Say what?! They weren’t equal!!! We agree on this. You must have misread something.
Say what?! Again!! The problem with SBE was the TWO sets of schools—one for Black kids, one for White kids. Those were the TWO things that the courts pointed out could not be both separate and equal.
Do you really not know this? Why don’t you tell me what you think “separate but equal” meant as it pertained to segregated schools.
HA! Thanks for reminding me. I thought that was pretty funny. As did others, who said so. It was a debate about immigration and it went something like this:
Here’s a dramatization of that conversation:
Me: Yeah I think all the illegals should have to go back before they apply to come here legally.
Some Other Poster: Yeah, but there are like 12 million of them here. How are you going to get them back over the border?
Me: Catapults? * (and then I wwent on to explain how illegals might be sent back or encouraged to go back.)*
Something like that anyway. And you, unlike everyone else, took it literally. I forget who it was, but even someone who was vociferously on your side laughed and told you that it was funny.
So chill out, wouldya? And search online to see where you can get your funny bone replaced. It’s not working.
I think you might legitimately not understand the point of our collective aversion to “separate but equal” laws. The point is that even if you have laws that say one group gets X and one group gets Y, and even if the laws say X and Y are equal, they do not end up equal, in particular when there are prejudices involved and there are humans implementing the “equalness” of the two things.
I AGREE that would be a SBE problem. But that is not what I’m saying. Please see Post 331.
I find it slightly unbelievable that you don’t really understand why saying “same-sex couples don’t DESERVE to be called “married”” is offensive. How do all those throngs of gay friends of yours feel about your take on this issue?
Whether you find the label offensive is a different matter altogether. But let’s visit that for a m omen. You self-identify as gay, right? Is that offensive in and of itself?
I don’t understand how you can have it both ways. Either UNDER THE LAW, everything is the same, or it isn’t, and that necessarily includes the word marriage. I have no problem with you, your significant other (assuming), your church (assuming again), your friends (assuming once more) want to have your own little word for those nasty same sex marriages, but UNDER THE LAW, they should be called marriages. Otherwise, it is SBE, just like if the law called the marriages of differing races something else. You can’t insist that you want all things equal, except the name, and then pretend you want all things equal.
So basically, it comes down to the fact that you have faith that if the law said “straights get something called marriage, and gays get something called civil unions, and those things confer all the same legal rights, but are not the same thing”, that there is no possibility of an SBE problem. A fair summary?
But it is a SBE problem. Just because you don’t think it is doesn’t negate reality and your Post 331 reinforces it.
I want gay couples and straight couples to have equal access to one set of legal benefits and privileges. Again, look at Post 331. Assume that each benefit and privilege was handled the exact same way as the hospital visitation law I describe. How in the world is that SBE. SBE problems apply to to the two groups (Black kids and White kids), but the the two theoretically “Separate but Equal” schools it was recommended they attend. The court said because the problem was insurmountable, the schools had to be integrated. Once that happened there was no SBE problem because there were no longer two sets of schools that would attempt (and fail) at being equal.
What’s to stop a law from being passed that benefits married couples but not gay married couples after that?
With one clarification: delete the portion I bolded and you’re understanding my position. In my proposal they MUST be the same thing. There is only one law for, say, hospital visitation. Both gay couples and straight couples access IT. So it IS the same thing.
You’re missing something then. Try re-reading it. Or possibly Post 334 (I think it was).
So civil unions are marriage?
Would the non-marriage titled entity be recognized internationally?
You still haven’t defined how these laws are going to be put in place to make it all “equal”. Barring a constitutional amendment stating exactly such, I don’t see how it would hold up in any court of law.
Again, if the law calls them different things, then they are not the same under the law. So you run into the same problem as SBE: two things that you are trying to convince everyone are equal, in point of fact aren’t and, due to the discriminatory nature of the law, can’t be.
Good. Now, apply the analogy. :rolleyes:
Just like marriage and civil unions. :rolleyes:
The “equal” part was what humans call a lie. :rolleyes:
OK, here’s a term for it: Opposite Sex Marriage. Go ahead and use it all you like.
The question was about what’s outside that realm, shitforbrains. How about an honest answer, if you know what that word even means.
So… I may not have this correct, but is the “not SBE” plan for marriage and civil unions to change every single law that references “marriage” to referencing “marriage or civil union”? Is that how it will be one set of laws with no possibility for variance in treatment between the two groups?
No. Please proceed (he asked, pretending that this is an entirely unique argument that he hasn’t heard ever before)…