RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism"

RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 8:49:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle However, there are obvious echoes of this argument to be found in several posts here. Any one advancing an argument that queer relationships are not entitled to be recognised in the same manner as straight ones is clearly insisting that queer relationships are somehow different, that queer relationships are undeserving of the full recogition afforded to straight relationships through the institution of marriage .... that queer relationships are somehow inferior or less valid than straight ones. Unless an assumption along these lines is being made, it simply doesn't make sense to argue for different statuses for straight and queer relationships. Of course there's a difference. If it didn't make any difference to people whether they had a contra-sexual partner or a same-sex partner, there wouldn't be an issue. Nor is it necessary to deny that difference in order for them to enjoy equal legal rights. Men and women enjoy equal legal rights. Why do some people find it necessary to indulge in derogatory assumptions about anyone whose opinion is at variance with their own? Personally, I am indifferent to which of the two options eventually obtains. But I'm tired of seeing sincere people, who wish gays no ill, portrayed as if they were of the same ilk as those of whom we will soon have one less. K. Kirata- being sincere in a belief doesn't make that sincerity a good thing. A lot of bad things were done by people in sincerity, who simply couldn't realize why what they were doing was not a good thing.The people who ran the "indian" schools in the US, where they forbid them to speak their own language, made them cut their hair and so forth, thought they were "Christianizing" savages. Those who sincerely believe that gays are sinners and gay marriage is a sin as well, no matter how sincere, are saying that the law should reflect their beliefs, which on top of everything else, is insulting to those who are equally sincere that being gay is not a sin, why should their beliefs hold out, especially in law? For those who sincerely are upset at the term marriage being used, I don't have to doubt their sincerity while also questioning it. The problem is they are saying that gay couples should not be allowed to use the word marriage, it is sacred to them, yet they also allowed marriage to be used in ways that violate the same morality they claim to uphold. If marriage is sacred, why is it allowed to be in the law? More importantly, if gays getting married is a sin because gays are sinners, why don't they bitch about divorced people getting married, given that Christ said divorce was wrong, and that divorced couples according to scripture are committing adultery? (the one exception was adultery)..how come they aren't saying divorced heteros should not use the term marriage, since what they are doing is a sin? More importantly, no matter how sincere, they also are deliberately ignoring the fact that the word marriage cannot be sacred when used in the law, and that the way the law is written, denying the term marriage also denies the people the rights of marriage, pure and simple. Right now, even if married, some automatic benefits, like having your marriage and child custody recognized other places, is not automatic; get married and have kids as a straight couple, and those kids are yours, adopted or genetic; do that as a gay couple, and many states only recognize the genetic parent or the parent who adopted the kids. Sincerity should be backed by consistency, but they don't, they pick and choose where 'sacredness' is important to them, and the fact that they are upset about gays marrying but don't care about divorced people marrying means deep down the issue is gays, not sacredness.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 9:05:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle When allegedly "sincere people" oppose equality for queers in any sphere, they are acting with ill-will towards queers. Despite their pious claims to the contrary, opposing equality cannot be described as "wish[ing] gays no ill", it is de facto acting with ill will towards gays and queers. These people are insisting that, in relation to the right to marry, queers accept a second class status solely on account of their sexual preference. We are perfectly entitled to examine why they insist that queers accept second class status in any sphere of life. The days when queers had to accept second class status in anything have long gone and they aren't ever coming back You are pushing a bogus argument, and assigning ill-will to a broad swath of people on no other basis than a claim to mind-reading. Equal legal recognition does not turn on a word. According to Pew Research the number of people who favor gay unions with full and complete equal status under the law is 31% higher than those who favor gay marriage, and that gap has remained consistent for the past decade, with the percentage of those who favor gay unions passing 50% eight years ago. It is impossible to reconcile full and complete legal recognition of gay unions with "second class status," or to plausibly argue that favoring such reflects "ill will," and it is only arguments like yours that have stood in the way of gays achieving equal recognition for their unions long ago. K. First of all, people supporting same sex marriage is around 60% these days, and I am talking marriage, so saying31% more people support gay unions over marriage seems more than a bit outdated.. More importantly, you are dead wrong,equal recognition does turn on a word. I suggest you really look at how marriage law works, you might be shocked: -Tax returns..got a civic union or whatever? brrrrr...can't file a joint tax return -your civic union partner dies, and you don't have a will....brrrr...next of kin can be considered a blood relative rather than the spouse, if someone tries to probate it in another state -your civic union spouse dies, and you are the beneficiary of their 401k...brrr...401ks are covered under ERISA, which is federal, so a blood relative could sue, arguing that the spouse has no right to it -You move to another state brrrr..your civic union is worthless. Your civic union partner gets sick in another state, and their family hates you...guess what, you get kicked out of the hospital, may be denied seeing your spouse, and can have absolutely no control over what happens. -You want to put your civic union partner on your health insurance brrrr...company does't have to allow you to put them on the plan (unlike with married couples, where if they offer family plans, have to offer it) and they have to pay taxes on the money paid into the insurance by the employer. The problem with your argument is they do nothing to see this happen, they make no effort to change the law to allow recognition of civic unions. If what you said was true, states banning same sex marriage would recognize civic unions of other states and offer it themselves, but no state recognizes the unions of other states, and the federal government refuses to as well, if you aren't married, you don't get jack...not to mention several states in god's little acre, with all those sincere believers, have banned any legal recognition of same sex rights that are the same as marriage, which includes even things like medical power of attorney, second child adoptions, you name it.......the reality is that that sincerity blinds them to the reality, that it does turn on a phrase. Put it this way, Kirata, show me some proof of those sincere folks who don't like the term marriage being used, but would be okay with civic unions, that they are pushing to get marriage out of the law and everyone does a civic union to get the rights...the problem is, there is no groundswell, what they want to do is keep marriage as a legal term, which among other things, is illogical, if marriage is sacred, why do they want it as a legal term? The only reason I can come up with is they care about the term only to make sure it makes hetero and homosexual unions different. England gave gays civic unions, but at least in England, the benefits are the same, thanks to the fact that marriage is a national thing. here in the US, with our state centered system, only marriage has the hope of benefits that are universal, and ironically, it is because so many of the 'sincere' types make sure that their heavenly state basically doesn't allow any rights.

