Support NeoGAF

[Gaborn]

You two are acting like if he gets elected,hes going to completely ban gay marriage,its his belief,deal with it.

It's segregated relationships, and we find it offensive, we don't have to "deal with it" we've got every right to express our views on the subject.

Tamanon - You say "equality in all ways will come" well, fine. Where will the impetus for it come from? If Obama gets his way and he gets a civil union bill (oh, yeah, the Democrats are going to RUSH to get that through I'm sure), signs it into law, etc. we'll have about 95% of the federal recognition for marriage. It's be different in name, a real, personal difference in terms of dignity, but most straight people will be like you and other Obama supporters. This is "no big deal" now, it's "Settled" it's "a non-issue" and "semantics." Yet still, we'll be "different" and "separate" and "not equal" and I don't see where this groundswell push will come for equality after we get 95%ed.

 

[masud]

masud: For dismissing someone's anger at their marginalization as "silly".

When society sends a message to a group of people that they're abnormal, not as good, defective, or whatever then it really really sucks. Even if it doesn't involve any de jure difference in your rights or status.

It's a very legit complaint and deserves better than handwaving, especially from the people who have the privilege of not having this aimed at themselves.

Yeah you totally misunderstood why said that would make him silly. You don't see how an atheist being mad that the government made him get the certificate with the secular title as opposed to the same certificate with a religious one could be seen as a bit silly?

 

[kame-sennin]

Using the LBJ metaphor, Obama would need to pick Edwards as his running mate, win the election, get shot, and create a wave of sympathy that would carry through the reforms after Edwards' crushing 2012 victory over Newt Gingrich.

:lol

It seems most of those women were happy in their situation, no? Certainly children shouldn't be getting married off at age 13 (even though traditionally speaking that is how society has handled it...), but I'm not sure I'd call what went on in Texas "female slavery." Though I didn't follow it closely.

I have to confess that I didn't follow the story closely either. I mentioned Texas to point out the darker side of polygamy, but perhaps I am being prejudiced.

You two are acting like if he gets elected,hes going to completely ban gay marriage,its his belief,deal with it.

Do we tolerate evangelical democrats who think abortion should be left up to the states?

 

[masud]

Do we tolerate evangelical democrats who think abortion should be left up to the states?

See that's even worse! But I'm going to stop being a dick now.

 

[Tamanon]

:lol



I have to confess that I didn't follow the story closely either. I mentioned Texas to point out the darker side of polygamy, but perhaps I am being prejudiced.



Do we tolerate evangelical democrats who think abortion should be left up to the states?

I think you're thrown off by the fact that the networks mixed their coverage of the Texas compound with coverage of one guy who had multiple young wives that was separate but happened around the same time.

Gaborn, it'll come when it's stopped being pushed by the religious folks as an assault on them and instead being pushed by the media and politicians as a civil rights argument. The media narrative and public narrative isn't there yet, it takes time to win over the public to something.

 

[Mumei]

I'm sorry you read that from what he said. The sad truth is that politics as it is in this country won't allow what you want. Not yet anyways. It'll come, probably in a different form, but equality in all ways will come.

I understand that, and I think that Gaborn and Mercury understand that, but that's not what I'm angry about. I'm angry at the symbolism behind what he says more than anything else, to be honest. I know his positions, and I knew them before this. I had simply hoped that he would follow his own advice regarding positions informed by religious principles. Barring that, I had hoped that he would avoid the "Marriage is between a man and a woman" canard. Instead, I received a defense of Traditional Marriage straight out of a Republican playbook.

I understand that most straight people don't give a damn about the issue, don't think it is particularly important, and think that we're being silly to whine about someone saying, "Marriage is between a man and a woman," but I'm not sure why the fact that other people don't care has anything to do with why I shouldn't care.

 

[Mandark]

Mercury Fred: I do think Obama's approach is better than just repeating the phrase "leave it to the states". That sort of thing is a red flag for journalists who want a gotcha question and voters who can tell when a candidate really wants to avoid a topic. It's roughly equivalent to silence, which would mean ceding the discourse entirely to the GOP, which would not be good.

