focus on "commitments" instead of gay marriage?

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: silverpig
Chucky is confusing "equal" with "the same".

A black man is not the same as a white man, however they are equal. Gays are not the same as straights, but they are equal and should be afforded equal rights.

The thing is, if you are stuck on this "the same" bit, you'll soon realize that a straight white man from Oregon is not the same as a straight white man from Florida. No matter how similar two people or two groups might be, there will always be some difference which makes them not "the same". It is these small differences which bigots latch on to in order to justify different treatment. We need to acknowledge differences, celebrate them, and realize that what matters is that we view people as equals.

If you are religious you should know that God creates all men equal. If you are not, the US constitution describes one of the self evident truths as being that "all men are created equal".

They are equal as seperate people, but that's not part of this "debate" at all.

They are not equal - the same - as a straight couple. There is one female there, and one male. Period.

I totally believe gays should be accorded all the rights of a married straight couple, however, I - and most straights - are in reality not going to change our views on what the perception, and with that, the term, of "marriage" means.

If gays don't like that, then it's too F'ing bad. Instead of campaining for equal rights through civil unions, which most straights that aren't rabid right/gay haters would get behind, gays continue to keep insisting their union is equal to a straight union....and, again, it's not.

Get over it, and then finally get some rights. Otherwise, please, STFU. I keep hearing more and more from fellow straight people - ones I don't even know half the time - that they're sick and tired of hearing gays b1tch. Whatever goodwill gays have been getting through the discussion of gay rights, they're fastly using up with the insistence on the marriage term. Talk about shooting oneself in ones foot....

Chuck

You are unbelieveable!
I have many many straight friends who after the fact wish that they had voted differently!
They understand that what actually took place was a sly attempt to circumvent the 2/3 vote requirement by using a Proposition that only requiures a majority.

You call people GAY`s as if that is a bad thing?
I call them people just like you and I who as americans should have the exact same right that we all enjoy!

In fact I cannot believe that there is somebody like you that hates and despises people who think differently and believe differently......people are people and nobody should be denied a right that other enjoy just because of how they wish to live their lives!

By the way you said -- Gays are so hung up on claiming they're equal, when they are absolutely not,,

Everybody is equal. Everybody regardless of who they dewisre to mate or live with should be afforded the exact same right and you Chucky!

Less being closed minded...more looking around and seeing just people......

 

[wwswimming]

i think gay activists would make more progress if they conceded the use of the
word "marriage", and just focussed on equal rights under the law, such as
access to health care for significant others, the same tax treatment as married
heterosexual couples etc.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: wwswimming

i think gay activists would make more progress if they conceded the use of the
word "marriage", and just focussed on equal rights under the law, such as
access to health care for significant others, the same tax treatment as married
heterosexual couples etc.

Hanging a different label on their relationships distinguishes them and holds those citizens apart from others. Even if the rights specified under such a law were "equal," by definition, that would be "separate, but equal," which is unconstituional.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: wwswimming
i think gay activists would make more progress if they conceded the use of the
word "marriage", and just focussed on equal rights under the law, such as
access to health care for significant others, the same tax treatment as married
heterosexual couples etc.

I think you're wrong. While it's a common claim of the anti-gay marriage folks, I don't see the obvious line in the sand between equal rights for gay couples and what you call those rights. And given the fact that many anti-gay marriage amendments and laws ALSO prevent gay couples from having the same rights as straight couples no matter what they call their relationship, I'm not sure you're right.

For what it's worth, I used to have the same position...that while I supported gay marriage, it would be easier to get people on board with "lesser" gay rights like tax laws and access to health care. It sounds logical, but the problem is that once you've conceded ground on one kind of equality, it's very hard to argue for any equal rights at all. Giving up the gay marriage battle says that gay-rights supporters acknowledge that gay people aren't equal to straight people...no matter what kind of strategy or rhetoric such a retreat is presented with. There isn't more or less equal, there is just equal or not equal...and if gay couples aren't equal to straight couples, then arguing for ANY rights for them becomes an uphill battle.

