What will become of marriage?

Actually what I said is that certain activists did alienate moderates (and will if they continue with failed tactics). Mine was not a generic statement against all activists and neither did I deploy it "frequently against any improvements in equality."Really, your post was nothing but fiction. At least attack my position.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-29-2004 11:57 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

holmes writes me:

quote:

---

This was part of the CU I described. I do not believe that all CUs are equal, only the one with the protections I described. Perhaps this is why you are not understand my consternation?

---

But if CUs come with a big, automatic tax cut while marriage doesn't, they aren't exactly equal, are they? And if we write our marriage / civil union laws this way, then we are starting out from a postition of inequality.I don't seriously think such a scenario will come about, but since we're talking only about the remote possibility I will go a bit further with the idea: I don't think I could support such an arrangement in any case, but if this is what it came down to (again, highly unlikely imo) I suspect that many gays might go for it. I suspect that many straights will do the same, if for no other reason than to get the big tax cut.

quote:

---

From what it looked like, your last post was saying even if you got everything else, if you weren't able to have a document which said "married" then it was not equal and you would not be able to accept it.

---

That is what I was saying. If it's marriage for straights but CUs for gays, then it isn't equal, no matter how high-minded the attempts might be to make them equal. Most of the justices involved in the Plessy decision thought they were insuring that blacks would be treated equally, but as Rrhain pointed out only one dissenting judge had the foresight to see that it wouldn't work out that way.

quote:

---

By the way, be careful using "you" on me. I am not part of the us and them problem.

---

You are at least as far as this admittedly narrow and likely unnecessary question is concerned. But I wasn't aiming those comments directly at you. I was speaking more as a citizen to a government that wishes to hide it's intolerance.

---

Dog is my copilot.

holmes writes:

quote:

---

Actually what I said is that certain activists did alienate moderates...

---

I think that's true. I know I've been alienated by some gay activists, particularly back in the 80s when gay pride parades often looked like something you'd see on Bourbon Street on Fat Tuesday. There was a lot of talk back in the day about the way those parades were conducted, and I think they've been changed since. I think it's much easier to win the hearts of middle America to the gay cause when we don't make it a point to celebrate the licentiousness of a small segment of our community.This is why I was so impressed with the marriage ceremonies that were conducted in California and various other places early this year. You saw ordinary gays chasing their own ideas of the American dream, which makes it harder for intolerant right-wingers to paint us as somehow immoral. As this debate moves forward, it is the non-bible-thumpers among moderates and right-leaners whose support we'll need if we are ever to achieve equality under the law.

---

Dog is my copilot.