At least with this tack, he follows up with some specific arguments for why civil unions should be extended to same-sex couples, grounded in the idea that we should personally empathize with them. It's less than I'd want, but I do think it's worth something.

 

[kame-sennin]

I think you're thrown off by the fact that the networks mixed their coverage of the Texas compound with coverage of one guy who had multiple young wives that was separate but happened around the same time.

You might be right. That was ignorant of me.

Yeah you totally misunderstood why said that would make him silly. You don't see how an atheist being mad that the government made him get the certificate secular title as opposed to the same certificate with a religious one could be seen as a bit silly?

wat

See that's even worse! But I'm going to stop being a dick now.

I have thick skin. Let 'er rip.

 

[grandjedi6]

:lol

I love responses like this, as though his belief should have no bearing on anything.

Well when his actions result in the same outcome despite his belief I don't see why it should be as big of a concern as people are making it

 

[Door2Dawn]

It's segregated relationships, and we find it offensive, we don't have to "deal with it" we've got every right to express our views on the subject.

You need to "deal with" with the fact that its his religious belief that marriage should be between a man and a women. So,in my opinion saying things like "he needs to shut his mouth" or "I'm not going to vote for him if he keeps saying that"(while ignoring the fact that he was being asked a personal question) is kinda of useless because as president,hes not going to get in the debate because he thinks its a sate issue,and not a government one.

 

[Gaborn]

Gaborn, it'll come when it's stopped being pushed by the religious folks as an assault on them and instead being pushed by the media and politicians as a civil rights argument. The media narrative and public narrative isn't there yet, it takes time to win over the public to something.

It'd come a helluva lot faster if we didn't have to deal with being told that our "civil unions" which will probably happen sooner rather than later will MEAN equality. If Obama was willing to push for marriage EQUALITY we might actually have a shot at it in the next 20 years. Instead, as I said, we're going to be used by political opportunists like Obama to try to establish some sort of moderate credentials on the issue.

Door2Dawn - well, I didn't intend to vote for the man in any case, but I still find his opinion which he's entitled to to be that of a bigot. Future generations will study views like his and McCain's and will marvel at how they came so close, but yet were so backwards and misguided in their views, so willing to bestow second class citizenship on citizens personal relationships.

 

[Mandark]

Yeah you totally misunderstood why said that would make him silly. You don't see how an atheist being mad that the government made him get the certificate secular title as opposed to the same certificate with a religious one could be seen as a bit silly?

Marriage isn't a "religious title". It's a social convention, and I would expect people to be pissed if they were excluded from it on the grounds of religion, culture, or sexual orientation.

 

[Tamanon]

I understand that, and I think that Gaborn and Mercury understand that, but that's not what I'm angry about. I'm angry at the symbolism behind what he says more than anything else, to be honest. I know his positions, and I knew them before this. I had simply hoped that he would follow his own advice regarding positions informed by religious principles. Barring that, I had hoped that he would avoid the "Marriage is between a man and a woman" canard. Instead, I received a defense of Traditional Marriage straight out of a Republican playbook.

I understand that most straight people don't give a damn about the issue, don't think it is particularly important, and think that we're being silly to whine about someone saying, "Marriage is between a man and a woman," but I'm not sure why the fact that other people don't care has anything to do with why I shouldn't care.

I guess I look at it a different way myself. I find it refreshing that someone says they hold a personal belief, but at the same time realize that their personal belief is trumped by the law. I love that politicians can actually admit that they believe something different than what the law allows, but then advocate following the legal process, even in light of their beliefs. Same as his abortion stance.

I mean I've actually been polyamorous for a good deal of my life and involved in a couple relationships. I would've loved to have legal representation because of that but I also understood that it's not a position that my political choice could take or advocate. I just sublimated that wish in order to get someone who advocated and voted for my other beliefs.

 

[Mumei]

You need to "deal with" with the fact that its his religious belief that marriage should be between a man and a women. So,in my opinion saying things like "he needs to shut his mouth" or "I'm not going to vote for him if he keeps saying that"(while ignoring the fact that he was being asked a personal question) is kinda of useless because as president,hes not going to get in the debate because he thinks its a sate issue,and not a government one.

