PDA

View Full Version : Dear State of Maine



Pages : [1] 2

RageAgainstTheAoki
11-04-2009, 03:30 PM
Fuck you, too.

gaypalmsprings
11-04-2009, 03:53 PM
Maine sux. I guess California does, too.

http://becauseican.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/haters.jpg

M Sparks
11-04-2009, 03:53 PM
It's well thought out arguments like these that will eventually change the tide.

psycobetabuckdown
11-04-2009, 03:55 PM
http://www.destination360.com/north-america/us/maine/images/s/maine-portland.jpg

gaypalmsprings
11-04-2009, 03:56 PM
Gay leaders blame TV ads, Obama for loss in Maine

By LISA LEFF and DAVID CRARY (AP) – 2 hours ago

SAN FRANCISCO — Stunned and angry, national gay rights leaders Wednesday blamed scare-mongering ads — and President Barack Obama's lack of engagement — for a bitter election setback in Maine that could alter the dynamics for both sides in the gay-marriage debate.

Conservatives, in contrast, celebrated Maine voters' rejection of a law that would have allowed gay couples to wed, depicting it as a warning shot that should deter politicians in other states from pushing for same-sex marriage.

"Every time the citizens have voted on marriage, they have always sided with natural marriage," said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based Christian legal group. "Maine dramatically illustrates the will of the people, and politicians should wake up and listen."

Gay activists were frustrated that Obama, who insists he staunchly supports their overall civil rights agenda, didn't speak out forcefully in defense of Maine's marriage law before Tuesday's referendum. The law was repealed in a vote of 53 percent to 47 percent.

"President Obama missed an opportunity to state his position against these discriminatory attacks with the clarity and moral imperative that would have helped in this close fight," said Evan Wolfson of the national advocacy group Freedom to Marry. "The anti-gay forces are throwing millions of dollars into various unsubtle ads aimed at scaring people, so subtle statements from the White House are not enough."

ficklecycle
11-04-2009, 03:56 PM
http://api.ning.com/files/AfWlDx2I5XwP3chIpyiBZ0c9DW0BePu1qI894NaOFSBXFfBN4M 1KGY9koNuXj4197p3L-WutXo5uFWsjfXkCi22eh71xy9re/gucci_man_trap_house.jpg

Gribbz
11-04-2009, 03:56 PM
It's well thought out arguments like these that will eventually change the tide.

This.

MissingPerson
11-04-2009, 03:59 PM
I really thought they might win this one, too.

Sleepingrock
11-04-2009, 04:29 PM
Why are conservatives alive?

RageAgainstTheAoki
11-04-2009, 04:42 PM
Did that snarky remark feel good, M Sparks? Who said I was attempting to change the tide with this posting? I did that by dedicating 18 hours to phonebanking for Maine Equality over the last month. This was mainly a venting of my frustration. Are we not allowed to react to the vote?

EDIT:
Oh, were you referring to GayPalmSprings' posting? If so, I apologize. If not, I stand by it. Ha ha.

Gribbz
11-04-2009, 04:43 PM
Why are conservatives alive?


Yeah, people who don't think like you should die.

Not a conservative by the way.

Sleepingrock
11-04-2009, 04:52 PM
Yeah, people who don't think like you should die.

Not a conservative by the way.

Hehe, it wasn't meant to seem that harsh just... I just find it hard to believe so many people in the states don't believe in equality... if it doesn't affect you you shouldn't have such a big say in it

RageAgainstTheAoki
11-04-2009, 04:59 PM
Why are conservatives alive?

Well, that's a rather unnecessary statement. Though it does bring up a rather unfortunate fact. People tend to vote on this issue along lines of age and religiosity. I haven't seen data on Maine yet, but during most off-cycle elections/non-Presidential elections young voters stay away in droves but the blue hairs still turn out. The supporters of this ballot measure knew that time was not on their side. By getting to the ballot box while the marriage debate was still fresh in Maine voters' minds and during an election in which younger, more liberal voters might not turn out they helped solidify their win. If only more of the older voters thought like Phillip Spooner:

VdTFgYhHvAM

Drinkey McDrinkerstein
11-04-2009, 05:04 PM
Hehe, it wasn't meant to seem that harsh just... I just find it hard to believe so many people in the states don't believe in equality... if it doesn't affect you you shouldn't have such a big say in it

There are more "liberals" that are opposed to gay marriage than you'd think, and vice versa with "conservatives"

JebusLives
11-04-2009, 05:21 PM
if there are, those "liberals" should look up the word "liberty".

I do however personally know a number of gay supporting (and even gay!) conservatives. Canadian conservatives, mind you.

Drinkey McDrinkerstein
11-04-2009, 05:23 PM
if there are, those "liberals" should look up the word "liberty".

I do however personally know a number of gay supporting (and even gay!) conservatives. Canadian conservatives, mind you.

"Liberal," in political terms, has very little to do with liberty

Archie Bunker
11-04-2009, 05:26 PM
The will of the people opposed it.

You can't bitch about that.

As much as it might bother you, not everyone has the same political beliefs as you.

gaypalmsprings
11-04-2009, 05:29 PM
http://blog.solar-states.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/imagesbroc-20obama.jpg

M Sparks
11-04-2009, 05:32 PM
Did that snarky remark feel good, M Sparks? Who said I was attempting to change the tide with this posting? I did that by dedicating 18 hours to phonebanking for Maine Equality over the last month. This was mainly a venting of my frustration. Are we not allowed to react to the vote?

All I know is I have always been in support of gay marriage, and yet I consider changing my mind every time I hear most of the supporting arguments. Most of the tactics are illogical, hypocritical, and/or based on pure emotion. (I don't know what tactics your group used.)

It's gotten to the point where I am really closer to being AGAINST straight marriage, because it's the only way I can resolve the logic. I think we all should stop letting the government and religion define our relationships.

Perhaps 4 percent were turned off by the confrontational approach, which was enough to lose the battle. The best arguments I have seen were based in logic.

Monklish
11-04-2009, 05:34 PM
Guys, let's face facts:

faggots are gross. I mean, look at me. I'm a disgusting pedophile obsessed with banging little boys against their will. If we let this shit get outta hand, pretty soon we'll be fucking dogs.

Drinkey McDrinkerstein
11-04-2009, 05:35 PM
It's gotten to the point where I am really closer to being AGAINST straight marriage, because it's the only way I can resolve the logic. I think we all should stop letting the government and religion define our relationships.

This is where i'm at. Traditionalists are stupid because the original concept of marriage simply doesn't make sense anymore or have validity in this day and age

HAMMERHEAD
11-04-2009, 05:43 PM
SODOMIZE INTOLERANCE!!

unitedwesuck
11-04-2009, 05:44 PM
WHAT's that creepy town in all of Stephen King's books!?

MissingPerson
11-04-2009, 05:46 PM
As much as it might bother you, not everyone has the same political beliefs as you.

You have some fucking neck to act like this was some noble blow for freedom. It was literally exactly the opposite, and no amount of mental gymnastics can wrestle a sane mind into imagining it was anything otherwise.

Monklish
11-04-2009, 05:48 PM
I wonder how long it will be before my new sig gets deleted.

unitedwesuck
11-04-2009, 05:48 PM
some just live in their own little worlds

M Sparks
11-04-2009, 06:02 PM
This is where i'm at. Traditionalists are stupid because the original concept of marriage simply doesn't make sense anymore or have validity in this day and age

To expand...

People that are against Gay marriage tend to argue that it's a holy ceremony, that we shouldn't change their traditional religious definition. Which is a fine argument. So why is the government in the marriage business? What happened to separation of church and state?

MOST arguments FOR Gay marriage are based on some kind of irrational "we're being left out of the club" thing. If it was truly a religious ceremony, then why would anyone want to take part in a ceremony presided over by an intolerant group that condemns you just for existing? It's like a black guy complaining that he's not allowed to join the KKK.

If the government was not allowed to perform marriages, then there would be no civil rights issues. A civil union would be a simple legal contract, and everyone would receive the same rights. It would be up to each individual religion to decide whether they would perform same-sex marriages or not. The "marriage" itself would simply be a spiritual ceremony. You could choose to be bound spiritually without the legal aspect, or simply be legally bound, or both.

Which...really...is how it is now for straights. Some couples go to the courthouse and get legally bound in a cold, boring ceremony. Some couples have elaborate ceremonies like handfastings and never actually get "married". Some spend $20,000 on a wedding in a huge church, but they still get the same certificate as the people who went to the courthouse.

I want gays to have all the same rights as straights, but there are more constructive ways to go about it rather than crying over the definition of a word that means something different to everyone, and condemning those who don't agree rather than trying to reason with them. Honestly, I've seen people be turned around simply by showing them that there are some rights that AREN'T granted by civil unions. They have strong feelings about the religious aspects of the word marriage, but they become willing to get past those feelings in the interest of civil rights when they see that things still aren't equal. Just think of how many more people could be reached if the problem was attacked at the legal level rather than the emotional level.

Or, join my crusade. BAN GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED MARRIAGE NOW!

JebusLives
11-04-2009, 06:03 PM
The will of the people opposed it.

You can't bitch about that.

As much as it might bother you, not everyone has the same political beliefs as you.

this is exactly why you don't put everything to a vote. Tyranny by the majority. Thank your god the result is more or less unconstitutional. Hopefully the justice department grows some balls and fights this.

(this is how we got gay marriage, by the way. The ban was deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court. And you know what? Life goes on, the same as ever.)

JebusLives
11-04-2009, 06:19 PM
M Sparks, I tend to agree... Marriage should not be a legal arrangement at all. They should just search and replace "Marriage" with "civil union" in the lawbooks and leave it at that. Then if gay people want to get "married" they can find a church that will do it for them.

However, as it stands now, Marriage entitles straight people to something gay people can't have. And that isn't fair.

HAMMERHEAD
11-04-2009, 06:24 PM
TJust think of how many more people could be reached if the problem was attacked at the legal level rather than the emotional level.


this implies that people will listen with their big boy/girl brains and use reason, which is simply not the case when dealing with religious zealots. california attacked it at a legal level. and then prop 8 happened.

i support your ban for government sanctioned marriage.

Drinkey McDrinkerstein
11-04-2009, 06:25 PM
However, as it stands now, Marriage entitles straight people to something gay people can't have. And that isn't fair.

Alimony payments, child support, in-laws

MissingPerson
11-04-2009, 06:27 PM
The right to be with their loved ones in the late stages of illness... Other downers like that.

JebusLives
11-04-2009, 06:49 PM
Alimony payments, child support, in-laws

You don't have to convince me. I'm straight but i'm not the marrying type.

Sleepingrock
11-04-2009, 07:42 PM
I love this poster

http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v646/157/94/820220522/n820220522_5444956_9788.jpg

Monklish
11-04-2009, 07:44 PM
Shouldn't we have to overturn the legislation against polygamous marriages if we release the rules against homosexual unions? I'm not sure how we can impose any moral judgments at all if we let me marry little boys.

RageAgainstTheAoki
11-04-2009, 08:17 PM
MSparks:

You're all over the map here. I'm sure you'll ignore what I'm saying, but I really am trying to respond to your arguments in a detailed and informed manner.

Firstly This movement is not about getting access to marriage in the churches. That is, and no matter what, would remain at the discretion of individual churches and their parent organizations. Furthermore, taking government out of marriage is a pipe dream. No President, no congress, no court in this country is going to take the government out of marriage. You may want to argue that the government should not be in the marriage business until the cows come home, but that is not going to happen. The reality is that government sanctioned and performed marriages will remain and as such the only constitutional solution is to allow access to marriage for all citizens. And are you really going to tell me that a return to "separate but equal" rights is acceptable in the 21st century?

Additionally, religious organizations, like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints and the Catholic Church provided a huge amount of monetary support towards passing Prop 8 in CA and Question 1 in Maine. If they want to protect their religious independence from the State, they should stop funding initiatives that strip citizens of their civil rights.



Which...really...is how it is now for straights. Some couples go to the courthouse and get legally bound in a cold, boring ceremony. Some couples have elaborate ceremonies like handfastings and never actually get "married". Some spend $20,000 on a wedding in a huge church, but they still get the same certificate as the people who went to the courthouse.

The ignorance you display in this statement is mind boggling. It is not the same for straight couples. Straight couples can go to their county courthouse or administration building and obtain a State Marriage License. They do not have to go to a church to be fully considered 100% "married" as you say. Gay couples cannot do this. It's black and white. Clear as day.



You also complain about tactics being used in Maine which have made you reluctant to support marriage equality? I don't even know where to begin with this. The No On 1 campaign in Maine was extremely well organized and all those who participated were well trained to act respectfully and professionally. What tactics are you referring to here?

Now, naturally, there will always be anger in a progressive movement, there will always be fringe elements who say loud and inflammatory things. You have your civil rights stripped by a simple majority and see if you don't get a little upset about it. Are you actually telling me that you believe in equality but only if we, you know, pipe down? What slogan was it plastered on an individual's protest sign that offended you so much that you would actually change your beliefs because of some minor annoyance to your delicate sensibilities?





Just think of how many more people could be reached if the problem was attacked at the legal level rather than the emotional level.

I actually do think this will eventually be decided by the courts. But, Jesus, man! Open up a newspaper. Bans on gay marriage are being challenged in courts across the country. Most notably by Ted Olson and David Boises who have united to mount a highly publicized challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court. You remember them? They were the opposing lawyers in the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decision that handed the 2000 election to W. These two men who could not be more diametrically opposed in most of their political, religious and even legal philosophies both recognize this is a civil rights issue and plan to take their case (should it be heard) all the way to the US Supreme Court.

AND, that same US Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is a civil right from Loving v. Virginia in 1967, to Zablocki v. Redhail in 1978, to Turner v. Safley in 1987.

Additionally, Justice Antonin Scalia, a man who makes Dick Cheney look like Santa Claus, even sees this as a constitutional issue. In the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case which finally (just 6 short years ago) struck down all US anti-sodomy laws which were being unfairly used to harrass consenting gay adults, he said the following:

"What justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution’? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.”



Or, join my crusade. BAN GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED MARRIAGE NOW!

No thanks. I think this one has more legs:
http://rescuemarriage.org/


Look, sometimes there is no grey. Sometimes it's just black and white. You have the right to marry, I do not. Denying equal access to marriage rights violates the US constitution. It's as a plain as day.

Monklish
11-04-2009, 08:19 PM
Should I be allowed to marry multiple women? I mean, boys.

SoulDischarge
11-04-2009, 08:34 PM
The right to be with their loved ones in the late stages of illness... Other downers like that.

Also immigration issues. This one is affecting our family. My uncle's partner is going to go back to Mexico because otherwise he'll end up being deported. He's had a hard time keeping a job and he is only allowed to find work in his specific field (nursing home administration). He even married a female friend of my uncle's to stay in the country who turned out to be fucking crazy and started acting like they were actually married and in love. My uncle and his partner have been together for at least 5 years and now they're being separated because they can't get legally married. Good job 'merica.

JebusLives
11-04-2009, 08:39 PM
hmm, that's not an argument you'll want to use, i'm afraid. The homophobes you are trying to convince also dislike immigrants.

stinkbutt
11-04-2009, 08:44 PM
shut up Canadian

JebusLives
11-04-2009, 08:46 PM
that's it, you're losing signature status.

karma_guy
11-04-2009, 09:25 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPcBI4CJc8
seems appropriate

Mr.Nipples
11-04-2009, 10:49 PM
shoot all christians and conservatives in the face NOW!

disgustipated
11-05-2009, 04:21 AM
but they legalized marijuana!



one step forward. two steps back.

TomAz
11-05-2009, 05:54 AM
The will of the people opposed it.

You can't bitch about that.

As much as it might bother you, not everyone has the same political beliefs as you.

Yes, you can bitch about it. People are stupid, for the most part, and their will is sometimes wrong. Look at the deep south during the civil rights movement; your logic would say that segregation was perfectly fine because it was the 'will of the people'.

This isn't an argument over should we raise taxes or reform healthcare or bail out Wall Street. this is an argument about fundamental human rights.

gaypalmsprings
11-05-2009, 06:07 AM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_E8BpJEni77I/SnwzcPqqDvI/AAAAAAAAKFw/Ur8OTyOFgww/s400/stupid.jpg

psycobetabuckdown
11-05-2009, 11:06 AM
Firstly This movement is not about getting access to marriage in the churches. That is, and no matter what, would remain at the discretion of individual churches and their parent organizations. Furthermore, taking government out of marriage is a pipe dream. No President, no congress, no court in this country is going to take the government out of marriage. You may want to argue that the government should not be in the marriage business until the cows come home, but that is not going to happen. The reality is that government sanctioned and performed marriages will remain and as such the only constitutional solution is to allow access to marriage for all citizens.

