equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[phillyfan26]

Single
Married
Civil Union
Divorced
Widowed

Why would only the Civil Union be discriminatory?

Because the other three things have nothing to do with what we're talking about? Because they're all legitimate statuses that anyone can have?

I mean, seriously, INDY (and AEON, et al.) ... what is the problem with gay marriage? Why do you want it to be a union and not a marriage? Is there some difference there that's important, some distinction that matters? Something I'm missing here? I mean, you wouldn't so vehemently be against gays being allowed to marry unless there was something really dangerous about it happening, right?

 

[INDY500]

That's what we should have told Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks...

How come you never mention Malcolm X (who was a black segregationist ), or Bobby Seale and Huey Newton of the Black Panthers, or Stokely Carmichael of the Black Power Movement.

There were some things (black-liberation, Marxism, Maoism) in the 60's civil rights movement that SHOULD have scared Americans back then. In fact, they STILL SHOULD scare Americans.

Was one automatically a racist if they fought against any concept, idea or action, put forth in the name of civil rights in the late sixties?

Are there any concepts, ideas or actions WE DID take or accept (with the best of intentions) that, in hindsight, now appear to have been a mistake?

 

[martha]

Are there any concepts, ideas or actions WE DID take or accept (with the best of intentions) that, in hindsight, now appear to have been a mistake?

Sounds like you might have some in mind. Could you share those with us?

 

[melon]

Sounds like you might have some in mind. Could you share those with us?

I'm thinking he regrets abolishing indentured servitude and expanding voting rights to non-property owning white men...

...hah.

 

[BVS]

What's wrong with equal but different? Not different in a judgmental way but in a classificational way.

Why would only the Civil Union be discriminatory?

Right now a civil union is not equal to a marriage.

And just like the back of the bus might be on the same bus, it's not equal when you're forced to sit there. Remember that term you and and all those AM radio guys use, "freedom of choice"? Well you're being a hypocrite about it.

 

[BVS]

How come you never mention Malcolm X (who was a black segregationist ), or Bobby Seale and Huey Newton of the Black Panthers, or Stokely Carmichael of the Black Power Movement.

Well maybe, here's a crazy idea I know, but maybe it's because I don't support segregation...

Whatever point you were trying to make, you failed.

 

[melon]

What's wrong with equal but different? Not different in a judgmental way but in a classificational way.

Because here's a novel concept: You never bothered to ask what gay people wanted. Instead, you're contented to force them into a classification against their will. If that's the case, then what's wrong with the "non-judgmental classification" of "negroes and coloreds" while we're at it?

 

[diamond]

If that's the case, then what's wrong with the "non-judgmental classification" of "negroes and coloreds" while we're at it?

Most African Americans disagree with this correlation.

In Calif 70% supported Prop 8, but they're probably the stupid ones, right?

<>

 

[BVS]

Most African Americans disagree with this correlation.

In Calif 70% supported Prop 8, but they're probably the stupid ones, right?

<>

And the majority is always right... That's what American exceptionalism has taught us!!!

 

[melon]

Most African Americans disagree with this correlation.

What African Americans think of gay people has as much relevance as what white people think of blacks. Neither has the right to impose their will over the civil rights of the other.

 

[martha]

Neither has the right to impose their will over the civil rights of the other.

Not even by a vote?? Why do you hate democracy? What have those socialist/fascist Canadians done to you?

 

[Irvine511]

What African Americans think of gay people has as much relevance as what white people think of blacks. Neither has the right to impose their will over the civil rights of the other.

clearly, in the 1960s, the only legitimate way for blacks to have entered the University of Alabama would have been if the voters of the state of Alabama had voted to allow those 5 students to enter. blacks should only have the rights that white people agree upon and have voted on and can thusly give to them on Christmas morning wrapped up with a bow and a nice little note thanking them for their request, and this is what customer service was able to do.

 

[UberBeaver]

How come you never mention Malcolm X (who was a black segregationist ), or Bobby Seale and Huey Newton of the Black Panthers, or Stokely Carmichael of the Black Power Movement.

There were some things (black-liberation, Marxism, Maoism) in the 60's civil rights movement that SHOULD have scared Americans back then. In fact, they STILL SHOULD scare Americans.

Was one automatically a racist if they fought against any concept, idea or action, put forth in the name of civil rights in the late sixties?

Are there any concepts, ideas or actions WE DID take or accept (with the best of intentions) that, in hindsight, now appear to have been a mistake?

Are you honestly unable to disassociate Malcolm X from MLK? Huey Newton from Medgar Evers? Many people sided with MLK and Evers (sane, fair, hopeful, honest and right), and rejected The Black Panthers and Malcolm X (radical, irrational, extreme, wrong). It's not an issue of being racist, it's an issue of common sense and fairness. Saying YES to MLK is far from saying YES to Black Segregation. One is, in fact, the opposite of the other. But you lump them as equal ideas? Huh? Making mention of MLK does not warrant making a mention of Malcom X in the same way that talking about Derek Jeter doesn't warrant a mention of Eli Manning - even if they both play for teams based in NY, that's where the similarity ends.

 

[phillyfan26]

Are there any concepts, ideas or actions WE DID take or accept (with the best of intentions) that, in hindsight, now appear to have been a mistake?

I'm assuming you're trying to vaguely reference affirmative action.

 

[Irvine511]

affirmative action gave the Republicans Colin Powell -- they get to point to him as an example of why they're not racist.

thus, Republicans should love affirmative action.

 

[Diemen]

My "broad strokes" comment was in reference to your "white guys" statement.