It doesn't matter what he thinks; it is a federal issue because there are federal marriage benefits.

Any time there is an issue of social progress (well, since Reconstruction), the calling card of social conservatives everywhere has been "States rights."

Let states decide for themselves, so we can force you drag every one of the 50 states one by one kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

 

[WickedAngel]

It's segregated relationships, and we find it offensive, we don't have to "deal with it" we've got every right to express our views on the subject.

Tamanon - You say "equality in all ways will come" well, fine. Where will the impetus for it come from? If Obama gets his way and he gets a civil union bill (oh, yeah, the Democrats are going to RUSH to get that through I'm sure), signs it into law, etc. we'll have about 95% of the federal recognition for marriage. It's be different in name, a real, personal difference in terms of dignity, but most straight people will be like you and other Obama supporters. This is "no big deal" now, it's "Settled" it's "a non-issue" and "semantics." Yet still, we'll be "different" and "separate" and "not equal" and I don't see where this groundswell push will come for equality after we get 95%ed.

Democracy isn't about getting your way 100% of the time.

You push this as a "Marriage for ALL" issue and it's going to be shut down by the religious fanatics in this country. On top of that, it will remove the Democrats from power and the Republicans will be able to do damage on issues that actually matter (Instead of an argument about equal rights and different titles). If homosexual couples can't even compromise on the name of the rights that they're justly earning, something is wrong.

 

[Tamanon]

It doesn't matter what he thinks; it is a federal issue because there are federal marriage benefits.

Any time there is an issue of social progress (well, since Reconstruction), the calling card of social conservatives everywhere has been "States rights."

Let states decide for themselves, so we can force you drag every one of the 50 states one by one kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

Well he's already said that federal marriage rights should extend to civil unions.

 

[Mandark]

What's basically going on right now is an argument over the possible, isn't it?

 

[Mumei]

I guess I look at it a different way myself. I find it refreshing that someone says they hold a personal belief, but at the same time realize that their personal belief is trumped by the law. I love that politicians can actually admit that they believe something different than what the law allows, but then advocate following the legal process, even in light of their beliefs. Same as his abortion stance.

Well, I do appreciate that to some degree, but what I find troubling is this:

He said in his Call to Renewal speech, "This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

When he says, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman," to me, he's doing exactly what he says he oughtn't do - simply pointing to the teachings of his church or invoking God's will.

I appreciate the step to civil unions - I really do - but they are not as good as marriage. Even if federal laws were to include a hypothetical civil union, they still wouldn't be as good - the cultural and social benefits of marriage are enormous, and probably as important to many people as the legal and financial benefits of marriage.

I mean I've actually been polyamorous for a good deal of my life and involved in a couple relationships. I would've loved to have legal representation because of that but I also understood that it's not a position that my political choice could take or advocate. I just sublimated that wish in order to get someone who advocated and voted for my other beliefs.

PM me about that sometime; I've always wondered about a legal structure for polyamorous relationships that was workable.

 

[Tamanon]

What's basically going on right now is an argument over the possible, isn't it?

Hey, that's a start, isn't it?

Mumei: I see where you're coming from there, but he also might have another reason to believe a marriage is between a man and a woman besides his religion, and he doesn't cite it. Maybe the real way to go about getting this change is to start in the church level and have it work its way into the public opinion that way.

 

[Gaborn]

Democracy isn't about getting your way 100% of the time.

Indeed it is not, it is however about the ability to advocate for what you would like to see happen.

You push this as a "Marriage for ALL" issue and it's going to be shut down by the religious fanatics in this country. On top of that, it will remove the Democrats from power and the Republicans will be able to do damage on issues that actually matter (Instead of an argument about equal rights and different titles).

Yes, and we know this because a major party candidate has run on a campaign with one plank favoring gay marriage. Please, you're asking us to accept second class status because the Democrats are too pussified to fight for equality? At least the republicans will stab us in the stomach where we can see them on the issue.

If homosexual couples can't even compromise on the name of the rights that they're justly earning, something is wrong.

