Originally posted by Bardock42
It is factually different though.There was a different right for race and gender back then.
Now it is only gender.
It's not the same thing.
Yes, race and gender are two different aspects; that isn't the issue though. The issue is that the "no gay marriage" crowd is using their own bias to limit the freedom of some, while giving it wholeheartedly to others, with no logical support to sustain the reasoning.
Like I said, would you be okay (find it equal) if someone made it illegal for you to marry a woman unless she had 'such and such' aspects; those aspects could be racial, religious, physical etc. etc. etc., while allowing others to marry without the burden of such restrictions?
Back then it was racial, now it's gender, though different, they're wrong for the same reasons.
Originally posted by RobtardI never denied that. I said the issue is different. They are similar of course, I guess I was just too anal about the usage of same or equal. The main point is that it is not a gay rights issue as such, though they are the ones that would profit. It's an inequality between men and women. It's just how you technically look at it. As such, it is not a freedom that gay people solely aren't allowed to have, but that you and me and everyone else is deprived of...though, we wouldn't use that freedom, we should steal speak out against being oppressed. Just because I might never eat cheese doesn't mean I don't want the ****ing right to have cheese.
Yes, race and gender are two different aspects; that isn't the issue though. The issue is that the "no gay marriage" crowd is using their own bias to limit the freedom of some, while giving it wholeheartedly to others, with no logical support to sustain the reasoning.Like I said, would you be okay (find it equal) if someone made it illegal for you to marry a woman unless she had 'such and such' aspects; those aspects could be racial, religious, physical etc. etc. etc., while allowing others to marry without the burden of such restrictions?
Back then it was racial, now it's gender, though different, they're wrong for the same reasons.
I still don't get how equivocal is applicable though...I must operate under a total different understanding of the word.
Most homosexual couples don't want to fight for marriage, they want to fight for rights. And that's fine, they should be able to get those rights through civil unions
The premise of an opinion like this is that you (A) know homosexual couples, and (B) know the legal differences between a marriage and a civil union.
Clearly this chick does not know A or B or both.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
So let's stop with this distraction and get on with that argument. How important is the term 'marriage' to the whole thing?
It's very important to people who already have the right to marry, and it's legally important to the people out there who'd like to take part in that particular right, which they can't enjoy due to institutionalized discrimination.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
But I do think battles should be fought one stage at a time. Get the rights first, then time will show the absurdity of distinguishing the name.
Telling people to be patient is a luxury afforded only by those who aren't effected by legalized discrimination.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I never denied that. I said the issue is different. They are similar of course, I guess I was just too anal about the usage of same or equal. The main point is that it is not a gay rights issue as such, though they are the ones that would profit. It's an inequality between men and women. It's just how you technically look at it. As such, it is not a freedom that gay people solely aren't allowed to have, but that you and me and everyone else is deprived of...though, we wouldn't use that freedom, we should steal speak out against being oppressed. Just because I might never eat cheese doesn't mean I don't want the ****ing right to have cheese.I still don't get how equivocal is applicable though...I must operate under a total different understanding of the word.
In a sense, yes, but how many straight people are going to marry the same sex, just because they can now, if it were made legal? Sure there'll be instances, but not a note-worthy percentage.
Originally posted by RobtardI think it is more a different argument. Even if you don't intend to ever do drugs, why should you let the government tell you that you can or can not?
In a sense, yes, but how many straight people are going to marry the same sex, just because they can now, if it were made legal? Sure there'll be instances, but not a note-worthy percentage.
Originally posted by Bardock42
It might be rational to be patient about less important matters.
Well, waiting patiently for a bus to come, or to find out how big my paycheck is going to be is one thing. Displaying the virtue of patience when your government is discriminating against you is anoter.
And what's worse, is that me, a gay man, calling it discrimination is going to get some people's eyes rolling.
"Those damn gays, always playing the victims!" 🙄
Well, that strikes me as the attitude far too many people in this thread seem to have.
Originally posted by debbiejoWhether it is called marriage, if the basic rights aren't the same.
Like?
It's reasonable to set priorities if you can't achieve everything at the same time.
