Texas: Not only is gay marriage banned...

[Matt]

Donating money to sick kids in hospitals is bullshit, they're way less important than all the people dying of cancer.

-m

[Machalllewis]

Donating money to sick kids in hospitals is bullshit, they're way less important than all the people dying of cancer.

-m

Okay I get your point. Exaggerated and over the top as it is. You gotta admit that changing two words in a single legal document to one word is kinda different from donating money to sick children yes?

Eh, what can I say. I guess that you and Alex clearly put way more stock in the name than me. Like I said I know a few gay people and they're split roughly 50/50 over which ones care and which don't.

[Matt]

Okay I get your point. Exaggerated and over the top as it is. You gotta admit that changing two words in a single legal document to one word is kinda different from donating money to sick children yes?

The underlying value judgement in each situation is not inherently different, no.

Eh, what can I say. I guess that you and Alex clearly put way more stock in the name than me. Like I said I know a few gay people and they're split roughly 50/50 over which ones care and which don't.

again, it's not that I put stock in the word, it's that I am angered by the prejudicial marginalization and exclusion of gay people in any form. I am angered by the fact that they cannot donate blood, I am angered by the fact that they cannot marry, and I am angered by the hatred and bigotry many are subjected to on a day to day basis.

My anger over this particular matter, trivial as it may seem to you, does not preclude my anger and desire for change in other areas of gay rights. I think it's abominable that gay people aren't permitted to donate blood. I agree that it's an important isssue and that it needs to be adressed. It, like this, is an instance fo institutional prejudice, and amounts to the state admitting that gay people are different and should be excluded.

-m

[Machalllewis]

Okay I get your point. Exaggerated and over the top as it is. You gotta admit that changing two words in a single legal document to one word is kinda different from donating money to sick children yes?

The underlying value judgement in each situation is not inherently different, no.

But the examples given as regards the inherent judgement are so wildly different in levels of importance as to render the comparison ridiculous.

Eh, what can I say. I guess that you and Alex clearly put way more stock in the name than me. Like I said I know a few gay people and they're split roughly 50/50 over which ones care and which don't.

again, it's not that I put stock in the word, it's that I am angered by the prejudicial marginalization and exclusion of gay people in any form. I am angered by the fact that they cannot donate blood, I am angered by the fact that they cannot marry, and I am angered by the hatred and bigotry many are subjected to on a day to day basis.

So wait if you don't put stock in the word marriage then why do you care that the gay people should have it? Cos the people who decide this sort of thing put stock in the word? Thats clearly their hang up and merely an undercurrent of their overall much greater levels of homophobia surely? Attitudes which should be changed and is important to change but forcing them to make this tiny concession isn't going to change.

If you don't think the word is important then why is it so important to you that gay people should have it?

My anger over this particular matter, trivial as it may seem to you, does not preclude my anger and desire for change in other areas of gay rights. I think it's abominable that gay people aren't permitted to donate blood. I agree that it's an important isssue and that it needs to be adressed. It, like this, is an instance fo institutional prejudice, and amounts to the state admitting that gay people are different and should be excluded.

-m

Well, you're an angry guy.

Just to clarify for everybody else who may join this half way through, I am not arguing against gay marriage. I am saying that in the UK they basically have it apart from the actual word marriage and so I don't see why it's such a massive deal to some people. To me (and others) there are waaaayyyyy more important details that should be concentrated on than this one.

Basically this is pro-gay on pro-gay arguing.

[Matt]

I'm done. I've made my point, any further attempt to make it will amount to repeating myself.

You clearly insist on intentionally misunderstanding me, so there's no point in wasting my breath (or keystrokes, as the case may be).

-m

[Rikadyn]

I have only read half this thread, but...

Easy way around this would to qualify every 'marriage' as a civil union, whether they are gay or straight, and let the religious sects that want to call their ceremony a marriage ceremony have the term...

Being of a religious sect that doesn't even call it marriage, I really have no concern either way in this fight though.

[TheRocket]

Just because Matt has a strong point of view on heavy subjects, does not mean he is an angry guy.

It'd do you well to keep personal attacks out of a debate if you want people to take you serious.

[Machalllewis]

Just because Matt has a strong point of view on heavy subjects, does not mean he is an angry guy.

It'd do you well to keep personal attacks out of a debate if you want people to take you serious.

It was a joke. I just noticed how many times he said the word angry/said how angry he was in other words.

Easy way around this would to qualify every 'marriage' as a civil union, whether they are gay or straight, and let the religious sects that want to call their ceremony a marriage ceremony have the term...

I'd go for this.

I'm done. I've made my point, any further attempt to make it will amount to repeating myself.

You clearly insist on intentionally misunderstanding me, so there's no point in wasting my breath (or keystrokes, as the case may be).

-m

I get what you mean. But fair play, I'm kinda fed up of this argument too.

[Theremin]

Hmm, we need a new gay topic.

[aeric90]

So much for trying to stay out of the "serious" part of the conversation!

I’m gay, though I hardly considering myself an activist and honestly for the most part I try to stay out of the way of most of this stuff. I’m also lucky to live in Canada where most of this doesn’t concern me but I figured I should state my opinion.

Why marriage? Easy... it's the weak link right now. It buckled. Some European countries have it, Canada has it, and some US states have it. It's easier to go after and change than it would be to convince the Rwandan government to change their gay execution policy. It’s obvious that the later is much more important but in the short term is not as achievable. Same thing with blood donations, military enlistment, adoption, hate crime legislation, extension of benefits, and the myriad of other “more important things”.

To go back to Matt’s analogue, the civil rights movement wasn’t about where you could sit on a bus. It was the chink in the armor that everyone could rally around like the Stonewall riots that kicked the gay rights movement off. One little victory leads to another and another.

The name is important because separate but equal is not equal and is not a victory. Unless it is the same right as everyone else then its segregation and sets precedent for lawmakers to create further segregation in the false assumption that it is easier. (Not a slippery slope. Members of the US Government have already suggested separate gay facilities instead of “Don’t ask, don’t tell”.)

(Incidentally... holy crap! In the time it took to write this the whole thread cahnged!)

[Theremin]

You know, I was just wondering whether there were any gay blokes on the forums.

[Machalllewis]

The stuff that was said in the post.

Okay fine we target the marriage thing, get that changed and then what? Like you said its a weak link that has buckled. Buckled to the point where it makes so little difference.

Getting the words civil partnership changed to the word marriage isn't gonna cause social upheaval, it isn't gonna cause riots. Its gonna be big news in the papers for like a week and then everyones gonna just keep holding on to their old prejudices. Prejudeese? Prejudie?

Also comparing this matter to Harriet Tubman is a little gauche man. Its not the same time, its not the same social context, its not the same prejudie.

Okay, I just noticed how much I'm arguing about this and its not coming across well so Imma just bow out now. If aeric90 has any paticular responses to my statements them Imma pm my own responses if I can get it together to do so.

[Interruptor Jones]

And the whole "names matter" thing is such bullshit. Thats not an objective statement. What you mean to say is that "Names matter to me."

Close, but incorrect. What you're looking for is 'names DO NOT MATTER TO ME'. It is unimportant to you - I hear that. You need to understand that to many people it IS important. Your lack of concern does not overrule that.

The name is important because separate but equal is not equal and is not a victory. Unless it is the same right as everyone else then its segregation and sets precedent for lawmakers to create further segregation in the false assumption that it is easier. (ed: and because precedent for discrimination has been established in law)

Giving same-sex unions equivalent rights but forcing them to be considered as a separate entity under the law is discrimination. If the religious right is uncomfortable with 'gay' and 'marriage' in the same sentence, well, who gives a fuck? Being discomfited is not a crime. You do not have the right to make the entire world your 'safe space' where nothing upsets you - hell, that's the basis of free speech, right? Making same-sex unions 'equal but separate' is one small step for man, one kick in the face for mankind. Negates progress, ya dig?

[TheRocket]

You know, I was just wondering whether there were any gay blokes on the forums.

Yes, there are.

[Master Gunner]

Getting the words civil partnership changed to the word marriage isn't gonna cause social upheaval, it isn't gonna cause riots. Its gonna be big news in the papers for like a week and then everyones gonna just keep holding on to their old prejudices. Prejudeese? Prejudie?

