Earn the right to speak to me before trying to do so, stop quoting articles at me that i'm not going to read - because I have no reason to read up on the propaganda of a sub-species.
I find it very sad and alarming that many people still think that being gay is some sort of highly contagious terminal desease.
Wake up guys, being gay doesn't make you an AIDS spreading child molester hunting every male ass he sees. (or pussy she sees)
Also, the sanctity comparisons were outright wrong. In the first two, you were pretending to be something you are not. But what are two gay people pretending if they want the legal status of a married couple? Nothing more than childless "straight" couples.
If two (or more) people freely chose to live together, why keep them from making it official if they don't fall into a specific population?
On a sidenote, I really don't understand how anyone in a "freedom loving country" can use the term "liberal" almost like a swearword.
Same way "conservative" gets used. It's part of the simplified dual choice system promoting healthy polarization and social division. Every member is armed with a set vocabulary and the possibility to use a complete catch-phrase up to 10 times per publication and then let loose in the forums and commentboxes of the web.
That would be the conservatives, mostly Republicans, who typical party stance is less government, less regulation, but pro religion (mostly Christian based), including anti-abortion. The left leaning Democrats use the term liberal almost as a badge of honor, more government, more regulation, believe in "wealth re-distribution" (higher taxes for the rich), are pro-abortion, and perceived as anti-religious. Note that Obama is considered to be a moderate as opposed to an extremist (leftist) democrat.
The less regulation experiment of the last 8 years failed, especially the legalized gambling known as "derivatives" in the stock market, so Republicans are justifiably getting hammered by the voters this time.
With 84% of the votes counted now, California voted 61% for Obama, and 52% for prop 8.
Congratulations on destroying freedom and equality.
I really feel for all those who have had their marriage dissolved. They aren't the first GBLT marriages to be dissolved as marriages being torn up by the state is common for the oppressed members of the T community in lots of countries, but it is the first time I have personally witness such a monstrously vulgar act of discrimination being passed into law to specifically hurt a minority.
I thought that was the stuff of the past, I thought the world was moving forwards but I was wrong. I honestly had more faith in America than it deserved.
I'm going to regret posting in this thread, but... wow, elitist much? You've spent 90% of this thread arguing with someone who you know won't change his mind and who you've attacked for holding a viewpoint that differs to yours...
Very few people in this thread, from what I've seen, actually want to ban gay partnerships, they just don't want to call it marriage, which is fair enough, especially considering marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman... (even if you go back to the Latin root of the word it is, literally, "give a husband to [a woman]") From where I'm sitting, it seems relatively simple: pick a different word and 90% of your opposition will back down.
At the end of the day, in one thread you'll (generalised, not just you) moan about democracy not being the de-facto standard... then moan even more when it's used to actually represent people (in CA) proportionally. You can't have it both ways.
And the reason they don't want to call it that is that the word "marriage" gives you certain rights that civil unions don't. The two are not equivalent in the eyes of the law, which is the whole point.
I understand that - but then isn't the argument focussed in the wrong place? If the debate is about the rights, then why is there such a fuss being kicked up over not being allowed to use the term "marriage", irrespective of anything else.
Earlier in this thread (I can't find it after a quick skim), someone said words to the effect of "I don't want it to be called anything else, I want equality, it has to be called marriage." That's an irrelevant argument: all that would happen, even if it were called marriage, would be people would call it "homo" and "hetero" marriage... so there's still going to be no parity in the 'naming' of it.
That's what I'm saying, 90% (source: estimated figures from my head) of the opposition just want the LGBT community to leave the word "marriage" to mean what it actually means - a union between a man and a woman.
I think you missed the point of me deliberately using biggotry and xenophobia. On principle i'm neither of these things as I believe in equality, as in I actually hold it as a value I cherrish. The reason I continue to partake in this thread is because I am engaged in discourse, despite stating otherwise as a means of making a point. Earlier I tried doing that whilst expressely stating it was what I was doing, or making it too obvious, and the point was lost, so I changed tack and repeated it, and demonstrated I think - by your own suckering - that intollerence isn't acceptable.
