Derby Trail Forums
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Cross another hypocrite off the list (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7027)

somerfrost 11-20-2006 10:30 AM
Cross another hypocrite off the list
 
Gov Romney of Mass is obviously positioning himself for a run at the White House...today he demanded the state Legislature vote on anti-ga-y legislation or else he will call a special election to have voters vote on it! This is a transparent move to distance himself from g-ay rights and placate the conservative, fundamentalist christian, we have a right to see what you do in your bedroom element of the Elephant party....booo! One less candidate to consider in 08...while he's at it, I think he should float a trial balloon advocating a return of Jim Crow...could create a lot of jobs constructing separate facilities throughout the state!

Downthestretch55 11-20-2006 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by somerfrost
Gov Romney of Mass is obviously positioning himself for a run at the White House...today he demanded the state Legislature vote on anti-ga-y legislation or else he will call a special election to have voters vote on it! This is a transparent move to distance himself from g-ay rights and placate the conservative, fundamentalist christian, we have a right to see what you do in your bedroom element of the Elephant party....booo! One less candidate to consider in 08...while he's at it, I think he should float a trial balloon advocating a return of Jim Crow...could create a lot of jobs constructing separate facilities throughout the state!
Somerfrost,
You might have heard that Romney tried to float a trial balloon in an attempt to run for gov in NY last spring. It sank like a stone.
For sure, the folks in Provincetown won't take kindly to his latest ploy.
Sure, ga-y bashing plays well with some. As if it's their business.
The Repubs need to consider what they're really doing. Many see "right" through it.
Can we have a pledge of allegiance debate or one about flag burning?
Or perhaps, there just might be other more pressing issues that demand consideration.
RIP Matthew Sheppard. Those that hate because you loved deserve their own fate.

Danzig 11-20-2006 03:44 PM
i saw this earlier today, and i'm disappointed in his stance.

the whole point to the constitution, the heart and soul of our govt, is that ALL have rights. ALL are created equal. this country is not 'majority rule' as some claim it is. the majority has NO right to vote in a policy that is unconstitutional. i know some enjoy bashing the aclu, it's a whipping boy for many causes. but thank goodness they exist, as they speak for the oh so small minority that so often gets shouted down. they stand up for those that everyone else shuns.

as mccain said, everyone should be able to have a civil union. after all, that's what my husband and i have--in a nutshell. we were married by the county judge, a civil servant.

too many spend too much time worrying about what others are doing. i am talking about consenting adults here guys....what any adult does with any other adult is no one else's business.

Danzig 11-20-2006 03:45 PM
computer gremlins..

Danzig 11-20-2006 03:46 PM
repost....

Rupert Pupkin 11-20-2006 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by somerfrost
Gov Romney of Mass is obviously positioning himself for a run at the White House...today he demanded the state Legislature vote on anti-ga-y legislation or else he will call a special election to have voters vote on it! This is a transparent move to distance himself from g-ay rights and placate the conservative, fundamentalist christian, we have a right to see what you do in your bedroom element of the Elephant party....booo! One less candidate to consider in 08...while he's at it, I think he should float a trial balloon advocating a return of Jim Crow...could create a lot of jobs constructing separate facilities throughout the state!
I totally disagree with your whole premise. I think that the vast majority of people have no problem with a person being gay. But by the same token, the vast majority of people are not in favor of gay marriage. Just because a person is not in favor of gay marriage, that does not make the person a bigot. I don't think that most people care about what other people are doing in the bedroom. But that is a different issue than marriage.

Just because there are certain laws, that does not mean that the government is telling you what to do in your bedroom. I am not allowed to have 5 wives. You may think that this means that the government is sticking their head in my bedroom. I don't see it that way. The government is not telling me that I can't sleep with 5 women. They are only telling me that I can't be married to 5 different women. There is a big difference.

Danzig 11-20-2006 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
I totally disagree with your whole premise. I think that the vast majority of people have no problem with a person being gay. But by the same token, the vast majority of people are not in favor of gay marriage. Just because a person is not in favor of gay marriage, that does not make the person a bigot. I don't think that most people care about what other people are doing in the bedroom. But that is a different issue than marriage.