You are correct, but only when talking about tomorrow, next week, or a year from now. Look at 10, 20 years, a generation from now. Words can change how people think, and when (legally) there is no distinction between gay and straight people (and that word does make a distinction), that starts leaking out into how society views those people, which leads to people changing how they view people. No, it won't cause a riot, what it is is a tool. It's social engineering, it's something you can use, it's a definitive statement of equality. The nebulous "they" like to say that actions speak louder then words, but when it comes to how people think, there is little more powerful than words.

Nobody's talking about changing a word to change tomorrow. They're talking about changing a word to change the future. Words convey ideas, and like the obligatory quote in this situations says "ideas are bulletproof". Which means it's something that cannot be ignored, and cannot go away. When someone grows up hearing about two guys or two girls getting married in the same fashion as a guy and a girl getting married, using the exact same words, it plants the idea in their mind that there may actually not be any difference, regardless of what their parents may say. That weakens the prejudice, and makes them more accepting. That will create change.

[Theremin]

Oh, hurray.

I tend to assume 'straight, male' for everyone the internet unless stated otherwise.

[Master Gunner]

On this forum at least, that's not a good assumption.

[Machalllewis]

*Would love to argue but bowed out and is sticking to that dammit.*

Edit: Fuck it.

It is obviously going to change its obviously not a permanent thing but human conditions and social levities are constantly getting better and better and if you are arguing about the 10 or 20 years thing then its gonna fucking happen by then anyway. But specifically arguing about the marriage thing is so nebulous and pathetic compared to what we could be arguing for.

We should be changing peoples attitudes and forcing the homophobic people in charge to change the words civil partnership to marriage won't do that! It will make them resentful and scared and more likely to come down harder on other things. Its a religion thing as far as those specific individuals are concerned and there is no arguing when it comes to an individuals religion!

Instead we should be concentrating on the more important and social qualities such as the blood and discrimination things. The stuff that isn't about religion and is instead about improving society. That (the ill defined) they will be able to get their head around cos its different and about improvement as opposed to getting in their face about their concepts of God and what he thinks.

[Interruptor Jones]

The stuff that was said in the post.

Okay fine we target the marriage thing, get that changed and then what? Like you said its a weak link that has buckled. Buckled to the point where it makes so little difference.

Getting the words civil partnership changed to the word marriage isn't gonna cause social upheaval, it isn't gonna cause riots. Its gonna be big news in the papers for like a week and then everyones gonna just keep holding on to their old prejudices. Prejudeese? Prejudie?

Also comparing this matter to Harriet Tubman is a little gauche man. Its not the same time, its not the same social context, its not the same prejudie.

Okay, I just noticed how much I'm arguing about this and its not coming across well so Imma just bow out now. If aeric90 has any paticular responses to my statements them Imma pm my own responses if I can get it together to do so.

Alright, the points you keep coming back to seem to be:

1-same-sex unions have the same rights, and a differing name is irrelevant

2-the word marriage holds no special significance to you

3-this argument is small potatoes

You are a heterosexual male, unless I miss my guess. Your rights in this area have never, ever been in question. In fact, they have been enshrined and celebrated for longer than you have been alive. You are speaking from a position of privilege and entitlement on this issue - and to many others, that's frankly insulting. Gay marriage is an aspect of a larger issue, i.e. how gay people are treated by the law and society, and it matters a hell of a lot to everyone who would one day like to marry but cannot because some folks find it 'icky' or 'a trivial concern'. Just because it is of little concern to you personally, does not mean that there is no problem.

[Machalllewis]

Number 3 is my main deal in this case. The other two are just by products. Also its kinda insulting when you say that I'm a privileged majority and thus must be clearly unable to understand the specifics or how you feel. So I guess we both insulted eachother there.

[Matt]

Augh! I killed this discussion already! Moving on!

-m

[Machalllewis]

Augh! I killed this discussion already! Moving on!

-m

I'm trying but they keep dragging me in! We're all pro-gay rights here we're just arguing about the specifics.

I say we. Its pretty much me vs everyone who cares at the mo.

[Theremin]

Pro on Pro is boring, I'll play devil's advocate.

I'm gonna get you gays, mwhahaha!

I'm gonna get you and your little assclown hags too!

[Machalllewis]

How DARE you fuck other people of the same sex as you! You are the ones who are making our children violent, our petrol prices high and our teenage daughters pregnant!

[Theremin]

Every time you sodomise a man, baby jesus has to take another hit on the crack pipe!!!1