So, yeah, I think every marriage involving an african american should be renamed "jungle fever." After all, if they can't compromise on the name of their union there is something wrong.

 

[kame-sennin]

I guess I look at it a different way myself. I find it refreshing that someone says they hold a personal belief, but at the same time realize that their personal belief is trumped by the law. I love that politicians can actually admit that they believe something different than what the law allows, but then advocate following the legal process, even in light of their beliefs. Same as his abortion stance.

But that's not his stance. He's using his bigoted religious point of view to justify separate but unequal civil unions. And he doesn't have any other reason, I read his book.

Democracy isn't about getting your way 100% of the time.

If you don't fight for what you deserve, you'll get your way 0% of the time. Union leaders at the turn of the century didn't care about electability. Neither did civil rights leaders, or women's rights leaders, or abolitionists, or anyone else who tried to enact change in this country.

 

[Mandark]

I assume that everyone here thinks that gay marriage on par with hetero marriage is a good idea, that civil unions for gays aren't as good, but that the status quo is worse.

So it's a question of

1) How politically viable do you think same sex marriage is?

2) How much worse are civil unions, in terms of stigmatizing a group of people?

3) How much worse is the status quo compared to civil unions?

4) If civil unions are put in place, will it take longer to get full gay marriage than an all-or-nothing strategy? How long?



Then there's the side issue of how to put pressure on politicians within our system, where all I can add is that Nader's not the answer.

 

[Door2Dawn]

It'd come a helluva lot faster if we didn't have to deal with being told that our "civil unions" which will probably happen sooner rather than later will MEAN equality. If Obama was willing to push for marriage EQUALITY we might actually have a shot at it in the next 20 years. Instead, as I said, we're going to be used by political opportunists like Obama to try to establish some sort of moderate credentials on the issue.

Door2Dawn - well, I didn't intend to vote for the man in any case, but I still find his opinion which he's entitled to to be that of a bigot. Future generations will study views like his and McCain's and will marvel at how they came so close, but yet were so backwards and misguided in their views, so willing to bestow second class citizenship on citizens personal relationships.

So you think anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is a bigot? Obama even?





Main Entry:
big·ot Listen to the pronunciation of bigot
Pronunciation:
\ˈbi-gət\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French, hypocrite, bigot
Date:
1660

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance



Come on dude.

 

[grandjedi6]

Indeed it is not, it is however about the ability to advocate for what you would like to see happen.



Yes, and we know this because a major party candidate has run on a campaign with one plank favoring gay marriage. Please, you're asking us to accept second class status because the Democrats are too pussified to fight for equality? At least the republicans will stab us in the stomach where we can see them on the issue.

You can't simply classify Democrats as "too pussified" just because some (many) hold a different position and solution then yours.

 

[Zaptruder]

Indeed it is not, it is however about the ability to advocate for what you would like to see happen.



Yes, and we know this because a major party candidate has run on a campaign with one plank favoring gay marriage. Please, you're asking us to accept second class status because the Democrats are too pussified to fight for equality? At least the republicans will stab us in the stomach where we can see them on the issue.


So, yeah, I think every marriage involving an african american should be renamed "jungle fever." After all, if they can't compromise on the name of their union there is something wrong.

Whatever. Equality would be great and all, but they're certainly far more pressing concerns I'd like to see fixed before they get to that. Including, fixing up a broken market economy. If they're gonna have to make some comprimses in their pitch to the general public then so be it.

Just glad the campaign isn't been run by inflexible hardliners like yourself, otherwise he would've been out of the running a long time ago.

 

[WickedAngel]

Indeed it is not, it is however about the ability to advocate for what you would like to see happen.

You can't logically argue your case against an uncompromising historical bias by having an equally uncompromising stance on the issue yourself (Yet that is exactly what you're doing with the sensationalism in the way that you address what truly amounts to a minuscule difference). If this were an argument about the quality of cars, you're basically arguing about the difference between Chevrolet and GM. In a world where multiple sectors of our economy are suffering and we're embroiled in a useless war, this registers a .1 on the 1-10 importance scale.