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 9:09:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren the way the law is written, denying the term marriage also denies the people the rights of marriage The argument you are proposing is essentially this: If the laws are written so that denying the term "white" also denies people their rights, the competent solution to assuring social justice and equality before the law is to refer to everyone as "white". If the laws are written so that denying the term "male" also denies people their rights, the competent solution to assuring social justice and equality before the law is to refer to everyone as "male". I don't think so. K.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 9:13:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chatterbox24 1) I also do not like using the word queer. If you are gay do you like this word or is it offensive? 2) I have this concern. Children will be from the beginning denied either a mother or father figure? Society in general regardless are throwing away old values.....of course its been around a long time, but it is more common for people to have children out of wedlock, and one parent taking less responsibility or none in regard to the upbringing of children. That's not a gay problem, that's a society problem. That whole mother and father figure is bogus, the whole idea that a child can only grow up well if they have a mother and father is a joke. First of all, kids grow up with single moms, single dads, who do perfectly well. Every study of children raised by gay parents (two moms, two dads) has shown that they are no different than kids of hetero parents. One of the reasons for this claim is the idea of those with not very much intelligence, is that if a kid grows up with two moms or two dads, they will grow up 'thinking that is normal' true in one sense, but in their that means the kids will grow up gay, which is bullshit. Most gays come from straight parents, and other than televangelists and GOP congressman, no one believes that you are taught to be gay.....what every study has shown is kids with caring, nurturing parents who also show both love and discipline towards the kids, raise good kids. As far as queer goes, it is a word that gays reused with pride, much like the term gay itself, it was a deragatory term they reused among themselves, taking pride in it. I don't like the term, but in a sense, it says you can't hurt me for something I have taken control of.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 9:15:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: MrBukani Well for one I think homosexuals should have a less prominent role in the TV media. They far outnumber the straight people these days. It's like a constant gayparade watching TV today. It's just..... awkward or queer like you love saying. I have my reasons and evidence to say we are creating masses of false queers these days that aren't even gay to begin with. So if you do that, then let's give 'em equal rights. Agree? I don't really watch that much TV, although I never really saw it as a "constant gayparade." How many shows are like that? How do we create "masses of false queers"? There are people claiming to be gay when they're not gay? Why would they do that? The female reporters on Fox News and on Fox Business, they are a drag queens idea of heaven...heavy makeup, killer heels, poofed out hair, seventh heaven

