Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fags are the new ******s.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fags are the new ******s.

    Back in the 1950's Blacks were the most discriminated group in the country. People called them ******s and claimed that blacks were both lazy & stupid while at the same time ingenious in their ability to get out of work and tireless in their pursuit of white women. That these claims contradicted each other didn't occur to most people because Blacks were different and we were sure that they were not like us, in fact, many right wingers were sure that if Blacks weren't kept separate from whites that this would inevitably lead to the destruction of America as we know it. Eventually as the decades passed we learned that Blacks weren't so different from everyone else and that far from destroying America they helped make it a richer and better place.

    In the 1970's and 80's other groups such as Asian and Hispanics spent time as objects of the fear and derision. We called them spics, and greasers, and chinks because they were different and we were sure that they were not like us. Right wingers once again claimed that these people had to be kept out and kept separate or else they would inevitably lead to the destruction of America as we know it. Yet once again as time passed the right wingers were proven wrong and far from destroying America Asians & Hispanics helped make it a richer and better place.

    Now, in even the most progressive parts of America gays are held by many to be objects of fear and derision. We call them fags and we are again positive that gays are entirely different and not like us. The gays say they just want equal rights like everyone else but the priests all tell us that the fags are out to destroy "the family". I'm not quit sure how happily married heterosexuals will suddenly stop loving each other if gays are get married but the man on the radio says fags must be kept in check or America as we know it will be destroyed, that fags are different, and that they are not like us. I forget have we heard that before?

    This thread is my response to the recent vote to ban gay marriage in California. It squeaked by with just four percentage points but still it passed and now the state's constitution will be changed to take away equal civil rights for gays. Yes, I said take away because until yesterday, in California at least, gays enjoyed the same right to marry as everyone else. We've had time to watch first hand that gays having equal civil rights as everyone else didn't hurt "regular marriage" but still for some reason we just knew those fags couldn't be trusted so we took away their rights just like we previously took away the rights of Blacks, Asian, and Hispanics. It seems fags are our new ******s.

    No one knows what will happen to the tens of thousands of gay couples who have already legally been married. Will they now suddenly become unmarried? Will these gays be allowed to stay married but all other gays not be allowed to marry? It is frustrating that on the same night that America finally broke the last racial barrier we showed how we still haven't gone quite as far as we had thought.
    Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

  • #2
    Find a boat yet Oerdin?
    Long time member @ Apolyton
    Civilization player since the dawn of time

    Comment


    • #3
      ******s = bad
      Tiggers =
      "I predict your ignore will rival Ben's" - Ecofarm
      ^ The Poly equivalent of:
      "I hope you can see this 'cause I'm [flipping you off] as hard as I can" - Ignignokt the Mooninite

      Comment


      • #4
        I really don't see what why gays are so hellbent on the issue of Gay Marriage.

        If a civil union is structured such that the state grants all the same privileges as marriage, does it really matter. I always considered marriage more of a religious than secular ceremony.

        Couldn't you get your civil union, go find whatever person you wanted to perform your marriage ceremony and just leave it at that.

        I personally wouldn't mind if the state sent me a letter tomorrow informing me that for semantical purposes the term marriage in the state of Michigan has changed to Civil Union but all rights and benefits remain intact. I am from here forward in a Civil Union as far as the state is concerned with my spouse.

        I still had my wedding, we still have all the same benefits of marriage the state just changed the term. I would still consider myself married and I couldn't care what the states legal term was to describe my union.

        Why is everyone so hung up about the legal term.

        This may be a bad analogy but it would be like a rape victim being upset because her state called it sexual assault. What's really important is that the crime is investigated and the penalty is just. Plus I don't think anyone would be concerned if the victim referred to herself as being raped. Does it really matter if it is called civil union or marriage as long as they are equally recognized,and have the same benefits. 2 men could refer to their spouses still as husbands and could still have a marriage ceremony and even call themselves married if they wanted.

        Now certain people here will say it is discriminatory because of the mere fact that a different term is used to describe a heterosexual union as opposed to a homosexual one. But gays freely and sometimes proudly accept different terms to describe elements of their lifestyle Gay vs Straight... Homosexual vs Heterosexual etc. Why can't Civil Union vs Marriage be thought of the same way.

