Quote from Becky Rose :

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'm not denying that homophobia is nonexistant in the UK.

But I feel I am looked down upon sometimes, not really by homosexual people but mostly by vegitarians, a vegitarian mate once called me an 'evil monster' because I ate meat, obviously they weren't my friend for much longer.

What I am trying to say is that equality works both ways, I know its easy to get carried away and angry because of a minority of idiots and a long history of idiocy, but I have never harmed a homosexual person because of what they are, and so It annoys me when I see minority people ranting at any random straight/ white/ meat eating/ proud to be British so on so forth person, just because of what 'label' they belong to in society.

The people who you should hate are still probrably not the majority of the people (at least nowadays in this country), so t'is probrably not a good idea to fight hate and prejudice with more hate and prejudice.

poofter
aft shafter
queer
gay
faggot
ass muncher
carpet muncher
lino licker
poop poker

Need I go on?

There are lots of labels associated with being gay already, so the first thing i'd say about having the word marriage is that we dont need any more damned labels.

Marriage is a concept recognised by law:

"Why do we suddenly have to throw out the entire system, invent some whole new thing, just because gay people want to get married?" [Evan Wolfson - Freedom to Marry].

If gays cant marry, then we must do away with marriage and all have a civil union - but why must we go to all that trouble just to protect the historical context of the marriage?

Marriage is socially recognised:

It is irrefuteable that the concept of marriage is recnogised globally. It is as much an institution as our very way of life. My preserving marriage as a right for straight people and categorising gays as 'something else' you are socially discriminating.

True equality is not born of segregation.

All that gay people are asking for is equality. Not second class citizenship.

Quote from 5haz :

I have never harmed a homosexual person because of what they are,

I once got a text message that read "Let's beat the gays", but it was from a gay bloke, inviting me to a gay pub quiz.

Quote :

But I feel I am looked down upon sometimes, not really by homosexual people but mostly by vegitarians, a vegitarian mate once called me an 'evil monster' because I ate meat, obviously they weren't my friend for much longer.

What an ass, we all know that vegetarians are xenophobes who persecute plants to spare the cute and fluffy animals. They also have a higher carbon footprint. Evil monsters the lot of them

Quote from JamesF1 :

To the dictionary (specifically the Etymology)!

Oh puhleeze :rolleyes: Doesn't wash and you know it. But moreover, if you actually have to dig into a word's dead language etymology to substantiate your argument then surely you know you've just conceded the whole point.

Hey James, just for a laugh why don't you look at that same page's DEFINITION of the word marriage, yeah?

Quote from JamesF1 :

I'm not talking about specific instances.

Check the thread title before posting, yeah?

Quote from JamesF1 :

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.

You paint your own portraits around here. I haven't missed your entire point at all, I've merely highlighted it as being bigoted and discriminative.

Quote from JamesF1 :

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.

I realise, since the definition of words as carrying meaning doesn't hold much sway with you, that you're not going to have an easy time with this.. but NEWSFLASH James: words are actually important and their usage is pivotal.

Quote from JamesF1 :

I want to know what's special about the word itself.

What is important is the divisively exclusive and discriminatory usage of the word as now set out in California law. That's what is important about the word. And the fact that it isn't obvious to you is what shows us that you don't have a grasp on the actual meaning of equality or its application.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

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.

I've had a fair share of agravation from several, almost militant vegitarians.

But I think that sometimes, political correctness actually promotes segregation of various groups.

There's lots of things like Black Pride and Gay Pride, but there is no, 'Proud to all be getting on well with eachother without prejudice on this little rock we all call home' pride, I think because they're always promoting their minorities so much, they're basically shutting out and isolating themselves from others. There is still segregation, at college you very rarely see black people and white people talking to eachother, its because through all these 'pride' campaigns, people are actually encouraged to 'join a club' and be separate from others.

Perhaps we should ditch all this 'pride' molarkey and bring in a 'Proud to be free of Prejudice and Racist ideas' campaign.

I sound hopelessly optimistic.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

I once got a text message that read "Let's beat the gays", but it was from a gay bloke, inviting me to a gay pub quiz.

Only you could crack an amusing joke in what is quite a serious 'angry' thread.

Quote from Becky Rose :

There are lots of labels associated with being gay already, so the first thing i'd say about having the word marriage is that we dont need any more damned labels.

I understand that much, I'm wondering why the insistence of avoiding one more 'label' (as you put it), seems to come ahead of guaranteeing an easier road to the desired equality. Surely getting the equality is the primary objective, and the name can be worked on afterwards? If you try to push everything through together, it'll take a lot longer than pushing bits through when you get the chance. That's my point

That's my response to the entirety of your post, as that's all I'm trying to say, or want to say on the topic.

Quote from JamesF1 :

I understand that much, I'm wondering why the insistence of avoiding one more 'label' (as you put it), seems to come ahead of guaranteeing an easier road to the desired equality. Surely getting the equality is the primary objective, and the name can be worked on afterwards? If you try to push everything through together, it'll take a lot longer than pushing bits through when you get the chance. That's my point

That's my response to the entirety of your post, as that's all I'm trying to say, or want to say on the topic.