Yes, and we know this because a major party candidate has run on a campaign with one plank favoring gay marriage. Please, you're asking us to accept second class status because the Democrats are too pussified to fight for equality? At least the republicans will stab us in the stomach where we can see them on the issue.

Please. Give the "second class status" cries a fucking rest and save the crocodile tears for an issue that isn't purely semantic. Those of you who are citing the history of "Separate but Equal" as a platform to argue about this should be ashamed of yourselves. This isn't even remotely comparable to what African Americans had to endure.

 

[Gaborn]

You can't simply classify Democrats as "too pussified" just because some (many) hold a different position and solution then yours.

Indeed that's true. I can however call them bigots, who believe that some people should have second class relationships or no legal right to a relationship at all, pussies, that is, those who refuse to fight for true equality in order to remain appealing to their constituencies, and honest liberals like Ted Kennedy who, despite my vast disagreements with him fully understands the importance of dignity and equality.

Door2Dawn - Yes, I define him as being bigoted, in the same way advocates of segregation were bigoted. Equality means equality, not a separate status.

Please. Give the "second class status" cries a fucking rest and save the crocodile tears for an issue that isn't purely semantic. Those of you who are citing the history of "Separate but Equal" as a platform to argue about this should be ashamed of yourselves.

I'll call it like I see it thank you. Again, what kind of outcry would there be if marriages involving blacks were renamed "jungle fever" or if Asian marriages were called "Azn Love"? Or for that matter if they were simply given "Civil Unions"?

 

[grandjedi6]

I assume that everyone here thinks that gay marriage on par with hetero marriage is a good idea, that civil unions for gays aren't as good, but that the status quo is worse.

So it's a question of

1) How politically viable do you think same sex marriage is?

2) How much worse are civil unions, in terms of stigmatizing a group of people?

3) How much worse is the status quo compared to civil unions?

4) If civil unions are put in place, will it take longer to get full gay marriage than an all-or-nothing strategy? How long?



Then there's the side issue of how to put pressure on politicians within our system, where all I can add is that Nader's not the answer.

1.) very little
2.) in the long term much worse
3.) much
4.) small increments are the way to go imo so....

 

[Mumei]

I assume that everyone here thinks that gay marriage on par with hetero marriage is a good idea, that civil unions for gays aren't as good, but that the status quo is worse.

So it's a question of

1) How politically viable do you think same sex marriage is?

2) How much worse are civil unions, in terms of stigmatizing a group of people?

3) How much worse is the status quo compared to civil unions?

4) If civil unions are put in place, will it take longer to get full gay marriage than an all-or-nothing strategy? How long?



Then there's the side issue of how to put pressure on politicians within our system, where all I can add is that Nader's not the answer.

I'd say my fear is that putting civil unions in place will make the marriage thing lose its urgency for some people, will muddle the terms of the debate, and will push back real marriage quality even further.

I'd prefer to be wrong on that, but there we are.

 

[Mandark]

NEW RULE!


You are not allowed to declare the civil rights movement off limits as a basis for comparison unless you can prove your own involvement in it before the Fair Housing Act.

 

[Tamanon]

Mandark, can you also find a rule in there that states that "bigot" is not the best way to argue your point?

 

[grandjedi6]

Indeed that's true. I can however call them bigots, who believe that some people should have second class relationships or no legal right to a relationship at all, pussies, that is, those who refuse to fight for true equality in order to remain appealing to their constituencies, and honest liberals like Ted Kennedy who, despite my vast disagreements with him fully understands the importance of dignity and equality.

Door2Dawn - Yes, I define him as being bigoted, in the same way advocates of segregation were bigoted. Equality means equality, not a separate status.

You know I support same sex marriage also Gaborn but: having a different opinion on same sex marriage does not make one a bigot, not agreeing with your position 100% does not make someone "weak", and agreeing with you 100% does not make someone "honest"

 

[WickedAngel]

Mandark, can you also find a rule in there that states that "bigot" is not the best way to argue your point?

If you do not fully conform to the will of any minority, you are bigoted.