No it is NOT fair, by any definition of the word you care to dredge up from latin or otherwise, fairness implies equality and this is NOT equality.
It is the worst travesty of injustice to be passed in to law since apartied.
Ethically wrong. Morally wrong. Disgustingly so.
Yes, let's not have the word that entitles us to stand by our loved ones side and make important life or death decisions for them when their in a coma in hospital, lets not use the word that gives us the same tax advantages (although I gather in the US it's a tax disadvantage), lets not use a word that grants equality. Let's use a label and keep the poofters where they belong ... seperate!
There is a lot of power in words.
People who votes for proposition 8 are wrong. History will brand them as such. It's the same narrow mindedness that led to appartied, where the people who put that into law right to do so? History says they where not.
Anyone who voted for proposition 8 should be ashamed, and the fight for justice will go on, and it will be won, and those who voted for proposition 8 will be viewed by history as elitist supremacists who's time holding the scales of law will pass.
EDIT: And I dont believe i've ever moaned against a lack of democracy in the world. That's a whole other can of worms. Dont put words in my mouth k thx bye
We weren't talking about the word "fairness", we were talking about the word "marriage".
Then pick a word that implies equality, and stop trying to have usage of the word that doesn't describe LGBT relationships, anyway, and that you seem to hate so much
I made no mention of the rights of the issue, I made mention of the use of the word 'marriage'. It's not the word you want/need, it's the rights - so stop focussing on the wrong issue. Give in on the word (which won't fit your relationships anyway), and you'll have a much easier ride getting the rights (as a good portion of the opposition comes from heterosexuals who want to keep the word with it's original meaning - regardless of how bigoted that may, or may not, be - and that's fair enough).
Apartheid was passed by a dictatorial minority - this is not the same issue. Prop 8 was (or, rather, is close to being) passed by free, democratic vote - whether you like it or not.
You evidently didn't read my in-line 'disclaimer' to that part of my post, then.
On my college application form, there was a section asking for ethical background and sexual orientation as part of some 'equal opportunities scheme'.
Oh and in my school, if you had a fight with someone from an ethnic minority, it was immediately deemed racially mtoivated, regardless of what the fight was about.
It's very hard to say anything about such matters without being called a Nazi, but sometimes I actually feel like I'm being looked down upon for being white and straight, British AND not vegitarian (oh no, I must be satan!).
In the past (and still in America sadly) it was all one sided, but now I feel as if people think its a bad thing to be white and straight, because there seems to be an opinion that if you are white you automatically hate black people and if you are straight you automatically hate gay people.
I'm not against people being homosexual, (although I bet theres plenty of people who would love to label me a homophobe just because I say something they don't like), I just absolutely hate it when people use labels like minorities to get advantages over other people, but nobody is allowed to say no, because they get branded as right wing.
Basically, you shouldn't promote someone because they are black, you should promote someone because they went to school, got themselves good qualifications and worked hard. Equality is a two way street.
I find it very very sad that still, people are being treated differently depending on what they are, not what they have done, wether theyre being treated in favour or being persecuted.
When will the yanks learn that the rest of the world is leaving them behind, with their devout christian ideas that may have worked well 2000 years ago, but not now.
AIDS/HIV can be caused by the mixing of any bodily fluid, and that doesn't just happen in sex, I wonder why you dont mention this, is it because it doesnt justify your argument?
And on the topic of Proposition 8, people getting married to people of the same sex has absolutely no effect on me at all, so why not, if two homosexual people get married, it doesn't make my life any worse, so why should I allow it to make me hate someone?
But for gods sake, I'm straight, accept me for what I am, don't label me a Nazi just because I dont feel any attraction for members of the same sex.
You said, and have since said again, that the view on marriage being only for straight people is "fair enough". The word being discussed was 'fair' because I was disagreeing with you. Please try not to twist the argument.
How about the same word that married straight couples use?
