Why dying for your beliefs is noble.

[Chipz]

That's not even close to the American philosophy. I don't understand how your post "piggybacks" mine when you're essentially saying the opposite of what I'm saying.

If the philosophy of America was simply to appeal to the majority, then there's a strong likelihood the slaves never would have been freed. And even if that had happened by some other means, many abolitionists were for the deportation of blacks back to Africa.

The idea that homosexuals shouldn't be "catered to" by the recognition of their right to be married is one steeped in bigotry and ignorance. Gay marriage rights is not a "special privilege," it's the long-overdue recognition of homosexuals as equal citizens.

I'm seriously sick of people who don't know the first fucking thing about America trying to tell me what America's "all about." It's nauseating.

I pointed out your hypocrisy which were separated by no more than a period. The point is, gays have rejected civil union citing it to be unequal despite having all the legal implications of marriage. Which is essentially them telling the rest of America they HAVE to be accepted as normal, well...America disagrees, they're not normal. So can we force America to change their opinion? No! The only thing owed to Gays is no additional hardship incurred at the expense of federal discrimination...not identical treatment.

 

[kx000]

Just because we get to live by our own beliefs does not inherently mean we then get to lie, cheat, and steal as we please. The appeal for the separation of church and state is not an appeal for anarchy.

But we live by OUR own beliefs now, strictly. Don't worry, my belief is peace for all.

Perhaps I don't want to look at the obscene image of a naked man dead on a cross while I'm at court for a traffic violation.

My belief is that Jesus was hung, fully clothed, and should not be shown to be dead.

Perhaps my partner and I don't want to have less rights as a couple because your 2,000-year-old book written by desert nomads condemns gay sex (male gay sex, that is; at press time, it had apparently no knowledge of the Lesbian.So much for omniscience, I suppose).

My book? No.

Perhaps I don't want my television programming censored based on the contradictory values of your faith.

HBO, brotha. What are these contradictory values? Don't blindly call me a Christian, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Protestant or anything like that.

 

[Balerion]

I pointed out your hypocrisy which were separated by no more than a period. The point is, gays have rejected civil union citing it to be unequal despite having all the legal implications of marriage. Which is essentially them telling the rest of America they HAVE to be accepted as normal, well...America disagrees, they're not normal. So can we force America to change their opinion? No! The only thing owed to Gays is no additional hardship incurred at the expense of federal discrimination...not identical treatment.

Well, for one, yes they very much are owed identical treatment. The Constitution stipulates that all citizens are to receive equal rights.

And it does not matter what America thinks is normal. America didn't think interracial marriages were normal, either. Are you saying that those should not have been legalized? Or that, perhaps worse, it should have been put to a vote?

Please stop with the straw men. No one is arguing that bigots in America have to change their opinions. No one has once said that.

And finally, civil unions have not been "rejected." There are plenty of gay couples who have taken advantage of those benefits. They are not, however, afforded all of the same rights as marriage. Civil unions are not equal to marriage. For one, they are not recognized federally. Two, there is no way--other than literally moving to Vermont and filing for dissolution--to legally break the contract.

"Separate but Equal" was ruled unconstitutional over 50 years ago, so "Separate but Unequal" certainly is as well.

Again, your ignorance on these matters is startling. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Balerion]

But we live by OUR own beliefs now, strictly. Don't worry, my belief is peace for all.



My belief is that Jesus was hung, fully clothed, and should not be shown to be dead.



My book? No.



HBO, brotha. What are these contradictory values? Don't blindly call me a Christian, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Protestant or anything like that.

Your "hypothetical scenario" made the two ideals sound irreconcilable. "You want to cheat, I don't ever want to be cheated." So naturally I thought you were arguing against the idea of everyone being left alone to tend to their own business, as well as insinuating that the atheist was inherently an anarchist. The latter can be explained by my lack of familiarity with you.

 

[Chipz]

Well, for one, yes they very much are owed identical treatment. The Constitution stipulates that all citizens are to receive equal rights.

And it does not matter what America thinks is normal. America didn't think interracial marriages were normal, either. Are you saying that those should not have been legalized? Or that, perhaps worse, it should have been put to a vote?

Please stop with the straw men. No one is arguing that bigots in America have to change their opinions. No one has once said that.

And finally, civil unions have not been "rejected." There are plenty of gay couples who have taken advantage of those benefits. They are not, however, afforded all of the same rights as marriage. Civil unions are not equal to marriage. For one, they are not recognized federally. Two, there is no way--other than literally moving to Vermont and filing for dissolution--to legally break the contract.

"Separate but Equal" was ruled unconstitutional over 50 years ago, so "Separate but Unequal" certainly is as well.

Again, your ignorance on these matters is startling. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Liberation of African American's took at least 150 year since the first seeds were laid, and the challenges they faced were lighter in a sense than homosexuals. Procreation between races is clearly possible, it's not between the same gender. If that difference doesn't qualify as valid for claiming incongruity between the two, nothing will. "Separate but Equal" referred to physical proximity and opportunity afforded to individuals, not title. The gay rights movement has been only perhaps strong for 20 or 30 years...things in the US work don't work this quick... sooner these barriers which cause undue hardship will dissipate. But America's populous opinion is that it will be under a different name than marriage. Gays have separated themselves by wanting to do something perceived as abnormal, blacks were separated for being perceived as genetically inferior beings. If anything is startling...it's equating the two at any level.

 

[Balerion]

Liberation of African American's took at least 150 year since the first seeds were laid, and the challenges they faced were lighter in a sense than homosexuals. Procreation between races is clearly possible, it's not between the same gender. If that difference doesn't qualify as valid for claiming incongruity between the two, nothing will.

Interracial couples' ability to procreate with each other (homosexuals can still procreate, obviously) was often used as justification for banning--and even criminalizing--their unions. It should come as no surprise that racial purity was a major talking point for bigots of the era.

Your total ignorance of this matter is highlighted by the absurd insistence that African Americans somehow had it easier than homosexuals because "they could procreate and gays can't."

This isn't to diminish the plight of homosexuals, but let's not for a second pretend that they're starting from a less-advantageous place than African-Americans.

"Separate but Equal" referred to physical proximity and opportunity afforded to individuals, not title.

Gay marriage rights has nothing to do with titles, either. Just as the Jim Crow laws were based on the belief that blacks were not at all equal to whites, the insistence upon civil unions or other institutions is based on the belief that gay couples are not equal to straight couples. In practice, Separate but equal accomplished segregation, but not equality. The same is true of civil unions, even though they are largely (and inaccurately) professed (by people like you) to have "all the same benefits as marriage."

It's the same principal, based on the same bigotry.

The gay rights movement has been only perhaps strong for 20 or 30 years...things in the US work don't work this quick... sooner these barriers which cause undue hardship will dissipate. But America's populous opinion is that it will be under a different name than marriage.

You cite "America's populace" as if their opinion on matters of civil rights matters. The majority does not get to decide this. We have a Constitution that demands equal treatment.

Gays have separated themselves by wanting to do something perceived as abnormal, blacks were separated for being perceived as genetically inferior beings. If anything is startling...it's equating the two at any level.

Typical bigot tactics. Blame the victim for wanting to be treated like everyone else. How dare they ask that their unions be equal to others'?

How are still here, with talk like this?

 

[Chipz]

Interracial couples' ability to procreate with each other (homosexuals can still procreate, obviously) was often used as justification for banning--and even criminalizing--their unions. It should come as no surprise that racial purity was a major talking point for bigots of the era.

Your total ignorance of this matter is highlighted by the absurd insistence that African Americans somehow had it easier than homosexuals because "they could procreate and gays can't."

Sign of low IQ 1.

This isn't to diminish the plight of homosexuals, but let's not for a second pretend that they're starting from a less-advantageous place than African-Americans.



Gay marriage rights has nothing to do with titles, either. Just as the Jim Crow laws were based on the belief that blacks were not at all equal to whites, the insistence upon civil unions or other institutions is based on the belief that gay couples are not equal to straight couples. In practice, Separate but equal accomplished segregation, but not equality. The same is true of civil unions, even though they are largely (and inaccurately) professed (by people like you) to have "all the same benefits as marriage."

It's the same principal, based on the same bigotry.

What does "equal mean"? 3+1 = 2+2 ..but from the outside looking in..they look different! They're different identities! Things can look different and be equal.

You cite "America's populace" as if their opinion on matters of civil rights matters. The majority does not get to decide this. We have a Constitution that demands equal treatment.

No we don't. We have a constitution which requires no undue hardship, try reading it.

