Fuck Carrie Prejean and the California Beauty Pageant

[IAmSerge]

I live by what I personally understand Christianity to be.

And gay people mostly don't. But since you believe Christianity is the one truth, you punish them with your Christian-influenced laws and disparage them. That's not the kind of freedom America is all about.

I'm just going to have to say fuck you and fuck off.  If you're going to try and argue intelligently with someone, try actually listening to both their argument and their side.  I've said where I've stood too many times already, and by saying such things you're basically going "Nah-nah I'm not listening".

[FouCapitan]

 

Let's not carry this into another downward spiral of bashing and cussing out fellow forum members like previous discussions have.

And gay people mostly don't. But since you believe Christianity is the one truth, you punish them with your Christian-influenced laws and disparage them. That's not the kind of freedom America is all about.

I'm sorry Z, are there actually laws on a state or federal level that "punish" gays?  I know there's still a lot ground to be covered in equality standards, but I think our society is past the point of legal hazing for sexual orientation.

[Jutty]

I must be a bad person, because I just don't give a shit if homosexuals can marry or not. I mean I wouldn't care if they could or couldn't. If I was gay I might be concerned, but it doesn't really effect me.

[V_Translanka]

There's not enough separation between State and "Morals".

[Uboa]

But aside from the content of what she said, I felt she could have expressed herself far more articulately, and that alone makes me glad they didn't give her the crown. I shudder to think what would have happened if they asked her to do a derivative or something. She would be much more empowered if she traded those implants in for a college scholarship.

Sadly, I wonder whether or not she'd really know what to do with such a scholarship... This isn't really so much of a jab at her intellect, but the fact that she sounded so much like a talking head when she gave that response.  Granted, she probably was nervous for talking about her beliefs when California is in such a heated battle over gay marriage, but she could barely even articulate her opinion much less give any kind of substantial explanation for it.  "That's how I was raised..." right.  Has she thought about important issues for herself, I wonder.

[Radical_Dreamer]

I live by what I personally understand Christianity to be.

And gay people mostly don't. But since you believe Christianity is the one truth, you punish them with your Christian-influenced laws and disparage them. That's not the kind of freedom America is all about.

I'm just going to have to say fuck you and fuck off.  If you're going to try and argue intelligently with someone, try actually listening to both their argument and their side.  I've said where I've stood too many times already, and by saying such things you're basically going "Nah-nah I'm not listening".

You've argued that gays should have civil unions that are equivalent to marriage because including gays in legal marriage would offend bigots. That's punishing gays with (in this case) Christian influenced laws, because we know that separate but equal doesn't work, and it is indeed disparaging to the group getting the "next best thing". You may not like the way Zeality phrased it, but he was addressing what you've asserted in this thread.

And while there is a case to be made that government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all, if that's how we want to do things, it means that the government has to stop offering straight marriage. If we seek to do good in the world, both straight and gay marriage must have equal legal standing, whatever that legal standing winds up being.

[IAmSerge]

I live by what I personally understand Christianity to be.

And gay people mostly don't. But since you believe Christianity is the one truth, you punish them with your Christian-influenced laws and disparage them. That's not the kind of freedom America is all about.

I'm just going to have to say fuck you and fuck off.  If you're going to try and argue intelligently with someone, try actually listening to both their argument and their side.  I've said where I've stood too many times already, and by saying such things you're basically going "Nah-nah I'm not listening".

You've argued that gays should have civil unions that are equivalent to marriage because including gays in legal marriage would offend bigots. That's punishing gays with (in this case) Christian influenced laws, because we know that separate but equal doesn't work, and it is indeed disparaging to the group getting the "next best thing". You may not like the way Zeality phrased it, but he was addressing what you've asserted in this thread.

And while there is a case to be made that government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all, if that's how we want to do things, it means that the government has to stop offering straight marriage. If we seek to do good in the world, both straight and gay marriage must have equal legal standing, whatever that legal standing winds up being.

...punishing them by giving them something they have wanted for quite a while?
If we really are going to compare my opinion on how to solve this problem to separate but equal of the old days, then we are making a false comparison.

separate but equal then meant separating blacks from white society, and then hazing them.
my opinion means nothing but the exact equality of homosexual couples and heterosexual couples in the lawful sense.  Same rights same abilities same advantages, everything.

I'm sorry but if you're saying that my wanting to work towards equality whilst trying to stay within the bounds of my religion is the same as being an asshole to them and protesting soldier's deaths and blaming the war on them, then I can't argue with someone taking everything I say and twisting it as if to make me look like the bad guy.  Saying that I'm trying to punish them, whilst in reality I'm trying to be the one that quells both sides of this argument.

I read my post 2 above and see the possibilities.... and if theres a single chance that both sides can be happy, and there is, I would take it.

I'm sorry Z, are there actually laws on a state or federal level that "punish" gays?  I know there's still a lot ground to be covered in equality standards, but I think our society is past the point of legal hazing for sexual orientation.

^^ This is exactly what I am talking about.  If you truly think that my viewpoint is just another way that I can haze and discriminate and persecute and be an asshole, then you obviously missed a number of things I said.

[ZeaLitY]

Uh, yes?

When married filing jointly allows a better tax position that gays don't have access to, they've effectively been discriminated against by the tax and marriage laws. Ditto for an entire wide RANGE of legal issues, like inheritance, etc.

[Jutty]

Uh, yes?

When married filing jointly allows a better tax position that gays don't have access to, they've effectively been discriminated against by the tax and marriage laws. Ditto for an entire wide RANGE of legal issues, like inheritance, etc.

At least they have love. Money can't buy that. 

[nightmare975]

At least they have love. Money can't buy that. 

Dude, don't forget about hookers.

[Radical_Dreamer]

...punishing them by giving them something they have wanted for quite a while?
If we really are going to compare my opinion on how to solve this problem to separate but equal of the old days, then we are making a false comparison.

Except that you aren't giving them what they want. Saying "You can have civil unions, but the straights get marriage", even if the two are identical in legal rights and responsibilities, is not the same thing. It's treating gays as second class citizens because it is denying them an institution that is available to their fellow citizens for no other reason that granting them access to the institution would offend bigots.

separate but equal then meant separating blacks from white society, and then hazing them.
my opinion means nothing but the exact equality of homosexual couples and heterosexual couples in the lawful sense.  Same rights same abilities same advantages, everything.

That's not actually what separate but equal means. That it was used initially to refer to blacks and whites does not mean that the principle can only apply to those too cultural groups. Your opinion does not mean exact equality, because it still enforces the notion that the institution of marriage is something that gay citizens should not have access to, while straight citizens should. This is not exact equality.

I'm sorry but if you're saying that my wanting to work towards equality whilst trying to stay within the bounds of my religion is the same as being an asshole to them and protesting soldier's deaths and blaming the war on them, then I can't argue with someone taking everything I say and twisting it as if to make me look like the bad guy.  Saying that I'm trying to punish them, whilst in reality I'm trying to be the one that quells both sides of this argument.

I made no such statement. Don't try to play the martyr; your politics are being challenged here, not your humanity. While you may believe that you have the very best of intentions for gays in this country, the arguments being made are that the consequences of applying your policies would not in fact result in the benefits for gays you believe such action would. You can be sincere in your goals, and still pursue means that will not achieve them. No one is saying otherwise.

I read my post 2 above and see the possibilities.... and if theres a single chance that both sides can be happy, and there is, I would take it.

That there are two sides in a conflict does not mean that both sides have legitimate claims. The arguments against marriage equality for gays all boil down to bigotry. That members of a particular sect are offended by the idea of gay marriage is not a legitimate reason to deny marriage equality to gays. Providing such equality will upset bigots, of this there is no doubt. This is acceptable.

[Thought]

Except that you aren't giving them what they want. Saying "You can have civil unions, but the straights get marriage", even if the two are identical in legal rights and responsibilities, is not the same thing. It's treating gays as second class citizens because it is denying them an institution that is available to their fellow citizens for no other reason that granting them access to the institution would offend bigots.

While I could be mistaken, I think he was saying that the legal form of "marriage" would be something along the lines of civil unions, for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Marriage would be reserved for non-legal use.

The idea that telling heterosexual married couples that they are no longer "married" but in a "civil union" is rather hilarious, in that political suicide sort of way.

[IAmSerge]

I made no such statement. Don't try to play the martyr; your politics are being challenged here, not your humanity. While you may believe that you have the very best of intentions for gays in this country, the arguments being made are that the consequences of applying your policies would not in fact result in the benefits for gays you believe such action would. You can be sincere in your goals, and still pursue means that will not achieve them. No one is saying otherwise.

Forgive me for making you think otherwise, but that statement wasn't directed toward you... or atleast I dont believe it was.

While I could be mistaken, I think he was saying that the legal form of "marriage" would be something along the lines of civil unions, for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Marriage would be reserved for non-legal use.

Weather he agrees with me or otherwise, I think Thought has gotten to the closest possible explanation of what I was going for.

The idea that telling heterosexual married couples that they are no longer "married" but in a "civil union" is rather hilarious, in that political suicide sort of way.

I don't think the phrase "civil union" really fits either.  I'd personally just go for "Legally Married" vs "Religiously Married"...

[justin3009]

I didn't see this thread until today.  Wow...just wow.  I will never understand why people fret so much about same-sex marriage.  It's nothing different from a heterosexual couple...

[nightmare975]

It's nothing different from a heterosexual couple...

Besides the confusion of who gets the mother's day card.