Doesn'it it? Tell me, what part of a "married" 'LGBT relationship' doesn't describe a married relationship?
I beg your pardon ? So what exactly does fit my "relationships" then ? Are you attempting to imply all gay liasons are 'casual' or something?
Ah right sorry, there was me thinking that women where no longer possessions of men.
Just exactly how can bigotry be "fair enough"? It is NOT fair enough, it is WRONG.
Correct I dont like it, but that does not meen it is fair or that justice has been done.
You simply cannot infer I said something by association when I didnt.
I didn't think I'd regret posting in this thread this much... but your insistence on making out that I hate gays has totally surpassed my expectations.
I mentioned nothing other than the word - I made no mention of a disparity in rights being fair. Don't put words in my mouth.
Sure, if we use another word that doesn't mean "union between a man and a woman."
Once again, I'll refer you to what the word "married" means.
I didn't say that anywhere. You like putting words in my mouth, don't you?
The word "marriage" actually implies that the man is given to the woman. So, let's not even start that.
Once again, get off the rights issue, I made no mention of the rights issue - I made a mention about the language, as I am at an absolute loss to understand why you can't get your head past the word.
I didn't say it had - I think democracy is a pretty poor system, actually, as it just leads to resolutions (and, hence, discussions) like this.
Apologies, upon re-reading, that should have said "not necessarily you" rather than "not just you" (I haven't edited it, as otherwise anyone reading through will wonder what on earth you and I were on about).
Wow... it may be time to do what Becky seems unable to do... and actually read what I posted.
Show me one place I backed the legislation, or, in fact, made any stand on the legislation itself. Nowhere have I made mention of anything but the debate over the use of the word 'marriage'... I'm trying to ascertain why the word is so important, when it's the rights that are supposedly important to the LGBT community.
I haven't read it all, since, frankly, I can't be bothered. But seeing what you have written whilst in debate, or should I say argument with Becky, makes me think so. .
May be wrong, but that's my opinion.
You also seem to miss the point, why should straight people be allowed to get married, yet LGBT people are not? It is really that simple.
Oh and another thing, am I allowed to be proud of being straight, because it's my identity, a part of me I can't change, and that I'm not forcing myself to be someone else?
If homosexual people are proud of their sexual orientation, am I allowed to be proud of mine? Now that is equality isn't it?
Back OT: All those in favour of proposition 8, do homosexual people cause you any physical or mental harm simply by being homosexual?
Yes, what is that got to do with LGBT marridge? After all, as a straight person you or I are able to marry, where as Becky, in Cali, for example, would not.
All I have queried is why the word "marriage" is so important. It's understandable some hetero people don't want the LGBT community to use that word, as the meaning of the word is "a union between a man and a woman" - so why is this such a sticking point? All I was trying to ascertain is why the LGBT community can't pick a different word and move on with the quest to actually get the rights they want.
Turn me into a gay-bashing, 'right-winger' if you want... but it'll be on the grounds of your own suppositions, rather than on anything I've said.
Yes the USA is an undemocratic, unequal country thats for sure, still clinging on to christianity, but I'm sure not all Americans are homophobes, thats why I think saying you want to "nuke this country from orbit right now", is probrably not a very good thing to say.
But I'm talking about the UK, where if a black person doesn't get a promotion, it is immediately assumed that it was because they are black.
Of course the UK has its fair share of homophobes, but treating white people (and especially non- vegitarians) like they are Adolf Hitler himself just because they dont find other men/ women attractive (or eat other living things with brains) isn't exactly equality either.
FTR, James, it's utter bullshit that the word "marriage" is explicitly between "man" and "woman". In fact even California's legislature was gender-neutral from 1850 until 1977 when some right-wing Christians got their hands on it.
And for the record, James, you have absolutely no grasp on the concept of equal rights if you think straight couples being able to call their relationship "marriage" and gay couple not being allowed to call it "marriage" in law is in any way justifiable.
