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

[Zkribbler]

Rights that are "separate but equal" are never actually equal.

Either the government has to get out of the marriage business entirely by issuing civil unions to all, or it has to marry homosexual as well as hetrosexual couples.

There ls no legitimate reason for the government to marry straights but not gays.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MrFun
I want the final goal of respect for the word "marriage" when referring to committed gay couples but the civil union approach is a way to move toward that end.

In the United States that will not happen. People are attached to idea of 'marriage' being a legal term.

[MrFun]

Never say never.

How many people would have believed we would have a black president in eight years, eight years ago?

[Asher]

Originally posted by MrFun
Never say never.

How many people would have believed we would have a black president in eight years, eight years ago?

He didn't say never.

[MrFun]

oh, right

[rah]

I'll start with, I don't give a rats ass what's it called as long as they all have the same legal standing and rights. So if gays want to call it marriage, fine by me.

For this arguement though I go along with the if civil union has same rights don't worry about it. Let the bigots call it whatever they want as long as you get the rights. Nothing says you have to call it a civil union, you can call it a marriage and only people that you don't care about would bother to correct you. Once people get used to the concept and see that the world didn't end, most of them will stop caring about it and within a few years marriage will be the defacto term and there won't be any difference.

I believe the bigger fight you make on the terminology now will just forestall true progress in this area. Take what they give you now, it doesn't mean you won't get the rest later.

[Q Classic]

I'm of the mindset we take civil unions now and keep fighting for marriage. It's the whole seperate but equal issue, really.

Ideally, though, they'd just strip all references to marriage from the legal system.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MrFun
Never say never.

How many people would have believed we would have a black president in eight years, eight years ago?

Um... eight years ago if Colin Powell said he wanted to be President, George W. Bush would have been spanked in the Republican Primaries as Powell would have cruised to victory. Then a Powell-McCain ticket (or something) would have spanked Al Gore down.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


If the proposed solution to ending anti-miscegenation laws had been calling it "black/white unions" instead of marriage, do you think that would have been acceptable?

That's a good point but it is different for a few reasons.

Marriage, regardless of race has a generally accepted definition. It is considered to be between a man and a woman, or a heterosexual union. A more appropriate analogy would have asked: would you be offended if they called it an inter-racial marriage.

Now to answer that question becomes a little more tricky. In general, there is a clear cut distinction between a man and a woman. Racial differences are blurred at best. That is one of the reasons why the government asks people to self identify their race. But, if the state for some reason wanted to capture statistics on inter-racial marriages and people wanted to self identify, it wouldn't bother me if they had a different legal term as long as it wasn't derogatory and all of the benefits were the same. (i.e. Please check one is this an a) inter-racial marriage, b) marriage c) I choose not to self-identify)

I also don't mind the term integrated school. But I would never want to call Kwanza Christmas in order to pacify someone's agenda for racial equality.

Just because the motive is good and just doesn't mean the tactic is. Just because a term describes a situation doesn't mean it is discriminatory

It would be as if we wanted to crack down on violent crime so we called every violent crime murder. Or the way many activists are trying to broaden the definition of rape to include voluntary sexual activity that one party feels remorse over later.

Until recently, the concept of life long committed gay unions was something that was almost unheard of or at least unspoken of. Hence, there was no term for such a situation. The same with the television, synthesizer, etc. Just as we invented a new term to describe the new situation (i.e. we don't call a television a radio, or a synthesizer a piano) there is no reason to take a word that already has a distinct definition and use it incorrectly to describe the new situation soley to promote an agenda. If there is some other term that gays would find less offensive than Civil Union, (other than a term that already has a distinct and different meaning) who cares.

Again, with me, I don't really care what the term is as long as everyone recognizes the meaning of the term. But I do understand why some people get upset about what they view as gays, by insisting on the term marriage to describe a gay union, trying to force society to change the definition of a word, and for some a sacred word, for the purpose of promoting an agenda.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


That's a good point but it is different for a few reasons.

Marriage, regardless of race has a generally accepted definition. It is considered to be between a man and a woman, or a heterosexual union.

You fail on this assumption. This was not always the case, and it doesn't even matter. Racism at some point was generally accepted to, it doesn't make it right to keep it.

A more appropriate analogy would have asked: would you be offended if they called it an inter-racial marriage.

Yes, because race should play no role in the definition of marriage...even if at the time the "generally accepted definition" was a marriage between two people of the same race.

Again, with me, I don't really care what the term is as long as everyone recognizes the meaning of the term. But I do understand why some people get upset about what they view as gays, by insisting on the term marriage to describe a gay union, trying to force society to change the definition of a word, and for some a sacred word, for the purpose of promoting an agenda.

The agenda of equality is not an evil one.

The agenda of hate and intolerance, most often espoused by the people you sympathize with here, is an evil one.

Make no mistake, everyone has an agenda. My agenda is equality in society and under the law.

Others have an agenda to persecute, degrade, and silence homosexuals.

Which is worse?

[Q Classic]

Calling it an interracial marriage meant that they still got to use the term "marriage".

Calling it gay marriage is fine. Because it's still "marriage".

[onodera]

Re: Fags are the new ******s.

Originally posted by Oerdin
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.

1) When a bi-curious child knows that being a homo is worse than being a hetero, he'll stick to liking opposite sex and form a heterosexual family if he's lucky. It's not like you are born with a huge switch in your head set to one of the two positions with no intermediate settings that cannot be adjusted.
2) When a closet homosexual or a lesbian marries a member of the opposite sex to avoid being identified as one, they can have sex and have children.
By legally oppressing homosexuals you are forcing more people into heterosexual relationships, improving (probably only slightly, but still) your demographics.

[Asher]

Re: Re: Fags are the new ******s.

Originally posted by onodera

1) When a bi-curious child knows that being a homo is worse than being a hetero, he'll stick to liking opposite sex and form a heterosexual family if he's lucky. It's not like you are born with a huge switch in your head set to one of the two positions with no intermediate settings that cannot be adjusted.
2) When a closet homosexual or a lesbian marries a member of the opposite sex to avoid being identified as one, they can have sex and have children.
By legally oppressing homosexuals you are forcing more people into heterosexual relationships, improving (probably only slightly, but still) your demographics.

I'm hoping this is a joke.

[chequita guevara]

Because of Federalism, civil unions is a crock of ****. Get a civil union in Vermont. Then move to another state. What have you got? Nothing, because only a handful of states have an institution called civil union (which, btw, was outlawed in Florida yesterday). If you get married in Massachusetts and move to another state, guess what, you're married. The Constitution requires that the acts of one state be recognized in other states. Because all states have marriage, if you get married in another state, all states have to recognize it.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Supr49er
I can't believe Prop 8 passed. Even in my county.

The vote in California was significantly influenced by digust for judicial usuraption of power. Most of the state, whether they would otherwise support homosexual marriage or not, is entirely aware that the courts were not interpreting the law but were rewritting it, and this added several % points to the backlash. The citiizens do not like being lied to and having their political process stolen form them by an activist court. This has been and will continue to be a pattern where activists try to end run regular processes for legal change. Now they have a state constitutional amendment to overcome and increased energization among their opponents, whereas before they could have expected within a forseeable time to win legislatively.

I support gay and lesbian marriage, with no quibbles or qualification in substance or name, and will speak in favor of new laws permitting being passed in a legislature, but I condemn any court pulling it out its ass.