Lonelygirl15

AutoPilate · Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 9:42 am Post subject:

*looks at the topic's name*
_________________
Why was there BACON IN THE SOAP?!

Particular · Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 10:39 am Post subject:

spaciegirlreturn · Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 10:51 am Post subject:

Just becuase aspects of our constitution exist that may always exist (outdated or not), doesn't mean that they're right or even acceptable. I totally agree with what Lass said.
_________________
Me and my key...same as it ever was.

Languorous Lass · Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 10:56 am Post subject:

I wasn't raising the possibility seriously. My point was that if you need to argue about something, let's argue about the basic assumptions underlying marriage. AFAIC, arguing about whether my partner and I are entitled to participate in the institution -- especially for the sole purpose of "playing devil's advocate" -- insults us in the deepest possible way.

And the system that I was describing -- "special contracts for inheritance rights" and everything else -- is exactly what same-sex couples have to go through when full marriage rights are closed to us.

Have you heard the media claim that "civil unions" are "exactly like marriage except in name"? They're wrong. There are over one thousand rights granted by U.S. Federal law to married couples -- and only to married couples. Federal law takes absolutely no notice of "civil unions."

This isn't a joke. This isn't a topic for some high school debating society. This is about my life, and about the lives of millions of other people like me, in the U.S. and around the world.

Which is why I get so pissed off when AP acts like this is just some Birkenstock-wearing "blah blah blah" meaningless political rant. It isn't. If my partner of four years were in a car accident on her way home from visiting her parents (which is where she is right now), then I'd be lucky if the hospital decided to let me in to see her, even if she was dying.

And I'm not overdramatizing. A 52-year-old guy I've known for a long time, named Eric, died last summer unexpectedly, while he was all the way across the country from his home. Even though his partner of 12 years had power of attorney -- and showed up with a piece of paper in his hand saying so -- the hospital called Eric's mother to ask what they should do with Eric's body. It took intervention by a member of Congress to get them to release his body to his partner.

Imagine a hospital doing that to a wife who'd been married to her husband of 12 years. Then maybe you can begin to understand my anger.

xentis · Devoted Fan Joined: 24 Mar 2007 Posts: 629

gah fine ill stop posting here

all i was doing was trying to bring up other parts of the subject to talk about,Like the reasons why people thinks its "bad" and we could discusses why they would think it and how flawed(is that the right word) there views are

so I'm sorry if i got you angry, ill take my leave

AutoPilate · Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 11:20 am Post subject:

Can I begin to understand it without imagining?
_________________
Why was there BACON IN THE SOAP?!

Languorous Lass · Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 11:28 am Post subject:

AutoPilate · Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 11:30 am Post subject:

Shucks. Figured as much.
_________________
Why was there BACON IN THE SOAP?!

Languorous Lass · Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 11:37 am Post subject:

AP, I love you, but you can be a real jerk sometimes.

robtomorrow · Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 11:40 am Post subject:

I doubt the story about mono-sexual lizards, I would be interested if I could get a link to an article about that.

OK, back to gay marriage, I am all for it, I don't see how it would infringe on any one's rights, where as disallowing it does, but seeing that the idea of it upsets so many people, civil unions (all the rights without calling it marriage) seems to be the best compromise.

While I understand it is a important concern for the gay community, I see much more important issues at hand, the war in Iraq, or American hegemony in general, America's march toward plutocracy (the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy), and global warming (the ruining of the planet for future generations). All three issues are complex and interconnected and will be much more difficult to solve than gay marriage, which could be by compromise on both sides and the passing of a law.

Languorous Lass · Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 11:52 am Post subject:

khjq · Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 11:53 am Post subject:

about the lizards, this is from wikipedia:

"Whip-tailed lizard females have the ability to reproduce through parthenogenesis and as such males are rare and sexual breeding non-standard. Females engage in sexual behavior to stimulate ovulation, with their behavior following their hormonal cycles; during low levels of estrogen, these (female) lizards engage in "masculine" sexual roles. Those animals with currently high estrogen levels assume "feminine" sexual roles.

Lizards that perform the courtship ritual have greater fecundity than those kept in isolation due to an increase in hormones triggered by the sexual behaviors. So, even though asexual whiptail lizards populations lack males, sexual stimuli still increase reproductive success.

From an Evolutionary standpoint these females are passing their full genetic code to all of their offspring (rather than the 50% of genes that would be passed in sexual reproduction). Certain species of gecko also reproduce by parthenogenesis."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
_________________
WHY AM I STILL HERE?!?!?

spaciegirlreturn · Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 12:08 pm Post subject:

I can see that my participation in this thread will only serve to annoy the shit out of myself..must go to liquor store.
_________________
Me and my key...same as it ever was.

robtomorrow · Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 12:12 pm Post subject:

Ok, khjg, you convinced me about the lizards. Shocked

Lass,
Comparing the proposal of civil unions to segregation laws I think is inapt, no one who is suggesting civil unions as a compromise is promoting segregating homosexuals from heterosexuals, and it's not "separate but equal" it's equal, just called a different name.

Languorous Lass · Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 4:30 pm Post subject:

But it's not equal, Rob. Those who claim civil unions are equal to marriage are being disingenuous.

As I keep explaining, Federal law does not recognize civil unions. It grants more than a thousand separate rights to those persons who are married. Period.

The only rights that are granted by civil unions are rights that apply in the specific state that recognizes the union. And no other state is required to recognize the union, or grant any of the same rights. Unlike with marriage, where states are required by the Constitution to grant "full faith and credit" to a marriage recognized by any other state.

Now, you may say, "Let's amend Federal law to give people in civil unions the same rights as people who are married." But that will take amending over a thousand different laws. (Not to mention the fact that we will undoubtedly keep coming across more laws that -- "Oops, we forgot about this one." Think that doesn't happen in the U.S. Congress? Think again. I run across those problems in my work all the time.) Plus we'd have to figure out a way to require every other state in the U.S. (plus a bunch of territories like Puerto Rico) to recognize the specific rights that each separate state grants via its civil union procedure. Otherwise, we'd have a mess when people in a civil union moved to a different state. (Actually, we already have that very mess happening right now. Check out this article from the Washington Post. And this one from FindLaw. If you'd like to read the opinion of the Virginia Court of Appeals in the Miller-Jenkins case, click here.)

Why force us, and the rest of society, to suffer all that trouble and hassle when we can accomplish the very same goal in a much simpler way -- to let same-sex couples get married?