Equality means what the word means. It means two things being equal, as in not separated by any measure of inequality. It's a basic concept, but apparently a few right-wingers don't have a grasp on it. It doesn't mean they're homophobic (though it's a general rule of thumb that they are) but in this instance it merely has homophobic implications and rammifications.
You can believe what you want, James, obviously.. but while you're doing that, don't be surprised or insulted if people perceive you according to the views you express. We are all responsible for the way others perceive us.
It's an interesting point you raise, and of course - you should be able to hold your head up and be proud of who you are.
I think the whole concept of "gay pride" is indicative of a struggle though, gay people have been dying because of their sexuality since long before the Stonewall riots every happened, and to this day we do not to have true equality, inspite of people who - if they had been religious deaths - would be called 'martyrs'.
I've been attacked for my sexuality before, as has my cousin, but i'm not about to beat you up just because you are straight. So sure be proud of who you are - but I doubt that is indicative of a struggle.
I'm usually cautious of the whole gay pride thing, but I am proud of who I am, and the more I see in this thread the more i'm drawn to the concept of activism.
I personally didnt comment on your views, if you'd like me too - it appears to me you think you are being fair when you are not.
You want to know what is special about marriage, but at the same time you want it exlusively the domain of straight people - making it special for them.
Marriage is special, it's written into law, it confers certain rights - and whilst rights may be paralleled in some areas by civil unions and domestic partnerships, the fact is these labels in themselves are segregation, and in practice they do not constitute a marriage which has ramifications for many other situations outside the immediate practice of marriage.
Why does marriage have to remain the exclusive domain of straight people? Why cant I enjoy the same priveleges? Why - should true equality of civil unions and domestic partnerships be achieved (which is not currently the case, there is disparity) - why can I not call my GF my wife if I marry her, why must I be subject to the indignity of second class treatment so you can keep an ancient ideal of a concept that's no longer reflective of our society?
We have sexual equality nowadays, why not sexuality equality?
The word marridge is important to LGBT people for the same reason it is important to straight people.
A few homophobic hetrosexual people are afraid to be under the same status as a LGBT person. More to the point, why should a gay couple have to be under a different status, they're people after all.
Turn this argument into whatever insults you think I said, "but it'll be on the grounds of your own suppositions".
There are plenty of skilled black workers that get promotions, and are in positions of power. Less than white people, but there are nevertheless.
If a white person gets a promotion over a black man, the majority of black men would not sweat it. They'll simply understand that the other person (regardless of skin colour) would be better suited and is more skilled/experienced.
However, if a white person is less experienced and/or skilled than a black person, and the white person is constantly getting promotions over the black man, yes that is racism, and it's discrimination. However nothing can really be done about that because all companies just lie.
Whuh? I can't say I've ever felt oppressed because I'm a straight white meat-eater. What exactly are people doing to you?
Because - historically - many institutions have been shown to prejudiced against minority groups, naturally as part of the back-lash there's going to be some overreaction.
The tabloids like to complain about "political correctness" because it's sometimes taken to farcical extremes by officials who ought to know better, but if it means everybody knows it's not OK to be a bigot, then surely not being able to sing "Baa Baa Black Sheep" in some infant school somewhere is a pretty small price to pay.
I remember when I was a little kid in the early '80s nobody would bat an eyelid at a racist joke, the stereotypes were still acceptable, and that generation of adults are still around and in management positions. Hopefully in a couple of decades the whole thing will no longer be an issue, but in the meantime it's still crucial to uphold the rights of minority groups and damn anybody whose thinking is still stuck in the bad old days.
Well, thanks for that - it seems you, too, have determined to miss my entire point or, rather, determined to try and paint me as a right-wing homophobe.
Ahh, now here's me thinking that equality was about the rights afforded, not what we call things. Just because I call someone black, doesn't mean there can't be equality because I haven't called them white. The naming makes little real difference to the rights - so why not make the road to obtaining the rights significantly easier by picking a different name. That, and that alone, is my point.
Agreed, but when reading we're also responsible for actually reading what is written, not what we think or want to be written.
I want to know what's special about the word itself.
