Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Warning: This thread is pretty gay

Warning: This thread is pretty gay (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2013, 08:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Gee. That was uncalled for.
Surprised?

The government should have gotten out of the marriage game a long time ago. If a person truly wants separation of church and state, civil unions are the only way it would work.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2013, 08:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
The government should have gotten out of the marriage game a long time ago. If a person truly wants separation of church and state, civil unions are the only way it would work.
False. We have marriage equality in Canada, and it works perfectly fine. There is utterly no reason to "get out of the marriage game," because civil unions are the exact same game. Taking away the word "marriage" to make some religious people happy is exactly the opposite of separation of church and state.

Play all the word games you like, you're just deluding yourself.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2013, 09:19 PM
 
If it's the same, why are reacting the way you are?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2013, 09:34 PM
 
It's the same, so it should be called the same. "Civil unions" was a temporary tool to give gays their marriage rights, not a permanent tool to take the term marriage away from non-religious people. Civil unions was always an ugly "separate but equal" kludge to accomplish a wider goal in the future, and not something to consider being kept forever.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2013, 09:45 PM
 
Damn straight. I'm an atheist but I will still get married one day. Like hell I'm going to get civil unionized or whatever it would even be called.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2013, 10:07 PM
 
The term marriage should be completely abolished, from a legal standpoint, as it no longer applies. As far as the government's concerned, they should only recognize partnerships.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2013, 10:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
The term marriage should be completely abolished, from a legal standpoint, as it no longer applies. As far as the government's concerned, they should only recognize partnerships.
Why? Can you give me one good reason why?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2013, 10:15 PM
 
I didn't get the memo where it's time to start beating on people who like the kludge.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2013, 10:19 PM
 
There's a memo?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2013, 10:23 PM
 
You don't get them?
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2013, 11:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Why? Can you give me one good reason why?
Because it offends his delicate sensibilities. This is the USA, we all deserve equal rights. Those who don't care for that are free to move to any "Islamic" or "Christian" state of their choosing.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 12:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by leekohler2 View Post
Because it offends his delicate sensibilities. This is the USA, we all deserve equal rights. Those who don't care for that are free to move to any "Islamic" or "Christian" state of their choosing.
My delicate sensibilities? You are new around here. lol

Marriage is a religious sacrament, I want to remove that language from the law all-together because it doesn't belong there.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 12:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
My delicate sensibilities? You are new around here. lol

Marriage is a religious sacrament, I want to remove that language from the law all-together because it doesn't belong there.
Marriage predates religion, so you must be new around here, or you must think I'm an idiot.

When was institution of marriage invented
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/AT...n_western.html
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 12:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Marriage is a religious sacrament, I want to remove that language from the law all-together because it doesn't belong there.
Is it, though? Marriage isn't unique to religious groups, and the term itself is universally understood. It seems like the fuss Christian groups have been raising since gay rights went mainstream has just led to many people incorrectly identifying the term marriage as originating with the Christian church.

Essentially, Christians have appropriated marriage. Why should we let tem have it and leave ourselves with a impersonal legalese imitation?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 12:44 AM
 
Predating doesn't mean superseding. It's now established as a religious institution and has been since US law was codified. It's another piece of religious dogma that needs to be removed from government control. Making all unions "civil unions" is the most logical step towards leveling the playing field for everyone.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 12:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by gradient View Post
Essentially, Christians have appropriated marriage. Why should we let tem have it and leave ourselves with a impersonal legalese imitation?
I'm not saying they would "have it", no one would technically have it. It wouldn't even be recognized by the State, only civil unions would exist as far as they're concerned.

Not to say it's the only way I'd be happy. Barring what I feel is the most logical course of action, which I've already described, I'd rather marriage be open to all domestic partnerships; straight, gay, or plural. I simply believe there's a better way of handling it.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 01:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Predating doesn't mean superseding. It's now established as a religious institution and has been since US law was codified. It's another piece of religious dogma that needs to be removed from government control. Making all unions "civil unions" is the most logical step towards leveling the playing field for everyone.
So, are you saying you would deny religions that codify gay marriage that right? What gives you the ability to tell other religions what to call marriage?