My scenario is of a CU without inequalities. If everyone wants to keep bringing up examples of CUs that are not equal, then let's stop discussing them. Well to be honest, isn't our preferred position unlikely to come about too? My guess is a CU situation, or gay marriage is more likely. Even without a tax cut I think it would be pretty popular. I wish just using CUs overall would catch on. Government needs to get out of the social validation business. The justice was pointing to something other than what we are discussing. Please explain how (in a reallife way) gays will be able to be treated differently if they are in CUs (the kind I have described), which would not be equally possible if gays are married.About the only thing I can see is that some bigot can say "you aren't literally married." Actually I am not. I am in neither of the us or the them category. I'm off to the side watching people argue over semantics and suggesting possibilities given real life examples.Personally I am for the government getting out of the loaded term business. That is something that would benefit everyone and not simply act as pointed punsihment for biblethumpers, or be some benefit for gays in specific. I think it is a neutral way for governments to handle relationships so that many different cultures can live as they want.I think equal CUs are third down the list. But they are possible and seeing how slightly unequal CUs work okay in the Netherlands I find it odd that there is so much negativity cast on equal CUs.You asked in another post why gays here are complacent. I don't think they are. Could it be that gays are simply more pragmatic and are glad to have gotten almost all of the rights they need, and will work from that position of power to get the rest?As I said, straights may use the same legal union in order to avoid the traditional baggage that comes with "marriage". Indeed straights do. If gays and straights find this union equitable, perhaps it isn't so inequitable.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This isn't what I was talking about, but I am sure you are right. Americans are generally prudes and so anything which smacks of real sexual freedom scares and offends them. It certainly does not help sell other gay issues, when they see the more flamboyant gays celebrating their culture.Too bad culture has become a hated thing in america. I believe this is a bit of an exaggeration. To pretend that licentious behavior is not pretty popular among homosexuals is a bit disengenuous.You are absolutely correct that gays are not inherently promiscuous. But the fact is promiscuous gays make up a large proportion of them. And perhaps more upsetting to prudes everywhere, there is a larger percentage of vocally promiscuous gays than there are straights. Straights certainly don't get the benefit of being called inherently monogamous. This is where I think you are totally losing sight of reality. To someone that is actually offended by homosexuality all they would see in that is a grotesque parody, or people sadly trying to pretend they are moral by mimicking actions of moral people.What's worse, is that in handing out those licenses against state law it gave critics the chance to show those nice looking couples as people willing to break the law to get what they want. Now don't get me wrong, I liked it. I like that kind of disobedience, but the objective reality is that it did backfire.And to make matters worse still, instead of realizing that this was having an adverse effect, activists all over the country said there would be more of the same. And in interviews you would see activists saying "in your face" type stuff to anyone who might not be on board, not to mention calling people anti-gay who weren't.THAT is what came off as bad, much worse than gay pride parades. You can't judge what is going to be effective just by your own standards. Look at what was effective and what was not. This is true, but watch what they want to hear and so what can be used to bring them on board. It is not just denouncing promiscuous gays as abberations.I should note that the gay pride boat parade in Amsterdam is huge and quite uhmmmmm... flamboyant. Despite calls for it to reign in some of the excessive sexuality of years past, it is still overtly sexual and yet draws humongous straight and gay crowds to watch. I can't remember if I was able to get some good pics or not this year.In any case, you do not see gays here stabbing other gays in the back in order to look more moral, and so acceptable. To an antigay person, wouldn't that pretty much look like a pot calling a kettle black? And to the other gay person you are deriding, isn't that a bit of hypocrisy? Are you really more moral than a promiscuous gay person?That shows division and weakness.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No, holmes, I'm certainly not saying that there's anything wrong with promiscuity in and of itself. What I am saying is that the gay community that I'm familiar with has come to realize that celebrating promiscuity in public is not the best way to win the hearts and minds of those Americans who are moderate or lean slightly to the right. Those who are farther right are likely intolerant Christians anyway and there's no use trying to win them over. Better to simply blunt their arguments by showing that not all gays are the caricatures of unbridled promiscuity they wish to portray. I don't think that all moderates saw only licentiousness when they saw those images of gay marriages earlier this year. If they did then I suppose the debate is already over and America is indeed nothing but a theocracy.

---

Dog is my copilot.

Oh I agree. That won't even win people over on the left. The whole country is so far right on sex, you have to get to a pretty far left position before you reach a true moderate. Well yes and no. When it goes as far as dismissing prosmicuity as if it is nonexistent or they are just a weirdo part of the gay community, then it looks sort of strange. I think you misunderstood what I said. I'm not saying they saw licentiousness. That is what turns YOU off about the gay community. I was saying activists made it look like a revolution was beginning where laws no longer mattered and only the gays counted. Indeed people not agreeing 100% with all gay initiatives were called anti-gay. That was where people got turned off.And I hope you do not suggest this was not the case. As it turns out, even these many months after all of that, I get hammered for mentioning that perhaps they were not the best moves, since there was a harmful negative reaction.Its a my way or the highway attitude. Of course gay activists cannot be blamed for this alone. Unfortunately it seems to be the motto of the new millenia.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

why do christians think they invented marriage?

Let's ignore the "separate but equal" argument for a moment, then. Now, as I understand it, your stated position is that you would prefer the government to stop using the word "marriage" altogether and grant equal civil unions for everyone, as outlined by NosyNed in Message 303:

quote:

---

Remove all references to marriage in the secular legal realm. Change all such usages to "civil union". Allow for same sex civil unions. Let the churchs perform, define and authorize "marriages" utterly separately from any reference to legal matters.

