You've gotta love Americans. One minute, we transcend discrimination, the next, we uphold it.
pretty much sums it up perfectly....
how sad... what did my people do to deserve to be told no to happiness?
"Yes We Can!" unless you are gay, then "No You Can't!"
One minute, we transcend discrimination, the next, we uphold it.
In Obama's case, discrimination wasn't transcended; it was merely seen as impractical. A lot of people decided that electing Obama would better serve their interests, and weren't willing to make a sacrifice to advance their racist cause. They could think, "Yeah, stick it to the negro! Oh wait .. President McCain! Damn, what am I going to do? Oh well, I'll put my racism aside for now (until my whatever my economic peeve happens to be, gets fixed)."
For the gay marriage ban, a person could vote for it without seeing any personal downside. "So what if some people are denied liberty? I'm straight, so voting against liberty in this instance, won't hurt me."
Discrimination (racial, sex-orientation, whatever) won't be "transcended" until most people realize that voting against liberty indirectly harms everyone, even harming the people that a specific act of discrimination doesn't directly target. When people think, "Wait a minute, if I do this, then my group might be next," then this bullshit will finally be over. Have we really seen signs that people are thinking that way?
Until we get the political leaders of the Gay Community to STOP using something as divisive as a term as Gay Marriage, and we start using facts and logic to sway the opinions of people who listened to Jeff Flint, Strategist for the Prop 8 Campaign who says:
"I think the voters were thinking, well, if it makes them happy, why shouldn't we let gay couples get married. And I think we made them realize that there are broader implications to society and particularly the children when you make that fundamental change that's at the core of how society is organized, which is marriage," Jeff Flint said.
Then, maybe then, will people begin to actually hear the bullshit rhetoric spewed by the Christian Right. If breeders want to have their weddings and marriages, let 'em! From a state - removed from the church - perspective those "married" people entered into nothing more than a civil union but did so in a church.
What I don't think the GLBT Community realizes is that the Church will never submit to our request for equality. Not now, not in the near future and probably not EVER. We don't want them shoving their hatred and lies down our throats why would we try to do the same to them with our own agenda?
When we GLBT people wake up from the delusion that Marriage = Civil Rights and actually start working again on obtaining the socio-economic benefits taken for granted by all married people and generally denied to all gay couples with out trying to redefine "MARRIAGE" then we might get Civil Unions approved.
In Obama's case, discrimination wasn't transcended; it was merely seen as impractical.
Oh Spock, you're always splitting hairs.
Speaking of splitting hairs, I agree there is NO substantial difference between a "civil union" and a "marriage." I went to the court house to get married, no church involved.
I believe OutaCigs is right that "civil union" has more legs as a concept. Unions of any kind between partners who have the same sex organs will not ever yield offspring, which is the traditional reason for marriage. Hence all this touchiness about "gay marriage" as a term.
And speaking of touchy terms, I really do not think "breeder" can escape being pejorative. Humans breed, even gay ones. Breeders are required to create new humans, gay or straight. Let's not divide up into camps on that, hey?
Are you presenting what you say in your post to be fact or is it merely your theory?
with outacigs and obamagascard. If gay people can get all the rights of marriage only without the word "marriage," why complain?
I understand the GLBT arguement - saying that marriage is only for straight couples creates a second class of citizen even when civil unions are allowed. The gay couples are perceived as "less than." Personally, I wouldn't care at all about the terminology if I was gay. "Seperate but equal" would work just fine - equal is equal. Why get hung up on semantics? And I do believe that marriage between a man and a woman is different because they can produce their own offspring.
And I think we made them realize that there are broader implications to society and particularly the children when you make that fundamental change that's at the core of how society is organized
..trying to get people to understand that allowing a change isn't the same as making a change. "Think of the terrible message that liberty would send to the childen," is getting to be a pretty damn tired reason for using government power to enforce social agendas.
Fact. I used my telepathic powers to read all the voters' minds, including yours (BTW, abbacaab, you're a very dirty person who thinks impure thoughts).
If gay people can get all the rights of marriage only without the word "marriage," why complain?
But why pass this amendment, either? If separate but equal status was an issue that nobody cared about, there wouldn't be any people on either side of the debate.
"to rise above or go beyond." Regardless of what you think voters' motivation was yesterday, the decision transcends. I'm not saying discrimination is gone forever. I understand that discrimination is a subtle and complex issue.
President McCain! Damn, what am I going to do?
I think people who voted for Obama, were NOT voting against McCain, and that has made all the difference. They were voting because they really liked the candidate.
Traditionally, Californicate has long been on the cutting edge of popular culture. Free sex, free love, Berkeley, drug culture, gay this, gay that, Hollywood morons, anti war, hippies, flower power, the Beach Boys, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam. Dare I suggest that on the eve of Obama's proposed Socialist revolution, California, by rejecting "gay" marriage is sending us a signal that it is time to return to more conservative moral ideals? Could it be so?
I understand that discrimination is a subtle and complex issue.
actually, sometimes it's pretty obvious. But yeah, people really liked Obama instead of just considering him the lesser of two evils.
think misogynism is funny.
I do apologize for being so disgustingly rude when all I wanted to say is "I COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU STAND FOR!" I was toungtied and couldn't find the proper way to express it. And I understand that it was pretty dumb to communicate like that. Not everyone appreciates that kind of talk.
Politics is all about semantics Abbacaab. It's about what you say, how you say it and even what words you choose to say. You're right about marriage - performed in a church, by a priest, under a graven image of your lord jesus christ - is between a man and a woman. From a political perspective, remove the secular overtures and you have a civil union AKA common law marriage.
Oh and believe me when I say that all GLBT can have children, That has everything to do with biology and NOTHING at all to do with marriage.
I thought we were agreeing here?
From a political perspective, remove the secular overtures and you have a civil union AKA common law marriage.
Did you mean "religious" overtures?
Also, there are churches who will perform a religious ceremony for gays now. And of course, gays can have children. They can raise their own children to be responsible, healthy citizens. They just can't produce offspring directly out of a homosexual marriage. I used to be all about "loving the sinner but hating the sin" in regards to homosexuals. At this point, I think that maybe it's still a sin but it's none of my business and it doesn't mean gays shouldn't have equal rights.
It's about property and kinship, not child-bearing. In case you haven't noticed, child-bearing is getting further and further removed from marriage between the biological parents (whose definition is getting wider, too).
I've been married for almost 40 years, but we didn't have children. Does that mean my marriage isn't real? There's no test or requirement for child-bearing to get married. That's a red herring.
Why shouldn't gay people be allowed to be responsible and have the corresponding protections I get to take for granted?
gay marriage should be made mandatory and straight marriage should be banned. Us straight guys have suffered long enough with this fucking monogamy thing. If the gays want it, let 'em have it. Free the straights! Next thing you know, gays will be demanding to pay alimony and child support. ;>)
It's true, marriage isn't what it used to be. But I still say that when a man and a woman get married and produce their own children and raise them in a loving home, that's something sacred. Our country was built on the nuclear family. The tradition of marriage between a man and a woman has existed for thousands of years and that should be valued and respected. Give gays equal rights, but let marriage continue to exist the same way it's existed for ages - a man and a woman.
I was just joking - well, sort of anyway because the idealism you are waltzing around the dance floor with is mostly gone the way of high button shoes, five cent cigars, and the stereotypical June Cleaver, Theodore (Beaver) Cleaver, and whatever the dad was named families of the fifties and before no longer exist. Most marriages end in divorce these days, "families", nuclear or otherwise, can have two dads, two moms, "men" who have babies, single parents, and God only knows what else. Is it good? Is it bad? I dunno but it will serve no useful purpose to place oneself on a perfect white horse and point fingers and pass judgement. People do whatever they're gonna do anyway so might as well join the party.
the dad's name was Ward.
Allow me to clarify because I realize I've contradicted myself on this forum. Ultimately, I really don't care who gets married to whom (I have no idea if that sentence is grammtically correct) because it's really none of my business. But I confess to longing for an ideal world where men and women stay married, stay in love and raise healthy children. That is what I'm striving for in my own life. I think it is very beneficial and healthy for children to be raised by members of both sexes. But I'm not going to attack other families just because they are different. Still, it would be nice if gays could just be satisfied with equal rights without trying to change the definition of marriage as it's stood for centuries.
Once we start taking peoples freedom's away...what else will be left?!?!?!?
PROP 8 IS HATE.
losing freedoms for hundreds of years but gays have NEVER had the "freedom" to marry so you really can't say that proposition 8 is "taking people's freedoms away". You're asking for a new freedom and that's going to be a tough call for any government, especially if the government will have to give additional tax breaks and the resulting benefit is questionable. No government will intentionally, willingly give tax breaks without ulterior (selfish) motives and from a government's standpoint, the purpose of (government sanctioned) marriage is one of social engineering (in the original meaning of the term), in that it promotes traditional, child-producing families, more taxpayers, more soldiers, more workers, national growth, and so on. Unions of gay couples will be far less likely to produce offspring, future taxpayers, etc., so there is a negative income effect to government coffers which will also tend to increase the tax burden on the rest of us.
This wasn't a matter of government accountants saying, "oh no, if we allow this, tax revenues will be down and state-backed medical insurance payments will be up, and in a couple decades we'll have fewer soldiers to draft. I recommend you don't sign this, governor."
The issue was never framed in the public debate the way you just put it, hotrod. It was a referendum by the people, and weird terms like "defending marriage" were used. Nobody's running on a platform of, or talking about, setting policies to maximize population growth. Maybe the people are being manipulated with propaganda by someone lurking in the background with those types of motives, but even that's a stretch.
Religion and us-vs-them thinking was happening, this time. Advocating liberty for everyone, in order to protect one's own, just isn't anyone's strategy anymore. And that failure will come back and bite people in the ass, the next time they are in some minority and no one stands up for them.
Seems like our statewide hamburger chain, those cute little white and red buildings gave $10,000 towards the yes on prop 8 campaign. Mr. Bryan Rule, executive at Blakes is a true bigot and deserves none of our business. This business has no right to become involved in the politics of another state except they love HATE and BIGOTRY! Sorry no more lottaburgers for me and my friends.