| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/14/2013 04:06:49 PM · #6201 |
Apparently nobody picked up my sarcasm. I have to respond to the below comment though.
Originally posted by mike_311:
These arguments get old. You know exactly why two men or two women want to have their marriages recognized. Quit using your religious beliefs as guise over your inability to accept something different than you. The definition of a relationship is blatantly obvious. what isn't defined is who we all believe should able to partake in them, which should be everyone.
If Jesus can accept everyone, why the hell can't his followers? |
First of all, I do accept everyone like Jesus. Second, you are missing the point of the gay rights movement completely. The gay rights movement is not about defining who can be able to partake in a particular relationship. It is about defining who is able to possess certain rights. The fact that so many gay rights activists define the problem using the same language you just used (i.e., it's about defining who can partake in a particular relationship) is exactly what complicates the problem. When you say that, religious people get all uppity because you're making it sound like you want to redefine marriage, while in reality you only want to redefine the rights of gay couples.
The other thing you said that complicates the whole thing is "acceptance." Gay rights activists make the movement about "acceptance." Stop making it worse. This has nothing to do with acceptance. It has everything to do with rights and equality under the law. You're not fighting for acceptance, you're fighting for equality. But when you say that your fighting for acceptance, then you end up calling all your opponents horrible names like "bigot" and you just make more enemies for yourself. Again, stop making it worse.
I firmly believe that if gay rights activists kept their rhetoric in check they would already have equal rights under the law. But the gay rights activists have used wild and careless rhetoric, making the gay rights movement about something that it has nothing to do with (i.e., "acceptance"). Your wild and careless rhetoric has worked against you. It has multiplied your enemies and prolonged your battle for equal rights under the law. What is it that you really want? What are you really fighting for? If it's equal rights under the law that you want, then why are you fighting a battle of acceptance? Reorganize yourselves, keep your rhetoric in check, and refocus yourselves on your goal of equal rights. Stop making enemies for yourselves by fighting the acceptance battle and calling your opponents bigots.
Or don't... and force the battle to rage on and on and make yourselves suffer even longer. It's up to you. It's your movement. Stop redefining it. Keep it about equal rights and you'll win. |
|
|
|
04/14/2013 05:30:39 PM · #6202 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Keep it about equal rights and you'll win. |
Don't look now johnny, but they are gaining on you.
Check the stats and you will note that acceptance of gay marriage is on the rise and becoming law in more and more countries. It has been law in Canada since 2004 and surprisingly, not unlike other countries, society has not disintegrated... Imagine that.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/14/2013 09:34:12 PM · #6203 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Or don't... and force the battle to rage on and on and make yourselves suffer even longer. |
That's about the least sensitive statement I've ever seen in one of these rant threads. Blows me away. And this whole distinction between "acceptance" and "rights" is bogus...
Message edited by author 2013-04-14 21:38:28. |
|
|
|
04/15/2013 12:17:30 AM · #6204 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Or don't... and force the battle to rage on and on and make yourselves suffer even longer. |
That's about the least sensitive statement I've ever seen in one of these rant threads. Blows me away. And this whole distinction between "acceptance" and "rights" is bogus... |
Well I wasn't trying to be insensitive. My apologies for coming across that way. I was simply acknowledging the fact that gay couples have endured a lot of suffering in this country and expressing my opinion that if the gay rights activists lose focus then they will prolong their suffering. After re-reading what I wrote, I see that it doesn't have the best tone, but that was completely unintentional.
Is the distinction really that bogus? Legislation can force others to acknowledge a gay couple's rights, but legislation cannot force others to accept a gay couple's lifestyle. Even when gay marriage is signed into law there will still be people who personally refuse to "accept" gay marriage, even if they are forced to acknowledge it under the law. |
|
|
|
04/15/2013 06:19:22 AM · #6205 |
This weekend good old Catholic Ireland took some major steps towards legalising gay marriage. It will need a change to the Constitution, which will mean a referendum being put to the citizens.
The constitutional convention voted 79% in favour of progressing to the next stage, 19% against, and 2% abstained.
