Cross another hypocrite off the list

[somerfrost]

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]

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]

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]

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 ", 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]

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 ", 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]

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.

[Downthestretch55]

Somerfrost and Brian,
I just have to tell you that I've enjoyed your polite exchange.
You are both gentlemen.
You both have respected each other's opinions, and through the discussing, have demonstrated that there is agreement.
May I ask of both of you, do you not realize that the topic of "gay marriage" is yet another bogus attempt to divert attention from some other more pressing topics? Is this something that demands the best creative mental energies of those that really care? Or can you both, see the "side-track" for what it really is?
Danzig said it well.
There are some areas that the government holds no right to, including but not limited to, what occurs between consenting adults.
Equality is inclusive of ALL! It's just that simple.
Everything else is a "smoke screen", and should be seen as such.
DTS