I agree that if the government is involved in marriage at all it shouldn't discriminate between gay and straight couples, which appears to be your argument. However, what you are saying here is a copout. You seem to agree that government should not be involved in marriage - but you think that fight is too hard and it's not worth fighting! Well unless we defend the Constitution and don't settle for compromises, we're going to end up with a country that has fallen far from the path it started on (freedom, equality, democracy, limited government). Maybe if the gay-marriage movement focused their energies on supporting the movement MSparks is suggesting you'd have a lot more validity in your argument (some of it is already valid, as I said) and you'd even have all conservatives on your side. And you'd find the equality you're looking for.

Then again, seeing as how gay-marriage proponents don't seem to believe in limited government this is probably another pipe-dream.

SoulDischarge
11-05-2009, 11:17 AM
That would be a terrible idea. People already think we want to destroy their way of life, so if we were to start campaigning to actually destroy their way of life instead of just campaigning to be given the same basic freedoms everyone else enjoys, it would give them even more ammunition against us.

vinylmartyr
11-05-2009, 11:23 AM
I hate the argument Gay marriage is not natural. Smoking is not natural but we let people do it.

Monklish
11-05-2009, 11:26 AM
How is smoking not natural? How is anything humans do not natural?

Alchemy
11-05-2009, 11:28 AM
The things humans do are stupinatural, not natural.

Monklish
11-05-2009, 11:29 AM
Is that a hybrid word invented from natural and stupid?

Alchemy
11-05-2009, 11:30 AM
Correct. That's what my creative writing degree is good for. That and nothing else.

M Sparks
11-05-2009, 11:45 AM
MSparks:

You're all over the map here. I'm sure you'll ignore what I'm saying,

Why? My whole point was to prokoke rational debate rather than emotion.


but I really am trying to respond to your arguments in a detailed and informed manner.

Good. First of all, I am actually on your side as far as end results. I'm just trying to help you understand the other side and see why it's not working.


Firstly This movement is not about getting access to marriage in the churches. That is, and no matter what, would remain at the discretion of individual churches and their parent organizations.

Of course not. I never said it was. But, as long as your opponents main...ONLY... argument is that marriage is a religious ceremony, you are going to have to deal with religion. Or rather, they are always going to be your main obstacle.


Furthermore, taking government out of marriage is a pipe dream. No President, no congress, no court in this country is going to take the government out of marriage. You may want to argue that the government should not be in the marriage business until the cows come home, but that is not going to happen.

Of course it's not. It SHOULD happen, but it's not going to. However, when your opponents look at same-sex marriage, they say the same thing.


The reality is that government sanctioned and performed marriages will remain and as such the only constitutional solution is to allow access to marriage for all citizens. And are you really going to tell me that a return to "separate but equal" rights is acceptable in the 21st century?

Again, you are getting hung up on the definition of a word- a word religion claims to have defined- rather than focusing on having equal rights.

If "married" is defined as a union between a man and a woman, then it's not something gays should even be interested in. What they should be interested in is making sure they are treated equally. If a national law passed requiring all states to recognize same-sex civil unions and to offer them the exact same rights as married people, you would STILL have people complaining that they can't get "married". It's purely an emotional based argument.


Additionally, religious organizations, like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints and the Catholic Church provided a huge amount of monetary support towards passing Prop 8 in CA and Question 1 in Maine. If they want to protect their religious independence from the State, they should stop funding initiatives that strip citizens of their civil rights.

Now who's all over the map? You don't have to tell me that these groups are scumbags. But freedom of religion and freedom of speech are still their rights. Perhaps they could be stopped from mentioning specific initiatives in their ads, but they could still flood the airwaves with fear-based spots disguised as faith based PSAs. And, like it or not, these people are your opponents. You need to be dealing with them and trying to counter their "arguments" (such as they are), not mine.



The ignorance you display in this statement is mind boggling. It is not the same for straight couples....

You missed my point entirely here, but it's not worth trying to explain again, it wasn't important.


You also complain about tactics being used in Maine which have made you reluctant to support marriage equality? ...

I did not. In fact, I SPECIFICALLY said I had no idea what tactics were being used in Maine, and therefore I couldn't criticize them.


Now, naturally, there will always be anger in a progressive movement, there will always be fringe elements who say loud and inflammatory things. You have your civil rights stripped by a simple majority and see if you don't get a little upset about it.

Yes, of course. Unfortunately, that's about 90% of what I've seen. Your opponents stoop to name calling and fear tactics. There are plenty constructive ways to fight that, but what I mostly see is people throwing tantrums and arguments that amount to "it's not fair!"


Are you actually telling me that you believe in equality but only if we, you know, pipe down?

No. You should be louder. But with a more logical argument.


What slogan was it plastered on an individual's protest sign that offended you so much that you would actually change your beliefs because of some minor annoyance to your delicate sensibilities?

It's your obsession with the WORD marriage! You cannot beat these homophobes as long as that's your main focus! I am (in essence) on your side, and yet when this is the argument, I come down on the side of these religious scumbags. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Whatever...I really don't care if you want to change that, but for your opponents, it's incredibly important and you simply can not change their minds. If you were focused on your civil rights, you would win most, if not all of these cases/initiatives. But by focusing on the word marriage, it becomes solely an emotional argument. And you can't beat those nutjobs when it comes to irrational emotion.

And I've never changed my beliefs...which is that everyone should have the same rights. I just don't believe in focusing on same-sex marriage as a way reaching that goal anymore. If you achieve it, I will be wrong, and happy for being wrong. But I just think that...at FIRST anyway...you should focus on being treated the same as married couples. If you could get to the point where the ONLY difference is the word "married" on a piece of government paper that most people never look at again...wouldn't that be a MAJOR step forward? Maybe try going the first 99% of the way to equality before worrying about the 1% that is just semantics. You'd be a lot more successful. Because all your opponents have in their favor is that 1%.

(And again...I didn't even know about the Maine vote until it was over, so I have no idea what YOUR GROUP was focusing on...but since you keep going back to the word marriage, I have a good idea.)


Bans on gay marriage are being challenged in courts across the country. Most notably by Ted Olson and David Boises who have united to mount a highly publicized challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court. You remember them? They were the opposing lawyers in the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decision that handed the 2000 election to W. These two men who could not be more diametrically opposed in most of their political, religious and even legal philosophies both recognize this is a civil rights issue and plan to take their case (should it be heard) all the way to the US Supreme Court.

Good! I guarantee they will be focused on the civil rights angle! And the courts won't be swayed by Mormon ads showing a gay pride parade freakshow.


AND, that same US Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is a civil right from Loving v. Virginia in 1967, to Zablocki v. Redhail in 1978, to Turner v. Safley in 1987.

I'm no lawyer, but none of those cases have anything to do with whether "marriage" is defined as a union between a man and a woman. They just say everyone has the right to get married. As long as marriage is defined as a man and woman, you absolutely have the right to get married. You just have no interest in doing so.

It comes down to this: You need to redefine the definition of marriage, not fight for your right to it. Your right to it is already established. And that is an uphill battle.


Additionally, Justice Antonin Scalia, a man who makes Dick Cheney look like Santa Claus, even sees this as a constitutional issue. In the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case which finally (just 6 short years ago) struck down all US anti-sodomy laws which were being unfairly used to harrass consenting gay adults, he said the following:

"What justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution’? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.”

This is all just dandy, but none of it has anything to do with trying to get people to vote your way, which is what we were talking about. And if they had focused on rights, they would have won.


No thanks. I think this one has more legs:

Do you really think I really am fighting for my "cause" to abolish government marriage? Of course not. It's called exaggerating to make a point.


Look, sometimes there is no grey. Sometimes it's just black and white. You have the right to marry, I do not. Denying equal access to marriage rights violates the US constitution. It's as a plain as day.

Everyone has a different idea of what marriage means. It's one of the greyest areas there is. I am married, but my relationship would be exactly the same if I wasn't. I don't need the government to tell me what my relationship means. My marriage certificate is solely a legal/tax arrangement. You want to argue on what it says at the top of your legal papers, rather than first fighting for the right to even HAVE the legal papers. If you want to reach the people in an election, you need to focus on the rights issue. Only the most hardcore homophobes don't want gays to have equal legal rights. Downplaying the word "marriage" would instantly turn around enough people to make these elections go your way.

If you aren't willing to do that, then push it through in the courts. And be prepared to feel even more alienated in society...because religious people LOVE to be told by the courts what they can and can't believe.

Monklish
11-05-2009, 11:50 AM
Sparks is correct. The problem with this entire argument is that "marriage" was a religious terminology long before there was ever a legal system that recorded marriages. The word itself is in fact a religious ceremony/tradition that was adopted into civil significance. You're always going to get beat up trying to redefine the legal sense of that word because religious types are always going to be kinda irked if you're trying to create a new meaning for their term that goes against their beliefs.

Ditch the word, then see how well they manage to fight you on it.

TomAz
11-05-2009, 11:58 AM
Sparks is correct. The problem with this entire argument is that "marriage" was a religious terminology long before there was ever a legal system that recorded marriages. The word itself is in fact a religious ceremony/tradition that was adopted into civil significance. You're always going to get beat up trying to redefine the legal sense of that word because religious types are always going to be kinda irked if you're trying to create a new meaning for their term that goes against their beliefs.

Ditch the word, then see how well they manage to fight you on it.

I agree with your reasoning but disagree with your proposed remedy. It's too late to 'ditch the word'. That horse is already out of the barn.

Monklish
11-05-2009, 12:01 PM
Why is that so? Have any of these propositions that got knocked down been trying to just merely establish a civil union, separate but equal to marriage's rights? Sorry, homos, but we may not be able to just wrench control of a religious term out of religion's hands.

Queers can either keep trying to fight what seems to be a losing battle until it stops being losing or they can recognize that what they're trying to get redefined may actually not be fair to everyone involved.

mountmccabe
11-05-2009, 12:17 PM
Why is that so? Have any of these propositions that got knocked down been trying to just merely establish a civil union, separate but equal to marriage's rights? Sorry, homos, but we may not be able to just wrench control of a religious term out of religion's hands.

You speak as if all religious people felt the same way on the subject.


This should not be the least bit surprising.

SoulDischarge
11-05-2009, 12:20 PM
I could give a fuck less about the word "marriage." I have no desire to ever get married. Personally, I don't care what the fuck they call it so long as all the rights are EXACTLY the same. Regardless, there's still the matter of "separate but equal" being declared unconstitutional, and that's really the issue.

Monklish
11-05-2009, 12:21 PM
You speak as if all religious people felt the same way on the subject.


This should not be the least bit surprising.

God you're so worthless when it comes to actually getting anywhere in a discussion.

Monklish
11-05-2009, 12:22 PM
I could give a fuck less about the word "marriage." I have no desire to ever get married. Personally, I don't care what the fuck they call it so long as all the rights are EXACTLY the same. Regardless, there's still the matter of "separate but equal" being declared unconstitutional, and that's really the issue.

One could argue that trying to redefine the term "marriage" violates the rights of religious freedom.

TomAz
11-05-2009, 12:26 PM
Why is that so? Have any of these propositions that got knocked down been trying to just merely establish a civil union, separate but equal to marriage's rights? Sorry, homos, but we may not be able to just wrench control of a religious term out of religion's hands.

"Marriage" may have originated as a religious term but today it also carries social and civil meanings. I believe the social/civil meanings are now the more prevailing ones. We all know what someone means when they say "we got married last week" and for almost all of us it will not strike us as a religious statement. (Compare that to "I got baptized last week", which only has a religious meaning). So to cede the meaning of "marriage" to strictly religious usage would be to change the prevailing popular understanding of what it means to 'be married'. And to suggest a replacement word: "we got civil unionized last week" would not only be clumsy but also runs the risk of carrying a second-class stigma. We all know how well 'separate but equal' worked for African-Americans.

Monklish
11-05-2009, 12:28 PM
Right, but the civil meanings were adapted from the religious terminology. Seems to me that the God-lover types have a semi-solid argument against civil and legal proceedings co-opting their word.

The word "marriage" should be extricated from civil proceedings entirely. Let everyone just get unionized, marriage can be removed to strictly religious significance.

paganman7
11-05-2009, 12:34 PM
If that were to happen, then the religious-right would be forced to oppose "unions" because gay people are gross and their god hates homos.

HAMMERHEAD
11-05-2009, 12:35 PM
The problem with this entire argument is that "marriage" was a religious terminology long before there was ever a legal system that recorded marriages. The word itself is in fact a religious ceremony/tradition that was adopted into civil significance.

untrue. marriage is a cultural institution of which its civil significance in the US was preceded by thousands of years of practice across virtually every culture in humanity. religion has NEVER had exclusivity over marriage except when it has hijacked it and assumed authority over marriages. this misguided belief that marriage is a religious institution is the sole reason why this is even an issue. the gay-marriage proponents already have the opposition beat on the legal aspect, they just need to wrest marriage as intellectual property from christianity's desperate and slimey grasp.

TomAz
11-05-2009, 12:37 PM
So are you proposing that to have what are currently called marital rights, a couple would need to get 'unionized' in a civil ceremony and then if they wish they can be separately 'married' as a religious ceremony? And then change all the laws to read 'unionized' (or whatever) instead of 'married'?

I get this. Victory through semantics. Still smells a bit of separate but equal though.

mountmccabe
11-05-2009, 12:40 PM
God you're so worthless when it comes to actually getting anywhere in a discussion.

Yeah, what with me worrying about arguments making sense.


You're arguing that homosexuals should accept civil unions as a seperate but not equal thing - which, as SD mentioned, is unconstituional... and also civil unions as defined in most places are by no means equal to marriage in terms of levels of rights - because marriage has religions connotations for some people, some of whom happen to hold that marriage should only be between one man and one woman, some of whom believe marriage should be between one man and as many women as he can afford, some of whom believe should be between whatever pair of consenting adults wants it.

Folks that argue that marriage have a religious origin also tend to argue that there were these two people called Adam and Eve that lived in a garden until the woman did wrong and got 'em kicked out.


EDIT: Oh, whoah, there was a third page. And it looks like plenty of folks took up similar arguments. Carry on.

Monklish
11-05-2009, 12:43 PM
I'm sorry, so "marriage" wasn't created as a religious service? Really?

Suppose the court affirms that redefining a religious term against their wishes is also unconstitutional. Which unconstitutional provision takes precedence?

HAMMERHEAD
11-05-2009, 12:44 PM
Folks that argue that marriage have a religious origin also tend to argue that there were these two people called Adam and Eve that lived in a garden until the woman did wrong and got 'em kicked out.


there is no greater barrier to progress than organized religion. then again, how should we expect people that accept myths and fables as absolute truth to understand things in terms of reason and logic.

chairmenmeow47
11-05-2009, 12:50 PM
can we just create a relationship called "this is the person who has access to my monetary shit" and be done with it. that's all it really means and if religion wants it to mean something spiritual, that should have jack shit to do with the government.

also, reilgious ceremonies are seperate from civil ceremonies today as it is. the political act of getting married and the religious act of getting married are two different steps in the process that some people combine into one. the courthouse doesn't give a shit if you have a flower girl and the church doesn't give a flying fuck what your legal name is.

i also want to abolish any privledges given to married people in the form of taxes or anything like that, but that's just me. having kids is seperate of course.

SoulDischarge
11-05-2009, 12:51 PM
If state and church are separate, and marriage is used as a civil, legal term, it is not a religious term any more. No one is trying to redefine a religious term, merely a term that relates to law.

Monklish
11-05-2009, 12:52 PM
Oh look, another douchebag from San Diego who doesn't get the fucking point.

Marriage isn't a religious institution? Really? Prior to say the 1800s, was there anywhere you could be married aside from a church? Church of England was created purely as a way for Henry The Eighth to get remarried when The Pope refused to extend him a get. Please explain how you have redefined the historical meaning of this word.

HAMMERHEAD
11-05-2009, 12:53 PM
I'm sorry, so "marriage" wasn't created as a religious service? Really?

