Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Gay Marriage 2: Bigotry Wins - Mormonality

Lord YodLord Yod Registered User regular
Court upholds Prop. 8 but lets marriages stand
(05-26) 10:29 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- California voters legally outlawed same-sex marriage when they approved Proposition 8 in November, but the constitutional amendment did not dissolve the unions of 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who wed before the measure took effect, the state Supreme Court ruled today.

The 6-1 decision was issued by the same court that declared a year ago that a state law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman violated the right to choose one's spouse and discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation.

Prop. 8 undid that ruling. The author of last year's 4-3 decision, Chief Justice Ronald George, said today that the voters were within their rights to approve a constitutional amendment redefining marriage to include only male-female couples.

Justice Carlos Moreno, in a lone dissent, said a majority should not be allowed to deprive a minority of fundamental rights by passing an initiative.

The justices ruled unanimously that Prop. 8 was not retroactive and that gay and lesbian couples who relied on the court's May 2008 ruling to get married before the Nov. 4 election will remain legally wed.

Prop. 8, which declared that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, passed with a 52 percent majority after an intense and expensive campaign. Sponsors, mainly affiliated with Christian conservative groups, raised nearly $40 million for the measure and opponents more than $45 million - combined, a record for a ballot measure on a social issue anywhere in the nation.

The ruling, the court's third major decision on same-sex marriage in five years, may be the last word from the state's legal system on the issue. But the matter is far from settled in the political arena. Gay-rights advocates, anticipating the decision, have discussed putting another constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2010 or 2012 to try to repeal Prop. 8.

Meanwhile, same-sex marriage has been legalized by the Supreme Courts of Iowa and Connecticut and the legislatures of Vermont and Maine, joining Massachusetts, whose high court issued the first such ruling in 2003. Similar legislation is pending in New Hampshire and New York.

California's legal battle dates back to February 2004, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom authorized the city clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Nearly 4,000 weddings took place in the next month before the state Supreme Court ordered a halt, then voided the marriages in August 2004 and found unanimously that Newsom had no authority to disregard state law.

The city and a number of couples quickly returned to court and sued to overturn the law. They won in Superior Court, lost in an appeals court, and won in the state's high court on May 15, 2008 - but by then, their opponents had already submitted more than 1 million signatures qualifying Prop. 8 for the November ballot.

This time, the issue before the justices was whether the voters' power to amend the Constitution by initiative.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuits were two groups of same-sex couples, some already married and some thwarted by Prop. 8, along with an array of local governments led by San Francisco. They argued that a measure eliminating fundamental rights exceeds the scope of a constitutional amendment and amounts to a revision, which needs a two-thirds legislative vote or approval from delegates at a state constitutional convention to reach the ballot.

Attorney General Jerry Brown, who usually defends state laws in court, joined Prop. 8's opponents and argued that "inalienable rights" in the California Constitution cannot be repealed by majority vote.

Prop. 8's sponsors noted that the court had declared ballot measures to be revisions only twice. The court has rejected similar challenges to such far-reaching measures as a legislative term-limits initiative, the Proposition 13 tax cut and the reinstatement of the death penalty.

Backers of the measure argued that the people are the highest political authority in California and the court should defer to their judgment.

The case is Strauss vs. Horton, S168047.
link

Lord Yod on
steam_sig.png
«13456765

Posts

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    The government should just get out of Marriage altogether. If you get Married in a church then at the same time you are issued your Civil Partnership with all the paperwork, however if you want you can get your Civil Partnership Issued at any location with witnesses etc. The Government would only care about Civil Partnerships, and rights/privilages would only be issued to those with them. Marraiges made before date X when the law came into effect would automatically be treated as Civil Partnerships.

    Any two consenting adults could enter a Civil Partnership, unless either was already in one, or they were 1st cousins or closer.

    Let the church bicker about what Marriage is, and lets get on with the business of equality.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    Isn't Obama working to allow civil unions anyway?

    Not particularly. Please read things.

    So he was bullshitting?

    No. He said he supported civil unions rather than full marriage, which is boilerplate for Democrats, but there has never been any indication that actively working for civil unions is part of his agenda. That's not bullshitting, but it's not strong gay rights advocacy, either.

    Wouldn't working to get civil unions rather than full Church approved marriage make it easier to eventually attain actual gay "marriage" in a more liberal future? Baby steps?

    Nobody anywhere is pushing for church-approved marriages. There have been dozens and dozens of gay marriage discussions on this board. Go back and read one of them.

  • Lord YodLord Yod Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs, not a single one of us is saying that the state should have anything to do with what a church wants to call marriage. This is a separate issue.

    steam_sig.png
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Correct, the point has and has always been the rights that go along with marriage, such as hospital visitation rights and being able to collect pensions/life insurance/etc for one's partner should something unfortunate occur. It's just that those arguing in the other corner have been making completely disingenuous arguments about "sanctity of marriage" and the rights of the church.

    EDIT: Further before someone pips up about the Church being "forced" to marry someone, we should all have a little chat about divorce, and how you can have the state recognize both you're divorce and new marriage, but the priest at the local parish isn't going to perform the ceremony without an annulment from Rome.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Honestly, if all partnerships were legally civil unions, and religiously or colloquially marriages, would "separate but equal" apply?

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • TL DRTL DR Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    tbloxham wrote: »
    The government should just get out of Marriage altogether. If you get Married in a church then at the same time you are issued your Civil Partnership with all the paperwork, however if you want you can get your Civil Partnership Issued at any location with witnesses etc. The Government would only care about Civil Partnerships, and rights/privilages would only be issued to those with them. Marraiges made before date X when the law came into effect would automatically be treated as Civil Partnerships.

    Any two consenting adults could enter a Civil Partnership, unless either was already in one, or they were 1st cousins or closer.

    Let the church bicker about what Marriage is, and lets get on with the business of equality.

    Agreed.

    eokNV.jpg
  • ArkadyArkady Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Honestly, if all partnerships were legally civil unions, and religiously or colloquially marriages, would "separate but equal" apply?

    I can't imagine any way they would be. Since freedom of religion is a two way street, the government can't force churches to perform gay marriages (not that anyone here suggested that). If a gay couple wanted to be "married" in the colloquial sense, all it would take is finding a willing priest/rabbi/whatever.

    untitled-1.jpg
    LoL: failboattootoot
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Honestly, if all partnerships were legally civil unions, and religiously or colloquially marriages, would "separate but equal" apply?
    No

    "Despite all the bitching, if Diablo 3 sucks, I will eat my own cock. Counter-claim: If Diablo 3 does not suck, I will have a list of whiners who need to eat cocks." - Zen Vulgarity
  • ResRes __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    The church's opposition to the legalization of gay marriage doesn't really imply that the legal and religious definitions of marriage are necessarily entwined, nor does it have any kind of implications about the separation of church and state. The problem isn't really that churches don't want the government telling them what to do, the problem is that many many many churches don't want gay people to be given any more rights than they already have or, indeed, treated like people in any way at all.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I didn't think so, I just wanted to be sure.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    Nobody anywhere is pushing for church-approved marriages. There have been dozens and dozens of gay marriage discussions on this board. Go back and read one of them.

    To be fair, gays are tacitly pushing for social acceptance of gay marriage, including acceptance by churches. They're working to change hearts and minds. It's just that nobody is pushing for government-mandated church approval.

    Just as a matter of clarification. So I can see how someone who really hated the gays and wanted to keep their nasty fag-cooties off their church would be a bit hostile to any increase in tolerance of homoqueers.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Res wrote: »
    The church's opposition to the legalization of gay marriage doesn't really imply that the legal and religious definitions of marriage are necessarily entwined, nor does it have any kind of implications about the separation of church and state. The problem isn't really that churches don't want the government telling them what to do, the problem is that many many many churches don't want gay people to be given any more rights than they already have or, indeed, treated like people in any way at all.

    I don't buy that.

    Civil Unions are the way to go. My stance is pretty much that every state should recognize a civil union of any kind between two humans, but it should be referred to as the secular term "civil union", so that we maintain a strict separation of the church and state. Civil Union for the most part, would be identical to a legal marriage.

    The term Marriage then should imply not only a civil union, but also the blessing of the church. And that is how the term marriage shall technically be used, forever.

