holmes writes:
Yes, but that does not help your case. You are claiming a greater state of victimization or hatred toward you than might actually exist.
How is it not as bad as I made it? You can still get dismissed from the armed forces for being gay. If you've been living with your partner for 30 years and he dies, his family gets to kick you out of the house and get the house. If your partner of 30 years needs to go to the emergency room, you can't just say "I'm his partner" and get the same treatment as hetero couples. There are many more examples.
Wait you just said in the post before that civil unions with full rights weren't an unjust compromise and that is what Gay activists were explicitly rejecting, saying that was not enough.
Yes, I did say that, but I also said that I believe such a thing can't exist. Again, seperate does not mean equal.
'm not calling you crazy, but perhaps a bit unreasonable on the subject. Ironically that makes you illogical and making bad judgements out of fears... just like your opponents, many of whom could just as easily have been your ally.
Ok...
No because that is a silly comparison. I already have a better analogy out there... it is kosher food. I do agree that if gays are not allowed civil unions with full rights then there is no other choice than to get revolutionary about it. But if this stays about the word marriage or not, well I'd vote a person into office that's for gay marriage, but I'm not going to riot in the streets.
It's not just about the word marriage, though. It is about what comes with it. As long as it is called something else, there will always be loopholes for people to jump through.
I'm sort of getting tired of your comparing the use of the term marriage to disenfranchisment of blacks, it's not the same.
Yes, it is!
(1) Civil union versus marriage.
(1) Black schools versus white schools.
(2) Civil union gets the same rights as marriage.
(2) Black schools get the same treatment as white schools.
Do you see where I'm coming from? Did black schools get the same fundings and treatments as white schools? Will civil union get the same apparent rights as marriage? Get real!
What you ought to be more concerned about is lingering issues like being able to get into the military... THAT is a frigging civil rights issue.
That too. I seem to recall black soldiers being able to die for their countries but not have any other rights in their their country.
This is like having had kosher food, and now you want to have your own food available for market and it doesn't fit the traditional term. Both sides sticking to their guns on this is what is ridiculous. Only if you cannot get unions at all, does this become something else entirely.
The food example is lame, to be frank.
People like me... That's right. Keep criticizing the people around you that are actually supporting your cause (remember I'm actually for gay marriage) when they point out some realities... like there is support for reasonable alternatives which are more likely to get you what you want.
Segregation used to be called reasonable alternatives.
No, you have already made quite clear it is about you and your issues, and not about discrimination in general. Its one of the things pervasive in gay activism and makes me sick everytime I see it... a willingness to hate, as long as its not yourself.
Huh?
Again I was not talking about slowly getting one right and then another or something like that. I was saying if a segment of the population wants to keep legal contracts titled marriage contracts with their original traditional definition, because they were without question based on that traditional definition, but they are willing to support another legal contract with the same rights which cover a slightly different definition, and using a different name, then work with them.
That's what they said with segregation. Seperate but equal. Seperate but equal. Seperate but equal. Seperate but equal.
The result is not piecemeal change. It is getting everything you want, minus a name, and there is a credible reason for this, even if not wholly based in logic.
People thought blacks were going to get the same rights and benefits with with the seperate but equal policies. Everything seemed perfect until it was actually implimented.
If someone suggests civil unions without all of the rights, then there is reason to fight.
When they proposed segregation, they guaranteed that those who are seperate would get equal treatment. Did they get equal treatment?
No you like to act the selfrighteous jerk, blow your argument out of proportion and then kick at the people who are actually on your side.
I'm sorry if I've been such a jerk.
What I've been trying to say is it doesn't matter if they promise that civil union will get the same rights and benefits as marriage because in the end they will find some loopholes to make sure it won't be as equal as marriage, and I highly doubt that they're going to make it better than marriage.
And what's great is that with the new contract and all the rights you can stick it to the antigay crowd all you like. You can sit anywhere on the bus and at any time.
See what I mean?
When blacks were demanding to be able to drink out of the same drinking fountains as the "regular folks" and sit anywhere on the bus, people would say, "but we're not making you work in the fields... this is different."
And so instead of changing laws to revise the definition within old contracts, that are using a name with a heavy traditional meaning, it would be equally valid to just set up a new form of contract. If that would get more votes to your side, why on earth kick people that would get you it? Because they have some semantic hangup?
They tried it before and it didn't work. When slavery was ended, they said, "ok, lets come up with a set of rules to try to allow these
people to be free but seperate from our traditional definition of human beings." Tell me, were they treated as equal?
Gee that's what the antigay marriage activists say. And that policy sure worked great for Bush. Boy and you all sound so... credible.
If an uneducated person insists that the derivative of X^2 is 3X^3 and I insist that "no! The derivative of X^2 is 2X!" does that make me just as ignorant as that person?
There are rights and wrongs. Discrimination of any kind is wrong. Partial discrimination is wrong. A little bit of discrimination is still wrong.
Intolerance and ignorance is surely the mark of this new century and everyone seems to like the design. Whatever you get Lam, you deserve it.
Ok...
Hate world.
Revenge soon!
™ Version 4.2