Suppose the court affirms that redefining a religious term against their wishes is also unconstitutional. Which unconstitutional provision takes precedence?

precisely. if you really want me to ill pull up all the historical shit on this but i really dont feel like doing research for a goddamn forum post.

and a court would never affirm the redefinition of marriage to include gays as a violation of someones religious freedoms because it does not inhibit them from practicing it as they have traditionally done and thus could not be considered a violation of anything. and since no 1 religion can legally claim marriage to be "their" institution to begin with this would never even make it to the courtroom.

Monklish
11-05-2009, 12:54 PM
If state and church are separate, and marriage is used as a civil, legal term, it is not a religious term any more. No one is trying to redefine a religious term, merely a term that relates to law.

But don't the religious types have a point in that if the state wants to make up a separate joining of people they should get their own fucking word? And they should. If all the legal and civil proceedings would just use a different word the entire argument would likely be over. It's retarded.

You can keep banging your head against the same semantic wall as long as you want, or you can just get a different fucking word.

Monklish
11-05-2009, 12:55 PM
precisely. if you really want me to ill pull up all the historical shit on this but i really dont feel like doing research for a goddamn forum post.

and a court would never affirm the redefinition of marriage to include gays as a violation of someones religious freedoms because it does not inhibit them from practicing it as they have traditionally done and thus could not be considered a violation of anything. and since no 1 religion can legally claim marriage to be "their" institution to begin with this would never even make it to the courtroom.

No no, I really insist, do pull up the "historical shit." The term marriage was created in the 13th century. Exactly where was it used back then that isn't religious?

HAMMERHEAD
11-05-2009, 12:55 PM
Oh look, another douchebag from San Diego who doesn't get the fucking point.

Marriage isn't a religious institution? Really? Prior to say the 1800s, was there anywhere you could be married aside from a church? Church of England was created purely as a way for Henry The Eighth to get remarried when The Pope refused to extend him a get. Please explain how you have redefined the historical meaning of this word.

you do realize that people got married before christ was ever born correct?

you do also realize that people have been getting married since BEFORE RECORDED HUMAN HISTORY. good lord...

HAMMERHEAD
11-05-2009, 12:57 PM
The term marriage was created in the 13th century. Exactly where was it used back then that isn't religious?

13th century? People were getting married in the bible in B.C. times...

Monklish
11-05-2009, 12:57 PM
you do realize that people got married before christ was ever born correct?

you do also realize that people have been getting married since BEFORE RECORDED HUMAN HISTORY. good lord...

Actually no, I don't. The word "marriage" didn't exist before Christ was born, therefore it's rather impossible to state that it happened. You are trying to compare similar ceremonies under a different name. My point is that if it's under a different name it's completely outside of the control of that religion. Which is why we should shift the argument to there.

You people are dumber than Christians.

Monklish
11-05-2009, 12:58 PM
13th century? People were getting married in the bible in B.C. times...

Really? Do find and cite for me an example of the word "marriage" prior to 1000 A.D. You'll have some trouble as the word derives from Old English, which didn't exist before Christ.

malcolmjamalawesome
11-05-2009, 12:59 PM
untrue. marriage is a cultural institution of which its civil significance in the US was preceded by thousands of years of practice across virtually every culture in humanity. religion has NEVER had exclusivity over marriage except when it has hijacked it and assumed authority over marriages. this misguided belief that marriage is a religious institution is the sole reason why this is even an issue. the gay-marriage proponents already have the opposition beat on the legal aspect, they just need to wrest marriage as intellectual property from christianity's desperate and slimey grasp.

Big mistake in posting this. Unless you have some proof that these "thousands of years of practice across virtually every culture in humanity" didn't also, in fact, stem from marriage being a religious ceremony in those respective cultures. Which it did.

humanoid
11-05-2009, 01:01 PM
you do also realize that people have been getting married since BEFORE RECORDED HUMAN HISTORY. good lord...


I would like to see the documentation to support this

Monklish
11-05-2009, 01:02 PM
Hehehe

Monklish
11-05-2009, 01:03 PM
Hammerhead, are you by any chance a queermo yourself? It would make a lot of sense seeing as you're from San Diego.

HAMMERHEAD
11-05-2009, 01:03 PM
okay fuckers i have class in ~10 minutes and need to finish reading. i am taking my computer to class just to continue this debate.

so...

TIMEOUT

Monklish
11-05-2009, 01:03 PM
He's never gonna come back.

SoulDischarge
11-05-2009, 01:03 PM
But don't the religious types have a point in that if the state wants to make up a separate joining of people they should get their own fucking word? And they should. If all the legal and civil proceedings would just use a different word the entire argument would likely be over. It's retarded.

You can keep banging your head against the same semantic wall as long as you want, or you can just get a different fucking word.

They should have thought of that when they made the term a legal term in the first place. As soon as the government started using the term "marriage" to mean a legally binding contract between two people, it threw out all claims any religious institution had over it. Like I said, I don't care what they call it, but semantics aren't really the issue to people opposing gay marriage. It's just a stupid tactic. Bottom line is they things queers are gross and shouldn't have the same rights as they do. I think it would be more of an uphill battle to change the entire terminology of marriage or to abolish the institution of marriage altogether than to just include homosexuals into something that already exists. If the fundamentalists think we're a threat to marriage now, imagine how crazy they'll go when we tell them they can't get married any more, but they can still get "civil unioned" or what the fuck ever you think it should be called.

hawkingvsreeve
11-05-2009, 01:06 PM
Everyone from San Diego is so totally gay.

HAMMERHEAD
11-05-2009, 01:06 PM
He's never gonna come back.

you're really annoying. and ill be back

paganman7
11-05-2009, 01:06 PM
Randy-when religious people argue against same sex marriage, although they mask their concern in the cloak of semantics and the sanctity of "marriage", you know damn well that their true argument is their utter disgust with homo love. Therefore, I'm not sure changing what you call the thing will make the thing more palatable.


You could rename butt sex "plur probing", but I'd still not take it up the ass.

Monklish
11-05-2009, 01:06 PM
They should have thought of that when they made the term a legal term in the first place. As soon as the government started using the term "marriage" to mean a legally binding contract between two people, it threw out all claims any religious institution had over it. Like I said, I don't care what they call it, but semantics aren't really the issue to people opposing gay marriage. It's just a stupid tactic. Bottom line is they things queers are gross and shouldn't have the same rights as they do. I think it would be more of an uphill battle to change the entire terminology of marriage or to abolish the institution of marriage altogether than to just include homosexuals into something that already exists. If the fundamentalists think we're a threat to marriage now, imagine how crazy they'll go when we tell them they can't get married any more, but they can still get "civil unioned" or what the fuck ever you think it should be called.

I agree with you that it was a mistake to adopt the term in the first place, but seeing as back then the civil significance was in no way bucking the religious significance it's not surprising that it just got carried over.

The term marriage should be thrown out of all legal and civil proceedings, all existing marriages automatically grandfathered into the precisely same significance as "civil unions" or whatever, and marriage can be held in the strictest religious definitions they want.

The trick to winning an argument against semanticists--which these people are, which is their only argument (that marriage is defined as a union between "a man and a woman")--is to eliminate any chance of semantics by shifting off the given word.

TommyboyUNM
11-05-2009, 01:08 PM
Actually no, I don't. The word "marriage" didn't exist before Christ was born, therefore it's rather impossible to state that it happened. You are trying to compare similar ceremonies under a different name. My point is that if it's under a different name it's completely outside of the control of that religion. Which is why we should shift the argument to there.

You people are dumber than Christians.

Isn't your argument about the word "marriage" in a historical context moot now that the word serves both a religious and governmental function? I contend that religion gave up ownership of that word a long time ago and its historical significance doesn't matter in this debate.

paganman7
11-05-2009, 01:08 PM
The trick to winning an argument against semanticists--which these people are, which is their only argument (that marriage is defined as a union between "a man and a woman")--is to eliminate any chance of semantics by shifting off the given word.


I agree with this. The only problem is that I don't think they're waging a war of semantics.

Monklish
11-05-2009, 01:09 PM
you're really annoying. and ill be back

Don't come back without proof of the word marriage prior to 1200.


Randy-when religious people argue against same sex marriage, although they mask their concern in the cloak of semantics and the sanctity of "marriage", you know damn well that their true argument is their utter disgust with homo love. Therefore, I'm not sure changing what you call the thing will make the thing more palatable.


You could rename butt sex "plur probing", but I'd still not take it up the ass.

I don't care what their true argument is. If we take the word itself out of the equation they lose their entire argument. The only grounds they would have then for fighting the rights of gays to become civilly united would be automatically dismissed as arguments of hate and prejudice and could be Constitutionally protected against.

paganman7
11-05-2009, 01:11 PM
I don't care what their true argument is. If we take the word itself out of the equation they lose their entire argument. The only grounds they would have then for fighting the rights of gays to become civilly united would be automatically dismissed as arguments of hate and prejudice and could be Constitutionally protected against.


I see.

Why in the holy fuck did it take you saying the same thing 5 times for me to understand your argument. I suck at listening today.

Monklish
11-05-2009, 01:12 PM
That seems to be the problem with everyone. Don't worry about it.

humanoid
11-05-2009, 01:16 PM
this is interesting, gays will eventually win the right to be married just in time for everyone to stop wanting to get married

SoulDischarge
11-05-2009, 01:17 PM
I agree with you that it was a mistake to adopt the term in the first place, but seeing as back then the civil significance was in no way bucking the religious significance it's not surprising that it just got carried over.

The term marriage should be thrown out of all legal and civil proceedings, all existing marriages automatically grandfathered into the precisely same significance as "civil unions" or whatever, and marriage can be held in the strictest religious definitions they want.

The trick to winning an argument against semanticists--which these people are, which is their only argument (that marriage is defined as a union between "a man and a woman")--is to eliminate any chance of semantics by shifting off the given word.

I would have no problem with this, but I don't think it would really help anything because the people opposing gay marriage would still oppose it just as vehemently as they do now. If anything, they would probably be more angry about it because it "took away marriage" from them. You're trying to think of a logical argument against people who aren't using logic themselves. The government just needs to take action and enforce the unconstitutionality of "separate but equal" and we need to keep pressuring them to do so. If they end up calling it all marriage or calling it all civil unions is pretty irrelevant. It's just not a worthwhile fight to focus on semantics at the moment.

SoulDischarge
11-05-2009, 01:21 PM
I don't care what their true argument is. If we take the word itself out of the equation they lose their entire argument. The only grounds they would have then for fighting the rights of gays to become civilly united would be automatically dismissed as arguments of hate and prejudice and could be Constitutionally protected against.

They already have no grounds because marriage is used as a legal term and state and church are separate. The government needs to just stop pussying out and declare this shit unconstitutional. Although I'll readily admit I don't shit about law, so maybe I'm wrong.

Monklish
11-05-2009, 01:22 PM
You miss the point. Whether or not those arguing against it are employing logic or not is irrelevant. When the matter reaches the court system logic HAS to be employed. If you take away their semantic basis then they have no leg to stand on and the courts have no grounds to rule in their favor.

Monklish
11-05-2009, 01:24 PM
And it wouldn't be taking marriage away from anyone. Marriage would go back to significance in a purely religious context. That would be actual separation of church and state. In the current configuration it's awful hard to argue that separation of church and state should take precedence since we stole their word.

SoulDischarge
11-05-2009, 01:33 PM
And it wouldn't be taking marriage away from anyone.

Of course not, that's just how some people think.

Marriage already has two separate meanings, a legal one and a religious one. They're already separate. Same word. Call it marriage (1) and marriage (2) if you want. Whether the government stole it from the church in the first place is irrelevant at this point. It's already been divided into two separate terms and denying anyone marriage should be held up as being unconstitutional based on the definition of marriage (1). Calling marriage (1) by something else would make it a more clear distinction in people's minds, sure, but the distinction already exists and it's really just a stall tactic.

Monklish
11-05-2009, 01:34 PM
Sure, you can do that if you want to have a prolonged argument with brainless religious chimps who have no shortage of funding...

Or you could just use a different word. Why does this seem dumb to anyone? I'm beginning to wonder if fags aren't just idiots.

TommyboyUNM
11-05-2009, 01:40 PM
Sure, you can do that if you want to have a prolonged argument with brainless religious chimps who have no shortage of funding...

Or you could just use a different word. Why does this seem dumb to anyone? I'm beginning to wonder if fags aren't just idiots.

Do you think it's a matter of not wanting to cater to those religious chimps? Why should the government let religion have full control of the word "marriage" when it already relinquished that control a long time ago? The government shouldn't have to do that just because religious idiots don't want fags to get married.

That's the principle in this that I don't think is being addressed.

psycobetabuckdown
11-05-2009, 01:40 PM
You can't reason with a Harley driver.

Monklish
11-05-2009, 01:43 PM
Did religion relinquish control? I don't recall ever seeing any documentation to that effect. Perhaps if we'd gotten that we'd be in a better place to make the argument, but we didn't so we can't.

Once again, I'm simply asking why in the world anyone wants to bother having this argument. We're not winning, the votes aren't there, and all it's perpetuating is pitting the country against itself. There's nothing that the anti-gay marriage clan wants more than this argument to continue on in the terms it is now.

Should the government get to define the word "God?" Technically "God" is in several of our legal documents so I suppose we have just as much right to steal it from them as we did "marriage," but should it really have the power? More to the point, why do we possibly want to have this fight?

SoulDischarge
11-05-2009, 02:07 PM
Marriage is a legal term in much the same way as Christmas is a secular holiday. Jews and Muslims still don't get their mail delivered on Christmas or have to go into work when Christians don't. Why? Because it's secular. Marriage is secular now too. Sure, we could fight for a different term, but what's the point? Since marriage is already a secular concept, a legally binding contract separate from all religious links, it is unconstitutional to have a separate but equal clause attached to it. We should already have the right, but the government is acting unconstitutionally. The only point in changing the terminology is to convince fundamentalists to allow gays to marry, but technically, they shouldn't have that right in the first place. This isn't a matter of making anyone feel better about what something is called. This is a matter of the government allowing something to continue that is unconstitutional. Changing the word "marriage" to "civil union" is just an intellectual exercise. It doesn't change anything other than a word.

Monklish
11-05-2009, 02:09 PM
Actually it would change a lot if it meant that gays could be given all the same rights under civil union that they're fighting for under marriage. In fact it would mean they won the fight, unless they just want to change the word.

The real question here is who is really fighting pointlessly over a word--the religious right or you queers?

SoulDischarge
11-05-2009, 02:23 PM
How would it change things?

We already have the right, but we are being denied it because of unconstitutional "separate but equal" clauses. This has nothing to do with fundamentalists or churches or homophobes. Since marriage is secular, the church has no legal rights to decide who gets to get married and who doesn't. They can decide not to marry gays inside their church, but that's something completely different. The only thing that is keeping gay people from getting married is legislation, and the only reason that legislation exists is because the government won't overturn it because politicians either a.) think it's gross or b.) are afraid of alienating voters.

Let's hypothetically assume that magically, tomorrow, the word "marriage" had been replaced with the words "civil union" in every legally binding document in the United States. Gays would still not be able to get "civil unioned". The people who are preventing gays from getting "civil unioned" would still try to prevent gays from getting "civil unioned" because they don't give a fuck about what words are being used. Fighting for terminology is wasted effort. Fighting for a constitutional interpretation of the term that already exists is the important thing.

Monklish
11-05-2009, 02:30 PM
How do you already have the right? I don't think you understand law at all.

SoulDischarge
11-05-2009, 02:36 PM
Yeah. I probably don't.

Still, what I meant to say is we should, in a legal sense, already have the right, but it's being denied to us. You're arguing that we shouldn't because "marriage" is a religious term, and we can't tell the church how to run things. What I'm trying to say is that "marriage" has been redefined into a secular term, and the church has no say in secular matters.

Monklish
11-05-2009, 02:38 PM
No, actually what I'm saying is that it's stupid for gay rights activists to continue fighting the battle on the religious right's ground. You're letting them keep the argument in their territory where they have a half-legitimate argument to be made. This is dumb. Take the argument out of their control and they lose all their tactics.

SoulDischarge
11-05-2009, 02:43 PM
Gay rights activists aren't fighting on the religious right's ground. They're fighting for a legal right that is supposed to be granted to all citizens. The religious right is just claiming that as their ground in order to stall things. They don't have a half-legitimate argument to be made. If gays were fighting for the right to be married in any church they chose or fighting for their marriage to be recognized by the church, then yes, they would be fighting on the religious right's ground.