    It is my belief that this whole thing is merely a problem of language.

    Now, I know perfectly well that gays will probably still say they are "married" even though the proper term is probably "unioned" or something. Will it annoy me? Maybe a little. But will I be so pissed that I vote to take away their rights? Probably not, because at the end of the day I know they're just misuing words. Happens all the time.

    Not everyone who votes against gay marriage is some kind of bigot, some of us just want to see this defined better.

    spacer.png
    spacer.png
    Obs.gif
  • ResRes __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    Res wrote: »
    The church's opposition to the legalization of gay marriage doesn't really imply that the legal and religious definitions of marriage are necessarily entwined, nor does it have any kind of implications about the separation of church and state. The problem isn't really that churches don't want the government telling them what to do, the problem is that many many many churches don't want gay people to be given any more rights than they already have or, indeed, treated like people in any way at all.

    I don't buy that.

    How very optimistic of you.

    I'm just going to say you are seriously underestimating some peoples' bigotry.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • ArkadyArkady Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    Res wrote: »
    The church's opposition to the legalization of gay marriage doesn't really imply that the legal and religious definitions of marriage are necessarily entwined, nor does it have any kind of implications about the separation of church and state. The problem isn't really that churches don't want the government telling them what to do, the problem is that many many many churches don't want gay people to be given any more rights than they already have or, indeed, treated like people in any way at all.

    I don't buy that.

    Civil Unions are the way to go. My stance is pretty much that every state should recognize a civil union of any kind between two humans, but it should be referred to as the secular term "civil union", so that we maintain a strict separation of the church and state. Civil Union for the most part, would be identical to a legal marriage.

    The term Marriage then should imply not only a civil union, but also the blessing of the church. And that is how the term marriage shall technically be used, forever.

    It is my belief that this whole thing is merely a problem of language.

    Now, I know perfectly well that gays will probably still say they are "married" even though the proper term is probably "unioned" or something. Will it annoy me? Maybe a little. But will I be so pissed that I vote to take away their rights? Probably not, because at the end of the day I know they're just misuing words. Happens all the time.

    Not everyone who votes against gay marriage is some kind of bigot, some of us just want to see this defined better.

    But this is relatively asinine. A, because marriage predates just about all religions, and certainly all the Abrahmic ones which are the source of all the consternation in the states. And B, there is no good damn reason why Bob the Baptist should dictate what Ed the Episcopalian is doing in his church. If Ed marries a gay couple, they are married. I mean I guess you could get all pedantic on people who just get civil union'd with no church blessing, but that hits on all the straight couples who never bother with a church for their marriage as well.

    Basically, I think it's a needless point of contention that just complicates things.

    untitled-1.jpg
    LoL: failboattootoot
  • ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Arkady wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    Res wrote: »
    The church's opposition to the legalization of gay marriage doesn't really imply that the legal and religious definitions of marriage are necessarily entwined, nor does it have any kind of implications about the separation of church and state. The problem isn't really that churches don't want the government telling them what to do, the problem is that many many many churches don't want gay people to be given any more rights than they already have or, indeed, treated like people in any way at all.

    I don't buy that.

    Civil Unions are the way to go. My stance is pretty much that every state should recognize a civil union of any kind between two humans, but it should be referred to as the secular term "civil union", so that we maintain a strict separation of the church and state. Civil Union for the most part, would be identical to a legal marriage.

    The term Marriage then should imply not only a civil union, but also the blessing of the church. And that is how the term marriage shall technically be used, forever.

    It is my belief that this whole thing is merely a problem of language.

    Now, I know perfectly well that gays will probably still say they are "married" even though the proper term is probably "unioned" or something. Will it annoy me? Maybe a little. But will I be so pissed that I vote to take away their rights? Probably not, because at the end of the day I know they're just misuing words. Happens all the time.

    Not everyone who votes against gay marriage is some kind of bigot, some of us just want to see this defined better.

    But this is relatively asinine. A, because marriage predates just about all religions, and certainly all the Abrahmic ones which are the source of all the consternation in the states. And B, there is no good damn reason why Bob the Baptist should dictate what Ed the Episcopalian is doing in his church. If Ed marries a gay couple, they are married. I mean I guess you could get all pedantic on people who just get civil union'd with no church blessing, but that hits on all the straight couples who never bother with a church for their marriage as well.

