Obama vs. Beantown

[NAOS]

I think if this thread is going to continue we should get some background on the real person behind Beantown. Most of your comments are backed by a system of beliefs that hasn't seen the appropriate light of day. Bean, you seem like a guy that is proud of who he is and what he believes, so why don't you tell us more about who you are and what you do. You know, the classic questions (except your real name)...

Age, Occupation, Title at work, Education, Religious Affiliation, Where you grew up, The make-up of your family, Married or Single, How many kids, The functions (if any) you serve in your religious community, etc.

 

[moevillini]

for the sake of peace and harmony, and since NAOS is obviously new and not somebody from the old board, Bean has stated that he believes that civil unions should be allowed between partners of the same sex as well as partners of the opposite sex. He just believes that the term "marriage" should only apply to heterosexual unions. I don't personally have a major issue with that, as long as it's understood that the term marriage has no legal standing, but refers to the ceremony that may be performed to celebrate the civil union.

I think I've paraphrased Bean's position fairly accurately.

So in that sense he's doesn't seem to be quite the bigot that he's sometimes portrayed as being.

 

[NAOS]

for the sake of peace and harmony, and since NAOS is obviously new and not somebody from the old board, Bean has stated that he believes that civil unions should be allowed between partners of the same sex as well as partners of the opposite sex. He just believes that the term "marriage" should only apply to heterosexual unions. I don't personally have a major issue with that, as long as it's understood that the term marriage has no legal standing, but refers to the ceremony that may be performed to celebrate the civil union.

I think I've paraphrased Bean's position fairly accurately.

So in that sense he's doesn't seem to be quite the bigot that he's sometimes portrayed as being.

I think all that you are doing here is helping a wolf dress in sheep's clothing. That doesn't mean I think Bean is a particularly dangerous wolf. He certainly doesn't think he's a bigot, but most bigots don't.


(I was actually a member of the old board for almost 3 years before the crash, but I rarely got involved with the general discussion board)

 

[One Brow]

#1 you are speaking about a specific race of people, I am not talking about people, I am talking about the relation.

#2 There are no biological differences in reference to reproduction from race to race. All heterosexual relation in all races create offspring

#3 This comparison makes no sense.

There you go, being all jellied again. I replied to a post where you discussed different relationships, now you back-pedal to say you meant relations.

#1. I never mentioned a race of people. More to the point, a relation between any two people is different than that between any two other people.
#2. There are biological difference in reproduction between any couple and any other couple, and in fact even between a couple at time A and that same coupld at a later time B. Otherwise their children would all be the same.
#3. If the comparison really made no sense, you would not have been able to compose responses #1 and #2. You understood the comparison just fine, you simply disliked it.

For reasons that are strictly religious in nature, you want o cordon off a certain type of sexual activity as being so special it deserves it own special name, and everyone else can make do without it. This is a bad basis for government policy.

I don't personally have a major issue with that, as long as it's understood that the term marriage has no legal standing, but refers to the ceremony that may be performed to celebrate the civil union.

Beantown's position is that there should be a separate legal standing, at least in name. Separate but equal, perhaps.

 

[moevillini]

Beantown's position is that there should be a separate legal standing, at least in name. Separate but equal, perhaps.

actually, I think he said he's support the term being used only for the ceremony. I'll have to try to find it.

 

[Beantown]

for the sake of peace and harmony, and since NAOS is obviously new and not somebody from the old board, Bean has stated that he believes that civil unions should be allowed between partners of the same sex as well as partners of the opposite sex. He just believes that the term "marriage" should only apply to heterosexual unions. I don't personally have a major issue with that, as long as it's understood that the term marriage has no legal standing, but refers to the ceremony that may be performed to celebrate the civil union.

I think I've paraphrased Bean's position fairly accurately.

So in that sense he's doesn't seem to be quite the bigot that he's sometimes portrayed as being.

Thanks Moe, that explains my position perfectly. But let me also add that to my reasoning. I beleive recognizing heterosexuals with the term "marriage" also distinguishes them as the only relation to engage in reproduction. This to me respects that power in a country that already disrespects reproduction.

So its not a diss to homosexuals, but a respect to the natural laws of our species.