Just because there are certain laws, that does not mean that the government is telling you what to do in your bedroom. I am not allowed to have 5 wives. You may think that this means that the government is sticking their head in my bedroom. I don't see it that way. The government is not telling me that I can't sleep with 5 women. They are only telling me that I can't be married to 5 different women. There is a big difference.

no, there are plenty of people who aren't anti-gay, but are against gay marriage.
but in the case of civil laws...how can one person have a right to declare their mate, but not another? i think that's the heart of it all. this hasn't got anything to do with heaven or hell, but with next of kin, with legal issues, with who an adult wants to claim as their 'joint partner' on tax forms.

Rupert Pupkin 11-20-2006 04:01 PM
I live in California. California is one of the most liberal states in the country. We have a very large gay population here. Nobody in California has a problem with gay people, yet the voters in California are overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage. I believe the voters here passed a law outlawing gay marriage. I don't think people in California are anti-gay by any means. I don't think that being against gay marriage makes you anti-gay.

Rupert Pupkin 11-20-2006 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig188
no, there are plenty of people who aren't anti-gay, but are against gay marriage.
but in the case of civil laws...how can one person have a right to declare their mate, but not another? i think that's the heart of it all. this hasn't got anything to do with heaven or hell, but with next of kin, with legal issues, with who an adult wants to claim as their 'joint partner' on tax forms.
I don't think most people have a problem with that. I think that some states including California have laws that allow gay couples to have many of the same tax benefits as married couples.

Rupert Pupkin 11-20-2006 04:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by somerfrost
Gov Romney of Mass is obviously positioning himself for a run at the White House...today he demanded the state Legislature vote on anti-ga-y legislation or else he will call a special election to have voters vote on it! This is a transparent move to distance himself from g-ay rights and placate the conservative, fundamentalist christian, we have a right to see what you do in your bedroom element of the Elephant party....booo! One less candidate to consider in 08...while he's at it, I think he should float a trial balloon advocating a return of Jim Crow...could create a lot of jobs constructing separate facilities throughout the state!
You call Romney a hypocrite. How is he a hypocrite?

Downthestretch55 11-20-2006 04:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
I totally disagree with your whole premise. I think that the vast majority of people have no problem with a person being gay. But by the same token, the vast majority of people are not in favor of gay marriage. Just because a person is not in favor of gay marriage, that does not make the person a bigot. I don't think that most people care about what other people are doing in the bedroom. But that is a different issue than marriage.

Just because there are certain laws, that does not mean that the government is telling you what to do in your bedroom. I am not allowed to have 5 wives. You may think that this means that the government is sticking their head in my bedroom. I don't see it that way. The government is not telling me that I can't sleep with 5 women. They are only telling me that I can't be married to 5 different women. There is a big difference.
Rupert,
I'm not gay, so let me take that out of the debate.
Here's the "reality".
Do hetero-couples get a tax advantage on their IRS filing?
Do hetero-couples have determination as to their estates?
Do hetero-couples have a say in the medical care of their partners?
Can hetero-couples designate health care to their partners on their insurance policies?
If you answered yes to the above questions, you are correct.
So, why should others, because of their preferences, be denied the same rights?
As Danzig stated, the same rights and priveleges should, must, be provided for all. To do otherwise is unjust.

somerfrost 11-20-2006 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
I don't think most people have a problem with that. I think that some states including California have laws that allow gay couples to have many of the same tax benefits as married couples.
Yep...and all those enlightened southern states that had "separate but equal" laws...what was the difference? When you say to a group of people that they can't have the same legal rights as others...that's discrimination, pure and simple! And..."nobody in California..." that's a rather sweeping generalization! Why would one be against gay marriage if they believe in their heart that a gay person is the same as them? All kinds of rhetoric, all kinds of semantics, all kinds of utter BS!!! "Many of the same tax benefits" is that the same as saying equal under the law? I've been here before...the "enlightened" folks who say, "Why some of my best friends are....(fill in the blank)" Got nothing against gay folk...as long as they don't move in next door or have to audacity to not know their place! My god, give in to these folks and next thing you know...those hell-bound Wiccans will want to have religious symbols on the tombstones of Wiccan soldiers killed defending our right to discriminate ....oh wait!

