Since I can't be honest in GD . . .

[elucidator]

Agreed, but I gotta call bullshit on that “seperate but equal” crapola. Totally bogus.

Did anybody here say “we need to model a structure like Plessy v Ferguson”? No. So pretending that someone did and arguing as if they had is bogus. Its underhanded and dishonest.

But lets examine, shall we? Suppose such a thing were proposed, but sincerely. Not like the bullshit of Plessy, but for real. Actually equal, not really seperate, but mindful of other’s feelings. (Not their arguments, the have none, but their feelings.)

Suppose we leave things pretty much as they are, the people empowered to perform marriages are still so empowered. Lets call the conservative, gender specific ceremony a “marriage”, and any other a “union”. Or a “duck”, whatever.

The “marriage” ceremony is gender specific, includes the words “man and wife”, or “husband and wife”. This appeases the conservatives, and offers no harm to others. The “union” ceremony would end *any *other way, i.e., “by the power vested in me, I pronounce you wed, you may kiss my ass…” or whatever the participants deem appropriate.

What I’m getting at is that a sincere compromise is not evil, it embiggens both parties and enlarges the basis of civility. And, of course, pretending that anyone who might favor such a compromise (and I’m not sure I do, mind) is a bigot trying to sneak in a Plessy-type legal trickery is dishonest. Its entirely true that Plessy is a blot on our history, but that’s because it was never intended to be “seperate but equal”. And if it were, it would have been impossible, as a practical fact.

These circumstances are different, it might be possible, if the affected parties consent to compromise. Of course, I doubt that they would, the zealots on both sides would scream their heads off.

But beating people over the head with Plessy to draw a bogus parallel with racism stinks.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

The problem with that is by separating them into “marriage” and “union” you have too distinct classes of things. What’s to stop evangelicals from lobbying for “family specific” legislation that gives additional benefits to “marriages” but denies them to “unions”?

I agree it may not have the same evil starting intentions as “separate but equal” started out with, but separating gays and straights into two classes of people opens the door for discrimination. What safe guards could this compromise offer that would enforce true equality?

Finally many people on the gay side, including many many gay couples (as the California marriage vs civil union statistics earlier in the thread show), have their heart set on marriage. Not “something just like it”, but honest to god marriage.

Why should their feelings be trampled to spare the feelings of Conservatives?

[elucidator]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

The problem with that is by separating them into “marriage” and “union” you have too distinct classes of things. What’s to stop evangelicals from lobbying for “family specific” legislation that gives additional benefits to “marriages” but denies them to “unions”?..

Nothing can stop them from trying, I suppose. Wouldn’t want to, such is their right. Stopping them from succeeding, however, is a different matter.

…I agree it may not have the same evil starting intentions as “separate but equal” started out with, but separating gays and straights into two classes of people opens the door for discrimination. What safe guards could this compromise offer that would enforce true equality?..

A declarative sentence? “No legal distinction between ‘marriage’ and ‘union’ exists, the privileges and responsibilities of both shall be regarded as identical.”

…Finally many people on the gay side, including many many gay couples (as the California marriage vs civil union statistics earlier in the thread show), have their heart set on marriage. Not “something just like it”, but honest to god marriage…

How is “something just like” something else not that something else?

…Why should their feelings be trampled to spare the feelings of Conservatives?

Hell, I do stuff like that every day, so do you, most likely. I think people who pride themselves on ruthless honesty and brutal candor are assholes, mostly. If I can spare another’s feelings at little or no cost to myself, I probably will. YMMV.

And, keep in mind, I think grudging acceptance will lead to full acceptance. Just a matter of getting used to the idea.

But, at any rate, I’m not married to this notion, it is mostly a means to illustrate my point about “separate but equal”.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@elucidator

A declarative sentence? “No legal distinction between ‘marriage’ and ‘union’ exists, the privileges and responsibilities of both shall be regarded as identical.”

Brilliant! Gay people can even call it marriage, have weddings, with none of the risks it’s perfect. The only difference is the wording on forms. Meanwhile Conservatives can sleep good knowing they safe guarded “their word”.

The main problem is would “union” have the same trouble civil union had in California? Still it’d be a good stepping stone. I’m starting to see the wisdom in this.

[Carol_Stream]

@Kalhoun

Well if my ideals are different from yours, you’d have to admit that we are two Americans with different ideals. The documents, however, represent American Ideals as the collective has agreed to in writing. Huge difference.

By your own admission, most Americans don’t believe in your version of “ideals”.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Carol_Stream

By your own admission, most Americans don’t believe in your version of “ideals”.