The other assumption your position makes is that there are a significant number of people out there dead set against gay marriage who still support equal rights for gay couples. This is a common claim of gay marriage opponents, even in this thread, and polls even suggest it's true...but I'm not so sure. Marriage is where the battle is at the moment, so it's easy for people to say that they support equal rights, just not marriage. In other words, it's a debating strategy in that it costs the gay marriage opponents nothing to "give up" the points of equal rights for gay couples since that's not what's being argued at the moment. And the reason I think it's ONLY a strategy is that opposing gay marriage requires adopting the position that gay people aren't equal to straight people, which makes supporting equal RIGHTS for them a questionable position.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: wwswimming

i think gay activists would make more progress if they conceded the use of the
word "marriage", and just focussed on equal rights under the law, such as
access to health care for significant others, the same tax treatment as married
heterosexual couples etc.

Hanging a different label on their relationships distinguishes them and holds those citizens apart from others. Even if the rights specified under such a law were "equal," by definition, that would be "separate, but equal," which is unconstituional.

Well, when a gay couple figures out how to biologically reproduce, I will stand up and fight for *all* the rights granted under marriage.

Until then, YES, GAY MARRIAGE IS SEPARATE FROM STRAIGHT MARRIAGE! I didn't create the laws of biology, DON'T BLAME ME! But stop pretending it is the same. Call me a bigot for actually understanding biology, if that makes you feel better. That label doesn't hurt me in the least, because I know it is not true.

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: wwswimming

i think gay activists would make more progress if they conceded the use of the
word "marriage", and just focussed on equal rights under the law, such as
access to health care for significant others, the same tax treatment as married
heterosexual couples etc.

Hanging a different label on their relationships distinguishes them and holds those citizens apart from others. Even if the rights specified under such a law were "equal," by definition, that would be "separate, but equal," which is unconstituional.

Well, when a gay couple figures out how to biologically reproduce, I will stand up and fight for *all* the rights granted under marriage.

Until then, YES, GAY MARRIAGE IS SEPARATE FROM STRAIGHT MARRIAGE! I didn't create the laws of biology, DON'T BLAME ME! But stop pretending it is the same. Call me a bigot for actually understanding biology, if that makes you feel better. That label doesn't hurt me in the least, because I know it is not true.

Menopausal women can't reproduce either so would you ban them from marrage too? What about sterile people or those who chose not to have kids.

Most of what is being pushed for is legal anyways, not so gays can reproduce.

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: wwswimming
i think gay activists would make more progress if they conceded the use of the
word "marriage", and just focussed on equal rights under the law, such as
access to health care for significant others, the same tax treatment as married
heterosexual couples etc.

I think that the key is actually to have legislation in place that is equally attractive to all people. When a gay couple proudly points out that the law upholds their rights, a heterosexual one should be able to do the same. If "civil unions" actually did what they were supposed to do, you'd have straight people asking for them instead of a "marriage".

And if marriage is just for biological reproduction, I'd like to see a child as a prerequisite to even getting a marriage license. If you want to do it the old fashioned way it'll take 9+ months to get pregnant, carry it to term, deliver a healthy child, and then you can get a marriage license. Or you can adopt and get married right away. Of course once the child reaches adulthood, you'll have to be divorced. The same would happen if the child dies. Sound fair to you?

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: wwswimming

i think gay activists would make more progress if they conceded the use of the
word "marriage", and just focussed on equal rights under the law, such as
access to health care for significant others, the same tax treatment as married
heterosexual couples etc.

Hanging a different label on their relationships distinguishes them and holds those citizens apart from others. Even if the rights specified under such a law were "equal," by definition, that would be "separate, but equal," which is unconstituional.

Change the label for everyone. It removes the purely emotional/personal resistance involved with the word marriage and puts everyone on exactly equal footing. One label, same rights, equal everything.

Trying to do that under the label marriage will be fought tooth and nail. Trying to do it under a different label will be much quicker and cheaper.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Get this straight: Straight people don't need to change their minds just because gays want them to, no matter how much whining goes on.

Deal with it.

This argument is the death of all progress.
The white males do not NEED to change their minds about blacks. Deal with it.
The males do not NEED to change their minds about women wanting to vote. Deal with it.

If you can't get your head around that, get your head around this:
You NEED to change your mind. Your attitude it the tyranny of the masses. Tyranny will always lead to revolution, and that will lead to bloodshed.
If America continues to ignore this issue, it will end in tragedy.
It always has in the past.

 

[OrByte]

well then

riding on the back of the bus is the SAME as riding on the front of the bus right??

what was the whole point of that bus riding thing anyways!?!? :roll:

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: K1052
The government should get out of the marriage business altogether and only issue civil unions to all couples upon request. Leave marriage to the various churches.

this.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: chucky2

Get this straight: Straight people don't need to change their minds just because gays want them to, no matter how much whining goes on.

