Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Texas is... progressive?Follow

#27 Oct 02 2009 at 9:48 AM Rating: Good
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
My goal is neither to perpetrate hatred nor violence. I'm simply indifferent on this particular subject because it resides outside my monkeysphere. I don't see how that can be particularly loathsome or bigoted


Yes, but it allows for it to occur.

You don't even need to have true support for their rights, only for the goal of limiting the pervasiveness of adgenda driven institutional control over the populace, especially when the adgendas are inherently at odds with the general benefit of society.

If an institution was disriminatory towards a certain racial group, you don't need to be part of that group, or know someone who is to dislike those actions or policies with regards towards any group.

If an institution was built to financially exploit the fears, or ignorance of a certain subset of people, you don't need to be caught in that web to dislike, and oppose this method of exploitation.

And by doing nothing, or remaining wholely apathetic to those conditions actively encourages people to use those tactics. If there is no retalitory pushback for practices that collectively we would like to discourage, they will be successful, and thus more likely to be carried out in perpetuity. Vocal minorities only have a small segment of the power quotient neccessary to make those positions untenable in even the strictest of game theory dissections of their successfulness. And if they have a high proportionality of successfulness, they will exist, and entrench themselves deeper into society at large.


Your whole argument is based on the belief that the anti-gay marriage argument is about suppressing gay rights or intolerance of the gay community. Therein lies our difference of opinion. Most people I know who are anti-gay marriage have absolutely no opposition to civil unions and equal rights for gay partnerships. Most of them simply believe the term marriage to hold religious meaning and are of the opinion that the Christian religion does not allow for gay relationships, which consequently leads them to believe that allowing gay marriage would somehow debase their religion or the religious value of their own marriage.

There is an unfortunate side-effect in that civil unions don't actually provide equal rights and are often viewed differently in the eyes of most people, but that's not really the intention of most people who are against gay marriage, at least as far as my observations go.

Some caveats:

* There are extreme religious nuts who directly contradict my observations. I believe them to be in the minority of the religious opposition, however.

* I disagree with the preservation of "marriage" as a religious doctrine, and fully support the idea that it should apply equally to all partnerships. I just don't see any intentional malice in the opposing view, generally speaking.

Edited, Oct 2nd 2009 12:50pm by BrownDuck
#28 Oct 02 2009 at 9:55 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
Your whole argument is based on the belief that the anti-gay marriage argument is about suppressing gay rights or intolerance of the gay community. Therein lies our difference of opinion. Most people I know who are anti-gay marriage have absolutely no opposition to civil unions and equal rights for gay partnerships. Most of them simply believe the term marriage to hold religious meaning and are of the opinion that the Christian religion does not allow for gay relationships, which consequently leads them to believe that allowing gay marriage would somehow debase their religion or the religious value of their own marriage.

There is an unfortunate side-effect in that civil unions don't actually provide equal rights and are often viewed differently in the eyes of most people, but that's not really the intention of most people who are against gay marriage, at least as far as my observations go.


Sure, isolating the "civil" marriage with "religeous" marriage would make sense, but it doesn't work that way on the tax forms. But this would mean your position is actually pro gay marriage, rather than indifferent.

These misguided intentions, or better put their ignorance/apathy toward what they are voting for, is what allows people who are hardliners on this front to relabel their position such that the disparity can remain, even though this is not really what is desired.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#29 Oct 02 2009 at 9:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Quote:

There is an unfortunate side-effect in that civil unions don't actually provide equal rights and are often viewed differently in the eyes of most people, but that's not really the intention of most people who are against gay marriage, at least as far as my observations go.


It's not a side-effect. It's the central issue.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#30 Oct 02 2009 at 10:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Most people I know who are anti-gay marriage have absolutely no opposition to civil unions and equal rights for gay partnerships. Most of them simply believe the term marriage to hold religious meaning and are of the opinion that the Christian religion does not allow for gay relationships, which consequently leads them to believe that allowing gay marriage would somehow debase their religion or the religious value of their own marriage.

Marriage by the state has NO religious meaning. If you want to give it religious meaning no one is stopping you. This IS the problem.