dcnovice -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 9:24:22 PM)
quote: The proposition I think you are responding to was As I'd hoped the FR atop my post would indicate, I wasn't responding to any "proposition." It just occurred to me that it would be interesting to see how actual dictionaries defined "marriage." Given my occupation, I'm both chagrined and amused that I didn't think of that sooner. quote: that the meaning of the word marriage as used in Western culture for hundreds of years has been the joining of a man and a woman, True. Whether the meaning needs to keep wearing the same straitjacket in the present, as folks' understanding of marriage is, once more, evolving, is another question entirely. We seem unlikely to agree on the answer. Two possibly analogous words come to mind: "voter" and "library." The former originally referred solely to propertied white men. It later came to include black men as well as women. Libraries, for their part, have evolved from holding papyrus scrolls to hand-bound illuminated manuscripts to printed books to visual and digital media. quote: which is not the same thing. You're right. Same-sex and opposite-sex unions differ. Whether those differences are accidental (more crudely put as different equipment) or essential (with a fundamental difference in the nature of the two types of union) is a deeper topic. Clearly, given the changes in law books and dictionaries, a fair number of people see the two types of unions as sufficiently, essentially alike to merit the same noun. quote: It's also the case that dictionaries update and expand their definitions to include more modern usages It is meet and right so to do. [:)]

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 9:25:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Civil unions are not an acceptable alternative beause they institutionalise second class status for queers. If straight people are entitled to marry then so too are queers. No qualifications, no extra conditions, - its full equality under the law in all spheres of life. Nothing less than full equality is acceptable. Nothing more is demanded. They are not acceptable to you. That doesn't mean they aren't to anyone else. In fact I know quite a few gays who would be perfectly happy to be allowed a civil union and could care less if it's called marriage. And since they are the ones being targeted it would be nice if you could at least acknowledge their right to feel that way. There can be no compromise with equality. There is equality for all or equality for none. Some cannot be more equal than others. Men and women have equal rights. A man is not a woman, and a woman is not a man; that's why we call one a "man" and the other a "woman". But the fact that we use different terms for different things has no bearing on the equality of their rights. Similarly, a contra-sexual union is not a same-sex union, and using different terms for these different things has no bearing on the equality of their rights. The remainder of the argument turns on the assertion that the word "marriage" embeds connotations of superiority. But one might as well argue that "white" embeds connotations of superiority, that calling some people "black" is inherently derogatory, and that social justice and equality before the law demand that both be referred to as "white". It is utterly and completely mind-boggling nonsense. K. Unfortunately, in a sense you have hit the nail on the head. In the Jim Crowe south, what you just stated would be true, that to get equal protection and justice under the law, you would need to call someone 'white' to get it. In the Jim Crowe south, it stated things like blacks had to sit in the back of the bus, so if you were called black, you could sit only there. If you were hurt, you could only go to a 'colored' or 'black' hospital,not a white one. The problem is if the law says to get full benefits of the law, you have to be called white, then in that legal system the only way to get a person labelled as 'black' those rights would be to call him white... Let's assume that marriage is describing only a het couple, that that and same sex couplings are not the same thing (which in many ways is analagous to white and black, since in both cases the 'differences' are pretty shallow). The problem is, the way the law is written, to get full benefits to a same sex couple does require calling them black, as it did in Jim Crow calling them 'white' to get them rights. The problem is you look at the label of marriage but don't look at what it really means. Today the law , at least officially, is colorblind, or is supposed to be, it does't use 'white law' and 'black law'. To achieve the same neutrality, the law would have to take marriage out, as skin color is out of the law, and replace it with something neutral, like civic unions.

