Your idea of "equality" is nonsense. Straight couples would have the right to be married. Homosexual couples would not.
Therefore; not equal.
Don't we already have equal marriage rights?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Perhaps if gay activists took the time to fight for recognition of civil unions in those particular states along with all the rights, it could very well happen since the majority is not against it.[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"] civil unions are not recognized in every state/country, marriage is. Thats why they want "Marriage" and not "Civil Unions"-Jiggles-
The problem is, the homosexual community shouldn't be fighting over this at all. The right to marry any consenting adult they are attracted to is a fundamental right that belongs to each and every citizen in the United States, and yet they are being unfairly hindered only due to their sexuality.
Why let a majority choose to hinder the rights of a minority?
It is not a right that belongs to every citizen. Marriage today is defined between a man and woman. Just because the majority is against gay marriage doesn't mean that they're against equal rights because a marriage in no way would be better than a civil union. It was a religious ceremony for hundreds of years. The state should have never gotten involved in the first place IMO.[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]It's different on a physical level. If the majority of the people weren't against it and there was no disenfranchising taking place, I would think that it wouldn't be wrong. That happened because blacks were looked down upon. I don't see another reason as to why that would happen.GabuEx
So you'd be fine with having "white" and "colored" drinking fountains as long as they both worked and a majority of people supported that?
I wouldn't be fine with it because I don't see any logic in it. However the validity in the legalization of it would be pure due to the fact that everyone would be treated the same and the majority(both black & white)was OK with it. Marriage today is defined between a man and woman and the legalization of gay marriage would send a message to some children about homosexuality that families are against. I'm not saying that the majority is always right, however the majority isn't saying NO to equal rights in this case.
[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"] No it isn't because half the black drinking fountains didn't work.LikeHaterade
Nitpicking his analogy doesn't solve any problems.
It is a valid point seeing as how people like to use the "separate but equal" argument that took place during the civil rights area when it was "separate and unequal." That wouldn't be the case pertaining to civil unions if gays fought for those rights.The rights of African Americans were still being unfairly supressed by the majority in the South, however. Not only did segregation hinder the rights of African-Americans, but it also gave power to Caucasian-Americans as well.
Tell me, if it was still the year 1953 and you, a white citizen, decided to drink from a "black fountain" and were caught, would you be in any trouble? Absolutely not. If you were a black citizen and drank from a "white fountain," however, then you would probably be sent to jail. This ultimately gave more power to whites over blacks and was hidden under the illusion of equality by telling the black community, "Hey, we aren't discriminating against you. See, we even gave you your own water fountains to drink from!"
The same exact thing is happening between hetoersexuals and homosexuals with marriage today, except that heterosexuals can marry whoever they are in love with while homosexual scannot. Again, however, it's just another case of "Hey, we aren't discriminating against you. See, you can marry anybody you want, it just has to be of the opposite sex!"
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]It's different on a physical level. If the majority of the people weren't against it and there was no disenfranchising taking place, I would think that it wouldn't be wrong. That happened because blacks were looked down upon. I don't see another reason as to why that would happen.GabuEx
So you'd be fine with having "white" and "colored" drinking fountains as long as they both worked and a majority of people supported that?
Yes, but we didn't redefine it to mean something other than between a man and a woman. mysterylobster
A redefinition is a redefinition, and allowing people to marry who couldn't marry before is as obvious a redefinition as you can get. If you're against the redefinition of marriage in general, you would have been against allowing interracial marriage.
What you don't want is specifically this redefinition.
^ This.[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"] Perhaps if gay activists took the time to fight for recognition of civil unions in those particular states along with all the rights, it could very well happen since the majority is not against it.LikeHaterade
The problem is, the homosexual community shouldn't be fighting over this at all. The right to marry any consenting adult they are attracted to is a fundamental right that belongs to each and every citizen in the United States, and yet they are being unfairly hindered only due to their sexuality.
Why let a majority choose to hinder the rights of a minority?
