Re: Does your significant other enjoy Blu-ray/HDDVD as much as you?

Skyhawk, Jason... about "freedom" of a same-sex marriage. Because of long-standing religious convictions, s-s marriage will never be accepted in the mainstream and considered equal (or normal) as traditional opposite-sex marriage. Attempts to make it 'legal' just complicates the issue, although you will perhaps feel 'safe' as a result. But many people cannot and will not accept that a same-sex marriage is equal to an op-sex marriage. Civil Unions (for legal issues) is the only answer that will bring the 'opposing sides' into unity... in my opinion [FYI: I'm single].

-JIMI (the Voodoo Child)

Quote:
But many people cannot and will not accept that a same-sex marriage is equal to an op-sex marriage.

Not equal as in "more" or "less"? I hope you're not saying that just because I'm a man married to a woman that my marriage is less?

In all seriousness, I don't care how well others "accept" my marriage. The measurement of the worth of our union comes from us, and not from others. The fact that she also enjoys movies in high definition is definitely a plus in that regard though.

But one battle at a time Hendrix. There are still people out there that think Blu-ray isn't equal to HD DVD (as in less)! But even this too will change in time.

update from above - [FYI: I'm single, and not gay]

ss-unions not being equal to op-s marriage is obviously true in may areas, as seen historically, socially, and as to procreation. Same sex unions cannot biologically conceive children within their union. Also, ss-unions are forbidden in some countries, and can result in punishment or even death. But more countries are allowing legal civil unions for ss partners, which are usually equal in legal rights to that of op-s marriages.

For same-sex parters to be allowed to have marriages (in the USA), requires major legal changes and a societal change/recognition from those uncomfortable with the concept. But even if it were to happen (ss-m legal in all 50 states), it will not change the opinions by many opposed to it, considering it a mortal sin (and not blessed of God), and unwilling to acknowledge the idea that same-sex partners can now exist in the same 'married status' as those favoring opposite-sex marriages. SS-partners might eventually receive the right to marry, but many opposed to it will never consider it equal to both the social status, and biblically-based origin of traditional opposite-sex marriage.

It's really quite a lot to think about, and for ss-partners I think it's best that civil unions be what they should strive for, for which most others are 'comfortable' with accepting (others = non-homosexuals, or those opposing the idea of ss marriage).

-JIMI (the Voodoo Child)

And my update from above - [FYI: I'm married, never divorced, with children and not gay (not that it actually matters)]

Quote:
for which most others are 'comfortable' with accepting

Well then fight to change your constitution!

I'd start off by having congress edit the founding document of America, the Declaration of Independence:

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty for those most others are comfortable with accepting, and dedicated to the proposition that (<delete>all) men whom most are comfortable with accepting are created equal."

Then carry on to edit the First Ammendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion except for which most are comfortable with accepting, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof of which most are comfortable with or abridging the freedom of speech that most are comfortable with accepting, or of the press or the right of the people whom most are comfortable with to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances that most are comfortable with accepting."

And I'm sure most people would be accepting of these changes... no?

Something tells me that America would look much different today if it were founded on more democratized ideologies (as edited above). Blame your Founding Fathers for a government that opened its legislative, judicial, and executive branches to the influence of darn minorities of all types - that allows them to express things, go places, practice things, the right to life, and have crazy ideas that most have not been comfortable with at one time or another!

[Post edited by Skyhawk on Mar 25, 2008]

See, the problem with civil unions and the like is that companies have found ways around the terminology to deny benefits. Initially, when New Jersey (IIRC) put civil unions into law, UPS resisted offering benefits to their gay and lesbian employees. The rationale? Only marriage is covered by the company. It took a fight and repeated clarification by state legislators, but UPS relented and offers benefits to same sex couples.

Hendrix, I agree it's going to take a long long time (if ever) for same sex marriage to be equal with heterosexual marriage. I'm also reminded of "separate, but equal." As in, blacks and whites had different facilities back in the 1950s and 1960s before integration. Both had a water fountain which provided water, yet a black could not use a white one and vice versa. It's the same thing we would have with civil unions or domestic partnerships. Unless they are called the same thing with exactly the same rights and benefits, we go back to separate, but equal.

Quote:
Same sex unions cannot biologically conceive children within their union.

So now we're going to redefine the definition of marriage to say "if you can't make children, you can't get legally married"? If that's the case, then a man who has a vasectomy or a woman with her tubes tied can not get married. People who are outside their child bearing years (ie. 50 years old and over, possibly) can't get married. The elderly can't get married. People who have no intention of having children can not get married. That's an awfully slippery slope, I think.

Do you know, for example, how many different tax returns a couple in a same sex marriage is Massachusetts have to prepare? Four. Two individual returns to send to the IRS. A "fake" state return. A "dummy" joint return. All because the federal government won't recognize same sex marriages. Start adding kids (adopted, biological or foster) to the equation. A house, some other property, debt...

Frankly, by not allowing same sex marriage (and thereby same sex divorce), the government is holding back entire industries, and thus tax revenue. Think about all the gay divorce attorney's for a start!

Jason

who hijacked? where? when? what time?

I think the hijacking happened a couple pages ago. It all started with some living in sin talk and got completely away from the original topic. Alas, it's one of the great things about online discussions: the various tangents we can all go on.

Jason, partly to blame

...back to the topic....

My wife falls asleep just as fast in an HD movie as she does in a SD flick....so I guess she doesn't really see the difference.