Preemptive post: Virginia's governor election is NOT a reflection of Obama

[A_Wanderer]

This is an issue of discrimination, the government privileges straight people with special rights and benefits that other couples don't enjoy. There are no good reasons for this unequal treatment, so the reactionaries have to use an argument of mob rule to enforce their position upon everybody rather than embarrass themselves with arguments against gay marriage.

 

[Diemen]

the world is a vastly more populated, colonized place because of straight people. mankind would all but disappear if we all suddenly chose to be gay.

And by giving equal rights to gays everyone will suddenly choose to be gay and civilization will be doomed to extinction, right?

Good Lord, Indy.

 

[INDY500]

the world is a vastly more interesting, creative place because of gay people. you would all miss us if we all suddenly chose to be straight.

And by not giving equal rights to gays, every gay will suddenly choose to be straight and civilization will be doomed to be less interesting and creative, right?

Good Lord, Irvine.

 

[BVS]

A 3rd grader could have done that better...

 

[AEON]

If civil unions gave all the same rights and benefits as marriage - would that take care of A_Wanderer's (valid) concern of government interference?

If civil unions are not acceptable - is the gay marriage fight really about perceived social acceptance instead of actual rights?

 

[A_Wanderer]

If civil unions gave all the same rights and benefits as marriage - would that take care of A_Wanderer's (valid) concern of government interference?

If civil unions are not acceptable - is the gay marriage fight really about perceived social acceptance instead of actual rights?

If it isn't the same as what straight couples get then it isn't equal, and that includes the title of marriage.

 

[AEON]

What exactly your exposure to teens across the country?

military (ask the young soldiers what they think about don't ask, don't tell), large family, neighborhood full of kids. Does that make me an expert on teens? No. I was just trying to point out that the attitude toward being gay seems worse than when I was a teen. If anything, it is not improving.

There are still those that believe black people are black because they are "marked" should we give their ignorance equal say? Ignorance is ignorance no matter if it's a majority or minority.

That is sort of my point - that calling someone ignorant on the issue, or misinformed, or illogical - is much easier to swallow than being called a bigot.

 

[AEON]

If it isn't the same as what straight couples get then it isn't equal, and that includes the title of marriage.

Let's assume that laws are passed that give civil unions 100% of the same rights as marriages - with the exception of title of marriage.

To you this would be unnacceptable? Why?

 

[Irvine511]

the reactionaries have to use an argument of mob rule to enforce their position upon everybody rather than embarrass themselves with arguments against gay marriage.

this is wonderfully succinct.

 

[Irvine511]

And by not giving equal rights to gays, every gay will suddenly choose to be straight and civilization will be doomed to be less interesting and creative, right?

Good Lord, Irvine.

why is someone who is SO AFRAID of government TYRANNY and views taxes as SERVITUDE and worries about health care taking away his FREEDOM be so unconcerned -- and fully admitting, right here -- that there are groups of americans who live under TYRANNY and SERVITUDE and don't have FREEDOM nor their CIVIL RIGHTS.

Good Lord, INDY, you embarrass yourself.

 

[Irvine511]

To you this would be unnacceptable? Why?

would it be acceptable for you and your wife to only be granted a civil union and not a marriage? why?

 

[BVS]

military (ask the young soldiers what they think about don't ask, don't tell), large family, neighborhood full of kids. Does that make me an expert on teens? No. I was just trying to point out that the attitude toward being gay seems worse than when I was a teen. If anything, it is not improving.

I worked for years in youth groups in TX of all places and I see a night and day difference between the attitudes of the teenagers and their parents. I've read many polls that don't agree with your assessment either.

As far as the military goes, I'm not sure. I do think there are certain cultures that attract homophobia, but I've also met a lot of soldiers that just don't give a shit, they don't care who serves next to them they don't have the attitude that all men can't control their urges(straight or gay).

That is sort of my point - that calling someone ignorant on the issue, or misinformed, or illogical - is much easier to swallow than being called a bigot.

Some are ignorant, and some are flat out bigots, I usually call them like I see them.