JeffBC -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 9:36:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren Today the law , at least officially, is colorblind, or is supposed to be, it does't use 'white law' and 'black law'. To achieve the same neutrality, the law would have to take marriage out, as skin color is out of the law, and replace it with something neutral, like civic unions. Yup yup... if the conservative would go for that I sure would. I'd much prefer to just do things the simpler way and get rid of the nanny state but in this case the conservatives feel the need. Of course, if you did this gays would STILL be allowed to get married. They could go get their nice legal civil union like everyone does and then if they chose go find some church to marry them. I want popcorn for the inter and intra religion politics about who's going to acknowledge who's marriages LOL. At that point such a debate would be terribly amusing because actual rights have been retained so it's mostly just some priests squabbling with each other.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 9:37:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren the way the law is written, denying the term marriage also denies the people the rights of marriage The argument you are proposing is essentially this: If the laws are written so that denying the term "white" also denies people their rights, the competent solution to assuring social justice and equality before the law is to refer to everyone as "white". If the laws are written so that denying the term "male" also denies people their rights, the competent solution to assuring social justice and equality before the law is to refer to everyone as "male". I don't think so. K. No, it is the opposite of what you say, if the law is written so that using the label 'white' gives a person rights someone not labelled white will not have, then the only way to have equality (in that system) would be to call everyone white. In theory, you could put into the law and discretely list all the people who have equal rights, so you could enumerare that white, black, asian, native american, etc, all have these rights......among other things, while the law may be amended to say that black=white, it will generally mean that someone labelled black will end up fighting for rights whites had, much as blacks after the civil rights era are still fighting for rights the law claimed were color blind, but often aren't. Okay, so how does that apply to marriage? Here is a true story, friend of mine had this happen (gay guy). He had a civic union in NJ, supposedly gave them full spousal rights. His partner was in a bad auto accident. He gets to the hospital, and they want to know who he is, he says he is the civic partner. Hospital says in ICU, only next of kin and spouses allowed (note the word). They also needed to make decisions about what to do if he died, etc, but wouldn't let the partner do it, said they weren't married. Guys family shows up, and basically told the guy to take a hike, they were in charge.. the poor guy had to find a judge, get a court order, to force the right that if he had been a woman would have been automatic, took 2 days (and this, mind you, was several years after civic unions passed). At the time, Mass already had gay marriage. Similar story (this time lesbian couple), almost same situation..told the hospital they were married, no question, was allowed into ICU, etc..... So what's in a name? A lot.

