Clear Cut: The Story Of Philomath, Oregon

[lazs2]

bong boy...  what part of "benifiet" or "pay for" do you not get?

We as a people have, for right or wrong, figured that a marriage and the raising of children is to societies benifiet and we are willing to pay for it.. this would include tax breaks and health care breaks from employers.

If you redefine marriage as meaning any two people or animals or whatever then the rest of us have to pay the increased cost.

It is not the white dress the preacher they want...  it is the monetary part.

lazs

[Chairboy]

Goodness, Sig220, strong emotions!  I asked for a clarification.  In the message you responded to, I quoted a statement you had made that appeared to support judicial override of a law and asked to understand why you support that in situation, then oppose it in another?

[bongaroo]

Originally posted by lazs2
bong boy...  what part of "benifiet" or "pay for" do you not get?

We as a people have, for right or wrong, figured that a marriage and the raising of children is to societies benifiet and we are willing to pay for it.. this would include tax breaks and health care breaks from employers.

If you redefine marriage as meaning any two people or animals or whatever then the rest of us have to pay the increased cost.

It is not the white dress the preacher they want...  it is the monetary part.

lazs

wow, ask for a clarification or explanation and i get to see you get all riled up.  no wonder no one wants to talk to you

otherwise thank you for your elaboration.

you think the small percentage of gays getting married(actually i have no idea how many people this would entail, but i seriously doubt in the national scheme of things its going to put a hurting on your wallet) is really going to break the bank?

[bongaroo]

Originally posted by Tac
That was an accidental typo it was not intentional.

You even had me googlin' the word now lol.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungaroo

?

lol, appology accepted, funny typo in that case

[Arlo]

Originally posted by lazs2
They can't marry their daughter or the dog or a dead person or someone of the same gender.

Whoa! Apples, bananas, grapes *AND oranges! Mixed fruit in that bit of logic (ptp).

Originally posted by lazs2
Now.. If they want to make some kind of contract with someone of the same gender.. they are free to do that.   If they want the contract to have all the same rights as a legal marriage....

Well.. they need to do the work.    they need to convince people that they deserve each and every right.. that it is to our benifiet and workable..   that we are willing to pay for it.  

If heterosexual couples had to jump those same hoops (and believe me, it's crossed my mind they should) then I might be inclined to agree with that proposal.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by SIG220
Yes.  The Civil Union law specifically only applies to gay couples.   It is a law created only for them, and only grants them rights.  

It does not allow heterosexual couples to form a Civil Union.  You must be a gay couple.  If the law applied to all citizens equally, then I would certainly support it.

The law is clearly unconstitutional as it is currently written.

SIG 220

Where does it specifically prohibit civil union of heterosexuals? And where does the logic of the law being written to grant a right pre-existing to heterosexual married couples make it "exclusive", as well? Seems more an addendum to existing state law to make a right more inclusive in spite of homophobia.

Your "clearly" meter may be pegged but I might recommend recalibration.

Our opinions differ.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by SIG220
For your information, slavery never even existed in Oregon.   So how could it be even be brought back?  

These silly hypotheticals you are coming up with are irrelevant

If you want to go ahead and believe that the vast majority of Americans are prejudiced, go ahead.   It is a free country, and you can believe what you want to.

SIG 220

As can you. I dig your need to argue semantics about how a national prohibition can't be threatened by a state who didn't practice in the past but .....

Now, if the majority of Americans thought slavery was cool, today .... even Oregonians who, apparently, never felt such a compulsion in their lifetimes, ever .... would that make it right because democracy demands it?

[lazs2]

bongboy....Your argument is that if it is only a little wrong then it is ok?

arlo... along the same lines... right or wrong.. hetrosexual marriage has evolved into what it is.   the rights were given over time and he conditions laid out.

Now (you?) want to change the rules.. the ones wanting to change the rules are the ones who need to make the case.  I simply don't want to pay for their desires.

I do see some benifet to hetro couples being married and.. to raising kids.

I see no benifet at all associated with gays being married in the conventional sense.

They are welcome to form their own type of contract tho.

lazs

[Arlo]

Originally posted by lazs2
arlo... along the same lines... right or wrong.. hetrosexual marriage has evolved into what it is.   the rights were given over time and he conditions laid out.

Now (you?) want to change the rules.. the ones wanting to change the rules are the ones who need to make the case.  I simply don't want to pay for their desires.

How am (I) changing rules? Seems I'm all for the same rules applied to all. (Isn't that a supporting pillar of many a political debate here?) I'm pretty sure homosexual relationships have "evolved" to what they are, too.

Unless their goal is to spread homosexuality all over the globe (which I find doubtful, at best), I see no more a rational argument in denying a homosexual couple the same rights as a heterosexual one, whether that's civil ceremony and license (even a church one for faiths and denominations open to such), adoption, widow's bennies, etc. A disfunctional family isn't even a "right" of a heterosexual one (nor is it apparently sole basis to break them up, from what I've seen). Yet I see it's the one argument offered but until those presenting it have more than a feeling that it's more prone to happen if daddy (or mommy) closes their bedroom door and climbs into bed with someone of the same gender, I don't see a very good one.

