All of the following have been said either by or about Ann Coulter, but only one of them is true. Which one is it?
A. The ‘religious right’ is a nonexistent creation of liberal paranoia.
B. Liberals don’t believe there is such a thing as ‘fact’ or ‘truth’.
C. There are no good Democrats.
D. Her haircolor is natural.
E. She has a rather large Adam’s Apple.
Did you read that link at all? It’s not about Franken. It’s about an O’Reilly interview of Jeremy Glick, which Franken apparently makes a reference to in his book. What lie of Franken’s are you claiming can be found at that link?
Simply because it doesn’t say “civil union” for all of them currently. The government acknowledges marriages of people from all faiths, or no faiths at all, as marriages. And people are now insisting that the government impose a separate distinction for same-sex couples. I couldn’t care less if the Catholic Church wants to consider my relationship as 5/8 of a marriage, because I have no allegiance to the Catholic Church. I do have allegiance to the American government, though, and I’m not going to stand for an official designation that my union is in any way less than a “real” heterosexual marriage.
I said as much in my first post: I wasn’t cultivated in a petri dish somewhere, I’m not a recent immigrant from Homosexistan raised in some Godless alternate-reality commune, and I didn’t make the choice at some point to reject everything I was brought up to treasure in favor of my self-indulgent hedonistic gay lifestyle. I was raised* Christian, and I still am a Christian, and my religion is every bit as valid as any Catholic’s. I was raised to believe that you meet someone, you fall in love, you get married, and you start a family, and that’s still my goal. I’ve seen my friends – Catholics, Protestants, atheists, Jews, Moslems – do this, and I want the same.
And the only reason I semi-hijacked the thread was because the way it was worded in Airman’s OP is just so fucking annoying to me. It makes it sound as if straight couples are going through all kinds of soul-searching to finally allow a concession to support equality for homosexuals. It’s not a concession, because it’s not equality. It’s the last stand for people to say that they do not and will not condone homosexuality, but they will “grant” equal financial and visitation benefits. They can’t stop the gays from fucking each other, but by God, they can make sure they know that we don’t approve.
As you say, if civil unions for homosexual couples were introduced today, I could get one, get a separate Christian ceremony acknowledging it as a religious marriage, and have what is on the surface is the exact same status my parents and all my straight married friends have. As for “what’s the difference?”, then I suggest you try introducing legislation that makes all marriages in the United States, heterosexual and homosexual, “civil unions” in the eyes of the government. Just sit back and watch the opposition to that. I’m pretty damn skeptical that you’d hear as many people saying, “What’s the big deal about terminology? It’s all the same thing! Quit your whining!”
*Note to grammar Nazis: I’m aware that “reared” is the proper word here, but I’m not going to use it in any discussion about homosexuality in the Pit.
That’s actually sort of scary. I could easily envision a test in the future, combining genetics and responses to chemicals*, that might determine orientation with %90 accuracy. I can just see the theocrats’ heads explode turning over the news:
“Wow! A new test we can use to clamp down easier on them unnatural people”
“But, it’s a choice!”
“But, it will help national security! Think of the children!”
“But, it’s a choice!”
Who am I kidding? They’d implement that in a heartbeat especially for voluntary programs such as adoption and community service positions. Shit.
*Which is not to say gayness is all genetic, only that it’s possible that the brain chemistry between heteros and gays might be different enough to determine through a test, regardless of how that came about.
And every time they find a physiological difference, like in this study, they’re a step closer to a “gay litmus test”.
If people keep voting in the Religious Right party, wouldn’t surprise me a bit if someday they start testing for gayness for employment, just like they test for drugs.
That’s exactly what I’ve suggested and what I push for. I also said that if the government refuses to do that, then it needs to extend the marriage contract to all consenting adults, whether gay or straight.
It’s great to find a subject on which we agree, catsix! This is the solution that I favor, too; and contrary to sol’s suggestion, I’ve not yet heard a conservative object to it more strongly than objecting to marriage-for-everyone. Perhaps there are such conservatives out there, but I’ve not encountered them.
I don’t know why SolGrundy seems to have the impression that I favor a ‘separate but equal’ approach.
I thought about the civil unions for all thing because there doesn’t seem to be so much objection about calling all legal aspects of marriage ‘civil union’ as there does objection to making marriage fair to all.
“Civil Union”, and “Civil marriage” sound almost like the same thing. However, people who want access to marriage are wise not to ask for “Civil Unisons”, since is likely to result in a waterd down version. Besides, why redefine “Civil Marriage” when it already means what you are asking for, Sol?
catsix, the reason why people think you are asking for something “Seperate-but-equal” is because that is what you are doing, if you ask for “Civil Unions” (for gays) to be used a seperate context from “Civil marriage” (for hets)
Rational people: That’s insane. They don’t want to touch your marriage.
A future newscaster (when the homophobes are scared that gay marriage has a chance, and thus start pushing for gay civil unions instead): Today, Congress announced a compromise has been passed. Instead of allowing gays to marry, we hereby declare all existing marriages to be civil unions instead, and mandate civil unions in place of marriages in the future.
Scott, pardon me here, but you still don’t seem to understand what we’re discussing here. Read the thread again and understand what it is the “get the government out of marriage” crowd actually wants.
No, no she’s not. You need to go back and read the thread until you understand what’s being discussed. In short, catsix is promoting the idea (many of us agree with this thought) that the government stop granting marriages completely, and only grant civil unions. The word “marriage” would be undefined by any official group, leaving people to get “married” in churches or however they like, and indeed anyone who wished to could call themselves married. Meanwhile the government grants civil unions to straight or gay couples. Nothing “separate but equal” about it.
Excalibre, frankley, you confuse me. You seem to think I am misunderstanding the thread. In other threads, sometimes you hold people to standards of clear and simple comunication, and in others you yourself insult people, with out it having any real point. In fact, I have read each and every post, and think either you are confusssed when you say I am confussed, or I need to go back to a writting class.
However, I can simply not see any way to convince you to see my point, so I am bowing out. Perhaps someone else can explain to you just how very little point, in terms or civil law, or in any other way, there is to redefinng marriage back into what it already is.
Who’s jumping down your throat? You asked for more explanation of my stand on why I find civil unions unacceptable, and I explained it. If it turns out we’re saying the same thing, then so much the better.
On a related subject, I encountered a term today in a context that I really liked: civil marriage. If I ever become Lord High Dictator, I’ll replace all marriages with Civil Marriages, a contract that can be joined into by any two consenting adults that aren’t already in such a contract.
You know, I’m not usually one to harp on spelling or grammar mistakes, but when I see a violation of Gaudere’s Law as egregious as this one, I just can’t help myself.
Gaudere’s Law, which states that any post made to point out a spelling or grammar error will invariably contain a spelling or grammatical error. In my post, I said that I have to go back to school, not him. I am admitting to being a bad speller. Nothing to do with Gaudere’s Law. Then you point that out, incorrectly. How briiliant of you. Now, in another thread, pulykamell says something quite relivant to this topic.
That being said, in still another thread, Excalibre says that while he is strongley opposed to the religious right,
Well, as long as I am defending myself, I have to say that religion itself is quite deserving of “knee-jerk” negative reactions. This is due to its effect on the world. Just as people do not actual criticize Bush because they abstractley hate him, but because he has made some very stupid moves, and (almost) no one hates Lucas because of some irational hate, but beacause he can not leave good enough along, I point out flaws in religous belief because I believe it causes great har, Oh, and Excalibre, you might not think that way, but the very fact you disagree with the religious right, is enough to get you lumped in with me, in may circels, since you dare to think that a literal interpretation of the bible might not be the best thing since sliced bread.
“…causes great har…” Well, might not be a spelling error, might be a droll neologism. But “circel” is definitely right out!. And hereby do I refute Gaudere’s Law, because this post pointing out errors isn’t got any!
Ha! Fair point. I spent so much time making sure I didn’t have any grammar errors in my post, I totally missed whose reading comprehension you were criticizing.
