About prop 8 and other anti gay rights props

Perhaps having different backgrounds I do think too lightly about this. This has never been a real problem in my lifetime here. True, at first gays couldn't marry, but they can now for a very long time. They can only marry by law though, since the churches for obvious reasons won't marry them. This however has NO bearing at all on teir rights. They can adopt children here, and have ALL the rights of a heterosexual married couple. There was some outrage here earlier this year when some civil servants refused to marry some gays because they didn't agree with the law. This led to a public outcry, and the government had to step in , and, since there some christian parties in our government (what a shock eh?) they came up with a half baked solution, preventing these civil servants from marrying gays, but ensuring gays could still get married.So, as you can see, the public oppinion over here is overwhelmingly in favour of gay marriage and ALL the rights that come with it. Since I haven't really experienced the situation in your country first hand, i can't really comment on it in depth, but be assured I want nothing more then gays and straights to have ALL the same rights.

---

I hunt for the truth

I note that the American government does not issue Ph.D.s, either. Why should it? It has no business in that field. The American government leaves that business up to the educational institution. Now, it's true you can get a Ph.D. from some fluky school like Ambassador University in Big Sandy, TX, but hardly anybody is troubled by that. You could probably get a Savior Cadet license there, too, which enables you to officiate in all soul conversions. So what do I care about that? It doesn't affect my Ph.D. in the least bit, because it doesn't engage the law.”FTF

---

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.

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.

I'm sorry, but does a Ph.D give you legal rights? Not that I'm aware of.Marriage, and knighthood (used to at any rate), do.So long as marriage bestows legal rights, government has a reason to stick its nose into the issue. Of course, marriage without legal rights attached to it is pretty silly, as then there's no real reason to marry (and marriage for love is a relatively new concept, so if we're going traditional, it's out for the count).

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!

Haters? Nutjobs? Bastards? Jim Crows? Why aren't these accusations sufficient grounds for suspension or banning? What you are spewing here, Taz, is bigoted rhetoric. Shame on you!”FTF

---

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.

Except Taz isn't being bigoted. A bigot is a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own prejudices and intolerances. That, or a person who treats members of another group (generally racial/ethnic) with hatred and intolerance.The trick is, being intolerant of intolerance is not being a bigot.If anything, Taz is just being a touch insulting, but "seperate but equal" is bullshit and should be called out as such.

You man like public restrooms?”FTF

---

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.

do you make it a point to be patently silly?Public restrooms are hardly equal. The women's side does not have urinals. See, I can be silly too, and it doesn't help the discussion one bit.You know what "separate but equal" is, or rather, was in the case of segregation. That's what people mean when they use the term. That's what the supreme court case Brown vs. Topeka Board of Ed. was referring to.

I'm sticking with Moose's assertion in Message 35. If you guys want play on in the dark with your sad violin's you can do it without my supervision. California's Prop.8 is proof positive of how one legitimate majority feels about the issue. And for that they are called haters, nutjobs, bastards, and Jim Crows. It's too ridiculous for words. So I'm outta of this thread.”FTF

---

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.

As said earlier, prop 8 is also proof positive of tyranny of the majority, something that our founders tried to prevent from happening.Rights cannot, and should not, be taken away from people under any circumstance. Taking away rights only leads to a grave precedent--today it is the right to marry who you wish, tomorrow it is the right to protest, or speak freely, or choose your own religion, or to habeus corpus, freedom from double trials and cruel and unusual punishments.If people decide gays cannot get married, whats to stop them from proclaiming that people cannot live beyond 60 years of age? And that is why we have courts (among various other reasons).

Nah, too early. I'd say they ought to get whacked at 70.Carry on.”FTF

---

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.

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.

Fosdick writes:

quote:

---

What do you have against voting on disputed social issues?

---

(*sigh*) Here we go again....For the umpteenth time: So when the SCOTUS overturned miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virignia, they were wrong to do so?If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minnemooseus writes:

quote:

---

Government should only recognize civil unions and leave marriage to the churches.

---

So the better solution, much more likely to succeed, is to rewrite literally tens of thousands of laws at the state and federal levels to remove the word "marriage" and replace it with the phrase "civil union" rather than to leave everything alone and recognize that the legal contract of "marriage" applies to all regardless of the sex of the participants? That's what you're suggesting?Strange how we didn't have this reaction when marriage was recognized for all regardless of the race of the participants. What's so special about sexual orientation that it gives you the heebie-jeebies to talk about marriage?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.