*ShruG*

[SIG220]

Originally posted by Arlo
Where does it specifically prohibit civil union of heterosexuals? And where does the logic of the law being written to grant a right pre-existing to heterosexual married couples make it "exclusive", as well? Seems more an addendum to existing state law to make a right more inclusive in spite of homophobia.

Your "clearly" meter may be pegged but I might recommend recalibration.

Our opinions differ.

You obviously know nothing about this law, if you think that it is not a same sex civil unions law.   It is very explicit in the text of the law, and the news media here in Oregon has been most clear about this point.   So you obviously don't live here in Oregon either.

You need to know the facts before you open your mouth.   Your opinion is manufactured purely out of thin air.

Here is a link to a legal reseach website that has the actual text of the  law, so you can read it for yourself:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/04/oregon-house-passes-same-sex-civil.php

[Arlo]

Originally posted by SIG220
You obviously know nothing about this law, if you think that it is not a same sex civil unions law.   It is very explicit in the text of the law, and the news media here in Oregon has been most clear about this point.   So you obviously don't live here in Oregon either.

You need to know the facts before you open your mouth.   Your opinion is manufactured purely out of thin air.

Here is a link to a legal reseach website that has the actual text of the  law, so you can read it for yourself:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/04/oregon-house-passes-same-sex-civil.php

Don't get pissy and invent my ignorance because your opinion differs from mine, darlin'.

What part of "affording them the benefits [already] available to married couples" (as specifically stated in the link which supposedly proves my general ignorance of the issue) is "exclusive?"

I'm all for having an intelligent debate on this. But I'm not going to provide the intelligent part for you ... as well.

[SIG220]

Originally posted by Arlo
Where does it specifically prohibit civil union of heterosexuals? And where does the logic of the law being written to grant a right pre-existing to heterosexual married couples make it "exclusive", as well? Seems more an addendum to existing state law to make a right more inclusive in spite of homophobia.

Your "clearly" meter may be pegged but I might recommend recalibration.

Our opinions differ.

To further illustrate my point, I have copied below the official legislative summary for the bill, from the State of Oregon's web site.   I also included the very beginning of the actual text of the law.   As you can easily see, the very first four words in the law specifically state that it only applies to same-sex relationships.

In the future, you may want try to use a tool like Google and investigate an issue, before questioning that something being said is not accurate and correct.   Google is very easy to use, you should really give it a try sometime.

SIG 220

From the State of Oregon's website:

House Bill 2007

Sponsored by COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, ETHICS AND RULES (at the request of Governor¢s Task Force on Equality)

SUMMARY

Establishes requirements and procedures for entering into civil union contract between individuals of same sex.  Provides that any privilege, immunity, right or benefit granted by law to individual who is or was married is granted to individual who is or was in civil union. Provides that any responsibility imposed by law on individual who is or was married is imposed on individual who is or was in civil union.

Provides that any privilege, immunity, right, benefit or responsibility granted or imposed by law to or on spouse with respect to child of either spouse is granted to or imposed on partner with respect to child of either partner.

A BILL FOR AN ACT

Relating to same-sex relationships; creating new provisions; and amending ORS 107.615, 192.842, 205.320, 409.300, 432.235 and 432.405.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:.......  etc.......

[SIG220]

Originally posted by Arlo
Don't get pissy and invent my ignorance because your opinion differs from mine, darlin'.
 

What are you saying here?  Clearly you were ignorant about this law, otherwise you would not have made such a statement questioning that it was a law specifically for gay couples.

So I clearly did not invent your ignorance about this law.  You SPOKE IT Mister!!  I didn't put YOUR words into YOUR mouth.

If you cannot own up to what you say, well, gee whiz ......

SIG 220

[Arlo]

Originally posted by SIG220
To further illustrate my point, I have copied below the official legislative summary for the bill, from the State of Oregon's web site. (snip)

Yay you. Can't understand the fault of your argument no matter who cuts and pastes it

Sorry .... my "skill at Google" isn't reflective in your confusion in logic. You're not making a good case with your "Google skill, " either.

Here, I know you hate this correlation because you're an Oregonian and all (not sure why Organ-ownians, supposedly, have problems having things simplified and explained to them):

The amendment outlawing slavery was not an "exclusive right" granted to said former slaves. The right of freedom already existed to those who weren't slaves prior to the amendment. So to try to claim said amendment would be unconstitutional because it "excluded" free individuals would be (and I'll slow down at this point) a .... stupid .... claim.

Has nothing to do with my not being a native of Oregon (ahem). Has nothing to do with the amazing ability even the simplest of minds have finding what they think makes their argument smarter on Google.

[lazs2]

arlo.. how are you not understanding this one.. everyone has exactly the same right so far as marriage goes.  

Anyone can marry anyone else so long as they fit the guidelines.. everyone has to live by these rules who wants to get married.

These rules were formed over the centuries because people felt that the rules best served society and now.. everyone has to abide by them.   you can't just change the gender part without being unfair to anyone else who wants to marry a sister or whatever...  you have to say that marriage is a contract between any two of anything..  

There is no benifiet to the expense of homosexuals marrying each other to me..  prove that there is.   It costs money and they are the ones wanting to change the rules.  

If they want to change the rules then they have to make a case that I/we think is worthwhile before we pay for it.   Like I said.. it isn't the right to wear a white dress and have a reception that they want.

In the meantime... what is wrong with simply having a contract between them?

lazs