Rupert Pupkin 11-20-2006 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by somerfrost
Yep...and all those enlightened southern states that had "separate but equal" laws...what was the difference? When you say to a group of people that they can't have the same legal rights as others...that's discrimination, pure and simple! And..."nobody in California..." that's a rather sweeping generalization! Why would one be against gay marriage if they believe in their heart that a gay person is the same as them? All kinds of rhetoric, all kinds of semantics, all kinds of utter BS!!! "Many of the same tax benefits" is that the same as saying equal under the law? I've been here before...the "enlightened" folks who say, "Why some of my best friends are....(fill in the blank)" Got nothing against gay folk...as long as they don't move in next door or have to audacity to not know their place! My god, give in to these folks and next thing you know...those hell-bound Wiccans will want to have religious symbols on the tombstones of Wiccan soldiers killed defending our right to discriminate ....oh wait!
Why can't I have 5 wives? If I have 5 girlfriends, they should all be allowed to have the same legal benefits. How can the governemnt tell me that I can only marry one of them. That means that the other 4 will not get the same legal rights.

If you think that I should only be able to marry one of the women, then I think you are being hypocritical.

somerfrost 11-20-2006 04:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
Why can't I have 5 wives? If I have 5 girlfriends, they should all be allowed to have the same legal benefits. How can the governemnt tell me that I can only marry one of them. That means that the other 4 will not get the same legal rights.
Frankly, I don't care if you have 20 wives, it has nothing to do with the issue of gay rights! That's like saying if we allow Mexicans to cross the border illegally, soon they will be joined by Martians...one can debate immigration without looking to another planet and this subject can be debated without looking at other non-related issues! Red Herring!!!

Rupert Pupkin 11-20-2006 04:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by somerfrost
Frankly, I don't care if you have 20 wives, it has nothing to do with the issue of gay rights! That's like saying if we allow Mexicans to cross the border illegally, soon they will be joined by Martians...one can debate immigration without looking to another planet and this subject can be debated without looking at other non-related issues! Red Herring!!!
Well, you answered my question. You just said that you think that a man should be able to have 20 wives. You are enititled to your opinion. Your idea of mariage is clearly far different from what most people's idea of marriage is. That's fine. It doesn't mean that you are wrong. I respect your belief that a man should be able to have 20 wives. By the same token, you should respect the belief of others that a man should only be allowed to have one wife.

By the way, I think this is very relevant to the discussion because there have to be some rules to marriage. People need to decide if marriage should be be between one man and one woman or maybe one man and 20 women, or maybe even between two men. I think that most people think that marriage should be between one man and one woman. It doesn't mean that these people are right, but these people are entitled to their opinion just like you are entitled to yours.

Downthestretch55 11-20-2006 04:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardus
I love liberals. All you have to do is let them open their mouths, and they will reveal their idiocy. For instance, one of my favorite people in America is Howard Dean. I love listening to him speak! I know that he will embarrass himself. (Well, he should be embarrassed by his drivel.)

Somerfrost might become my second most favorite person in America.

People are equal under the law. However, you cannot compare people who live with one another with married couples. Apples and oranges. Why? Marriage is defined by a union of man and woman. There is nothing wrong with that definition, just as there is nothing wrong with not permitting those who are not man and woman choosing to live together not to receive the same legal, and economic, acknowledgments.

When you juxtapose "Jim Crow" laws with the idea that a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage and are subjecting people to second-class status -- and by definition gay marriage cannot exist -- then I know you have a weak argument.

And please, Downthestretch, leave Matt Sheppard out of this debate; perhaps you should acknowledge all of the horrific tales of NAMBLA types torturing young boys that are not reported by the "enlightened" media, but need to be exposed by intellectually honest columnists like Michelle Malkin. Where are those stories -- Malkin's work is court-documneted -- treated with the same exposure as that of a Matthew Sheppard incident?

Now that is hypocrisy.
Cardus,
Talk about apples and oranges!
All I said was that I wished for Matthew Sheppard to RIP.
I said nothing about NAMBLA.
Twist, twist, twist and spin.
As Danzig stated, ALL people should share the same rights. I agree.
Tell me, who do you think is undeserving?

somerfrost 11-20-2006 05:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardus
I love liberals. All you have to do is let them open their mouths, and they will reveal their idiocy. For instance, one of my favorite people in America is Howard Dean. I love listening to him speak! I know that he will embarrass himself. (Well, he should be embarrassed by his drivel.)

Somerfrost might become my second most favorite person in America.

People are equal under the law. However, you cannot compare people who live with one another with married couples. Apples and oranges. Why? Marriage is defined by a union of man and woman. There is nothing wrong with that definition, just as there is nothing wrong with not permitting those who are not man and woman choosing to live together not to receive the same legal, and economic, acknowledgments.

When you juxtapose "Jim Crow" laws with the idea that a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage and are subjecting people to second-class status -- and by definition gay marriage cannot exist -- then I know you have a weak argument.

And please, Downthestretch, leave Matt Sheppard out of this debate; perhaps you should acknowledge all of the horrific tales of NAMBLA types torturing young boys that are not reported by the "enlightened" media, but need to be exposed by intellectually honest columnists like Michelle Malkin. Where are those stories -- Malkin's work is court-documneted -- treated with the same exposure as that of a Matthew Sheppard incident?

Now that is hypocrisy.
Sorry Cardus...like all folks who jump to conclusions without facts, you are wrong...I'm not a liberal, never have been, never will...my distain for liberals is exceeded only by my distain for conservatives! "Marriage is defined..."...defined by whom? I don't define it that way! "All Men" as stated in the Constitution was defined as white male land owners....a definition is nothing more than the words of the power elite...meaningless!

Downthestretch55 11-20-2006 05:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardus
Oh, come on. Placing Matthew Sheppard in that post isn't loaded? That was a random line?

All people, by law, do share the same rights. All married people have the same rights.
Cardus,
Go back and read what I said. Matthew loved, others hated.
Am I wrong?
Now about all people sharing the same rights...are you "qualifying" that premise by saying that those that are married have the same rights, or ALL people?
You might have just defined hypocracy...but I'll let you sort it out.
the question remains..."who is undeserving of rights"?
And why?

Rupert Pupkin 11-20-2006 05:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by somerfrost
Gov Romney of Mass is obviously positioning himself for a run at the White House...today he demanded the state Legislature vote on anti-ga-y legislation or else he will call a special election to have voters vote on it! This is a transparent move to distance himself from g-ay rights and placate the conservative, fundamentalist christian, we have a right to see what you do in your bedroom element of the Elephant party....booo! One less candidate to consider in 08...while he's at it, I think he should float a trial balloon advocating a return of Jim Crow...could create a lot of jobs constructing separate facilities throughout the state!
I think you will have to cross everyone off your list then. I don't think that any of the candidates in either party are in favor of gay marriage. I believe that even Hillary and Kerry have come out against it.

somerfrost 11-20-2006 06:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
I think you will have to cross everyone off your list then. I don't think that any of the candidates in either party are in favor of gay marriage. I believe that even Hillary and Kerry have come out against it.
I'm not sure where Hillary stands on the issue...I'll be disappointed if she supports anti-gay legislation. Kerry? Who cares? I wouldn't vote for Kerry under any circumstances. Not sure about Obama either...I'm sure we'll hear if he runs. Usually, I don't vote based solely on one issue...for example, trying to find a candidate who cares about the issues that I do and is anti-abortion is often impossible. Not since Casey anyway!

Downthestretch55 11-21-2006 08:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardus
How do you know that Matthew "loved?" Close personal friend?

Or, because he was gay, it is assumed that he "loved?" Maybe he was a miserable person who happened to be gay.
Cardus,
Those that murdered Matthew demonstrated hatred...is this not correct?
Again, you didn't answer the questions I asked.
1) Who should have their rights denied?
2) Why do you believe so?

Downthestretch55 11-21-2006 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardus
And some murderers do not demonstrate hatred?
Your point????
Your answers to the other two questions????

Downthestretch55 11-21-2006 05:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardus
Wrong to the above.

Married couples are permitted to receive the above benefits.
Cardus,
For clarification purposes...
hetero= male/female partnerships.
homo= male/male,or female/female partnerships.

I guess either I'm wrong, or you don't know what these terms mean.

I'm also still waiting for your answers to my two questions.
If you are defeated in this debate, at least have the courtesy to admit it.

brianwspencer 11-21-2006 05:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Downthestretch55
If you are defeated in this debate, at least have the courtesy to admit it.
There is no way to really "win" this argument. I, for one, am for gay marriage but can completely see why people would be against it.

I think that civil unions are the answer, as they would give all the same rights to a couple, but would not use the word "marriage."

Sadly, most of my liberal brethren would not be happy with that, because they're so far gone that they would still think that was unequal, which means that we would be fighting for equality in words -- which is a most absurd notion when every right equal to marriage would be bestowed on these couples.