 

[moevillini]

Bean (and anyone else)

You have said that you support "civil unions" for partners of the same sex. Speaking strictly in the legal sense as far as property rights, tax laws, family laws and whatever other areas of statute may be involved, does this mean that you would support a "civil union" that is 100% the equal to what is now called "marriage" - in other words, if the word "marriage" were taken out of the equation and replaced with "civil union" would you be in favor of this type of relationship for both same and different sex partners?

I'm just trying to figure out where it is that the line in the sand is drawn on this issue for you.

Moe, let me list some things for you and maybe this will help understand me better.

-I believe homosexual relations should have 100% the same rights as heterosexuals...

-I believe the term "marriage" has always been assoctiated with as a hetorosexuality and family...

ok, well maybe I'm adding too much of my own interpretation to his response to my direct question. But my question was pretty specific, and he did say he supports 100% the same for both types of relationships. I'm not sure whether the semantics matter more or less than I think they do, I'm really not.


EDIT: As sort of a corollary to the discussion, I'd be curious to know how others feel about the term "marriage" and whether or not it should be removed as the legal definition of the relationship so that civil union could become the accepted legal term.

 

[Beantown]

actually, I think he said he's support the term being used only for the ceremony. I'll have to try to find it.

Correct, homosexuals are trying to use the term "marriage" to force other to recognize the relation equal to heterosexuals. Unfortunatly the natural laws of our world dont support that. I am more concerned with respecting reproduction.

 

[Beantown]

Moe, why do you believe homosexuals are so concerned with the term "marriage" if they recieve the exact same legal benefits through civil unions?

 

[Scat]

Moe, why do you believe homosexuals are so concerned with the term "marriage" if they recieve the exact same legal benefits through civil unions?

I can answer this. They are so desperate to be looked at as normal, and feel equal that they think forcing their way into the one phrase that has defined heterosexual bonds for years will give them what they want. Sadly, I think they are mistaken. Being able to use a word will not change what or who they are.

 

[One Brow]

I can answer this. They are so desperate to be looked at as normal, and feel equal that they think forcing their way into the one phrase that has defined heterosexual bonds for years will give them what they want. Sadly, I think they are mistaken. Being able to use a word will not change what or who they are.

Of course, the thought that have a different institution can lead to discrimination down the line never occurs to homosexuals, right? It must be all about the Marcus's of the world and the effect it will have on them.

 

[Scat]

Of course, the thought that have a different institution can lead to discrimination down the line never occurs to homosexuals, right? It must be all about the Marcus's of the world and the effect it will have on them.

Can you translate this for me?

 

[One Brow]

Can you translate this for me?

Sardony-free version:

Separate institutions mean separate rights, at least potentially. For example, if one type of domexstic partnership is called "marriage", and another type is called "civil union", then there is the potential for legally saying that, for example, two members of a marriage are next-of-kin, but not two members of a civil union. Even if they are set up the same initially, the legislature could change that down the line. On the other hand, if both types of partnerships are marriages, it becomes more difficult to make them different accidentally, and it is more obvious when done purposefully.

Your notion that the primary concern in seeking to have the same institution is whether people will look at them as normal is a typical anti-marriage formulation, seemingly designed to mask a real concern and frame the issue in a way that puts the focus on the people who are anti-marriage and how things affect them.

 

[moevillini]

Bean (and anyone else)

You have said that you support "civil unions" for partners of the same sex. Speaking strictly in the legal sense as far as property rights, tax laws, family laws and whatever other areas of statute may be involved, does this mean that you would support a "civil union" that is 100% the equal to what is now called "marriage" - in other words, if the word "marriage" were taken out of the equation and replaced with "civil union" would you be in favor of this type of relationship for both same and different sex partners?

I'm just trying to figure out where it is that the line in the sand is drawn on this issue for you.

Moe, why do you believe homosexuals are so concerned with the term "marriage" if they recieve the exact same legal benefits through civil unions?

Part of it is because of the fact that the idea of a "civil union" has no legal standing at present on a federal level, the only "legal" relationship is marriage, and it is legally defined as between a man and a woman. Until the legal definition is changed, it is an issue because it serves to separate "marriage" from "civil union" on a legal basis, as well as on a societal level.