    Basically, I think it's a needless point of contention that just complicates things.


    The debate about whether or not a gay couple is "married" if a church marries them should be argued after universal civil unions are put in place and not a second before.

    I personally would never considered a gay couple "married" no matter who marries them, only unioned.

    spacer.png
    spacer.png
    Obs.gif
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    Res wrote: »
    The church's opposition to the legalization of gay marriage doesn't really imply that the legal and religious definitions of marriage are necessarily entwined, nor does it have any kind of implications about the separation of church and state. The problem isn't really that churches don't want the government telling them what to do, the problem is that many many many churches don't want gay people to be given any more rights than they already have or, indeed, treated like people in any way at all.

    I don't buy that.

    Civil Unions are the way to go. My stance is pretty much that every state should recognize a civil union of any kind between two humans, but it should be referred to as the secular term "civil union", so that we maintain a strict separation of the church and state. Civil Union for the most part, would be identical to a legal marriage.

    The term Marriage then should imply not only a civil union, but also the blessing of the church. And that is how the term marriage shall technically be used, forever.

    It is my belief that this whole thing is merely a problem of language.

    Now, I know perfectly well that gays will probably still say they are "married" even though the proper term is probably "unioned" or something. Will it annoy me? Maybe a little. But will I be so pissed that I vote to take away their rights? Probably not, because at the end of the day I know they're just misuing words. Happens all the time.

    Not everyone who votes against gay marriage is some kind of bigot, some of us just want to see this defined better.

    "Marriage" is also a secular term.

    It was not invented by nor is the dominion of any religion.


    Bama wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Honestly, if all partnerships were legally civil unions, and religiously or colloquially marriages, would "separate but equal" apply?
    No

    I'm sorry but I have to disagree here. Sure, if the term "marriage" never existed, ever, then in that fantasy reality, it MAYBE wouldn't be a form of segregation to refer to one set of civil unions in one way and another in another way, but even if we legally adjusted things NOW to call all "marriages" "civil unions" and then just labeled non-gay civil unions as marriages colloquially but left out "other" civil unions, then I'm sorry but that's still a marginalization and an element of segregation.

    steam_sig.png
  • ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Drez wrote: »
    "Marriage" is also a secular term.

    It was not invented by nor is the dominion of any religion.

    I fail to see your point.

    Gay didn't always mean homosexual either.

    Languages evolve over time. Marriage should be culturally accepted as the religious variety. I hypothesize that for most people this is already the case.

    spacer.png
    spacer.png
    Obs.gif
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    The debate about whether or not a gay couple is "married" if a church marries them should be argued after universal civil unions are put in place and not a second before.

    I personally would never considered a gay couple "married" no matter who marries them, only unioned.

    Do you comprehend that "marriage" is not a religious institution?

    How can you possibly justify your rejection of reality, here? If the government chooses to accurately recognize certain unions as marriages, why would you personally reject this recognition?

    steam_sig.png
  • ResRes __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    Oh, I see. You're not rejecting my explanation of bigotry because you're naive, you're rejecting it because you're a bigot. Wonderful.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Drez wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    The debate about whether or not a gay couple is "married" if a church marries them should be argued after universal civil unions are put in place and not a second before.

    I personally would never considered a gay couple "married" no matter who marries them, only unioned.

    Do you comprehend that "marriage" is not a religious institution?

    How can you possibly justify your rejection of reality, here? If the government chooses to accurately recognize certain unions as marriages, why would you personally reject this recognition?

    Do we really have to argue this?

    What are you expecting to hear?

    Why isn't civil union good enough? It looks to me like you just don't want shit, period. You're not going to get gay marriage.

    spacer.png
    spacer.png
    Obs.gif
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    Marriage should be culturally accepted as the religious variety.
    Which culture is deciding this? And why is their culture the right one?

    PSN: allenquid
  • ArkadyArkady Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    "Marriage" is also a secular term.

    It was not invented by nor is the dominion of any religion.

    I fail to see your point.