I've said it before but if all's it takes to provide identical rights and responsibilities to a union between two people of any gender is changing the word 'marriage' to 'union', then lets do it. But we do it for everyone, no more state sponsored marriage - only unions.







Edited, Oct 2nd 2009 8:03pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#31 Oct 02 2009 at 10:04 AM Rating: Decent
**
318 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Your whole argument is based on the belief that the anti-gay marriage argument is about suppressing gay rights or intolerance of the gay community.


Because that's exactly what it is. Telling people they can't get married because your religion depicts marriage as a male-female only institution is denying someone else an opportunity because of your own personal beliefs.

Not to mention the part about "marriage" and "civil unions" giving different benefits to their participants despite being the same thing.
#32 Oct 02 2009 at 10:30 AM Rating: Good
If the argument truly is strictly about equal rights for homosexual partnerships, why not push for a rewrite of legislation to use the word "civil union" instead of trying to get the government to redefine the word marriage? If all that's really desired is equal rights, why not avoid the debate over the definition of marriage altogether by eliminating it from the table entirely? It would certainly shift the focus from a silly debate over a single word to what's really at stake - equal rights - so why not do that?



#33 Oct 02 2009 at 10:41 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
If the argument truly is strictly about equal rights for homosexual partnerships, why not push for a rewrite of legislation to use the word "civil union" instead of trying to get the government to redefine the word marriage? If all that's really desired is equal rights, why not avoid the debate over the definition of marriage altogether by eliminating it from the table entirely? It would certainly shift the focus from a silly debate over a single word to what's really at stake - equal rights - so why not do that?
There have been plenty of groups that have pushed for the abolishment of state sanctioned marriage. Personally, I wouldn't be against it. There are complications with other forms of illegal unions such as polygamy and incest.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#34 Oct 02 2009 at 10:44 AM Rating: Good
BrownDuck wrote:
If the argument truly is strictly about equal rights for homosexual partnerships, why not push for a rewrite of legislation to use the word "civil union" instead of trying to get the government to redefine the word marriage? If all that's really desired is equal rights, why not avoid the debate over the definition of marriage altogether by eliminating it from the table entirely? It would certainly shift the focus from a silly debate over a single word to what's really at stake - equal rights - so why not do that?


Is it not possible that there are Christian homosexuals would like to be married and not in a civil union? I mean, not only is keeping same-sex marriage illegal impinging on equal rights, but it's also sort of keeping some Christians from being able to practice their religion.
#35 Oct 02 2009 at 10:46 AM Rating: Good
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Is it not possible that there are Christian homosexuals would like to be married and not in a civil union? I mean, not only is keeping same-sex marriage illegal impinging on equal rights, but it's also sort of keeping some Christians from being able to practice their religion.


If state sanctioned marriage is abolished as Elinda suggested, getting married becomes an issue of religion only - the Christian homosexual partners must take it up with their local clergy. What you have then is a clean separation of church and state on the matter - an ideal resolution, wouldn't you say?
#36 Oct 02 2009 at 10:48 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
If the argument truly is strictly about equal rights for homosexual partnerships, why not push for a rewrite of legislation to use the word "civil union" instead of trying to get the government to redefine the word marriage? If all that's really desired is equal rights, why not avoid the debate over the definition of marriage altogether by eliminating it from the table entirely? It would certainly shift the focus from a silly debate over a single word to what's really at stake - equal rights - so why not do that?


Is it not possible that there are Christian homosexuals would like to be married and not in a civil union? I mean, not only is keeping same-sex marriage illegal impinging on equal rights, but it's also sort of keeping some Christians from being able to practice their religion.
Presumably though, if you are religious you are not married in the eyes of the state but in the eyes of god. So after you got your union license - for all the governmental logistical stuff (same thing as a marriage license but renamed), then you could get 'married' by your church.

It might make divorce easier. If you were 'married' by a church that didn't allow divorce, you could still get un-unionized and legally be released from the union.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#37 Oct 02 2009 at 10:51 AM Rating: Good
Elinda wrote:
There have been plenty of groups that have pushed for the abolishment of state sanctioned marriage.


I think that if this were the sole purpose of the movement, I might find myself more willing to support it. A lot of my objection at the moment is based on my perception that the bulk of the debate centers around a stupid little word. Equal rights should never be denied, but I believe the issue is being attacked from the wrong direction.