Monklish
11-05-2009, 02:48 PM
Okay, fine, you're right. And yet you keep losing. But you do have a brilliant point: why should you have to bother trying a different tactic instead of just continuing to run headfirst into the same brick wall repeatedly? It's entirely smarter to keep flailing pointlessly in the same losing battle than to try a new strategy.

SoulDischarge
11-05-2009, 02:56 PM
Because I think that's an even longer, harder fight to fight that will garner more ill will than it would do good. At this point, fundamentalists are using people's fears to keep them from voting for gay marriage, creating ads that make the argument that allowing gays to marry would destroy traditional marriage. Trying the tactic of making all marriages into "civil unions" would be reinforce those fears and they would have tons of ammunition to use against us in proving that we are, in fact, trying to destroy traditional marriage. Any person with common sense would realize that's not what's going on, but these people don't have any fucking common sense.

Monklish
11-05-2009, 03:01 PM
Which do you think goes against marriage more:

Reverting the term to be strictly under their control,

changing the meaning of the term to include unions they consider to be unholy.

SoulDischarge
11-05-2009, 03:03 PM
And I also don't think it addresses the real issue, which is legislation, and is giving into the fundamentalists' diversion tactics. By centering the argument around semantics, it really would be fighting on their ground. I'm not saying don't try different things, but you have to know what's going to actually help and what's just going to waste time or do damage.

SoulDischarge
11-05-2009, 03:07 PM
Which do you think goes against marriage more:

Reverting the term to be strictly under their control,

changing the meaning of the term to include unions they consider to be unholy.

See, you're letting them dictate the fight this way. We shouldn't even worry about convincing the fundamentalists. It should be fought on purely legal terms, specifically that "separate but equal" is unconstitutional. Ignore the fundamentalists. Stop giving them the option to vote this down. We need a Brown v. Board of Education for this issue.

wmgaretjax
11-05-2009, 03:09 PM
amen

Monklish
11-05-2009, 03:09 PM
Except that on purely legal terms your argument doesn't do too fucking well. Know why? Cause it's their word.

SoulDischarge
11-05-2009, 03:10 PM
It's not their word. It's a legal, secular word.

Monklish
11-05-2009, 03:14 PM
And Christmas is a secular holiday, right?

Chaplipman
11-05-2009, 04:11 PM
You guys don't see the real issue at hand. If we tolerate gay people and let them get married then pretty soon we're gonna have to let the sick fucks that pork animals do it too. Then I'll have to worry about keeping some asshole's bitch terrier of a wife off my goddamn lawn.

Egull
11-08-2009, 12:29 PM
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3LnIDwx9M_s&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3LnIDwx9M_s&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

JewFace
11-08-2009, 03:49 PM
Ha ha. I know the guy who started that CA Marriage Protection Act. It's good satire, for sure, but he's dead set on making this happen.

I used to be heavily involved in this movement and still have friends in it. Nearly all of them are advocating a 2010 return to the ballot in CA for a measure to repeal Prop 8. I love my social activist friends and I know they're working themselves to the bone to achieve this, but I just wish they'd be a little more patient and realize how much smarter waiting until 2012 is. I think Maine has shown us that if we return to the ballot in 2010, we will hand marriage equality opponents another victory. I agree with some on here who've said this will ultimately be decided by the courts.

gaypalmsprings
11-08-2009, 07:18 PM
Here are some pics from Palm Springs Pride Parade today.

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w302/gaypalmsprings/P1010748.jpg


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w302/gaypalmsprings/P1010761.jpg


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w302/gaypalmsprings/P1010777.jpg


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w302/gaypalmsprings/P1010813.jpg


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w302/gaypalmsprings/P1010798.jpg


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w302/gaypalmsprings/P1010795.jpg


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w302/gaypalmsprings/P1010799.jpg

TomAz
11-08-2009, 07:21 PM
You guys don't see the real issue at hand. If we tolerate gay people and let them get married then pretty soon we're gonna have to let the sick fucks that pork animals do it too. Then I'll have to worry about keeping some asshole's bitch terrier of a wife off my goddamn lawn.

I would refute this if I thought it was, you know, serious.

HAMMERHEAD
11-09-2009, 10:37 AM
okay so this is about 5 days late but i kinda stopped giving a shit about this thread when the weekend came around. anyways, i stopped by the library on my way out of class thursday and did some light reading about the history of marriage.


Really? Do find and cite for me an example of the word "marriage" prior to 1000 A.D. You'll have some trouble as the word derives from Old English, which didn't exist before Christ.

the word marriage is derived from the latin word "maritare" (now thats a pretty old language). proving that the english language word for marriage didn't exist until 1000 AD doesn't mean that marriage didn't exist until then, it simply means the english translation of the concept of marriage into the word "marriage" didn't exist until then.

i don't know if you're aware of this, but different languages *on very rare occasions* have words that sound and look different but actually mean the same thing! crazy, i know. you can say things like "economics" or "taste" in a number of different languages, but they denote the same thing because they are the same thing. thats why when we talk about marriage here, people in Beijing or Sao Paulo know what were talking about.

you seem to believe that marriage as we know it is the result of christian practice. its not. In his book, "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe," Boswell contends, "early Christianity was hostile to marital and kinship obligations to a degree unimaginable to any previous reformers since Plato. Many early Christians believed that marriage undermined the rigors self control needed to achieve spiritual salvation." Implicit in this argument is the existence of civil marriages prior to christian marriages (read more below on marriage throughout human history). Christianity emerged in a time period where marriage was already a feature well embedded in European culture. The Boswell Thesis is a collection of academic essays summarizing his views. Matthew Kuefler argues that that Christiany came into existence in an atmosphere of Greek and Roman tolerance for same sex eroticism and that nothing in the christian scriptures or early tradition required a hostile assessment of homosexuality. John Boswell became a controversial figure because of his unpopular assessment of Christianity's earlier views on marriage, but he was also a well educated Yale professor who's commentary on the matter does hold some considerable academic merit.



Big mistake in posting this. Unless you have some proof that these "thousands of years of practice across virtually every culture in humanity" didn't also, in fact, stem from marriage being a religious ceremony in those respective cultures. Which it did.

this is what ~10 minutes of browsing my school library yielded.

from Marriage, a History by Stephanie Coontz

"Marriage was certainly an early and a vitally important human invention. One of its crucial functions in the Paleolithic era [roughly 10,000 BC and earlier] was its ability to forge networks of cooperation"

in the 2 chapters i skimmed through, coontz talks about the role of marriage in the middle eastern empires of the tigris and euphrates, the indian and chinese civilizations of the indus and yellow rivers, the military aristocracies of the mediterranean that emerged around 800 BC, the mayans, the inca, aztecs, assyrians, north american tribes, etc.

she concludes, "these societies were separated by thousands of years and a myriad of distinctive cultural practices but in all of them, kings, pharaohs, emperors, and nobles relied on personal and famility ties to recruit followers, make alliances, and establish their legitimacy...marriage was one of the key mechanisms through which such ties were forged."

you'll notice of her conclusions that no reference to religion is made.

"The right to decide who could marry whom had become an extremely valuable political and economic weapon and remained so for thousands of years. from the middle eastern kingdoms that arose three thousand years before the birth of Christ to the European ones fifteen hundred years later, factions of the ruling circles fought over who had the right to legitimize marriages"

i can't possibly provide evidence of marriage existing in "every culture for thousands of years" like i had said earlier. perhaps it was too ambitious a claim, or at the very least to difficult to substantiate without a considerable amount of effort. i really don't feel like spending any more time on this so im gonna stop here


Hammerhead, are you by any chance a queermo yourself? It would make a lot of sense seeing as you're from San Diego.

no.../wrists

Monklish
11-09-2009, 10:46 AM
Actually marry derives from old French (marier), which derives from the Latin. Once again, I don't think you're getting the point--THE WORD IS EVERYTHING. This entire argument is about the word. That's what the anti gay marriage activists have been using as the lynchpin of their position. I don't think marriage as a concept is a Christian practice. That would be ludicrous. But I assert with absolute confidence that the English word "marriage" was born in the Christian church and it's silly for you to argue otherwise.

BTW, that book you quoted sounds fucking retarded. I'd like to see exactly what her proof of marriage in the paleolithic era is. How exactly she can know whether or not something existed pre-cuneiform. She sounds to be about as much of an authority on the subject as you are.

HAMMERHEAD
11-09-2009, 11:10 AM
Actually marry derives from old French (marier), which derives from the Latin. Once again, I don't think you're getting the point--THE WORD IS EVERYTHING. This entire argument is about the word. That's what the anti gay marriage activists have been using as the lynchpin of their position. I don't think marriage as a concept is a Christian practice. That would be ludicrous. But I assert with absolute confidence that the English word "marriage" was born in the Christian church and it's silly for you to argue otherwise.

BTW, that book you quoted sounds fucking retarded. I'd like to see exactly what her proof of marriage in the paleolithic era is. How exactly she can know whether or not something existed pre-cuneiform. She sounds to be about as much of an authority on the subject as you are.


okay im really not gonna argue with you on this anymore. you "assert with absolute confidence" (without citation) that the english language word for marriage is a christian invention and then offer a baseless and vague critique of the author i cited. i retract everything ive said.

oh, and apparently it is impossible to construct historical knowledge about cultures that existed before recorded history despite the existence of entire academic disciplines expressly dedicated to furthering our understanding of early humans. who needs anthropology and archaeology anyways? its not like we developed a fairly accurate fossil record and figured out what dinosaurs were doing hundreds of millions of years ago....

humanoid
11-09-2009, 11:16 AM
Here are some pics from Palm Springs Pride Parade today.


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w302/gaypalmsprings/P1010798.jpg


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w302/gaypalmsprings/P1010799.jpg



If gays want to be taken seriously they should try and avoid displays such as this....personally, I don't care at all if these guys want to parade the streets in their underwear, but I feel that it only serves to galvanize the conviction of their opponents. The organizers of events such as this need to be more intelligent and realize that these images only reinforce the notions many have that gays are all heathens that are promiscuous and lack any respect for social conventions and want to spend their days roaming the streets naked, converting children into their gay lifestyle. Of course reasonable people know this is not true, but the average voter may very well be appalled by outlandish behavior like this. I don't think it does gay rights activists a service for people to connect gay rights with mostly naked men parading the streets with "legalize gay" on their asses.

captncrzy
11-09-2009, 11:21 AM
You guys don't see the real issue at hand. If we tolerate gay people and let them get married then pretty soon we're gonna have to let the sick fucks that pork animals do it too. Then I'll have to worry about keeping some asshole's bitch terrier of a wife off my goddamn lawn.

I assume you're kidding. If you're not, I'd like to stab you in the face.

MissingPerson
11-09-2009, 11:49 AM
I just presumed it was Randy again after the first round of trolling didn't take.

psycobetabuckdown
11-09-2009, 11:52 AM
See how Randy and SoulDischarge had an argument about gay marriage without even understanding that both of them were arguing on different planes? That's the problem with discourses like this. Define marriage before you try to break it down. Are we talking about legal marriage or religious marriage or some other type? It seems like legal, but what is the legal definition of marriage? Does anyone even know? I have a hunch SoulDischarge was on the right track.


I assume you're kidding. If you're not, I'd like to stab you in the face.

Relax, and laugh. It was funny.

captncrzy
11-09-2009, 11:54 AM
It's not funny when it's the argument that severe right-wing bible bangers are making.

psycobetabuckdown
11-09-2009, 11:58 AM
Yeah but this poster was clearly joking, so it was funny. But I have the feeling if a bible banger made that argument IRL I would probably spit out whatever I was drinking cartoonishly and walk away.

captncrzy
11-09-2009, 12:01 PM
Yeah, I assumed he was joking. But I'm extremely bitchy today and wanted to threaten someone with a stabbing.

Also, Bill O'Reiley made a comment along the lines of "what's next, if you want to marry a turtle, you can?" I sincerely wish someone would take him out.

humanoid
11-09-2009, 12:06 PM
I already married my turtle in a private ceremony, no one can take that away from us

TomAz
11-09-2009, 12:13 PM
If gays want to be taken seriously they should try and avoid displays such as this....personally, I don't care at all if these guys want to parade the streets in their underwear, but I feel that it only serves to galvanize the conviction of their opponents. The organizers of events such as this need to be more intelligent and realize that these images only reinforce the notions many have that gays are all heathens that are promiscuous and lack any respect for social conventions and want to spend their days roaming the streets naked, converting children into their gay lifestyle. Of course reasonable people know this is not true, but the average voter may very well be appalled by outlandish behavior like this. I don't think it does gay rights activists a service for people to connect gay rights with mostly naked men parading the streets with "legalize gay" on their asses.

Right. cuz straight people never walk around in revealing or suggestive attire.

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Business/images-3/hooters-waitresses-3.jpg

Drinkey McDrinkerstein
11-09-2009, 12:15 PM
It's not funny when it's the argument that severe right-wing bible bangers are making.

While I agree with you, the punchline of the joke was pretty damn funny

psycobetabuckdown
11-09-2009, 12:18 PM
Right. cuz straight people never walk around in revealing or suggestive attire.

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Business/images-3/hooters-waitresses-3.jpg

Tom. Humanoid wasn't saying gay people should never walk around in their underwear - I believe what he meant was that they shouldn't do it at rallies or other events related to their cause. I agree. Who are they trying to convince, other gay people?

humanoid
11-09-2009, 12:18 PM
Right. cuz straight people never walk around in revealing or suggestive attire.

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Business/images-3/hooters-waitresses-3.jpg

tom....do you really not understand my point???

you post a picture of two girls who work in a specific place recognized for employees in revealing outfits and you think that is analogous to guys walking around in their tiny underwear on public streets?

Like I stated, I personally do not care about the guys in their underwear, and i fully support equal rights for gay people.

I simply think that going the shocking route does them no favors in winning over "middle America"

TomAz
11-09-2009, 12:21 PM
If those negroes would have just gone ahead and sat in the back of the bus, we wouldn't have had all that fuss.

humanoid
11-09-2009, 12:23 PM
If those negroes would have just gone ahead and sat in the back of the bus, we wouldn't have had all that fuss.

you're completely bastardizing a point that was never made in a false manner in order to be argumentative and attempt to disqualify my point

did I say anything of that nature or are you just trying to pick a fight?

TomAz
11-09-2009, 12:30 PM
I think you're wrong. You're saying the gays should be given equal rights just as long as they don't act gay, because that might offend people. From where I sit, that's akin to saying the negroes should be given equal rights just as long as they don't get all uppity.

And to claim that Hooters waitresses are a localized isolated phonomenon is either naive or deliberately disingenuous. Straight people dress up in sexy, revealing clothing in public all the time. But you say gays shouldn't do it and I'm saying that's a double standard.

HAMMERHEAD
11-09-2009, 12:32 PM
I simply think that going the shocking route does them no favors in winning over "middle America"

you make a good point. the same thing happened with the anti-war movement in the 60s. Nixon turned middle-america, "the silent majority", against the anti-war movement by castigating them. Nixon portrayed them as the boisterous, radical, and misguided counter-culture upon which normal, good Americans could be contrasted against. its us vs. them politics and republicans are damn good at it. i can understand the necessity of being noticed, but there are better and more effective ways of drawing middle-america's attention to your cause.

humanoid
11-09-2009, 12:39 PM
I think you're wrong. You're saying the gays should be given equal rights just as long as they don't act gay, because that might offend people. From where I sit, that's akin to saying the negroes should be given equal rights just as long as they don't get all uppity.

And to claim that Hooters waitresses are a localized isolated phonomenon is either naive or deliberately disingenuous. Straight people dress up in sexy, revealing clothing in public all the time. But you say gays shouldn't do it and I'm saying that's a double standard.


I feel that you're misinterpreting what I am saying and trying to take the dramatic route of comparing my opinion to ignorant racism in an effort to undermine what I am saying.

I think you saying that guys walking the streets in their tiny ball hugging skivvies is "acting gay" is serving to perpetuate a stereotype and is worse than anything I said.

Is that how all gay men act? I have a ton of gay friends, many who behave in this manner, and many who would be appalled by this. Gay people run the gamut of all styles of behavior & personality just as straight people do.

TomAz
11-09-2009, 12:41 PM
No they don't. They all have bushy mustaches, extreme overbites and talk with lisps. And sashay their hips when they walk.