GAF Mandate #21353

 

[Door2Dawn]

I find him using the term bigot downright offensive to me for some reason.

 

[WickedAngel]

I find him using the term bigot downright offensive to me for some reason.

Better avoid civil rights discussions on GAF, then. The term "bigot" is passed around like herpes in a whorehouse.

 

[Mandark]

Tamanon: I've spent too much time reading David Broder, Richard Cohen, Fred Hiatt, and David Ignatius dismiss people who were completely correct on the basis of them putting too much anger or passion into their language. Conciliatory language is very useful, but sometimes you just gotta SPIT FIAH.

Maybe I'm being unfair and I'm just biased in favor of anyone who's part of a traditionally oppressed subculture, but if a gay person wants to flip out a bit over how gays are treated in this country I think they're entitled.

 

[Gaborn]

You know I support same sex marriage also Gaborn but: having a different opinion on same sex marriage does not make one a bigot, not agreeing with your position 100% does not make someone "weak", and agreeing with you 100% does not make someone "honest"

Sorry but I don't agree. Would you make the same argument about people that disagreed on segregation? Or the poll tax? Advocating something that would give a certain class of people second class status is bigotry. It's certainly a better form of bigotry than we have now, it's bigotry that means well, but it's still bigotry. It's saying one type of relationship doesn't deserve the same status as others in the law, and it denies people dignity and equality. Hell, the California Supreme Court said as much, separate but equal is inherently unequal, and that is exactly what Obama is promoting as "equality."

 

[kame-sennin]

Equality would be great and all, but

I can't believe someone actually typed this.

No offense Zap, but it needs to be pointed out just what Americans will tolerate these days. Though, I'm not saying your reasoning is flawed.

I'd say my fear is that putting civil unions in place will make the marriage thing lose its urgency for some people, will muddle the terms of the debate, and will push back real marriage quality even further.

Agreed. Don't ask, don't tell part deux.

 

[Mumei]

I feel really uncomfortable with deciding what to call people who oppose marriage equality, because I never know why they do it. Some people are, undoubtedly, bigots. Other people are so vague and slippery that you really aren't quite sure.

I don't know.

I still get tired of the meme that homosexuality isn't really a civil rights issue, though.

 

[reilo]

I can't believe we are arguing over fucking nomenclature, again.

And you must be a real pompous ass if you think it's okay to label people as "bigots" because they "only" support civil unions.

A true bigot would want to give you no rights.

 

[Tamanon]

Sorry but I don't agree. Would you make the same argument about people that disagreed on segregation? Or the poll tax? Advocating something that would give a certain class of people second class status is bigotry. It's certainly a better form of bigotry than we have now, it's bigotry that means well, but it's still bigotry. It's saying one type of relationship doesn't deserve the same status as others in the law, and it denies people dignity and equality. Hell, the California Supreme Court said as much, separate but equal is inherently unequal, and that is exactly what Obama is promoting as "equality."

OK, then as a fellow supporter, would you say Ron Paul is a bigot?

 

[kame-sennin]

I find him using the term bigot downright offensive to me for some reason.

I find a major presidential candidate openly discriminating against homosexuals to be downright offensive to me for some reason.

 

[Mumei]

I can't believe we are arguing over fucking nomenclature, again.

If you don't care about nomenclature, can you just let us win the argument?

 

[WickedAngel]

Sorry but I don't agree. Would you make the same argument about people that disagreed on segregation? Or the poll tax? Advocating something that would give a certain class of people second class status is bigotry. It's certainly a better form of bigotry than we have now, it's bigotry that means well, but it's still bigotry. It's saying one type of relationship doesn't deserve the same status as others in the law, and it denies people dignity and equality. Hell, the California Supreme Court said as much, separate but equal is inherently unequal, and that is exactly what Obama is promoting as "equality."

You've got out on the limb of absurdity many times before but you're really taking the cake here. You're honestly sitting here and comparing equal rights/different titles with segregation, the poll tax, and the historical precedences of "Separate but Equal" that weren't equal for the parties involved in any sense of the word? Really?

I find a major presidential candidate openly discriminating against homosexuals to be downright offensive to me for some reason.

