As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Gay Marriage 2: Bigotry Wins - Mormonality

2456765

Posts

  • 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

    Bama on
  • ResRes __BANNED USERS regular
    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.

    Res on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I didn't think so, I just wanted to be sure.

    Fencingsax on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe 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.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • 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.

    Obs on
  • ResRes __BANNED USERS 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.

    How very optimistic of you.

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

    Res on
    [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.

    Arkady on
    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.

    Obs on
  • 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.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • 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.

    Obs on
  • 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?

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • ResRes __BANNED USERS regular
    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.

    Res on
    [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.

    Obs on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana 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?

    Quid on
  • 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.

    Arkady on
    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?

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • 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?

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!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.

    Hachface on
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!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.

    Hachface on
  • 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.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • 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.

    Obs on
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!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.

    Hachface on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana 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?

    Quid on
  • ZimmydoomZimmydoom Accept no substitutes 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'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.

    Zimmydoom on
    Better-than-birthday-sig!
    Gim wrote: »
    Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
    Flew away in a balloon
    Had sex with polar bears
    While sitting in a reclining chair
    Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
    Running around and clawing eyelids
    Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
  • 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.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • ZimmydoomZimmydoom Accept no substitutes Registered User regular
    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.

    Zimmydoom on
    Better-than-birthday-sig!
    Gim wrote: »
    Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
    Flew away in a balloon
    Had sex with polar bears
    While sitting in a reclining chair
    Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
    Running around and clawing eyelids
    Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
  • 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?

    Obs on
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »

    So then what am I supposed to do?

    Die?

    You could just learn. Something. Anything.

    Hachface on
  • ResRes __BANNED USERS regular
    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.

    Res on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • ZimmydoomZimmydoom Accept no substitutes Registered User regular
    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."

    Zimmydoom on
    Better-than-birthday-sig!
    Gim wrote: »
    Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
    Flew away in a balloon
    Had sex with polar bears
    While sitting in a reclining chair
    Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
    Running around and clawing eyelids
    Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered 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.

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

    Substantiate your claim.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered 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.

    MrMister on
  • PowerpuppiesPowerpuppies drinking coffee in the mountain cabinRegistered User regular
    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?

    Accept that it's wrong to legislate your personal beliefs that do not follow from objective reality. Even if enough people agree with you to make it plausible, you should oppose them because it's fucking wrong. If you can't give a nonreligious reason why gay people are bad, then they and their marriages should not be legally distinguishable from those of straight people.

    Also, that part earlier in the thread where you said "for the most part" civil unions should be legally identical to marriage? That is bigotry.

    Powerpuppies on
    sig.gif
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Anyway...
    DOMA seems to be a blatant violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution. If Antonin Scalia weren't such a hypocritical piece of shit, someone could go ahead and get it repealed. Unfortunately, he is.

    Hachface on
  • ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Zimmydoom wrote: »
    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."

    See, here's the thing. Unless you can construct an argument so good that even "bigots" like me will be convinced, you simply aren't going to get gays getting "married" any time soon.

    In my opinion, Obama had put forward the best plan for this. I voted for Obama and I generally invest trust in what he says after a while of hearing him. I agreed with his view on civil unions and I'm sure many others probably did too.

    However, sometimes it feels like you guys are willing to throw all that away over a petty disagreement of what some shit actually means. And thus nothing gets done.

    Obs on
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    I personally would never considered a gay couple "married" no matter who marries them, only unioned.
    Now who's misusing language?
    Drez wrote: »
    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.
    Well the thing is that there would be no stopping people from referring to gay civil unions as marriages. I mean right now Catholics could start referring to people who are wed in their church (and only those people) as being "super married" and that wouldn't at all evoke the spirit of the phrase "separate but equal." Once you're outside the legal definition of the contract then you're going to start bumping into first amendment issues.

    But this is of course all in a hypothetical world because I'm pretty sure any serious talk of "abolishing" marriage would lead to us seeing actual pitchforks and torches. Equality under the law is the main goal here, and any secondary issues will have to be dealt with just like other forms of illegal discrimination.

    Bama on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    MrMister wrote: »
    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, which used a much more encompassing definition of gay.
    I've seen everything from 3-10% from respectable journals, although 5-7 are the most common numbers I have seen.

    Drez, I'm talking about a legal framework of language. Frankly, I think that 1) having everyone achieve equal rights is much more important than reclaiming the word "marriage", and 2) the reclamation would happen really quickly, because no one would really use "civilly united"

    Fencingsax on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    Anyway...
    DOMA seems to be a blatant violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution. If Antonin Scalia weren't such a hypocritical piece of shit, someone could go ahead and get it repealed. Unfortunately, he is.

    Has it ever actually gotten there? DOMA is an interstate thing so you'd have to be gay married/unioned in one state and then move to a second, get that state to not recognize your marriage/union in some legal context and then sue and have it work its way through the courts. I feel like I would have heard of such a case. I'm not sure if enough time has passed with gay marriage legalized anywhere for such a thing to have happened and worked its way up the appeals process.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    Zimmydoom wrote: »
    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."

    See, here's the thing. Unless you can construct an argument so good that even "bigots" like me will be convinced, you simply aren't going to get gays getting "married" any time soon.

    In my opinion, Obama had put forward the best plan for this. I voted for Obama and I generally invest trust in what he says after a while of hearing him. I agreed with his view on civil unions and I'm sure many others probably did too.

    However, sometimes it feels like you guys are willing to throw all that away over a petty disagreement of what some shit actually means. And thus nothing gets done.

    Actually over constitutionality. I'm still very interested in hearing how you substantiate your claim that there's no need to tolerate homosexuality, though.

    ViolentChemistry on
This discussion has been closed.