TomAz
11-09-2009, 12:44 PM
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w302/gaypalmsprings/P1010798.jpg


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w302/gaypalmsprings/P1010795.jpg


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w302/gaypalmsprings/P1010799.jpg

Why are those any more inappropriate or wrong than something like this:

http://dailyblabber.ivillage.com/entertainment/barsportsIllustrated.jpg

humanoid
11-09-2009, 12:46 PM
I think you're wrong. You're saying the gays should be given equal rights just as long as they don't act gay, because that might offend people. From where I sit, that's akin to saying the negroes should be given equal rights just as long as they don't get all uppity.

And to claim that Hooters waitresses are a localized isolated phonomenon is either naive or deliberately disingenuous. Straight people dress up in sexy, revealing clothing in public all the time. But you say gays shouldn't do it and I'm saying that's a double standard.

also...did you not read the part where I said I could care less how these guys dress??

I think that gays are in a battle to convince many conservative Americans that they deserve rights the exact same as every other American. I said I don't think it serves their purposes the best to have those same conservative people associate gay rights with the most dramatic stereotypical "gay" images that they are so terrified of...

in no way am I saying that gays shouldn't dress up in revealing clothing, I am saying that I think it could possibly hurt their cause with conservative minded Americans that they need to win over in order to win a popular vote on the issue of their rights.

mountmccabe
11-09-2009, 12:47 PM
Tom, I think you're making an important point but it is being lost by the examples you are choosing. Humanoid is able to disregard your point because the pictures you're posting are from more private/easy to ignore things. Post pictures of women/men in parades that are dressed skimpy/sexy and he won't have that easy dismissal.

mountmccabe
11-09-2009, 12:52 PM
I think that gays are in a battle to convince many conservative Americans that they deserve rights the exact same as every other American. I said I don't think it serves their purposes the best to have those same conservative people associate gay rights with the most dramatic stereotypical "gay" images that they are so terrified of...

in no way am I saying that gays shouldn't dress up in revealing clothing, I am saying that I think it could possibly hurt their cause with conservative minded Americans that they need to win over in order to win a popular vote on the issue of their rights.

Also, I suppose, this is a different thing and differently flawed.

Your message is 'if you dress/act more conservatively then the conservative folks will like you more.'

I think it'll make such a minor difference that it isn't worth kowtowing to their ways.

Also if the problem is that conservative folks are scared that homosexual folks have secrets and hidden agendas... then advising homosexuals to be secretive and hide their agenda isn't going to help in the long run.

humanoid
11-09-2009, 12:55 PM
Tom, I think you're making an important point but it is being lost by the examples you are choosing. Humanoid is able to disregard your point because the pictures you're posting are from more private/easy to ignore things. Post pictures of women/men in parades that are dressed skimpy/sexy and he won't have that easy dismissal.



once again though, I am a strong supporter of gay rights. I fully assert that gay people deserve the same rights as the rest of us. I recently lived for several years in Laguna Beach which is an area highly populated by gay people. Tons of my friends are gay, so in no way am I discriminatory against gay people. I want my friends to win this battle for their rights.


I am not dismissing Tom's point, but saying that he attempting to portray my point in a different light so that he can easily undermine it.

TomAz
11-09-2009, 12:55 PM
I think that gays are in a battle to convince many conservative Americans that they deserve rights the exact same as every other American. I said I don't think it serves their purposes the best to have those same conservative people associate gay rights with the most dramatic stereotypical "gay" images that they are so terrified of...



I disagree. There is no reason to 'convince' conservative americans, just as there was no need to 'convince' racists in the Deep South that blacks should be given equal rights. Humans have fundamental rights and do not have to 'convince' anyone that they 'deserve' them. And it's not like those people will ever be convinced anyway. It's an old bigotry that can only die out slowly as its adherents themselves die.

I recognize my position is idealistic and yours pragmatic. I just think pragmatism is the wrong way to go here. Pragmatism got us Jim Crow laws and 'separate but equal' and all that. No. There can be no compromise when it comes to an issue of fundamental human rights.

TomAz
11-09-2009, 12:56 PM
Tom, I think you're making an important point but it is being lost by the examples you are choosing. Humanoid is able to disregard your point because the pictures you're posting are from more private/easy to ignore things. Post pictures of women/men in parades that are dressed skimpy/sexy and he won't have that easy dismissal.

Sports Illustrated is about as mainstream as it gets.

Drinkey McDrinkerstein
11-09-2009, 01:02 PM
Sports Illustrated is about as mainstream as it gets.

also, stand in any supermarket line and look at the what's on the stands right at checkout..tabloids with shots of celebrities in bikinis, cosmo covers, maxim, health and beauty, etc etc

we have incredibly repulsive double standards in this country

amyzzz
11-09-2009, 01:09 PM
That model needs to eat something.

humanoid
11-09-2009, 01:22 PM
I disagree. There is no reason to 'convince' conservative americans, just as there was no need to 'convince' racists in the Deep South that blacks should be given equal rights. Humans have fundamental rights and do not have to 'convince' anyone that they 'deserve' them. And it's not like those people will ever be convinced anyway. It's an old bigotry that can only die out slowly as its adherents themselves die.

I recognize my position is idealistic and yours pragmatic. I just think pragmatism is the wrong way to go here. Pragmatism got us Jim Crow laws and 'separate but equal' and all that. No. There can be no compromise when it comes to an issue of fundamental human rights.

I agree that there should be no reason to "convince" people that anyone "deserves" equal rights. But in reality, I think that is necessary to a degree. Peoples' long held bigotry does die out as they pass, but they also use the imagery of guys in their underwear, parading down the streets to reinforce their ridiculous notion that gays are exactly how they have always feared and they pass that down to their children.

Of course, the hardline anti-gay people usually hold their discriminatory views very close to their hearts and cannot be swayed either way. But, I do believe that there is a large group of people closer to the middle who may possibly be swayed with a little urging and more education on the subject.

Do I think gays should not be allowed to dress however they wish? Of course not, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I do feel however, that when they are fighting to get another measure on the ballot, immediately after having one recently shot down, helping to reinforce their opponents' fears and stereotypes doesn't help.

Those images are perfect for anti gay propaganda. "look see? gays wanna parade down the streets in their smallest underwear possible, soon they'll be having orgies and fucking in the streets"

obviously that is completely ignorant, but fear is such the driving force in so many political campaigns, I think that only helps to make it easier for them.

humanoid
11-09-2009, 01:23 PM
also, stand in any supermarket line and look at the what's on the stands right at checkout..tabloids with shots of celebrities in bikinis, cosmo covers, maxim, health and beauty, etc etc

we have incredibly repulsive double standards in this country



this is absolutely true, but they're not my double standards

TomAz
11-09-2009, 01:25 PM
I agree that there should be no reason to "convince" people that anyone "deserves" equal rights. But in reality, I think that is necessary to a degree. Peoples' long held bigotry does die out as they pass, but they also use the imagery of guys in their underwear, parading down the streets to reinforce their ridiculous notion that gays are exactly how they have always feared and they pass that down to their children.

Of course, the hardline anti-gay people usually hold their discriminatory views very close to their hearts and cannot be swayed either way. But, I do believe that there is a large group of people closer to the middle who may possibly be swayed with a little urging and more education on the subject.

Do I think gays should not be allowed to dress however they wish? Of course not, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I do feel however, that when they are fighting to get another measure on the ballot, immediately after having one recently shot down, helping to reinforce their opponents' fears and stereotypes doesn't help.

Those images are perfect for anti gay propaganda. "look see? gays wanna parade down the streets in their smallest underwear possible, soon they'll be having orgies and fucking in the streets"

obviously that is completely ignorant, but fear is such the driving force in so many political campaigns, I think that only helps to make it easier for them.

see, I disagree. This is compromising on the bigot's terms. No dice.

humanoid
11-09-2009, 01:33 PM
see, I disagree. This is compromising on the bigot's terms. No dice.

okay, well I would prefer that gays win their equal rights rather than being impossibly stubborn and continuing to lose

I'm not sure the important part of this is holding on to the "right" to wear underwear on the streets

humanoid
11-09-2009, 01:34 PM
plus, I don't know of any political victory that didn't initially include some form of compromise

Monklish
11-09-2009, 01:37 PM
You guys don't see the real issue at hand. If we tolerate gay people and let them get married then pretty soon we're gonna have to let the sick fucks that pork animals do it too. Then I'll have to worry about keeping some asshole's bitch terrier of a wife off my goddamn lawn.


I would refute this if I thought it was, you know, serious.


I assume you're kidding. If you're not, I'd like to stab you in the face.


I just presumed it was Randy again after the first round of trolling didn't take.

Guys, all he was doing was a pale imitation of my much funnier comment in the beginning of this thread:


Guys, let's face facts:

faggots are gross. I mean, look at me. I'm a disgusting pedophile obsessed with banging little boys against their will. If we let this shit get outta hand, pretty soon we'll be fucking dogs.

Monklish
11-09-2009, 01:41 PM
okay im really not gonna argue with you on this anymore. you "assert with absolute confidence" (without citation) that the english language word for marriage is a christian invention and then offer a baseless and vague critique of the author i cited. i retract everything ive said.

oh, and apparently it is impossible to construct historical knowledge about cultures that existed before recorded history despite the existence of entire academic disciplines expressly dedicated to furthering our understanding of early humans. who needs anthropology and archaeology anyways? its not like we developed a fairly accurate fossil record and figured out what dinosaurs were doing hundreds of millions of years ago....

God you're dumb. You're trying to compare reconstructing knowledge of animals that existed before our time through fossils to extrapolating assumptions about the social behaviors of human societies that existed before any form of the written word. How in the fuck can you possibly presume to know what the customs of a culture who had no method of record were? You're just assuming shit. By the same token, marriage existed in cavemen society too.

MissingPerson
11-09-2009, 01:43 PM
Wasn't funny then, wasn't funny when it was in your signature, it hasn't miraculously gotten any funnier in the meantime. It just got increasingly feeble and weird, and even then it's too awkward to be even unintentionally amusing.

There's dignity in knowing when to let a non-starter go, man.

TomAz
11-09-2009, 01:47 PM
okay, well I would prefer that gays win their equal rights rather than being impossibly stubborn and continuing to lose

I'm not sure the important part of this is holding on to the "right" to wear underwear on the streets

See, you keep using phrases like this. "win" their equal rights. No. the rights already exist, it is the recognition of those rights by others that needs to be corrected.

And the important part of the 'right' to wear your underwear on the streets is that heterosexuals have that right, and too say that gays should not because they might look faggy to bigots is stupid.

Monklish
11-09-2009, 01:48 PM
Wasn't funny then, wasn't funny when it was in your signature, it hasn't miraculously gotten any funnier in the meantime. It just got increasingly feeble and weird, and even then it's too awkward to be even unintentionally amusing.

There's dignity in knowing when to let a non-starter go, man.

it's pretty funny when you take the Monklish pedophile persona into account.

Monklish
11-09-2009, 01:49 PM
See, you keep using phrases like this. "win" their equal rights. No. the rights already exist, it is the recognition of those rights by others that needs to be corrected.

And the important part of the 'right' to wear your underwear on the streets is that heterosexuals have that right, and too say that gays should not because they might look faggy to bigots is stupid.

Can't say I agree that the rights exist. There is no such thing as an inalienable right. They don't have the right, so how can you say they exist?

humanoid
11-09-2009, 01:53 PM
See, you keep using phrases like this. "win" their equal rights. No. the rights already exist, it is the recognition of those rights by others that needs to be corrected.

And the important part of the 'right' to wear your underwear on the streets is that heterosexuals have that right, and too say that gays should not because they might look faggy to bigots is stupid.



okay well you got your wish, you got to call my argument stupid


as of right now, legally , gays do not have completely equal rights and are in a battle to "win" the legal rights...I don't quite get your argument there Tom...if the recognition of those rights by others needs to be corrected by "winning" a vote over the matter...what is wrong with using the term "win"?

TomAz
11-09-2009, 01:57 PM
The rights do not need to be won. The recognition of the rights does. It's a subtle but fundamental difference.

Put it this way: If the rights are not 'won', then no injustice exists because no one's rights are being violated, since the rights do not exist. If the rights do not need to be won, and instead people simply fail to recognize those rights, then an injustice exists until those rights are recognized.

Monklish
11-09-2009, 02:01 PM
I don't understand in the least what you're trying to say. How can you claim they need to win recognition of rights that don't exist?

TomAz
11-09-2009, 02:04 PM
There is no such thing as an inalienable right.

You have no right to say that.

ha ha.



Yeah I know that whole argument but I think it's horseshit. Arguing that all rights are merely social constructs leads to all sorts of bizarre and ugly possibilities.

Monklish
11-09-2009, 02:11 PM
but it's true though. Take the ones in the Declaration:

Right to life: try and tell someone with a terminal illness that they have an inalienable right to life.

Liberty: Obviously not a natural right, liberty had to be paid for with the blood of patriots.

The pursuit of happiness: Technically true but through a loophole of language. We all have the right to PURSUE happiness, which effectively means nothing. Even a prisoner or slave can be said to have the right to pursue happiness.



And the right to marry is certainly not a natural one either, as evidenced by the fact that, well, gays can't get married. Neither can 14 year olds. Et cetera.

TomAz
11-09-2009, 02:23 PM
Your argument is that a right isn't a right unless it is recognized by the state. Fuck that.

HAMMERHEAD
11-09-2009, 02:35 PM
How in the fuck can you possibly presume to know what the customs of a culture who had no method of record were?


*sigh*

i dont even know what to tell you anymore dude. ive offered up academic sources to back my opinions and youve done nothing but spout off your self-assured opinion. the assertions made about people that existed before recorded history are the product decades/centuries of scientific research and study in the fields of archaeology and anthropology. i used the analogy of dinosaurs because it proves that we can piece together ideas about behavior, etc at a time when history could not be recorded. if we can do that for creatures that lived here hundreds of millions ago then it stands to reason that we can also come to understand the practices and customs of peoples that lived here not more than 10k years ago. it may not be complete or even entirely accurate, but at least were better off with some semblance of fact instead of your random and unbacked opinions. im not pretending to be an expert in any of what im saying. im using the relevant commentary of experts in the fields that study human development before recorded history to build opinions and then presenting them in a reasonably logical matter. can you say the same for your commentary?

HAMMERHEAD
11-09-2009, 02:46 PM
Your argument is that a right isn't a right unless it is recognized by the state. Fuck that.

this is where you get into some bread and butter fundamental political philosophy differences. not everyone believes that all humans have certain inalienable rights. thats not what this country was founded on but the idea exists nonetheless.

TomAz
11-09-2009, 02:55 PM
Yeah I know. I still think it's horseshit. It's not all social construct.

Drinkey McDrinkerstein
11-09-2009, 02:56 PM
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%253A%252F%252F208.116.9.205%252F10%25 2Fcontent%252F20262%252F1.jpg&h=b2ba6c0601f2df1b873e611b151d15bc&ref=nf

Egull
11-09-2009, 03:33 PM
Right to life: try and tell someone with a terminal illness that they have an inalienable right to life.


This is seriously ridiculous. I can't believe that you wouldn't even use an example like the death penalty. A terminal illness has nothing to do with government taking away an inalienable right.

vinylmartyr
11-09-2009, 04:46 PM
http://208.116.9.205/10/content/20262/1.jpg

gaypalmsprings
11-09-2009, 05:06 PM
http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/4/24/633762044408953105-marriage.jpg

jackstraw94086
11-09-2009, 05:45 PM
However, as it stands now, Marriage entitles straight people to something gay people can't have. And that isn't fair.

right. This should have been the entire end of the issue. Everyone should have equal opportunity to a "civil union" or whatever strictly legal term is devised to define it, and all the rights that are assigned to it.

I get irritated when some gay marriage proponents refuse to back off the term "marriage". As if "civil union" isn't good enough and isn't true equality. Sure you could ask the hardcore religious to soften their use of "marriage". But these are people who believe the order of the fossil record is explained by which animals could outrun Noah's flood the longest, or that God sent us a zombie to kick the shit out of for our own sake, or possibly that a woman's bare flesh is obsene, etc.
Which side is likely to submit to logic?

I think the irony is that the roadblock to gay marriage is conservativism within the gay marriage campaign. If the campaign for gay marriage were re-branded simply as gay rights equality then there would likely be less religious folks inclined to fight it, but I highly doubt any gay rights supporter would be any less enthusiastic about fighting for it. If a religious nut is adamant that two dudes being "married" takes the sanctity away from his own marriage then let him keep his sanctimonious bullshit and call it something else.