OK James, but just to pull you up on this point - do you realise that in our country we have gay marriages by another name already. And it hasnt work - we do NOT have equality.

If my partner is in a coma I dont get asked the question if she lives or dies, even though i've got specific instructions on her of what she wants and in what circumstances. Her parents get asked. I cant even sit by her bedside in such a circumstance as she isnt my wife. There's all sorts of backdoor discrimination that arises - both legally and socially - from differentiating marriage between straights and gays.

We just want the same thing, is it wrong to want to be treated equally?

Quote from 5haz :

There is still segregation, at college you very rarely see black people and white people talking to eachother, its because through all these 'pride' campaigns, people are actually encouraged to 'join a club' and be separate from others.

Well, people with stuff in common tend to group together, that's pretty normal behaviour. You don't have to have a perfectly proportional group of personal friends by ethnicity and sexuality to be part of an integrated society. What matters is how we treat each other when we do come together.

Quote from SamH :

Oh puhleeze :rolleyes: Doesn't wash and you know it. But moreover, if you actually have to dig into a word's dead language etymology to substantiate your argument then surely you know you've just conceded the whole point.

I'm making the point that the LGBT community is making a fuss over the word, rather than the equality - get off my back for simply making a valid point.

Quote :

Hey James, just for a laugh why don't you look at that same page's DEFINITION of the word marriage, yeah?

I did, thanks. Contrary to what you think, us right-wing bigoted flagrant homophobes can actually read.

Quote :

Check the thread title before posting, yeah?

Oh look at that, I'm posting about gay marriage and homosexuality... oh look at the thread topic... it's about gay marriage/homosexuality - score!

Quote :

You paint your own portraits around here. I haven't missed your entire point at all, I've merely highlighted it as being bigoted and discriminative.

Well, then, you've clearly missed my point. I think I have a significantly better view of what my intentions and beliefs are than you do.

Quote :

I realise, since the definition of words as carrying meaning doesn't hold much sway with you, that you're not going to have an easy time with this.. but NEWSFLASH James: words are actually important and their usage is pivotal.

I realise, since the origin of words as carrying meaning doesn't hold much sway with you, that you're not going to have an easy time with this.. but NEWSFLASH Sam: words are actually important and their usage is pivotal.

Works both ways.

Quote :

What is important is the divisively exclusive and discriminatory usage of the word as now set out in California law. That's what is important about the word. And the fact that it isn't obvious to you is what shows us that you don't have a grasp on the actual meaning of equality or its application.

The word usage isn't divisive, the policies are. Stop making a fuss over something that is the smallest of small barriers to the LGBT community's general 'acceptability' by the world in it's entirety, and make a fuss over the main issue - the rights - if you're that concerned.

Quote from Becky Rose :

OK James, but just to pull you up on this point - do you realise that in our country we have gay marriages by another name already. And it hasnt work - we do NOT have equality.

If my partner is in a coma I dont get asked the question if she lives or dies, even though i've got specific instructions on her of what she wants and in what circumstances. Her parents get asked. I cant even sit by her bedside in such a circumstance as she isnt my wife. There's all sorts of backdoor discrimination that arises - both legally and socially - from differentiating marriage between straights and gays.

We just want the same thing, is it wrong to want to be treated equally?

I do realise that there is already legislation, but as you've just stated in your example... there isn't the rights-based equality. That has nothing to do with the word being used, it has to do with inadequate legislation for purpose.

Under current legislation you can't be 'married', because you don't fit the 'definition' in law. So, what's easier to change: the legislation of the word, or the legislation of civil partnership rights? The answer is, whichever has least resistance - at the moment, that would seem to me to be the civil partnership rights.

If you're more concerned about what people call you, go for the name-change; if you're more concerned about the rights, go for the civil partnership change. You won't get both through at once with public opinion as it is, so pick one. My entire point in this thread has been surrounding why the name is such a sticking point to taking up initiatives on other 'aspects'.

Quote from JamesF1 :

If you're more concerned about what people call you, go for the name-change; if you're more concerned about the rights, go for the civil partnership change. You won't get both through at once with public opinion as it is, so pick one. My entire point in this thread has been surrounding why the name is such a sticking point to taking up initiatives on other 'aspects'.

Actually if we'd had a referrendum in the UK or the Netherlands then the laws might be greatly different to what they are (I mention those two countries as specifically they are the ones which effect me). Certainly in CA the vote was tight - but sadly CA chose wrongly.

The word is as important as the issue of rights itself because the issue is as much about equality as it is about gay rights. The concepts that you've elected to seperate are part of the same thing and very much interwoven.

And as I mentioned earlier, why throw out all the laws and cross references from other laws for marriage and re-invent the wheel. We have marriage as both a legal and social concept already - so why do we need to segregate and start over?

Any argument against gay marriage is an argument for segregation which is why you've found yourself fighting in a corner since posting.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Well, people with stuff in common tend to group together, that's pretty normal behaviour. You don't have to have a perfectly proportional group of personal friends by ethnicity and sexuality to be part of an integrated society. What matters is how we treat each other when we do come together.