I thought the point of a constitution was protection of rights even if they are used in an unpopular way.

[mswas]

@VinylTurnip

My own parents, much as I love them and admire their effort, taught me a lot of things that I later learned (or if you like, came to strongly believe) were wrong. Rather than cling to those acquired beliefs simply because It Is Written, I have tried to accept that they were wrong and move on. Sometimes it’s not been easy.

When those like **mswas **suggest that (paraphrasing) I lack the ability to relate to my opponents because I neither understand nor value what they are “losing” as a result of such an ideological shift, it simply isn’t true. In the case of SSM (or attitudes toward homosexuality/homsexuals in general), they won’t be losing anything I haven’t already “lost” myself.

You ‘lost’ something because you stopped valuing it. Therein lies the difference.

[Carol_Stream]

@Bryan_Ekers

I thought the point of a constitution was protection of rights even if they are used in an unpopular way.

As of today, gay marriage is not a right. kalhoun’s alternate reality doesn’t make it so.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@mswas

You ‘lost’ something because you stopped valuing it. Therein lies the difference.

Couldn’t he have replaced it (rather than “lost” it) when he discovered something he valued more?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Carol_Stream

As of today, gay marriage is not a right. kalhoun’s alternate reality doesn’t make it so.

You’ll have to be more specific than “today”. Geography plays a role, now.

[Carol_Stream]

@Bryan_Ekers

You’ll have to be more specific than “today”. Geography plays a role, now.

No, I really don’t. “Gay marraiges” in New Hampshire aren’t recognized anywhere else, thanks to President Clinton’s DOMA, are they? I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong.

[mswas]

@MrDibble

Well, first of all, my cite shows that Marx didn’t coin the term, so you were clearly wrong there. Idiot.

What a trivial thing to care about.

But of course I concede that you are correct.

Second of all, my cite shows that Marx believed that religion was something the oppressed invented *themselves *to give them comfort. Not a method of control, but a symptom of being controlled. That you got anything else out of that cite is a testament to your stupendous lack of reading comprehension. Big surprise.Ah yes, your so-called “typo”. Not that I was referring to that, but hey, “nitpicking” to you, “evidence that 'wassie doesn’t know his ass from his elbow when it comes to religion” to me. No, I meant where you make shit up out of whole cloth, like the Druid’s “Source”. You’re still a lying asshole as well as a bigot. Sorry, "Christian culture warrior"Read for context, moron. He’s not saying throwing off religion is throwing off control, he’s saying throwing off religion goes hand-in-hand with the people realising they don’t need it as a comfort.

It’s funny how well you remember every single straw man you’ve ever used against me.

I’m not even sure addressing this new straw man is even worth while. Considering my point was regarding how religion was persecuted by active communists relying on Marx’s theory. The reading comprehension here is a problem, but it’s not MY problem. It’s just another one of those things where you find some little piece of irrelevant minutiae that has very little bearing on the point I was making, and doesn’t change a fucking thing and then add it to your catalogue since you are clearly obsessed with me and have a list that you like to trot out every chance you get. Your hate crush on me is endearing, but you simply do not have a point that is of any value.

My point was about Soviet actions toward religious institutions. Your argument is simply wrong here, because the bottom line is that Marx thought that religion should be removed. You are putting a finer point of distinction on it, and I agree it’s a more sophisticated reading, but it doesn’t even resemble a refutation of what I said because it’s not evidence contrary to what I said but evidence in support of what I said.

So thank you for providing cites that prove my point. I appreciate it. I concede that you are right that I slightly misinterpreted Marx, but not to such a point as my overall argument is wrong. Good going again, you put your microscope to the nanoscale of my argument and find some part unpolished or unrefined even though what you have found is absolutely fucking irrelevant to what I said.

Where in that quote does he say anything about the state using religion to control the proles, as you allege? Quote it, simp. Or get to the back of the short bus you love so much.

I didn’t say state btw. So OOH BURN SHORT BUS! I found some niggling little detail that you got wrong, therefore your reading comprehension is shit and your whole argument is wrong! Pwn Noob!

[mswas]

@Bryan_Ekers

Couldn’t he have replaced it (rather than “lost” it) when he discovered something he valued more?

He said, ‘lost’, in his post. His words. Yes, he replaced it and didn’t lose it, that is a more appropriate interpretation. His shedding of those cultural values was a choice, not one imposed upon him through political action. So using himself as an example is not very useful as he ‘replaced’ it.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Carol_Stream

No, I really don’t. “Gay marriages” in New Hampshire aren’t recognized anywhere else, thanks to President Clinton’s DOMA, are they? I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong.

As I understand it, it’s not just New Hampshire these days.

Also, as I understand it, DOMA lets various states choose to recognize or not recognize. Rejection is not automatic, or at least not through any aspect of DOMA.

Anyway, during this transitional period, the right to a same sex marriage exists in some American venues and by all indication will gradually spread to others. If we look outside the United States, we also find pockets of enlightenment which, too, will gradually spread.

I’m mildly curious to see who will recognize gay marriage first - China or Texas.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@mswas

His shedding of those cultural values was a choice, not one imposed upon him through political action.

If political action is enough to cause one to lose a cultural value, I’d guess it wasn’t that tightly held in the first place. In any case, I submit that for every cultural value he (or anyone) lost, another cultural value that was more satisfying or more useful replaced it.

In this particular battle (i.e. California’s Prop 8 and similar initiatives), it looks to me like a whole lot of money, time and energy is being spent in an effort to preserve something that doesn’t serve any actual purpose beyond some short-term ideological satisfaction.

[Carol_Stream]

@Bryan_Ekers

As I understand it, it’s not just New Hampshire these days.

If you go by states, I think it’s less than five states out of fifty. And if you go by population, forget about it. California just said “NO”, remarkably. How can you conclude, from those limited circumstances, that gay marriage is a right, today?

[Der_Trihs]

@elucidator

But lets examine, shall we? Suppose such a thing were proposed, but sincerely. Not like the bullshit of Plessy, but for real. Actually equal, not really seperate, but mindful of other’s feelings. (Not their arguments, the have none, but their feelings.)

Never, ever happen, since unfairness is the point. Nor do I find it likely that it’s even possible from a practical perspective.

@elucidator

What I’m getting at is that a sincere compromise is not evil, it embiggens both parties and enlarges the basis of civility.

Not when the other side is evil; meeting evil halfway means that you are yourself becoming evil. And that, again is why the “bigot” word is important. It underlines that the anti-SSM side aren’t just people who disagree, but people who are evil, people who are motivated by malignance to harm other people who are no danger to anyone. And that they are people who have no interest in fairness or an honest compromise; they aren’t motivated by self interest, but by a desire to hurt people.

And it certainly doesn’t “enlarge the basis of civility” when the entire idea is an insult, and based on the attitude that homosexuals are evil subhumans. That attitude is the only reason this debate even exists; and again, keeping that in mind that’s why the word “bigot” is important.

@elucidator

But beating people over the head with Plessy to draw a bogus parallel with racism stinks.

It’s not bogus; it shows us what would really happen.

@Carol_Stream

If you go by states, I think it’s less than five states out of fifty. And if you go by population, forget about it. California just said “NO”, remarkably. How can you conclude, from those limited circumstances, that gay marriage is a right, today?

Because marriage ***in general ***is a right, and the only reason to exclude homosexuals from it is bigotry. Just as if you passed a law saying that black people, and black people alone weren’t allowed free speech or freedom of religion.

[mswas]

@Bryan_Ekers

If political action is enough to cause one to lose a cultural value, I’d guess it wasn’t that tightly held in the first place. In any case, I submit that for every cultural value he (or anyone) lost, another cultural value that was more satisfying or more useful replaced it.

I’m not talking about losing it individually, I am talking about losing it collectively. You are still focusing on the individual aspect of it. That is the point of cognitive dissonance between us. I am talking about losing the shared values in the collective mainstream. They are not losing it as individuals as they will likely still hold that belief, they will just now be considered fringe and looney beliefs as opposed to mainstream core values.

In this particular battle (i.e. California’s Prop 8 and similar initiatives), it looks to me like a whole lot of money, time and energy is being spent in an effort to preserve something that doesn’t serve any actual purpose beyond some short-term ideological satisfaction.

Yeah, again, I don’t see it that way. It’s not a matter of mere satisfaction is a matter of losing touch with the mainstream culture. Which has, as has been pointed out, already occurred.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Carol_Stream

How can you conclude, from those limited circumstances, that gay marriage is a right, today?

Because it would be less accurate to say it is not a right. There isn’t a blanket statement one can casually make about gay marriage in the U.S., not with the current hodgepodge of state laws. Specifics and qualifiers are required, and the situation is likely to go on changing for some time longer.

[Carol_Stream]

@Bryan_Ekers

Because it would be less accurate to say it is not a right. There isn’t a blanket statement one can casually make about gay marriage in the U.S., not with the current hodgepodge of state laws. Specifics and qualifiers are required, and the situation is likely to go on changing for some time longer.

If it’s not a right in 95% of the country, I think it’s fair to say it’s not a right.