Monklish
11-09-2009, 06:47 PM
Your argument is that a right isn't a right unless it is recognized by the state. Fuck that.

No, my argument is that the government doesn't owe you any rights. There is no such thing as a guaranteed right.


*sigh*

i dont even know what to tell you anymore dude. ive offered up academic sources to back my opinions and youve done nothing but spout off your self-assured opinion. the assertions made about people that existed before recorded history are the product decades/centuries of scientific research and study in the fields of archaeology and anthropology. i used the analogy of dinosaurs because it proves that we can piece together ideas about behavior, etc at a time when history could not be recorded. if we can do that for creatures that lived here hundreds of millions ago then it stands to reason that we can also come to understand the practices and customs of peoples that lived here not more than 10k years ago. it may not be complete or even entirely accurate, but at least were better off with some semblance of fact instead of your random and unbacked opinions. im not pretending to be an expert in any of what im saying. im using the relevant commentary of experts in the fields that study human development before recorded history to build opinions and then presenting them in a reasonably logical matter. can you say the same for your commentary?

You quoted one piece of supposed research by some hobag named Stephanie, who herself didn't seem to be citing much of anything to back up her assertion.


This is seriously ridiculous. I can't believe that you wouldn't even use an example like the death penalty. A terminal illness has nothing to do with government taking away an inalienable right.

You don't get it. The government can't take away an inalienable right.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN INALIENABLE RIGHT.

mountmccabe
11-09-2009, 06:48 PM
I get irritated when some gay marriage proponents refuse to back off the term "marriage". As if "civil union" isn't good enough and isn't true equality. Sure you could ask the hardcore religious to soften their use of "marriage". But these are people who believe the order of the fossil record is explained by which animals could outrun Noah's flood the longest, or that God sent us a zombie to kick the shit out of for our own sake, or possibly that a woman's bare flesh is obsene, etc.
Which side is likely to submit to logic?

I think the irony is that the roadblock to gay marriage is conservativism within the gay marriage campaign. If the campaign for gay marriage were re-branded simply as gay rights equality then there would likely be less religious folks inclined to fight it, but I highly doubt any gay rights supporter would be any less enthusiastic about fighting for it. If a religious nut is adamant that two dudes being "married" takes the sanctity away from his own marriage then let him keep his sanctimonious bullshit and call it something else.

If Patrick's responses one of the previous times somebody made that exact same argument in this thread aren't enough to convince you that you're off base then I doubt me pointing out that these illogical bigots aren't going to be any happier if the purpose were actually to redefine marriage is going to mean anything.

Monklish
11-09-2009, 06:54 PM
And once again, Jack and I are the only ones in the thread who aren't retarded.

TomAz
11-09-2009, 07:09 PM
No, my argument is that the government doesn't owe you any rights. There is no such thing as a guaranteed right.

My rights do not derive from or depend on the government. Whether or not the government acknowledges those rights is a different thing.

Monklish
11-09-2009, 07:17 PM
That statement makes absolutely no sense, Tom. A "right" is a form of permission, permission is doled out by authority.

TomAz
11-09-2009, 07:18 PM
I never realized you were a fascist.

Monklish
11-09-2009, 07:22 PM
I never realized you were a preposterous idealist. None of this argument has anything to do with ideology though, I'm just talking about the semantics. I don't understand what right you can possibly be referring to that doesn't involve an authority.

JebusLives
11-09-2009, 07:41 PM
If Patrick's responses one of the previous times somebody made that exact same argument in this thread aren't enough to convince you that you're off base then I doubt me pointing out that these illogical bigots aren't going to be any happier if the purpose were actually to redefine marriage is going to mean anything.

I just want you to know that I read this sentence to myself twice, had a stiff drink, did some sit ups, and then read it again. Still nothing.

SoulDischarge
11-09-2009, 07:45 PM
Yeah, I assumed he was joking. But I'm extremely bitchy today and wanted to threaten someone with a stabbing.

Also, Bill O'Reiley made a comment along the lines of "what's next, if you want to marry a turtle, you can?" I sincerely wish someone would take him out.

http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/1998-09-14/index-1.gif

JebusLives
11-09-2009, 07:56 PM
Oh, just catching up... on page 5 humanoid is out to lunch, and TomAz is correct. Humanoid simply isn't aware of how hetero-sexualized everyday society is, because humanoid is heterosexual. That is all I have for now.

mountmccabe
11-09-2009, 08:10 PM
I just want you to know that I read this sentence to myself twice, had a stiff drink, did some sit ups, and then read it again. Still nothing.


If Patrick's responses from one of

OK, I missed a word. I put it up in bold. Another word that would've worked there would be "to." The meaning of this clause should be clear, though, go read what Patrick wrote.



one of the previous times somebody made that exact same argument in this thread

What you (Jack) are saying has been said and responded to multiple times in this thread. Thanks for adding nothing.



aren't enough to convince you that you're off base

You (Jack) are off base.



then I doubt me pointing out... is going to mean anything.

I realize that what I'm doing here is pointless. Also it might've been more clear if I'd've ended that with a "to you."



that these illogical bigots

Jack had just referred to the lack of logic employed by the conservative religious folk. I am referring to that and throwing in the "bigots" on my own.



aren't going to be any happier if the purpose

OK, take out "purpose" and throw in "goal of the gay rights movement"



actually to redefine marriage

One of the battle cries of the conservatives is that folks that want gay marriage are trying to redefine marriage, fearing that this will ruin marriage. This is a silly claim made with complete ignorance of the history of marriage and how often it has been "redefined."

What Jack is advocating is that we redefine "marriage" to be just a religious thing and use "civil union" for legal matters.

Jack is saying that the way to appease the folks (that are currently crying out against gay rights folks for trying to redefine marriage) is to actually try to redefine marriage.

Which I find ridiculous beyond words.


Here's the whole thing again so you can practice your reading comprehension


If Patrick's responses one of the previous times somebody made that exact same argument in this thread aren't enough to convince you that you're off base then I doubt me pointing out that these illogical bigots aren't going to be any happier if the purpose were actually to redefine marriage is going to mean anything.

SoulDischarge
11-09-2009, 08:14 PM
I've seen a similar debate about gays attending gay rights rallies in outlandish attire (skimpy underwear, drag, etc) on a gay message board. There were a few people who were upset that they were being represented by the most fringe elements of the community, when they themselves are more "normal" and "straight-acting." It was a pretty interesting debate and a lot of good points were brought up. I wasn't really sure which side I took at first, but in the end I ended up on the side of the more flamboyant types. One point that was made is that some of the pioneering gay rights activists in this country were drag queens and stereotypes. Another point being made is that these people are actually out there fighting for their rights, regardless of their attire, while the more conservative (not in a political sense) gay men weren't make themselves be seen at these events, just bitching about their more flamboyant counterparts in the streets.

I'm still not sure it's the most effective approach, but the fight isn't just for straight acting gay men to be married. It's for the entire LGBT community to have all the same rights as straight people, including the right to express themselves as they see fit. There's also a degree of sexual liberty being fought for. While it's not illegal for two men to make out or hold hands in public, you're not likely to see it that often except in areas with a rather significant gay population, like San Francisco and parts of LA. Do it in a small town in Oklahoma and you might live to regret it. Meanwhile, the straight world flaunts its sexuality in far more outrageous ways all over the country on a daily basis. So, yes, the marriage thing is the big issue to rally around, but that's not the only issue at stake. The real fight is to create a world where gays, lesbians, and transgendered people feel every bit as comfortable about being themselves in public as straight people. I know that's seems pretty quixotic, but when you feel like 80% of the general population despises you and wants you dead just for being who you are, you need a little idealism to make life bearable.

Monklish
11-09-2009, 08:21 PM
What Jack is advocating is that we redefine "marriage" to be just a religious thing and use "civil union" for legal matters.

Jack is saying that the way to appease the folks (that are currently crying out against gay rights folks for trying to redefine marriage) is to actually try to redefine marriage.


I still don't understand how you guys don't get this. What we're advocating is that we let them keep their meaning of "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman, but create a legal term like civil union that can then mean any union between any two people. I like how you silly asses really think we'd have better luck trying to convince the religious conservatives to let us change the meaning of marriage to include an act that they condemn as being against God than we would trying to create a new term granting legal rights to any couple regardless of orientation and turn significance of "marriage" back to religion.

humanoid
11-09-2009, 08:26 PM
Oh, just catching up... on page 5 humanoid is out to lunch, and TomAz is correct. Humanoid simply isn't aware of how hetero-sexualized everyday society is, because humanoid is heterosexual. That is all I have for now.

I've talked to plenty of gay people who feel the same way. It's not just my "out to lunch" hetero self.

once again, I personally am in favor of people looking and acting how they wish, I simply don't think that is the best approach for swaying the general public when trying to fight for the recognition of their equal rights (there you go Tom).

I'm out to lunch, thank you for your tremendously insightful input.


I think Soul Discharge makes some great points in his post regarding the issue.

SoulDischarge
11-09-2009, 08:35 PM
Here are the reasons.

1. Marriage is already a legal term that's been detached from its religious meaning. There is an alternate, religious definition of marriage, but that's something else altogether.

2. We're not trying to appease the conservatives, because, ultimately, what they think is irrelevant. This is an issue that needs to be resolved in the courts, in the same way segregation was with Brown v. Board Of Edcuation.

3. Despite what conservatives say about protecting the sanctity of marriage, they don't really give a fuck about that, or else they would outlaw divorce. The main thing is they think queers are an abomination of God and nature and shouldn't have the same rights as straight people, regardless of what you call it. If the gay community said, "Alright, fine, we just want civil unions so long as they have all the EXACT same rights as marriage," you'd get the same amount of resistance from conservatives. Which really doesn't matter because they're fucking irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is the Constitution.

4. Having a distinction between a straight marriage and a gay civil union creates the impression that one is superior and one is inferior. While it would be progress for legal rights, it does nothing to advance the social imperatives in making the LGBT community equal. That being said, I'm pretty sure most people would be willing to settle for just their rights at this point in time, but there's still the other 3 points.

Monklish
11-09-2009, 08:44 PM
Everything about this is so naive and dumb. Marriage now has a legal meaning and a religious meaning, and both sides are fighting to maintain control over the legal meaning of the word. What's sad is that our side--who are supposed to be the sensible ones--don't seem to be willing to let go of the battle for control of that word any more than the religious fanatics.

With regards to point 3 of Soul's: you have absolutely no way of knowing what the reaction of the conservatives to the idea of gay civil unions would be. But that's all beside the point, the point is which battle do we have a better chance of winning in court. If you take the word "marriage" out of the equation then it becomes strictly a rights issue, which we can win.

Instead you assholes keep wanting to fight a fight on their terms.

Egull
11-09-2009, 09:20 PM
And once again, Jack and I are the only ones in the thread who aren't retarded.

Notice how one other person agrees with what you are saying.

SoulDischarge
11-09-2009, 09:22 PM
No. You're fighting on their terms by claiming marriage is their word. It's ALREADY strictly a rights issue.

Monklish
11-09-2009, 09:34 PM
Sigh... you know what? You don't deserve the right. You're just as fucking dense as the *** haters.

Alternate
11-09-2009, 10:22 PM
you are smart monklish.

HAMMERHEAD
11-10-2009, 08:28 AM
You quoted one piece of supposed research by some hobag named Stephanie, who herself didn't seem to be citing much of anything to back up her assertion.


have you read the book i referenced? have you even looked inside of it? skimmed it perhaps? browsed through the endnotes? i didn't think so. this makes you no more qualified than my third testicle to critique that source. it would be wise to shut the fuck up.

oh also i quoted 3 authors dumbass. you fail at reading among countless other things in life.

and i ask you again (since you ducked my question last time)...where are the citations to back up what YOU have to say?


That statement makes absolutely no sense, Tom. A "right" is a form of permission, permission is doled out by authority.

civil rights are protections from unequal treatment by an authority on the basis of gender, age, race, religion, etc. rights aren't given to citizens by an authority, rather they are your natural, unalienable rights that supercede any form of government. these are the same natural rights that Locke, Jefferson, Paine, and countless others have talked about. thats why in the declaration of independence says very clearly, "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." what don't you get about an unalienable right? the founding fathers acknowledged these rights as preceding any form of government. this was stated long before a formal government existed in the U.S., even before the U.S. had won its independence. this isn't just some sub-clause in the constitution or bill of rights. there have only been a few who have tried to challenge the notion of inalienable rights, most notably burke and rousseau. sadly, these were a bunch of old european dudes from the 18th century whose commentary was largely ignored by our founding fathers (thank god). you can assert your belief that there are no such things as natural rights but you better be prepared to acknowledge that the thinkers that founded this country believed quite strongly in the existence of these rights and drafted the constitution as such.

Monklish
11-10-2009, 08:35 AM
Inalienable, not unalienable, you illiterate fuckbag. And go try to tell some Sudanese refugees about their inalienable rights to life and liberty.

HAMMERHEAD
11-10-2009, 08:57 AM
Inalienable, not unalienable, you illiterate fuckbag. And go try to tell some Sudanese refugees about their inalienable rights to life and liberty.

okay you've really outdone yourself this time on the moron scale.

first off, unalienable and inalienable are semantically equivalent words: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unalienable

second, the declaration of independence uses the word "unalienable" if you really wanna get down to it. ill provide 6 different sources to prove this just to contribute further to the embarrassment you have already caused yourself by continuing to post in this thread.

this is an image of the constitution. 3rd line down, 3rd word from the left: http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/DOCUMENTS/DECLARATION/us_declarationE.jpg

text: http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

text:http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

text: http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

text: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/declare.asp

and a clearer image of the declaration: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Us_declaration_independence.jpg


oh, and those Sudanese refugees also have inalienable rights. they just happen to live under a politically unstable and repressive government that continually infringes upon these rights. now please leave.


**edit** and i ask you for the 3rd time now, where are the sources to back up what you've been saying?

and yes, i did use both inalienable and unalienable in this post to illustrate my point

TomAz
11-10-2009, 09:00 AM
I was reading this book about Sudanese refugees. There were a whole group of them, young boys, wandering alone, single file down this path. Trying to make it to Kenya I think. Anyway as they're walking down the path, a lion jumps out, grabs one of the boys, and carries him into the bush. The rest of the boys could hear the boys screams and cries and then it stopped. That's when I put the book down.

TomAz
11-10-2009, 09:01 AM
Here are the reasons.

1. Marriage is already a legal term that's been detached from its religious meaning. There is an alternate, religious definition of marriage, but that's something else altogether.

2. We're not trying to appease the conservatives, because, ultimately, what they think is irrelevant. This is an issue that needs to be resolved in the courts, in the same way segregation was with Brown v. Board Of Edcuation.

3. Despite what conservatives say about protecting the sanctity of marriage, they don't really give a fuck about that, or else they would outlaw divorce. The main thing is they think queers are an abomination of God and nature and shouldn't have the same rights as straight people, regardless of what you call it. If the gay community said, "Alright, fine, we just want civil unions so long as they have all the EXACT same rights as marriage," you'd get the same amount of resistance from conservatives. Which really doesn't matter because they're fucking irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is the Constitution.

4. Having a distinction between a straight marriage and a gay civil union creates the impression that one is superior and one is inferior. While it would be progress for legal rights, it does nothing to advance the social imperatives in making the LGBT community equal. That being said, I'm pretty sure most people would be willing to settle for just their rights at this point in time, but there's still the other 3 points.

Well said.

greghead
11-10-2009, 09:25 AM
you can assert your belief that there are no such things as natural rights but you better be prepared to acknowledge that the thinkers that founded this country believed quite strongly in the existence of these rights and drafted the constitution as such.

You are overlooking the fact that our "founding fathers" believed that only property-owning, white males should have the right to vote and participate in the public sphere, that the masses should be kept out of politics because they were viewed as dirty, uneducated, and could not be trusted to make the "proper" decisions (which is why Senators were not elected in a popular vote until the 1910s and we still elect Presidents indirectly through the electoral college and not through a popular vote). These are the same people that officially designated African-Americans as being only 3/5 human, inscribing inequality into the Constitution and creating institutionalized racism in this country. Please do not be so quick to heap praise upon them. Just becuase they believed in inalienable rights does not mean they were correct or that I should I believe in them too.

And please don't equate the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution, they are two very different documents created 11 years apart by people under largely different circumstances, and with different goals in mind. Everybody in this thread needs to brush up on their Constitutional history.


