About prop 8 and other anti gay rights props

I've been holding myself back from posting about this to give myself some time to calm down. Now that it's been a couple weeks, here is what Keith Olbermann has to say about it.Before you start dismissing this as an emotional rambling, keep this in mind. THIS IS AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE FOR MANY JUST LIKE IT WAS AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE FOR THE INTERRACIAL COUPLES IN THE OLD DAYS. Just watch the following.The props that got passed in other states about only married couples could adopt children remind me of how black folks were "legally" denied their right to vote. How? Some states proclaimed the seperate but equal crap and then passed policies that required people to pass certain tests in order to vote. The tests were designed to make black folks fail. There were other "legal" ploys to make sure it was anything but "seperate but equal".Here is a rhetorical question (that means don't answer). Those of you without a beating heart. How the fucking hell do you sleep at night having done what you've done? I say this now. Fuck your religious moral high ground. Just because you are delusional enough to think you have the moral high ground doesn't mean you can deny people their right to happiness. </end rant>Added by edit.Here is something to think about, you morons.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

I shot about a thousand rounds at paper targets.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

(1) What part of "rhetorical" don't you understand? Hint: STHU(2) Your side of hate won. What the hell are you here for? This thread is for those of us who still have some decency left in us to bitch about prop 8.(3) Have I said STHU yet?

While I appreciate the effort, what you are suggesting has a huge potential to become another "seperate but equal" crap. For example, several states have already passed a prop saying only "married" couples could adopt children. I'm sure the haters will be able to come up with some very creative "seperate but equal" bullshit to keep it anything but equal.I'm sorry, based on our experience with this approach, I just don't have confidence in our fellow man.Added by edit.I just noticed that you're not from the USA. I don't know the history of your country, but over here some of my fellow Americans have come up with some pretty darn creative ways to keep things from being equal under the seperate-but-equal system. Having known some people that went through that bullshit, I really don't have confidence in such a system.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

No, but whether or not the Ph.D. has any value at all depends on whether the school issuing it is accredited or not. Otherwise, you're going to be just another Kent Hovind who has a "doctorate" in theology from a non-accredited school and claims to be an expert in math and biology while not knowing the difference between hydrogen burning and combustion.Then of course you could be one of those nutjobs that wants any joe schmoe to be able to proclaim himself a mathematician or a physicist and be taken seriously.

The seperate-but-equal bullshit was cooked up by haters like hootmon, buzsaw, and nem_jug. My people bought it for a while because it seemed to be a perfect compromise between slavery and complete equality. What my people didn't see was how evil these bastards were. Schools for black folks got old and outdated text books and broken down facilities. Black folks had to sit in the back seats on public buses. The seperate-but-equal bullshit was probably one of the most successful cons in history... and we all fell for it.Now, I'm not saying that gay folks are being oppressed just like black folks were being oppressed during the segregation era. That's a ridiculous position. It was also a ridiculous position to say black folks were being oppressed during the segregation era just like the black folks during the slavery era. Again, that's a ridiculous position to take.Regardless, though, they are all some kind of oppression on a minority group imposed by the majority. For lack of a better description, that's just gay. We are in the freakin' 21st century, for christsake. I don't understand why people are still suggesting we take the seperate-but-equal route again. Do people really have that short of a memory? Jim Crow wasn't that long ago, for christsake!

I first heard about the proposed "civil union" for gay people and "marriage" for straight people back in college. At the time, it sounded like a good idea. I must admit that back then I was still a recovering christian so the idea of 2 men being able to marry just didn't appeal to me. "Civil union" was the obvious compromise for my bigoted self back then. It was during one of our weekly philosophy debate that I heard someone asked "how is civil union for gays and marriage for straights not seperate but equal?" The answer is an obvious one: it is seperate but equal. And as we've learned from history not too long ago, evil will always find a way to exploit people's bigotry to make it anything but equal.I've seen/heard proposed compromises for the issue the last several years. One of those can be seen here, that we get rid of government sanctioned marriage completely and call it civil union for all. It surprises me to see this kind of suggestion coming from people who claim to be tolerant. Allow me to explain.In the eyes of most people, civil union is an inferior form of government sanctioned union between 2 people. It lacks the social recognition, the apparent emotional attachment, and the cultural value. In other words, it could be compared to the schools with outdated text books and broken down facilities that were there for black folks during segregation. To suggest that we abandon government sanctioned marriage is like to suggest that ALL school kids, white and black, should go to broken down schools and study from outdated/inaccurate text books.And in fact, this is exactly what happened for a time. Some southern states closed down all their public schools completely when they were ordered by the US surpreme court to desegregate.I've been saying this for months now. Government sanctioned marriage is more than just tax breaks. It goes light years beyond that. Beside the 1,000+ rights that come with marriage, there are also cultural and social implications that are attached to it.About those who don't care much for marriage, god bless them. I have nothing against them. But to suggest that we take away this age old tradition from everyone and replace it with something half-cooked like civil union, I say to them "screw you, too". Just because I want equal opportunities for all school children doesn't mean I want my children to go to broken down facilities and study from old/outdated/inaccurate text books.Equality isn't about making everyone as miserable as the people on the bottom; it is about making everyone as prosperous as the people on top. - TazPS - that last statement there is copyrighted.

What ever happened to "carry on without me"?

I never said equality is about equality of outcome. It's about the choices that are available. I'm inclined to go back to my example of the public school system. Some southern states got rid of their public school systems completely to avoid desegregation. Technically, every student in their states, regardless of racial background, had the same opportunity to not be educated by public fundings.By taking out marriage and replace it with a half-cooked concept of "civil union", we are essentially doing what the southern states did with their public school system.Like I said before, marriage goes beyond the 1,000+ rights in the law book. There are just too many cultural and social features built into marriage that you, I, and literally hundreds of millions of others have enjoyed for the last 250 years in this nation, let alone other places in other parts of history. Because it is so ingrained in our cultural and social systems, marriage is a right that EVERYONE ought to have the opportunity to enjoy (or despise if you want to put it that way).If I did anything right in my lifetime, it's that I'd decided to marry the woman I love. I wouldn't trade our marriage for anything in this world. For those that have expressed your despise for marriages and divorces, god bless your souls if you see it that way. But just because you don't value marriage as much as some of us do why do you insist on imposing this belittlement on everyone else?

If you weren't there, how could any of my bullets possibly hit your backside? I took "carry on without me" to mean something like "screw you guys, I'm not reading this anymore..."

Hahaha, it was a figure of speech. Last time I checked, you shouldn't nitpick the hell out of an idiom. Just take it for what it's worth. Wasn't talking to you. I was talking to the various people who have expressed their dislike for marriage and made it clear that they didn't care if the government continues to recognize marriage or not. For example, hootmon has said many times in the last 6 months that he'd been through several marriages and divorces and didn't much care whether the institution existed at all. RAZD is another person that have said something similar several times before.Again, god bless them if they don't care about the government regulated institution of marriage. All I'm requesting is they don't require that their OPINION be made into law. Just don't participate in the institution if they don't care for marriage.

I must admit my ignorance to the UUs. In fact, before you mentioned it I didn't even know they existed. That said, it's still a religion and I do get nervous about a dogmatic approach to life, no matter how tolerant the dogma could seem. Just how many churches in the past supported the civil rights movement in the past only to have turned around recently and condemn homosexuality?My question to you is in your opinion do you see the UUs as having a potential to become just another intolerant religious sect about something/anything in the future? Yes, I know that they support gay rights right now. How do I know that they won't turn around and backstab some other minority group like the baptists did with the gays?

I guess only time will tell.