Civil unions give gays/lesbians a compromise not equality.

Is a restricted view of marriage a right?
If the majority of people have this view does it make it right?

At one time, the majority of people favored slavery. Did that make it right?

Listen, guys, there's no point in arguing the case with km. He is a cultural fundamentalist. Because marriage has been X for all time, therefore marriage must remain X for all time. And notice, please, that I mean fundamentalism quite literally, since marriage meaning X is really restricting the field within which the word has meaning--so, multiple wives in an Islamic or LDS context, or multiple husbands in the rare cases where that economic model has made sense--those are not licit definitions of marriage because they do not hew to the fundamentalist position. The same thing goes for the argument from "consummation." which seems to have a biological grounding and so gives to the fundamentalism a scientistic flavor.

Ya can't argue with a fundie, youbetcha.

Depends what goes into the law. In England civil unions extend exactly the same rights to the parties on such matters as income tax, inheritance, and pensions and life assurance as apply to married couples and the rules on immigration, rights of residence and medical decision-making are also exactly the same.


At the moment, yeah, because it's the law.


Ultimately, yes - in a democracy.


You can't know that - I would suggest that some members of the ruling class favoured slavery rather than a majority of the people.

km

Well I've got an open mind, it's just that no-one's persuaded me I've got it wrong.

km

Ya can't argue with a fundie, youbetcha.

Of course, you're absolutely right, Yoyo. What's interesting is that even though I (and others) know that to be true, it is just sooo easy to get sucked into their trap. I'll try better not to get pulled in any more... at least with this one.

There was an interesting article in this morning's LA Times that grabbed my eye. It may be relevant.

Bully's brain feels joy in others' pain

Brain scans of teens with a history of aggressive bullying behavior suggest that they may actually get pleasure out of seeing someone else in pain, researchers said Friday.

The researchers compared eight boys ages 16 to 18 with aggressive conduct disorder to a group of eight adolescent boys with no unusual signs, tracking brain activity using functional magnetic resonance imaging.

In the aggressive teens, areas of the brain linked with feeling rewarded -- the amygdala and ventral striatum -- became very active when they observed pain being inflicted on others, according to the study in the journal Biological Psychology.

They showed little activity in an area of the brain involved in self-regulation -- the medial prefrontal cortex and the temporoparietal junction -- as was seen in the control group.

-- times staff and wire reports

That is ambiguous, especially since you are from England and I am from Massachusetts, US.
Are you talking about English law? Massachusetts law? Maybe the law of Belgium, Canada, The Netherlands, Norway, South Africa or Spain?

I'd love to see you have a discussion about marriage with a gay/lesbian person.
Tell them how you support civil unions that have all the rights of a marriage.
Mention that you disapprove of same-sex marriage.
Bring up the word equality a couple times here or there.

Sorry, I'm done now.

Well, let's just say about 99 per cent of the world. In England we wouldn't recognise a US same-sex civil union as marriage no matter how many Acts you passed about it.


Not a problem because they do offer all the same rights and even a few other benefits that make it even better than marriage. You're suggesting that gays and lesbians are opposed to same-sex civil unions because it's not 'marriage' when in reality it's only the lunatic fringe who are hung up about the word. In England the gay and lesbian community campaigned for civil unions, not marriage, and have been taking advantage of the legislation ever since without moaning about whether it's marriage or not.


What you mean mention that I'm in the mainstream of worldwide opinion on the meaning of marriage? That wouldn't be difficult but I wouldn't discuss a person's sexuality unless invited to do so.

km

Self-reflect much?

Okay well you're making accusations here by innuendo so I would make the following observations on them...


What trap? It wasn't my thread and we're all entitled to argue a point of view on somebody else's. Just because you don't agree with my arguments and apparently can't counter them with anything other than a pre-conceived conclusion doesn't make a trap.


On the contrary, it should be obvious to everyone that Steve has been trying to goad me into repeating everything which I've resisted out of consideration for those who feel affronted by my rationale. My posts have emphasised nothing but the need for respect and equality for gays and lesbians on the objective basis I've put forward so your suggestion of bullying is manifestly inappropriate.

Although his rationale might be more religious than mine President-elect Obama has the same position as I do on same-sex marriage and civil unions - so what is he - another bullying fundamentalist?

km