…but have exactly the same rights.
Gay couples may not, but gay people have the same rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
That said, you’re expanding on the original statement. Do you agree that my original statement is correct or not?
You know well that that is not the typical view, nor the legally-established one.
I’ll ask again: What, in your own view, is the reasoning behind the Brown ruling declaring “separate but equal” to be a fiction?
We’ve been through this. I might be inclined to explain AGAIN how that does not apply to my view on civil unions, but why don’t you just do a search. You see, I’m not inclined to go through the same rigamarole on that when you and yours can’t even grant the simple, factual truth that “different” does not equal “less than”.
Once again, here’s the original statement from Lobohan I was correcting:
If I want women and men to use different rest room, do I think one is “less then” the other? Yes or no?
IOW you know as well as anyone else there’s no difference, and your frustration at your resulting inability to rationalize the conclusion you wish to hold is a source of anger to you.
Right?
You’re never going to find agreement or even get anyone to answer your ‘simple’ questions, because there’s a fundamental disconnect: You think the difference between a heterosexual man or woman and a homosexual man or woman, or the difference between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage, is analogous to the difference between a man and a woman or a cow and a horse.
The people you argue against simply don’t agree. At most, the difference between a heterosexual man and a homosexual man is the same as the difference between a black man and a white man, or between this Holstein cow and this Holstein cow. You want so badly for it to be a clear apple and orange situation, when we see it as an apple and apple situation.
Nobody wants to answer your simple questions because they have two brain cells they can rub together and realize that you’re going to go, “You agree that a man is different from but not less than a woman, therefore you must agree with me that a civil union is different from but not less than a marriage.” Nobody’s willing to give you that inch because you’ll simply take a mile.
Wow, what an awful plan.
Not that I doubt you, but cite please? I’d love to know what individual (or organization) gave how much to what organization. If, for example, Dan Cathy gave $100 to the AFA, then he’s a bigotted douchenozzle as we already know. If, on the other hand, Chick-fil-A’s “charity arm” gave $2 million to the Focal Point radio program, then that’s a much better justification to boycott the restaurant.
If one room is appointed in gold and marble, has hot and cold running water and is cleaned and restocked every 20 minutes, and the other has splintered boards for countertops, no running water and hasn’t seen a janitor in weeks and the soap dispenser is hanging empty off the wall…than yes, I’d think you’d have to consider one gender “less than” the other to be forced to content themselves with the second bathroom.
“Marriage” isn’t the same as “civil unions”. The rights are not identical, and the social acceptance isn’t the same, and civil unions don’t have any standing at all across state lines. You’re not talking about two identical but separate restrooms, you’re talking about a bathroom at the Taj Mahal and an outhouse.
Depends. Are you willing to let the woman decide which one she uses, and you’ll use the other one?
If you say, “Woman, they’re EXACTLY THE SAME, but I insist that this one is reserved for me and you may never enter it, and you must use that one,” you might forgive her for being suspicious that you’re telling the truth.
By analogy, if marriage and civil union are exactly the same, then you should be willing to let gay people choose which one they want, and you’ll take the other. If you’re not willing to do that, then you might forgive them for being suspicious.
Sounds like you’re trying hard to be semantically or technically correct without applying your “logic” to the actual subject at hand.
You’re comparing two different species which makes it a false comparison for this discussion.
If we’re looking just at cows we might say one cow is lesser or greater than depending on the purpose we are considering. If the purpose is to acquire milk then the cow that gives more milk is greater. If the purpose is beef then the cow supplies more or better quality is greater.
If you’re talking about them just being cows brown is different than black and white but neither greater or lessor. How would you then decide which cows get access to what feed and water? If you clearly treated one color better than the other just based on your personal feelings and preference then your motives would be in question
We’re discussing the same species having the same rights concerning a social and legal institution. So, unless you can explain how different is not less than in the context of this subject your semantic wrangling is just a waste of time.
The problem for you is you can’t. You have no factual or reasonable basis for your assertions
So if people wanted black people to use different restrooms and fountains and diners , it’s fine then? It never did mean anyone thought black people were less than?
Incorrect. If a gay individual does not have the right to marry the consenting adult they love and who wants to marry them then that individual does not have the same rights as others.
NM. Still researching.
In the broadest possible semantic sense, you are correct: Two is less than four, seven is greater than four, and roast beef is incommensurate with four. All three are different; only one is less than.
However, in the context that we have been debating, of two things declared to be “separate but equal,” where there is a history of emotional prejudice against a group (black or gay people), with a centuries-old body of statute and case law built up around one of the two concepts (marriage), establishing a second category (civil union) will manifestly lead to inequities, just as the ‘separate but equal’ schools for black people got the short end of the stick 99.9% of the time. And your proposition that there be a single set of laws applying to both institutions equally will not work, for reasons history amply documents.
Here, for an inadequate but illustrative comparison, is Article XIV, Section 1, of the New York State Constitution, the “Forever Wild” guarantee. The portion in green is original; that in red, added by amendments.
While any one of those exceptions can be justified by an investigation into the background thereof, I trust that the idea that a law that started out as “these things are to be kept this and so, with no exceptions” can accrue dozens of exceptions over time. Which is the point why a “civil union giving the same rights as marriage” won’t work.
The differences between separate bathrooms for the genders and other versions of “separate but equal”, is that separate bathrooms is what most members of both genders in our society want, and the motive isn’t malignant. It isn’t being imposed on an unwilling populace, and it isn’t intended to hurt or humilate anyone.
On the other hand, “civil unions” for same sex couples aren’t ever going to be the equal of marriage, because being inferior is the point. Just as in racial separate but equal “colored” facilities were always inferior, because that was part of the point.
No. I’m trying to prevent a statement from Lobohan, which is factually incorrect, from passing as true, and then that being treated as a “given”.
I was using them as a simple example of sets and subsets. I could have used ice cream or cars. No difference from a logic perspective.
Yes. And if the purpose is to ride it really fast to a town 20 miles away, neither of them are of much value.
Untrue. But fodder for another thread. If desperately interested, you can do a Search.
Also, you’re reading way to much into my example. Perhaps I should have used station wagons and sports cars. The analogy is getting tortured.
Wrong. If I have any frustration it is how how some of those on your side feel that just because they feel strongly about something they can suspend the rules of logic. But that really causes them more problems than me. So, ::shrug::
Yep. We disagree. I really don’t see it that way.
Well, that’s really a problem with their inability to debate dispassionately. Just because one may disagree with my final position doesn’t require them to disagree with every supporting point. In fact, that’s asinine. But it does point to which side is using their emotions more than their brains. I mean, I think Obama is a poor President and really needs to be replaced. That doesn’t mean I have to disagree with the proposition that he’s a smart guy. In fact, I think he’s very smart. Very smart and very misguided, but again, fodder for a different thread.
It is not my position that they are and have never claimed they were. It is my position that they can be legally identical.
Just because she’s suspicious doesn’t mean that are not identical. But that’s not a concern with what I’m talking about, because they’re is nothing hidden.
Again, their being suspicious offers no commentary of the reality of the equality. Aside from that, your analogy assumes 1) a baseline with no history attached, and 2) that I see no value in the maintaining the traditional meaning of the word. Those assumptions, obviously, are incorrect.