        It reminds of the 60's when certain feminists groups were more interested in the form of their movement (burning bra's etc.)as opposed to the substance of their movement (equal opportunity, equal rights etc.) But even that movement never went so far as to say we can't differentiate between men and women in our vocabulary. We still have women's sports, best female actress etc, The real issue is; Do women have equal opportunity in sports or acting?

        So I'll ask again, if the state grants identical rights, benefits and privileges to Civil Unions as Marriages, what does it matter.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Deity Dude
          I really don't see what why gays are so hellbent on the issue of Gay Marriage.

          If a civil union is structured such that the state grants all the same privileges as marriage, does it really matter.
          No, but that doesn't exist in any state. There are far too many rights, responsibilities, and privileges associated with "marriage" to the exclusion of "civil unions".

          What should happen is marriage should be purely outside of the realm of government. The government can provide Civil Union certificates which can form the basis for ANY and ALL legal issues, while churches can marry whoever they wish to...

          If straight couples can "marry" and get legal advantages that "civil unions" do not get, then this is discrimination.

          Marriage has NOT always been "between a man and a woman", so why is the GOVERNMENT (which is supposed to be separate from the church) legislating it as such to the exclusion of the rights of others?

          Gays are upset because it is patently discrimination. The only reasonable solutions are to provide gays the right to marry, or remove marriage completely from the government's responsibilities.
          "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
          Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Asher

            No, but that doesn't exist in any state.
            It does in Connecticut
            "I predict your ignore will rival Ben's" - Ecofarm
            ^ The Poly equivalent of:
            "I hope you can see this 'cause I'm [flipping you off] as hard as I can" - Ignignokt the Mooninite

            Comment


            • #7
              What should happen is marriage should be purely outside of the realm of government. The government can provide Civil Union certificates which can form the basis for ANY and ALL legal issues, while churches can marry whoever they wish to...
              Spot on. I've been saying this for years.

              -Arrian
              grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

              The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous


                It does in Connecticut
                Does it truly provide benefits to all private contracts that depend on the term "marriage" (eg, insurance discounts)?
                "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                Comment


                • #9
                  So you would be in favor of a ban on Gay Marriage as long as Gays were allowed to enter into Civil Unions that had identical benefits but just a different name?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think some people are missing an important point. Even if civil union is equivilent to marriage as far as benefits go it doesn't make it equal. If gays can't get married and call it marriage then they are second class citizens the same way that black children in the 50s were second class citizens in segregated schools.

                    This sort of segregation has a very negative impact on society.
                    I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                    - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous


                      It does in Connecticut
                      It was in California until yesterday night.
                      Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Deity Dude
                        So you would be in favor of a ban on Gay Marriage as long as Gays were allowed to enter into Civil Unions that had identical benefits but just a different name?
                        No, I would be in favour of a ban of government marrying anyone if it is a religious construct (which is the argument of the anti-gay marriage ****wads).

                        If it is a secular concept, then gays need to marry too.

                        There are two options, none of which are ban gay marriage while permitting straight marriage.
                        "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                        Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The CT supreme court struck down our Civil Unions law.

                          Prior to that ruling... well, it depends on who you asked, I think. I figure the intent of the C.U. law here was (really) separate but equal, but I never read it.

                          -Arrian
                          grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

                          The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Arrian
                            The CT supreme court struck down our Civil Unions law.

                            Prior to that ruling... well, it depends on who you asked, I think. I figure the intent of the C.U. law here was (really) separate but equal, but I never read it.

                            -Arrian
                            The CA supreme court also struck down our civil unions law. That's how gay marriage became legal in this state. Now, however, it is illegal again. Two steps forward, one step back.
                            Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Asher

                              No, I would be in favour of a ban of government marrying anyone if it is a religious construct (which is the argument of the anti-gay marriage ****wads).

                              If it is a secular concept, then gays need to marry too.

                              There are two options, none of which are ban gay marriage while permitting straight marriage.
                              So you aren't only interested in Equal Rights, Benefits and Privileges you are hung up on the legal term?

                              If so thats what I still don't get (as long as the term isn't derogatory or offensive, which I don't think Civil Union is) why do you care?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X