Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Same sex marriage outvoted in Maine

Nov 4, 2009#1

Chibibar

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091104/us_time/08599193443200;_ylt=AvXFJvTYqF7jOUYYuJGMGrl0fNdF

Dang

I don't understand why the government are turning to the public vote. The public unfortunately are easily persuade via scare tactics and plain ignorance. Of course most of the them will vote against it. People fear of getting "the gays"

I personally don't think religious belief should be brought into this. It is two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together and have the same GOVERNMENT benefits that everyone else who are married gets.

even the most "liberal" state like California voted down. The only states that allow marriages are via congress not popular vote.

Nov 4, 2009#2

Armadillo

It's the word "marriage." Marriage is a religious construct by nature, and therefore people have a very deeply-held view of it. I know many people who wouldn't have a problem with civil unions, but would vote against "gay marriage."

Nov 4, 2009#3

AshburnerX

My solution? Abolish Marriage as a legal status without a vote and take away EVERYONES benefits. Wait 4-8 years, then introduce "Civil Partnerships" that can be between any two people (as long as your not already in one) and that give the same benefits as the old system. People will straighten up and fly right.

Nov 4, 2009#4

WolfOfOdin

Man, this is bringing me back to Religion and Politics 101. Specifically the frog-like girl who sat in front and loudly spoke of how "We need to purify this country and tax the non christians". She went on a 20 minute rant about marriage once, proclaiming that she'd personally bomb any and all gay marriage ceremony she could find if they were legalized. That's the kinda crazy you're possibly dealing with here.

Nov 4, 2009#5

Dave

WolfOfOdin said:
Man, this is bringing me back to Religion and Politics 101. Specifically the frog-like girl who sat in front and loudly spoke of how "We need to purify this country and tax the non christians". She went on a 20 minute rant about marriage once, proclaiming that she'd personally bomb any and all gay marriage ceremony she could find if they were legalized. That's the kinda crazy you're possibly dealing with here.

Nov 4, 2009#6

Armadillo

WolfOfOdin said:
Man, this is bringing me back to Religion and Politics 101. Specifically the frog-like girl who sat in front and loudly spoke of how "We need to purify this country and tax the non christians". She went on a 20 minute rant about marriage once, proclaiming that she'd personally bomb any and all gay marriage ceremony she could find if they were legalized. That's the kinda crazy you're possibly dealing with here.

If it's any consolation, she represents probably 0.00000000000001% of the population. And she probably won't breed, owing to the froginess.

Nov 4, 2009#7

Adammon

I know since we legalized gay marriage in BC that it's been nothing but armageddon. Pestilence, poverty, dogs marrying cats, end of the world kind of stuff.

Also, fuck the frog-lady.

Nov 4, 2009#8

Covar

Adammon said:
I know since we legalized gay marriage in BC that it's been nothing but armageddon. Pestilence, poverty, dogs marrying cats, end of the world kind of stuff.

Also, fuck the frog-lady.

Only after marriage.

Nov 4, 2009#9

drawn_inward

Chibibar said:
Dang I don't understand why the government are turning to the public vote. The public unfortunately are easily persuade via scare tactics and plain ignorance. Of course most of the them will vote against it.

Nov 4, 2009#10

Armadillo

Covar;290144][quote=Adammon said:
I know since we legalized gay marriage in BC that it's been nothing but armageddon. Pestilence, poverty, dogs marrying cats, end of the world kind of stuff.

Also, fuck the frog-lady.

Only after marriage.[/QUOTE]

Nov 4, 2009#11

Adammon

drawn_inward;290148][quote=Chibibar said:
Dang I don't understand why the government are turning to the public vote. The public unfortunately are easily persuade via scare tactics and plain ignorance. Of course most of the them will vote against it.

Nov 4, 2009#12

makare

Damn. It is a sad day for civil rights.

Nov 4, 2009#13

Baerdog

Bad news, everyone...

:blue:

Nov 4, 2009#14

Chibibar

drawn_inward;290148][quote=Chibibar said:
Dang I don't understand why the government are turning to the public vote. The public unfortunately are easily persuade via scare tactics and plain ignorance. Of course most of the them will vote against it.

Despite their reasons for voting, the people spoke. I do NOT want the government making my decisions for me.

How many people voted for Obama for 'good' reasons? Should their vote not count?

It's a bit underhanded to say that folks voted a certain way b/c they are/were ignorant.

As for the issue of gay marriage, I don't know how to make it equal for all. It seems like no matter what is done, there is someone left out.[/QUOTE]

there are certain things that government should enforce (and allow) and some should put to a vote.

I think civil union is one of them (lets remove the word marriage) lots of people have their old ways and well... still Christian base faith or any similar faith that believe same sex is evil, the problem is that these belief have been in place for hundred if not thousands of years (not sure of the exact number) so I don't think these things will change anytime soon.

I have couple of friends who got married in vermont (same sex) there are soooooooo many benefits that hetro couple gets that most of us take it for granted. They live in Dallas now and she tells me it is a huge laundry list of stuff they have to do to ensure they have the basic rights that every other hetro couple gets.

Nov 4, 2009#15

sixpackshaker

I am a little surprised. I though that the independent streak that runs through New England would not vote against gay marriage.

Nov 4, 2009#16

Adammon

Chibibar said:
there are certain things that government should enforce (and allow) and some should put to a vote.

What the government gives, it can also take away. I'd rather be governed by majority than by fiat. It does work, it just requires a bit more patience and understanding.

Nov 4, 2009#17

Chibibar

sixpackshaker said:
I am a little surprised. I though that the independent streak that runs through New England would not vote against gay marriage.

I'm not too surprise really.

I think it is all matter of "mental" thinking. Having a non-white person running for office is possible because of all the changes and movement for the last 40 years. Many people today accepts women in the work place, many accepts non-white in their jobs, but the marriage/civil union is "sacred" to many people at least the term.

Maybe in 20-30 from now (since the movement is still new) we might get a change.

Nov 4, 2009#18

Jake

It seems sometimes that it will take a Constitutional amendment to get gay marriage rights to stick, but the chances of that passing nationwide in the near future are pretty slim.

Nov 4, 2009#19

Cajungal

Jeez.

Nov 4, 2009#20

Armadillo

Jake said:
It seems sometimes that it will take a Constitutional amendment to get gay marriage rights to stick, but the chances of that passing nationwide in the near future are pretty slim.

Nov 4, 2009#21

Chibibar

Armadillo;290261][quote=Jake said:
It seems sometimes that it will take a Constitutional amendment to get gay marriage rights to stick, but the chances of that passing nationwide in the near future are pretty slim.

It's worth me mentioning that although I support homosexuals having equal civil union rights to heteros (avoided that "marriage" landmine nicely, son), I'm 100% hardcore OPPOSED to a Constitutional amendment specifically allowing or forbidding marriage of any kind. It's my personal opinion that the 14th Amendment would be sufficient, and any other amendments would be dicking with the Constitution in order to achieve a social desire.[/QUOTE]

sadly.. I have to agree with this.

Some of you know my stance on this subject (having friends who are struggling trying to be consider "married" in Texas) while there are time I just want to beat people with a stick, I step back and think, how is my thinking any more "right" than their thinking? sure I go by saying "it is a right issue" but to the people who oppose it is a wrong evil thing to even consider it. So if I force my belief unto people, I'm no better than they are.

This is how I see the constitution amendment. It is forcing people to do things (like prohibition look how that turn out)

Nov 4, 2009#22

DarkAudit

In California, defense of marriage is being taken to it's next logical extreme, banning divorce.

Too bad he's not following Poe's Law here. By mocking the Prop. 8ers instead, he's outed himself as a joke far too soon. Just imagine the chaos if even for a moment the media took his cause seriously.

Nov 4, 2009#23

makare

I think if we waited for the states there would still be places where women didn't have the right to vote. Just something to think about.

Nov 4, 2009#24

The Lovely Boehner

makare1 said:
I think if we waited for the states there would still be places where women didn't have the right to vote. Just something to think about.

Can you imagine if the push for Civil Rights in the 60s left things like desegregating schools up to the states? It's absurd. How are we moving backwards as a nation?

Nov 4, 2009#25

Philosopher B.

Chibibar said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091104/us_time/08599193443200;_ylt=AvXFJvTYqF7jOUYYuJGMGrl0fNdF

Well, shit.

Nov 4, 2009#26

Armadillo

Charlie Dont Surf;290331][quote=makare1 said:
I think if we waited for the states there would still be places where women didn't have the right to vote. Just something to think about.

Can you imagine if the push for Civil Rights in the 60s left things like desegregating schools up to the states? It's absurd. How are we moving backwards as a nation?[/QUOTE]

But see, this is where the 14th Amendment kicks in. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It trumps states rights, so if a state passes a law that is unconstitutional, it will be struck down.

Nov 4, 2009#27

Steven Soderburgin

AshburnerX said:
My solution? Abolish Marriage as a legal status without a vote and take away EVERYONES benefits. Wait 4-8 years, then introduce \"Civil Partnerships\" that can be between any two people (as long as your not already in one) and that give the same benefits as the old system. People will straighten up and fly right.

This is a terrible idea for a few reasons:

1. People who argue against gay marriage using the concept that marriage has always been a religious ceremony are completely ignorant to the real history of marriage and it's place in secular society, so that argument is completely invalid. Government has a place in marriage and this does not conflict with history in any way.

2. People who argue against gay marriage but for civil unions or "civil partnerships" are, by and large, not really interested in protecting marriages, they're interested in marginalizing gays. The turnaround time for anti-gay marriage lobby groups to go from keeping gay marriage rights restricted to civil unions or domestic partnerships to lobbying against those same rights is pretty much zero.

3. Let's think about what would actually happen if this plan was put into place. People against gay marriage would have concrete proof that gays took away and destroyed marriage. Everyone in the country would be keenly aware of this fact. Even if the proposed Civil Partnerships had the same rights, the word does carry weight, and it would cause massive backlash against the gay rights movement, and there would likely be a significant uptick in violence against gays.

4. Finally, why SHOULD we have to create a new institution for gays? That's akin to admitting that gays are SO REPULSIVE that we, as a society, can't allow them any access to this institution with a long, long history in our society. It creates an automatic otherness about gays that makes them not "good enough" or "worthy" of marriage. And in the history of civil rights movements in the country, we've always gone the way of including marginalized groups in our already established institutions, not making new institutions and excluding EVERYONE from the old ones. This is for good reason, not the least of which is that we'd have to create new laws as well as change the language of hundreds of years of existing law and precedent.

It's a good idea in a perfect world where we didn't have the history that goes into a word like marriage, but in a perfect world, we'd have equality already.

Nov 4, 2009#28

Armadillo

Here's the thing: you'll never EVER separate "marriage" from religion, so you can forget that route. The solution is to take government out of "marriage" altogether, and leave it to each religion to "marry" whomever they want. As for government recognition, have "civil unions" for any two people who want one, gay or straight. All of the rights and privileges of what we know as marriage, without the religious constructs. Bingo bango, church and state are separated, gays and straights are equal, everyone wins!

Nov 4, 2009#29

Steven Soderburgin

Please re-read point #1 and read about the history of marriage. In our society and every society for hundreds of years, marriage has never been completely tied to religion. I could, if I had a willing female partner, go get a completely secular marriage today without religion ever entering into the equation. The "marriage is always going to be religious" argument is a complete canard. It's not true in any way.

Nov 4, 2009#30

AshburnerX

Armadillo said:
Here's the thing: you'll never EVER separate "marriage" from religion, so you can forget that route. The solution is to take government out of "marriage" altogether, and leave it to each religion to "marry" whomever they want. As for government recognition, have "civil unions" for any two people who want one, gay or straight. All of the rights and privileges of what we know as marriage, without the religious constructs. Bingo bango, church and state are separated, gays and straights are equal, everyone wins!

Isn't that exactly what I just suggested? The entire point is to get rid of government involvement with Marriage, while providing a similar system that provides the same benefits for anyone who wants it. Religion gets to keep it's marriage system, the government gets to keep control of who gets tax breaks.

Nov 4, 2009#31

Krisken

I think I'm staying out of this one. I'm disappointed that religions that follow the teachings of a man who advocated love for each other is used to further bigotry and self righteousness.

That's pretty much it from me.

Nov 4, 2009#32

tegid

Kissinger said:
Please re-read point #1 and read about the history of marriage. In our society and every society for hundreds of years, marriage has never been completely tied to religion. I could, if I had a willing female partner, go get a completely secular marriage today without religion ever entering into the equation. The "marriage is always going to be religious" argument is a complete canard. It's not true in any way.

Nov 4, 2009#33

Armadillo

tegid;290425][quote=Kissinger said:
Please re-read point #1 and read about the history of marriage. In our society and every society for hundreds of years, marriage has never been completely tied to religion. I could, if I had a willing female partner, go get a completely secular marriage today without religion ever entering into the equation. The "marriage is always going to be religious" argument is a complete canard. It's not true in any way.

This is what makes me wonder in all these discussions. Don't you already have a 'civil marriage' in the states? Why change the name? I mean, I live in a country with a history of strong religiousness, and when gay marriage was allowed, it was always perfectly understood that it was civil marriage, as we call it. No one feared that the church would be force to marry gays! I don't know, maybe it's because you are a sue happy country and this could actually happen?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I think it's a little different here. "Civil marriage" is just a marriage that isn't performed by a religious institution. Marriages conducted by churches, synagogues, mosques, and justices of the peace are equally valid in the eyes of the government provided that the proper paperwork has been filled out and the proper fees paid. The thing is, in most states, only those marriages performed between a man and a woman are legally recognized, so any gays who perform a "commitment ceremony" go through the motions of getting married, but legally are still single, without the benefits that come with being married. Many companies have started offering their benefits packages to "spouses or domestic partners," so that's a step forward. And yes, some people are afraid that churches would be forced to marry gays.

---------- Post added at 01:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 AM ----------

AshburnerX said:
Isn't that exactly what I just suggested? The entire point is to get rid of government involvement with Marriage, while providing a similar system that provides the same benefits for anyone who wants it. Religion gets to keep it's marriage system, the government gets to keep control of who gets tax breaks.

Kind of, but you want to abolish the practice entirely for "4-8 years," and I'd just have it done right away. What would you do for those gap years in terms of property, benefits, taxes, etc.?

Nov 4, 2009#34

tegid

Armadillo said:
Yeah, I think it's a little different here. "Civil marriage" is just a marriage that isn't performed by a religious institution. Marriages conducted by churches, synagogues, mosques, and justices of the peace are equally valid in the eyes of the government provided that the proper paperwork has been filled out and the proper fees paid.

That's pretty much how it works here, I think.

Nov 4, 2009#35

strawman

I feel that we've had this same exact discussion before, it's like deja vu all over again!

:deadhorse:

:bolt:

-Adam

Nov 4, 2009#36

Lally

drawn_inward said:
It's a bit underhanded to say that folks voted a certain way b/c they are/were ignorant.

You're right. They're not ignorant. They know exactly what they did and why the did it. So no, they're not ignorant. Intolerant, yes. Moronic, yes. Bigoted, yes. Ignorant, no.

drawn_inward said:
As for the issue of gay marriage, I don't know how to make it equal for all. It seems like no matter what is done, there is someone left out.

Nov 4, 2009#37

Cajungal

Well, what the straight people who aren't for this 'miss out' on is a level of comfort and familiarity that they're used to, I guess. But that's not a good enough excuse.

Nov 4, 2009#38

Espy

Lally;290462][quote=drawn_inward said:
It's a bit underhanded to say that folks voted a certain way b/c they are/were ignorant.

You're right. They're not ignorant. They know exactly what they did and why the did it. So no, they're not ignorant. Intolerant, yes. Moronic, yes. Bigoted, yes. Ignorant, no.

drawn_inward said:
As for the issue of gay marriage, I don't know how to make it equal for all. It seems like no matter what is done, there is someone left out.

Actually, if you give everyone equal rights, then everyone has equal rights, and no one is left out that way. That's what equal means. No matter what these intolerant, moronic bigots say, they are having nothing taken away from them by giving someone else rights. If anyone actually thinks that's true, then I just don't know what to say to you.

(Sorry, drawn_inward, I hate to call out your post specifically. This is really in general pointed to anyone who thinks we must make a compromise with intolerant bigots on this issue.)[/QUOTE]

You know Lally, I get what you are saying and to an extent I agree with you (and I've made my personal feelings on the actual issue quite clear), however, I just really think if you want to convince people to change their views calling names and using hateful words on who have differing views than you isn't going to do anything but inflame an already hot topic.
I'm not saying don't be passionate, but I have yet to see someone be swayed by the "you are a bigoted and intolerant moron" argument. Instead they just go, "See how angry and hateful the other side is? We must be right!"

Nov 4, 2009#39

Lally

Espy said:
You know Lally, I get what you are saying and to an extent I agree with you (and I've made my personal feelings on the actual issue quite clear), however, I just really think if you want to convince people to change their views calling names and using hateful words on who have differing views than you isn't going to do anything but inflame an already hot topic.
I'm not saying don't be passionate, but I have yet to see someone be swayed by the "you are a bigoted and intolerant moron" argument. Instead they just go, "See how angry and hateful the other side is? We must be right!"

I understand.

Nov 4, 2009#40

Espy

Here's the thing Lally, and hopefully this will give you some comfort: Things will and have already changed. We are miles ahead of where we were just, what? 40 years ago? when it comes to equal rights for all.

Things will continue to change.

The hard truth is that it won't come overnight. It's going to take time, it might be 10, 20, or more years before homosexuals in every state can marry, but I have zero doubt, it WILL happen.

It doesn't mean everyone will agree on it, but things and people will change or be left behind. If our history has taught us anything as a country it's that there is a slow and steady march forwards so don't despair, just work on loving those around you and changing their minds by showing them no matter how horrible their views (or they as people are) they can't stop you from being better to them than they are to others. It will blow them away. I promise.

Not only that but, why not be nice to them? Your side of this issue WILL win, very likely in our lifetime. So in one sense all you have to do it keep working towards the inevitable future.

Nov 4, 2009#41

WolfOfOdin

I'm more or less in agreement with Espy here. Change of this sort is inevitable, but it's going to take a damn long amount of time for the lunatic fringe to stop shrieking loudly.

Hell, try one day immersing yourself in the world of those who find an idea you like repugnant, and learn the level of fervor and manic energy behind what they're doing. Frog-girl was a rabid lunatic, but I've met FAR worse when I had to do a research paper on the effect the internet's had on Hate Groups. It's not pretty, but you have to acknowledge that it's there and will take a great deal of time or a very, very strong blow to fade away.

Nov 4, 2009#42

Chibibar

Lally;290475][quote=Espy said:
You know Lally, I get what you are saying and to an extent I agree with you (and I've made my personal feelings on the actual issue quite clear), however, I just really think if you want to convince people to change their views calling names and using hateful words on who have differing views than you isn't going to do anything but inflame an already hot topic.
I'm not saying don't be passionate, but I have yet to see someone be swayed by the "you are a bigoted and intolerant moron" argument. Instead they just go, "See how angry and hateful the other side is? We must be right!"

I understand.

It's true, I lose my cool when it comes to this stuff. But I just get so frustrated, and no matter how hard I try, on this issue, I just can't see it any other way. I am angry and hateful. This is one of the very few issues that I'm unequivocal about. I am not the type to argue about politics because a lot of times I can see things from both sides. But in this case, I honestly feel that if one doesn't feel everyone should have equal rights, he or she is just wrong. I just don't know what to do. I almost feel that if someone is already intolerant, there's no way to convince them otherwise anyway.

Talking about equal rights just makes me angry, and sad, and frustrated all around. Sorry for taking the conversation in a negative direction.[/QUOTE]

I feel the same way. but at the same time I don't want to force my ideal to other either (do unto others as you want them to do to you) so if I force my equal rights bit, I feel I am no better than the bigots who are against it (at least in my head)

My wife and I were married via JP. We actually got a Marriage license from the City of Dallas. yes, it said Marriage. I know that the history of marriage goes a long way back, BUT the "institution of marriage" in today's age is WAY different than say 200 years ago.

What does Hetro couple get automatically?
1. Power of attorney - your spouse can make legal decision on your behalf. This include financial, medical decision (especially when you don't have a living will), and laws of property. If your spouse died without a will, you get the property by default. Same sex couple would need to play money (hetro couple get this for free) to actually draw out legal documents, living wills, and power of attorney papers to prove the other person can make decisions on their behalf.

2. Visitation rights - this is a biggy for a friend of mine. Hospital (many in Dallas) will NOT let non family member to visit their love one. Brother, husband, wife, sister, father, mother, but noooooooo if you are of the same sex..... nope. (some hospital does allow with special advance permission but what if you are in a coma?)

3. name change upon marry. traditionally you take the husband's name, but you can legally take on your spouse's last name instead without charge (and it is legal) for same sex, you would have to pay 300$ for a name change in Dallas.

4. Adoption - sadly not much we can on this one, many are run via church group and won't let same sex couple adopt (there are some agency that does but those are rare)

5. tax benefits - nuff said

those are just some of the biggies. I believe that government should not FORCE a church to marry anyone they don't want to, actually right now a church can refuse me and my wife to marry in their church if I don't follow their belief and that is not illegal.

The only thing I'm fighting for is the same rights in the eye of the government. The same benefit that the U.S. government give to my wife and I, I want those same rights to any other COUPLE out there.

Nov 4, 2009#43

Lally

Espy said:
some really nice stuff that made me feel hopeful

I'm humbled by your reason and rationality. I feel like a tool for being so snarky, and not having as much faith in humanity...

...but then again, on the other hand, I still want to shake people who, in a misguided attempt to be respectful of everyone, feel we need to make a compromise on this issue. The difference is, when we force the legal system to recognize what is fair and right, it forces absolutely no change to those who don't support equal rights. Conversely, when they force their opinion on others, even if it is by majority vote, they are affecting the lives of others.

I really applaud your attitude. I do. But to be perfectly honest, I don't know if I can be respectful to those who hold opinions I don't respect. Not on this issue. I guess that makes me a hypocrite. I envy your ability to treat people, even people with misguided or even vile opinions, with kindness. I just don't know if I can stomach it. But I won't continue to snark at people here.

Nov 5, 2009#44

Steven Soderburgin

Yeah, the whole thing about churches being forced to marry gays is pretty much a complete non-issue that anti-same sex marriage types use to stir up fear. It's not something that is going to happen. It's not even something that currently happens with heterosexual couples.

Nov 5, 2009#45

Bubble181

*shrug* In Belgium or the Netherlands, religious marriage has absolutely zero impact. Legal marriage is a completely different and separate ceremony and stuff. Most people do both on the same day (and you get the bonus of going from city hall to your church of choice in mode of transport of choice, you know, you can make it look real good in a horse-drawn carriage or whatever), but there's no actual connection between the two. My parents got married legally in october and for the church in..ehh, I think april, could be may. Eh.
Anyway, the whole idea of having the priest/rabbi/preacher/imam/jedi master giving out legally binding interpersonal contracts is just plain awkward and wrong to me. He's not a recognised member of the state, why the hell should he hand out tax breaks?
A priest marrying two people, or me holding a Klingon ceremony to marry two people, hold the exact same value, legally (well, no - those by recognised religions can ask for some of the interpersonal benefits like visitation rights and usually get it easier than those of made-up religions, I guess - but they still have to pass a judge).

Also: about the anti-divorce guy...I was actually 100% ready to believe it. If marriage is so religious for people, divorce should be pretty much impossible...It's "till death do us part". What is joined by God, no man can break. And all that jazz.

Nov 5, 2009#46

Timmus

Lally;290519][quote=Espy said:
some really nice stuff that made me feel hopeful

Nov 5, 2009#47

Armadillo

Timmus;290764][quote=Lally;290519][quote=Espy said:
some really nice stuff that made me feel hopeful

when we force the legal system to recognize what is fair and right, it forces absolutely no change to those who don't support equal rights. Conversely, when they force their opinion on others, even if it is by majority vote, they are affecting the lives of others.

[/QUOTE]

This is a point I wanted to make. This really isn't something that should be decided via popular vote. Homosexuals have their rights at stake whereas opponents of same sex marriage only have their sensibilities at stake.[/QUOTE]

Careful with the language here; marriage isn't a "right" as enumerated in the Constitution.

Nov 5, 2009#48

Chibibar

Armadillo;291493][quote=Timmus;290764][quote=Lally;290519][quote=Espy said:
some really nice stuff that made me feel hopeful

Nov 5, 2009#49

Shegokigo

WolfOfOdin said:
It's not pretty, but you have to acknowledge that it's there and will take a great deal of time or a very, very strong blow to fade away.

Some never do. KKK comes to mind.

Thankfully over time, they become the minority instead of the majority.

Nov 5, 2009#50

sixpackshaker

Shegokigo;291570][quote=WolfOfOdin said:
It's not pretty, but you have to acknowledge that it's there and will take a great deal of time or a very, very strong blow to fade away.

Some never do. KKK comes to mind.

Thankfully over time, they become the minority instead of the majority.[/QUOTE]

Even the members change over time. Several have defected upon seeing the wrongness of their ways. The organization has lost so much power from its peak in the '20's and is weaker still than its militant peak of the 50's and 60's.

The thing about the wrong side of history is that those that stay behind, get left behind.

Nov 5, 2009#51

Armadillo

Chibibar;291499][quote=Armadillo;291493][quote=Timmus;290764][quote=Lally;290519][quote=Espy said:
some really nice stuff that made me feel hopeful

Nov 5, 2009#52

Iaculus

Shegokigo;291570][quote=WolfOfOdin said:
It's not pretty, but you have to acknowledge that it's there and will take a great deal of time or a very, very strong blow to fade away.

Some never do. KKK comes to mind.

Thankfully over time, they become the minority instead of the majority.[/QUOTE]

Superman owned their faces.

Good going, Stetson Kennedy.

Nov 5, 2009#53

Chibibar

Armadillo said:
I'd argue for "privilege," but a privilege that should be extended to all.

I can go with that.

just for future if anyone question what I defend against: I don't care of the religious aspect marriage. I'm fighting for equal rights for everyone. I will continue to vote, participate and donate money or time toward that goal

Nov 5, 2009#54

Timmus

I won't back down from calling it a right but I will try to defend my idea of why it is a right a little better.

It is a right to not be discriminated against for something you can not control. Like skin color, like sexual preference.

As Chibibar outlined in previous post marriage comes with all kinds of legal rights that really ought to be extended to any two citizens interested in forming stable long term unions with one another.

Marriage is a privilege but not between you and society. It's a privilege between you and your spouse.

I think homosexuals have the right to access that privilege too.

Nov 5, 2009#55

WolfOfOdin

The problem is, Tim, that the prevailing and major mindset amongst those who oppose same-sex marriage is that homosexuality ISN'T an inborn and unchangible thing like race, but a mental illness that needs to be cured. These are the people that say therapy and prayer camps will make the most flamboyant gay man into a paragon of heterosexuality, and they believe that idiocy with all their hearts. That notion has to be completely and utterly destroyed before they'll budge an inch, and even then it's going to be a VERY tough fight.

Nov 6, 2009#56

@Li3n

What does it being a right or not matter?! Allowing it (at a governmental level) for one segment of people but not others is discrimination, right or no right...

And if anyone bring up marriage vs civil union, i swear, i will beat you to death with a dictionary... gah.

Nov 6, 2009#57

TotalFusionOne

Oh hai.

I see you guys are having a debate about something I protested last night outside V for Vendetta.

Just a quick two cents: Federal government stops recognizing "Marriage." Period. Civil Unions are no more than tax / estate / green card solutions. Possible issues: The Gay "Rights" groups out there suddenly realize that they actually DON'T want civil unions, they just wanted to draw more attention to their "cause" because they think that we should be forced to accept everyone just for who they are.

Except people who believe in white supremacy, anti-abortion advocates, and Scientologists.

Nov 6, 2009#58

@Li3n

Excuse me while i go buy a heavy dictionary...

Nov 6, 2009#59

Covar

TotalFusionOne said:
Oh hai.

I see you guys are having a debate about something I protested last night outside V for Vendetta.

Where were they showing V for Vendetta?

Nov 6, 2009#60

The Lovely Boehner

TotalFusionOne said:
The Gay "Rights" groups out there suddenly realize that they actually DON'T want civil unions, they just wanted to draw more attention to their "cause" because they think that we should be forced to accept everyone just for who they are.

Nov 6, 2009#61

Bubble181

Charlie Dont Surf said:
Was MLK just yelling about attention for his "cause"?

Strictly speaking, yes. That his cause was a good one and he was awesome doesn't change that :-P

Nov 6, 2009#62

The Lovely Boehner

Bubble181;292147][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:
Was MLK just yelling about attention for his "cause"?

Strictly speaking, yes. That his cause was a good one and he was awesome doesn't change that :-P[/QUOTE]

I'm using the quotes that TFO used since it sure appears to me that he's trying to belittle it as nothing important. I'm just curious if he thought civil rights for colored people was just as unimportant!

Nov 6, 2009#63

Dave

Iowa - The Progressive State

Nov 6, 2009#64

Bubble181

Belgium - the Progressive State. =P

Nov 6, 2009#65

Shegokigo

TotalFusionOne said:
Possible issues: The Gay "Rights" groups out there suddenly realize that they actually DON'T want civil unions, they just wanted to draw more attention to their "cause" because they think that we should be forced to accept everyone just for who they are.

Or hey, not being able to know anything about your partner's car wreck condition or possible death because you're not "related".

Nahhh, we just want attention. :rolleyes:

Nov 6, 2009#66

sixpackshaker

Charlie Dont Surf;292144][quote=TotalFusionOne said:
The Gay "Rights" groups out there suddenly realize that they actually DON'T want civil unions, they just wanted to draw more attention to their "cause" because they think that we should be forced to accept everyone just for who they are.

Don't lump all of gay rights under this. Most people just want to be accepted as equals, as human fucking beings. Was MLK just yelling about attention for his "cause"? And what the FUCK is so wrong about accepting everyone for who they are, how can you say that like it's a bad thing? It's, at worst, common human decency.[/QUOTE]

You deemed it necessary to respond to him in the first place, and then lose your cool too?

Nov 6, 2009#67

The Lovely Boehner

sixpackshaker;292274][quote=Charlie Dont Surf;292144][quote=TotalFusionOne said:
The Gay "Rights" groups out there suddenly realize that they actually DON'T want civil unions, they just wanted to draw more attention to their "cause" because they think that we should be forced to accept everyone just for who they are.

Nov 6, 2009#68

sixpackshaker

Oh, so you just use the F-bomb like it is an article.

Nov 6, 2009#69

Timmus

WolfOfOdin said:
The problem is, Tim, that the prevailing and major mindset amongst those who oppose same-sex marriage is that homosexuality ISN'T an inborn and unchangible thing like race, but a mental illness that needs to be cured. These are the people that say therapy and prayer camps will make the most flamboyant gay man into a paragon of heterosexuality, and they believe that idiocy with all their hearts. That notion has to be completely and utterly destroyed before they'll budge an inch, and even then it's going to be a VERY tough fight.

Nov 6, 2009#70

The Lovely Boehner

sixpackshaker said:
Oh, so you just use the F-bomb like it is an article.

I am upset and angry about the situation, but I don't feel like I was going ballistic there.

Nov 6, 2009#71

Bowielee

Not fully responding for fear I may end up with demerits.

Cliff notes. We just want the same rights and privilages you do, and there's no reason on god's green earth that we shouldn't.

Nov 6, 2009#72

Dave

No demerits given for arguing your point. Unless your point is calling someone names.

Nov 6, 2009#73

WolfOfOdin

Timmus;292287][quote=WolfOfOdin said:
The problem is, Tim, that the prevailing and major mindset amongst those who oppose same-sex marriage is that homosexuality ISN'T an inborn and unchangible thing like race, but a mental illness that needs to be cured. These are the people that say therapy and prayer camps will make the most flamboyant gay man into a paragon of heterosexuality, and they believe that idiocy with all their hearts. That notion has to be completely and utterly destroyed before they'll budge an inch, and even then it's going to be a VERY tough fight.

So why even try to get them to budge. I know that this is may be considered a tenuous parallel to make but Jim Crow laws weren't repealed through a popular vote. Had it been left to a vote who knows how much longer that situation could have persisted.

At the end of the day the worst societal consequences of same sex marriage is going to be that a some comically misguided people with good intentions--and a few bigots too-- will act butthurt while the rest of society passes them by.

I can live with that.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I can too Tim. I fully believe that in these situations it takes a hammer instead of a handshake to make what right what should be right. I'm just trying to illustrate why the other side is so damned strong and is vehement as they are in this matter

Nov 6, 2009#74

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
My solution? Abolish Marriage as a legal status without a vote and take away EVERYONES benefits. Wait 4-8 years, then introduce "Civil Partnerships" that can be between any two people (as long as your not already in one) and that give the same benefits as the old system. People will straighten up and fly right.

Nov 6, 2009#75

Armadillo

GasBandit;292576][quote=AshburnerX said:
My solution? Abolish Marriage as a legal status without a vote and take away EVERYONES benefits. Wait 4-8 years, then introduce "Civil Partnerships" that can be between any two people (as long as your not already in one) and that give the same benefits as the old system. People will straighten up and fly right.

Late to the party, quoting first page, agreeing with it.

The problem is the name. The answer? Get government out of Marriage, provide Civil Partnerships to all, let people call what they've got whatever they want in private. Problem solved.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but them what of the militant religious people who just want to eradicate the gays, and what of the militant gays who just want to eradicate religion? WHAT OF THEM?!?!?!?

Nov 6, 2009#76

@Li3n

Armadillo;292604][quote=GasBandit;292576][quote=AshburnerX said:
My solution? Abolish Marriage as a legal status without a vote and take away EVERYONES benefits. Wait 4-8 years, then introduce "Civil Partnerships" that can be between any two people (as long as your not already in one) and that give the same benefits as the old system. People will straighten up and fly right.

Late to the party, quoting first page, agreeing with it.

The problem is the name. The answer? Get government out of Marriage, provide Civil Partnerships to all, let people call what they've got whatever they want in private. Problem solved.[/quote]

Yes, but them what of the militant religious people who just want to eradicate the gays, and what of the militant gays who just want to eradicate religion? WHAT OF THEM?!?!?!?[/QUOTE]

We eradicate them of course... :cool:

Nov 6, 2009#77

The Lovely Boehner

Armadillo said:
the militant gays who just want to eradicate religion?

lol

Nov 6, 2009#78

@Li3n

Charlie Dont Surf;292644][quote=Armadillo said:
the militant gays who just want to eradicate religion?

lol[/QUOTE]

What, he's right, the whole 5 of them are a really dangerous lot...

Nov 6, 2009#79

Bowielee

I thought we'd covered our tracks...

Could everyone take a look at this for a second, please.

Nov 6, 2009#80

Steven Soderburgin

GasBandit;292576][quote=AshburnerX said:
My solution? Abolish Marriage as a legal status without a vote and take away EVERYONES benefits. Wait 4-8 years, then introduce \"Civil Partnerships\" that can be between any two people (as long as your not already in one) and that give the same benefits as the old system. People will straighten up and fly right.

Late to the party, quoting first page, agreeing with it.

The problem is the name. The answer? Get government out of Marriage, provide Civil Partnerships to all, let people call what they've got whatever they want in private. Problem solved.[/QUOTE]
Hey, yeah, so this is a pretty common argument, and I definitely understand where it comes from, but it's really not a good idea. I already responded to Ashburner, but I'm going to repeat my response here so that you can take a look at it if you are so inclined.

Kissinger said:
This is a terrible idea for a few reasons:

1. People who argue against gay marriage using the concept that marriage has always been a religious ceremony are completely ignorant to the real history of marriage and it's place in secular society, so that argument is completely invalid. Government has a place in marriage and this does not conflict with history in any way.

2. People who argue against gay marriage but for civil unions or \"civil partnerships\" are, by and large, not really interested in protecting marriages, they're interested in marginalizing gays. The turnaround time for anti-gay marriage lobby groups to go from keeping gay marriage rights restricted to civil unions or domestic partnerships to lobbying against those same rights is pretty much zero.

3. Let's think about what would actually happen if this plan was put into place. People against gay marriage would have concrete proof that gays took away and destroyed marriage. Everyone in the country would be keenly aware of this fact. Even if the proposed Civil Partnerships had the same rights, the word does carry weight, and it would cause massive backlash against the gay rights movement, and there would likely be a significant uptick in violence against gays.

4. Finally, why SHOULD we have to create a new institution for gays? That's akin to admitting that gays are SO REPULSIVE that we, as a society, can't allow them any access to this institution with a long, long history in our society. It creates an automatic otherness about gays that makes them not \"good enough\" or \"worthy\" of marriage. And in the history of civil rights movements in the country, we've always gone the way of including marginalized groups in our already established institutions, not making new institutions and excluding EVERYONE from the old ones. This is for good reason, not the least of which is that we'd have to create new laws as well as change the language of hundreds of years of existing law and precedent.

It's a good idea in a perfect world where we didn't have the history that goes into a word like marriage, but in a perfect world, we'd have equality already.

Nov 6, 2009#81

Chibibar

Shegokigo;292219][quote=TotalFusionOne said:
Possible issues: The Gay "Rights" groups out there suddenly realize that they actually DON'T want civil unions, they just wanted to draw more attention to their "cause" because they think that we should be forced to accept everyone just for who they are.

Or hey, not being able to know anything about your partner's car wreck condition or possible death because you're not "related".

Nahhh, we just want attention. :rolleyes:

[/QUOTE]

yea and many other reasons like covering your love one in healthcare, insurance, or heaven forbid that your love one pass away without a will.

I can die right now and my wife will get my estate because the GOVERNMENT has set rules to do so. Why can't same sex couple get that rights automatically?

If I get into a huge accident and falls into a coma without a living will, my wife can make decision on my behalf and visit me with no problem. Same sex couple can't get that because they are not recognize as family unit BY THE GOVERNMENT.

My wife and I can file a joint income tax and get family benefits. Same sex couple can't get that because the Government doesn't recognize them as a family unit.

(Shego: I'm not fighting against you I'm agree and just iterate some of the basic rights/privilage that hetro couple had for so long and didn't even realize that not everyone get the same access because of the government laws.)

Nov 6, 2009#82

Armadillo

Charlie Dont Surf;292644][quote=Armadillo said:
the militant gays who just want to eradicate religion?

lol[/QUOTE]

You're arguing that those kinds of people don't exist? There are NO militant gays who just have a hate-on for religious people?

Nov 6, 2009#83

Chibibar

different note: I am beginning to think/agree that the religious people just want to exclude gay in their society as a whole and using this "marriage bill" as a shield to continue their ignorance (yea possibly obvious to others but I had hope that was not the case)

I have to agree with kissinger regarding relabling the marriage to civil union. It does give ammo toward the religious nuts and saying "see? see!!! the gays did ruin our government"

Nov 6, 2009#84

Steven Soderburgin

Armadillo;292728][quote=Charlie Dont Surf;292644][quote=Armadillo said:
the militant gays who just want to eradicate religion?

Nov 6, 2009#85

Armadillo

Kissinger;292735][quote=Armadillo;292728][quote=Charlie Dont Surf;292644][quote=Armadillo said:
the militant gays who just want to eradicate religion?

lol[/QUOTE]

You're arguing that those kinds of people don't exist? There are NO militant gays who just have a hate-on for religious people?[/QUOTE]

No, but it's pretty laughable to claim that those few particular people represent a significant portion of the gay rights movement, whereas religious people who want to marginalize and eradicate gays represent the most powerful influences in those against gay rights.[/QUOTE]

NOWHERE did I say the militants represent a "significant portion of the gay rights movement," but you're saying that exact thing about religious people. Hell dude, you're damn near proving those who say that gays are militantly anti-religion right! I've had many, MANY discussions with people against gay marriage, and none of them wanted to "eradicate gays." Again, the main issue was the word "marriage." To religious people, that word has a VERY SPECIFIC definition that results from a very deeply-held spiritual belief. They're not keen on changing the definition, so that's why I side with the "marriage=religion, civil union=government" people. Yes it's a compromise, but in the end all reasonable people get what they want out of it.

Nov 6, 2009#86

GasBandit

Kissinger;292722][quote=GasBandit;292576][quote=AshburnerX said:
My solution? Abolish Marriage as a legal status without a vote and take away EVERYONES benefits. Wait 4-8 years, then introduce \"Civil Partnerships\" that can be between any two people (as long as your not already in one) and that give the same benefits as the old system. People will straighten up and fly right.

Late to the party, quoting first page, agreeing with it.

The problem is the name. The answer? Get government out of Marriage, provide Civil Partnerships to all, let people call what they've got whatever they want in private. Problem solved.[/quote]
Hey, yeah, so this is a pretty common argument, and I definitely understand where it comes from, but it's really not a good idea. I already responded to Ashburner, but I'm going to repeat my response here so that you can take a look at it if you are so inclined.

Kissinger said:
This is a terrible idea for a few reasons:

1. People who argue against gay marriage using the concept that marriage has always been a religious ceremony are completely ignorant to the real history of marriage and it's place in secular society, so that argument is completely invalid. Government has a place in marriage and this does not conflict with history in any way.

2. People who argue against gay marriage but for civil unions or \"civil partnerships\" are, by and large, not really interested in protecting marriages, they're interested in marginalizing gays. The turnaround time for anti-gay marriage lobby groups to go from keeping gay marriage rights restricted to civil unions or domestic partnerships to lobbying against those same rights is pretty much zero.

3. Let's think about what would actually happen if this plan was put into place. People against gay marriage would have concrete proof that gays took away and destroyed marriage. Everyone in the country would be keenly aware of this fact. Even if the proposed Civil Partnerships had the same rights, the word does carry weight, and it would cause massive backlash against the gay rights movement, and there would likely be a significant uptick in violence against gays.

4. Finally, why SHOULD we have to create a new institution for gays? That's akin to admitting that gays are SO REPULSIVE that we, as a society, can't allow them any access to this institution with a long, long history in our society. It creates an automatic otherness about gays that makes them not \"good enough\" or \"worthy\" of marriage. And in the history of civil rights movements in the country, we've always gone the way of including marginalized groups in our already established institutions, not making new institutions and excluding EVERYONE from the old ones. This is for good reason, not the least of which is that we'd have to create new laws as well as change the language of hundreds of years of existing law and precedent.

It's a good idea in a perfect world where we didn't have the history that goes into a word like marriage, but in a perfect world, we'd have equality already.

[/QUOTE]

That's a lot of conjecture there.

1) The real history of marriage probably shouldn't be taken into account here, unless the real history of the treatment of homosexuals is going to be the basis for how they are treated in the future. We're trying to change things here.

2) Unfounded with a side of ad hominem.

3) Pure speculation. But even if it were so, I don't believe marriage is all that sacred anyway.

4) There are plenty of institutions that had "hundreds of years of laws and precedents" that we ended as well, for good reason.

Nov 6, 2009#87

Steven Soderburgin

Armadillo said:
NOWHERE did I say the militants represent a "significant portion of the gay rights movement,"

I didn't say that you did. But those people are so few and far between that they really shouldn't even be part of the discussion.

but you're saying that exact thing about religious people.

Not about religious people. About the anti-gay marriage movement that has a lot of religious backing.

Hell dude, you're damn near proving those who say that gays are militantly anti-religion right!

How so?

I've had many, MANY discussions with people against gay marriage, and none of them wanted to "eradicate gays."

Well, of course they wouldn't say that. But how many of them want to keep gays on the fringes, or think gays should be "cured" or don't want their children to be around gays? How many of them would be much happier if they lived in a world without any gay people?

Again, the main issue was the word "marriage." To religious people, that word has a VERY SPECIFIC definition that results from a very deeply-held spiritual belief. They're not keen on changing the definition, so that's why I side with the "marriage=religion, civil union=government" people. Yes it's a compromise, but in the end all reasonable people get what they want out of it.

But they wouldn't have to change the definition. Their church would be able to continue having the same idea of marriage that they've always had while gay people would be brought under the umbrella of civil marriage.

Nov 6, 2009#88

Bowielee

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-co.../the-colbert-coalition-s-anti-gay-marriage-ad

Nov 6, 2009#89

Steven Soderburgin

GasBandit said:
That's a lot of conjecture there.

1) The real history of marriage probably shouldn't be taken into account here, unless the real history of the treatment of homosexuals is going to be the basis for how they are treated in the future. We're trying to change things here.

But doesn't the main argument for your compromise heavily depend on the history of the word marriage and protecting that?

2) Unfounded with a side of ad hominem.

You mean to tell me that you've never seen campaigns against domestic partnership rights or civil union laws? there was one such campaign just this week.

3) Pure speculation. But even if it were so, I don't believe marriage is all that sacred anyway.

YOU don't, but the sanctity of marriage is the ENTIRE basis for the anti-gay marriage campaign.

4) There are plenty of institutions that had \"hundreds of years of laws and precedents\" that we ended as well, for good reason.

Yeah, but marriage law has far-reaching effect, from property and inheritance to taxes to visitation rights. The other institutions to which you refer were mostly oppressive institutions that existed ONLY to oppress groups of people. Things like slavery COULD NOT EXIST without one group of people being oppressed. Marriage is very different in that gays could fairly easily be brought under the umbrella and then HEY, MARRIAGE EQUALITY. Also, this response ignores the main thrust of my 4th point, which is that we shouldn't HAVE to make a new institution just so that gays can be included.

Nov 6, 2009#90

Armadillo

Kissinger said:
Yeah, but marriage law has far-reaching effect, from property and inheritance to taxes to visitation rights. The other institutions to which you refer were mostly oppressive institutions that existed ONLY to oppress groups of people. Things like slavery COULD NOT EXIST without one group of people being oppressed. Marriage is very different in that gays could fairly easily be brought under the umbrella and then HEY, MARRIAGE EQUALITY. Also, this response ignores the main thrust of my 4th point, which is that we shouldn't HAVE to make a new institution just so that gays can be included.

Our proposal isn't CREATING a new institution; it's just renaming it in order to achieve a compromise. Remember, if this idea comes to be, there will be NO government-recognized marriages, gay or straight. All unions would be called the same thing, whatever that is, and marriage would be a completely religious institution. Religious rights are upheld, gays and straights are equal in the eyes of the law. It seems to me like you're arguing that gays should have access not just to what straights have (rights, benefits, etc.) but also a government-sanctioned "marriage" instead of a "union." If that's the case, you may not win that one, Kissinger.

Nov 6, 2009#91

Bowielee

I don't care if they call it Gordian Feegtromping, so long as I can get the same rights when it comes to my partner that a straight person would.

Though, I do agree that the anti-marriage sentiment is less about the wording and more about marginalizing homosexuals.

But, as long as I have equal rights, they can stamp their feet as much as they want.

Nov 6, 2009#92

Armadillo

Bowielee said:
I don't care if they call it Gordian Feegtromping, so long as I can get the same rights when it comes to my partner that a straight person would.

Though, I do agree that the anti-marriage sentiment is less about the wording and more about marginalizing homosexuals.

But, as long as I have equal rights, they can stamp their feet as much as they want.

I think we agree, Bowie. As a straight man, I want to see you and your partner have the same rights my wife and I do.

And yes, there are some who just want gays to go away, but fuck 'em. (Butt fuck 'em?)

I sincerely apologize for that last line. I'm going to go sit in the corner for a bit.

Nov 6, 2009#93

Bowielee

I do have to say that my view is not the be all end all of the gay community's view. I do know many people who are very religious and want church marriages. So, there is more to it than just that.

I think that quite often that people forget that many gay people are just as religious as any other group.

Nov 6, 2009#94

GasBandit

Kissinger;292799][quote=GasBandit said:
That's a lot of conjecture there.

1) The real history of marriage probably shouldn't be taken into account here, unless the real history of the treatment of homosexuals is going to be the basis for how they are treated in the future. We're trying to change things here.

But doesn't the main argument for your compromise heavily depend on the history of the word marriage and protecting that?
[/quote]Not at all. Why would it?

2) Unfounded with a side of ad hominem.

Click to expand...

You mean to tell me that you've never seen campaigns against domestic partnership rights or civil union laws? there was one such campaign just this week.

No, I'm saying that your assertion that to be pro-civil union is to be anti-gay is fallacious. Sure, there are people who use it as cover, but it is not the entire set, nor does it invalidate the option.

3) Pure speculation. But even if it were so, I don't believe marriage is all that sacred anyway.

Click to expand...

YOU don't, but the sanctity of marriage is the ENTIRE basis for the anti-gay marriage campaign.

Well, MY motivation is just to be fair. If that means making both sides unhappy, so be it. But that doesn't disprove that what you posit is pure speculation, mostly brought on by a persecution complex.

4) There are plenty of institutions that had \"hundreds of years of laws and precedents\" that we ended as well, for good reason.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but marriage law has far-reaching effect, from property and inheritance to taxes to visitation rights. The other institutions to which you refer were mostly oppressive institutions that existed ONLY to oppress groups of people. Things like slavery COULD NOT EXIST without one group of people being oppressed. Marriage is very different in that gays could fairly easily be brought under the umbrella and then HEY, MARRIAGE EQUALITY. Also, this response ignores the main thrust of my 4th point, which is that we shouldn't HAVE to make a new institution just so that gays can be included.

Laws get changed ALL the time with word substitution. You don't have to completely erase and rewrite the laws. You can simply pass an amendment that says "all references to MARRIAGE in law shall now be understood to be referencing CIVIL UNION." Bada bing.

Nov 6, 2009#95

Armadillo

Bowielee said:
I do have to say that my view is not the be all end all of the gay community's view. I do know many people who are very religious and want church marriages. So, there is more to it than just that.

I think that quite often that people forget that many gay people are just as religious as any other group.

Nov 6, 2009#96

Steven Soderburgin

Armadillo said:
It seems to me like you're arguing that gays should have access not just to what straights have (rights, benefits, etc.) but also a government-sanctioned "marriage" instead of a "union."

Nov 6, 2009#97

Bowielee

Armadillo;292840][quote=Bowielee said:
I do have to say that my view is not the be all end all of the gay community's view. I do know many people who are very religious and want church marriages. So, there is more to it than just that.

I think that quite often that people forget that many gay people are just as religious as any other group.

Well of course not, it's your view. As for the religious gays, I know that religion isn't always (often?) rational, but why on Earth would you want to be part of an organization that thinks you're not worthy of being one of them? I just don't get that aspect of it. Of course, this refers only to the gay-unfriendly religions.[/QUOTE]

There's really no such thing as a gay-unfriendly religion, just gay-unfriendly followers of that religion.

There are many churges based of of many different creeds that welcome gays with open arms.

Personally, when I was all uber-religious, I never understood how anyone could use the teachings of christ to preach hatred and damnation when it's clearly a message of hope and tolerance, but what do I know?

Nov 6, 2009#98

Chibibar

Kissinger;292842][quote=Armadillo said:
It seems to me like you're arguing that gays should have access not just to what straights have (rights, benefits, etc.) but also a government-sanctioned "marriage" instead of a "union."

Nov 6, 2009#99

Steven Soderburgin

GasBandit;292839][quote=Kissinger said:
But doesn't the main argument for your compromise heavily depend on the history of the word marriage and protecting that?

Not at all. Why would it?[/quote]Whenever I hear people argue this position, it's always so that "religious marriage can be protected" or something along those lines. If anti-gay marriage folks, or people arguing your position (note: just to be clear, I am not comparing them or saying they are the same) don't think that the history of the word marriage should be considered, then why is it even an issue? Why can't gay people get married? If there's another reason to not use the word marriage, despite the fact that civil marriages have been around ever since the invention of law, then what is it?

No, I'm saying that your assertion that to be pro-civil union is to be anti-gay is fallacious. Sure, there are people who use it as cover, but it is not the entire set, nor does it invalidate the option.

It's not the entire set, but I feel that it's pretty clear that it's a significant portion of those against gay marriage considering how quickly those groups are to campaign against civil union laws and the like. There was even a story of gay marriage being defeated, but at the same time, civil unions being legalized. This was a compromise that an anti-gay marriage group fought for. Then immediately after civil unions were legalized, the same group started fighting against those. I don't have a link at the moment to that story, unfortunately.

Well, MY motivation is just to be fair. If that means making both sides unhappy, so be it. But that doesn't disprove that what you posit is pure speculation, mostly brought on by a persecution complex.

It think it's speculation based on observation of behavior, rather than a persecution complex (now who's throwing ad hominems?). IF civil marriage were changed to civil unions, why WOULDN'T anti-gay rights groups use that as evidence that gays actually destroyed marriage? Why wouldn't they use it to convince straight people that they could no longer get married because of gays? It's an absolutely perfect piece of ammunition.

Laws get changed ALL the time with word substitution. You don't have to completely erase and rewrite the laws. You can simply pass an amendment that says "all references to MARRIAGE in law shall now be understood to be referencing CIVIL UNION." Bada bing.

A fair point, and I'll concede that. But you still haven't address the main issue I brought up in point 4.

Nov 6, 2009#100

Armadillo

Kissinger;292842][quote=Armadillo said:
It seems to me like you're arguing that gays should have access not just to what straights have (rights, benefits, etc.) but also a government-sanctioned "marriage" instead of a "union."

government-sanctioned marriage is exactly what straight people have access to right now. Civil marriage is not a new idea and we've had it forever. Civil marriage goes all the way back to Hammurabi. You're arguing that straight people don't have access to government-sanctioned marriage, but that's completely false and I don't really know where you're getting that idea. Any two people, provided they are a man and a woman of majority, can get a completely secular, government-sanctioned civil marriage.

Given that fact, why should gay people not be able to get married? Why should we make a new word for them? "Protecting religious marriage" is not an answer because gays would only be brought under the umbrella of civil marriage and religious marriage would continue on as it always has. "Satisfying bigots who want to marginalize gays" is not an answer because they won't be satisfied no matter what.[/QUOTE]

I am? Damn, and here I thought that the wedding I stood up for in the Washington County Courthouse was religious...

Again, we're not "inventing a new word," we're CHANGING THE WORD. Everything we now know as "marriage" as it relates to government sanction hereby is called "union" or "free cat" or "Gordian Freegtromping" or what the hell ever. Personally, I don't have a problem with the term "gay marriage," but A LOT of people do, and I'm trying to achieve a result here. If my marriage is no longer called a marriage in order for you or Bowielee or Shego or any other gay people to have those rights and benefits, so be it.

Besides, bigots won't be happy with this solution because they don't even want gays to have civil unions. So we're not "satisfying bigots" here.

Nov 6, 2009#101

Steven Soderburgin

Armadillo said:
I am? Damn, and here I thought that the wedding I stood up for in the Washington County Courthouse was religious...

Oh, then I misunderstood this

Armadillo said:
It seems to me like you're arguing that gays should have access not just to what straights have (rights, benefits, etc.) but also a government-sanctioned "marriage" instead of a "union."

Again, we're not "inventing a new word," we're CHANGING THE WORD. Everything we now know as "marriage" as it relates to government sanction hereby is called "union" or "free cat" or "Gordian Freegtromping" or what the hell ever. Personally, I don't have a problem with the term "gay marriage," but A LOT of people do, and I'm trying to achieve a result here. If my marriage is no longer called a marriage in order for you or Bowielee or Shego or any other gay people to have those rights and benefits, so be it.

Besides, bigots won't be happy with this solution because they don't even want gays to have civil unions. So we're not "satisfying bigots" here.

So why bother changing the word? It seems to me that the people who have a problem with "gay marriage" are just as likely to have a problem with "gay civil unions" AND changing the word creates an implied otherness about gays - i.e. we have to change the word because marriage is too sacred to let them have marriage - that can't be there if we want true equality.

Nov 6, 2009#102

Armadillo

Kissinger;292852][quote=Armadillo said:
I am? Damn, and here I thought that the wedding I stood up for in the Washington County Courthouse was religious...

Oh, then I misunderstood this

Armadillo said:
It seems to me like you're arguing that gays should have access not just to what straights have (rights, benefits, etc.) but also a government-sanctioned "marriage" instead of a "union."

Again, we're not "inventing a new word," we're CHANGING THE WORD. Everything we now know as "marriage" as it relates to government sanction hereby is called "union" or "free cat" or "Gordian Freegtromping" or what the hell ever. Personally, I don't have a problem with the term "gay marriage," but A LOT of people do, and I'm trying to achieve a result here. If my marriage is no longer called a marriage in order for you or Bowielee or Shego or any other gay people to have those rights and benefits, so be it.

Besides, bigots won't be happy with this solution because they don't even want gays to have civil unions. So we're not "satisfying bigots" here.

So why bother changing the word? The people who have a problem with "gay marriage" are just as likely to have a problem with "gay civil unions"[/QUOTE]

Because there is a large number of people who object to the term "gay marriage" who WOULDN'T have a problem with "gay civil unions." Again, we're looking for a result here.

Nov 6, 2009#103

Steven Soderburgin

I edited my post up there to expand on my point a bit.

Nov 6, 2009#104

TotalFusionOne

Where were they showing V for Vendetta?

Some place here in Raleigh called The Colony.

Don't lump all of gay rights under this. Most people just want to be accepted as equals, as human fucking beings. Was MLK just yelling about attention for his "cause"? And what the FUCK is so wrong about accepting everyone for who they are, how can you say that like it's a bad thing? It's, at worst, common human decency.

Holy fucking misunderstanding, Batman.

First off, I didn't lump any gays together. I specifically said Gay Rights groups. A lot of people (Including myself, being a bi-man in a gay world, and most of my friends down south) refused to join any groups outside of the Straight-Gay Alliance because of the political notions that pretty much all Gay Rights groups have. Most of these groups don't believe that equality is enough either. They want more.

In fact, you can see the effect they have in your own argument. You just used MLK as somehow "Similar" to this situation, something that I'm sure is not unintended by Gay Rights groups language in their literature, arguments, even the names of their groups. But really, Gay rights is like MLKs Black equality? Please tell me which generation of gay people were put in chains. Which one lived and died in slavery. Which one lost MOST of it's people to the cruelty of straight men and woman? Because whereas I have seen straight-on-gay crime, I haven't seen the mass killings of slaves that occurred. I don't see the struggle for equality over the next 100 years leading up to MLKs speech. Hell, I don't even see gay people being discriminated against in the work place, school, etc. There are no signs that say "No gays." There are no schools for just gay people. Please take a normal gay man into Harlem and have him say "So... We're like the same, right?"

The truth of the matter is... Gay people have been made legally equal in every way except one. Four documents have to be signed and notarized for you to have a standing akin to marriage. Four. That's less shit than a straight person goes through. Can find out about your partners condition? Why aren't you listed as the emergency contact at your local hospital? Why isn't your partner carrying a card listing you as such? A simple "Power of attorney" form that you can get for free and have notarized for next to nothing would solve this. The same form could make you equal holders of any earnings, or properties. But it's not about any of these things to the gay rights groups. It's about not wanting to be disliked.

Lets say I join an anti-abortion group (I hate the terms pro-life and pro-choice because both are lies). I go into work and say something about my "cause." No arguments, no pushing myself in the face of something. Just saying as simple as "Oh yeah I have an anti-abotion protest this weekend." There is no legal recourse for me if people dislike me because of that. There is no legal recourse if I get fired for my lifestyle. I believed something, I lived a certain way. And it's ALRIGHT IF PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT. Which is the complete opposite of what we're being taught today.

Let me say this again: It's alright if you don't like it. It's alright if you don't like me, right? You already were kinda... harsh with your arguments. There's a difference between not liking me for THESE ideas and not liking gay people? We're both just living our lifes the way we think is right for us.

And the thing is... It's all working. We're giving more leeway to people who are homosexual than we are to any other group. Look at the arguments on this board in the last week about a simple three letter word that used to be used as a slam against gays. Do you think people would think twice if someone said "Cracker" or "Whitey?" How about homophobe? I see straight people put down all the time just because they don't like gay people (Non-withstanding the "I can't tolerate intolerance" argument, that's just stupid any way you look at it).

I know this is massive wall-o-text but I really am quite upset that you mistook something I said, and then tried to act like MLK and gay rights have something in common. Also, I have no way to end this. So I will end it with this:

Nov 6, 2009#105

Chibibar

Totalfusionone: question. I understand the system is there but why a gay person has to do ALL that just to get the same benefits hetro couples get it automatically without signing those extra papers. There are more than just 4 really.

There are health insurance stuff (some company DO allow now but not majority) name changes (cost money for gay couple) I really need to find that list of stuff that many hetro couples enjoy automatically.

The main problem is why these people have to do the extra stuff while they are citizens of the U.S. They all pay the same taxes as everyone else. They follow the law like everyone else. Why do these people have to be treated differently just to get the same benefits from the government?

Also... just let you know, a same sex couple can't get SS check if the partner dies, it goes to the family and cannot be willed to non-family members. that might not be important to you, but it is important to some.

minor correction: not SS check (you lose that) I was thinking of insurance benefits

http://www.caregiverslibrary.org/Default.aspx?tabid=663

What Is Survivors’ Insurance?

When an eligible family member who has paid Social Security taxes and earned enough “credits” dies, certain family members—including widow(er)s (and divorced widow(er)s), children, and dependent parents—are eligible to collect survivor benefits. The more money an individual earns, the higher the value of his or her survivors’ insurance.

right now - the government would NOT recognize same sex marriage and thus, the person would not be a widower.

Nov 6, 2009#106

Bowielee

FYI, totalfusionone, all those documents that you're pointing out can be overridden by "real family".

Nov 6, 2009#107

TotalFusionOne

There are health insurance stuff (some company DO allow now but not majority) name changes (cost money for gay couple) I really need to find that list of stuff that many hetro couples enjoy automatically.

The main problem is why these people have to do the extra stuff while they are citizens of the U.S. They all pay the same taxes as everyone else. They follow the law like everyone else. Why do these people have to be treated differently just to get the same benefits from the government?

Also... just let you know, a same sex couple can't get SS check if the partner dies, it goes to the family and cannot be willed to non-family members. that might not be important to you, but it is important to some.

I don't believe that a private company should be forced to allow benefits to anyone it doesn't want to. It doesn't seem right to me. THAT BEING SAID I believe that there needs to be a larger change to our insurance operations here in the states that would make this a non-issue. Inter-state competition between health care would change that. Also, inter-company competition with health care would change that too (Companies offering insurance plans from more than one provider). Both of these things will lead to lower rates, as well as a capitalist change leading to the company that provides the most benefits to the most amount of people for the least money wining the support of the majority.

Also, a name change DOES cost money for straight people as well. It's not automatic. And it's comparable to the cost of a name change for someone that ISN'T getting married, someone that just wants to change their name. Furthermore, these are the reasons I argue for the abolishment of marriage being recognized by the federal government.

As for the SS issue, I completely agree. THAT is outdated. The law needs to be changed so that the SS is given to whoever holds the majority of the estate for a SPECIFIC TIME PERIOD. Not for the remainer of their life as it is now. For instance, my grandfather passed away in March. My grandmother will now recieve SS benefits from him as well as her own til the day she dies even though her cost of living is decreased. That makes zero sense to me, although I am happy that she gets more money on a personal level.

Oh, and death benefits (The $250 the family gets when someone dies) CAN be willed away. I know that's stupid and unimportant, but the more you know right?

---------- Post added at 06:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:33 PM ----------

FYI, totalfusionone, all those documents that you're pointing out can be overridden by "real family".

Completely false. All those documents can be CONTESTED by "real family." Not directly overridden. It's the same as a re-marriage, or one side of the family wanting one thing while the other side of the family wants another. It would have to be taken to court and decided there.

Nov 6, 2009#108

Chibibar

actually the name change does NOT cost any money for straight couple when they get married.

My wife TOTALLY change her name for FREE legally cause they are allow to. You just have to register at city hall with your new name at no charge.

Normal name change is 300$ in the city of Dallas.

edit: but the problem is that straight couple get these things automatically while same sex couple (this is proven when people married in other states that allowed and moved to Texas) they have to do all these things (that is how I know since I work with these people in the same office) just to get the same AUTOMATIC government rights that straight people get. to me, either make it equal (i.e. everyone need to get those documents and such) or include same sex couples as well (tax benefits and such)

but here is the problem. I don't think they will remove the benefits (government wise) these were institute to PROMOTE family of course the people who put them there are religious people. It is hard to separate church and state on senators, state reps and even president level. the separation is that government can't make laws to govern them (i.e. telling churches to marry gays if such rights were to pass) but a lot of laws are pass because of society, and the majority of the society thinks "the gays" are evil. Look at the 4 states that already allow same sex. They only get to pass it via court or legislation. Popular vote even "liberal" California gets shot down cause the general public fear getting "the gays"

Here in Texas, you be surprise when talking to people who are against the same sex marriage that they want to remove gays from their society. There are people who are tolerant of them and people who accepts them as equals (like me) but you be surprise (well maybe not) how prejudice people can be when it come to sexual orientation.

These people are as hard working, tax paying, law abiding citizen and yet just because of their sexual orientation (only difference) that they can't get the same benefits as straight married couple (we are talking about JP not even churches) without having to write up legal papers that cost them extra money?

You know how much money I spend toward the government to get these rights? 30$ for the marriage license and I think 50$ for the JP (I think my wife said we didn't have to pay) and we are fully wed legally and got all of our documents change (she did for her name) at no cost other than getting a new license (that is given) but didn't have to pay 300$ for her name to change to my last name at all. Heck, I was told I can change MY last name too to her last name and middle name so I could have her last name and she could have mine at no extra charge BUT same sex would have to pay 600$ total to do what I can do.

how fair is that?

I don't even have to pay any lawyers to draw up documents or take the time to fill out forms to ensure my wife can visit me in hospitals, I can add her to my insurance without questions, (this is important to many what if my wife doesn't work?) and no living will needed unless I want something different done to me in case I'm incapacitated.

Nov 6, 2009#109

TotalFusionOne

The federal courts have overwhelmingly ruled that changing one's name at will, by common law, is clearly one's constitutional right. Nonetheless, one may still choose to have a court issued name change.
Usually a person can adopt any name desired for any reason. Most states allow one to legally change his name by usage with no paperwork, but a court order may be required for many institutions (such as banks or government institutions) to officially accept the change.[1] Although the States (except part of Louisiana) follow the common law there are differences in acceptable requirements; usually a court order is the most efficient way to change names (which would be applied for in a state court) (except at marriage, which has become a universally accepted reason for a name change). It is necessary to plead that the name change is not for a fraudulent or other illegal purpose (such as evading a lien or debt, or for defaming someone).

Short version: Changing names is free. Forcing other people to follow with your name change is not.

And I'm glad that in YOUR state there is no fee, but in most states there IS a fee. Whether that fee be rolled into marriage license, or what have you is a different matter. Futhermore if your issue is with STATE fees for name changes, that's a different matter than anything I ever started in on. I'm talking about FEDERAL recognition. I don't give a shit what little laws states have, I can move.

Nov 6, 2009#110

Chibibar

TotalFusionOne said:
The federal courts have overwhelmingly ruled that changing one's name at will, by common law, is clearly one's constitutional right. Nonetheless, one may still choose to have a court issued name change.
Usually a person can adopt any name desired for any reason. Most states allow one to legally change his name by usage with no paperwork, but a court order may be required for many institutions (such as banks or government institutions) to officially accept the change.[1] Although the States (except part of Louisiana) follow the common law there are differences in acceptable requirements; usually a court order is the most efficient way to change names (which would be applied for in a state court) (except at marriage, which has become a universally accepted reason for a name change). It is necessary to plead that the name change is not for a fraudulent or other illegal purpose (such as evading a lien or debt, or for defaming someone).

Click to expand...

Short version: Changing names is free. Forcing other people to follow with your name change is not.

And I'm glad that in YOUR state there is no fee, but in most states there IS a fee. Whether that fee be rolled into marriage license, or what have you is a different matter. Futhermore if your issue is with STATE fees for name changes, that's a different matter than anything I ever started in on. I'm talking about FEDERAL recognition. I don't give a shit what little laws states have, I can move.

right but most states (at least for New York, California, Oregon, Florida and Illinois these are the one I can spoken for since I have family and friend didn't charge for a name change when married.)

but that is just one aspect of something that straight couple gets. I'm sure many people on this forum can probably find out from their home state if there is a fee for a name change when they get married. (not just a name change just cause)

The problem is that each state can make their own rules but it is not equal due to sexual orientation. So how do we fix that?

either include the no discrimination for race, creed, color, ethic, religion, AND sexual orientation. or remove all couple benefits on the government level.

That means everyone will have to have their own benefits
everyone would need to make a will and living will
everyone would need to fill out their medical card
everyone need to make a power of attorney letter.

That is a lot of changes across the U.S. and a lot of documentation to change to remove "family" or "married couple" or "status:married" cause it doesn't matter anymore. everyone is single in the eye of the government.

If there is no marriage in the government level (you can still be married on religious and personal level) then technically you can't have adultry on the court level since marriage is not recognize anymore.

anyways: it seems that you are against same sex marriage since you believe the system is already in place and why even change it. You have your belief and I have mine so I will leave it at that. I still believe the system is broken since it exclude a group of citizen due to sexual orientation. It like not long ago a system exclude people cause of the skin of their color. While the history differs (slavery and oppression and such) the basic goal remains the same, equal rights across the board. I do thank the past heroes who have fought hard to have equal rights since many other ethic background (like Chinese slavery to the west) benefit from these movements. I thank them cause if it wasn't for them, I would have been 2nd class citizen still.

That is a lot of change. It would be simpler just include same sex couple than exclude everyone else.

Nov 7, 2009#111

TotalFusionOne

anyways: it seems that you are against same sex marriage since you believe the system is already in place and why even change it. You have your belief and I have mine so I will leave it at that. I still believe the system is broken since it exclude a group of citizen due to sexual orientation. It like not long ago a system exclude people cause of the skin of their color. While the history differs (slavery and oppression and such) the basic goal remains the same, equal rights across the board. I do thank the past heroes who have fought hard to have equal rights since many other ethic background (like Chinese slavery to the west) benefit from these movements. I thank them cause if it wasn't for them, I would have been 2nd class citizen still.

Did... you even read my first post? Wow. This is some forum here.

Yes, I'm against same sex marriage because I AM AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGING MARRIAGE AT ALL. This was my point in the beginning, it was my point in the middle, and goddamn it's still my point now. Marriage does not need to be recognized by the government. Everything is a civil union. The problem is gay rights groups don't really want that etc.. etc..

And why does this situation keep getting compared to the colour of someones skin? How is it in any way like racism? Racism is inherently about picking someone apart because of the way they look, not the way they act. Not the thoughts they have. The way they look. You're comparing it to a group of people that were treated horrifically over the period of two centuries. Do you understand that we haven't really been "Discriminated" against at all for our sexual orientation? That are complaints are so laughably inane compared to theirs? No, of course not. In my life I've seen very few people who have a sexual identity different to the norm and DON'T see themselves as some sort of martyr. Why is that?

Nov 7, 2009#112

Bowielee

TotalFusionOne said:
anyways: it seems that you are against same sex marriage since you believe the system is already in place and why even change it. You have your belief and I have mine so I will leave it at that. I still believe the system is broken since it exclude a group of citizen due to sexual orientation. It like not long ago a system exclude people cause of the skin of their color. While the history differs (slavery and oppression and such) the basic goal remains the same, equal rights across the board. I do thank the past heroes who have fought hard to have equal rights since many other ethic background (like Chinese slavery to the west) benefit from these movements. I thank them cause if it wasn't for them, I would have been 2nd class citizen still.

Click to expand...

Did... you even read my first post? Wow. This is some forum here.

Yes, I'm against same sex marriage because I AM AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGING MARRIAGE AT ALL. This was my point in the beginning, it was my point in the middle, and goddamn it's still my point now. Marriage does not need to be recognized by the government. Everything is a civil union. The problem is gay rights groups don't really want that etc.. etc..

And why does this situation keep getting compared to the colour of someones skin? How is it in any way like racism? Racism is inherently about picking someone apart because of the way they look, not the way they act. Not the thoughts they have. The way they look. You're comparing it to a group of people that were treated horrifically over the period of two centuries. Do you understand that we haven't really been "Discriminated" against at all for our sexual orientation? That are complaints are so laughably inane compared to theirs? No, of course not. In my life I've seen very few people who have a sexual identity different to the norm and DON'T see themselves as some sort of martyr. Why is that?

Wow, I have to disagree with you SO HARD.

Your "they don't really care about marriage at all" argument is just plain laughable. Sure all groups have some people that are all in it for the ego stroking, but you will find that in every single movement out there, from Westburo Babtist, to Greenpeace, but saying that those few typify all who are lobbying for gay marriage is beyond assinine.

Your notion that there is no descrimination against gays is even more laughable.

Nov 8, 2009#113

Chibibar

TotalFusionOne said:
anyways: it seems that you are against same sex marriage since you believe the system is already in place and why even change it. You have your belief and I have mine so I will leave it at that. I still believe the system is broken since it exclude a group of citizen due to sexual orientation. It like not long ago a system exclude people cause of the skin of their color. While the history differs (slavery and oppression and such) the basic goal remains the same, equal rights across the board. I do thank the past heroes who have fought hard to have equal rights since many other ethic background (like Chinese slavery to the west) benefit from these movements. I thank them cause if it wasn't for them, I would have been 2nd class citizen still.

Click to expand...

Did... you even read my first post? Wow. This is some forum here.

Yes, I'm against same sex marriage because I AM AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGING MARRIAGE AT ALL. This was my point in the beginning, it was my point in the middle, and goddamn it's still my point now. Marriage does not need to be recognized by the government. Everything is a civil union. The problem is gay rights groups don't really want that etc.. etc..

And why does this situation keep getting compared to the colour of someones skin? How is it in any way like racism? Racism is inherently about picking someone apart because of the way they look, not the way they act. Not the thoughts they have. The way they look. You're comparing it to a group of people that were treated horrifically over the period of two centuries. Do you understand that we haven't really been "Discriminated" against at all for our sexual orientation? That are complaints are so laughably inane compared to theirs? No, of course not. In my life I've seen very few people who have a sexual identity different to the norm and DON'T see themselves as some sort of martyr. Why is that?

ok. I have to answer this one

While you are against the whole government recognize marriage thing (yes I did read it all) you still come off as against it (at least that is how I read it) but, alas, the government DOES recognize marriage and WILL NOT change it anytime soon why? cause U.S. of A is trying to promote family unit... why? cause the society wants to have more family units and less divorces and less single parents (which technically same thing but you get the idea) so they vote senators and representative to promote this. This will not change

In order for government to totally not recognize marriages, they would have to remove all wording (government are like that) on marriage and benefits. We are talking from Tax benefits, laws that have built in protection of estate (like spouse dying), government medical benefits (Social security and medicare). that is a lot of changes just for the government to drop it. would it be right? maybe.

But also read Kissinger's post, this can be a bad thing if the above DID happen. Why? cause for the last 100 years, people have been enjoying these benefits and suddenly they are taken away...... guess who they are going to blame? the homosexuals cause "they wanted to be equals" you may not believe it, but hey, JCM can tell you all about how when people say Muslim people automatically think "Terrorist" while JCM educate us that not all Muslim are terrorist, but you know what? people are stupid and will think that.

Maybe in your life, you don't see homosexual getting treated differently. There are jobs like teachers that teaches children, parents are notorious of not wanting their kids to get "the gays" or even associate with them. Heck, you have seen rallies like prop 8 and all the ads and all the stupid thing about how "the gays" will rule their lives.

Now of course segregation has been "abolish" at least government side for awhile. If such things wasn't in place before, I can assure you there will probably be separate bathroom for "the gays" now like there was back in the early days for "non-white" bathrooms.

That is what I am getting at. Each fight open opportunity for a group of people that wasn't there before and prevent the stupid things that prevent them in the first place. This is why I personally references the past action of the heroes who fought equality.

Look at our government, look at your workplace. How many american base company/government seats are there for Latino? African Amercian? Asian? what about CEO? (that are not Asian starter company) not as many. I can almost assure you that any senator brave enough to be openly gay AND keep their position without being "force" to step down by their constituent. Heck, there was a whole debacle on Sen. Larry Craig on the bathroom incident and look how the people react to that.

While there isn't an open "war" against homosexual NOW because of all the rights and protection (like hate crime) are in place to keep that in check, but I can assure you, the general population does not approve of homosexual. Look at the popular vote that killed the bill for same sex marriage (government eyes)

Even in Texas, with a large homosexual population in Dallas, won't be able to pass such a law cause well, Texas really fear "the gays" you be surprise working with students and parents in community college and talking with people.

Nov 8, 2009#114

TotalFusionOne

I'm going to have to go through this piece by piece. Hang on to your butts.

Your notion that there is no descrimination against gays is even more laughable.

I never said there wasn't discrimination. What I did say is it's nothing like what people of other races have had to go through in the past. Twisting what I said into what you want to mean just weakens your own argument.

While you are against the whole government recognize marriage thing (yes I did read it all) you still come off as against it (at least that is how I read it) but, alas, the government DOES recognize marriage and WILL NOT change it anytime soon why? cause U.S. of A is trying to promote family unit... why? cause the society wants to have more family units and less divorces and less single parents (which technically same thing but you get the idea) so they vote senators and representative to promote this. This will not change

Saying "This will not change" makes no sense, and is a horrible argument. Aren't YOU trying to change it to allow gay marriage?

Look, there are a ton of straight people who think the government should be out of marriage. There are a ton of gay people who want equal rights. There are a ton of Mormons who want the government to not deny their own rights. Why don't we all get together? You're never going to get the amount of people voting for "gay marriage" as you are voting for "No government recognition of marriage." Lets work TOGETHER in a way that leaves NO ONE any room to complain. Seriously, where is the logical argument any group can have AGAINST the idea that the government no longer recognizes marriage?

Maybe in your life, you don't see homosexual getting treated differently.

Again, I never said that. I said it wasn't on par with the prejudice of the African Americans or Chinese Immigrants that it was compared to in this thread. Why is the only form of argument you have to misquote me?

Heck, you have seen rallies like prop 8 and all the ads and all the stupid thing about how "the gays" will rule their lives.

Kinda like the ones I see against republicans? Christians? "Cults?" Yeah, must be tough for the homosexual. Now try being a republican Christian bisexual. But you know what? It's just words. It's just all words written on a board. It's words being yelled. That's all it is.

I spent my entire life hearing words thrown at me. Maybe it doesn't bother me because I got over it and realized that people are going to have their own ideas, AND THAT IS JUST FINE as long as they don't step on my rights. Which words do not.

Now of course segregation has been "abolish" at least government side for awhile. If such things wasn't in place before, I can assure you there will probably be separate bathroom for "the gays" now like there was back in the early days for "non-white" bathrooms.

..... I can't... Even begin to tell you... Ugh. Yes. You're right. If homosexuality was as "Prevalent" as it was back in the days of segregation, there probably would be. Of course we'd be having this argument over telegraph and waiting to go see the talkies down at the Theatre as well. What the heck is your point?

That is what I am getting at. Each fight open opportunity for a group of people that wasn't there before and prevent the stupid things that prevent them in the first place. This is why I personally references the past action of the heroes who fought equality.

NOTHING. IS PREVENTING. ANY SEXUALITY. AT ALL. You have NEVER been prevented as long as you have lived. That time was the time of our parents. You are NOT prevented by the federal government. You are NOT prevented by the state government. You know what? Tonight I can go to Legends here in NC and make out with a shit ton of guys. You know why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO PREJUDICE AT THE FEDERAL OR STATE LEVEL AGAINST ME BEING BISEXUAL. There is no law preventing it! The only thing, THE ONLY THING prevented is marriage.

Think about that for a second while you're comparing it to the racial segregations our grandparents generation endured. I don't sit in the back of the bus. I don't drink from a different water fountain. Hell, I get to have an amazing straight roomie and am not made to sleep with other "deviants."

Look at our government, look at your workplace. How many american base company/government seats are there for Latino? African Amercian? Asian? what about CEO? (that are not Asian starter company) not as many. I can almost assure you that any senator brave enough to be openly gay AND keep their position without being "force" to step down by their constituent. Heck, there was a whole debacle on Sen. Larry Craig on the bathroom incident and look how the people react to that.

Why... Should we be forced to have seats? The people who do the best work get promoted. Period. It's not economically feasible for a business owner to say "Hrm, that black guy is fucking smart and he'd make me bajillions. But I'll go with the white guy." As for Larry Craig? Dude had sex in the bathroom. Anonymous sex in the bathroom. Even my hardcore gayest friends went "ew." He got in trouble for breaking the law, not for being gay.

While there isn't an open "war" against homosexual NOW because of all the rights and protection (like hate crime) are in place to keep that in check, but I can assure you, the general population does not approve of homosexual. Look at the popular vote that killed the bill for same sex marriage (government eyes)

So the majority of Americans decided what was best for America and you're pissed off and want your way even though that's not how the majority of Americans want to live? Okay.

I don't know what to tell you. At some point you gotta just grow some thicker skin.

Nov 8, 2009#115

Krisken

TotalFusionOne said:
Look at our government, look at your workplace. How many american base company/government seats are there for Latino? African Amercian? Asian? what about CEO? (that are not Asian starter company) not as many. I can almost assure you that any senator brave enough to be openly gay AND keep their position without being "force" to step down by their constituent. Heck, there was a whole debacle on Sen. Larry Craig on the bathroom incident and look how the people react to that.

Click to expand...

Why... Should we be forced to have seats? The people who do the best work get promoted. Period. It's not economically feasible for a business owner to say "Hrm, that black guy is fucking smart and he'd make me bajillions. But I'll go with the white guy." As for Larry Craig? Dude had sex in the bathroom. Anonymous sex in the bathroom. Even my hardcore gayest friends went "ew." He got in trouble for breaking the law, not for being gay.

People who do the best work get promoted? Period? That I can't agree with. At all. Period. There's a lot of reasons that aren't logical that people get promoted over others. Friendship, related, bigotry, sexism, etc. To imply that the only thing that gets people promoted is their skill set is unrealistic.

As for Larry Craig, the uproar wasn't just tied to having sex with a man in a bathroom. It was that he spent years of his time working against gay rights.

Nov 9, 2009#116

Green_Lantern

TotalFusionOne said:
I never said there wasn't discrimination. What I did say is it's nothing like what people of other races have had to go through in the past. Twisting what I said into what you want to mean just weakens your own argument.

I am trying to keep myself out of this kind of threats because of the "Negativity" thread that Dave made sometime a go and the forum rules, but just for this I will make a exception.

You are completely right that the homosexuals don't face the same discrimination that others races do, people that suffer from racism learn to fear another race, homosexuals don't, because they learn to fear they own family and friends, besides any curious strangers or whatever people is spreading homophobia at the time, and through history of mankind homophobia is a far more omnipresent problem, probably only sexism was more widespread.

edit:

Also, I would like to compare "fear being discrimination from other races" with "fear to cause my father to have a heart attack, destroy my family, being hated by my friends, be killed because for looking at a guy for too long or never being able to find love because I can't even start to search for it anyway" and as a bonus include "at the age of 13" to that.

Nov 9, 2009#117

@Li3n

Green_Lantern said:
and through history of mankind homophobia is a far more omnipresent problem, probably only sexism was more widespread.

nitpick:

I'm actually pretty sure hate of other races is historically more prevalent, in one form or another. It's just that back then interaction between different races wasn't as common overall.

And there where plenty of times when homosexuality was accepted... the Victorians just pretended it wasn't when they started getting into archeology.

/nitpick

Otherwise, yeah, people suck...

Nov 9, 2009#118

Green_Lantern

"@Li3n said:
Green_Lantern said:

and through history of mankind homophobia is a far more omnipresent problem, probably only sexism was more widespread.

Click to expand...

nitpick:

I'm actually pretty sure hate of other races is historically more prevalent, in one form or another. It's just that back then interaction between different races wasn't as common overall. .

I was actually counting on that, if two races don't like each other there is a possibility of just living apart and ignoring that the other exist, not the best option, but is a option. Homosexuals don't have that luck, obviously, and we have to live under the str8 people feet while artificial gestation is not invented. At the moment it does I am going to propose to nuke you guys from orbit and go live in Uranus

@Li3n said:
And there where plenty of times when homosexuality was accepted... the Victorians just pretended it wasn't when they started getting into archeology.

"pretending" it is not the same thing as accepting.

I know there are times with less homophobia, but they aren't as common as they should, and rarely (or pretty much never) there was the same degree of acceptance that heteros get (well, difference and individuality is evil anyway).

@Li3n said:
/nitpick

Otherwise, yeah, people suck...

As a gay man, I agree. o/

Nov 9, 2009#119

Dave

When a couple who has been together for 20 years can't visit each other in the hospital when one of them is dying, something is wrong with the system.

Couple of gay friends of mine had this. When he died, his partner of 20+ years was cut out of a lot of the processes such as the hospital visitation, the estate reverted back to the parents and the widow was unable to make the funeral arrangements. Yes, most of this could have been taken care of had they done their wills correctly, but even if I die now without a will my wife gets everything and can make all of these decisions. My friend was unable to make none.

Something in that situation is fundamentally wrong. Yes, that's just one example and it's a personal one, but it is a telling one.

Nov 9, 2009#120

Iaculus

Green_Lantern said:
@Li3n said:

And there where plenty of times when homosexuality was accepted... the Victorians just pretended it wasn't when they started getting into archeology.

Click to expand...

"pretending" it is not the same thing as accepting.

You misunderstood. He meant that they deliberately ignored evidence of tolerance for homosexuality in ancient civilisations. The Greeks went for anything that moved, for a start.

Nov 9, 2009#121

Green_Lantern

Iaculus;294294][quote=Green_Lantern said:
@Li3n said:

And there where plenty of times when homosexuality was accepted... the Victorians just pretended it wasn't when they started getting into archeology.

Click to expand...

"pretending" it is not the same thing as accepting.

Nov 9, 2009#122

Chibibar

Dave said:
When a couple who has been together for 20 years can't visit each other in the hospital when one of them is dying, something is wrong with the system.

Couple of gay friends of mine had this. When he died, his partner of 20+ years was cut out of a lot of the processes such as the hospital visitation, the estate reverted back to the parents and the widow was unable to make the funeral arrangements. Yes, most of this could have been taken care of had they done their wills correctly, but even if I die now without a will my wife gets everything and can make all of these decisions. My friend was unable to make none.

Something in that situation is fundamentally wrong. Yes, that's just one example and it's a personal one, but it is a telling one.

exactly.

I talk with my wife on this matter and I have been relaying this topic (she doesn't like to post or even lurk cause of the drama with forums but that is anther story)

while society in history does accept (like Greeks and Romans) homosexuality with no issues.

In response on there is no discrimination against homosexuality in government, there is one that my wife mention this morning I totally forgot about (cause my brain is small and allow only couple thoughts at a time)

"Don't ask, don't tell" policy. A government institution, probably one of the largest government run institution don't want gays in the military.

I know that policy is going to be look at.

I know that some (like totalfusion "might" point out, but he can correct me if I'm wrong which I don't mind) oh, the rules was to protect the gays.

Why? If there is no "discrimination" or "fear" or "hatred" in the masses, why have such a rule? There was a story not long ago posted on this forum (before you came) about how some closet homosexual military was being harassed, hazed, and pretty much made his life miserable while in the military. Yes, it could be isolated incident, but as others have pointed out, there is fear from their own family, church group, and even society on some level.

(that was from my wife)

Also: I think it is nice to have a dicussion so far without name calling and such so I think we are still within the rules or we would have some notice by now

Nov 9, 2009#123

@Li3n

Iaculus;294294][quote=Green_Lantern said:
@Li3n said:

And there where plenty of times when homosexuality was accepted... the Victorians just pretended it wasn't when they started getting into archeology.

Click to expand...

"pretending" it is not the same thing as accepting.

You misunderstood. He meant that they deliberately ignored evidence of tolerance for homosexuality in ancient civilisations. The Greeks went for anything that moved, for a start.[/quote]

This! Our view of history is skewed because the victorians where only interested in the nobility and even from that they removed anything that they didn't like...

Also, i recall the ancient greeks having a time or at least a subculture that saw wives as "the baby factory at home" while men where where one looked for actual romantic experiences. A pederast couple was even attributed with starting democracy by killing a tyrant.

I was actually counting on that, if two races don't like each other there is a possibility of just living apart and ignoring that the other exist, not the best option, but is a option.

Except that that's not how it worked, it just that the nation vs nation part tends to be more emphasised when they killed each other, which isn't necessarily untrue, but racial/genetic superiority was often used as an argument in plenty of conflicts.

Nov 9, 2009#124

TotalFusionOne

You are completely right that the homosexuals don't face the same discrimination that others races do, people that suffer from racism learn to fear another race, homosexuals don't, because they learn to fear they own family and friends, besides any curious strangers or whatever people is spreading homophobia at the time, and through history of mankind homophobia is a far more omnipresent problem, probably only sexism was more widespread.

edit:

Also, I would like to compare "fear being discrimination from other races" with "fear to cause my father to have a heart attack, destroy my family, being hated by my friends, be killed because for looking at a guy for too long or never being able to find love because I can't even start to search for it anyway" and as a bonus include "at the age of 13" to that.

Yeah I guess that is just as bad as waking up to burning crosses on your lawn or being hung. I never thought of it that way.

I know that policy is going to be look at.

I know that some (like totalfusion "might" point out, but he can correct me if I'm wrong which I don't mind) oh, the rules was to protect the gays.

Why? If there is no "discrimination" or "fear" or "hatred" in the masses, why have such a rule? There was a story not long ago posted on this forum (before you came) about how some closet homosexual military was being harassed, hazed, and pretty much made his life miserable while in the military. Yes, it could be isolated incident, but as others have pointed out, there is fear from their own family, church group, and even society on some level.

No, I think the Don't Ask / Don't Tell policy was instituted for straight people.

The mass majority of straight men are not comfortable with homosexual men in close quarters with them. THIS IS NOT WRONG OF THEM. This is their own personal emotions, just as the feelings a homosexual has for their same gender are their personal emotions. The problem is when you're somewhere like the army and you're going to have to be in very close quarters for a long period of time you can't really escape those feelings of not being comfortable. So, what do we do? Don't ask, don't tell or you're gone. These is because the mass majority is not comfortable with it and everything will work out more smoothly if we just saunter on by the issue.

Yes, I realize that that's not why the rule was originally put in place. Originally homosexuals were considered mentally incompetent and kicked out of the military. But this is the logical explanation for don't ask don't tell, not the original rule. Also, I only got three hours sleep and I just found out my girlfriend isn't pregnant so I'm not in the greatest state of mind.

See, here again we've run into one of the big problems between being a Gay/Bisexual person and being a Gay/Bisexual rights group. You and I can argue this til we're blue in the face but what it comes down to is PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO FEEL WHAT THEY FEEL. You're arguing for gay "rights" because they're just trying to be who they are, right? Well so is every bigot and idiot out there who hates homosexuals. And they have just as much right to their opinion as you, as long as they don't step on your Life, Liberty, Pursuit etc.. etc.. You can't change their minds as a gay rights group, all you can do is FORCE them to change the laws. FORCE people who don't believe in something to change the rules. Never mind that they're completely ignoring the rights of everyone else out there who disagrees.

But as an individual you can change a lot of things. Yeah, my parents had a bit of a heart attack. But after awhile of seeing that I was no different than any other guy my age, they relaxed a little. They really accept my lifestyle. Sure I run into an asshole who pushes the "wrath of god" shit down my throat every now and then, so I sit down and tell them about my time in seminary and what I learned about love and acceptance. Forcing people to do things they don't want to do never works, but talking one on one?

Change the culture. The laws will change in time.

Nov 9, 2009#125

Chibibar

totalfusionone: I agree that I might try to "force" to change the rules, but history has shown sometimes, it is better for the society as a whole to force change, then wait for change.

I'm on this boat cause I am getting tired of seeing my friends being left out by government family benefits because the states said the marriage is between a man and a woman (yes some states DO have such laws)

I am not trying to change the people's mind at least not their religion or personal beliefs, but as citizens of the U.S. every citizens should gain access to the same benefits provided by the government on the same level.

you are right that practically everything else is available to them when you are single, but when you are married, you get more benefits which some groups are left out. Why? because of their sexuality.

So.... what we have?
We can either
Correct the rules and INCLUDE same sex couple which is easier on paper, since documentation doesn't need to be change. Marriage is marriage in government's eye regardless if you married via JP, church, mosque, whatever

OR

Get rid of the married benefits and in the government eyes, everyone is single and need to create the documents (that you have post which you said it was like 4) those rules are also in place and two strangers can take advantage of that and every married couple will have to fill out these document to get the benefit they "lost" above.

Kissinger pointed out that this can be a problem (even changing name to civil union) cause people are stupid and will blame "the gays" for them losing their marital benefits from the government...... then we might actually see some real life violence and persecution (like crosses on your lawn type)

Nov 9, 2009#126

Shegokigo

TotalFusionOne said:
The problem is when you're somewhere like the army and you're going to have to be in very close quarters for a long period of time you can't really escape those feelings of not being comfortable. So, what do we do? Don't ask, don't tell or you're gone. These is because the mass majority is not comfortable with it and everything will work out more smoothly if we just saunter on by the issue.

For the most part, you raise valid points. This however, was just plain stupid. If we were to take that stance on anything, or had taken it in the past, I can't even begin to imagine what a racist/biggotist place this would be.

Nov 9, 2009#127

Green_Lantern

TotalFusionOne said:
You are completely right that the homosexuals don't face the same discrimination that others races do, people that suffer from racism learn to fear another race, homosexuals don't, because they learn to fear they own family and friends, besides any curious strangers or whatever people is spreading homophobia at the time, and through history of mankind homophobia is a far more omnipresent problem, probably only sexism was more widespread.

edit:

Also, I would like to compare \"fear being discrimination from other races\" with \"fear to cause my father to have a heart attack, destroy my family, being hated by my friends, be killed because for looking at a guy for too long or never being able to find love because I can't even start to search for it anyway\" and as a bonus include \"at the age of 13\" to that.

Click to expand...

Yeah I guess that is just as bad as waking up to burning crosses on your lawn or being hung. I never thought of it that way.

And again, you are missing the point.

Yes, the blacks might fear the burning crosses on they lawns.

The gays fear what is already inside they homes, they own family the very people that are that are suppose to be fundamental for they safe.

about the "hung" part of your argument:

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=1.0.2506821385

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Iran#Male_homosexuality

Nov 9, 2009#128

Shegokigo

Or you know, being dragged around by your legs by a pick-up truck and beaten to death.

Seriously Fusion, you didn't go there.

Nov 9, 2009#129

Chibibar

Shegokigo said:
Or you know, being dragged around by your legs by a pick-up truck and beaten to death.

Seriously Fusion, you didn't go there.

but Shego, that stuff don't happen in the U.S! :eyeroll:

Nov 9, 2009#130

Shegokigo

Fusionone does make some really good points, even though I may not agree with them. I also get what he's saying about racial hate vs sexual preference hate, I just don't think he really does understand the gravity of the latter to the extent of what it really is, not that there would be alot of way for him to, without experiencing it.

Nov 9, 2009#131

Chibibar

Shegokigo said:
Fusionone does make some really good points, even though I may not agree with them. I also get what he's saying about racial hate vs sexual preference hate, I just don't think he really does understand the gravity of the latter to the extent of what it really is, not that there would be alot of way for him to, without experiencing it.

Yea. I do agree with him on many points (glad we can have a civil discussion here) I personally never experience that kind of hatred toward me, but I did experience 2nd hand from my friends and well, I get really upset when you start messing with my friends.

Of course I can relate cause being Asian I do get the racial hatred and that has gotten me into trouble in the past.

Nov 9, 2009#132

Green_Lantern

Shegokigo said:
Fusionone does make some really good points, even though I may not agree with them. I also get what he's saying about racial hate vs sexual preference hate, I just don't think he really does understand the gravity of the latter to the extent of what it really is, not that there would be alot of way for him to, without experiencing it.

Everyday I am surprised with human inability to think "in another person shoes" (or whatever is the expression).
I am not even really saying that racial hate is "better" or less important, or hell, I am not even sure if it is easier to be gay or black.
What I am really want to people to understand is:

Racial hate
-Can be identified by some phisical traits, cultural traits and family.
-Hate from strangers: people "outside" your race group, but unlikely to be from your own family.
+You have a family and a culture that gives you some ground or identity
+You can create your own family with your own kids that will belong partially or totally to your race and have your identity and culture

Gay Hate
+/-Can be identified by mannerism to a extent, and also behavior and "cultural" traits.
-Hate from strangers: people that don't belong to your sexual orientation
-Hate from your own family, and as well... cultural leaders. You can't trust your family or friends.
-You can't easily find other gays, even so you might not be able to trust them or being open about your relationship with them.
-Must fit in a cultural model of a family to create your own kids living with someone that you don't desire. Or trying to be alone for the rest your live. Or live with someone and hiding from everyone.
-Your (in the case you actually have them) kids aren't likely (and shouldn't) being gay as well, this trait won't pass to them and is impossible to create a actual a "gay race" that goes trough several generations, unless by very wrong/artificial methods.

edit: Sorry, I couldn't truly complete this post, I have to go to work. Also, I guess the short version is:

Racial Hate = Being hated.
Homophobia = Being hated and alone.

Nov 9, 2009#133

TotalFusionOne

Or you know, being dragged around by your legs by a pick-up truck and beaten to death.

Seriously Fusion, you didn't go there.

Oh, are you talking about James Byrd? Who was drug under a truck by three white boys in 1998? The.. Black and straight man?

No, you probably mean Matthew Sheppard. Who was tied to a fence post and beaten to death. It's easy to confuse the two... They happened within three months of each other and the stories got so confused afterwards considering that they named the act the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes act. You may not know that name because everyone calls it the Matthew Shepard Act, leaving James Byrd to... I can't say it. It's damn funny, and morbid and I can't make that pun.

Do me a favour: Walk up to any black man or woman who was alive in the 40s and 50s. Ask them how many people they knew affected by it. How many people they knew PERSONALLY. That had physical violence directed at them. Just for being black. And then think back on your life and think, HONESTLY NOW, how many people do you know got beaten as adults for being a homosexual? How many people you know personally had mobs outside their houses?

I bet their number is higher. Quit hitching your wagon to their train.

I just don't think he really does understand the gravity of the latter to the extent of what it really is, not that there would be alot of way for him to, without experiencing it.

Want to give my ex boyfriends a call and ask them? You can ask them how we did at Gay Days in Orlando when I was growing up. Ask them the shit that got yelled at me when I started college and immediately joined straight gay alliance at 16. How many times I've been screamed at outside of Parliament House.

Sorry, sister, but just because I discovered the psychology of my sexuality does not mean I was any less gay then. Or any less hated.

Nov 9, 2009#134

Shegokigo

Higher Number equates what exactly? I guess Jews are the most hated of all races, of all time.

Nov 9, 2009#135

Espy

Gl, I don't know that either group could claim to have it worse off and I don't know that either group could put itself in the other's shoes.
Personally, I think we should leave the "this group has it so much worse" conversation to the side since in the minds of those being attacked its almost always them who have it worse and it's really impossible to prove.

Nov 9, 2009#136

Shegokigo

That's just it Espy, Fusion is trying to "one-up" the conversation, which really brings no relevance to the topic at hand.

Nov 9, 2009#137

The Lovely Boehner

I'm not trying to hitch a wagon to the train. I'm just saying, both groups were discriminated against legally in the same way. And I am hoping in the future, gay rights will be looked back on in the same way as civil rights. As in, seeing the people that fought and clawed against them as the horrible bigots they are.

Nov 9, 2009#138

Armadillo

*walks into room* Man, there's a lot of people nailed to crosses in here...

Anywho, I agree that too many people don't even try to see the other side's arguments or "walk a mile in their shoes," if you will. If we want to see doing so as a good trait (and I do), then the gay rights supporters (again, I am one myself) must look at the argument from the side that is against gay marriage. Try and see WHY they're against it; don't just label them all as intolerant bigots or stupid or what have you; that's no better than being a racist or a homophobe or a sexist. Practice what you preach, do unto others, etc.

Nov 9, 2009#139

TotalFusionOne

Racial Hate = Being hated.
Homophobia = Being hated and alone.

1.3m slaves died enroute to America. Approx. 2500 African American people were lynched between emancipation and today. The numbers for slaves beaten to death during the legalization of slavery don't exist.

I'll take being hated and alone any day

At least then it's just words. Oh, and the estimated 3% of American Males who are full on hard-gay. I guess it's not that lonely, is it?

Higher Number equates what exactly? I guess Jews are the most hated of all races, of all time.

Higher numbers mean that there were actual crimes committed against African Americans. The reason this point was brought up was because someone 30 posts back was trying to say that racism and homophobia are basically the same, when they're not similar at all except being one group of people doens't like another.

And yes, people hate us Jews.

That's just it Espy, Fusion is trying to "one-up" the conversation, which really brings no relevance to the topic at hand.

Again, not what happened. But if that's what you wish to add to this conversation, by all means.

I'm not trying to hitch a wagon to the train. I'm just saying, both groups were discriminated against legally in the same way. And I am hoping in the future, gay rights will be looked back on in the same way as civil rights. As in, seeing the people that fought and clawed against them as the horrible bigots they are.

But legally it's not the same. There are no Gay bathrooms. There are no Gay drinking fountains. Gay people don't sit at the back of the bus. In fact, there are very few limitations that homosexuals have when compared to the daily life of an African American citizen in the early 1900s. While I agree that we will someday look back on this as LIKE the Civil Rights movement the day to day affairs of a homosexual man or woman is nothing like the day to day affairs of an African American.

Try and see WHY they're against it; don't just label them all as intolerant bigots or stupid or what have you; that's no better than being a racist or a homophobe or a sexist. Practice what you preach, do unto others, etc.

A fucking men. This person knows what time it is.

At some point we need to stop trying to be accepted by everyone. The happiest times I've had is when I didn't worry about the things being said about me.

Nov 9, 2009#140

The Lovely Boehner

Armadillo said:
*walks into room* Man, there's a lot of people nailed to crosses in here...

Anywho, I agree that too many people don't even try to see the other side's arguments or "walk a mile in their shoes," if you will. If we want to see doing so as a good trait (and I do), then the gay rights supporters (again, I am one myself) must look at the argument from the side that is against gay marriage. Try and see WHY they're against it; don't just label them all as intolerant bigots or stupid or what have you; that's no better than being a racist or a homophobe or a sexist. Practice what you preach, do unto others, etc.

I can see nothing even approaching a rational argument from the anti-gay marriage people. There is absolutely no reason on their side other than hatred, and devotion to their religion.

Nov 9, 2009#141

Shegokigo

TotalFusionOne said:
Racial Hate = Being hated.
Homophobia = Being hated and alone.

Click to expand...

1.3m slaves died enroute to America. Approx. 2500 African American people were lynched between emancipation and today. The numbers for slaves beaten to death during the legalization of slavery don't exist.

I'll take being hated and alone any day At least then it's just words. Oh, and the estimated 3% of American Males who are full on hard-gay. I guess it's not that lonely, is it?

Higher Number equates what exactly? I guess Jews are the most hated of all races, of all time.

Click to expand...

Higher numbers mean that there were actual crimes committed against African Americans. The reason this point was brought up was because someone 30 posts back was trying to say that racism and homophobia are basically the same, when they're not similar at all except being one group of people doens't like another.

And yes, people hate us Jews.

That's just it Espy, Fusion is trying to "one-up" the conversation, which really brings no relevance to the topic at hand.

Click to expand...

Again, not what happened. But if that's what you wish to add to this conversation, by all means.

I'm not trying to hitch a wagon to the train. I'm just saying, both groups were discriminated against legally in the same way. And I am hoping in the future, gay rights will be looked back on in the same way as civil rights. As in, seeing the people that fought and clawed against them as the horrible bigots they are.

Click to expand...

But legally it's not the same. There are no Gay bathrooms. There are no Gay drinking fountains. Gay people don't sit at the back of the bus. In fact, there are very few limitations that homosexuals have when compared to the daily life of an African American citizen in the early 1900s. While I agree that we will someday look back on this as LIKE the Civil Rights movement the day to day affairs of a homosexual man or woman is nothing like the day to day affairs of an African American.

Try and see WHY they're against it; don't just label them all as intolerant bigots or stupid or what have you; that's no better than being a racist or a homophobe or a sexist. Practice what you preach, do unto others, etc.

Click to expand...

A fucking men. This person knows what time it is.

At some point we need to stop trying to be accepted by everyone. The happiest times I've had is when I didn't worry about the things being said about me.

It's like, you get it, but you don't. You've repeated the same thing over and over, but your point still doesn't get made. Just because one group was hated on "worse" doesn't make the other group "invalid in thier argument".

Nov 9, 2009#142

TotalFusionOne

It's like, you get it, but you don't. You've repeated the same thing over and over, but your point still doesn't get made.

Does posting one liners like this help the conversation? Oh wait. Now you've edited it to include more. I thought it was just an attempted slam against me. Again.

Just because one group was hated on "worse" doesn't make the other group "invalid in thier argument".

I... Never said that? What I said was that the argument was made that Gay Hatered was comparible to the racism in the US in the late 1800s (Chinese immigrants were mentioned specifically) and the pre-civil rights movement days and these arguments do not present a fair comparison because it wasn't the same level of activity in the hatred.

The hatred you see today is in words. Easily ignorable. The hatred then was in murder. Torture. Rape. Beatings. Mutilation. Comparing the two is unfair because it's like you're trying to imply that this is what the average homosexual faces on a day to day basis like the average African American faced back in the Pre-civil rights movement days. It's nothing alike.

The version of "hate" we have today is a bunch of words and that's about it. And seriously, people are going to "Hate" you no matter what you are. You hate conservative Christians for standing in the way, don't you? You hate the people who vote against these bills? What makes you different than them?

Also, why was your statement about being dragged ignored? Wasn't there something I was missing, or was it honestly a confusing between the two hate crimes?

Nov 9, 2009#143

Armadillo

Charlie Dont Surf;294443][quote=Armadillo said:
*walks into room* Man, there's a lot of people nailed to crosses in here...

Anywho, I agree that too many people don't even try to see the other side's arguments or "walk a mile in their shoes," if you will. If we want to see doing so as a good trait (and I do), then the gay rights supporters (again, I am one myself) must look at the argument from the side that is against gay marriage. Try and see WHY they're against it; don't just label them all as intolerant bigots or stupid or what have you; that's no better than being a racist or a homophobe or a sexist. Practice what you preach, do unto others, etc.

I can see nothing even approaching a rational argument from the anti-gay marriage people. There is absolutely no reason on their side other than hatred, and devotion to their religion.[/QUOTE]

"Don't just label them all as intolerant bigots."

"There is no reason on their side other than hatred."

Well, OK then. I tried.

Nov 9, 2009#144

TotalFusionOne

OH OH I MISSED THIS ONE!

I can see nothing even approaching a rational argument from the anti-gay marriage people. There is absolutely no reason on their side other than hatred, and devotion to their religion.

You are RIGHT sir! Absolutely RIGHT! So take the power out of their hands and outlaw marriage altogether. All civil unions all the time ;D

Nov 9, 2009#145

Espy

One thing is for sure: Hate is Hate. It's no worse or better no matter whom it's directed at. I think we can all agree that the sooner people stop hating for whatever reason the better.

Nov 9, 2009#146

The Lovely Boehner

Armadillo said:
"Don't just label them all as intolerant bigots."

"There is no reason on their side other than hatred."

Well, OK then. I tried.

I don't hate them. I pity them. How small must their hearts be to fight and claw and spend money just to make another group of people unhappy.

Also, Kissinger already refuted why Civil Unions are not really acceptable.

Nov 9, 2009#147

Shegokigo

TotalFusionOne said:
I... Never said that? What I said was that the argument was made that Gay Hatered was comparible to the racism in the US in the late 1800s (Chinese immigrants were mentioned specifically) and the pre-civil rights movement days and these arguments do not present a fair comparison because it wasn't the same level of activity in the hatred.

But you did, in your example of the military, you stated it was better to skirt the issue than try and fix it. Also, the racial hated is compareable, the number of outbreaks does validate one over the other or I could just say that Black racial hate wasn't real because it couldn't compare to the Holocaust.

TotalFusionOne said:
The hatred you see today is in words. Easily ignorable. The hatred then was in murder. Torture. Rape. Beatings. Mutilation. Comparing the two is unfair because it's like you're trying to imply that this is what the average homosexual faces on a day to day basis like the average African American faced back in the Pre-civil rights movement days. It's nothing alike.

Are you really saying that none of the above happens to gays? I mean really? Because it sounds like that's what you're implying.

TotalFusionOne said:
Also, why was your statement about being dragged ignored? Wasn't there something I was missing, or was it honestly a confusing between the two hate crimes?

No, it was talking about both.

Nov 9, 2009#148

Chibibar

TotalFusionOne: The reason we don't have as many "burning crosses" on gays' lawn BECAUSE of all the changes and law went into effect after the racial movement in the 40s and 50s.

Laws were change. Segregation was made illegal. Hate Crime laws (well later) were passed to protect people after them. I am sure if this was an issue back in the 40s (as in more known like today) those people would get the same treatment.

I remember in history class where U.S. is trying to promote family living (remember those lesson of 2.5 kids etc etc)

It is all a stepping stone. Of course in any society, there are exception to the rules. There are people who still exist today (like the Phelps who protest in cemeteries of gay soldiers) or incidents where homosexual are beaten and such, but luckily there are many laws that protect people TODAY unlike 40 years ago. This is why you don't see as much violence.

The new weapon today is law. Using the government to pass laws (like some states saying marriage is only recognize between MAN and WOMAN) I mean why even define it? Why not just let the same sex have it? cause the old way of beating people up, burning stakes, and such are day in the past. Now we are in the modern day, and they use modern weapons.

Hate is Hate regardless of generation or how much one suffers.

Nov 9, 2009#149

TotalFusionOne

But you did, in your example of the military, you stated it was better to skirt the issue than try and fix it. Also, the racial hated is compareable, the number of outbreaks does validate one over the other or I could just say that Black racial hate wasn't real because it couldn't compare to the Holocaust.

Again, never once did I say it was better to skirt the issue than fix it. What I SAID was that the majority of people are uncomfortable so this was a logical fix.

And.. You could say that it wasn't real etc.. etc.. And then I'd just say "But massive amounts of people died on both sides... There were riots and fights... So they're... Actually kinda the same." That hasn't so much happened in the homosexual thing in the recent past.

It seems like your version of hate is people saying "I JUST HATE THEM THEY'RE GODLESS HEATHENS AND THEY ALL SHOULD DIE AND BURN AND HELL" and my version of hate is them saying that... And then actually killing them. See the difference?

And I don't want to be mean, but this is the... Third time? You've misquoted me. It'd really help if you went back and read what I wrote. :\ Because everytime you "quote" me you're saying almost the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Almost as if you were just trying to paint me in a negative light instead of dealing with the points I'm struggling to make

The hatred you see today is in words. Easily ignorable. The hatred then was in murder. Torture. Rape. Beatings. Mutilation. Comparing the two is unfair because it's like you're trying to imply that this is what the average homosexual faces on a day to day basis like the average African American faced back in the Pre-civil rights movement days. It's nothing alike.
Are you really saying that none of the above happens to gays? I mean really? Because it sounds like that's what you're implying.

I'm saying that it is NO WHERE in ANY WAY near what it was like for African Americans. And yes, it pretty much never happens to homosexuals. Please, I lived in the bible belt and worked/went to the largest gay club in Orlando. There were more gay men kicking the shit out of straights than the other way around. It's almost non-existent anymore. Has been for almost 20 years. And didn't happen much before that.

Also, why was your statement about being dragged ignored? Wasn't there something I was missing, or was it honestly a confusing between the two hate crimes?
No, it was talking about both.

... Okay.

The new weapon today is law. Using the government to pass laws (like some states saying marriage is only recognize between MAN and WOMAN) I mean why even define it? Why not just let the same sex have it? cause the old way of beating people up, burning stakes, and such are day in the past. Now we are in the modern day, and they use modern weapons.

Why define it? Because it's been defined. For a little over a couple of thousand of years. Marriage was a union between man and a woman. A RELIGIOUS union.

Which brings me full circle: This is why we don't allow marriage to be recognized. Homosexuals get the rights and privileges of every other person like they should have, and straight people get their Marriage being sacred between man and woman.

Hate is Hate regardless of generation or how much one suffers.

Then that means that hate is nothing. Because it doesn't matter how much one suffers (A tear shed over a nasty name or a death by a noose) then all it is is words, not actions. So ignore the words and quit comparing

Nov 9, 2009#150

Shegokigo

Circles Circles Circles. You keep writing the same thing over and over:

"It was worse on Blacks, so therefore you can't compare it".

It just doesn't work that way.

Nov 9, 2009#151

TotalFusionOne

Circles Circles Circles. You keep writing the same thing over and over:

"It was worse on Blacks, so therefore you can't compare it".

It just doesn't work that way.

Nov 9, 2009#152

Green_Lantern

I know that I shouldn't say who gets worse or not, my own opinion on the subjects changes.

what I am saying is that is much harder for a gay to escape homophobia, there is no indepedent full-gay societies, while differents races can live generations without actually fearing racism, there is always a degree of xenophobia, and competitions that causes disputes and war, but in a day to day basis is possible to someone to grow up and don't have to live in the same city with a group that hates that person because it was born with a diffrent skin color.

Also, you know those black slaves? And those that are so hated by white people?? Well, guess what, Black people can be hatefull too and I doubt that many of those lynched after the emancipation would accept a kid who was gay. Slavery and Racism has being a problem for these black for how many centuries? Homophobia is a problem for gay people everywhere for thousands of years.

Nov 9, 2009#153

Iaculus

One reason for a perceived relative lack of mistreatment for homosexuality: it's easier to hide it if you're gay than if you're black. The character of the abuse is different, forcing them underground rather than separating them from everyone else, if that makes sense. They are treated as the enemy within, rather than the enemy without.

Don't forget that there're a fair few countries where open homosexuality = death by stoning. Even the most extreme ethnic cleansing programmes are seldom that blatant and widely-accepted by the international community, though they are admittedly more widely and overtly destructive.

Nov 9, 2009#154

Green_Lantern

Iaculus said:
One reason for a perceived relative lack of mistreatment for homosexuality: it's easier to hide it if you're gay than if you're black. The character of the abuse is different, forcing them underground rather than separating them from everyone else, if that makes sense. They are treated as the enemy within, rather than the enemy without.

Don't forget that there're a fair few countries where open homosexuality = death by stoning. Even the most extreme ethnic cleansing programmes are seldom that blatant and widely-accepted by the international community, though they are admittedly more widely and overtly destructive.

Thanks, plus there is a thing about:

"crude numbers": one thing is saying that "100.000" men are killed for being black and "1.000" are killed for being gay, now compare with saying "1%" of the black men are killed by race and "10%" of gay men are killed because they are gay.
Plus there is not only the fact that is easier to hide that you're gay, but just as likely is easier to hide that you was killed because it was gay, hell, I remember few years ago that said that my city was the capital with the least number of "gay crimes", yet, we also have another research showed the worst % of people that are okay with homosexuality. Funny.

Nov 9, 2009#155

Shegokigo

I'm going to go ahead and openly apologize to Fusionone if I'm the reason he no longer posts in this thread. I know what point he was trying to get across, and it just seemed like if I could just get through to him he'd change his mind, but his opinion *IS* grounded in fact and therefore not necessarily wrong. I'd really be dissapointed if he stepped out of this thread completely because of our discussion.

You raise good points and even made me take a look at things a bit differently, even if I didn't see them eye to eye. Thank you.

Nov 9, 2009#156

Green_Lantern

Shegokigo said:
I'm going to go ahead and openly apologize to Fusionone if I'm the reason he no longer posts in this thread. I know what point he was trying to get across, and it just seemed like if I could just get through to him he'd change his mind, but his opinion *IS* grounded in fact and therefore not necessarily wrong. I'd really be dissapointed if he stepped out of this thread completely because of our discussion.

You raise good points and even made me take a look at things a bit differently, even if I didn't see them eye to eye. Thank you.

what?

Nov 9, 2009#157

Shegokigo

It was pre-emptive. I'm not sure he did, just wanted to make sure it was known that I hope he wasn't.

Nov 9, 2009#158

Green_Lantern

Shegokigo said:
It was pre-emptive. I'm not sure he did, just wanted to make sure it was known that I hope he wasn't.

Oh right. I was thinking that there might be some deleted posts or Private Messages envolved.

Also: Should we make this discussion/debate in another thread?

and since we already off topic-ing, I loved your "Shego Sandiego" Avatar.

Nov 9, 2009#159

Chibibar

We are still technically on topic since it was about government and marriage. I hope fushionone doesn't give up on the issue.

like I said on other post, I do see where he is coming from and some direction where it should be, but alas, in my opinion, that particular direction does not quite have same fruitful result (the direction of government abolish all recognize marriage and benefits, just the government, you can still have your religious marriage and such) and thus there won't be an issue. (technically)

I wish it was that easy personally. I can almost envision the horror if the government were to take away All government marital benefits (the automatic ones) and everyone would have to file proper paper (including people who were recognize) for the government to recognize power of attorney, living will, will, visitation rights, name changes, extended power of attorney (or possibly unlimited since many power of attorney are pretty specific in some cases) basically Lawyer's dream (making tons of money from all this) but worst nightmare for the American public and guess who they are going to blame?

again, that is my opinion of what might happen.

Nov 9, 2009#160

@Li3n

TotalFusionOne said:
Why define it? Because it's been defined. For a little over a couple of thousand of years. Marriage was a union between man and a woman. A RELIGIOUS union.

Nov 9, 2009#161

Green_Lantern

@Li3n;294604][quote=TotalFusionOne said:
Why define it? Because it's been defined. For a little over a couple of thousand of years. Marriage was a union between man and a woman. A RELIGIOUS union.

No it wasn't... apparently marriage by priest was a Counter-Reformation thing...

And men used to marry women just to sleep with them, and then repudiate the pregnant women because there weren't any witnesses, which is why the church stepped in...

And the whole civil union - marriage thing is just bloody semantics... people that argue it for real (and not just as a stupid compromise to make people feel better about it) are retarded.[/QUOTE]

Also, one of the things that always annoyed me in this thread is that often someone says that "there is plenty of churces and priest that accept blah blah blah", funny how those people exist and are important when is time to say "is not religion fault", but nowhere to be seen when someone says "the church have the right to refuse marriage who they think are sinners".

I am complaining about the lack of logic and consistency, just to make it clear.

Nov 9, 2009#162

Chibibar

well, that is why I avoid the whole religious one cause it is religion. It doesn't have to make sense.

My points are mainly toward the government one (where everyone should have equal access)

Nov 9, 2009#163

Green_Lantern

Chibibar said:
well, that is why I avoid the whole religious one cause it is religion.

Could you better prhase that, I din't understood.

Nov 9, 2009#164

Bowielee

Green_Lantern;294643][quote=Chibibar said:
well, that is why I avoid the whole religious one cause it is religion.

Nov 9, 2009#165

Chibibar

Bowielee;294649][quote=Green_Lantern;294643][quote=Chibibar said:
well, that is why I avoid the whole religious one cause it is religion.

Could you better prhase that, I din't understood.[/quote]

I think what Chibi's getting at is that religion is better left out of the argument because, quite frankly, religion by it's very nature is a defiance of logic.[/QUOTE]

Yea. I think the touch pad screw up the writing.

Basically what I was saying is that I left our Religion in this conversation cause religion doesn't have to make sense. It is religion. The main topic for this conversation (at least for my part) is purely on the government level.

Nov 9, 2009#166

Green_Lantern

Bowielee;294649][quote=Green_Lantern;294643][quote=Chibibar said:
well, that is why I avoid the whole religious one cause it is religion.

Could you better prhase that, I din't understood.[/quote]

I think what Chibi's getting at is that religion is better left out of the argument because, quite frankly, religion by it's very nature is a defiance of logic.[/QUOTE]

If we did so, we could very well just lock this thread, there isn't a point in arguing about homosexual marriage if we don't bring religion in the discussion.

Nov 9, 2009#167

Shegokigo

I disagree, I think this is about the government restricing rights because of sexual preference.

Nov 9, 2009#168

Green_Lantern

Shegokigo said:
I disagree, I think this is about the government restricing rights because of sexual preference.

Oh, it is, and is wrong that they do so. But really, why they are doing it?

edit: the thing goes like this

Church says something => People Believe in Something => Politicians do what the People want => LGBT get screwed => Profit (for the church of course)

is at least naive to say that the church doesn't dictated politics and rights, it powers might have become only a fraction of what once was, but still is quite influent.

Nov 9, 2009#169

Shegokigo

Oh, I see what you mean. It's because of the religious protests and the voters are being persuaded because of Religion. Gotcha.

Nov 9, 2009#170

Chibibar

Shegokigo said:
I disagree, I think this is about the government restricing rights because of sexual preference.

Bingo.

Green Lantern: my whole premise is that citizen of the U.S. have certain individual benefits which is equal (it doesn't matter who you are) but when it comes to couple status (i.e. marriage) this is where the line is drawn.

In my previous post, government has laws that govern the right between two people who are married. We have property rights, estate (when someone died), benefits (taxes and government benefits like Social security and insurance). Now when a hetro couple married, they get these things automactically cause the government recognize it and thus treat it normally.

When a couple divorce, there are laws in place (in each state) on how to divide property unless there are contract (like prenup) in place. BUT same sex couple are NOT recognize and guess what? if they broke up (divorce) there is no property division unless it happen to be in both of their names.

When your spouse dies without a will, the government has rule in place that the widower will gain right to property (in the past it was the MALE heir) but if it is same sex, unless there is a will, it will go the family, if no family, it will go to the state and the widower gets nothing.

Currently you can only add your spouse and children to your insurance. If the same sex is not recognize as spouse, your stay at home spouse gets no insurance unless you take on coverage on your own (which is WAY expensive for many adding a spouse is cheaper)

these are just couple of things that citizen of the U.S. gets AS LONG (except for 4 states) they are hetro married couple.

hence, the discussion.

edit: Ahhhh.... I see where you are going with it Green Lantern. So...... if that is the case, then why even go with popular vote?

my opinion: the state government wants to "look good" and not piss off the other voters group, but since they are a minority, it won't pass. So far 2 states fail on popular vote. 4 states that allows it via legislation or court.

Nov 9, 2009#171

Green_Lantern

Chibibar said:
edit: Ahhhh.... I see where you are going with it Green Lantern. So...... if that is the case, then why even go with popular vote?

my opinion: the state government wants to "look good" and not piss off the other voters group, but since they are a minority, it won't pass. So far 2 states fail on popular vote. 4 states that allows it via legislation or court.

Nov 9, 2009#172

Chibibar

Green_Lantern;294694][quote=Chibibar said:
edit: Ahhhh.... I see where you are going with it Green Lantern. So...... if that is the case, then why even go with popular vote?

my opinion: the state government wants to "look good" and not piss off the other voters group, but since they are a minority, it won't pass. So far 2 states fail on popular vote. 4 states that allows it via legislation or court.

Nov 9, 2009#173

Bowielee

Green_Lantern;294694][quote=Chibibar said:
edit: Ahhhh.... I see where you are going with it Green Lantern. So...... if that is the case, then why even go with popular vote?

my opinion: the state government wants to "look good" and not piss off the other voters group, but since they are a minority, it won't pass. So far 2 states fail on popular vote. 4 states that allows it via legislation or court.

Religious control is not a 100%, but is far more important than what most people in that defend religion seem to argue, and takes control of the state doing what the voters want.

I just hate people just giving a slap in the wrist to every problem that religions causes, they are allowed to be humans and imperfect, but minorities like the gays can't, and there is people that come here and say that gays can't hate the church back, because "make they just as bad" as the church.

In short, gay can't be humans, they must be saints, but the saints can be human.

I don't even know where I am going, I just depressed now.[/QUOTE]

I'm going to try to put this into a little context for ya, GL. This is my view alone, so take it for what you will.

There are segments of the gay community that are just as militant and irrational as the most extreme religious person. There is an instance of gay bashing in the opposite: gays beating up straights.

I used to do gay youth outreach and tolerance education in college, and one of our go to excercises was to have people imagine what it would be like to live in a world that was all gay people and you were the only straight person you know. It employes what many have mentioned here, putting yourself in another person's shoes to see their viewpoint.

If we have to accept that, say Jeffrey Dahmer, doesn't represent the gay community as a whole, then we have to be just as ready to accept that, say Jerry Falwell, doesn't represent the christian community as a whole.

Quite frankly, GL, It sounds to me that you're projecting a lot of your own issues.

Nov 9, 2009#174

Shegokigo

I completely agree that there is a militant gay section as well as a religious one.

Problem is, the gay version isn't organizing to keep a group from getting rights.

Nov 9, 2009#175

Armadillo

Shegokigo said:
I completely agree that there is a militant gay section as well as a religious one.

Problem is, the gay version isn't organizing to keep a group from getting rights.

I don't know about that. There are some who would force churches to marry gay people. That would be a violation of the right to free association and freedom of religion.

Nov 9, 2009#176

Shegokigo

Why? The Church doesn't give them the rights they're looking for.

Nov 9, 2009#177

Chibibar

Armadillo;294763][quote=Shegokigo said:
I completely agree that there is a militant gay section as well as a religious one.

Problem is, the gay version isn't organizing to keep a group from getting rights.

I don't know about that. There are some who would force churches to marry gay people. That would be a violation of the right to free association and freedom of religion.[/QUOTE]

That is the church stance on that.

I mean right now the church can refuse to marry my wife and I because I'm Asian and I can't do a thing about it. And the laws of "marriage" is already in place.

Nov 9, 2009#178

Green_Lantern

Armadillo;294763][quote=Shegokigo said:
I completely agree that there is a militant gay section as well as a religious one.

Problem is, the gay version isn't organizing to keep a group from getting rights.

Nov 9, 2009#179

Chibibar

Green_Lantern;294815][quote=Armadillo;294763][quote=Shegokigo said:
I completely agree that there is a militant gay section as well as a religious one.

Problem is, the gay version isn't organizing to keep a group from getting rights.

I don't know about that. There are some who would force churches to marry gay people. That would be a violation of the right to free association and freedom of religion.[/QUOTE]

yes, my heart really bleeds because the churches suffer so much with all the gay prosecution.

There is plenty of people that would say that the no force should have the right to discriminate, whatever the reason. There is plenty of people that would say that the church should the only controlling power in the world with a bonus.

Like I said before, there is always forgiveness for the church.[/QUOTE]

more of religious vocal people than none vocal non church people.

and when I say church in this context, I am talking about all the religion that has a stance against homosexuality (consider a sin) That is not solely held by Christianity but other religions as well.

Nov 9, 2009#180

Armadillo

Green_Lantern;294815][quote=Armadillo;294763][quote=Shegokigo said:
I completely agree that there is a militant gay section as well as a religious one.

Problem is, the gay version isn't organizing to keep a group from getting rights.

I don't know about that. There are some who would force churches to marry gay people. That would be a violation of the right to free association and freedom of religion.[/QUOTE]

yes, my heart really bleeds because the churches suffer so much with all the gay prosecution.

There is plenty of people that would say that the no force should have the right to discriminate, whatever the reason. There is plenty of people that would say that the church should the only controlling power in the world with a bonus.

Like I said before, there is always forgiveness for the church.[/QUOTE]

But don't you see? While the church's stance is indeed an intolerant one, so is their opponents'! If you want to claim tolerance, you can't aimlessly bash those who disagree with you.

Nov 10, 2009#181

Bowielee

Armadillo;295031][quote=Green_Lantern;294815][quote=Armadillo;294763][quote=Shegokigo said:
I completely agree that there is a militant gay section as well as a religious one.

Problem is, the gay version isn't organizing to keep a group from getting rights.

I don't know about that. There are some who would force churches to marry gay people. That would be a violation of the right to free association and freedom of religion.[/quote]

yes, my heart really bleeds because the churches suffer so much with all the gay prosecution.

There is plenty of people that would say that the no force should have the right to discriminate, whatever the reason. There is plenty of people that would say that the church should the only controlling power in the world with a bonus.

Like I said before, there is always forgiveness for the church.[/quote]

But don't you see? While the church's stance is indeed an intolerant one, so is their opponents'! If you want to claim tolerance, you can't aimlessly bash those who disagree with you.[/QUOTE]

That was kind of what I was going for in my post.

Nov 10, 2009#182

Green_Lantern

"Disagree"?

Disagre is when you say that you like Pepsi, and I say that I like Coke.

What those people have being doing is spreading ignorance, fear and hate.

Nov 10, 2009#183

TotalFusionOne

Green_Lantern said:
"Disagree"?

Disagre is when you say that you like Pepsi, and I say that I like Coke.

What those people have being doing is spreading ignorance, fear and hate.

lol

Nov 10, 2009#184

Chibibar

yay

AMA (American Medical Association) votes
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/10/health/main5603047.shtml

Nov 10, 2009#185

Armadillo

Green_Lantern said:
"Disagree"?

Disagre is when you say that you like Pepsi, and I say that I like Coke.

What those people have being doing is spreading ignorance, fear and hate.

How is language like that helping in any way?

Forums