Quote:
There are complications with other forms of illegal unions such as polygamy and incest.


Hardly a reason to continue denying rights to homosexual partnerships, though.
#38 Oct 02 2009 at 10:57 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
the anti-gay marriage argument is about suppressing gay rights or intolerance of the gay community.


It is, "factually." It isn't, intentionally.

That is the argument which I would ultimately recognize, you see? People don't have to believe that they are doing something in order for them to be doing something.

Oedipus wants to marry Jocasta
Jocasta is Oedipus' mother
Oedipus wants to marry his mother

You can't make inferences like this really, because the last line is true in one sense and false in another, depending on whether you are caring about Oedipus' intention, or inter-subjective judgment.

Quote:
If all that's really desired is equal rights, why not avoid the debate over the definition of marriage altogether by eliminating it from the table entirely?


Because, again, of the difference in what equal rights are, and the intention of people who use the word, that is, how they conceive of it.

Edited, Oct 2nd 2009 2:59pm by Pensive
#39 Oct 02 2009 at 10:57 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
There have been plenty of groups that have pushed for the abolishment of state sanctioned marriage.


I think that if this were the sole purpose of the movement, I might find myself more willing to support it. A lot of my objection at the moment is based on my perception that the bulk of the debate centers around a stupid little word. Equal rights should never be denied, but I believe the issue is being attacked from the wrong direction.

Quote:
There are complications with other forms of illegal unions such as polygamy and incest.


Hardly a reason to continue denying rights to homosexual partnerships, though.
Of course not. It's just an issue that has to be dealt with if you should decide to push for the abolishment of marriage in favor of just a civil union in an attempt to provide equal marriage rights.

I really think Maine approached the whole thing pretty smartly with their "Equality in Marriage" bill that was passed. Of course it is being threatened by a peoples veto. We're currently campaigning heavily to prevent it's demise.

See "Vote No on 1".
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#40 Oct 02 2009 at 10:57 AM Rating: Decent
BrownDuck wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Is it not possible that there are Christian homosexuals would like to be married and not in a civil union? I mean, not only is keeping same-sex marriage illegal impinging on equal rights, but it's also sort of keeping some Christians from being able to practice their religion.


If state sanctioned marriage is abolished as Elinda suggested, getting married becomes an issue of religion only - the Christian homosexual partners must take it up with their local clergy. What you have then is a clean separation of church and state on the matter - an ideal resolution, wouldn't you say?


Changing the name marriage to something else to appease Christians is not in keeping with the separation of church and state, either.
#41 Oct 02 2009 at 11:02 AM Rating: Good
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Is it not possible that there are Christian homosexuals would like to be married and not in a civil union? I mean, not only is keeping same-sex marriage illegal impinging on equal rights, but it's also sort of keeping some Christians from being able to practice their religion.


If state sanctioned marriage is abolished as Elinda suggested, getting married becomes an issue of religion only - the Christian homosexual partners must take it up with their local clergy. What you have then is a clean separation of church and state on the matter - an ideal resolution, wouldn't you say?


Changing the name marriage to something else to appease Christians is not in keeping with the separation of church and state, either.


I think your statement is poorly worded to exaggerate a point. The idea is to release the control of "marriage" as an institution back to the Church and replace it with a more appropriate government-only institution ("civil union"). It's not merely avoiding the use of a given word to appease some silly Christians. It's a distinct separation of the two concepts and benefits that go with.
#42 Oct 02 2009 at 11:05 AM Rating: Decent
BrownDuck wrote:
I think your statement is poorly worded to exaggerate a point. The idea is to release the control of "marriage" as an institution back to the Church and replace it with a more appropriate government-only institution ("civil union"). It's not merely avoiding the use of a given word to appease some silly Christians. It's a distinct separation of the two concepts and benefits that go with.


Release it to which church, exactly? Marriage is not a Christian institution. It is not a religious institution, either.

And if we're not avoiding the use of the given word to appease Christans, then why are we bothering to rename it? Using the word marriage in religious and government ceremonies has bothered absolutely no one until same-sex couples started fighting for their rights, and Christians started ******** about it.
#43 Oct 02 2009 at 11:08 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Is it not possible that there are Christian homosexuals would like to be married and not in a civil union? I mean, not only is keeping same-sex marriage illegal impinging on equal rights, but it's also sort of keeping some Christians from being able to practice their religion.


If state sanctioned marriage is abolished as Elinda suggested, getting married becomes an issue of religion only - the Christian homosexual partners must take it up with their local clergy. What you have then is a clean separation of church and state on the matter - an ideal resolution, wouldn't you say?


Changing the name marriage to something else to appease Christians is not in keeping with the separation of church and state, either.
You are redefining marriage as being outside the oversight of the state.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#44 Oct 02 2009 at 11:10 AM Rating: Good
Elinda wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Is it not possible that there are Christian homosexuals would like to be married and not in a civil union? I mean, not only is keeping same-sex marriage illegal impinging on equal rights, but it's also sort of keeping some Christians from being able to practice their religion.


If state sanctioned marriage is abolished as Elinda suggested, getting married becomes an issue of religion only - the Christian homosexual partners must take it up with their local clergy. What you have then is a clean separation of church and state on the matter - an ideal resolution, wouldn't you say?


Changing the name marriage to something else to appease Christians is not in keeping with the separation of church and state, either.
You are redefining marriage as being outside the oversight of the state.



I have no idea what you mean.
#45 Oct 02 2009 at 11:11 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Is it not possible that there are Christian homosexuals would like to be married and not in a civil union? I mean, not only is keeping same-sex marriage illegal impinging on equal rights, but it's also sort of keeping some Christians from being able to practice their religion.


If state sanctioned marriage is abolished as Elinda suggested, getting married becomes an issue of religion only - the Christian homosexual partners must take it up with their local clergy. What you have then is a clean separation of church and state on the matter - an ideal resolution, wouldn't you say?


Changing the name marriage to something else to appease Christians is not in keeping with the separation of church and state, either.
You are redefining marriage as being outside the oversight of the state.



I have no idea what you mean.
I mean if marriage is NOT state-sanctioned, there is no reason that it has to be separated from the church. One can have a church marriage, or a family marriage, or whatever they want. Why would it have to be separated from the church?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#46 Oct 02 2009 at 11:15 AM Rating: Good
Elinda wrote:
I mean if marriage is NOT state-sanctioned, there is no reason that it has to be separated from the church. One can have a church marriage, or a family marriage, or whatever they want. Why would it have to be separated from the church?


My point is that, in changing the name and the definition, you are catering to the church, which is not in keeping with the separation of church and state.
#47 Oct 02 2009 at 11:17 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Elinda wrote:
I mean if marriage is NOT state-sanctioned, there is no reason that it has to be separated from the church. One can have a church marriage, or a family marriage, or whatever they want. Why would it have to be separated from the church?


My point is that, in changing the name and the definition, you are catering to the church, which is not in keeping with the separation of church and state.
Oh please. That is about the most childish thing I've read on this forum...since probably yesterday.

Statements like this are what make politics dysfunctional.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#48 Oct 02 2009 at 11:24 AM Rating: Good
Elinda wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Elinda wrote:
I mean if marriage is NOT state-sanctioned, there is no reason that it has to be separated from the church. One can have a church marriage, or a family marriage, or whatever they want. Why would it have to be separated from the church?


My point is that, in changing the name and the definition, you are catering to the church, which is not in keeping with the separation of church and state.
Oh please. That is about the most childish thing I've read on this forum...since probably yesterday.

Statements like this are what make politics dysfunctional.


Gosh, Elinda, you might hurt my feelings or something. Smiley: rolleyes

Childish or not, it makes me cringe, and it makes me very sad to see our government listening to religious morons and catering to them simply to procure votes.
#49 Oct 02 2009 at 11:37 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Stubs has more of an opinion about Katie than he does about gay marriage. Trufax.
#50 Oct 02 2009 at 11:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Stubs has more of an opinion about Katie than he does about gay marriage. Trufax.
Well, one's already banned, when it should be the other.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#51REDACTED, Posted: Oct 02 2009 at 11:44 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 304 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (304)