Interesting news day

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Guest, Nov 18, 2003.

Loading...
  1. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    I'd like to offer an opinion on this one. I'm afraid, however, that it doesn't say much about us or the media. My idea is this. The first reason that this case has received so much attention is that all the principle players are "pretty," by which I mean that they look good on camera. They are all attractive and photograph well. Secondly, there is the baby. It's sad that I've placed this second but then, you get a glimpse of my cynical side. The murder of the unborn baby puts this crime in a whole separate category. The third piece is that the story is complex, sordid, full of twists and turns and, perhaps more importantly, full of lawyers who know how to manipulate the media into running an "update story" every time someone blows their nose. The fourth piece is that the people who own the TV news channels also own the publishing companies that will be putting out the "official" versions of the story once it's all done. I'm sorry to say it, but it's all about the benjamins.
    :(
    Jack
     
  2. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    And they are WHITE.
     
  3. Guest

    Guest Guest

    There have alread been some test cases in a few states as well as some test cases in places of employment. All were rejected.
     
  4. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    Yes, but we are talking about the decision in Massachusets, right? What evidence do you have that THIS DECISION discriminates in favor of homosexuals?
     
  5. MichaelR

    MichaelR Member

    Don't forget that she was also beheaded....
     
  6. Peter French

    Peter French member

    How naughty ....

    Jimmy, you really do sound like a fu***damentalist :eek:
     
  7. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: How naughty ....

    I am very far from a fundamentalist, Peter. On what do you base your post?
     
  8. Ike

    Ike New Member

    The answer should be "No"

    It is because one is natural and the other is unnatural (9th Amendment of the U.S Constitution).:D No. That’s not my reason. Be it as it may, I hope that both gay partnerships and heterosexual marriages will enjoy equal protection under the law. I also hope that a surviving gay partner should be able to inherit from his or her late partner. However, the natural family of a sick gay partner should have a greater say on decisions concerning life and death.
    My real reason for suggesting that the answer should be “NO” is that it will be seen as a direct assault against traditional family if the law recognizes a male gay partner as a “wife” and a female gay partner a “husband”. The way to go is for the society to reach a compromise. Proponents and opponents alike must be ready to sacrifice something.

    Ike Okonkwo, PhD
     
  9. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    Re: The answer should be "No"

    This seems to contradict your statement earlier in this thread:

    As for the use of the term "husband" and "wife", I don't think this will be much of a problem. Every homosexual couple I know uses the term "partner" or "spouse."

    But we are talking about the law. Should it be illegal for a gay man to call his partner his "wife." If so, what should the penalty be?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2003
  10. Ike

    Ike New Member

    Re: Re: The answer should be "No" on equal treatment before the law

    No I did not contradict myselfy. Treatment and protection do not have the same meaning. Treatment means the act, manner, or method of handling or dealing with someone or something. For example, all citizens are guaranteed the right to equal treatment in the criminal and juvenile justice system. Protection means the act of protecting, or the state of being protected; preservation from loss, injury, or annoyance; defense; shelter. For example, the weak need protection.

    The issue here is not penalty. I am sure that nobody expects someone to incur penalties for improper use of words or malapropism. We are talking about legal recognition of terms and their interpretations in the court of law. Everybody is free to use those words (wife and husband) in privacy whichever way he or she chooses. You are free to call your mother or your daughter "my wife" in your home. That appellation is not legally acceptable but no court will charge you for using those words in the privacy of your home, especially when they were jocularly used.

    Ike
     
  11. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Yes.

    Of course not.

    I was just talking about the wording in the various codes, rules and statutes that differentiate between the married and unmarried state.

    My suggestion (which certainly isn't original with me) was to create a new 'domestic partner' status in the law that is treated the same as marriage in terms of taxation, inheritance and so on. But I suggested using different terminology when defining and referring to it in the law books so as to avoid provoking those who conceive of marriage as a religious sacrament or in other sorts of very traditional terms.

    Churches would still be free to perform marriage ceremonies for gays as they see fit (though the law would define the resulting legal state in slightly different terms), and everyone could use their free-speech rights in choosing what they personally wanted to call the practice of formalizing gay unions.

    This is a compromise and I realize that it won't be fully acceptable to the opposed activists in the "culture wars", for whom the adoption or rejection of gay marriage is symbolic of the success or failure of a broader social change agenda. But while each side will consider it suboptimal, it might be something that both sides can tolerate.
     
  12. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    Re: Re: Re: The answer should be "No" on equal treatment before the law

    Thanks for the clarification. That seems reasonable to me.
     

Share This Page