dcnovice -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 9:39:06 PM)
quote: The argument you are proposing is essentially this: If the laws are written so that denying the term "white" also denies people their rights, the competent solution to assuring social justice and equality before the law is to refer to everyone as "white". If the laws are written so that denying the term "male" also denies people their rights, the competent solution to assuring social justice and equality before the law is to refer to everyone as "male". I don't think those analogies hit the mark. Better parallels might be the use of "Americans" and "people" in this exchange from 1776: John Adams: That little paper there deals with freedom for Americans! Edward Rutledge: Oh, really. Mr. Adams is now calling our black slaves "Americans!" Are they, now? John Adams: Yes, they are. They are people, and they are here. If there's any other requirement, I haven't heard it. Edward Rutledge: They are here, yes, but they are not people sir, they are property. We can agree, I hope, that Rutledge's definitions, however hallowed by time and custom, needed expanding.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 9:41:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren Today the law , at least officially, is colorblind, or is supposed to be, it does't use 'white law' and 'black law'. To achieve the same neutrality, the law would have to take marriage out, as skin color is out of the law, and replace it with something neutral, like civic unions. Yup yup... if the conservative would go for that I sure would. I'd much prefer to just do things the simpler way and get rid of the nanny state but in this case the conservatives feel the need. Of course, if you did this gays would STILL be allowed to get married. They could go get their nice legal civil union like everyone does and then if they chose go find some church to marry them. I want popcorn for the inter and intra religion politics about who's going to acknowledge who's marriages LOL. At that point such a debate would be terribly amusing because actual rights have been retained so it's mostly just some priests squabbling with each other. Jeff- I don't disagree, I think having civic unions across the board is the way to go, leave marriage to the churches. It does two things, it can be sacred in the form the church wants, and also it guarantees that civic union means full legal recognition, and no one can say "it only means a man and a women", they have no grounds to argue, cause neither the ancient hebrews nor the bible nor anything else mentions civic unions. Conservatives won't go for it, at least not a majority of them, because if you look at polls, most conservatives don't want recognition of same sex unions, period, and they want marriage to stay in the law so they can use the 'religious belief' bullshit to keep it only for straights.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 9:42:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: The argument you are proposing is essentially this: If the laws are written so that denying the term "white" also denies people their rights, the competent solution to assuring social justice and equality before the law is to refer to everyone as "white". If the laws are written so that denying the term "male" also denies people their rights, the competent solution to assuring social justice and equality before the law is to refer to everyone as "male". I don't think those analogies hit the mark. Better parallels might be the use of "Americans" and "people" in this exchange from 1776: John Adams: That little paper there deals with freedom for Americans! Edward Rutledge: Oh, really. Mr. Adams is now calling our black slaves "Americans!" Are they, now? John Adams: Yes, they are. They are people, and they are here. If there's any other requirement, I haven't heard it. Edward Rutledge: They are here, yes, but they are not people sir, they are property. We can agree, I hope, that Rutledge's definitions, however hallowed by time and custom, needed expanding. Great scene, from one of my favorite musicals/movies:)

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 9:42:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren Today the law , at least officially, is colorblind, or is supposed to be, it does't use 'white law' and 'black law'. To achieve the same neutrality, the law would have to take marriage out, as skin color is out of the law, and replace it with something neutral, like civic unions. Fucking genius. Why didn't you mention this before? quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren why not propose that the term marriage not be used in the law at all... that works fine for me. K.

littlewonder -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 9:43:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle "Actor Chris O'Dowd thinks following a religion will eventually become as offensive and unacceptable as racism. Does O'Dowd have a point? Will religons' insistence upon preaching against sexual minorities and clinging to redundant dogmas result in it reaching its use-by date? Will organised religions have to change with the times in order to survive? Your thoughts ....... That's just sad to even ponder. It won't really matter to me or many others who are religious. We'll just continue to believe in what we believe, even if others feel we should change. I personally have no desire to change my religious beliefs simply because the world is changing. That's not how my morals and values operate. Now if you're talking about organized churches, then yes, they will need to change with the times if they still wish to continue to fill their halls, unfortunately.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 9:48:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren Today the law , at least officially, is colorblind, or is supposed to be, it does't use 'white law' and 'black law'. To achieve the same neutrality, the law would have to take marriage out, as skin color is out of the law, and replace it with something neutral, like civic unions. Fucking genius. Why didn't you mention this before? quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren why not propose that the term marriage not be used in the law at all... that works fine for me. K. I did, as long as civic unions apply to all, and is not parallel to marriage, it is workable. The problem, Kirata, is those who propose civic unions for gays and marriage for straights, that is the problem, that is exactly the separate but not equal problem. If we remove Marriage from the law, then everyone has a civic union. My main point is the way the law is written now, where marriage the word is needed to get rights, civic unions and marriage are not equal. The problem with your 'good people of faith' and so forth is when they propose civic unions, they also mean to keep marriage in the law, which is why I question their sincerity. If those who oppose the word marriage for same sex couples voiced the idea of civic unions for legal rights, I would say they are sincere; but at least one study a while ago, that asked people about doing what Mexico and others do, where church marriages have no legal recognition and to get rights, you have a civic union most people across the board didn't want that, I think it was something like 70% or more if I remember. If the term marriage was because it was a sacred term, then a lot more than 30% would support civic unions for all, which is my point, that a lot of those who say it is because of the term marriage are lying, either to themselves or everyone else.