The reality is, that this issue just won't ever stop being an issue. But my generation is full of a disproportionate percentage of people who are for gay marriage -- so it's only a matter of time before we're the majority....and then true equality will occur.

Danzig 11-21-2006 06:49 PM
the thing i ca't figure out is...what would it hurt any person to know that gays can marry? what affect would it have to anyone other than the gay people who could legally commit to another person? would i still have the life i have? sure would. would my kids? well, yes.
as for 'respect for the sanctity of marriage' as an argument, that is fairly easy to dispute, knowing how many marriages end in failure. if hetero couples are so easily swayed from a supposed commitment, just how holy is matrimony anyway??
in your religion, if your church feels a certain way regarding marriage, that's one thing...
but as far as this country, and as far as church and state being separate, and as marriage is considered a 'legal agreement', than i would think the govt has no right to declare rights for some, but not all.

brianwspencer 11-21-2006 06:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig188
the thing i ca't figure out is...what would it hurt any person to know that gays can marry? what affect would it have to anyone other than the gay people who could legally commit to another person? would i still have the life i have? sure would. would my kids? well, yes.
as for 'respect for the sanctity of marriage' as an argument, that is fairly easy to dispute, knowing how many marriages end in failure. if hetero couples are so easily swayed from a supposed commitment, just how holy is matrimony anyway??
in your religion, if your church feels a certain way regarding marriage, that's one thing...
but as far as this country, and as far as church and state being separate, and as marriage is considered a 'legal agreement', than i would think the govt has no right to declare rights for some, but not all.
which is exactly why you call it a "civil union" and then watch the mayhem that ensues. Anyone still against it would out themselves as an extremist. This way, homosexuals get the rights -- which they claim is the only thing they're after, and the Christian right gets to hold on to the semantics. Then, your left-wingers who still insisted it be called marriage would prove that they were lying the whole time, and that their agenda is about beating the Christian right, and not getting equal rights. Those on the Christian right who still wouldn't back it, would expose themselves as judgmental and proponents of inequality -- and therefore expose themselves as terrible Christians to begin with.

End of story -- everyone wins!

Danzig 11-21-2006 07:02 PM
i just don't understand why anyone really gives a rats behind about what others do.

what is that saying about when they went after a group, i said nothing...and then another, i said nothing... and then i was the one they came for, and there was no one left to speak up. a rather crude version, but essentially correct.

somerfrost 11-22-2006 10:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig188
i just don't understand why anyone really gives a rats behind about what others do.

what is that saying about when they went after a group, i said nothing...and then another, i said nothing... and then i was the one they came for, and there was no one left to speak up. a rather crude version, but essentially correct.
The problem with calling it a "civil union" or for that matter a "grilled cheese sandwich" is that it denotes a difference! Semantics can be important if wording is used to promote certain concepts...in this case that gay folks are "different". I don't hide my opinion...I'm rather straight forward! It's not about "beating" some group or ideology...there's room on this planet for different religions, philosophies, and ideologies as long as everyone respects the rights of others (unfortunately that's the fly in the ointment...well, more like the elephant in the fridge). I use to support the idea of "civil unions" as a first step but unfortunately...a person is either accepting of others or not, there is no middle ground here...well, "middle ground" is occupied by the hypocrites who call themselves "liberal" in many (no, not all) cases. Accepting a "compromise" when it comes to equality is akin to accepting "less than human" status...and that's simply not the path out of this mess!

brianwspencer 11-22-2006 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by somerfrost
The problem with calling it a "civil union" or for that matter a "grilled cheese sandwich" is that it denotes a difference! Semantics can be important if wording is used to promote certain concepts...in this case that gay folks are "different". I don't hide my opinion...I'm rather straight forward! It's not about "beating" some group or ideology...there's room on this planet for different religions, philosophies, and ideologies as long as everyone respects the rights of others (unfortunately that's the fly in the ointment...well, more like the elephant in the fridge). I use to support the idea of "civil unions" as a first step but unfortunately...a person is either accepting of others or not, there is no middle ground here...well, "middle ground" is occupied by the hypocrites who call themselves "liberal" in many (no, not all) cases. Accepting a "compromise" when it comes to equality is akin to accepting "less than human" status...and that's simply not the path out of this mess!
I totally understand the logic in what you're saying here -- but I just don't think the semantics should matter. I don't think that calling the same thing two different words should matter. I think that is a compromise that is fair to all parties.

What are we fighting for in the first place? We're fighting because the government stepped into a religious institution and gave those who enter into a religious "contract" certain benefits and rights. So if the government gives homosexual couples those very same benefits and rights, then what more is there? Parity is achieved. That really should end the story right there.

Let the religious right think that they are superior by forcing homosexuals to get those rights under a different name, let them do whatever they want. Homosexuals will be equal in the eyes of the law, and that should be all that matters.

somerfrost 11-22-2006 11:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianwspencer
I totally understand the logic in what you're saying here -- but I just don't think the semantics should matter. I don't think that calling the same thing two different words should matter. I think that is a compromise that is fair to all parties.

What are we fighting for in the first place? We're fighting because the government stepped into a religious institution and gave those who enter into a religious "contract" certain benefits and rights. So if the government gives homosexual couples those very same benefits and rights, then what more is there? Parity is achieved. That really should end the story right there.

Let the religious right think that they are superior by forcing homosexuals to get those rights under a different name, let them do whatever they want. Homosexuals will be equal in the eyes of the law, and that should be all that matters.
The problem is that there are two things that you can't legislate...morality and folks opinions. When the sweeping Civil Rights legislation was passed by the federal government in the 60's, it gave us in the movement leverage but didn't give black folks equality! Women are supposedly "equal under the law" but "glass ceilings" abound...the old prejudices, the old mis-information, the old mindsets take time (generations) to overcome BUT they will always exist if reinforced by societal constructs that illuminate "differences"...that's why the words are important!

brianwspencer 11-22-2006 11:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by somerfrost
The problem is that there are two things that you can't legislate...morality and folks opinions. When the sweeping Civil Rights legislation was passed by the federal government in the 60's, it gave us in the movement leverage but didn't give black folks equality! Women are supposedly "equal under the law" but "glass ceilings" abound...the old prejudices, the old mis-information, the old mindsets take time (generations) to overcome BUT they will always exist if reinforced by societal constructs that illuminate "differences"...that's why the words are important!
Right, but LEGALLY it did make them equal, even if it didn't change how people felt. If calling it marriage is still not going to change peoples' views (which it won't), then why delay it any further by insisting that it be called marriage? This fight becomes so much easier if people just back off of the marriage thing and ask for civil unions.

Based on this post...what does fighting for marriage accomplish? Whether it's called civil union, marriage, or "grilled cheese sandwich:D ", those who don't approve still won't approve. So if the rights can be granted faster by using a different word, then what's the hold up?

somerfrost 11-22-2006 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianwspencer
Right, but LEGALLY it did make them equal, even if it didn't change how people felt. If calling it marriage is still not going to change peoples' views (which it won't), then why delay it any further by insisting that it be called marriage? This fight becomes so much easier if people just back off of the marriage thing and ask for civil unions.

Based on this post...what does fighting for marriage accomplish? Whether it's called civil union, marriage, or "grilled cheese sandwich:D ", those who don't approve still won't approve. So if the rights can be granted faster by using a different word, then what's the hold up?
A valid point Brian...my only answer is that once you legalize differences, they become canon. Whatever term is applied, you are correct, it won't change opinions already "set in stone" but the next generation, and the one after that will take their cues from what society has "set"...if children grow up seeing the emphasis on "differences", they will believe that people are different...if they grow up seeing that all folks are given the same rights, treated the same, they will more likely accept that all folks are the same. I respect your point of view that sometimes change is best accomplished by taking "baby steps" rather than giant leaps...I learned impatience in the 60's and have never outgrown it intellectually, pragmatically...I can deal!

brianwspencer 11-22-2006 02:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by somerfrost
my only answer is that once you legalize differences, they become canon. Whatever term is applied, you are correct, it won't change opinions already "set in stone" but the next generation, and the one after that will take their cues from what society has "set"...if children grow up seeing the emphasis on "differences", they will believe that people are different...
good good good point. just remember how attitudes are shifting on this though. Once my generation becomes the generation in charge, this won't even be an issue anymore. By and large, we don't give a **** about who marries who, and policy shifts will reflect that. By the time my kids come around, this whole argument will have been put to rest and everyone will be getting married anyway.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:39 AM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.