Typical bigot tactics. Blame the victim for wanting to be treated like everyone else. How dare they ask that their unions be equal to others'?

How are still here, with talk like this?

Did you smoke pot recently?

 

[Balerion]

Sign of low IQ 1.

Care to explain how that's a sign of a low IQ, or are you just trolling?

What does "equal mean"? 3+1 = 2+2 ..but from the outside looking in..they look different! They're different identities! Things can look different and be equal.

Utter nonsense. Civil unions do not provide the same legal benefits as marriage, and the difficulty in dissolving the union is a severe drawback. So not only can gay people not get married in most states, but they can't even get divorced.

Clearly this is not a matter of "looking different but being equal." This is a matter of looking different and being entirely unequal. What is so hard to understand about gay couples not having the same legal protections as married couples? It's an objective fact.

No we don't. We have a constitution which requires no undue hardship, try reading it.

I have. I suggest you take a gander at the 14th Amendment, particularly the Equal Protection clause. Proposition 8 was struck down in California precisely for this reason.

Did you smoke pot recently?

More quality input from sock puppet #157.

 

[Chipz]

Care to explain how that's a sign of a low IQ, or are you just trolling?

You don't know what 'procreate' means.

Utter nonsense. Civil unions do not provide the same legal benefits as marriage, and the difficulty in dissolving the union is a severe drawback. So not only can gay people not get married in most states, but they can't even get divorced.

Clearly this is not a matter of "looking different but being equal." This is a matter of looking different and being entirely unequal. What is so hard to understand about gay couples not having the same legal protections as married couples? It's an objective fact.

Wow, you're really not bright. I've stated multiple times that there is difficulty currently, but in America it takes a long time for things to actually change.

I have. I suggest you take a gander at the 14th Amendment, particularly the Equal Protection clause. Proposition 8 was struck down in California precisely for this reason.



More quality input from sock puppet #157.

California?

 

[Balerion]

You don't know what 'procreate' means.

It means to reproduce, you troll. You're going to tell me that gays are sterile?

Wow, you're really not bright. I've stated multiple times that there is difficulty currently, but in America it takes a long time for things to actually change.

That wasn't the point I was addressing, troll. Yes, you said that homosexuals face (self-inflicted) difficulties, but you also said that they are equal in their legal rights, which is false.

California?

Yes, troll. In California, Proposition 8 was judged to be unconstitutional on the basis that it violated the 14th Amendment.

 

[Chipz]

It means to reproduce, you troll. You're going to tell me that gays are sterile?



That wasn't the point I was addressing, troll. Yes, you said that homosexuals face (self-inflicted) difficulties, but you also said that they are equal in their legal rights, which is false.




Yes, troll. In California, Proposition 8 was judged to be unconstitutional on the basis that it violated the 14th Amendment.

Don't worry JDawg, sooner or later you'll the same rights across the nation as you do where I live in Portland OR. Even here in Portland though, support for "Gay Marriage" is less than one half, support for "Civil Union" with equivalent legal rights is above 70%.

 

[Balerion]

Don't worry JDawg, sooner or later you'll the same rights across the nation as you do where I live in Portland OR. Even here in Portland though, support for "Gay Marriage" is less than one half, support for "Civil Union" with equivalent legal rights is above 70%.

I'm not gay.

And again, "support" is irrelevant. We are not subject to the whims of the majority. We have a constitution, and principals that protect minorities. And "civil unions with equivalent legal rights" is an oxymoron. Civil unions by definition cannot have the same rights as marriage.

 

[Chipz]

I'm not gay.

And again, "support" is irrelevant. We are not subject to the whims of the majority. We have a constitution, and principals that protect minorities. And "civil unions with equivalent legal rights" is an oxymoron. Civil unions by definition cannot have the same rights as marriage.

Ahh, this tricked me...

Perhaps my partner and I don't want to have less rights as a couple because your 2,000-year-old book written by desert nomads condemns gay sex (male gay sex, that is; at press time, it had apparently no knowledge of the Lesbian.

I guess, I must generally conclude that you have a naive understanding of American law.

 

[Balerion]

I guess, I must generally conclude that you have a naive understanding of American law.

You've yet to explain how, so your conclusion rings hollow. And given that your explanations of such law have been vague at best, and completely inaccurate at other times, I can only assume that you're simply projecting your own shortcomings upon me.