    Gay didn't always mean homosexual either.

    Languages evolve over time. Marriage should be culturally accepted as the religious variety. I hypothesize that for most people this is already the case.

    A flowing language and the general ignorance of the masses is no excuse for religion based discrimination that fly's directly in the face of the first god damn rule of being an American. Legally speaking of course. I don't particularly care what any douchebags think on a personal level.

    untitled-1.jpg
    LoL: failboattootoot
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    "Marriage" is also a secular term.

    It was not invented by nor is the dominion of any religion.

    I fail to see your point.

    Gay didn't always mean homosexual either.

    Languages evolve over time. Marriage should be culturally accepted as the religious variety. I hypothesize that for most people this is already the case.

    Why "should" marriage be "culturally accepted" as a religious variety.

    Here, I'll go toe-to-toe with you: As a linguist I will never accept the term "civil union" as anything even approaching the definition of "marriage" but rather will dismiss it eternally as a vapid euphemism meant to marginalize homosexual individuals.

    See how that works? The truth is, what you're personally "willing to accept" is meaningless. And to suggest that this is how it "should" be is just laughable. Explain what you mean by "should be" here. Why "should" religion get to steak a perfectly valid word for their bigoted purposes? And why is this right? And why should society except this?

    steam_sig.png
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    The debate about whether or not a gay couple is "married" if a church marries them should be argued after universal civil unions are put in place and not a second before.

    I personally would never considered a gay couple "married" no matter who marries them, only unioned.

    Do you comprehend that "marriage" is not a religious institution?

    How can you possibly justify your rejection of reality, here? If the government chooses to accurately recognize certain unions as marriages, why would you personally reject this recognition?

    Do we really have to argue this?

    What are you expecting to hear?

    Why isn't civil union good enough? It looks to me like you just don't want shit, period. You're not going to get gay marriage.

    Well, "gay marriage" already exists, it just doesn't exist everywhere yet. The smart money suggests that this will be a non-issue in favor of the liberal agenda in less than a decade.

    Also, who is "they" in your declarative here? And where is your sense of reality? Did you lose it somewhere outside the thread?

    steam_sig.png
  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »

    I personally would never considered a gay couple "married" no matter who marries them, only unioned.

    Explain why not.

  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Nobody anywhere is pushing for church-approved marriages. There have been dozens and dozens of gay marriage discussions on this board. Go back and read one of them.

    To be fair, gays are tacitly pushing for social acceptance of gay marriage, including acceptance by churches. They're working to change hearts and minds. It's just that nobody is pushing for government-mandated church approval.

    I guess this is true in the sense that most gays would find it nifty if, say, the Pope one day decided to proclaim that gay marriage is A-OK with God. It's always nice when more people like you. But no one believes anything like this is going to happen, not in our children's lifetimes. I'd wager that the vast majority of gay people genuinely do not care one way or another what churches think, so long as gays get their legal rights, and I think it's either misleading or trvial to say that gays are even tacitly pushing for church acceptance.

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Nobody anywhere is pushing for church-approved marriages. There have been dozens and dozens of gay marriage discussions on this board. Go back and read one of them.

    To be fair, gays are tacitly pushing for social acceptance of gay marriage, including acceptance by churches. They're working to change hearts and minds. It's just that nobody is pushing for government-mandated church approval.

    I guess this is true in the sense that most gays would find it nifty if, say, the Pope one day decided to proclaim that gay marriage is A-OK with God. It's always nice when more people like you. But no one believes anything like this is going to happen, not in our children's lifetimes. I'd wager that the vast majority of gay people genuinely do not care one way or another what churches think, so long as gays get their legal rights, and I think it's either misleading or trvial to say that gays are even tacitly pushing for church acceptance.

    I think it's more like trying to haggle. You know you're not going to get $30,000 for your '96 Ford Taurus, but you aim way past what you're trying to get for it anyway so you can settle at the price point you were really looking to hit.

    steam_sig.png
  • ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    This is an incredibly one sided argument. Just keep fighting for gay marriage, in whatever form. It'll keep you out of trouble.

