding rings, wedding showers, anniversaries, and they too can be the spouse who is being told where they should stand, how they should behave as their spouse wins or loses an election. The only difference is the gender of the spouses.

Well. Yeah. They could... but first we have to get past the constitutional amendments that define marriage. Then over turn the bans against gay marriage...

But then, sure, they can...

 

[Details]

Well thats the ONLY "civil right" they don't seem to have. But as I said, even if they ran off and got married somewhere, I wouldn't treat them any differently. That's between them and God at that point.

Not really the only one - they can be discriminated against in adopting a child, when one is dying, the other may not even be allowed into their room to say goodbye, as a member of the family - even if they've been together 50 years. They can't share their medical insurance with each other, they don't automatically inherit - lots of rights missing there. And a lot of places keep trying to make it more - like the town that set a limit on unrelated people living together - it hit an unmarried family, but it'd also hit anyone gay. It's being challenged in the courts - but gay people would have no way of becoming 'related' by being married - even if they've spent the last 50 years of their lives together.

 

[narlacat]

Thanks. Yes, he is. I just talk about the other guy the same as anyone else. If they DID move somewhere and get married, I would not support it, but I would still talk to them, etc. Same for any of my gay relatives. I never have supported ostracizing people. I think gay sexual intercourse is sin, not being gay itself. But I have enough sins that I can't pretend I am better than them, lol. And I don't agree with them getting married as that is a religious concept, in my view, created by God. Otherwise, they have the same civil rights as the rest of us. It isn't the same as what blacks went through with seperate drinking fountains, schools, voting, etc. Not even close, really. And many black leaders have said the same thing.

And I don't see loving the sinner but not the sin as condescending, as that SHOULD be the policy of any Christian towards ANY one. Not just gays. *shrugs*

Um, huh??

I must have missed something, aren't you Catholic?
And don't Catholics ostracize people, namely gays?

 

[windovervocalcords]

Not really the only one - they can be discriminated against in adopting a child, when one is dying, the other may not even be allowed into their room to say goodbye, as a member of the family - even if they've been together 50 years. They can't share their medical insurance with each other, they don't automatically inherit - lots of rights missing there. And a lot of places keep trying to make it more - like the town that set a limit on unrelated people living together - it hit an unmarried family, but it'd also hit anyone gay. It's being challenged in the courts - but gay people would have no way of becoming 'related' by being married - even if they've spent the last 50 years of their lives together.

There are also limitations regarding property rights when a gay spouse dies.

 

[Details]

Well. Yeah. They could... but first we have to get past the constitutional amendments that define marriage. Then over turn the bans against gay marriage...

But then, sure, they can...

Well - IIRC, there are places where they can marry, so spouse isn't necessarily a limiting word - I just figure that means your life partner, whatever term you care to use for your marriage. And there are some ministers/priests/whatevers that will marry gay people, so even if the state doesn't say it's OK, an openminded church can still make you spouse and spouse, and to heck with the stupid bans (they passed in several states, but some pundits were noticing that the percentage with which they passed has dropped a lot - getting close to 50/50 - if that curve continues, not too long until we finally get rid of that anachronism in our laws, I hope)

Gay wedding rings - boy, oh boy do I know that one though - I worked in jewelry, and sold plenty of them. Mostly to guys, for some odd reason.

 

[csds703]

Um, huh??

I must have missed something, aren't you Catholic?
And don't Catholics ostracize people, namely gays?

That's a pretty broad statement. Tolerance works both ways.

 

[windovervocalcords]

Well - IIRC, there are places where they can marry, so spouse isn't necessarily a limiting word - I just figure that means your life partner, whatever term you care to use for your marriage. And there are some ministers/priests/whatevers that will marry gay people, so even if the state doesn't say it's OK, an openminded church can still make you spouse and spouse, and to heck with the stupid bans (they passed in several states, but some pundits were noticing that the percentage with which they passed has dropped a lot - getting close to 50/50 - if that curve continues, not too long until we finally get rid of that anachronism in our laws, I hope)

Gay wedding rings - boy, oh boy do I know that one though - I worked in jewelry, and sold plenty of them. Mostly to guys, for some odd reason.

Its all very empty if there is no legal rights behind it. Ceremonies are all well and good. Just let me know I can protect my loved one when I die.

 

[julianne]

There are also limitations regarding property rights when a gay spouse dies.

Actually, that's not necessarily true. It all depends on how the title is held. You can put anyone's name on the title. If you are gay, your partner owns the house after your death as long as you hold title as Joint Tenancy with Right of Survivorship. Same as if you are not gay.

 

[windovervocalcords]

Actually, that's not necessarily true. It all depends on how the title is held. You can put anyone's name on the title. If you are gay, your partner owns the house after your death as long as you hold title as Joint Tenancy with Right of Survivorship. Same as if you are not gay.

Tax law. It happens. Extra taxes that married people do not have to pay that might put an elderly gay out on the streets while grieving the loss of their 50 year partnership.

1049 rights afforded in marriage:
http://scribbling.net/1049-federal-rights-depend-on-marital-status

If, for example, you are traveling away from home and your partner falls ill or suffers an accident and needs medical attention, you are not viewed as family. Legally, therefore, you have no input in your partner’s medical care. Even if you live in a state or city that acknowledges you both as domestic partners, the minute you leave that city or state, you become complete strangers in the eyes of the law. Even if—after having expensive wills and legal documents drawn up—you have durable power of attorney, still the hospital and medical team can deny you any right to being at your partner’s side.
http://www.whygaymarriage.com/reviews.php

 

[julianne]

Not really the only one - they can be discriminated against in adopting a child, when one is dying, the other may not even be allowed into their room to say goodbye, as a member of the family - even if they've been together 50 years. They can't share their medical insurance with each other, they don't automatically inherit - lots of rights missing there. And a lot of places keep trying to make it more - like the town that set a limit on unrelated people living together - it hit an unmarried family, but it'd also hit anyone gay. It's being challenged in the courts - but gay people would have no way of becoming 'related' by being married - even if they've spent the last 50 years of their lives together.

Not where I live. It's called the Domestic Partnership Law ( I think ) and you can have your domestic partner on your medical insurance, whether your are straight or gay. Which is how it should be.