So as it stands right now, it is impossible for a "civil union" to be equal to "marriage"

Also, just from stuff I've read in the past, I know that there are differences of opinion on this issue. Some gays would be more willing to accept the idea of civil unions for same sex couples and marriage for opposite sex couples than others. Some take a more hard-line, militant stance - - others are more willing to compromise on some of these issues.

If I have a chance, I'll try to find some links.

 

[moevillini]

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm
Defense of Marriage Act - passed by Congress in 1996

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does two things. First, it provides that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other State with respect to a same-sex "marriage." Second, it defines the words "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of Federal law....

The first substantive section of the bill is an exercise of Congress' power under the "Effect" clause of Article IV, section 1 of the Constitution (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) to allow each State (or other political jurisdiction) to decide for itself whether it wants to grant legal status to same-sex "marriage."...

The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex...

DOMA is not meant to affect the definition of "spouse" (which under the Social Security law, for example, runs to dozens of lines). It ensures that whatever definition of "spouse" may be used in Federal law, the word refers only to a person of the opposite sex.

for instance, the US Tax Code limits the ability to file a joint federal tax return to those who are "married" as defined by Federal law, which thus limits it to heterosexual couples. Same sex couples, even those joined in "civil unions" where legally recognized, are not considered "married" under federal law and thus are not able to file a joint tax return.

In some sense, the use of devices such as "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" can guarantee homosexual couples have some of the same rights and privileges as married couples (such as the eligibility for health insurance benefits on a family plan) but certainly not equal rights and benefits. And as long as there is a legal difference between these various types of pairings, they cannot be equal. My guess is that once the legal differences were completely removed, there would be far less dissension on this issue.

Also, Bean, for all of your huffing and puffing about reproduction, your definition as it applies in reality is based upon looks and nothing more. A man who has had a vasectomy is no more capable of impregnating a woman than another woman would be. Yet just by looking at him and determining that he has the correct parts, you would be willing to give him rights that you would deny to someone else.

(that particular horse has been beaten to death on numerous occasions - - he seems to have more lives than Morris the cat!)

 

[Bronco70]

One Brow - How would you feel about dissolving "marriage" as civil terminology, and the gov't recognizing ALL domestic partnerships as CIVIL UNIONs? Marriage could be the province of churches - whatever church. Much like baptism. Fair, right?

 

[NAOS]

I nominate this thread to be locked unless Bean answers the personal questions I asked earlier today. Until then all these incoherencies in his thinking will just be the arbitrary and irrational statements that Bean is proclaiming. If we get some solid background to these assumptions maybe we can all learn something and stop banging our head against a Beanwall.

 

[Hopper]

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm
Defense of Marriage Act - passed by Congress in 1996

The gay judge in San Francisco just held, indirectly, that congress' passage of this law is "unconstitutional," eh, Mo? And Eric wants (or at least wanted) to argue that there are no "pragmatic" concerns with respect to the judge's rulin. Go figure, eh?

 

[Gameface]

I nominate this thread to be locked unless Bean answers the personal questions I asked earlier today. Until then all these incoherencies in his thinking will just be the arbitrary and irrational statements that Bean is proclaiming. If we get some solid background to these assumptions maybe we can all learn something and stop banging our head against a Beanwall.

You may want more background on Beantown, but most of us are not only familiar with who Beantown is, we have also heard his arguments on this issue in what seems like a half-dozen 20+ page debates on homosexuality. You're new to the party. Take a deep breath and stick around, you'll find out more about Beantown then you care to know.

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

One Brow - How would you feel about dissolving "marriage" as civil terminology, and the gov't recognizing ALL domestic partnerships as CIVIL UNIONs? Marriage could be the province of churches - whatever church. Much like baptism. Fair, right?

I think your idea to make marriage now only available to RELIGIOUS people instead of everyone is fabulous! I've seen you post this quite a few times, and although some hateful atheists responded, you defiantly stood strong with your position of love: take away the rights of not only homosexuals, but non-religious as well.

You're a pretty smart dood.

-Craig