Deal with it.

This argument is the death of all progress.
The white males do not NEED to change their minds about blacks. Deal with it.
The males do not NEED to change their minds about women wanting to vote. Deal with it.

If you can't get your head around that, get your head around this:
You NEED to change your mind. Your attitude it the tyranny of the masses. Tyranny will always lead to revolution, and that will lead to bloodshed.
If America continues to ignore this issue, it will end in tragedy.
It always has in the past.

Nah, he doesn't need to change his mind. There's plenty of people today who feel the way white southerners did pre and post civil war. Time moves on without them, they die off or become a ridiculed minority. Equality and diversity are inevitable as the more accepting youth demographic grows to replace the traditionalists. California will flip back in a few election cycles if not sooner, and more and more states will eventually follow suit, if the SC doesn't get there first. Remember, interracial marriage wasn't legally protected until 1964, and polling indicates it didnt' receive widespread nationwide acceptance until decades after that. http://www.gallup.com/poll/284...rracial-Marriages.aspx

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: chucky2

Get this straight: Straight people don't need to change their minds just because gays want them to, no matter how much whining goes on.

Deal with it.

This argument is the death of all progress.
The white males do not NEED to change their minds about blacks. Deal with it.
The males do not NEED to change their minds about women wanting to vote. Deal with it.

If you can't get your head around that, get your head around this:
You NEED to change your mind. Your attitude it the tyranny of the masses. Tyranny will always lead to revolution, and that will lead to bloodshed.
If America continues to ignore this issue, it will end in tragedy.
It always has in the past.

Nah, he doesn't need to change his mind. There's plenty of people today who feel the way white southerners did pre and post civil war. Time moves on without them, they die off or become a ridiculed minority. Equality and diversity are inevitable as the more accepting youth demographic grows to replace the traditionalists. California will flip back in a few election cycles if not sooner, and more and more states will eventually follow suit, if the SC doesn't get there first. Remember, interracial marriage wasn't legally protected until 1964, and polling indicates it didnt' receive widespread nationwide acceptance until decades after that. http://www.gallup.com/poll/284...rracial-Marriages.aspx

Social reform does not just happen. It is not inevitable. We have to fight for it.
The changed attitudes towards interracial marriage is because it was fought for and won, and the world didn't end, so the next generation grew up seeing it as normal.
Not the other way around.

 

[nageov3t]

Benkof: A different strategy on same-sex marriage
Thursday, December 18, 2008
BY DAVID BENKOF

IN NEW JERSEY, litigation and lawsuits on behalf of the gay and lesbian community have resulted in civil union status for same-sex couples. Many observers predict that full marriage rights can be achieved in the Garden State as soon as next year.

A strong case can be made that more same-sex couples would be protected if the gay and lesbian community in New Jersey and elsewhere would jettison the whole marriage campaign and focus on a new, national strategy of "mutual commitments" to protect same-sex couples not only in states like New Jersey and Massachusetts, but also in places less welcoming to gays such as Georgia, Nebraska and Texas.

A commission has concluded that New Jersey legislators should allow gay couples to marry, setting up what could be a spirited debate over whether the state should be the first to allow gay marriage by passing a law, rather than by court mandate.... he state's Civil Union Review Commission concluded that the state's two-year-old civil union law doesn't do enough to give gay couples the same protections as heterosexual married couples.

"This commission finds that the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children," the report says. The findings of the commission's 13 members were unanimous.

The commission found that the rights afforded to those in civil unions were not always well understood, and that allowing gay couples to marry would alleviate the problem. For example, there have been instances when people in civil unions have been prevented from visiting their partners in hospitals and making medical decisions on their behalf, the commission found.

http://www.google.com/hostedne...R0ghXN7vB5hYwD94VJ5680

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: chucky2

Get this straight: Straight people don't need to change their minds just because gays want them to, no matter how much whining goes on.

Deal with it.

This argument is the death of all progress.
The white males do not NEED to change their minds about blacks. Deal with it.
The males do not NEED to change their minds about women wanting to vote. Deal with it.

If you can't get your head around that, get your head around this:
You NEED to change your mind. Your attitude it the tyranny of the masses. Tyranny will always lead to revolution, and that will lead to bloodshed.
If America continues to ignore this issue, it will end in tragedy.
It always has in the past.