Let's assume that laws are passed that give civil unions 100% of the same rights as marriages - with the exception of title of marriage.

To you this would be unnacceptable? Why?

Seperate but equal? I think I've heard that before...

 

[HyperU2]

A 3rd grader could have done that better...

Sounds like the sort of thing you tell your dates.

 

[BVS]

Sounds like the sort of thing you tell your dates.

 

[AEON]

would it be acceptable for you and your wife to only be granted a civil union and not a marriage? why?

The civil union component of my marriage is the government granted legal rights. The actual marriage is the historical definition of the union between a man and a woman. You are asking to redefine a term that is already in place - and I am asking why? If it is for the rights given/protected by the government - it seems civil unions take care of that issue. There would be no need to redfine the term.

To many, it seems redefining marriage is more about public perception than it is about actual legal status.

 

[AEON]

Seperate but equal? I think I've heard that before...

Actually - I think that is the case. I think most people see the importance of given gay couples all the rights/benefits as marriage. But I don't think it will ever be possible to convince everyone that a gay marriage is the same as a tradition marriage - it just isn't (from a basic biological level).

 

[Diemen]

See what I did there?

Actually - I think that is the case. I think most people see the importance of given gay couples all the rights/benefits as marriage. But I don't think it will ever be possible to convince everyone that a gay marriage is the same as a tradition marriage - it just isn't (from a basic biological level).

I don't think it will ever be possible to convince everyone that an interracial marriage is the same as a traditional marriage - it just isn't.

 

[Diemen]

To many, it seems redefining marriage is more about public perception than it is about actual legal status.

So you're going on record here as being in favor of a separate but equal status for gays?

 

[BVS]

To many, it seems redefining marriage is more about public perception than it is about actual legal status.

And many would be wrong.

I have to laugh at the folks that have tried to steer away from their more homophobic reasons and focus on this new "redefine" argument.

This argument is moot. Marriage has been redefined many times throughout history. This argument is very transparent.

Actually - I think that is the case. I think most people see the importance of given gay couples all the rights/benefits as marriage. But I don't think it will ever be possible to convince everyone that a gay marriage is the same as a tradition marriage - it just isn't (from a basic biological level).

Ever be possible? What a narrow view. I wonder how many men in the past said, "I don't think it will ever be possible to convince everyone that marriage should be between just one many and only ONE woman"...

And the bilological argument is just as moot as the definition one, and you know it.

 

[Irvine511]

The civil union component of my marriage is the government granted legal rights. The actual marriage is the historical definition of the union between a man and a woman. You are asking to redefine a term that is already in place - and I am asking why? If it is for the rights given/protected by the government - it seems civil unions take care of that issue. There would be no need to redfine the term.

To many, it seems redefining marriage is more about public perception than it is about actual legal status.

why would a civil union not be good enough for you?

 

[Irvine511]

So you're going on record here as being in favor of a separate but equal status for gays?

and doesn't it make this way, way more complex than it needs to be?

conservatives pretend to be about liberty, and about reducing government in our lives, so why create an entirely new category of relationship? wouldn't it be cleaner and simpler to simply expand marriage -- by about 5% -- to include gay people? why go through the fuss of creating this clear, distinct, separate-but-equal category? why not just allow two adults to commit to each other legally and call it a marriage?

i think the real reason is that there seems to be a need to denigrate gay people. to tell them that they're not as good as you. that's the only reason why i see all this contortion around something that's really very simple. there has to be a stigmatized status so that a parent can affirm to a child, legally, that a gay person isn't as good as a straight person (so don't you dare be gay, junior).

all these "biological differences" are just window dressing on what really is very deep prejudice, something that i don't even think that many people are even aware of. you are saying, "no, YOU have a civil union, and I have a marriage. we are different, you see? we have to legally codify that difference."

this is why marriage is so threatening. because once the gays get married, once society really does say that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with a gay person, you have nothing to blame your prejudice on except your own ignorance.

and that's scary for some people. they know they have no rational arguments other than the "Adam and Steve" defense.