And to the Tom/Randy debate over rights: I agree with Randy, inherent or natural rights don't exist simply because John Locke or Thomas Jefferson said they do, or because we've all been coddled at the teet for so long that we accept it as fact. We're just animals, we don't possess any rights by nature. These rights exist simply because they are promised to us by a government "we" created and continue maintain. Nature doesn't provide those rights, social institutions do.

Regardless of all this, the 14th Amendment, specifically the "equal protection clause," is being violated when gays are denied equal rights and protection under the law. I simply don't understand how this can be viewed any other way.

psycobetabuckdown
11-10-2009, 09:43 AM
1. Marriage is already a legal term that's been detached from its religious meaning. There is an alternate, religious definition of marriage, but that's something else altogether.

And you just want the legal stuff right? I can't imagine you'd want a religious marriage.


3. The only thing that's relevant is the Constitution.

Where does the Constitution allow the government to control marital ceremonies, or legislate anything involving marriage, gay or straight?


4. Having a distinction between a straight marriage and a gay civil union creates the impression that one is superior and one is inferior. While it would be progress for legal rights, it does nothing to advance the social imperatives in making the LGBT community equal. That being said, I'm pretty sure most people would be willing to settle for just their rights at this point in time, but there's still the other 3 points.

I agree with Randy that gays shouldn't be going for everything at once, just for strategy's sake at least.


And to the Tom/Randy debate over rights: I agree with Randy, inherent or natural rights don't exist simply because John Locke or Thomas Jefferson said they do, or because we've all been coddled at the teet for so long that we accept it as fact. We're just animals, we don't possess any rights by nature. These rights exist simply because they are promised to us by a government "we" created and continue maintain. Nature doesn't provide those rights, social institutions do.

The government never promised us rights. It promised us it would not infringe upon our rights. Read the First Amendment closely if you want an example.

But I agree with you, the rights do not exist because John Locke or Thomas Jefferson said so. They wouldn't have wanted you to believe that either. However, the idea of a right being "given" to you by the government is ludicrous. If you believe it is wrong for another man to take your life, liberty, property, etc. than you believe you have the right to it, correct? This would still be correct if you lived in Cuba or Antarctica.

HAMMERHEAD
11-10-2009, 10:08 AM
You are overlooking the fact that our "founding fathers" believed that only property-owning, white males should have the right to vote and participate in the public sphere, that the masses should be kept out of politics because they were viewed as dirty, uneducated, and could not be trusted to make the "proper" decisions (which is why Senators were not elected in a popular vote until the 1950s and we still elect Presidents indirectly through the electoral college and not through a popular vote). These are the same people that officially designated African-Americans as being only 3/5 human, essentially creating institutional racism in this country. Please do not be so quick to heap praise upon them. Just becuase they believed in inalienable rights does not mean they were correct or that I should I believe in them too.

And please don't equate the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution, they are two very different documents created 11 years apart by people under largely different circumstances, and with different goals in mind. Everybody in this thread needs to brush up on their Constitutional history.


the constitution provided the legal framework upon which the civil rights referenced in the declaration could be defined. im pretty familiar with the documents here and i never equated one to the other...not really sure where you got that from.

what you're talking about is the difference between doctrine and practice. what we've been doing for the last two centuries is refining the discrepancies between the founding fathers "beliefs" and the policies that emerged from them. thats why the included they amendment process in the constitution...to amend their fuck ups!




And to the Tom/Randy debate over rights: I agree with Randy, inherent or natural rights don't exist simply because John Locke or Thomas Jefferson said they do, or because we've all been coddled at the teet for so long that we accept it as fact. We're just animals, we don't possess any rights by nature. These rights exist simply because they are promised to us by a government "we" created and continue maintain. Nature doesn't provide those rights, social institutions do.


i wasn't trying to say in my post that just because locke/jefferson/etc said we have these rights that we simply do. i first stated my belief in natural rights and then said that those are the rights that locke/jefferson/others talked about. thats it.

this is the classic locke vs. hobbes debate, its centuries old, and nobody is gonna win it. the only reason i don't buy into that side is because implicit in this argument is the ability for the government to take those rights away. i prefer to presume first that i have my rights and then consent to be governed. preference is the key word here. rights are intangible notions of which the origins may never truly be determined, which is why there is so much room for debate.



Regardless of all this, the 14th Amendment, specifically the "equal protection clause," is being violated when gays are denied equal rights and protection under the law. I simply don't understand how this can be viewed any other way.


i couldn't agree more...this is why these philosophical debates are irrelevant now haha.



**edit***

to summarize my lengthy rant...lets agree to disagree?

TomAz
11-10-2009, 10:16 AM
this is the classic locke vs. hobbes debate

http://faculty.kutztown.edu/schaeffe/humor/calvin-hobbes.gif

HAMMERHEAD
11-10-2009, 10:20 AM
http://faculty.kutztown.edu/schaeffe/humor/calvin-hobbes.gif

BEST COMIC EVER.


i need to track down some of my C/H anthologies now...

psycobetabuckdown
11-10-2009, 10:32 AM
thats why the included they amendment process in the constitution...to amend their fuck ups!

That's the beautiful thing about the Constitution and that's why it works. The founding fathers could be as racist as they wanted but the document they produced was designed to work that out over time, and it did.


this is the classic locke vs. hobbes debate, its centuries old, and nobody is gonna win it. the only reason i don't buy into that side is because implicit in this argument is the ability for the government to take those rights away. i prefer to presume first that i have my rights and then consent to be governed. preference is the key word here. rights are intangible notions of which the origins may never truly be determined, which is why there is so much room for debate.

America was founded on this idea, that the people consent to be governed - that the government is controlled by the people and the people decide what's right. It doesn't always work as well as we want, but it is much better than waiting for the people to get pissed enough that they'll fight to the death to get their liberty back.

mountmccabe
11-10-2009, 11:01 AM
And you just want the legal stuff right? I can't imagine you'd want a religious marriage.

What are you getting at with this?

There are homosexuals that are religious and/or want a religious wedding. There are churches/ministers that will perform same sex marriages.

TomAz
11-10-2009, 11:05 AM
There are churches/ministers that will perform same sex marriages.

True. not fringe either. Several mainline Protestant denominations (Episcopal, UCC, certain Lutherans) have clergy that would do this if it were legal.

greghead
11-10-2009, 11:24 AM
to summarize my lengthy rant...lets agree to disagree?

Agreed. *high-five*

greghead
11-10-2009, 11:34 AM
BEST COMIC EVER.


i need to track down some of my C/H anthologies now...

Definitely the best comic of all time. For Christmas a couple years ago, my mom bought me the C & H boxed set. It's three hard-bound volumes of every C & H strip in color. Fucker weighs about 70 lbs and I cringe thinking about having to lug it around for the rest of my life, but I cannot see myself ever getting rid of it.

Drinkey McDrinkerstein
11-10-2009, 11:40 AM
Definitely the best comic of all time. For Christmas a couple years ago, my mom bought me the C & H boxed set. It's three hard-bound volumes of every C & H strip in color. Fucker weighs about 70 lbs and I cringe thinking about having to lug it around for the rest of my life, but I cannot see myself ever getting rid of it.

i've got this too and have actually been rereading all of the strips over the alst month. it's an amazing set!

HAMMERHEAD
11-10-2009, 12:04 PM
i think the only one i have left is the "days are just packed". it is likely that i have never read any book more than this. i WILL own that box set someday i have never seen it

Young blood
11-10-2009, 01:31 PM
http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs050.snc3/13737_217341331520_623906520_3988641_5796889_n.jpg

jackstraw94086
11-10-2009, 02:27 PM
OK, I missed a word. I put it up in bold. Another word that would've worked there would be "to." The meaning of this clause should be clear, though, go read what Patrick wrote.




What you (Jack) are saying has been said and responded to multiple times in this thread. Thanks for adding nothing.




You (Jack) are off base.




I realize that what I'm doing here is pointless. Also it might've been more clear if I'd've ended that with a "to you."




Jack had just referred to the lack of logic employed by the conservative religious folk. I am referring to that and throwing in the "bigots" on my own.




OK, take out "purpose" and throw in "goal of the gay rights movement"




One of the battle cries of the conservatives is that folks that want gay marriage are trying to redefine marriage, fearing that this will ruin marriage. This is a silly claim made with complete ignorance of the history of marriage and how often it has been "redefined."

What Jack is advocating is that we redefine "marriage" to be just a religious thing and use "civil union" for legal matters.

Jack is saying that the way to appease the folks (that are currently crying out against gay rights folks for trying to redefine marriage) is to actually try to redefine marriage.

Which I find ridiculous beyond words.


Here's the whole thing again so you can practice your reading comprehension

I guarantee I've had this conversation dozens of times more than most (straight) people have. It's quite a popular topic in these parts. I've heard every type of argument (including this supposed bulletproof one from Patrick) a hundred times. If Patrick can piss and moan that and throw away a potential trivial and inconsequential concession that many gay people don't even care about, then that's fucked.

Bitching and moaning and getting nothing is the most and ignorant strategy possible. Refusing to adjust to your opponents weaknesses and exploiting them is just a way to get nothing done.

If a hundred years before womens suffrage, stubborn men had offered to allow women exactly equal opportunity and weight in selecting the President as long as theirs wasn't called a "vote" should they have refused and held out another hundred years?

You cannot legislate bigotry. You can only legislate rights. Marriage is a fucking word to describe a social construct. That word is different in many languages. Denying yourselves liberty and progress because of semantics is the height of retardery.

What you find "ridiculous beyond words", is precisely that. I would concede that it's ridiculous that they may soften their stance if you dont' call it marriage, but that's exactly what polls of gay marriage opponents have shown is a sticking point. And btw, I'm not exactly advocating "redifining" anything at all. Have fun pointing out that there are plenty of religious and secular ways to use the word. Who gives a shit? All I'm saying is you remove the word "marriage" from the campaign for gay rights. Misguided people are abusing you with a weapon that you have some power to neutralize, but you just don't care.

If you believe in evolution and are worried about creationists blocking its teaching in schools, would you refuse to back down from them they conceded that the same principles could be taught if only it wasn't called evolution? It's just fucking words.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and think you're confusing this with shit like the "don't ask don't tell" military policies. Something like that would seem like a personal matter, but in cases like that people are being treated differently.

jackstraw94086
11-10-2009, 02:33 PM
Here are the reasons.

1. Marriage is already a legal term that's been detached from its religious meaning. There is an alternate, religious definition of marriage, but that's something else altogether.

2. We're not trying to appease the conservatives, because, ultimately, what they think is irrelevant. This is an issue that needs to be resolved in the courts, in the same way segregation was with Brown v. Board Of Edcuation.

3. Despite what conservatives say about protecting the sanctity of marriage, they don't really give a fuck about that, or else they would outlaw divorce. The main thing is they think queers are an abomination of God and nature and shouldn't have the same rights as straight people, regardless of what you call it. If the gay community said, "Alright, fine, we just want civil unions so long as they have all the EXACT same rights as marriage," you'd get the same amount of resistance from conservatives. Which really doesn't matter because they're fucking irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is the Constitution.

great. have fun waiting far longer than necessary for equality under the law.



4. Having a distinction between a straight marriage and a gay civil union creates the impression that one is superior and one is inferior. While it would be progress for legal rights, it does nothing to advance the social imperatives in making the LGBT community equal. That being said, I'm pretty sure most people would be willing to settle for just their rights at this point in time, but there's still the other 3 points.
creates the impression for who? you? Would YOU believe that a civil union was worth less than a marriage? What you're really complaining about is that anti-gay folks would consider a civil union worth less than a marriage. But guess what! They'd think the same thing about a gay "marriage" compared to a straight "marriage".

You cannot force anti-gay people to be happy about this shit. The BEST you could ever hope to do is disregard their hatred and live your lives under the same rights and protections as anyone else.

Jesus christ.

BlackSwan
11-10-2009, 02:43 PM
jackstraw, have you addressed the legal differences between the rights of partners in a marriage vs. partners in a civil union?

jackstraw94086
11-10-2009, 03:01 PM
jackstraw, have you addressed the legal differences between the rights of partners in a marriage vs. partners in a civil union?

You're not really getting what I'm saying, but I'll admit it's my fault by using the term "civil union" as a way to represent a fake contrast to "marriage".

a version of a civil union that does not grant exactly equal legal rights I would agree would not be satisfactory. Whatever term is devised to encompass the same thing is fine. It makes no difference as long as it grants the same rights and miseries as a traditional(ly termed) marriage .
Making the meaningless concession of not calling it a "marriage" could be a way to get compromise on the other end.

BlackSwan
11-10-2009, 03:19 PM
I assumed you were referring to something that already exists. What you are saying is now clear.

jackstraw94086
11-10-2009, 03:29 PM
We need more like what the Britsh have with "civil partnerships"
I'm not sure if civil partnerships are 100% legally indistinguishable but the one british couple I know that have "married" under one said it was the same. If anyone knows for sure what legal distinctions there are I'd love to hear.


Most importantly, there is no legal basis to discriminate against a civil partnership vs. a marriage with regards to child adoption.



EDIT: shit. I just scanned the wiki article and it says "Civil partners of male peers or knights do not receive a courtesy title to which the spouse of a peer or knight would be entitled."
Now that's just fucked. screw that. All British gays should throw away civil partnerships and keep on fighting for decades until they win that.

MissingPerson
11-10-2009, 03:47 PM
Ireland does not recognise any feudal or royal title. We don't recognise gay marriage either; but maybe we could come to some sort of buffer zone arrangement. You know, gay folk can be equally married in the UK, and then equally despised as colonial lapdogs when they're here. Progress!

Archie Bunker
11-10-2009, 04:04 PM
Let me start this off by saying that I am not Christian. I also don't see gay sex as evil or sinful, and in fact believe that most (but not all) homosexuality is a result of nature, not nurture.

With that said, I am not for gay marriage.

I am for gay civil unions, but not marriage.

Why?

I can fully empathize with gays in committed relationships feeling frustrated that they cannot enjoy the same rights and privileges as straights. For example...

- Being able to visit loved ones in the hospital
- Community property rights
- Tax benefits
- Health care benefits
- Anything else money or relationship-rights-related that comes into play due to marriage

If you want all of that stuff for your queer relationship, I'm for it.

However, as has already been pointed out on this board, marriage itself originated from a religious standpoint. The state has adopted it to some degree, but it still has religious origins, and it is still subject to society's norms and expectations. You cannot marry a chair. You cannot marry a dog. You cannot marry an immediate family member. There are restrictions, and there still will be even if gay marriage is approved.

A lot of this gay marriage stuff is much less about equal rights, and much more about thumbing their noses at the Christian church. If it were just about rights, they would be pushing for civil unions -- something much easier to pass. Instead, too many gay rights types are going for the "all-or-nothing" agenda: Either recognize us as identical to heterosexuals, or we want nothing.

Sorry, but your'e not identical to heterosexuals. You are a same-sex couple. People want to work with you and ensure that you have all of the same rights and privileges, yet you refuse all of it until you get to muscle upon the actual term "married". Can you see how this is off-putting to some people?

Also, don't compare this to "separate but equal". It's not the same at all. Separate but equal required actual SEPARATION between blacks and whites, often to the detriment of blacks, who were the minority. Civil unions do not require any form of separation from heterosexuals, nor do they allow heterosexuals any rights that gays don't have.

I really think that this is much more about getting in the Christian right's face than it is about a fight for equality.

jackstraw94086
11-10-2009, 04:17 PM
I really think that this is much more about getting in the Christian right's face than it is about a fight for equality.

*cough*

jackstraw94086
11-10-2009, 04:24 PM
I say we stall the civil rights movement until blacks are given the right to be called white.

mountmccabe
11-10-2009, 04:33 PM
How much of a change in votes do y'all actually think will be won by switching from "marriage" to "civil union that means the same as marriage"? A percent? A percent and a half?

There's still plenty of people that don't even want civil unions, which is why there're 20 states that ban - through laws or their constitution - the recognition of any such thing.

I really don't see a change in terminology getting anybody anywhere. People'ren't that stupid. And people lie.

Archie Bunker
11-10-2009, 04:44 PM
How much of a change in votes do y'all actually think will be won by switching from "marriage" to "civil union that means the same as marriage"? A percent? A percent and a half?

There's still plenty of people that don't even want civil unions, which is why there're 20 states that ban - through laws or their constitution - the recognition of any such thing.

