You gotta be kidding. The “areas”—the front of the bus and the back of the bus—were viewed as separate but equal. There were, as you point out, TWO different areas. My idea has ONE. One set of laws, one bus, if you will, in which both groups enjoy equally.
Does not apply. See above.
Well…yeah. The colored and the whites had ONE bus, but two separate parts of the bus. Your proposal has one set of laws, but two definitions: marriage for straights and something else for homosexuals.
The set of laws is the bus, as you yourself say. Marriage is the front and the something else is the back.
No. If I need to spell out every step of the analogy to help you, here:
Groups A: Whites/Marriage
Groups B: Blacks/Civil Unions
Thing they access: Bus/Set of Laws
Easy, see? I’ll also point out that when the entire bus was made available to the two groups, they still had two labels: Blacks and Whites. The two groups here—people joined through marriage and people joined through civil union—would, similarly, retain their labels while enjoying to an identical degree the ONE set of laws.
This is another one of those times where your analogy proves the opposite of your argument.
I don’t think so. Please explain.
He’s actually doing a better job of presenting his argument than you are of yours. The need you’re showing to demonize the opposing viewpoint is obstructing your ability to understand it. mswas is trying to tell you that your order is backwards, the doctrine leads to the bigotry, not the bigotry to the doctrine. See your opponents as people first, and then try to understand how they got to where they are; after you do this, then you can try to change their minds instead of simply ramming something down their throats.
The idea that you would want to understand how a decent, caring human being would come to a conclusion that you find unpalatable seems to be missing. The goal here isn’t to prove who’s right; it’s to understand how and why people come to a certain conclusion. Arguing that the conclusion is bad may help understand where they’re coming from, arguing that the people who hold the conclusion are bad means that you don’t have to understand where they’re coming from.
The biggest issue I’ve had with gay marriage has been understanding how reasonable people could be against it. That someone is willing to present that point of view with out being incoherent or full of rage is of great benefit. I’d rather be able to understand my opponents than dismiss them as bigots.
Once again, I support equal rights. I’m for the exact same things Miller and others are, save the use of the word “marriage”.
Well, what if the designated white area of the bus was the back, while blacks sat up front? Separate but equal. What if gays get “marriages” but straights get “civil unions”. Separate but equal, no?
Why does the word still matter to you? Why do you insist on a different one for some? What good does that do? And what harm (Hint: There is some, as has already been explained)?
That is exactly what he is doing, by assuming a priori that gays are not quite the same as normal people, and wanting to continue to ram refusal of the rights that normal people have down the gays’ throats. I’m glad you too think that’s wrong.
And mswas has shown very clearly how that happens. If the result is not based on anything more than a desire not to let gays be considered normal people, even if phrased as continuing the “culture” and “mores” that allow that bigotry to continue to exist, that most certainly needs to be understood.
And yes, the goal IS to determine what’s right, and then to act according to that determination. Refusing to follow up on a conclusion, as you wish, would allow a wrong to continue. Why would we want to do that?
What if you DO understand, and can only conclude that that’s what they are? :dubious:
Even that practice has been illegal, based on the equal protection clause, as well as generally understood to be immoral, for a couple of generations now. What makes you think it would somehow be acceptable, either legally or morally, if applied today to gays?
Can you please cite the post where I said this?
Read: I don’t need to know why they think the way they do even though I am participating in a thread about the subject.
Perhaps you should re-examine the thread title.
But the fact of the matter is that you don’t, and what’s even worse, you don’t think that you SHOULD understand.
You didn’t say it directly, you’re not that foolish. But there’s no other way to parse all your euphemisms.
Oh, I do understand. You’ve made it quite clear.
Then show us something, anything at all, that can reasonably lead to any other conclusion. After all these pages, you have failed to show us anything but the mental process by which a bigot denies or excuses his bigotry. Granted, that’s informative in a way, but it is still not providing a “rationale” (as the thread title you ask ME to read says).
BTW, if you were really being just a “devil’s advocate”, you would not have reacted in such a petulant manner.
Wow. You’re actually arguing that this is a good thing.
Oh, so you’re psychic.
No you don’t.
To everyone besides you.
LOL
Petulant manner? I think you’re rather amusing and I have to keep reminding myself this is not the Pit so that I can keep my mirth in due bounds.
What practice? We refer to whites as whites and blacks as blacks. How is that illegal, or immoral?
Huh? See my previous post.
If there is no “rational basis” to draw a distinction, then it is a violation of equal protection. And that is what makes it immoral, too.
Let’s try approaching the analogy a different way - coloreds were permitted access to the very same railway stations, but had to use the rear entrance while first-class citizens could use the front. You want the same thing.
Now, can you try to tell us why you continue insist on a different word for married gays, even knowing now that there’s no benefit and some harm in it? You’ve been asked before.
mswas, my kids outgrew that “No, YOU are!” stuff by the age of 8 or so.
Segregating two classes of people. Separate but equal.
Let me try another way: Do you believe making the blacks sit in the back of the bus and not where they chose to sit was the right thing to do?
You’re using the term “separate but equal” in a way that has no relationship to what we’ve been discussing. You’re argument here is one of semantics. True, “marriage” enjoys largely positive connotations, while “civil union” is more of an empty vessel; a vessel to be filled with whatever the future CUers choose to fill it with. They will either earn the same positive connotations or they wont, as dictated by the passage of time.
Ironically, I think I have more faith in the associations becoming rather equal. I believe that gay couples joined through civil unions will quickly earn for the institution positive associations of their own, some of which will overlap with those of marriage and some that won’t. I believe the claim that posters have made, in this thread and others, that gay couples might improve the view of people entering into loving, long term relationships because they are less apt to enter into them as willy-nilly as some hetero couples.
Please, don’t be ridiculous. This will be my last response to you, as it appears that you’re not making any effort to read and/or understand what I’ve written. And what you’re talking about is just about labels—unless you think that being gay people are somehow “less”.
We divide people into groups all the time::
men and women
immigrants and natives
married people and single people
blacks and whites
democrats and republicans
New Yorkers and Texans
straights and gays
Jews and Buddhists
conservatives and liberals
4-year grads with BS degrees and those with BAs