It is not a right that belongs to every citizen. Marriage today is defined between a man and woman. Just because the majority is against gay marriage doesn't mean that they're against equal rights because a marriage in no way would be better than a civil union. It was a religious ceremony for hundreds of years. The state should have never gotten involved in the first place IMO.Should'a... could'a... the fact of the matter is, the government DID get involved and have been involved for as long as marriage existed in the United States (in other words, since the very beginning). Married couples are given tax exempts, health benefits, and many other special privileges that civil unions do not. Denying a homosexual couple the right to get married just because "religion says it's between a man and a woman" is in direct violation of the separation of church & state and is only a weak excuse to force the religious views of one person down another person's throat.
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]It is a valid point seeing as how people like to use the "separate but equal" argument that took place during the civil rights area when it was "separate and unequal." That wouldn't be the case pertaining to civil unions if gays fought for those rights.
Nitpicking his analogy doesn't solve any problems.
-Jiggles-
The rights of African Americans were still being unfairly supressed by the majority in the South, however. Not only did segregation hinder the rights of African-Americans, but it also gave power to Caucasian-Americans as well.
Tell me, if it was still the year 1953 and you, a white citizen, decided to drink from a "black fountain" and were caught, would you be in any trouble? Absolutely not. If you were a black citizen and drank from a "white fountain," however, then you would probably be sent to jail. This ultimately gave more power to whites over blacks and was hidden under the illusion of equality by telling the black community, "Hey, we aren't discriminating against you. See, we even gave you your own water fountains to drink from!"
The same exact thing is happening between hetoersexuals and homosexuals with marriage today, except that heterosexuals can marry whoever they are in love with while homosexual scannot. Again, however, it's just another case of "Hey, we aren't discriminating against you. See, you can marry anybody you want, it just has to be of the opposite sex!"
The more important issue here are the rights and legal benefits for gay couples. Again, marriage is no better than a civil union. There weren't any alternative means of achieving equal rights during the civil rights era for blacks as there is now for gays. One of the core arguments for gay activists is that they don't recieve equal rights. Fight for those rights instead of marriage and you have a really good chance at recieving them.What you don't want is specifically this redefinition.Yes, I'm specifically opposed to redefining marriage as something other than a union of a man and a woman.GabuEx
Except for the fact that the supreme court has already declared "separate but equal" to be unconstitutional. That kind of throws a wrench into the legality argument.I wouldn't be fine with it because I don't see any logic in it. However the validity in the legalization of it would be pure due to the fact that everyone would be treated the same and the majority(both black & white)was OK with it. Marriage today is defined between a man and woman and the legalization of gay marriage would send a message to some children about homosexuality that families are against. I'm not saying that the majority is always right, however the majority isn't saying NO to equal rights in this case.
LikeHaterade
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]It is not a right that belongs to every citizen. Marriage today is defined between a man and woman. Just because the majority is against gay marriage doesn't mean that they're against equal rights because a marriage in no way would be better than a civil union. It was a religious ceremony for hundreds of years. The state should have never gotten involved in the first place IMO.
The problem is, the homosexual community shouldn't be fighting over this at all. The right to marry any consenting adult they are attracted to is a fundamental right that belongs to each and every citizen in the United States, and yet they are being unfairly hindered only due to their sexuality.
Why let a majority choose to hinder the rights of a minority?
-Jiggles-
Should'a... could'a... the fact of the matter is, the government DID get involved and have been involved for as long as marriage existed in the United States (in other words, since the very beginning). Married couples are given tax exempts, health benefits, and many other special privileges that civil unions do not. Denying a homosexual couple the right to get married just because "religion says it's between a man and a woman" is in direct violation of the separation of church & state and is only a weak excuse to force the religious views of one person down another person's throat.
Exactly! It did get involved. So lets improvise a little bit so that gay couples may receive equal rights as do married couples through civil unions. If this happened, everyone would be treated equal, and civil unions would be no better than marriages.[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"]Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman, not a man and whomever that man desires.mysterylobsterWell 40 years ago it was defined in many states as the union of a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman, so by that metric we've already redefined marriage. Yes, but we didn't redefine it to mean something other than between a man and a woman. Why?
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]Except for the fact that the supreme court has already declared "separate but equal" to be unconstitutional. That kind of throws a wrench into the legality argument. Well that's sort of understandable due to past events that took place on a physical level. I don't see the problem with marriages and civil unions existing for straight and gay couples and they both give the same rights and legal benefits.I wouldn't be fine with it because I don't see any logic in it. However the validity in the legalization of it would be pure due to the fact that everyone would be treated the same and the majority(both black & white)was OK with it. Marriage today is defined between a man and woman and the legalization of gay marriage would send a message to some children about homosexuality that families are against. I'm not saying that the majority is always right, however the majority isn't saying NO to equal rights in this case.
GabuEx
Yes, I'm specifically opposed to redefining marriage as something other than between a man and a woman. So then the whole argument about "they want to redefine marriage" is off the table; you'll need to specifically argue against this redefinition rather than redefinition in general.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]What you don't want is specifically this redefinition.Yes, I'm specifically opposed to redefining marriage as something other than a union of a man and a woman. But would you agree to allow a gay couple who wants to be together to have the same rights that married straight couples are granted by the state? Because in marriage there are a lot of legal and property rights granted to couples. For instance my wife and I can file taxes jointly, we share property, she can visit me if I'm in the hospital etc...mysterylobster
Well, you don't, but the Supreme Court would, provided they're consistent with past rulings. If something is found to be unconstitutional, that means that the majority cannot tell the minority the way things are going to be.Well that's sort of understandable due to past events that took place on a physical level. I don't see the problem with marriages and civil unions existing for straight and gay couples and they both give the same rights and legal benefits.
LikeHaterade
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]Well, you don't, but the Supreme Court would, provided they're consistent with past rulings. If something is found to be unconstitutional, that means that the majority cannot tell the minority the way things are going to be. Ah, allow me to rephrase. I don't see why ANYONE including the Supreme Court would see the problem. "Separate but Equal" didn't even exist during the civil rights. Would you say that a marriage and civil union aren't actually "equal" if they both distribute the exact same rights and legal benefits?Well that's sort of understandable due to past events that took place on a physical level. I don't see the problem with marriages and civil unions existing for straight and gay couples and they both give the same rights and legal benefits.
GabuEx
[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]The more important issue here are the rights and legal benefits for gay couples. Again, marriage is no better than a civil union. There weren't any alternative means of achieving equal rights during the civil rights era for blacks as there is now for gays. One of the core arguments for gay activists is that they don't recieve equal rights. Fight for those rights instead of marriage and you have a really good chance at recieving them.The rights of African Americans were still being unfairly supressed by the majority in the South, however. Not only did segregation hinder the rights of African-Americans, but it also gave power to Caucasian-Americans as well.
Tell me, if it was still the year 1953 and you, a white citizen, decided to drink from a "black fountain" and were caught, would you be in any trouble? Absolutely not. If you were a black citizen and drank from a "white fountain," however, then you would probably be sent to jail. This ultimately gave more power to whites over blacks and was hidden under the illusion of equality by telling the black community, "Hey, we aren't discriminating against you. See, we even gave you your own water fountains to drink from!"
The same exact thing is happening between hetoersexuals and homosexuals with marriage today, except that heterosexuals can marry whoever they are in love with while homosexual scannot. Again, however, it's just another case of "Hey, we aren't discriminating against you. See, you can marry anybody you want, it just has to be of the opposite sex!"
LikeHaterade
Please re-read this part of my post.
This ultimately gave more power to whites over blacks and was hidden under the illusion of equality by telling the black community, "Hey, we aren't discriminating against you. See, we even gave you your own water fountains to drink from!"The same exact thing is happening between hetoersexuals and homosexuals with marriage today, except that heterosexuals can marry whoever they are in love with while homosexual scannot. Again, however, it's just another case of "Hey, we aren't discriminating against you. See, you can marry anybody you want, it just has to be of the opposite sex!"-Jiggles-
They are being denied the rights that should be fundamental to them as American citizens but are only being held back due to their sexuality alone, nothing more. Saying that they have the same rights is both right and wrong in a way: yes, they have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex; no, they cannot marry somebody of the same sex. The latter is what they are fighting for, the right of being able to marry those who they are attracted to.
Saying that homosexuals have the same rights because they can still marry those of the opposite sex is a weak excuse, because such is stated from a heterosexual viewpoint as "opposite sex = attractive." Homosexuals don't want to marry the members of the opposite sex, they want to marry those of the same sex because they are attracted to them. Please, think about this concept for a second.
[QUOTE="TheFlush"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"] Well that's sort of understandable due to past events that took place on a physical level. I don't see the problem with marriages and civil unions existing for straight and gay couples and they both give the same rights and legal benefits.LikeHateradeBut they don't give the same rights and legal benefits. Right, because gay activists are too busy fighting for something that the majority of the nation is against. I don't see why it would be hard to achieve it, especially if they aren't be hindered by the majority of the nation.Well if thats how our democracy worked, being anything other than protestant christian would be illegal. The rights of the majority and the minority must be made equal, otherwise no one's rights can be guaranteed.
Whats so wrong about same sex marriage anyways?metalmouth14
people have a hard time accepting soemthign that is different from them....
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="-Jiggles-"] The more important issue here are the rights and legal benefits for gay couples. Again, marriage is no better than a civil union. There weren't any alternative means of achieving equal rights during the civil rights era for blacks as there is now for gays. One of the core arguments for gay activists is that they don't recieve equal rights. Fight for those rights instead of marriage and you have a really good chance at recieving them.-Jiggles-
Please re-read this part of my post.
This ultimately gave more power to whites over blacks and was hidden under the illusion of equality by telling the black community, "Hey, we aren't discriminating against you. See, we even gave you your own water fountains to drink from!"The same exact thing is happening between hetoersexuals and homosexuals with marriage today, except that heterosexuals can marry whoever they are in love with while homosexual scannot. Again, however, it's just another case of "Hey, we aren't discriminating against you. See, you can marry anybody you want, it just has to be of the opposite sex!"-Jiggles-
They are being denied the rights that should be fundamental to them as American citizens but are only being held back due to their sexuality alone, nothing more. Saying that they have the same rights is both right and wrong in a way: yes, they have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex; no, they cannot marry somebody of the same sex. The latter is what they are fighting for, the right of being able to marry those who they are attracted to.
Saying that homosexuals have the same rights because they can still marry those of the opposite sex is a weak excuse, because such is stated from a heterosexual viewpoint as "opposite sex = attractive." Homosexuals don't want to marry the members of the opposite sex, they want to marry those of the same sex because they are attracted to them. Please, think about this concept for a second.
Wrong. They are being denied "marriage" due to sexual orientation. Not equal rights. I understand the concept, and IMO, the most important aspect of all is that those gay couples have the right to be together, and they receive the same equal treatment as married couples.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]Well, you don't, but the Supreme Court would, provided they're consistent with past rulings. If something is found to be unconstitutional, that means that the majority cannot tell the minority the way things are going to be. Ah, allow me to rephrase. I don't see why ANYONE including the Supreme Court would see the problem. "Separate but Equal" didn't even exist during the civil rights. Would you say that a marriage and civil union aren't actually "equal" if they both distribute the exact same rights and legal benefits? There is a reason why the the lawyers in Brown vs. The Board of Education weren't trying to prove that inequality existed between white and black schools. They were trying to prove that the entire CONCEPT of separate but equal was flawed. They argued, successfully, that separate but equal was INHERENTLY unequal. Hence, why Gabu is pointing out that Marriage vs. Civil Unions is not acceptable either because by creating a separate institution, a marriage-lite if you will, you are already treating gay citizens as a permanent underclass within society.Well that's sort of understandable due to past events that took place on a physical level. I don't see the problem with marriages and civil unions existing for straight and gay couples and they both give the same rights and legal benefits.
LikeHaterade
[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"] It is not a right that belongs to every citizen. Marriage today is defined between a man and woman. Just because the majority is against gay marriage doesn't mean that they're against equal rights because a marriage in no way would be better than a civil union. It was a religious ceremony for hundreds of years. The state should have never gotten involved in the first place IMO.LikeHaterade
Should'a... could'a... the fact of the matter is, the government DID get involved and have been involved for as long as marriage existed in the United States (in other words, since the very beginning). Married couples are given tax exempts, health benefits, and many other special privileges that civil unions do not. Denying a homosexual couple the right to get married just because "religion says it's between a man and a woman" is in direct violation of the separation of church & state and is only a weak excuse to force the religious views of one person down another person's throat.
Exactly! It did get involved. So lets improvise a little bit so that gay couples may receive equal rights as do married couples through civil unions. If this happened, everyone would be treated equal, and civil unions would be no better than marriages.Or we could take the justified course of action and simply allow homosexuals to get married. Even if homosexuals got all the benefits of a married couple through civil unions, the concept of segregating both groups based on sexual attraction is laughable. Again I say, blacks and whites, back in the 1950's, had their own fountains and stores; but does that make them equal? According to history, far from it.
Also, many countries around the world do not recognize civil unions, only marriages. If a loving couple (homosexual or not) go to a country that only recognizes marriages, then said couple will be having an extremely difficult time adjusting to the new environment.
[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]Wrong. They are being denied "marriage" due to sexual orientation. Not equal rights. I understand the concept, and IMO, the most important aspect of all is that those gay couples have the right to be together, and they receive the same equal treatment as married couples.They are being denied the rights that should be fundamental to them as American citizens but are only being held back due to their sexuality alone, nothing more. Saying that they have the same rights is both right and wrong in a way: yes, they have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex; no, they cannot marry somebody of the same sex. The latter is what they are fighting for, the right of being able to marry those who they are attracted to.
Saying that homosexuals have the same rights because they can still marry those of the opposite sex is a weak excuse, because such is stated from a heterosexual viewpoint as "opposite sex = attractive." Homosexuals don't want to marry the members of the opposite sex, they want to marry those of the same sex because they are attracted to them. Please, think about this concept for a second.
LikeHaterade
That is what I have been arguing over this whole time. Are you even paying attention to what I'm posting?
And what do you find that justifies segregating marriage between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Again, it's just another water fountain concept.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]Well, you don't, but the Supreme Court would, provided they're consistent with past rulings. If something is found to be unconstitutional, that means that the majority cannot tell the minority the way things are going to be. Ah, allow me to rephrase. I don't see why ANYONE including the Supreme Court would see the problem. "Separate but Equal" didn't even exist during the civil rights. Would you say that a marriage and civil union aren't actually "equal" if they both distribute the exact same rights and legal benefits?Well that's sort of understandable due to past events that took place on a physical level. I don't see the problem with marriages and civil unions existing for straight and gay couples and they both give the same rights and legal benefits.
LikeHaterade
What do you mean "separate but equal" didn't exist? Of course it did. "White" and "colored" fountains were one example. School segregation was another example. The argument made here is identical to the argument made for giving gays civil unions while denying them marriage: "You have access to the same things, so there's no discrimination!" Then they attempted to argue that to the Supreme Court and the judges said "Nope, you must provide everyone with the same opportunities".
The Supreme Court has already ruled on an analogous setup to marriages for straight folk and civil unions for gay folk, and they found it to be in violation of the constitution. The ruling was not that the shoddy state of the colored facilities made it unconstitutional; the ruling was that separate facilities were inherently unconstitutional, regardless of its state of disrepair.
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="GabuEx"] Well, you don't, but the Supreme Court would, provided they're consistent with past rulings. If something is found to be unconstitutional, that means that the majority cannot tell the minority the way things are going to be.Ah, allow me to rephrase. I don't see why ANYONE including the Supreme Court would see the problem. "Separate but Equal" didn't even exist during the civil rights. Would you say that a marriage and civil union aren't actually "equal" if they both distribute the exact same rights and legal benefits? There is a reason why the the lawyers in Brown vs. The Board of Education weren't trying to prove that inequality existed between white and black schools. They were trying to prove that the entire CONCEPT of separate but equal was flawed. They argued, successfully, that separate but equal was INHERENTLY unequal. Hence, why Gabu is pointing out that Marriage vs. Civil Unions is not acceptable either because by creating a separate institution, a marriage-lite if you will, you are already treating gay citizens as a permanent underclass within society.
nocoolnamejim
You're not treating them as an underclass because a marriage and civil union would be the exact same thing, but for 2 equal classes. I don't see inequality here. I see constitutional fairness and also a government FOR the people. Everyone is treated equal and everyone is happy.
You're not treating them as an underclass because a marriage and civil union would be the exact same thing, but for 2 equal classes. I don't see inequality here. I see constitutional fairness and also a government FOR the people. Everyone is treated equal and everyone is happy.
LikeHaterade
You don't see inequality there. But the Supreme Court certainly does.
That's the beauty of the constitution: you don't get to decide that something is equal just because you say so. :P
[QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]What you don't want is specifically this redefinition.Yes, I'm specifically opposed to redefining marriage as something other than a union of a man and a woman. But would you agree to allow a gay couple who wants to be together to have the same rights that married straight couples are granted by the state? Because in marriage there are a lot of legal and property rights granted to couples. For instance my wife and I can file taxes jointly, we share property, she can visit me if I'm in the hospital etc... Calling it something else doesn't change anything. When I say that marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman, I'm not arguing specifically on religious grounds. I'm saying what I think is best for the State. Everyone agrees that the line has to be drawn somewhere, or else everyone would be getting these benefits, and it would be meaningless. How do you legally draw the line once you include one group specifically because they have different sexual desires? That just gives others (polygamists, say) ammunition in their fight to redefine marriage.Darthmatt
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]Wrong. They are being denied "marriage" due to sexual orientation. Not equal rights. I understand the concept, and IMO, the most important aspect of all is that those gay couples have the right to be together, and they receive the same equal treatment as married couples.They are being denied the rights that should be fundamental to them as American citizens but are only being held back due to their sexuality alone, nothing more. Saying that they have the same rights is both right and wrong in a way: yes, they have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex; no, they cannot marry somebody of the same sex. The latter is what they are fighting for, the right of being able to marry those who they are attracted to.
Saying that homosexuals have the same rights because they can still marry those of the opposite sex is a weak excuse, because such is stated from a heterosexual viewpoint as "opposite sex = attractive." Homosexuals don't want to marry the members of the opposite sex, they want to marry those of the same sex because they are attracted to them. Please, think about this concept for a second.
-Jiggles-
That is what I have been arguing over this whole time. Are you even paying attention to what I'm posting?
And what do you find that justifies segregating marriage between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Again, it's just another water fountain concept.
I was correcting you. You said they're being denied equal rights in the post previous to mine which is false. They're being denied marriage. The meaning of marriage and what the majority believes it to be defines it for me.[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="GabuEx"] Well, you don't, but the Supreme Court would, provided they're consistent with past rulings. If something is found to be unconstitutional, that means that the majority cannot tell the minority the way things are going to be.Ah, allow me to rephrase. I don't see why ANYONE including the Supreme Court would see the problem. "Separate but Equal" didn't even exist during the civil rights. Would you say that a marriage and civil union aren't actually "equal" if they both distribute the exact same rights and legal benefits?
GabuEx
What do you mean "separate but equal" didn't exist? Of course it did. "White" and "colored" fountains were one example. School segregation was another example. The argument made here is identical to the argument made for giving gays civil unions while denying them marriage: "You have access to the same things, so there's no discrimination!" Then they attempted to argue that to the Supreme Court and the judges said "Nope, you must provide everyone with the same opportunities".
The Supreme Court has already ruled on an analogous setup to marriages for straight folk and civil unions for gay folk, and they found it to be in violation of the constitution. The ruling was not that the shoddy state of the colored facilities made it unconstitutional; the ruling was that separate facilities were inherently unconstitutional, regardless of its state of disrepair.
I was referring to the "separate but unequal" concept that I was talking about earlier which seems like a more proper term to be used because blacks were not treated equal in those times, and wouldn't take place through civil unions. You would have separate but equal on paper and no disenfranchisement because technically, marriages and civil unions would be the same.I was referring to the "separate but unequal" concept that I was talking about earlier which seems like a more proper term to be used because blacks were not treated equal in those times, and wouldn't take place through civil unions. You would have separate but equal on paper and no disenfranchisement because technically, marriages and civil unions would be the same.LikeHaterade
...Only, as I have said at least twice before, the Supreme Court ruled that having different facilities for different people is inherently inequal, and that it does not matter about the state of those facilities.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"] Ah, allow me to rephrase. I don't see why ANYONE including the Supreme Court would see the problem. "Separate but Equal" didn't even exist during the civil rights. Would you say that a marriage and civil union aren't actually "equal" if they both distribute the exact same rights and legal benefits?LikeHateradeThere is a reason why the the lawyers in Brown vs. The Board of Education weren't trying to prove that inequality existed between white and black schools. They were trying to prove that the entire CONCEPT of separate but equal was flawed. They argued, successfully, that separate but equal was INHERENTLY unequal. Hence, why Gabu is pointing out that Marriage vs. Civil Unions is not acceptable either because by creating a separate institution, a marriage-lite if you will, you are already treating gay citizens as a permanent underclass within society.
You're not treating them as an underclass because a marriage and civil union would be the exact same thing, but for 2 equal classes. I don't see inequality here. I see constitutional fairness and also a government FOR the people. Everyone is treated equal and everyone is happy.
It is treating them as undercIass."They can use a drinking fountain, but they can't use our drinking fountain." How is that anything other than treating somebody as lower than yourself?
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]You're not treating them as an underclass because a marriage and civil union would be the exact same thing, but for 2 equal classes. I don't see inequality here. I see constitutional fairness and also a government FOR the people. Everyone is treated equal and everyone is happy.
GabuEx
You don't see inequality there. But the Supreme Court certainly does.
That's the beauty of the constitution: you don't get to decide that something is equal just because you say so. :P
Well, my personal concept on this whole gay rights issue would not only give equal rights to gays, but also remain constitutional and wouldn't be against the majority. Again, this is just my personal concept though. :P[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]I was referring to the "separate but unequal" concept that I was talking about earlier which seems like a more proper term to be used because blacks were not treated equal in those times, and wouldn't take place through civil unions. You would have separate but equal on paper and no disenfranchisement because technically, marriages and civil unions would be the same.GabuEx
...Only, as I have said at least twice before, the Supreme Court ruled that having different facilities for different people is inherently inequal, and that it does not matter about the state of those facilities.
The state of the facilities do matter. They were worse for blacks because white people hated them. That was kind of obvious and was the reason behind the entire idea of it. It's completely different in this case.[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"] Wrong. They are being denied "marriage" due to sexual orientation. Not equal rights. I understand the concept, and IMO, the most important aspect of all is that those gay couples have the right to be together, and they receive the same equal treatment as married couples.LikeHaterade
That is what I have been arguing over this whole time. Are you even paying attention to what I'm posting?
And what do you find that justifies segregating marriage between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Again, it's just another water fountain concept.
I was correcting you. You said they're being denied equal rights in the post previous to mine which is false. They're being denied marriage. The meaning of marriage and what the majority believes it to be defines it for me.Yet the majority shouldn't be deciding on this at all, since it violates the fundamental rights of a select group of people in the United States, which is purely discrimination.
Quite frankly, the government doesn't care about what your religion or any other religion defines marriage; harsh, but true. This being said, the concept of not allowing homosexuals to get married because religion(s) define it as "between a man and a woman" is ludicrous.
Sorry, missed seeing this earlier. My reply is essentially what I said to Gabu: I'm going to keep mentioning this because I think it is a key point. The Supreme Court didn't just find that in the particular instance in question (the schools under review) separate but equal wasn't working. This wasn't something that was great in concept and just wasn't implemented well. They ruled that the entire idea was a bad one. That separate but unequal was inherently unequal because the very act of creating a separate institution for a minority class was discriminatory no matter how it was implemented.You're not treating them as an underclass because a marriage and civil union would be the exact same thing, but for 2 equal classes. I don't see inequality here. I see constitutional fairness and also a government FOR the people. Everyone is treated equal and everyone is happy.
LikeHaterade
[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]You're not treating them as an underclass because a marriage and civil union would be the exact same thing, but for 2 equal classes. I don't see inequality here. I see constitutional fairness and also a government FOR the people. Everyone is treated equal and everyone is happy.
LikeHaterade
You don't see inequality there. But the Supreme Court certainly does.
That's the beauty of the constitution: you don't get to decide that something is equal just because you say so. :P
Well, my personal concept on this whole gay rights issue would not only give equal rights to gays, but also remain constitutional and wouldn't be against the majority. Again, this is just my personal concept though. :PThe majority is not always right.[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] There is a reason why the the lawyers in Brown vs. The Board of Education weren't trying to prove that inequality existed between white and black schools. They were trying to prove that the entire CONCEPT of separate but equal was flawed. They argued, successfully, that separate but equal was INHERENTLY unequal. Hence, why Gabu is pointing out that Marriage vs. Civil Unions is not acceptable either because by creating a separate institution, a marriage-lite if you will, you are already treating gay citizens as a permanent underclass within society.Mr_sprinkles
You're not treating them as an underclass because a marriage and civil union would be the exact same thing, but for 2 equal classes. I don't see inequality here. I see constitutional fairness and also a government FOR the people. Everyone is treated equal and everyone is happy.
It is treating them as undercIass."They can use a drinking fountain, but they can't use our drinking fountain." How is that anything other than treating somebody as lower than yourself?
Well since you put it that way and if the majority of gays feel the same way, then civil unions should be made exclusive to gay couples.[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]Sorry, missed seeing this earlier. My reply is essentially what I said to Gabu: I'm going to keep mentioning this because I think it is a key point. The Supreme Court didn't just find that in the particular instance in question (the schools under review) separate but equal wasn't working. This wasn't something that was great in concept and just wasn't implemented well. They ruled that the entire idea was a bad one. That separate but unequal was inherently unequal because the very act of creating a separate institution for a minority class was discriminatory no matter how it was implemented. The reasoning behind the first separate institutions was because white people hated blacks. The reasoning behind this is completely different, therefor cannot be predicted by Congress IMO.You're not treating them as an underclass because a marriage and civil union would be the exact same thing, but for 2 equal classes. I don't see inequality here. I see constitutional fairness and also a government FOR the people. Everyone is treated equal and everyone is happy.
nocoolnamejim
[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]It is treating them as undercIass.
You're not treating them as an underclass because a marriage and civil union would be the exact same thing, but for 2 equal classes. I don't see inequality here. I see constitutional fairness and also a government FOR the people. Everyone is treated equal and everyone is happy.
LikeHaterade
"They can use a drinking fountain, but they can't use our drinking fountain." How is that anything other than treating somebody as lower than yourself?
Well since you put it that way and if the majority of gays feel the same way, then civil unions should be made exclusive to gay couples./facepalm "Well since you put it that way, and if the majority of blacks feel the same way, then black fountains should be made exclusive to black people!"You don't see inequality there. But the Supreme Court certainly does.
That's the beauty of the constitution: you don't get to decide that something is equal just because you say so. :P
Well, my personal concept on this whole gay rights issue would not only give equal rights to gays, but also remain constitutional and wouldn't be against the majority. Again, this is just my personal concept though. :PThe majority is not always right. And majority opinion changes over time. When laws against marriage between whites and blacks were struck down, something like 90% of whites and a solid majority of blacks was against it and thought it was a bad idea. I haven't seen a survey on the issue in a while but I don't think that the majority of people in the U.S. NOW think that marriage between whites and blacks should be outlawed.What you don't want is specifically this redefinition.
GabuEx
That's exactly what it is. We can make an exception about re-defining marriage when it comes to race, but when it comes to sexual orientation, oh no. We can't re-define it for that because... well, because we don't like homosexuality very much.
There's no rational reason to prevent two consenting adults from marrying. What it all boils down to is homophobia of both the religious and secular variety. It boils down to the elementary school attitude of not liking people who are different from you and following along with the majority in ostracizing people who are different from you.
The argument that sexuality plays no role in a romantic relationship and as such in choosing a life partner is absurd.
The state of the facilities do matter.LikeHaterade
No, they don't. At least, not as far as the Supreme Court is concerned. The Supreme Court ruled that the very idea of having separate facilities to be unconstitutional, not merely this specific implementation. I don't know how to say this any clearer.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]Sorry, missed seeing this earlier. My reply is essentially what I said to Gabu: I'm going to keep mentioning this because I think it is a key point. The Supreme Court didn't just find that in the particular instance in question (the schools under review) separate but equal wasn't working. This wasn't something that was great in concept and just wasn't implemented well. They ruled that the entire idea was a bad one. That separate but unequal was inherently unequal because the very act of creating a separate institution for a minority class was discriminatory no matter how it was implemented. The reasoning behind the first separate institutions was because white people hated blacks. The reasoning behind this is completely different, therefor cannot be predicted by Congress IMO. I'm not sure I see a difference in the reasoning here. The people who are against gay marriage, or at least the majority of them, are so because they hate gay people. Specifically, they think gay people are sinning against god's will and therefore allowing them to get married, in a church no less!, would be an abomination. Smells like hatred to me.You're not treating them as an underclass because a marriage and civil union would be the exact same thing, but for 2 equal classes. I don't see inequality here. I see constitutional fairness and also a government FOR the people. Everyone is treated equal and everyone is happy.
LikeHaterade
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment