Okay Obama, This Is Pretty Dispicable

[Epsilon]

"Civil unions for everyone" is not going to happen. You try to propose it seriously and you will get just as much backlash against it as you are
against gay marriage now. The homophobes and hatemongers will try to prevent equal rights as long as possible, because they are assholes. They don't care
about fucking words. You think they really care about the word marriage. They
want to prevent gay marriage because they are full of fucking hate. They will lie and cheat and bribe and steal to prevent it. They will do everything in their
power to prevent it. You can not win this fight with semantics.

This fight is already over. As one wonderful young lady said to her father "Don't you get it? They've already lost. We don't care." And
that's true.

However forcing gays to wait twenty years for this is wrong. The government should force equality down the throats of the bigots and assholes because that is
what the government is FOR.

-----------------

Epsilon

[Logan Darklighter]

Thing is - I've known people who are more rigidly conservative than me. Much more so on this topic. Religious types. Nice people, but by your lights,
you'd think of them as "fundies" and "bigots". They are not. But they have some deeply held beliefs on this topic. And I'm telling
you - there was a time not too long ago when I could talk to them seriously about "civil unions for everyone" and they agreed with me that it would
work and that they'd go for it. (or at the very least, they wouldn't fight against it)

Now? People like that are saying to the effect that "well if they're going to FORCE this on us, we're going to FIGHT it." And they are much
more rigid on it.

See - something else I didn't mention because I forgot to. I think "civil unions for everyone" is just a first step. You get people to accept
THAT, then you move on and get them to accept the concept of "gay marriage".

Ultimately it WILL be a generational thing. The children of today DO accept it already. I agree. But I think the compromise of Civil Unions would be best
possible option NOW. But not as a permanent thing.

But unfortunately, people like the fundies - and you - aren't willing to listen to the idea. You're two sides of the same coin. It's got to be all
one way or the other and no compromise. So it's not going to happen. And people are going to get hurt because of that lack of flexibility, I think.

(P.S. Government should FORCE equality? That sort of talk scares the crap out of me. I'm reminded of "Harrison Bergeron" whenever I hear shit
like that.)

[Bob Schroeck]

Loga, you have to admit it's come to that in the past. Or don't you remember National Guard troops escorting little black schoolgirls to keep them from
being ripped to shreds by people who didn't want them in their all-white schools? If we waited for the "natural flow" of society to eliminate its
ills, we'd probably still have Jim Crow laws and "whites only" water fountains in the South.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Epsilon]

Logan Darklighter wrote:

---

Thing is - I've known people who are more rigidly conservative than me. Much more so on this topic. Religious types. Nice people, but by your lights,
you'd think of them as "fundies" and "bigots". They are not.

No, I'm afraid your friends are bigots. Maybe they are very nice bigots, but they are bigots. I've known a few nice bigots.
I'm friends with a few of them. But if I ever hear them saying somethign bigoted in front of me I don't let them get away with it. I call them on it.
Just because they're magical sky pixie says its okay to hate gays (and blacks and jews and left-handed people and whatever) doesn't mean it actually is
okay and the sooner they understand that the sooner they can stop being bigots.

I'm also glad your friends are all for gays having equal rights, just not actual equal rights right now.

(P.S. Government should FORCE equality? That sort of talk scares the crap out of me. I'm reminded of "Harrison Bergeron" whenever I hear
shit like that.)

Please. Equality doesn't mean that we literally make everyone equal. Equality means we give everyone equal rights and protections and
priveleges under the law, nothing more nothign less.

And yes, the government should force it. They forced it when it came to civil rights for African Americans, back when 70% of your country supported
miscegenation laws, seperate drinking fountains and seperate schools.

-----------------

Epsilon

[Bluemage]

All too many people use "equality" to refer to making everybody literally equal. Many of them are on the liberal end of the spectrum, as you are.
It may have been an incorrect interpretation, but it was the logical one to make.

As for "forcing equality", that is one of the things that the government exists to do- uphold the rights of the people. All of them. Equally. And
I agree with this- the government needs to create total legal equality, regardless of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, and a host of other
characteristics, and force it to be implemented.

What it can't do, though, is force people to acknowledge that equality socially. That 'bigotry', as you put it (it is actual hate, for some, but
many other people are just convinced that homosexuality is morally wrong), is like Logan said. It's a generational thing: more accurately, it will be as
long as gay relationships are presented in a wholesome, family-friendly way, so that the next generation can learn that they should be accepted, not hated,
while they're young and impressionable.

As for the religious right, I come from a conservative Christian family on my mother's side (I'm somewhere between true atheist and agnostic, leaning
toward atheism, and moonlighting in Discordianism every so often). My mother is religious, though she doesn't attend services, and is usually very
accepting of people's rights to behave in ways she would never accept personally. In many ways, she's my ideal person of faith: she has it, but she
doesn't force it on others.

We had a talk about this last night. She adamantly opposes gay marriage. In earlier conversations, when it was presented as just a "everybody should
have equal rights" issue, she didn't care, because gays marrying was WRONG, and should never happen. Last night, I explained my position to her, and
she did the strangest thing. She rejected my position, but then argued for it as a countering position, literally saying something like "You're
wrong. Gays should have all the same legal rights as straights, but marriage is a right of the church, and the government shouldn't have a say in
it." I explained to her that that was my position, and she started agreeing with me. If my mother can agree with
this idea, once she's told that it respects (heck, even enhances) the religious status of marriage, then it's not as farfetched a compromise as you may
think.

There are plenty of hatemongers to go around, anyway. Few people are as hateful as an extremist Christian confronted with a gay couple, but I've found
that advocates of 'tolerance' confronted with Christmas, even if several other winter holidays are being celebrated, can be just as hateful and
intolerant.

---

My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Atom Bomb of Courteous Debate. Get yours.

I've been writing a bit.

[Epsilon]

Yeah, I hate to break it to you Bluemage but your mother is a bigot, and you should tell her she is a bigot.

Marriage is about as sacred to the Christian Church as Valentine's Day is. It wasn't even a sacrement until six-hundred or so years ago.

Or let's put this another way:

The Unitarian Church is currently willing to marry gay people. It is a church, a religious organization, and it is marrying gay people. Reckonizing them in its
faith as married. So, now you want to make it so that they CAN'T be married, even if a religious faith wants to do so? That's fuckign vile, I'm
sorry. Allowing anyone (gay or straight) to be married is a valuabel part of religious freedom because if you refuse to allow them to you are suppressing
someone's faith. maybe not the faith of your mother (which is vile) but the faith of everybody, in every religion. because if you suppress the ability of
one church to marry its parishoners you are repressing religious rights.

So go tell your mother she is wrong. If the Unitarians (or the Wiccans or whoever) want to have people be married, then they can be married.
Marriage isn't a word that belongs to fucking Christianity.

-----------------

Epsilon

[Logan Darklighter]

The Unitarian Church is currently willing to marry gay people. It is a church, a religious organization, and it is marrying gay people. Reckonizing them in
its faith as married. So, now you want to make it so that they CAN'T be married, even if a religious faith wants to do so? That's fuckign vile,
I'm sorry. Allowing anyone (gay or straight) to be married is a valuabel part of religious freedom because if you refuse to allow them to you are
suppressing someone's faith. maybe not the faith of your mother (which is vile) but the faith of everybody, in every religion. because if you suppress
the ability of one church to marry its parishoners you are repressing religious rights.

Wait, wait, HUH??? I completely MISSED where your logic comes from, here. We're NOT saying we want to TAKE AWAY the right of any church to
marry anyone it wants. If your hairy thunderer hammer god says you can marry each other, gay or straight, that should be FINE. In the civil unions argument,
it's ONLY the strictly legalistic component that the government should be dealing with. The rights and privileges that strictly come from the government
(visitation rights, who gets what when someone dies if they haven't already made a will, etc...) are the only thing that a civil union should cover.

Other than that, you get any church at all that will marry you, and presto! You're married! It should be as simple as that! I don't get where you think
we (those advocating civil unions for all) are trying to take that away.

[Epsilon]

Logan Darklighter wrote:

---

Wait, wait, HUH??? I completely MISSED where your logic comes from, here. We're NOT saying we want to TAKE AWAY the right of any church to marry anyone
it wants. If your hairy thunderer hammer god says you can marry each other, gay or straight, that should be FINE. In the civil unions argument, it's ONLY
the strictly legalistic component that the government should be dealing with. The rights and privileges that strictly come from the government (visitation
rights, who gets what when someone dies if they haven't already made a will, etc...) are the only thing that a civil union should cover.




Other than that, you get any church at all that will marry you, and presto! You're married! It should be as simple as that! I don't get where you
think we (those advocating civil unions for all) are trying to take that away.

It's a level of unneccesary redundancy. Why skip around the issue to protect the feelings of a bunch of bigots and assholes? The fact is that
civil unions ARE marriages, in every single way that matters. Why go through all the trouble of changing all the laws when the solutions is about a thousand
times simpler than that?

If the bigots don't care that the Unitarians (or Wiccans or whoever) call their partners "married' why the hell shoudl they care that the
government calls them "married"? The answer is because they do NOT care about the word. They care because they hate gay people, or support religions
that hate gay people. Framing the debate in the "civil unions" manner plays into their hands. because they do not want civil unions, but by offering
them they can create a "seperate but equal" status for Gays. Then you try to remove marriage from the law books and watch them howl and moan. Yeah,
its not going to go over well. Then once they have their "civil unions" they will pass a bunch of laws to dick over gay people and not true married
people, because that's what they fucking do.

-------------------

Epsilon

[Fidoohki]

Epsilon wrote:

---

Logan Darklighter wrote:

---

Wait, wait, HUH??? I completely MISSED where your logic comes from, here. We're NOT saying we want to TAKE AWAY the right of any church to marry anyone
it wants. If your hairy thunderer hammer god says you can marry each other, gay or straight, that should be FINE. In the civil unions argument, it's
ONLY the strictly legalistic component that the government should be dealing with. The rights and privileges that strictly come from the government
(visitation rights, who gets what when someone dies if they haven't already made a will, etc...) are the only thing that a civil union should cover.




Other than that, you get any church at all that will marry you, and presto! You're married! It should be as simple as that! I don't get where you
think we (those advocating civil unions for all) are trying to take that away.

It's a level of unneccesary redundancy. Why skip around the issue to protect the feelings of a bunch of bigots and assholes? The fact is
that civil unions ARE marriages, in every single way that matters. Why go through all the trouble of changing all the laws when the solutions is about a
thousand times simpler than that?




If the bigots don't care that the Unitarians (or Wiccans or whoever) call their partners "married' why the hell shoudl they care that the
government calls them "married"? The answer is because they do NOT care about the word. They care because they hate gay people, or support
religions that hate gay people. Framing the debate in the "civil unions" manner plays into their hands. because they do not want civil unions, but
by offering them they can create a "seperate but equal" status for Gays. Then you try to remove marriage from the law books and watch them howl and
moan. Yeah, its not going to go over well. Then once they have their "civil unions" they will pass a bunch of laws to dick over gay people and not
true married people, because that's what they fucking do.




-------------------


Epsilon

Unfortunately, some will try that, just like some gays will try to use certain gay marriage laws to sue those religious groups that don't accept

gay marriage, with 'discrimination' charges. Though, in my opinion anyway, both of these types are more fanatic loons than actual rational

people.

[Ayiekie]

In the choice between the oppressed minority being screwed over by assholes, and the bigots being screwed over by assholes, I'd prefer to see the oppressed
minority win. Besides which, I don't see any reason why it could not be explicitly stated that religions can follow freedom of conscience, so long as civil
authorities (regardless of their private beliefs) are obliged to shut up and do their jobs (and suspect this would indeed be covered by freedom of religion,
separation of church and state, et cetera).