User Tag List

First 111920212223 Last

Results 201 to 210 of 223

  1. #201
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    All I'm saying is that there are some people that are against gay marriage for that reason alone. SOME. If we change the word, we get them on the side of gay rights!
    The some who are against gay marriage for that reason alone would support civil unions with all the same legal rights and benefits of marriage. Are you suggesting that their opinion in that regard changes at all depending upon gay right's supporters position on gay marriage? Do you have some proof to support the idea that if gay right's supporters began fighting for only civil unions as opposed to marriage that it would sway their opinion one way or another? How do you know that if gays started fighting for only civil unions that they wouldn't lose ground and decrease the chances of getting the rights?

    The problem is not a problem with a word. The problem is the fact that gay couples don't have the same rights as straight ones. Focus on the rights, not the word. Who cares about the damn word? Give it to them, what the fuck ever.
    I don't really care about the word. But I believe fighting for the word increases the chances of getting the rights.

    It is our DUTY to do whatever it takes to get rights to gays as quickly as possible. If this step helps (which it blatantly would, although I can't say how much), we have a duty to take it.
    Okay, if you want to go all Kantian on me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  2. #202
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheLastMohican View Post
    Nice try turning the tables. I have a nagging suspicion that you already knew where I really stand. :thinking
    You can't play devil's advocate with a former devil's advocate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  3. #203
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    The some who are against gay marriage for that reason alone would support civil unions with all the same legal rights and benefits of marriage. Are you suggesting that their opinion in that regard changes at all depending upon gay right's supporters position on gay marriage? Do you have some proof to support the idea that if gay right's supporters began fighting for only civil unions as opposed to marriage that it would sway their opinion one way or another? How do you know that if gays started fighting for only civil unions that they wouldn't lose ground and decrease the chances of getting the rights?
    I honestly think gay people should fight for equal rights. Whether they call it marriage or not is fairly irrelevant.

    Equal rights = equality.

    I don't really care about the word. But I believe fighting for the word increases the chances of getting the rights.
    Why? My whole rationale is that there are people out there that oppose gays 'marrying' for purely definitional reasons. So fuck 'em. Let them keep their definition, and fight for the rights themselves. Those people will have fewer objections because their word objection is thrown out the window.

    Okay, if you want to go all Kantian on me.
    Listen, this is a rights issue, not a words issue. Changing the word will at least get some people on our side. We should do anything we can to get support for gay rights as fast as we can. Otherwise, we'll just fight for longer, and in the meantime gays won't be able to visit their partner in the hospital.

  4. #204
    No moss growing on me Giggly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    iSFj
    Enneagram
    2 sx/so
    Posts
    9,666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    It's been won in seven other countries and in two states here in the United States, so I don't see what justification you have to support the claim that it's "a battle that can't be won." And demographics are on the side of pro gay marriage since the younger generation generally supports gay marriage.
    Not true.

    This bill passed back in 1996 says that same-sex marriages are not recognized by the U.S. government.

    Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Which puts the recognition of same-sex marriages at the state level, and each state must decide whether or not it will amend it's states constitution to include or bar same-sex marriage. Once the state constitution is amended, it will not change. As of now, 43 states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring same-sex marriage.

    Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    This map especially illustrates this

    File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  5. #205
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I honestly think gay people should fight for equal rights. Whether they call it marriage or not is fairly irrelevant.

    Equal rights = equality.
    If it is irrelevant, then why do you care whether gay rights supporters fight for "civil unions" or for "marriage"?

    You are arguing that the chances of getting equal rights would be increased if gay rights supporters gave up fighting for the word "marriage" and focused only on getting the equal rights, probably by supporting "civil unions".

    I'm arguing that it would decrease the chances of getting the equal rights if gay rights supporters gave up on fighting for the word "marriage" and focused only on getting the equal rights, probably by supporting "civil unions".

    So my question to you is, if the chances of getting equal rights is increased by fighting for "marriage" as opposed to just "civil unions", would it not make sense to fight for "marriage" even if all that is actually attainable is "civil unions"?

    Why? My whole rationale is that there are people out there that oppose gays 'marrying' for purely definitional reasons. So fuck 'em. Let them keep their definition, and fight for the rights themselves. Those people will have fewer objections because their word objection is thrown out the window.
    And my rational is there is much larger group of people who would only allow gays to have the equal rights because gay rights supporters are actively fighting for the word "marriage". My rational is that it would hurt the gay rights movement more than it would help if the gay rights supporters only focused on the rights as opposed to the word "marriage" because then that much larger group would lose any incentive to allow gays to have the equal rights.

    Listen, this is a rights issue, not a words issue. Changing the word will at least get some people on our side. We should do anything we can to get support for gay rights as fast as we can. Otherwise, we'll just fight for longer, and in the meantime gays won't be able to visit their partner in the hospital.
    If the people who are opposed to gay "marriage" are opposed only because of the word "marriage", would that not mean that they already support "civil unions" with all the same legal rights and benefits of "marriage"? Wouldn't that mean they are already on the side of gay rights supporters since they support the rights?

    I think you are misunderstanding. Gay rights supporters generally only want the rights, and the word is rather irrelevant. However, fighting for the word "marriage" increases the chances of getting the rights. That is why gay rights supporters choose to fight for "marriage" even if all they really want are "civil unions" with all the same rights and benefits as "marriage". Getting marriage through proving merit in civil unions may actually prove preferable than forcing the issue through law.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  6. #206
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hmm View Post
    Not true.

    This bill passed back in 1996 says that same-sex marriages are not recognized by the U.S. government.

    Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Which puts the recognition of same-sex marriages at the state level, and each state must decide whether or not it will amend it's states constitution to include or bar same-sex marriage. Once the state constitution is amended, it will not change. As of now, 43 states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring same-sex marriage.

    Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    This map especially illustrates this

    File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The fact that two states recognize same sex marriage is made no less significant by an unconstitutional law like DOMA. Until an actual amendment is made to the US Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman, there is no Constitutional justification by which the Federal Government can deny recognition of a same sex marriage contracts. It can easily be challenged as a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and probably will within the next decade. That is why anti gay rights activists are so adamant about getting an amendment passed to the US Constitution. They recognize that DOMA will not last.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  7. #207
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    That's kind of the point. It is mainly a religious thing.

    The article was saying if we discounted the black vote, it would be 50-50.

    Also, even the percentage among blacks itself was skewed by the Yes on 8 campaign sending a late mass-message implying Obama supported Prop 8, when he did not.
    Exactly. lol

  8. #208
    Senior Member TheLastMohican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    You can't play devil's advocate with a former devil's advocate.
    Of course, you can't hide behind my position forever either.

  9. #209
    Guerilla Urbanist Brendan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    911

    Default

    This whole thread is bullshit. One star.
    There is no such thing as separation from God.

  10. #210
    mod love baby... Lady_X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/so
    Posts
    18,086

    Default

    i can't read this whole thread...is there anything i should be pissed off about or what?

    i thought we were a tolerant bunch...no??
    There can’t be any large-scale revolution until there’s a personal revolution, on an individual level. It’s got to happen inside first.
    -Jim Morrison

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-03-2013, 10:30 AM
  2. The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
    By teslashock in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 04-12-2010, 02:51 PM
  3. whats the big deal about being me?
    By ThatGirl in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-09-2008, 07:46 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO