|
<< prev | goto page
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Message | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Post subject: Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 7:51 pm 
johnip wrote: Sure it has, but you're comparing two completely different things in my opinion. You can't say it's the same as making blacks and whites go to different schools, use different bathrooms, etc. That's stretching it a good bit. If the legal definitions and rights are the same, but it's called something else, what's the difference? i've been thinking this over, and this is what it all comes down to for me: who gets married for the “rights?” or really even knows what those rights are? or cares? nobody! people get married to have the status of being “married" — to be able say that, in the eyes of our society and government, they are not just a couple, but a married couple! — and that status is possibly the most important right the state can give a married couple, not the least! unless gays can have that, i almost have to ask “what's the point?” gays don't just deserve the same rights as straights, they deserve the same status as well, and that's where “seperate but equal” comes in: the problem with “seperate but equal” wasn't that, say, “black” drinking fountains were inferior to “white” drinking fountains (they're supposed to be “equal”, right?), but, rather, the very fact that there were both “black” and “white” drinking fountains! if we have both “straight” and “gay” marriages (or whatever), is it really that different? besides, if it's really all “the same”, then why make it something different? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 | Posts: 1126 | Location: Temple Terrace, Florida
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
   |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:26 pm
do not be afraid. wrote: johnip wrote: Sure it has, but you're comparing two completely different things in my opinion. You can't say it's the same as making blacks and whites go to different schools, use different bathrooms, etc. That's stretching it a good bit. If the legal definitions and rights are the same, but it's called something else, what's the difference? i've been thinking this over, and this is what it all comes down to for me: who gets married for the “rights?” or really even knows what those rights are? or cares? nobody! people get married to have the status of being “married" — to be able say that, in the eyes of our society and government, they are not just a couple, but a married couple! — and that status is possibly the most important right the state can give a married couple, not the least! unless gays can have that, i almost have to ask “what's the point?” gays don't just deserve the same rights as straights, they deserve the same status as well, and that's where “seperate but equal” comes in: the problem with “seperate but equal” wasn't that, say, “black” drinking fountains were inferior to “white” drinking fountains (they're supposed to be “equal”, right?), but, rather, the very fact that there were both “black” and “white” drinking fountains! if we have both “straight” and “gay” marriages (or whatever), is it really that different? besides, if it's really all “the same”, then why make it something different? That makes more sense.  I can see where you're coming from. I agree, I don't see what the big deal is with calling it the same thing. I just don't see it as such a big deal not calling it the same thing. Basically it comes down to the religious groups/politicians being the influence behind not calling it a marriage if you ask me.
And of course the great majority of people don't get married for the legal benefits. However, a good deal of the push for gay marriage is so that gay couples can get the same benefits/rights as a married man and woman. If it didn't all basically boil down to a rights issue, this wouldn't be a big topic in politics. _________________ 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 26 Jan 2006 | Posts: 2599 | Location: GA
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:32 pm
johnip wrote: That makes more sense. yeah, that's because i actually thought out what i was going to say before i said it, rather than just going with whatever i'm thinking/feeling at that exact moment! i should do that more often… |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 | Posts: 1126 | Location: Temple Terrace, Florida
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:43 pm
do not be afraid. wrote: johnip wrote: That makes more sense. yeah, that's because i actually thought out what i was going to say before i said it, rather than just going with whatever i'm thinking/feeling at that exact moment! i should do that more often… And use less bold and italics. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 12 Jun 2005 | Posts: 20735 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:52 pm
patrock wrote: And use less bold and italics. NEVER! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 | Posts: 1126 | Location: Temple Terrace, Florida
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:56 pm
do not be afraid. wrote: patrock wrote: And use less bold and italics. NEVER! Then you'll always be a babbling idiot in my eyes! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 12 Jun 2005 | Posts: 20735 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:00 pm
patrock wrote: Then you'll always be a babbling idiot in my eyes! and you'll always be a… no, i'm in a good mood tonight (for some random reason), so, i won't go there… or there… or whatever… anywho… i can't help but wonder who the members of Eisley are going to vote for (if they are going to vote!) i doubt they'd ever really chime in here on that, but it'd still be cool if they did, i think, maybe… |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 | Posts: 1126 | Location: Temple Terrace, Florida
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:02 pm
do not be afraid. wrote: patrock wrote: Then you'll always be a babbling idiot in my eyes! and you'll always be a… no, i'm in a good mood tonight (for some random reason), so, i won't go there… or there… or whatever… Yeah whatever. I knew that's how you'd respond! I was playin' around. I like to tease you about the bold and italics. Can't you tell? 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 12 Jun 2005 | Posts: 20735 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:13 am
do not be afraid. wrote: i can't think straight… rimshot! I think we're pretty much in agreement, BTW. _________________ chinese food makes me sick |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 21 Jan 2004 | Posts: 2901 | Location: Texas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:17 am
When I think of the whole Gay Marriage argument, for me what it boils down to is this: Would you deny black people rights just because they're black? What about if they were Asian? Or Hispanic? Muslim? Jewish? Women? Why should it be held against a person that they're gay? _________________ "I shall take the heart," returned the Tin Woodsman; "for brains do not make one happy, and happiness is the best thing in the world." |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 13 Apr 2007 | Posts: 1374 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:28 am
Mitt Romney suspended his campaign today at the CPAC convention. McCain will be the Republican nominee. Not sure how I feel about that yet. But with the democrats having a long fight ahead, at least the money advantage in the general election should favor the Republicans. I am not happy with some of McCain's decisions (co-authored laws) over the years, but he is preferable to Hillary or Obama to me. One question about this poll is why was Ron Paul included in this poll but not Huckabee? Neither is a viable candidate, but at least Huckabee has won a few states. Ron Paul gets about 6% everywhere he goes. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 17 Dec 2005 | Posts: 7525 | Location: Wisconsin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:19 pm
CUBSWINWORLDSERIES wrote: Mitt Romney suspended his campaign today at the CPAC convention. McCain will be the Republican nominee. Not sure how I feel about that yet. But with the democrats having a long fight ahead, at least the money advantage in the general election should favor the Republicans. I am not happy with some of McCain's decisions (co-authored laws) over the years, but he is preferable to Hillary or Obama to me.
One question about this poll is why was Ron Paul included in this poll but not Huckabee? Neither is a viable candidate, but at least Huckabee has won a few states. Ron Paul gets about 6% everywhere he goes. Woops. _________________ the thrill of Hope... the weary world rejoices. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 16 Jan 2005 | Posts: 861 | Location: Yawr!, KS
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 4:33 pm
do not be afraid. wrote: i've been thinking this over, and this is what it all comes down to for me: who gets married for the “rights?” or really even knows what those rights are? or cares? nobody! people get married to have the status of being “married" — to be able say that, in the eyes of our society and government, they are not just a couple, but a married couple! — and that status is possibly the most important right the state can give a married couple, not the least! unless gays can have that, i almost have to ask “what's the point?” gays don't just deserve the same rights as straights, they deserve the same status as well, and that's where “seperate but equal” comes in: the problem with “seperate but equal” wasn't that, say, “black” drinking fountains were inferior to “white” drinking fountains (they're supposed to be “equal”, right?), but, rather, the very fact that there were both “black” and “white” drinking fountains! if we have both “straight” and “gay” marriages (or whatever), is it really that different?
besides, if it's really all “the same”, then why make it something different? I think you're right, nobody gets married just for the rights. My mother works with quite a few gay people, the majority of whom consider themselves "married." They've had ceremonies (even religious ones), celebrate anniversaries, wear wedding rings, the whole nine yards. Their status as gay-and-married is well known to society, so that's not the problem. What remains the issue is how the government sees that union, I agree. I just don't personally see why getting all the rights that are so deserved, even if it comes under the name of "civil union" could be considered wrong. Your stance on the terminology is nothing more than semantics; you get offended that marriage isn't equal while there are many people across the country who believe that the term has a set, holy meaning and don't think it's something that should be equal. I don't see the word debate being compromised any time soon, so I personally think that allowing civil unions is a necessity so that while you and everyone else fight about whether it should be called "marriage" or not the gay couples across the country can sit back and enjoy their rights, regardless of what name they go by. _________________ 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2006 | Posts: 1419 | Location: Maine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:56 pm
Mooncutter: i'm not saying that i'd oppose any law that gives those rights to gays — not at all — just that unless it's legally defined as “marriage”, well, it'd be incomplete at best. i don't think that anyone can say they're for “gay rights” unless they're for truly equal rights, and to me that means marriages, not “civil unions.” it may be semantics, yes, but the word “marriage” means a lot more to people than just letters or syllables, and that's why legalizing “gay marriage” will be so hard, but it's also why it has to happen! for some a “civil union” may be enough, for others maybe even a non-legally binding “marriage” will be enough, or even just living together, but just because some will settle, doesn't mean they should have to settle. how can you really support a candidate on the issue of “gay rights” if they're not actually willing to go all the way, fight the hard fights, and at least try to get what needs to be done, done?! i don't know… i just can't. how did this issue — which will probably be a complete nonissue in the next four years — end up taking up basically every other post in this topic? yes, yes, i know: me! but, beyond that, why aren't we debating the war, the economy, and whether Mitt Romney is an $#@!, or just has his head shoved too far up his $#@!? speaking of Mitt Romney: when i found out he had decided to get out of the race, i cheered at the top of my lungs! he's the only Republican who would make me vote for a Democrat in the next election. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 | Posts: 1126 | Location: Temple Terrace, Florida
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Laughing City Forum Index -> General -> Presidential Candidates '08
Page 6 of 6 << prev | goto page
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