---

Your second choice would be the allowance of same-sex marriages.And your third choice would be what the majority of these arguments have been about, the civil union with a clause that all legislation that applies to marriage, applies to it as well.Correct so far?Now, if this is the case, I wonder why you are arguing for the third position at all. Or, more specifically... You've stated that the hangups on the word "marriage" are a large part of what is alienating the opposition to same-sex marriage, and I agree. The basis of your argument seems to be that compromise is more likely to gain homosexuals equal rights immediately, while more uncompromising views are more likely to alienate opposition. Therefore, my question is: What (if anything) makes you think that the third position is any more likely to gain enough support than the first one when so much of the hangup is seemingly based on the meaning of the word "marriage"?I apologize if you've already addressed this - I've read both of the threads, but I'm afraid I've skipped some parts of the longer, quote-by-quote posts.

Who knows? Probably the same reason they think they invented Easter.

Absolutely. Well yes and no. Actually I said the large alienating part are the overt actions of some activists who refuse to even discuss compromise, falsely label anyone who criticizes them, and then act like all conservatives should be scared of them because they are taking over. That pretty well played right into the hands of their direct opposition.That said the hangups regarding "marriage" is a large part of the gap between people who are seeking solutions to the issue. There is a difference between a gap and actively alienating. Pretty much just polls on what people are feeling about the subject, and extrapolating that into what is the most likely to have support. I completely admit it is just my opinion that the third will probably end up being the one with the most support.The first one (my preferred choice) doesn't even seem to be on the radar. I think someone else mentioned that the majority... especially bible-thumpers... would take such a move as an active attack on religion because it actively eliminates something they "have" in government. That was a good point and it may be true. I do hope it catches on and someone discusses it publicly one day.The second one (gay marriage) is on the radar but does not seem to have much support at all. The last election shows there are quite a bit of people adamant about not giving "marriage" to gays.The third option (gay civil unions) is an option that is on the public radar and appears to have more support. Many of those not wanting to give them marriage are on record for wanting to give them rights, which means civil unions. This is sort of a blend between the first two positions so it kind of makes sense that it would have more support. In this case the only people hung up on marriage who would be affected are gay marriage activists unwilling to bend. That is a smaller number than the straight people with a semantic hangup. I brought it up originally, I believe in context with the election results. I was simply trying to point out that I thought it was counterproductive to actively alienate those who are for the third option, especially as all indications are that that has a majority support.Then I got harangued for my suggesting that perhaps activists made wrong choices. It was repeated that anyone for that option had to be anti-gay and not actually have a reason for their semantic hangup, and it should not be considered because it could not be equal.I've been spending my time fighting those responses, so it ended up looking like I was advocating that position, rather than advocating listening to those people and keeping an open mind on the subject while campaiging for the others... and if it looked like that was the most likely option to get their necessary rights, then think about taking it.I would if I was at the negotiating table and it was a truly equitable CU being discussed and I saw that my proposals had about 0 chance for success. That's okay, another recap was probably in order.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Much more important than that, they think they invented freedom, democracy, and the United States of America.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Actually what I said is that certain activists did alienate moderates

---

If tyhey are so easily alienated, they're not very moderate, are they? More likely looking for a pretext to hide behind.

quote:

---

not a generic statement against all activists and neither did I deploy it "frequently against any improvements in equality.

---

So far you have uised it agains
- womens rights activists
- anti-racist activists
- campaigners for political reform such as communism and other strands
- in this context, against campaigners for gay rights.You ask me to criticise your position, but your position is knee-jerk rejectionism, which you rationalise to yourslef as rejecting "extremists" - by which you mean, anyone who wants to change anything. Thats the point: you don't HAVE an argument, just opposition.

You can say that about anyone that is offended. The problem is sometimes people really get offended by the actions of others. That's why there's such a thing as tact and diplomacy.For the record it is noted, I believe there is such a thing as failing diplomacy through not well thought out actions which alienate potential allies, you believe anyone that doesn't agree with everything you say not matter how you say it is your enemy.Of course you are not consistent in applying your position, but let's not argue about it any more. People can choose which side they agree with. Your entire list was false. Only the last one came close to being right. It was not all campaigners for gay rights. It was specifically a segment of activists for gay marriage. I said I personally liked some of the actions. I only wondered whether they would come off right and as it grew more intense for no reason, began doubting that it would. It appears it did not.Again, discussing failures in methods is not tantamount to rejecting activism. And its hardly kneejerk... I am discussing this after the fact.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

possibly because they think they invented everything?even the number 42 ....?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}