Forum puts Democrats in hot seat over gay issues

[rincewind]

I should have just waited for Larry to post his last post (the one before zoony's - so, yes, I read them both). Pretty much sums it up. Good work, Bart's grandson. :thumbsup:

[rincewind]

By the way, zoony - why the hell do you care if they call it marriage?

Gay people don't want to be different or special - they want to be able to get married just like anybody else, not have a 'civil union'.

[Larry]

It seems like a fair compromise. But the gay community, acting like a spoiled child, refuses to even accept that. They've got to have it their way.

Yeah, it's a crying shame (not that there's anything wrong with that) the way some people just can't get used to a systematic, legally mandated, nationwide system of intentionally denying them equal treatment.

The nerve of those people, up and demanding equality, even when it's clearly obvious that a bunch of people hate them and don't want them to have equality.

Some folks are just weird.

[zoony]

Civil unions are guaranteed not to be the same as marriage, for several reasons:

• For the same reason marriage won't be the same as marriage, if the GOP has their way. For example, that's why they recently passed a federal law declaring that even if a state choses to grant same-sex marriages, the federal government won't recognize it, anyway.
  
• Because your "separate but [un]equal" plan would have a different name than "marriage", that would also mean that, in order to have equality, they'd have to force every existing contract, law, and corporate policy to recognize it, too. (Which is one of the reason bigots like the idea: It's guaranteed never to be equal. And it changes the battleground from an area which they're getting close to losing, into millions of individual battlegrounds, where they can continue to discriminate for decades.)
  
• For the inherent reason that separate isn't equal. Same reason people weren't satisfied when there was a "colored" drinking fountain next to the "white only" one. Same reason they weren't satisfied to just go to black schools. Even if the black schools were "just as good as white", the mere act that they're separate makes it discrimination.
  

Larry, this post is absolutely absurd. You trying to tell me a team of the brightest legal minds in the country couldn't pass thru verbiage to make Civil Unions equal to Marriage from a legal perspective?

Again... this is a classic case of one side attempting to go halfway with a VERY realistic, VERY fair solution.

And on the other side, we have a bunch of children kicking and screaming pointing the finger at everyone screaming foul play, stomping their feet and acting like babies.

Now Larry... you wanna guess which side is which?

Civil Unions are a very real solution to this very complex issue.

.....

[rincewind]

Larry, this post is absolutely absurd. You trying to tell me a team of the brightest legal minds in the country couldn't pass thru verbiage to make Civil Unions equal to Marriage from a legal perspective?

Again... this is a classic case of one side attempting to go halfway with a VERY realistic, VERY fair solution.

And on the other side, we have a bunch of children kicking and screaming pointing the finger at everyone screaming foul play, stomping their feet and acting like babies.

Now Larry... you wanna guess which side is which?

Civil Unions are a very real solution to this very complex issue.

.....

I'll make a guess... but I don't think you'll like it.

[zoony]

Yeah, it's a crying shame (not that there's anything wrong with that) the way some people just can't get used to a systematic, legally mandated, nationwide system of intentionally denying them equal treatment.

The nerve of those people, up and demanding equality, even when it's clearly obvious that a bunch of people hate them and don't want them to have equality.

Some folks are just weird.

Are you talking about the system in place, or the proposed compromise?

Because I think you're talking about the former. Which has absolutely no bearing on this conversation. Why would you even post that Larry?

We're talking about solutions here... not the state of affairs.

If I thought the current state of affairs was a good one... I wouldn't be talking about solutions, would I?

Try and keep up.

[zoony]

I'll make a guess... but I don't think you'll like it.

Lemme guess... it involves labeling everyone who disagrees with you a bigot?

Am I warm?

Ironic that liberals think of themselves as the open minded ones...

[twa]

By the way, zoony - why the hell do you care if they call it marriage?

Gay people don't want to be different or special - they want to be able to get married just like anybody else, not have a 'civil union'.

True words Rince...

They do just want to be like everybody else...but they ain't.

They wish acceptance that cannot be granted by force of law,only freely given. :2cents:

[rincewind]

Lemme guess... it involves labeling everyone who disagrees with you a bigot?

Am I warm?

Ironic that liberals think of themselves as the open minded ones...

And you just labeled my a liberal?

My point was some people get there panties all in a bind when gay people dare to say they want to be able to get married just like the majority of the country can. Then those some people turn and say 'well, we gave you civil unions. That's good enough. Now, be happy and go away - we'll just s****** at you for only being able to have 'civil unions' from over here.'

zoony - if you're denying that language isn't a VERY powerful tool of oppression, you're fooling yourself.

[rincewind]

True words Rince...

They do just want to be like everybody else...but they ain't.

They wish acceptance that cannot be granted by force of law,only freely given. :2cents:

They're not? Everybody has at least one way in which they're different from everybody else.

[Larry]

Larry, this post is absolutely absurd. You trying to tell me a team of the brightest legal minds in the country couldn't pass thru verbiage to make Civil Unions equal to Marriage from a legal perspective?

Again... this is a classic case of one side attempting to go halfway with a VERY realistic, VERY fair solution.

No, this is a classic example of one side demanding that if they can't outright ban a group of people who's only "sin" is to be unliked, then they'll offer discrimination in a slightly different form. (A form which has already been tried, and for exactly the same reasons.)

Will civil unions require employers to give the same benefits to gay "married" couples? Will subdivisions which have "married couples only" restrictions recognize them?

You and I both know they won't. In fact, the "separate but equal" crowd are counting on it. They want for a marriage certificate to be a government-issued "straight ID" card, which can then be used as a tool for discrimination. They want to be able to discriminate while saying "gee, the company policy says 'married'."

And on the other side, we have a bunch of children kicking and screaming pointing the finger at everyone screaming foul play, stomping their feet and acting like babies.

Yep. People who've been discriminated against all their lives get touchy about it after several decades. Start acting like discrimination is wrong, or something.

Civil Unions are a very real solution to this very complex issue.

Civil unions are an attempt by bigots to revive the same system of bigotry that they tried to use against the last minority who got uppity because they didn't like their country discriminating against them. It was wrong then, and it still is.

[rincewind]

Screw it. You know what? n/m.... you guys go ahead and not treat whoever you want as not you're equal....

[Larry]

If I thought the current state of affairs was a good one... I wouldn't be talking about solutions, would I?

If you thought the current state was a bad one, you wouldn't be trying to perpetuate it, and calling a group of second-class citizens "crying babies" because they just keep whining about wanting equality.

[zoony]

zoony - if you're denying that language isn't a VERY powerful tool of oppression, you're fooling yourself.

Hey... let me be clear on something. On a personal level, I don't care WHAT they call it. Marraige, Civil Unions, Whatever. Makes no difference to me.

From my perspective, there is a real issue here with the Equal Protection Clause that NEEDS to be addressed. I personally don't like the fact that homosexuals can't be near each other on their death bed, or have trouble with medical insurance, etc. It's not right, and it's not fair.

MY point is that there is a real solution here on the table. The American Public, historically VERY conservative on these types of issues, has budged enough to give a very small minority of people in this country a legal way to obtain what they seek. Was it a painful journey? You betcha. Almost every American has a very strong opinion on this issue.

Yet despite all that... here we have electable candidates, with a majority of public support... posing a VERY real solution of Civil Unions. FINALLY... a workable compromise to a very sticky issue!!

You'd think that the homosexual community in this country would cry tears of joy! But no... instead, they've taken the opportunity to further entrench themselves, to draw an even firmer line in the sand... one they refuse to budge on.

Know what my opinion is nowadays?

**** 'em.

.....

[Larry]

Lemme guess... it involves labeling everyone who disagrees with you a bigot?

I'll give you a hint.

Anybody who claims that one group of citizens should be treated differently from another group of citizens, simply because that group is disliked, is a bigot.

Don't like being called a bigot? Don't keep claiming that you want discrimination.

[Enter Apotheosis]

I have a question for the Gay community:

Why can't you be happy with Civil Unions? Why the need for you to call it marriage? If Equal Protection is your platform, Civil Unions should be sufficient.

Honest question.

I think that the gay community would be happy with some sort of nationally recognized civil union. However, that doesn't mean that they would be completely happy with it. It also doesn't mean that they can't still lobby for the full equivalent to a straight marriage... even if it is just for a philosophically derived sense of peace-of-mind.

I mean... are you honestly so offended that such a group of people is allowed to express their opinion on the matter and lobby politicians for change?

Hey... if a gay couple wanna go around telling people they're married... and on paper, they have all the same rights... WTF do they have a problem with? You've got your equal protection, now kindly :stfu: and stop acting like a child. This country was built on compromise... you, as a gay person, are not special, you are not the exception. The world DOES NOT revolve around you. I know it's hard for you to come out of your self-absorbed world to actually consider that some folks might fundamentally disagree with you but would be willing to be the bigger person and meet you halfway... but try.

Because someone else disagrees with you does not automatically make them wrong. And it certainly doesn't make them a bigot, nor does it make them homophobic. Of course, for the ego-centric and small minded, they can't see it any other way.

That was the most childish, egotistical, and small-minded opinion I think I've ever heard on the subject that wasn't straight-up gay bashing. :doh:

[zoony]

No, this is a classic example of one side demanding that if they can't outright ban a group of people who's only "sin" is to be unliked, then they'll offer discrimination in a slightly different form. (A form which has already been tried, and for exactly the same reasons.)

Well it's good to see you giving the public the benefit of the doubt

Will civil unions require employers to give the same benefits to gay "married" couples? Will subdivisions which have "married couples only" restrictions recognize them?

Um, no. because that would be illegal. Refer to my earlier post r.e. legal verbiage.

You and I both know they won't. In fact, the "separate but equal" crowd are counting on it. They want for a marriage certificate to be a government-issued "straight ID" card, which can then be used as a tool for discrimination. They want to be able to discriminate while saying "gee, the company policy says 'married'."

Every scenario you've outlined would be discrimination. And illegal. I am not following whatsoever. Refer again to my post regarding legal verbiage.

Civil unions are an attempt by bigots to revive the same system of bigotry that they tried to use against the last minority who got uppity because they didn't like their country discriminating against them. It was wrong then, and it still is.

Good to see, again, you slapping the label on those who disagree with gay marriage as "bigots". As if there could only be one "correct" side to this issue

How incredibly simple minded Larry. Quite frankly I expected more from you.

[rincewind]

Hey... let me be clear on something. On a personal level, I don't care WHAT they call it. Marraige, Civil Unions, Whatever. Makes no difference to me.

From my perspective, there is a real issue here with the Equal Protection Clause that NEEDS to be addressed. I personally don't like the fact that homosexuals can't be near each other on their death bed, or have trouble with medical insurance, etc. It's not right, and it's not fair.

MY point is that there is a real solution here on the table. The American Public, historically VERY conservative on these types of issues, has budged enough to give a very small minority of people in this country a legal way to obtain what they seek. Was it a painful journey? You betcha. Almost every American has a very strong opinion on this issue.

Yet despite all that... here we have electable candidates, with a majority of public support... posing a VERY real solution of Civil Unions. FINALLY... a workable compromise to a very sticky issue!!

You'd think that the homosexual community in this country would cry tears of joy! But no... instead, they've taken the opportunity to further entrench themselves, to draw an even firmer line in the sand... one they refuse to budge on.

Know what my opinion is nowadays?

**** 'em.

.....

Goddammit, now i have to say one more thing....

You just said that you're mad that gay people are upset because they are not equal enough. You said gay people want to be equal, the rest of America said 'we'll make you 85% equal'. And when gay people said 'no, we want to be all the way equal', that made them wrong? :wtf:

[zoony]

I'll give you a hint.

Anybody who claims that one group of citizens should be treated differently from another group of citizens, simply because that group is disliked, is a bigot.

Don't like being called a bigot? Don't keep claiming that you want discrimination.

I assume then you are in favor of plural marriage for Mormon Fundamentalists.

[Larry]

(Trying to tone things down, here).

The problem with your "solution" is that it's still discrimination.

"The gays" are "acting like crying babies" because they've been staring at the "whites only" drinking fountain all of their lives. Their taxes have paid for it. And they live in a country which guarantees equal treatment to all of it's citizens, but the drinking fountain is still labeled "whites only".

And your compromise it to create a "colored" drinking fountain next to the "whites only" fountain, which will continue to be "whites only".

[zoony]

Goddammit, now i have to say one more thing....

You just said that you're mad that gay people are upset because they are not equal enough. You said gay people want to be equal, the rest of America said 'we'll make you 85% equal'. And when gay people said 'no, we want to be all the way equal', that made them wrong? :wtf:

No, A Civil Union would provide equal protection, and therefore provide 100% equality UNDER THE LAW. The rest is just verbiage.

So back off, and take the compromise.

[rincewind]

No, A Civil Union would provide equal protection, and therefore provide 100% equality UNDER THE LAW. The rest is just verbiage.

So back off, and take the compromise.

Woo hoo!! Don't even need new words for this one...

zoony - if you're denying that language isn't a VERY powerful tool of oppression, you're fooling yourself.

Oh, and as for the FLDS suggestion - they have a long standing history of sexual assault, rape, forced marriage, and pedophilism; so the comparison is pretty weak.

[Enter Apotheosis]

No, A Civil Union would provide equal protection, and therefore provide 100% equality UNDER THE LAW. The rest is just verbiage.

So back off, and take the compromise.

Civil unions don't necessarily always offer 100% equality under the law. If you simply allow gays to fall under the traditional legal umbrella of marriage, you eliminate all doubts of inequality and prevent even misunderstandings. :2cents:

[zoony]

Oh, and as for the FLDS suggestion - they have a long standing history of sexual assault, rape, forced marriage, and pedophilism; so the comparison is pretty weak.

I know you just got done reading Krakauer, but contrary to your belief there is such a thing as plural marriage without the above.

[rincewind]

I know you just got done reading Krakauer, but contrary to your belief there is such a thing as plural marriage without the above.

Not the only time I've read about the FLDS. And I know full well about plural marriage - in fact, I don't see anything wrong with it; just the Mormon fundamentalist way of going about it.