Originally posted by Devil King
Well, waiting patiently for a bus to come, or to find out how big my paycheck is going to be is one thing. Displaying the virtue of patience when your government is discriminating against you is anoter.And what's worse, is that me, a gay man, calling it discrimination is going to get some people's eyes rolling.
"Those damn gays, always playing the victims!" 🙄
Well, that strikes me as the attitude far too many people in this thread seem to have.
I can understand your frustration. We all get ****ed by the government and gay people certainly a lot worse. The problem is that from a strategic perspective it might be more intelligent to go step by step. For example one person might think civil unions should grant equal rights, but wants marriage to be defined between a man and a woman and, even though that is discriminating, for the time being it might be better to have them support the more important cause and then convince them of the lesser one.
Originally posted by Bardock42
[B]From a strategic perspective it might be more intelligent to go step by step.
Like there's any other way? I get that most people prefer to have the news broken to them gently, that homosexuals are people too. Honest, I do.
But the process has been hindered by the very point mentioned earlier. The neocons have spent the last 7 years using this as a wedge issue, and sprinkling activist judges all over the country, who will not ever rule in favor of a homosexual marriage.
The simple matter of fact in this situation is that every citizen enjoys the same rights as every other, or the system is broken. Even a bible thumper who sits on the supreme court knows that legal discrimination is against the rights of every citizen.
As far as I'm concerned, any judge who rules against gay marriage or the equal rights of any citizen is guilty of not understanding the position he holds, much less the sepertion of church and state, and should be removed from his office, tried for his crime and punished accordingly.
Originally posted by Devil King
The premise of an opinion like this is that you (A) know homosexual couples, and (B) know the legal differences between a marriage and a civil union.Clearly this chick does not know A or B or both.
Actually, I know plenty of homosexual people, some of which are my best friends. And I completely understand that civil unions don't give the same rights as marriage.
But, I still don't think homosexual couples should not be able to get married. I do, however, feel that the laws of civil unions should change to give them the same rights as heterosexual married couples. And most of my homosexual friends, would be absolutely fine with this. When I was in high school, I was a part of GSA (gay straight alliance) for 2 years, the 2 I wasn't in it was because I didn't have time with my job. The point was to fight for gay rights - not gay marriage. Not a single person cared about gay marriage - they just wanted to be able to be granted the same rights, even through civil unions.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I thought I did. No idea what you mean with it here though. Could you explain.
Arguments are the same if they are identical.
Arguments are equivocal if they share the same logical value, i.e. if one is syntactically derivable from the other through contraposition or double-negation; and if both are semantically sound in the same functional model.
Originally posted by Sabrea
Actually, I know plenty of homosexual people, some of which are my best friends. And I completely understand that civil unions don't give the same rights as marriage.But, I still don't think homosexual couples should not be able to get married. I do, however, feel that the laws of civil unions should change to give them the same rights as heterosexual married couples. And most of my homosexual friends, would be absolutely fine with this. When I was in high school, I was a part of GSA (gay straight alliance) for 2 years, the 2 I wasn't in it was because I didn't have time with my job. The point was to fight for gay rights - not gay marriage. Not a single person cared about gay marriage - they just wanted to be able to be granted the same rights, even through civil unions.
You're advocating "separate but equal", do you have a logical reason why two gay people who are committed to each other shouldn't be allowed to use the term marriage or married?
Originally posted by Adam_PoEI....I am pretty sure that's not true. I would....bet a decent sum on the notion that equivocal in logic means using a fallacious argument through the multiple natures of a word. Basically using homonyms to prove a point, that doesn't logically follow. No idea what you meant, really. I didn't perform an indepth study but I also couldn't find any indication of the way you use it being valid.
Arguments are the same if they are identical.Arguments are equivocal if they share the same logical value, i.e. if one is syntactically derivable from the other through contraposition or double-negation; and if both are semantically sound in the same functional model.
Originally posted by Sabrea
Actually, I know plenty of homosexual people, some of which are my best friends. And I completely understand that civil unions don't give the same rights as marriage.But, I still don't think homosexual couples should not be able to get married. I do, however, feel that the laws of civil unions should change to give them the same rights as heterosexual married couples. And most of my homosexual friends, would be absolutely fine with this. When I was in high school, I was a part of GSA (gay straight alliance) for 2 years, the 2 I wasn't in it was because I didn't have time with my job. The point was to fight for gay rights - not gay marriage. Not a single person cared about gay marriage - they just wanted to be able to be granted the same rights, even through civil unions.
I can appreciate that your example is one of experience in a high school club, but the basic premise of your perspective is one based on the shared opinion of a group of teenagers who have no interest in getting married. Simply because John doesn't want to get married right now, doesn't imply that he won't want to get married, someday. And when he is ready, the right should be available to him. Just like every other citizen of this country.
If civil unions are granted the same privileges as marriage, then there is no difference. And if there's no difference, then they are the same and should be called as such. The indignation held by so many heterosexuals over this issue seems to come from the concept that it's their gracious nature that has allowed homosexuals the rights they've been granted. I'm sorry, but this is not enough.
In reality, the issue of gay rights has moved further and faster than any other civil rights movement. And, I can't deny getting some measure of satisfaction from that fact. NO GAY RIGHTS! To allow homosexuals the same rights as every other citizen, will mean the end of western, christian civilization and reflect the absence of all morals! OKAY, SOME GAY RIGHTS! The can have rights, just not the same or as many as the rest of us! FINE! GAY RIGHTS! At which point the debate will begin to center around holding homosexuals out to have rights called "gay rights", when in reality, they're just rights. Exactly the same as any other minority group! Exactly the same as any other citizen in this country.
So, in regards to this particular issue, marriage, the country is having a debate with itself over granting equal rights to it's own citizens. It's fundamentally wrong.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Gays don't have different rights in regards to marriage.
Yeah they do, they can't marry another consenting adult of their choosing... like I said, it would be equivalent to not letting a certain group of people marry another consenting adult, unless they meet some superficial requirement, be it physical, racial, religious, economic etc.
Telling gays they have the same marriage rights, on the basis that they can marry the opposite sex, is essentially pulling a Henry Ford, "The customer can have any color he wants, so long as it's black."
Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah they do, they can't marry another consenting adult of their choosing... like I said, it would be equivalent to not letting a certain group of people marry another consenting adult, unless they meet some superficial requirement, be it physical, racial, religious, economic etc.
They can marry exactly everyone I can marry if they are of my gender. They have the same rights as me. Now women have different rights though. And the rights between men and women should be equal (which is really the issue here, btw)
Originally posted by Robtard
Telling gays they have the same marriage rights, on the basis that they can marry the opposite sex, is essentially pulling a Henry Ford, "The customer can have any color he wants, so long as it's black."
No, it's not.
Originally posted by Devil King
I can appreciate that your example is one of experience in a high school club, but the basic premise of your perspective is one based on the shared opinion of a group of teenagers who have no interest in getting married. Simply because John doesn't want to get married [b]right now, doesn't imply that he won't want to get married, someday. And when he is ready, the right should be available to him. Just like every other citizen of this country.If civil unions are granted the same privileges as marriage, then there is no difference. And if there's no difference, then they are the same and should be called as such. The indignation held by so many heterosexuals over this issue seems to come from the concept that it's their gracious nature that has allowed homosexuals the rights they've been granted. I'm sorry, but this is not enough.
In reality, the issue of gay rights has moved further and faster than any other civil rights movement. And, I can't deny getting some measure of satisfaction from that fact. NO GAY RIGHTS! To allow homosexuals the same rights as every other citizen, will mean the end of western, christian civilization and reflect the absence of all morals! OKAY, SOME GAY RIGHTS! The can have rights, just not the same or as many as the rest of us! FINE! GAY RIGHTS! At which point the debate will begin to center around holding homosexuals out to have rights called "gay rights", when in reality, they're just rights. Exactly the same as any other minority group! Exactly the same as any other citizen in this country.
So, in regards to this particular issue, marriage, the country is having a debate with itself over granting equal rights to it's own citizens. It's fundamentally wrong. [/B]
I think that the reason many gays want the right to get married is more so just make a statement by giving the Christian Right the finger, than actually caring about the institution itself.