Or, is it only your own religion that counts?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 01:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by leekohler2 View Post
so you must be new around here, or you must think I'm an idiot.
Well, it's gotta be the latter.

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 01:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by leekohler2 View Post
So, are you saying you would deny religions that codify gay marriage that right? What gives you the ability to tell other religions what to call marriage?

Or, is it only your own religion that counts?
Huh? Religions can do what they want, if someone wants to get married, more power to them. But, that doesn't mean it's a union that would automatically be recognized by the State. That gets marriage away from government purview, and keeps the government out of religion.

IMO, all religions "count", whatever blows their hair back.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 03:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Well, it's gotta be the latter.

-t
Wow, someone oughta report him, her, whatever.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 05:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I'll accept marriage to include gays when you show me how this has been customary among different people groups and different religions through the course of thousands of years.

-t
Thats the thing that so many religious people and conservatives in general don't get: Its not about doing it how we always did it, its about doing it the way it should be done.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 07:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Why? Can you give me one good reason why?
Marriage, whether straight or gay, is ultimately about who you're banging.

I don't think you should need to be banging, act as if you're banging, be considered to be banging, or have who you're banging or not banging be grounds for dissolution of, a passel of privileges granted by the government.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 08:29 AM
 
Curious on the line of thinking here - Why is no one championing the rights of first or second cousins to marry? Brother and sister? Mother and son? Father and daughter? Are the masses still too familiaphobic for such progress?
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 08:45 AM
 
Maybe people don't see the equivalency of rationales you appear to be implying.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 09:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by leekohler2 View Post
The problem is- the religious right would not even allow us to have our own bathroom, so to speak.
As this thread demonstrates there are obnoxious blowhards on both sides. But the virtue of compromise is that it allows the moderates on both sides to begrudgingly divorce themselves from their respective blowhards and do what approximates the right thing.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 11:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Curious on the line of thinking here - Why is no one championing the rights of first or second cousins to marry? Brother and sister? Mother and son? Father and daughter? Are the masses still too familiaphobic for such progress?
False equivalency is false.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 11:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Marriage is a religious sacrament, I want to remove that language from the law all-together because it doesn't belong there.
Complete, utter rubbish. Most religions recognize marriage as a religious sacrament, but governments have always, always, always recognized marriage as a legal relationship. Marriage has always been a political institution. The indisputable fact is that marriage is an institution recognized by all social structures: governments, religions, businesses, private clubs, militaries, etc.

Your attempt to pretend marriage is (or should be) only a religious institution is ahistorical nonsense, and brings utterly no value to the political discussion.

I think you also need to come to grips with the fact that plural marriage will never, ever be legally recognized. The social consequences of polygamy on the poor are too well known. Unlike gay marriage, legalizing plural marriage will actually damage society as a whole. For instance, it would have immediate, disastrous consequences for Muslims living here in the West as rich Muslims hoard wives. There's a reason most of the Muslim world has banned polygamy even though it is clearly permitted in Islam: it rewards the rich and punishes the poor.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 11:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Tear down the relevance?

What the **** does that mean?
Guess you won't be getting an answer.



Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Predating doesn't mean superseding. It's now established as a religious institution and has been since US law was codified.
No reason why we can't take the term back, is there?

I think the greatest irony about "Civil Union" is that it;s a straight-up PC term being put forth by the side that usually derides such things.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Curious on the line of thinking here - Why is no one championing the rights of first or second cousins to marry? Brother and sister? Mother and son? Father and daughter? Are the masses still too familiaphobic for such progress?
My question: Do you bring this up because this is a real concern to you or are you trying to muddle the situation in hopes of stalling progress of equal recognition for marriage?

If there's support for gay marriage but not cousin marriage, should we not act on the former?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 11:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Marriage, whether straight or gay, is ultimately about who you're banging.
There's a bit more to it than that.

I don't think you should need to be banging, act as if you're banging, be considered to be banging, or have who you're banging or not banging be grounds for dissolution of, a passel of privileges granted by the government.
Marriage is mostly about legal obligations, not privileges. Most of the privileges of marriage can be obtained without getting married, and virtually none of the obligations of marriage can be imposed without getting married.

But there are tons of legitimate privileges that of course should be recognized by government: the privacy of marital communications, transference of medical decision-making, tax and income sharing, property transference, and so on. None of these things should be shared with your fnck buddy.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 11:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
As this thread demonstrates there are obnoxious blowhards on both sides. But the virtue of compromise is that it allows the moderates on both sides to begrudgingly divorce themselves from their respective blowhards and do what approximates the right thing.
The right thing is recognizing gay marriage.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 11:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Curious on the line of thinking here - Why is no one championing the rights of first or second cousins to marry? Brother and sister? Mother and son? Father and daughter? Are the masses still too familiaphobic for such progress?
None of those things has anything to do with two adults of the same sex getting married. Those are different situations with different issues, not a reason to deny two people of the same sex the right to marry. Stick to the issue at hand. Thanks.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 11:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
There's a bit more to it than that.
Go on...

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Marriage is mostly about legal obligations, not privileges. Most of the privileges of marriage can be obtained without getting married, and virtually none of the obligations of marriage can be imposed without getting married.
Such as?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 11:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
The right thing is recognizing gay marriage.
Yeah duh, and recognizing gay marriage in all but name is approximately the right thing. Compromise can get us the latter, while only waiting around with our thumbs up our butts for an extra generation will get us the former. Being an intolerant and insufferable prick to everyone will get us neither.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 12:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Compromise can get us the latter, while only waiting around with our thumbs up our butts for an extra generation will get us the former.
I disagree. If you look at state actions, the majority of those that felt strongly enough to take action in favor of gay rights gave them marriage, and the majority that felt strongly enough to "protect" "traditional" marriage also banned civil unions.

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Same-sex unions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 12:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I disagree. If you look at state actions, the majority of those that felt strongly enough to take action in favor of gay rights gave them marriage, and the majority that felt strongly enough to "protect" "traditional" marriage also banned civil unions.

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Same-sex unions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Precisely. People are missing the fact that no matter what it's called, the religious right doesn't want it. Their goal is to deny us legal recognition, period.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 12:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I disagree. If you look at state actions, the majority of those that felt strongly enough to take action in favor of gay rights gave them marriage, and the majority that felt strongly enough to "protect" "traditional" marriage also banned civil unions.

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Same-sex unions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That doesn't tell you how flexible the centrists are, it only tells you the weighted outcome of how the centrists were swayed by both sides. The same result could occur if progressives were represented in too many states by lpkmckennas, alienating the center who could have gone either way.

Correlation of both questions on the same ballot measure only tells us about the opinions of the people who drafted the ballot measure, not about voters.


Originally Posted by leekohler2 View Post
Precisely. People are missing the fact that no matter what it's called, the religious right doesn't want it. Their goal is to deny us legal recognition, period.
It depends on whether you mean "religious right" to be an enormous block of voters, or merely a small group of extremists who are able to appeal to an enormous block of more moderate voters, especially when the progressive side drops the ball by alienating them and mocking their religion.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 12:27 PM
 
Here's the other thing: Do you have any evidence people are ok with turning straight marriages into civil unions? And if you're proposing keeping straight marriages and adding civil unions for gays, how is that not "separate but equal"?
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 12:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
That doesn't tell you how flexible the centrists are, it only tells you the weighted outcome of how the centrists were swayed by both sides. The same result could occur if progressives were represented in too many states by lpkmckennas, alienating the center who could have gone either way.

Correlation of both questions on the same ballot measure only tells us about the opinions of the people who drafted the ballot measure, not about voters.



It depends on whether you mean "religious right" to be an enormous block of voters, or merely a small group of extremists who are able to appeal to an enormous block of more moderate voters, especially when the progressive side drops the ball by alienating them and mocking their religion.
Obviously, it's a large block of voters when you read those links. It was the majority of voters in those states.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 12:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Yeah duh, and recognizing gay marriage in all but name is approximately the right thing. Compromise can get us the latter, while only waiting around with our thumbs up our butts for an extra generation will get us the former.
Did you miss the part where I endorsed civil unions as a justifiable measure en-route to a complete solution?
Being an intolerant and insufferable prick to everyone will get us neither.
If I see anyone doing that, I'll pass that on.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Go on...
Such as?
If you read my post, I pretty much answered both of those questions before you even asked, in the parts you didn't quote.

But if you insist on me being pedantic: you can get the marital privilege of sex, companionship, and children without being married, but you can't be saddled with the obligation of alimony or property division without marriage. Clearly, there's a difference between fnck buddies and spouses.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 12:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Here's the other thing: Do you have any evidence people are ok with turning straight marriages into civil unions?
Does it count as "the horse's mouth" when the horse is only typing it on the internet? People here have said they would be ok with it, even argued for it. Haven't they? I have misread things before...

And if you're proposing keeping straight marriages and adding civil unions for gays, how is that not "separate but equal"?
It is "separate but equal." "Separate but equal" was wrong, yes, but it was far preferable to what came before it. Would it have been better to drag out slavery any longer in order to skip over "separate but equal" and go straight to integration? Bigotry is not pretty, but it is reality. Sometimes you have to work around it in order to get bigots' votes to support approximately the right thing. As I said above, it's better than letting those bigots' votes be captured by the extremists who want to outlaw both gay marriage and civil unions.

Also I submit that it wouldn't be nearly as big a deal with this, a social construct, than with racial segregation, a physical construct. Married and unmarried people already co-exist happily, the only "separate but UNequal" dangers we would have to deal with would be scorn, not physical harm, and scorn is kind of out of our reach anyway. Do you think people who are inclined to scorn you are going to stop just because the law says you got "real' married?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 12:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by leekohler2 View Post
Obviously, it's a large block of voters when you read those links. It was the majority of voters in those states.
I already addressed why that conclusion is not sound based only on that evidence.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 12:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
The same result could occur if progressives were represented in too many states by lpkmckennas, alienating the center who could have gone either way.
I find this hilarious, since I see myself as a centrist, not a progressive.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Here's the other thing: Do you have any evidence people are ok with turning straight marriages into civil unions? And if you're proposing keeping straight marriages and adding civil unions for gays, how is that not "separate but equal"?
I would only be okay if they were all civil unions.

Is there much call for that? No. Certainly less call for that than gay marriage.

However, I'm not any more bothered by legal gay marriage than I am by legal straight marriage, i.e. not much. There are lots of things I think the government should do which they don't.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 01:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Did you miss the part where I endorsed civil unions as a justifiable measure en-route to a complete solution?
Yes. But I didn't miss the part where you called it idiotic and starting bullying people who endorsed it.


but you can't be saddled with the obligation of alimony or property division without marriage. Clearly, there's a diffence between fnck buddies and spouses.
An "obligation" is just a "privilege" for the other person
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 01:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Does it count as "the horse's mouth" when the horse is only typing it on the internet? People here have said they would be ok with it, even argued for it. Haven't they? I have misread things before...
Is 'horse's mouth' a different name for 'anecdotal evidence'? Some polls would suffice.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
It is "separate but equal." "Separate but equal" was wrong, yes, but it was far preferable to what came before it. Would it have been better to drag out slavery any longer in order to skip over "separate but equal" and go straight to integration? Bigotry is not pretty, but it is reality. Sometimes you have to work around it in order to get bigots' votes to support approximately the right thing. As I said above, it's better than letting those bigots' votes be captured by the extremists who want to outlaw both gay marriage and civil unions.
Didn't separate but equal (editor's note: I typed evil instead of equal the first time. Well played, subconscious) manifest because people got gutless about doing what was right?


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Also I submit that it wouldn't be nearly as big a deal with this, a social construct, than with racial segregation, a physical construct. Married and unmarried people already co-exist happily, the only "separate but UNequal" dangers we would have to deal with would be scorn, not physical harm, and scorn is kind of out of our reach anyway. Do you think people who are inclined to scorn you are going to stop just because the law says you got "real' married?
To me that's an argument against civil unions. There's going to be no pleasing people, either way. Just cut to the chase.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 01:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I find this hilarious, since I see myself as a centrist, not a progressive.
Issue by issue? If your position on this issue is the center, what are the extremes?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 01:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I would only be okay if they were all civil unions.
So would I. However, much like the term "significant other" I think it'll be relegated to the dust bin of near useless terms. If everyone is just going to call it marriage anyway, why the big dance?


Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is there much call for that? No. Certainly less call for that than gay marriage.
Bingo.


Originally Posted by subego View Post
However, I'm not any more bothered by legal gay marriage than I am by legal straight marriage, i.e. not much. There are lots of things I think the government should do which they don't.
I don't have a strong opinion on marriage, but I know discrimination when I see it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 01:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Is 'horse's mouth' a different name for 'anecdotal evidence'? Some polls would suffice.
Kind of, it means people here on MacNN have endorsed it, people who I have no reason to doubt are anti-gay-marriage traditionalists. But if you want polls, this is the first result for "civil union polls" I found:
Poll: Most Americans support same-sex unions - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

It seems to confirm my previous statements that (A) we could get a majority right now by reaching out to the "separate but equal" voters, but not without doing so, and (B) we could do it without them by waiting for them to die off.


Didn't separate but equal (editor's note: I typed evil instead of equal the first time. Well played, subconscious) manifest because people got gutless about doing what was right?
I don't understand your question. Are you saying they were afraid to do what was right, or afraid not to?


To me that's an argument against civil unions. There's going to be no pleasing people, either way. Just cut to the chase.
Yes, if I was a dictator, I would do exactly what you suggest. My point is simply that (as with most issues in a democracy) the right thing is not supported by a majority, but the approximately right thing is. Is it better to do nothing until you can get the right thing, or to get the approximately right thing until you can get the right thing, or to hope democracy breaks so the just minority can subdue the unjust majority?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 01:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So would I. However, much like the term "significant other" I think it'll be relegated to the dust bin of near useless terms. If everyone is just going to call it marriage anyway, why the big dance?
For votes?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2013, 01:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
But I didn't miss the part where you called it idiotic and starting bullying people who endorsed it.
I didn't bully anyone who endorsed civil unions. But I did mock people who suggested the end of marriage as a legal institution, who pretended it was only a religious institution, and tried to turn civil unions into something it wasn't.

An "obligation" is just a "privilege" for the other person
Ok, but not the other way. Not all privileges of marriages are obligations on the other person; for instance, shared taxes, marital confidences, and medical decision transference is mutually beneficial.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Issue by issue? If your position on this issue is the center, what are the extremes?
To me, denying marriage to gays is "extreme," and allowing marriage to gays is "moderate." So, there is no "other extreme," really.

I suppose the other hypothetical extremes might be the end of all marriage for everyone (once a Marxism prescription), or perhaps only gay marriages as opposed to only straight marriages (unlikely to be a big seller), or perhaps something like Shaddim wants (civil unions for gays as the gateway drug for plural marriage).

But I suggest to you that not all of politics is cleanly divided between left-center-right viewpoints, and I myself generally only use the terms to mean capitalist vs non-capitalist viewpoints, and never use left-center-right to deal with essentially non-economic issues. The only exception for me is the term "religious right," but only because that's how that group labels itself.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:51 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2