 

[deep]

Because the other three things have nothing to do with what we're talking about? Because they're all legitimate statuses that anyone can have?

I mean, seriously, INDY (and AEON, et al.) ... what is the problem with gay marriage? Why do you want it to be a union and not a marriage? Is there some difference there that's important, some distinction that matters? Something I'm missing here? I mean, you wouldn't so vehemently be against gays being allowed to marry unless there was something really dangerous about it happening, right?

A person is either married or single. Why have the divorced or widowed classification?

I voted no on Prop 8 in CA because I have no problem with gays getting married.

But I stand with all the gay people and gay supporters in Washington State that put 'Civil Unions' on the ballot this last election and won their rights for equal protection.

The "everything but the word marriage" was put on the ballot in Washington by gay rights supporters because they wanted 'equal rights' and 'equal protection'.

The ballot was not sponsored or supported by 'anti- gay' groups.

Sure, we have a handfull of places were gay 'marriage' can win, but it appears only to be a few places. With initiatives like the one in Washington other states will flip. I really believe CA and Maines losing margins were close enough that by just leaving out the word 'marriage' gays would have won their rights by a popular vote, just like what happened in Washington.

That would be much better to have a record like 6 wins and 28 loses, win the most recent elections being 'wins' instead of losses.

Right now the record is something like 1 win and 33 loses?

and what won at the ballot? Equal rights and protections for gays by a popular vote! Under the term, "Unions".

The best way to win an argument? Is to frame it in away most likely to win!

Once 'unions' are law. Gays will be able to get married and have all the same rights and benefits of 'marriage' as everyone else.

 

[phillyfan26]

A person is either married or single. Why have the divorced or widowed classification?

I voted no on Prop 8 in CA because I have no problem with gays getting married.

But I stand with all the gay people and gay supporters in Washington State that put 'Civil Unions' on the ballot this last election and won their rights for equal protection.

The "everything but the word marriage" was put on the ballot in Washington by gay rights supporters because they wanted 'equal rights' and 'equal protection'.

The ballot was not sponsored or supported by 'anti- gay' groups.

Sure, we have a handfull of places were gay 'marriage' can win, but it appears only to be a few places. With initiatives like the one in Washington other states will flip. I really believe CA and Maines losing margins were close enough that by just leaving out the word 'marriage' gays would have won their rights by a popular vote, just like what happened in Washington.

That would be much better to have a record like 6 wins and 28 loses, win the most recent elections being 'wins' instead of losses.

Right now the record is something like 1 win and 33 loses?

and what won at the ballot? Equal rights and protections for gays by a popular vote! Under the term, "Unions".

The best way to win an argument? Is to frame it in away most likely to win!

Once 'unions' are law. Gays will be able to get married and have all the same rights and benefits of 'marriage' as everyone else.

Do you understand why I support marriage? Shit, I'm straight. I have nothing invested in this whatsoever. I support marriage because that's what gays want. And I support it because they want something reasonable, something they deserve, something that does no harm to anyone. If they just wanted civil unions, then I'd support civil unions. But because they want marriage and that desire is in no way unreasonable, I support that.

 

[deep]

Would you have voted against Civil Unions in Washington State?

 

[phillyfan26]

Not at all, but that's not the point.

 

[BonosSaint]

I support equal rights, including calling it marriage. I do agree with deep on a strategy level, that with the defacto rights in force, the term marriage will follow. However, it's not up to me to strategize and I understand why calling it anything less than marriage is discriminatory, so I defer to the judgment of those making the call. I think it's a harder road but a better destination.

 

[martha]

My "broad strokes" comment was in reference to your "white guys" statement.

I know, but the was for the "you're not" follow-up.

 

[anitram]

The best way to win an argument? Is to frame it in away most likely to win!

Once 'unions' are law. Gays will be able to get married and have all the same rights and benefits of 'marriage' as everyone else.

The way we got gay marriage in Canada was by eroding basically all differences under the law over a 20 year period and then going in for the marriage kill (though there was no "union" before that as a bridge). So your argument is likely sound in my view.

However, I doubt that it would get you much farther than you are now. You're right that those two states, CA and ME may have flipped...but the states that are hostile to the idea of equal rights for gays and lesbians (ie. most of your country) would not budge for unions either.

The thing that will defeat the anti-gay marriage crowd at the ballot will be time. In my view, they probably have about 20 years to go at most in a great number of states. There are some that will likely take longer, however.

 

[diamond]

Would you have voted against Civil Unions in Washington State?

careful, others have been labeled as bigots by previously taking this stance.

<>

 

[BVS]

careful, others have been labeled as bigots by previously taking this stance.

<>

False, no one has...

Quit trolling.

 

[diamond]

 

[BVS]

Which part of that is confusing for you?

No one has been called a bigot for saying they would vote for civil unions in Washington State, and we all know that you know what trolling is.

 

[diamond]

Which part of that is confusing for you?

No one has been called a bigot for saying they would vote for civil unions in Washington State, and we all know that you know what trolling is.

Let's stop with the obfuscating and name calling.

Plenty of times people who have said that they're ok with Civil Unions for gay people instead of Gay Marriage are labeled bigots.

<>

 

[Diemen]

Let's stop with the obfuscating and name calling.

Plenty of times people who have said that they're ok with Civil Unions for gay people instead of Gay Marriage are labeled bigots.

<>

No, they're called bigots for the reasons behind not wanting to extend marriage to gays.

 

[diamond]

Silly me thanks for the clarification, benevolent one.


<>

PS

And somebody tell Barney Frank he is all wrong in his approach.

"Don't call straight people who disagree with you bigots".