 

[AEON]

If gay marriage becomes legal - would you require that churches perform gay marriages to keep their tax exempt status? Would it become "hate speech" to teach that homosexuality is a sin (if that is their interpretation of Scripture - whether or not they are correct is another issue). I would bet more people are concerned about "next steps" than they are about gay marriage.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I wouldn't be worried about churches having particular social values imposed onto them, queer activists have more respect for the first amendment than you do.

 

[Irvine511]

If gay marriage becomes legal - would you require that churches perform gay marriages to keep their tax exempt status? Would it become "hate speech" to teach that homosexuality is a sin (if that is their interpretation of Scripture - whether or not they are correct is another issue). I would bet more people are concerned about "next steps" than they are about gay marriage.

i think people are concerned that they won't be able to kick faggots around, even if that's not a consciously formed thought.

churches can refuse to marry people from different religions, or require someone to convert before they will perform the marriage.

some churches seem to feel that it's perfectly fine to teach that women are second class citizens compared to their husbands without any legal repercussions, so i would imagine the same would apply here.

it might, however, become a bit of a less convincing sermon about the sinfulness of homosexuality if society doesn't offer socially sanctioned discriminatory status for gay couples. perhaps that's worrisome, and perhaps parents might have a more difficult time telling their kids that it's "wrong" or "bad" or "sinful" -- but racist parents have been successful in raising little racists, so i would imagine that some parents will still be successful.

but you're right, in a way. gay marriage = broad social approval of homosexuality. people will be free to say hateful things, like they are free to say hateful things about women and blacks and jews and whoever, but the credibility factor will fall.

if that's threatening, if that's a problem, then i suppose one would have a problem with same-sex marriage.

AEON, do you know any gay couples? i mean that as a serious question.

 

[anitram]

If gay marriage becomes legal - would you require that churches perform gay marriages to keep their tax exempt status? Would it become "hate speech" to teach that homosexuality is a sin (if that is their interpretation of Scripture - whether or not they are correct is another issue). I would bet more people are concerned about "next steps" than they are about gay marriage.

This hasn't been an issue in the other Western nations where gay marriage is legal, so I don't know why it would be in the US either.

 

[Diemen]

This hasn't been an issue in the other Western nations where gay marriage is legal, so I don't know why it would be in the US either.

 

[melon]

This hasn't been an issue in the other Western nations where gay marriage is legal, so I don't know why it would be in the US either.

We have a winner!

 

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

This is true it had nothing to do with Obama. VA almost always alternates a Rep.-Dem every four years (they cannot have a second term in VA) and after four years of idiocy by Tim Kaine,(such as closing the rest areas) it was bound to happen. Another huge reason was that Deeds was a stupid candidate with a stupid voice and stupid face who couldn't even make his own commercials. He used ones with others touting him, and worst of all he had a nasty smear campaign trying to use McDonnell's ancient college thesis and 1972 voting record against him. This backfired badly, even among the working women he was targeting.

Another reason was that he was a dumb hick from the mountains (no offense personally, love the VA mts) but because of this he did not strike a chord with the black voters- which he HAD to have. He didn't. They stayed away in droves, and he lost badly. Many whites only voted for him because they hated Republicans. Why the Dems chose him instead of Terry McAulliffe I'll never know.

FACT: A Republican can win big in VA without the black vote, A Democrat cannot. The black factor WAS the difference.

 

[BVS]

If gay marriage becomes legal - would you require that churches perform gay marriages to keep their tax exempt status? Would it become "hate speech" to teach that homosexuality is a sin (if that is their interpretation of Scripture - whether or not they are correct is another issue). I would bet more people are concerned about "next steps" than they are about gay marriage.

The church is not required to marry anyone they do not wish to marry(it's up to them what reason they give for not doing so and dealing with those consequences). This issue has NEVER been about forcing churches. You can keep trying to change the reason, but it's very transparent...

 

[AEON]

This hasn't been an issue in the other Western nations where gay marriage is legal, so I don't know why it would be in the US either.

From what I can gather - the only countries that currently allow same sex marriage are Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and Sweden and most of it happened within the last few years - is that correct?