I really don't see a change in terminology getting anybody anywhere. People'ren't that stupid. And people lie.

It will help a lot more than you think.

While the religious right will vote down any gay-rights related measure, many conservatives (like myself) are happy to give gays the rights they're looking for as long as they stop obsessing over muscling in on the term "marriage".

jackstraw94086
11-10-2009, 04:46 PM
How much of a change in votes do y'all actually think will be won by switching from "marriage" to "civil union that means the same as marriage"? A percent? A percent and a half?

There's still plenty of people that don't even want civil unions, which is why there're 20 states that ban - through laws or their constitution - the recognition of any such thing.

I really don't see a change in terminology getting anybody anywhere. People'ren't that stupid. And people lie.

The current strategy doesn't seem to be working, or at least seems to be taking far too long. I seriously doubt 20 states would be as hardcore against a civil union if they thought that it would be the end of the issue and that gays wouldn't seek "marriage".

And you're wrong. Lot's of people really are that stupid.

Being indignant in the face of ignorance is ignorance in itself.

I'll put it this way: It will cost you nothing to try. You don't lose any support, you only take fire out of the opposition.


I'll bet dollars to pesos that a great many of votes from black and latino community that helped defeat gay marriage in California would have been lost if it weren't termed marriage.
(and btw I'm not calling them stupid. I'm calling them generally more religious, which is a fact)

jackstraw94086
11-10-2009, 04:57 PM
I'm also starting a campaign to get women to reject their right to vote until they're also granted the right to be called men.

mountmccabe
11-10-2009, 05:01 PM
I say we stall the civil rights movement until blacks are given the right to be called white.


I'm also starting a campaign to get women to reject their right to vote until they're also granted the right to be called men.

Jack, you're a reasonable person; stop with this bullshit. It makes your good points easier to dismiss.

I have never come across homosexuals wanting to be called heterosexuals.

jackstraw94086
11-10-2009, 05:25 PM
Jack, you're a reasonable person; stop with this bullshit. It makes your good points easier to dismiss.

I have never come across homosexuals wanting to be called heterosexuals.


If you've come across homosexuals wanted to be called married then you have met homosexuals that want to be called the same thing as heterosexuals are called, but they're doing a heterosexual thing (according to the the people who invented it).

The women being called men point is that we're talking about fundamentally different types of people. Girls can't muscle their way into the Boy Scouts, because they're girls. They were born that way (much the same way I believe a gay person is born gay). So what do they do instead? They're Girl Scouts. Problem solved. Are the Girl Scouts of any less value than Boy Scouts? The only unbalancing factor is the cookies.

People's minds are pretty pliable over time. Call it a civil union. As long as they're treated the same way people will eventually not understand the difference (or rather understand that there is no difference). Show them that society will not fall apart if they can live the same way, then they've got no argument at all.

SoulDischarge
11-10-2009, 05:59 PM
For some reason, I felt compelled to come back to this thread after wasting so much energy on it already. Seriously last post before I take a hiatus.

I just want to clear up the fact that I'm not actually opposed to getting granted "civil unions" that are exactly the same as marriages, despite my 4th point, which was just a minor point anyway. It's better than not having the rights at all. I really don't give a fuck about the words. Call it anything you like. The point I'm trying to make is that the semantics of it are just a tactic and not the real issue. The people who are opposed to gay marriage are, by and large, more than likely going to be opposed with equal gay civil unions because it's, at the core, not really about the words, regardless of what the opposition says. Switching up the entire fight to revolve around calling the rights we're trying to be granted 'civil unions' instead of 'marriages' just seems like giving into the time wasting tactics the bigots are using. As soon as the campaign for equal civil unions is underway, the conservatives will come up with a whole new set of reasons why civil unions are a threat to marriage or a threat to God or a threat to the family or some other crazy bullshit. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe all those people who show up to gay funerals with "GOD HATES FAGS" signs will drop the case if we start trying to get civil unions instead of marriages. It just seems unlikely to me. Instead of packaging the same thing up in more appealing packaging to the conservatives for the same vote we already tried, the focus should really be on legal actions like getting the Defense Of Marriage Act declared unconstitutional. I just feel like presenting "gay marriage" as "civil unions" would be like trying to legalize murder by calling it "ice cream orgasm," (yeah, it's a really shitty analogy that doesn't quite work but fuck you) and it's just wasted effort. But whatever. It's not like I'm actually doing anything about it. This is just one passive reporter's opinion. Whatever works I guess.

mountmccabe
11-10-2009, 06:03 PM
If you've come across homosexuals wanted to be called married then you have met homosexuals that want to be called the same thing as heterosexuals are called

Not the same thing.



but they're doing a heterosexual thing (according to the the people who invented it).[quote]

I'm going to assume that you're trying to paint this from the perspective of a bigoted member of the religious right and not anyone, you know, with knowledge of history and/or logic and I'll only show a little disdain for spouting such bullshit.


[QUOTE=jackstraw94086;1411421]People's minds are pretty pliable over time. Call it a civil union. As long as they're treated the same way people will eventually not understand the difference (or rather understand that there is no difference). Show them that society will not fall apart if they can live the same way, then they've got no argument at all.

Again, I don't really think there are that many people who actually have an argument anyway. Sure, people'll argue, but they'ren't doing so in good faith.



But, shit. I guess the one thing the civil union approach has is the option of gradualism. A civil union that grant a few rights locally is better than nothing. A civil union that gets recognized in other localities is even better. A civil union that grants near the same rights as marriage is better than one that grants fewer rights. Etc.

I'mn't gonna say that I don't support gay marriage, though. Shit.

Monklish
11-10-2009, 07:03 PM
I honestly believe that calling it anything other than "marriage" would produce a drastic difference in the voting results for these ballots, if only for the fact that it would be taking away the biggest of the conservative talking points. John, Patrick, whoever else--you may think it dubious that a simple word switch could really make that much of a difference but I'm telling ya, people get very tied to their words. The way that the right has managed to turn into such an effective propaganda machine is by drilling the same words over and over into people's heads. They've gone out of their way to make the entire fight about protecting the sanctity of "marriage" itself.

You take that away from them and let them keep the sanctity of marriage and whatever replacement talking point they might try to come up with will just make them look bad. At that point it'll become pretty clear that they're not trying to protect any of their traditions, they're just trying to bag on fags. And I think you'd be surprised how many people might switch to the other side when faced with a ballot that basically puts the question to them to decide whether or not they're just in favor of keeping gay people down.

Sure, lots of people will continue to keep gays down and be comfortable with it, but all of these votes have only been lost by a matter of a few percentage points and you might very well find that those few could swing the other way. When they think of gay marriage their heads fill with nightmares of fags overrunning their churches on Saturday in pink chiffon. But turn it into a "domestic partnership" or something that is performed at the local courthouse and it becomes a lot harder to get their ire up.

jackstraw94086
11-11-2009, 08:01 AM
Not the same thing.
yes it is .



I'm going to assume that you're trying to paint this from the perspective of a bigoted member of the religious right and not anyone, you know, with knowledge of history and/or logic and I'll only show a little disdain for spouting such bullshit.
show all the disdain you like, I myself will barely comprehend my own disdain for you not understanding something so completely obvious.
Humanity's tendency to form a pair bond (whether one believes it is its nature or not) is not marriage in the sense we're talking about. The covenant of marriage was devised by religious folks, whether they were christians or pagans or whatever. Religion and law used to be synonymous. Secular laws then were applied on top of an originally religious concept.





Again, I don't really think there are that many people who actually have an argument anyway. Sure, people'll argue, but they'ren't doing so in good faith.

no argument there. But yet they still persist with no argument. What does this tell you about how to deal with these people?

mountmccabe
11-11-2009, 08:20 AM
show all the disdain you like, I myself will barely comprehend my own disdain for you not understanding something so completely obvious.
Humanity's tendency to form a pair bond (whether one believes it is its nature or not) is not marriage in the sense we're talking about. The covenant of marriage was devised by religious folks, whether they were christians or pagans or whatever. Religion and law used to be synonymous. Secular laws then were applied on top of an originally religious concept.


Oh, come on, no need to say "or whatever;" from the perspective you're arguing there are only Christians and pagans. And maybe heretics, I suppose.

Also "the covenant of marriage" is extraneous bits piled on mated pairs. Piled on over the centuries, by various governments and religions, which, yes, used to be much the same thing in most cases. I don't get, though, how you're granting primacy to the religious aspect rather than the governmental aspect. They were one, they both get the claim.

Christianity - like all religions - takes what they will and claims it as their own. Doesn't make it so. And, really, find me Christians that're making the claim in this fashion - that hey, we know that there were no Christians 10,000 years ago or whenever but the idea of marriage was religious in nature so we and other religious folks get to define it - and you'll've blown my mind enough that I'll shut up.

jackstraw94086
11-11-2009, 11:01 AM
Oh, come on, no need to say "or whatever;" from the perspective you're arguing there are only Christians and pagans. And maybe heretics, I suppose.
not sure what you're getting at. "christians and pagans" was meant to be a catch-all for religion.


Also "the covenant of marriage" is extraneous bits piled on mated pairs. Piled on over the centuries, by various governments and religions, which, yes, used to be much the same thing in most cases. I don't get, though, how you're granting primacy to the religious aspect rather than the governmental aspect. They were one, they both get the claim.

you're restating my point. I'm granting primacy to the religious context for "marriage" because initially it was a religious concept. Marriages didn't spring into existence and immediately be validly performed by a justice of the peace or captian of a ship. The governmental aspects you're talking about are NEW relative to the religious ones. All the "bits piled on to mated pairs" are NOT what we're calling marriage here. The whole point is that they are not the same thing. You should be able to have all those bits that were piled on without infringing upon the religious context.

When you strip out all the NEW social issues like taxes, estate rights, hospital visitations, etc. etc., you're left with a word that describes a religious covenant. A method ancient people developed to scare other men out of fucking their wives and daughters (and vice versa) by threatening punishment from God. Maybe for some cultures it was a pretext to extract a dowry. Whatever the reasons they had, they've developed a sacred notion of this covenant, and this is what "marriage" means to some of these people.

Now gay people want in on this covenant. They want to be initiated into the rites of a private club (which has unfortunately been confused with government). THIS is what enrages religious people. It sounds silly but, we're talking about religion here, so silly is the baseline. Do you really think that if you picked apart the new social implications, like the taxes and hospital visitations, that religious folks would oppose them as vehemently?

You have to split the concept of "marriage" and a legal partnership. We understand that marriage, and the rights that are confered with marriage are two different things, but these zealots can't understand that yet. They wont understand it until you give it a different name. Church and state are supposed to be separate. Create a secular version of marriage so that the branwashed masses can keep their covenant.

After that any particular Church that is progressive enough grant a gay couple their sacred covenant can do as they please. It shouldn't be a government issue at that point.








Christianity - like all religions - takes what they will and claims it as their own. Doesn't make it so. And, really, find me Christians that're making the claim in this fashion - that hey, we know that there were no Christians 10,000 years ago or whenever but the idea of marriage was religious in nature so we and other religious folks get to define it - and you'll've blown my mind enough that I'll shut up.
again I'm not claiming that the Christians don't believe that they created marriage. I'm sure they do. I would never suggest that any christian would admit that marriage existed before them. But we both know the concept did, and if this country were dominated by something other than Christianity we'd be having this same argument. We could be a Jewish or Muslim state and things would not be much different.

HAMMERHEAD
11-11-2009, 11:42 AM
okay so if it is as you say (which i have provided evidence to the contrary earlier in this thread), that religion holds the intellectual property over marriage, then it stands to reason that it would be a constitutional violation for states to issue marriage licenses (separation between church and state). if this was the case then no governmental authority in the US would be legally allowed to issue marriage licenses. all couples, gay or straight, would thus be required to enter into "civil unions" and if they felt compelled to get married they would have to do so under their respective religion's customs. marriage would become a symbolic gesture with no legal merit whatsoever. somehow i doubt the anti-gay marriage movement would be interested in this.

what you guys are asking for in calling it something other than marriage is rooted in the conservatives wet dream when it comes to rights/liberties for minorities: separate but equal. if you recognize the term, it's probably because its not that old of a term in the american political lexicon. you can argue this all you want, but there is no way asking for people to accept a civil union as the separate but equal alternative won't draw instant comparisons to the civil rights movement. our supreme court and our national legislature have eradicated separate but equal as a viable form of policy compromise. gay marriage is inevitable. like every other time conservatives have opposed absolute equality for minorities, they WILL lose. voting for women, voting for blacks, marriage for blacks, equal employment opportunities, etc. regressive elements in this country only slow the process, they will never stop it though. the gays will take the civil unions all the way up to supreme court, give em the good ole "separate but equal" argument, and shove it up every religious-conservative nutjobs ass. this debate is pointless.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 12:01 PM
again I'm not claiming that the Christians don't believe that they created marriage. I'm sure they do. I would never suggest that any christian would admit that marriage existed before them.

What the fuck are you talking about? Have you ever met a Christian? Do you think they're all inbred rednecks with no education?

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 12:08 PM
it would be a constitutional violation for states to issue marriage licenses (separation between church and state). if this was the case then no governmental authority in the US would be legally allowed to issue marriage licenses. all couples, gay or straight, would thus be required to enter into "civil unions" and if they felt compelled to get married they would have to do so under their respective religion's customs. marriage would become a symbolic gesture with no legal merit whatsoever. somehow i doubt the anti-gay marriage movement would be interested in this.

The only reason we need "marriage licenses" in the first place is because for some reason we think the government needs to be involved in private ceremonies and relationships. What for? Why is it their problem?

Marriage SHOULD be a symbolic gesture with no legal merit whatsoever (or very little) and I don't know why the anti-gay marriage movement would have a problem with it.

jackstraw94086
11-11-2009, 12:09 PM
What the fuck are you talking about? Have you ever met a Christian? Do you think they're all inbred rednecks with no education?

Open your damn eyes and put a single ounce of thought into it before sounding like a schmuck. Do you want to try again?

no wait, I don't trust you so I'll spell it out. A christian may believe that marriage ceremonies may have existed before Christ, but those marriages were meaningless because they were conducted in a false faith. They mean nothing to them. There were no real marriages before their kind of marriage. A Christian would necessarily have to believe this or he wouldn't be a christian.

Do YOU know any christians? Have you ever been to a wedding? Did the preacher declare union blessed by jesus.... and vishnu, and Thor, and Zeus?

Would Christians be upset if the issue were allowing gays to perform a pagan handfasting ceremony?


Jesus.

jackstraw94086
11-11-2009, 12:13 PM
The only reason we need "marriage licenses" in the first place is because for some reason we think the government needs to be involved in private ceremonies and relationships. What for? Why is it their problem?

Marriage SHOULD be a symbolic gesture with no legal merit whatsoever (or very little) and I don't know why the anti-gay marriage movement would have a problem with it.

You have completely missed the point of the whole debate.

captncrzy
11-11-2009, 12:18 PM
It's like the democratic senate up in here. All of you seem to agree on the initial issue presented in the thread but are having a heated (and arguably unnecessary) debate over the semantics. Maybe we should put our heads and energies together to try and help do something instead?






Hippie post--over.

jackstraw94086
11-11-2009, 12:22 PM
If you can't comprehend the point of what's being debated then fuck off.

If you simply don't care then fuck off.

In true hippie form you've failed to grasp the real issue and prove yourself ineffectual.

psycobetabuckdown
11-11-2009, 12:23 PM
Open your damn eyes and put a single ounce of thought into it before sounding like a schmuck. Do you want to try again?

no wait, I don't trust you so I'll spell it out. A christian may believe that marriage ceremonies may have existed before Christ, but those marriages were meaningless because they were conducted in a false faith. They mean nothing to them. There were no real marriages before their kind of marriage. A Christian would necessarily have to believe this or he wouldn't be a christian.

Do YOU know any christians? Have you ever been to a wedding? Did the preacher declare union blessed by jesus.... and vishnu, and Thor, and Zeus?

Would Christians be upset if the issue were allowing gays to perform a pagan handfasting ceremony?


Jesus.

Don't be butt-hurt, you were the one who didn't explain yourself and made a stupid, intolerant comment about Christians. I know I wasn't the only one who read that and thought you were a fucking moron.

JebusLives
11-11-2009, 12:23 PM
I was just thinking the same thing. We all essentially agree, but the arguments are just about as heated as your typical left-right flamewar.