Issues concerning gays -- part XXXVVV

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Arrian
MrFun, I read a few pages of Giancarlo v. Wiglaf, with occasional insights from Sava. For your own good: leave this thread and never come back. It's been Wisafezzed.

-Arrian

edit: there ya go, Savita

oh



Well, when I get the time, I will try to pick the more substantial, legit posts from others then and respond to those.

Or just post new messages of my own without a repsonse to any particular post.

In the meantime, time to set things back in order now that I'm back home with family and friends.

[MrFun]

Re: Re: Issues concerning gays -- part XXXVVV

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


That has absolutely nothing to do with the arguments against gay marriage.

Oh joy -- I have time to sort the trash from the gems now.

I'm going to try to refrain from directly responding to any of Wiglaf's posts -- there is no point in ruining my healthy blood pressure level.



Now, Kuci -- my point of drawing the example of prisoners was not to present that as an argument by homphobes. I think most others realized the reason why the author, and then myself in turn, present this historic case ruling.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


In a divorce, there are exactly three people who can get the kids - the mom, dad, or State. With polygamy, there can be MANY more parties than there are people involved.

Incorrect because there is still only one father and one mother.

ACK!

[MrFun]

ACK -- I'm not going to dive into the polygamy argument posts by responding to any of them. At this point, I have several other things I want to bring up myself that others might have already mentioned too.



Heterosexuals should be very weary of homophobes -- especially homophobic fundies. The same fundies who advocate for restricting the rights of gays and denying them their human dignity are also advocates for restricting rights of heterosexuals:

advocacy for restricting right of straight couples to their own decision on reproductivity (contraceptive use, anal sex)

advocacy for restricting right of women to have autonomy on deciding to have an abortion

advocacy for denying legitimate sex education information to age-appropriate students

advacacy for excessively restricting straight couples from having a legal divorce

Basically, fundies would love to see the government intervene in private, intimate affairs of married straight couples, as well as single straight persons. They also have an implicit disrespect for the principle of right to privacy, by full endorsing sodomy laws. So hetersexuals -- beware of homophobes; especially homophobic fundies.

[MrFun]

By the way, here is an interesting site about the division of religious denominations on the issue of whether to recognize the humanity of gays.

Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry

[Tuberski]

The Mormon's have one signature as a group.

The reason?

If they signed their names, they would be ex-communicated.

ACK!

[MrFun]

Alas, by the time I was able to have time to participate in this thread again, the interest has subsided.



such is my poor luck

[Asher]

Actually, you just have a tendancy to kill threads.

[Patroklos]

It should be up to the people and the government... not religions

And that is exactly what is happening. The people have decided that they don't want gays married. Just because someones religious based morality is the same as their political morality does not mean they are both rooted in the same thing, or that one flows from the other.

And why exactly is someone a bigot or a homophob if they oppose any part of a gay agenda? Bigot I can see in instances, but homophob is an actually fear, and almost never applies to anyone here. Alas, you call everyone that regardless, and then wonder why you can't convince people to see things your way.

The same narrow and closed mindedness you accuse your opponets of having is manifest much more openly by the gay community on this issue. If you are unwilling to budge one inch from your position (accepting civil unions), why should your opponents? Because you think your right? News for you, so do they.

And many of the gay posters here constantly harp we need this for economic, medical, and ease of living reasons. It has been given you, the only differance between the civil union offered and marraiges is the title. You won, and you refused your trophy. All that legal/state jargon Ming spouted (which makes perfect sence) is irrelevent because it was given and then refused. Which makes it clear that what you really want is the concept, you want to own the idea. And also clear from this thread in particular you want to hold in the face of you detractors and say I told you so.

If your argument is you want marraige for economic etc. reasons then you won.

If you arguement is you want it so you can live together in love and happiness then why the hell do you need a legal paper with printed words and a seal? Is that what love is?

The gay quest for the word marriage is the exact same arguement as the other side. You were right, won, but couldn't stop and now both sides are on the same moral level all around.

[Patroklos]

No!!!, it has to keep going, because I just read all eight pages!!!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Patroklos


And that is exactly what is happening. The people have decided that they don't want gays married. Just because someones religious based morality is the same as their political morality does not mean they are both rooted in the same thing, or that one flows from the other.