Nah, he doesn't need to change his mind. There's plenty of people today who feel the way white southerners did pre and post civil war. Time moves on without them, they die off or become a ridiculed minority. Equality and diversity are inevitable as the more accepting youth demographic grows to replace the traditionalists. California will flip back in a few election cycles if not sooner, and more and more states will eventually follow suit, if the SC doesn't get there first. Remember, interracial marriage wasn't legally protected until 1964, and polling indicates it didnt' receive widespread nationwide acceptance until decades after that. http://www.gallup.com/poll/284...rracial-Marriages.aspx

Social reform does not just happen. It is not inevitable. We have to fight for it.
The changed attitudes towards interracial marriage is because it was fought for and won, and the world didn't end, so the next generation grew up seeing it as normal.
Not the other way around.

I'm aware, and as you are no doubt aware, the fight for marriage equality is ongoing and has a hell of a lot more support than interracial marriage did when the SC ruled it constitutionally protected. If you look at my link, the SC intervened when interracial marriage acceptance was somewhere less than 20%. It didn't even hit 50% until the 90s. During those decades, lots of old people died and young people replaced them in the demographic . The upward trend in acceptance was largely due to the disapproving voices dropping dead of old age. But there is still far from 100% approval of interracial marriage, and the youngish people today who are anti-gay marriage are not likely to change their minds, they'll simply be part of that ridiculed minority I mentioned.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: chucky2

Get this straight: Straight people don't need to change their minds just because gays want them to, no matter how much whining goes on.

Deal with it.

This argument is the death of all progress.
The white males do not NEED to change their minds about blacks. Deal with it.
The males do not NEED to change their minds about women wanting to vote. Deal with it.

If you can't get your head around that, get your head around this:
You NEED to change your mind. Your attitude it the tyranny of the masses. Tyranny will always lead to revolution, and that will lead to bloodshed.
If America continues to ignore this issue, it will end in tragedy.
It always has in the past.

If the gays try to hold some kind of bloody revolution, that won't go over well. I don't feel the need to change the law to make 2% of the population feel ok with themselves.

Here, gay person, take your civil unions and move on. If you want to go have a marriage ceremony, go have it. I don't care. But forcing the issue on the masses is causing them more grief than the ground they are gaining. I personally feel a little bit of disgust everytime I see a gay male. Regardless of how I try and resolve it to equality, it still sits with me like pedophelia and beastiality. It's the penis in the butt thing and guys making out together thing that wreaks of sickness and immorality to me.

However, that's just what I feel emotionally. Logically, I don't think I have the right to any more or less rights than anybody else. If two men dedicated their lives together, I think they should have certain rights to one another (insurance, taxes, etc.)..

Just don't rub your "gross to normal people" sex life in my face everyday.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
If the gays try to hold some kind of bloody revolution, that won't go over well. I don't feel the need to change the law to make 2% of the population feel ok with themselves.

Here, gay person, take your civil unions and move on. If you want to go have a marriage ceremony, go have it. I don't care. But forcing the issue on the masses is causing them more grief than the ground they are gaining. I personally feel a little bit of disgust everytime I see a gay male. Regardless of how I try and resolve it to equality, it still sits with me like pedophelia and beastiality. It's the penis in the butt thing and guys making out together thing that wreaks of sickness and immorality to me.

However, that's just what I feel emotionally. Logically, I don't think I have the right to any more or less rights than anybody else. If two men dedicated their lives together, I think they should have certain rights to one another (insurance, taxes, etc.)..

Just don't rub your "gross to normal people" sex life in my face everyday.

well which is it, are you pissed off because you think gay guys are always hitting on you, or are you pissed off that you think they aren't?

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
If the gays try to hold some kind of bloody revolution, that won't go over well. I don't feel the need to change the law to make 2% of the population feel ok with themselves.

Here, gay person, take your civil unions and move on. If you want to go have a marriage ceremony, go have it. I don't care. But forcing the issue on the masses is causing them more grief than the ground they are gaining. I personally feel a little bit of disgust everytime I see a gay male. Regardless of how I try and resolve it to equality, it still sits with me like pedophelia and beastiality. It's the penis in the butt thing and guys making out together thing that wreaks of sickness and immorality to me.

However, that's just what I feel emotionally. Logically, I don't think I have the right to any more or less rights than anybody else. If two men dedicated their lives together, I think they should have certain rights to one another (insurance, taxes, etc.)..

Just don't rub your "gross to normal people" sex life in my face everyday.

well which is it, are you pissed off because you think gay guys are always hitting on you, or are you pissed off that you think they aren't?

Yea, I get hit on by gay guys alot. I think it's repulsive and deviant, AND innappropriate.

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Just don't rub your "gross to normal people" sex life in my face everyday.

Don't rub your generalizations of "gross" and "normal" in my face either. I could be classified as a fundamentalist evangelical Christian conservative and I don't find anything gross, deviant, repulsive or abnormal about homosexual sex.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Yea, I get hit on by gay guys alot. I think it's repulsive and deviant, AND innappropriate.

:camera: ?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Just don't rub your "gross to normal people" sex life in my face everyday.

well which is it, are you pissed off because you think gay guys are always hitting on you, or are you pissed off that you think they aren't?

Yea, I get hit on by gay guys alot. I think it's repulsive and deviant, AND innappropriate.

notice how I phrased the question. "you think gay guys are always hitting on you." here's a tip. they're not. Why is it most homophobes think gay guys always hit on them? It's like narcissistic egomaniacal martyr syndrome.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Just don't rub your "gross to normal people" sex life in my face everyday.

well which is it, are you pissed off because you think gay guys are always hitting on you, or are you pissed off that you think they aren't?

Yea, I get hit on by gay guys alot. I think it's repulsive and deviant, AND innappropriate.

notice how I phrased the question. "you think gay guys are always hitting on you." here's a tip. they're not. Why is it most homophobes think gay guys always hit on them? It's like narcissistic egomaniacal martyr syndrome.

wtf? The anti anti gay crowd throws more cookie cutter bs labels at people than i've ever seen. I saw a cartoon in a newspaper once.. It had two guys saying one word to each other. One guy was saying "lovely human" and the other was saying "bigot"



no, what I meant was "Yea, I get hit on by gay guys alot." verbatim..

I get hit on by gay guys alot.

I'm not being narcissistic or egomaniacial or w/e,..

Hey.. The sky is blue and I get hit on by gay guys alot. Green light means go and I get hit on by gay guys alot. I was just speaking out of experience. I live in the City, go out alot, and I get hit on by gay guys alot. I'll get approached at bars, get drinks bought for me.. A girl I know says I'm the "type" of guy gay guys seem to like. wtf that means I dont know but I get hit on alot.

Sorry if it offends you to hear a hetero guy say he gets hit on my gay guys and doesnt like it. I know you want to come up with a reason why I'm lying because it's easier to call me a liar than debate why I feel offended.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: K1052
The government should get out of the marriage business altogether and only issue civil unions to all couples upon request. Leave marriage to the various churches.

this.

Well that'd work for the Gays as there are Churches that recognize same sex marriages. :thumbsup:

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

If the gays try to hold some kind of bloody revolution, that won't go over well. I don't feel the need to change the law to make 2% of the population feel ok with themselves.

It is way more then 2% of the popualtion.
on average it is 10% of the population.
That 10% has brother, sisters, father, and mother.
They have friends, and relatives.
They have intelligent people who support them.

It is not suppose to go over well.

I'm not advocating revolution. I'm just telling you what anyone that has ever read a history book can tell you. You repress a group of people enough and they will work to make your life miserable. You dismiss them, and eventually they will get mad enough to kill you.
Right now the Gay Rights movement is trying to do it the right way, though the legal system. Take that away from them and they will take it to the streets.
I?ll be right there with them.
Many, many others will join me.
We won?t care if you like it.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: K1052
The government should get out of the marriage business altogether and only issue civil unions to all couples upon request. Leave marriage to the various churches.

this.

Well that'd work for the Gays as there are Churches that recognize same sex marriages. :thumbsup:

I agree. I don't believe in gay marriage but I think partners should have the same tax/insurance/financial rights.

I think the gay attack on marriage to get it for themselves shows a massive lack of tact. They're going against the grain of years of cultural and religious foundations and they would be better served to get their unions and have their wedding ceremonies outside of the government. They get their tax breaks, and they can say they are married.

I'd rather that be how it is, period. Couples get civil unions. If they want to have a marriage ceremony to proclaim their vows and love, do it somewhere that sanctions it, be it your church, w/e.

As a function of standing up for my religious beliefs, I'll never sign off on gay marriage though. Sorry.