dcnovice -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 9:50:51 PM)
quote: Here is a true story, friend of mine had this happen (gay guy). He had a civic union in NJ, supposedly gave them full spousal rights. His partner was in a bad auto accident. He gets to the hospital, and they want to know who he is, he says he is the civic partner. Hospital says in ICU, only next of kin and spouses allowed (note the word). They also needed to make decisions about what to do if he died, etc, but wouldn't let the partner do it, said they weren't married. Guys family shows up, and basically told the guy to take a hike, they were in charge.. the poor guy had to find a judge, get a court order, to force the right that if he had been a woman would have been automatic, took 2 days (and this, mind you, was several years after civic unions passed). At the time, Mass already had gay marriage. Similar story (this time lesbian couple), almost same situation..told the hospital they were married, no question, was allowed into ICU, etc..... I've read and heard similar stories, including one from my own family. Apologies to those who've read it before. quote: What is to be gained by allowing homosexual marriage? In a word, dignity. In 2006, my Aunt Brenda--witty, wise, wonderful, and amazingly kind to yours truly during some rough patches--died in upstate New York (which had not yet achieved marriage equality). Seconds after she flatlined, a doctor burst into the room, demanding to speak to the next of kin. Brenda's beloved partner, Melanie, who had seen Brenda through an agonizing decline at the hands of a brutal affliction called multiple system atrophy, introduced herself and explained that she held Brenda's power of attorney. "That expired when she did," the doctor replied. "I need to talk to a member of the family." I invite any of our eloquent posters on this issue to argue that that would have happened to a legal spouse. And that's what "homosexual marriage" is all about, Charlie Brown. Being recognized, after years of loving and faithful union and in the most heartbreaking moment of one's life, as "a member of the family."

dcnovice -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 9:54:14 PM)
quote: one of my favorite musicals/movies:) Mine too. [:)] My cousin and I watch it every Fourth of July. Sometimes we mortify her teen kids by singing along.

DaddySatyr -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 9:55:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren why not propose that the term marriage not be used in the law at all... that works fine for me. K. Hmmmm ... this sounds vaguely familiar ... quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr 14 MAY 2013 I'm against "same sex marriage" but I strongly favor "same sex civil unions". Sorry, there's a part of me that says that marriage is between a man and a woman and a part of me that says that *everyone* has a *right* to be treated equally. Therefore, I strongly support the government recognizing same sex couples that enter into some kind of legal union. I don't believe in "gay rights", "women's' rights", or "minority rights" of any kind. I believe in EQUAL rights. Peace and comfort, Michael

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 10:29:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren as long as civic unions apply to all, and is not parallel to marriage, it is workable. The problem, Kirata, is those who propose civic unions for gays and marriage for straights, that is the problem, that is exactly the separate but not equal problem. That is not a "separate" but equal problem; it is a different but equal non-problem. K.

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 10:42:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice I invite any of our eloquent posters on this issue to argue that that would have happened to a legal spouse. And that's what "homosexual marriage" is all about But that is not what "homosexual marriage" is all about. A civil union partner would be just much a legal spouse. I mentioned earlier in the thread that public support for civil unions with the same rights as marriage passed 50% eight freaking years ago. What "homosexual marriage" seems to be all about is delaying gay rights for as long as possible K.

Page: << < prev 21 22 [23] 24 25 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875