Actually, the problem was that despite the claimed intent to maintain equality between the two sets of schools, the white schools were invariably given better funding, resources and maintenance. Some white proponents of SBE might have honestly believed that the schools would forever be of equal quality, but they were deluding themselves.
magellan01 won’t talk to me because I once confused him with another anti-ssm poster whose username also began with “m” and though I recognized my error, I declined to apologize for it. I make the effort to challenge nonsense anyway.
It’s sad how some people truly don’t understand the world around them and are stuck in their narrow little viewpoints. Being a bigot* must be exhausting because you’ve been beating the same tired drum since 'time immorial".
Is a law that says “pregnant people aren’t allowed to drive” not sexist because it applies to both genders?
If this was a few decades ago, you’d be arguing that anti-miscegenation laws aren’t racist “because they apply to everyone”. The logic is the same.
No. We know why the concept of civil unions exist; they were created as ghetto pseudo-marriages, for the specific purpose of being inferior and insulting. They are the marital equivalent of “Colored Only”.
Because of millions of years of evolution shaping humanity into a species with a predilection for pair bonding. A marriage is simply a ritual and legal recognition of human nature, we’ve been bonding in couples like that since before we were human.
That’s an attack, not a compromise. It’s a cave in to religious bigots, something that will make marriage less than it is (as I already said, the word has legal meaning), and create a huge backlash against homosexuals for destroying marriage. And it won’t solve a single thing.
Because such an argument would be a total non-starter. There’s only two reasons for opposing same sex marriage; religion and “homosexuals are icky”. Since neither will do anything but crash and burn as an argument either here or in court, you seldom see those arguments used out loud here or there; instead you see opponents of SSM flailing about trying to find a nonexistent rational argument against SSM, and failing since no such argument exists.
But the religious and “icky” arguments are always there unspoken in the background as the driving force.
That’s why I advocate ONE set of statutes. Equally accessed by two groups. The same way that the group called women drivers and the group called men drivers now access the ONE set of statutes that comprise our driving laws.
Why do you want to discriminate against heterosexual atheists?
According to my daughter, in Germany you can get married in a church, or you can get married by the equivalent of a Justice of the Peace, but in that case you are severely restricted in the number of attendees - to like four, IIRC. No thanks.
You seem to know that this is not allowed in these discussions outside the pit, but evidently think you can flout the rules by being something that you think passes for clever. Iso, do you think a poster calling another a faggot lover would pass muster, because one definition is:
In the US religion is defined very loosely, so that even Scientology qualifies. I can imagine a religion which specially sanctifies same sex unions - no funnier than one which sanctifies abstinence.
However this would fall into the “all religions are equal but mine is more equal than yours” category - just like polygamy being forbidden for US resident Muslims.
Why don’t you tell me? And can you point to congressperson who is a proponent of gay rights who has suggested this? Or even a prominent gay spokesperson. The push needs to come from someone on the left. I’ve been arguing for this for years on the Dope, and those on the left want no part of it. Thus, revealing that they’re call for* equal rights* and equal protection under the law is a lie.
But the driving statutes don’t define or include reference to women and men, they refer to motorists. The equivalent would be laws that referred to marriages, and didn’t subdivide them into types based on gender, as driving laws do not.
What you’re proposing would necessarily have to define and include references to marriages and civil unions, and the benefits and such of each. While they might start out the same, it’d be very easy (and legal) for a state legislature or Congress to pass a law giving some new tax break or perk to those who are in a marriage, and not include “…or a civil union”; or to remove a tax break or perk from those who are in a civil union, and not include “…or a marriage”.
And for what? What is gained that makes this a risk worth taking?
No, it just means that they recognize that it won’t work, and that they are winning. Why settle for a segregation-based ghetto version of marriage when they can have the real thing?
Oddly enough, now you see the point that ONE word can mean two different things. It wasn’t my intention at all, but glad to see that you’re finally on board and are starting to make sense.
I guess you’re right. And in any case, the cultural difference between legal marriage and religious marriage is still present whether you call them the same things or not.
No, I still think you’re a bigot. You’ve been beating the same tired drum since 2005.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
No doubt I’ll get slammed for this as it is not the majority opinion here, but doesn’t it makes sense that we would have a word to describe one of the institutions that has been fundemental to our society: the one that is defined by the union of a man and a woman which has acted and acts as an anchor for the family unit. I do not mean to imply that this is the only construct, only that it has been, and is, the definitive norm.
I do not object to gay marriage on religious grounds, and I am for civil unions with all the rights that come with it. But this desire/need to erase the concept of marriage as it has come to be understood irks me to the extreme. I understand why it might be desireable for those working for complete equality, but words are helpful to us when they have specific meanings. We all agree that (I assume) that men are equal to women. Yet, it serves us well to have words that allow us to speak of each independently: man, woman; boy, girl.
To attempt to erase all differences withiin the realm of unions is political correctness run amok. We need to afford gay couples who choose to formally commit to each other the same the same advantages that heterosexual couples enjoy. But we need a different word.
I offer this only to give a gauge of how strongly I (and many others) feel about this. If I had to choose between the state recognizing civil uniuons, as I have described and I advocate, and having the meaning of “marriage” obfuscated, I’d vote to not recognize civil unions. So in the desire that I see in some to contort reality, they lose an advocate of equal “rights”. You may think this position is harsh. And it may be. But I convey my honest feelings in order to be helpful in the discussion. I think the quicker that the insistence on the term “marriage” is abandoned, the quicker society at large will embrace the concept of equal rights for gay couples.
[/QUOTE]
So yes, you’re “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices” as you’ve been sticking to the same stupid “argument” for 8 years. Need me to show how you’ve been inserting this into a bunch more threads saying the same asinine opinion?
At the moment those on the left want marriage equality, not SBE. And I admit that some people on the left were scared and/or bigoted also. But they never introduced constitutional amendments banning SSM. If those on the left had done this, don’t you think the right wing attack machine would have worked with full force? And if those on the right did instead, don’t you think it would have passed in quick measure?