And why exactly is someone a bigot or a homophob if they oppose any part of a gay agenda? Bigot I can see in instances, but homophob is an actually fear, and almost never applies to anyone here. Alas, you call everyone that regardless, and then wonder why you can't convince people to see things your way.

The same narrow and closed mindedness you accuse your opponets of having is manifest much more openly by the gay community on this issue. If you are unwilling to budge one inch from your position (accepting civil unions), why should your opponents? Because you think your right? News for you, so do they.

And many of the gay posters here constantly harp we need this for economic, medical, and ease of living reasons. It has been given you, the only differance between the civil union offered and marraiges is the title. You won, and you refused your trophy. All that legal/state jargon Ming spouted (which makes perfect sence) is irrelevent because it was given and then refused. Which makes it clear that what you really want is the concept, you want to own the idea. And also clear from this thread in particular you want to hold in the face of you detractors and say I told you so.

If your argument is you want marraige for economic etc. reasons then you won.

If you arguement is you want it so you can live together in love and happiness then why the hell do you need a legal paper with printed words and a seal? Is that what love is?

The gay quest for the word marriage is the exact same arguement as the other side. You were right, won, but couldn't stop and now both sides are on the same moral level all around.

To designate gays second-class status with the title civil union is discriminatory. United States has gone down the road of separate but equal before, and the Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal is unconstitutional.


And let's talk about "the people deciding." Too often, homophobic fundies and others who agree with them, would like for civil rights and liberties to be decided by a popular vote. It would be a very dangerous situation to throw civil rights and liberties to the whims of the majority. The federal government had to force states to desegregate in the 1960s, even if the majority might not have been willing to support desegregation. Then in the years after, an increasing number of Americans saw that segregation was wrong -- only after the federal government stepped in.

[MrFun]

And let's also not forget that civil union does not have the same universal, legal portability that marriage has.

[MrFun]

Damn it -- where did Patty Cakes go off to?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Patroklos
And that is exactly what is happening. The people have decided that they don't want gays married.

True enough... and in future elections, maybe they will win. It should be up to the states, and the fed has no right trying to push a constitutional amendment that in itself is unconstitutional. I have no problems with states voting against it. I don't agree, but that's the way the system works. However, if it does win at the state level, I don't want the fed to jump in and try to change things. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind seeing the case for gay marriages go to the SC... because I think the current laws are unconstitional and are discrimintory.

And why exactly is someone a bigot or a homophob if they oppose any part of a gay agenda? Bigot I can see in instances, but homophob is an actually fear, and almost never applies to anyone here. Alas, you call everyone that regardless, and then wonder why you can't convince people to see things your way.

People who relate homosexuality to having sex with animals are bigots, pure and simple. I have no problem with people who claim it's against their religion, and that they are opposed to it... as long as they just admit that is the reason why, and don't try to justify if with totally illogical arguments

And many of the gay posters here constantly harp we need this for economic, medical, and ease of living reasons. It has been given you, the only differance between the civil union offered and marraiges is the title. You won, and you refused your trophy.

Yeah, they won the right to be treated as second class people... oh joy, I guess they should jump for joy. It's not the same... PERIOD.

All that legal/state jargon Ming spouted (which makes perfect sence) is irrelevent because it was given and then refused.

Laws change... that's a fact. People for it should work harder so that they can win in the future.

Which makes it clear that what you really want is the concept, you want to own the idea. And also clear from this thread in particular you want to hold in the face of you detractors and say I told you so.

No... they want the same RIGHT to be married as other couples. The term married is important to all COUPLES, why should gays be denied the same right.

If your argument is you want marraige for economic etc. reasons then you won.

Again... the right to be considered second class... they want to get married, just like other couples who are in love.

If you arguement is you want it so you can live together in love and happiness then why the hell do you need a legal paper with printed words and a seal? Is that what love is?

Maybe because other couples have the right to be married. Love is a commitment, and that's what marriage is all about. If it isn't such a big deal for you, why should it matter if they get it.

The gay quest for the word marriage is the exact same arguement as the other side. You were right, won, but couldn't stop and now both sides are on the same moral level all around.

And why should they stop... it's not the same as you try to point out. On one side is the quest for fairness... and the other side, discrimination... not the same at all.

[MrFun]

Ming