All we need is Kryptonite and we'll have the trifecta of crocodile tears and faux, sensationalist outrage.

 

[Mumei]

You've got out on the limb of absurdity many times before but you're really taking the cake here. You're honestly sitting here and comparing equal rights/different titles with segregation, the poll tax, and the historical precedences of "Separate but Equal" that weren't equal for the parties involved in any sense of the word? Really?]

Well, obviously it isn't nearly as bad as those, but the principle is much the same, I think.

 

[Door2Dawn]

I find a major presidential candidate openly discriminating against homosexuals to be downright offensive to me for some reason.

Stop being stupid,hes not discriminating against anyone.

 

[Gaborn]

I feel really uncomfortable with deciding what to call people who oppose marriage equality, because I never know why they do it. Some people are, undoubtedly, bigots. Other people are so vague and slippery that you really aren't quite sure.

I don't know.

I still get tired of the meme that homosexuality isn't really a civil rights issue, though.

The way I look at it is sort of how I view my grandmother. She refers to brazil nuts as... well, you can look up the term some people use. She's supporting Obama but she wasn't really comfortable about it. She treats black people nicely in public but mostly avoids them and kind of whispers about them, not in a mean way, but in an uncomfortable way. if a black person comes up in a conversation she'll mention their race very specifically. I mean, I love her to death, that she's still alive and reasonably healthy at her age (early 90s) is pretty amazing, and I hope she lives a lot longer. But the truth is she's a product of her generation and would probably qualify as racist, even though she tries not to be. She means well, and she certainly treats people with dignity and respect publicly... but you know that it's a struggle for her because of how she was raised.

Still though, my view is that people like my grandmother, though she's a wonderful person, and though she tries to be fair to everyone... I'd say she's a racist, even though I'd NEVER call her that, and even though she's a product of her generation and doesn't really hate black people, she just doesn't know how to cope. That's sort of how I view civil union supporters and gay marriage opponents. They don't know how to cope, they're unwilling to grant equality. They're not bad people, but they're not hateful. To me that's being a bigot on the issue, but I understand that they're a product of their upbringing.

 

[kame-sennin]

I feel really uncomfortable with deciding what to call people who oppose marriage equality, because I never know why they do it. Some people are, undoubtedly, bigots. Other people are so vague and slippery that you really aren't quite sure.

The only arguments I've ever heard were rooted in either bigotry or political expediancy (i.e., not wanting to lose the votes of bigots).

I can't believe we are arguing over fucking nomenclature, again.

And you must be a real pompous ass if you think it's okay to label people as "bigots" because they "only" support civil unions.

A true bigot would want to give you no rights.

Gays should be happy with what they get.

 

[Mandark]

Lemme also say that treating the civil union/marriage distinction as a completely atomic question, separate from any other LGBT issue, then saying it pales in comparison to the entirety of the civil rights movement is a rilly, rilly bad way to frame things.

Yes, it's an issue of language, but that language is offensive specifically because of all the shit gay people have had to deal with historically. That's why "nigger" can still rile people, even though you can't use it to actually remove anyone's legal rights.



Besides which, we're getting sucked into the Oppression Olympics crap, which pits blacks against women against latinos against gays for who's suffered the most. And that's so so so so so so so definitely the wrong way to approach this kind of stuff.

 

[reilo]

If you don't care about nomenclature, can you just let us win the argument?

I honestly believe that the entire word "marriage" should be barred from any legal documents and be used only as a symbol.

Ie, graduation is a term used for an event celebrating those who receive a diploma of any kind. It is not a legal term. The word marriage should be treated as such, because right now, that's the only fucking thing people are arguing.

Nobody is even arguing whether or not he proposed civil unions laws will offer gay people the same rights - which I don't even know if anyone is disputing that. That's what is important.

Oh hey, I'm officially a "naturalized citizen" as I immigrated into the United States ten years ago. Do I give a shit? No because I have the same passport as everyone else. The only difference is that I cannot run for the United States Presidency if I so aspire [which I don't], but otherwise the rights afforded to me are the same.