    Every time I hear this argument I wonder if I really even give a fuck as much as I say I do. It probably just sounds worse than it is for me. Homosexuality isn't something people really have to tolerate in the same way they tolerate race. It's just not something people experience in their lives in any massive impact. For me, gays are basically invisible anyway unless they are incredibly overt. I always assume everyone is straight when I meet them. I'm not a bigot, I know some people who are gay and they are good people indeed. I just don't agree with their choice of partners. No big deal.

    Will I ever truly recognize "gay marriage" as not being a mere civil union? Probably not. But as long as no one is forcing me to, I don't give a fuck.

    spacer.png
    spacer.png
    Obs.gif
  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    This is an incredibly one sided argument. Just keep fighting for gay marriage, in whatever form. It'll keep you out of trouble.

    Every time I hear this argument I wonder if I really even give a fuck as much as I say I do. It probably just sounds worse than it is for me. Homosexuality isn't something people really have to tolerate in the same way they tolerate race. It's just not something people experience in their lives in any massive impact. For me, gays are basically invisible anyway unless they are incredibly overt. I always assume everyone is straight when I meet them. I'm not a bigot, I know some people who are gay and they are good people indeed. I just don't agree with their choice of partners. No big deal.

    Will I ever truly recognize "gay marriage" as not being a mere civil union? Probably not. But as long as no one is forcing me to, I don't give a fuck.

    I'm glad you can keep your bigotry to yourself.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    Homosexuality isn't something people really have to tolerate in the same way they tolerate race. It's just not something people experience in their lives in any massive impact.
    Has it occurred to you that this is because they are often ostracized if not attacked for so much as kissing? At all? Ever? Seriously, ten percent of the population, one out of ten people, how often do you see two guys in the food court holding hands and making out?

    PSN: allenquid
  • ZimmydoomZimmydoom Registered User
    edited January 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Nobody anywhere is pushing for church-approved marriages. There have been dozens and dozens of gay marriage discussions on this board. Go back and read one of them.

    To be fair, gays are tacitly pushing for social acceptance of gay marriage, including acceptance by churches. They're working to change hearts and minds. It's just that nobody is pushing for government-mandated church approval.

    I guess this is true in the sense that most gays would find it nifty if, say, the Pope one day decided to proclaim that gay marriage is A-OK with God. It's always nice when more people like you. But no one believes anything like this is going to happen, not in our children's lifetimes. I'd wager that the vast majority of gay people genuinely do not care one way or another what churches think, so long as gays get their legal rights, and I think it's either misleading or trvial to say that gays are even tacitly pushing for church acceptance.

    I'd say the Pope saying that exact thing during out children's lifetime is pretty good, although that is neither here nor there.

    What is very much here is the fact that language determines status. We discriminate, we define, with words, and when you define something as fundamental as "marriage" as being something not for gays you are creating an underclass whether you want to or not. We are taught from the time we are wee little ones, long before we have any concept of sexuality, that when a boy and a girl love each other very much they get "married." When the inevitable question comes, "what about two boys or two girls?" and your answer is "no, that's different," you're creating an impression that is likely to last a lifetime.

    Better-than-birthday-sig!
    Spoiler:
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    This is an incredibly one sided argument. Just keep fighting for gay marriage, in whatever form. It'll keep you out of trouble.

    Every time I hear this argument I wonder if I really even give a fuck as much as I say I do. It probably just sounds worse than it is for me. Homosexuality isn't something people really have to tolerate in the same way they tolerate race. It's just not something people experience in their lives in any massive impact. For me, gays are basically invisible anyway unless they are incredibly overt. I always assume everyone is straight when I meet them. I'm not a bigot, I know some people who are gay and they are good people indeed. I just don't agree with their choice of partners. No big deal.

    Will I ever truly recognize "gay marriage" as not being a mere civil union? Probably not. But as long as no one is forcing me to, I don't give a fuck.

    You are the worst kind of bigot, dude. You are the bigot that doesn't think he's a bigot. You're not overt enough to be dismissed out of hand, like the idiots that wear white hoods and scream angrily at a world they aren't willing to accept. You're the kind of bigot that subtly allows your bigotry to interfere with the world, even if you don't actively mean to. Because you aren't willing to either be overt about it or to identify your own bigotry, you've simply internalized it and accepted it but it colors the way you interact with the world. This is far worse, in my opinion, than the loud, podium-thumping apes that just look like clowns to every sane and rational citizen of the world.

    steam_sig.png
  • ZimmydoomZimmydoom Registered User
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    Homosexuality isn't something people really have to tolerate in the same way they tolerate race.