Well thats true, but I find it odd how there is next to no mixing between the two at all, and as we all know we have people who support the BNP is this country, so the racism is still there, but also the term 'White' is often used in a derogatory manner more often nowadays.

Overall what I'm trying to say is that Racism and Hate for other groups is not an entirely one sided thing in most cases, but it is often treated as if it is.

Quote from JamesF1 :

I'm making the point that the LGBT community is making a fuss over the word, rather than the equality - get off my back for simply making a valid point.

Precisely. You don't get that the use of the word IS the inequality and that it's wrong. You just don't get it.

Quote from JamesF1 :

I did, thanks. Contrary to what you think, us right-wing bigoted flagrant homophobes can actually read.

Ahh okay, so when you said specific instances you meant selective instances. With ya now.

Quote from JamesF1 :

Well, then, you've clearly missed my point. I think I have a significantly better view of what my intentions and beliefs are than you do.

Either you haven't communicated your point or you have no grasp on the concept of equality. I'm tending towards the latter.

Quote from JamesF1 :

I realise, since the origin of words as carrying meaning doesn't hold much sway with you, that you're not going to have an easy time with this.. but NEWSFLASH Sam: words are actually important and their usage is pivotal.

Works both ways.

Apparently it doesn't.

Quote from JamesF1 :

The word usage isn't divisive, the policies are. Stop making a fuss over something that is the smallest of small barriers to the LGBT community's general 'acceptability' by the world in it's entirety, and make a fuss over the main issue - the rights - if you're that concerned.

Your argument doesn't even rank among the tentative. You're not even making sense. Most people shut up when their argument is floundering like yours is. I'm covering my eyes, I can't watch.

Quote from 5haz :

Well thats true, but I find it odd how there is next to no mixing between the two at all, and as we all know we have people who support the BNP is this country, so the racism is still there,

I'm not denying that there are still racists in the UK, but racism is widely condemned and groups like the BNP have been forced underground and roundly vilified. About twenty five years ago it was a very different scenario.

Quote from 5haz :

Overall what I'm trying to say is that Racism and Hate for other groups is not an entirely one sided thing in most cases, but it is often treated as if it is.

That's because the negative consequences of prejudicial thinking are almost entirely borne by minority groups. I'm sure there are anti-white thinkers out there, but you're unlikely to be affected by them, because you're part of the majority in this country.

Quote :

But I think that sometimes, political correctness actually promotes segregation of various groups.

There's lots of things like Black Pride and Gay Pride, but there is no, 'Proud to all be getting on well with eachother without prejudice on this little rock we all call home' pride, I think because they're always promoting their minorities so much, they're basically shutting out and isolating themselves from others. There is still segregation, at college you very rarely see black people and white people talking to eachother, its because through all these 'pride' campaigns, people are actually encouraged to 'join a club' and be separate from others.

Perhaps we should ditch all this 'pride' molarkey and bring in a 'Proud to be free of Prejudice and Racist ideas' campaign.

I sound hopelessly optimistic.

I think similarly sometimes, but I've put it down to different parts of history catching up with itself. There probably has to be this idea of minorities and in that the recognition of a struggle for equality, even though the term is probably a disservice in the long run. In the far flung future of peace and harmony, there shouldn't need to be any 'minorities'. This thread shows that there's still work to be done, so the activism simply goes on...

Quote from thisnameistaken :

I'm a straight white meat-eater. .

Well thats a contradiction if ever I heard one

Quote :

Originally Posted by thisnameistaken
I'm a straight white meat-eater. .

Kinky

He also enjoys the occasional 'fag'.

actually, I think he goes through a box of the fags a day! :P

Quote :

Voters in California have passed Proposition 8 by a narrow margin. The proposition defines marriage as between a man and a woman and bans GLBT marriages, and invalidates existing marriages.

Damn. Prop 8 wins by a narrow margin - this time. Next time this issue comes up it'll be defeated - soundly - and then maybe the fundie hick sons of bitches can concentrate their effort & money on something that actually matters. Like, I dunno, teaching kids that Noah had dinosaurs on the ****ing Ark or whatever other fairytales they've got in their arsenal.

Becky, the Straight White Christian Arsehole Agenda(tm) may have won this round but, despite my disgust, I know it will come to nothing. Progression is inevitable and one day LBGT people will be able to marry each other without a single hurdle, no matter how many ignorant, paranoid, halfwitted bastards wish to cling to their stagnant, anti-human "morality".

Until then: screw you California, I (and much of the world) expected better.

But on the other hand ... go Barry O!

Pretty sure it can't invalidate current gay marriages.

Quite possibly 100% unconstitutional due to the Full Faith and Credit clause.

Next!

Quote :

and then maybe the fundie hick sons of bitches can concentrate their effort & money on something that actually matters.

40% of the yes-vote funding came from Mormons. (which makes the opening the door to the poligamy argument quite funny).

Quote :

Pretty sure it can't invalidate current gay marriages.

I'm afraid it does. The constitution is worded such that California does not recognise any gay marriage, all existing gay marriages are dissolved apparently, from what I understand and what the press are saying Its very sad.

Interesting article on it here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ ... p;type=politics&tsp=1