Defending the Truth

fxashun · 12-03-2007, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by englishsunflower

I really wasn't calling you hardheaded

I was saying that there are some that are hardheaded though,on both sides of the coin. To me there are some that just will not compromise no matter what. Those make it hard for the others who just want to make it right for all.I do agree that the states mentioned need to inforce the law.If they don't they are in comtempt of the law and the supreme court needs to inforce what the state will not.

And that's the same thing I was saying. The fanatics on both sides are the loudest while the middle doesn't really care one way or the other. That's why most of the literature you read on either side comes across as fanatical.

englishsunflower · 12-03-2007, 03:53 PM

30th November 2007 16:30
PinkNews.co.uk staff writer

Jane Rule, 76, a writer of lesbian-themed novels, died on Tuesday of complications from liver cancer at her home in British Columbia, Canada.

Born in New Jersey in 1931, Ms Rule moved to Galiano Island, Canada with partner Helen Sonthoff, after a peripatetic childhood in America.

"I was proud and relieved to claim the label Canadian," Ms. Rule told the Globe and Mail.

In July she was appointed to the Order of Canada, the country's highest civilian honour, in recognition of her lifetime contribution to literature.

Ms Rule won many awards over the years as a writer, educator, gay rights activist, including the Order of British Columbia in 2004.

In 1964 her first novel Desert of the Heart, a lesbian love story, was published and Ms Rule was publicly outed.

It was made into an award-winning film, Desert Hearts, starring Helen Shaver, in 1985.

In recent years, Ms Rule opposed gay marriage on the basis that it 'mainstreams' gay and lesbian relationships.

"To be forced back into the heterosexual cage of coupledom is not a step forward but a step back into state-imposed definitions of relationships," she said.

Not all believe in gay mariage

englishsunflower · 12-04-2007, 06:16 AM

though I would post this again
this is what my partner and I have here

The Civil Partnership Act 2004 came into force on 5 December 2005 and enables same-sex couples to obtain legal recognition of their relationship. Couples who form a civil partnership have a new legal status, that of 'civil partner'.
Civil partners have equal treatment to married couples in a wide range of legal matters, including:

tax, including inheritance tax
employment benefits
most state and occupational pension benefits
income-related benefits, tax credits and child support
duty to provide reasonable maintenance for your civil partner and any children of the family
ability to apply for parental responsibility for your civil partner's child
inheritance of a tenancy agreement
recognition under intestacy rules
access to fatal accidents compensation
protection from domestic violence
recognition for immigration and nationality purposes

Grace · 12-04-2007, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hkbajwa

Well i think the case is strong. There is no reason to legislate the right to call one self "married". The only reason ever provided is the morality of it. Morality is entirely subjective and cannot be used as a justification for any legislation.

On the other hand i have yet to see ANY sort of evidence that allowing gay couples to call their co-habitation "marriage" ( with ensuing legal rights and obligations ) will result in the destruction of the state and or of the institution of marriage.

It is every individual's right to choose what they believe, who they partner with, who they sleep with and who they live out their lives with. It is also their right to call it whatever they wish and it is their inalienable right to wish the same legal safeguards ( and obligations) that heterosexual couples have.

In any case this particular article speaks of how marriage went from being totally unlegislated to being a legislative tool to keep a record of who deserves what. Since the marital status of a person often doesn't reflect the exact relationship he/she has with dependents it may be time to move on from that.

IN ANY CASE there seems to be no reason to exclude gays from this framework other than antipathy to homosexuality.

I wonder what would happen to you if your neighbors knew you said this. Hmmm.

hkbajwa · 12-05-2007, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grace

I wonder what would happen to you if your neighbors knew you said this. Hmmm.

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say, but i'm guessing you're alluding to the fact that i live in a comparatively conservative society that will not even accept the existence of homosexuality.

Well the complete denial of its existence is just typical of conservative societies that do not wish to face facts. Nothing surprising about it.

I can however tell you that homosexuality is just as prevalent here in Pakistan as anywhere else. People also KNOW that. Of course many would have a hard time accepting the civil rights of a homosexual. Here in Pakistan the prevalent feeling is that they are a completely separate species, and thus don't qualify for the same type of treatment meted out to a regular person.

Aineyhow Pakistan still have BASIC human rights issues to deal with before it has the capacity to deal with the sexual orientation of its population.

Grace · 12-05-2007, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hkbajwa

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say, but i'm guessing you're alluding to the fact that i live in a comparatively conservative society that will not even accept the existence of homosexuality.

Well the complete denial of its existence is just typical of conservative societies that do not wish to face facts. Nothing surprising about it.

I can however tell you that homosexuality is just as prevalent here in Pakistan as anywhere else. People also KNOW that. Of course many would have a hard time accepting the civil rights of a homosexual. Here in Pakistan the prevalent feeling is that they are a completely separate species, and thus don't qualify for the same type of treatment meted out to a regular person.

Aineyhow Pakistan still have BASIC human rights issues to deal with before it has the capacity to deal with the sexual orientation of its population.

Translation- Id be a dead man.

hkbajwa · 12-05-2007, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grace

Translation- Id be a dead man.

Not exactly, but you would probably be relegated to being a second class citizen. However taken in context, there are MANY factors that relegate people to second class citizenship.. From the size of their back balance ( the absence thereof) to their professed religion, to their hereditary caste.

I have yet to hear of punitive actions by the courts against homosexuality.

There WAS a case recently though that involved two women, where one had had a sex change operation 16 years ago. So technically they WERE living as man and wife. However, they were being harrassed by both their families and when they sought protection from the courts, the former lady/current man was sentenced for perjury for neglecting to inform the court of the fact that she was born a woman.

Intersting to note, however, is the fact that the legislation of Pakistan didn't allow for any prosecution of homosexuality, but that the poor lady rather got the rough end of the deal by being sentenced for perjury. The personal feelings of the judge and jury certainly was NOT favorable ( people are not all that cool about homosexuality for sure ) but there was no way to actually charge them for homosexuality.

fxashun · 12-05-2007, 06:25 AM

If one had a sex change, why would you charge them with homosexuality? Their relationship made perfect sense in a "new age" kind of way.

hkbajwa · 12-05-2007, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

If one had a sex change, why would you charge them with homosexuality? Their relationship made perfect sense in a "new age" kind of way.

well that's what made the whole thing big news here.. It really was super confusing.

Anyhow i was wondering, how would YOU judge this situation? YOu seem to be pretty vocal about homosexuality.. does it still count when one of the partners have had a sex change?

fxashun · 12-05-2007, 11:59 AM

Honestly, if a person has done all the required therapy and stuff it takes to change their sex, if that person goes out and does the expected thing and finds a mate of the opposite gender, I don't see the problem with it.

But if a woman goes out and changes her sex and then goes out and finds a man? DAMN!!!! That's one f'd in the head womanan/manwo/wan whatever.

I wish I had more time today to get more into this, because I think this situation would be a perfect time for me to get my thought process across on this subject (again). But I got a 5 hour drive coming up in a few minutes. I was just checking in. But Friday morning, I'll come back to this. You guys have a great day.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode