Vilification is over the top

[Jon Miller]

Boris

I don't see what is wrong with having one word for a legal committed relationship between two homosexuals and another word for one between two heterosexuals

I mean, they are different, there is a different make up

right now we have

gay marriage, gay union, ect

and marriage, civil union, ect

they are different, therefore they will be called different things

I mean, if we decide to call them both marriage

one will be called gay marriage and the other straight marriage

so am I missing your point?

Jon Miller

[Q Classic]

If we protest degrading slurs, we are OBVIOUSLY "misunderstanding" the good intentions of those people who hurl such slurs.

of course you're misunderstanding them. they're only doing this because they love you and want you to stop sinning so you don't get burned in hell. duh. i mean, after all, u r a gay tw**.

[Q Classic]

in any case, fundies are bad, mmkay? they neither contribute meaningfully to political discourse, nor do they have a shred of intellectual integrity.

otherwise, it would be blindingly obvious that the people doing the most harm to the institution of marriage today are straight people.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Boris

I don't see what is wrong with having one word for a legal committed relationship between two homosexuals and another word for one between two heterosexuals

Personally, it's not a big issue for me--but the view of others is that the anything less than the "m" word signifies a lesser status. Considering that the arguments against "marriage" for gays often stem from statements that gays are lesser, I can understand the desire.

Having separate unions from marriage has become a way, to many conservatives, of just setting another line that keeps gays separate and unequal.

But another thing to consider is this--the drive for "marriage" may in fact be a very clever political move to ensure civil unions. More social conservatives favor full-benefit civil unions for gays, so long as it's not called "marriage," than I've thought possible. I think this is because by advocating marriage, gays have made the unions look not so bad by comparison.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by blackice
People do...But like any other enmass social change it has to be accepted by all without harming another...

I guess we should have just held back on Civil Rights then, because the South didn't agree with it. Evil people will always stand against progress. Conservative Christians are evil people.

Anyways, as for villification, after twenty years of viperous, poisonous, slanderous, lyaing attacks by the right, when the left has finally said, "**** it all, you lying evil bastards, we aren't gonna turn the cheek anymore," NOW you want to engage in more civil discourse? **** you! You sowed the whirlwind, now reap your reward. You declared war. Now, at last, that liberals are fighting back, you've decided you don't like it. Tough ****! You started the fight, you've earned a beating.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
in any case, *moderates* are bad, mmkay? they neither contribute meaningfully to political discourse, nor do they have a shred of intellectual integrity.

I think that's more accurate.

[Q Classic]

che, moderates are the only ones who are willing to compromise and bring anything to fruition.

revolutionaries on both sides run around and make a lot of noise, but when it comes down to actually putting institutions into place, moderates do a much better damn job than any ultrapartisan.

[chequita guevara]

Compromise is not always a good solution. You could compromise by only putting one wing on an airplane, but then it won't work. There are good compromises, and there are bad ones. Moderates are so enamoured of the whole idea of compromise, they can't see a bad one when it's kicking them in the teeth. But then, maybe you're just compromising by having less teeth.

[Arrian]

Happily, someone who tends to be a moderate does not have to be a moderate on every issue.

I consider myself a moderate. That does not mean, however, that on this issue I must find the exact midpoint between the two extremes.

I come down in favor of gay marriage (or gay union, or whatever they wish to call it), and against the conservative religious folks (be they christian, muslim, jewish, or any other delusion religion).

So one an issue like this one (where I don't really see the middle ground as being available for a workable compromise), I will agree that trying to be a moderate is likely to be fruitless.

Case by case basis, Che.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

I don't have a problem with compromise. I just don't think a fetish should be made out of it like so many yellow-stripers have done.

[Q Classic]

obviously, che, you must think that i can't be that much of a moderate with how you're yelling me in some other threads.

therefore, one must conclude that i am either a) not a moderate, or b) moderate by virtue of having political views that cross party lines.

gay marriage? i don't see why we should ban it. i don't see why we should even make it an issue. if gay people want to get married, let them. let them have a shot at preserving an institution that straight people **** all over.

surely that's not a conservative viewpoint. particularly since i don't care much for the term "civil union" and have no problem with them using "marriage".

but i forget. you can't expect extremists to make small sub-tull differences like that.

[Q Classic]

oh, and by the way, careful about how you throw out the term "yellow-stripers". i'm not white, black, or red.

[Q Classic]

although i'm familiar with what it means, it's about as risky as saying 'niggardly'.

[chequita guevara]

I was gonna write "dead armadillos."

[Q Classic]

and i honestly don't see why here you're attacking me, unless you're letting high emotions from another thread bleed into here?

from what i can tell, on this issue we're pretty much on the same side... or are you of the persuasion that religious fundies are good?