    You don't have to tolerate race, you know. We won't come to your house and burn a cross on your lawn or anything. But we do reserve the right to define you, according to our cultural values, as an ignorant fuckhead.

    Better-than-birthday-sig!
    Spoiler:
  • ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Drez wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    This is an incredibly one sided argument. Just keep fighting for gay marriage, in whatever form. It'll keep you out of trouble.

    Every time I hear this argument I wonder if I really even give a fuck as much as I say I do. It probably just sounds worse than it is for me. Homosexuality isn't something people really have to tolerate in the same way they tolerate race. It's just not something people experience in their lives in any massive impact. For me, gays are basically invisible anyway unless they are incredibly overt. I always assume everyone is straight when I meet them. I'm not a bigot, I know some people who are gay and they are good people indeed. I just don't agree with their choice of partners. No big deal.

    Will I ever truly recognize "gay marriage" as not being a mere civil union? Probably not. But as long as no one is forcing me to, I don't give a fuck.

    You are the worst kind of bigot, dude. You are the bigot that doesn't think he's a bigot. You're not overt enough to be dismissed out of hand, like the idiots that wear white hoods and scream angrily at a world they aren't willing to accept. You're the kind of bigot that subtly allows your bigotry to interfere with the world, even if you don't actively mean to. Because you aren't willing to either be overt about it or to identify your own bigotry, you've simply internalized it and accepted it but it colors the way you interact with the world. This is far worse, in my opinion, than the loud, podium-thumping apes that just look like clowns to every sane and rational citizen of the world.

    So then what am I supposed to do?

    Die?

    spacer.png
    spacer.png
    Obs.gif
  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »

    So then what am I supposed to do?

    Die?

    You could just learn. Something. Anything.

  • ResRes __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    This is an incredibly one sided argument. Just keep fighting for gay marriage, in whatever form. It'll keep you out of trouble.

    Every time I hear this argument I wonder if I really even give a fuck as much as I say I do. It probably just sounds worse than it is for me. Homosexuality isn't something people really have to tolerate in the same way they tolerate race. It's just not something people experience in their lives in any massive impact. For me, gays are basically invisible anyway unless they are incredibly overt. I always assume everyone is straight when I meet them. I'm not a bigot, I know some people who are gay and they are good people indeed. I just don't agree with their choice of partners. No big deal.

    Will I ever truly recognize "gay marriage" as not being a mere civil union? Probably not. But as long as no one is forcing me to, I don't give a fuck.

    You are the worst kind of bigot, dude. You are the bigot that doesn't think he's a bigot. You're not overt enough to be dismissed out of hand, like the idiots that wear white hoods and scream angrily at a world they aren't willing to accept. You're the kind of bigot that subtly allows your bigotry to interfere with the world, even if you don't actively mean to. Because you aren't willing to either be overt about it or to identify your own bigotry, you've simply internalized it and accepted it but it colors the way you interact with the world. This is far worse, in my opinion, than the loud, podium-thumping apes that just look like clowns to every sane and rational citizen of the world.

    So then what am I supposed to do?

    Die?

    Wouldn't hurt.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • ZimmydoomZimmydoom Registered User
    edited January 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »

    So then what am I supposed to do?

    Die?

    You could just learn. Something. Anything.

    I'd settle for "not vote."

    Better-than-birthday-sig!
    Spoiler:
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    Seriously, ten percent of the population, one out of ten people

    Actually, more like 3%, at least according to an NYT interview I was just watching. Not that I disagree with you overall or anything, but the 10% seems high to me, and IIRC was initially from the Kinsey studies, and they used a much more encompassing definition of gay.

  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    Homosexuality isn't something people really have to tolerate in the same way they tolerate race.

    Substantiate your claim.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    So then what am I supposed to do?

    Change your mind because you recognize that you were wrong.

«13456765
This discussion has been closed.