One of the closing arguments;
//www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/cheers-and-tears-from-gay-rights-activists-as-convention-votes-for-same-sex-marriage-1.1360712
Fine Gael’s Jerry Buttimer and John Lyons of Labour, both of whom are gay – won applause for their raw, heartfelt speeches.
"We can call it what we want, but refusing to allow same-sex couples to marry through the eyes of the State is discrimination," said Lyons to a silent hall.
"The blood that flows through my veins is the same as the blood that flows through anybody else̢۪s veins. And to treat me differently because of who I sleep with at the end of the day, or who I choose to say I love is a form of discrimination. And a State that allows that to happen is not a State that I think I would like to bring people into or be proud of."
Message edited by author 2013-04-15 06:26:01. |
|
|
|
04/15/2013 07:09:59 AM · #6206 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Is the distinction really that bogus? Legislation can force others to acknowledge a gay couple's rights, but legislation cannot force others to accept a gay couple's lifestyle. Even when gay marriage is signed into law there will still be people who personally refuse to "accept" gay marriage, even if they are forced to acknowledge it under the law. |
no it isn't, as long as people aren't forced to legally recognize gay marriage, they wont accept it either. Once legislation passes they will be forced to accept it as well as acknowledge it. No one will ever make them partake in it, so i'm not sure what it is they are unwilling to accept. |
|
|
|
04/15/2013 08:47:49 AM · #6207 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Or don't... and force the battle to rage on and on and make yourselves suffer even longer. |
That's about the least sensitive statement I've ever seen in one of these rant threads. Blows me away. And this whole distinction between "acceptance" and "rights" is bogus... |
Well I wasn't trying to be insensitive. My apologies for coming across that way. I was simply acknowledging the fact that gay couples have endured a lot of suffering in this country and expressing my opinion that if the gay rights activists lose focus then they will prolong their suffering. After re-reading what I wrote, I see that it doesn't have the best tone, but that was completely unintentional.
Is the distinction really that bogus? Legislation can force others to acknowledge a gay couple's rights, but legislation cannot force others to accept a gay couple's lifestyle. Even when gay marriage is signed into law there will still be people who personally refuse to "accept" gay marriage, even if they are forced to acknowledge it under the law. |
I hear what you're saying, but it's important that you realize how bad it sounds to tell a class of people who have been persecuted for a long time that they are bringing it on themselves, no matter how the statement's hedged, is just not gonna work.
As for the "bogus" distinction, It seems to me you're stating it backwards above: the "lifestyle" is ALREADY being accepted more and more widely, to the point where it's generally acknowledged not to BE a lifestyle but, rather, a matter of gender identity (or however we'd phrase it); the sticking point is to bring the law of the land into conformity with enlightened awareness of human rights. |
|
|
|
04/15/2013 02:09:56 PM · #6208 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Is the distinction really that bogus? Legislation can force others to acknowledge a gay couple's rights, but legislation cannot force others to accept a gay couple's lifestyle. Even when gay marriage is signed into law there will still be people who personally refuse to "accept" gay marriage, even if they are forced to acknowledge it under the law. |
no it isn't, as long as people aren't forced to legally recognize gay marriage, they wont accept it either. Once legislation passes they will be forced to accept it as well as acknowledge it. No one will ever make them partake in it, so i'm not sure what it is they are unwilling to accept. |
I'm not really sure either.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I hear what you're saying, but it's important that you realize how bad it sounds to tell a class of people who have been persecuted for a long time that they are bringing it on themselves, no matter how the statement's hedged, is just not gonna work. |
Yes. I admit that it sounded bad. But I wasn't saying that the persecuted people have been bringing it on themselves. What I tried to say was that if they lose their focus and start aiming for different goals, then that distraction will probably cause the gay rights battle to be drawn out even longer, which will effectively prolong their suffering.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
As for the "bogus" distinction, It seems to me you're stating it backwards above: the "lifestyle" is ALREADY being accepted more and more widely, to the point where it's generally acknowledged not to BE a lifestyle but, rather, a matter of gender identity (or however we'd phrase it); the sticking point is to bring the law of the land into conformity with enlightened awareness of human rights. |
It depends on what perspective you have. The "liberals" in this country do already accept/approve gay couples and they want to bring the law of the land into conformity with that view, as you say. The "conservatives," on the other hand, do not accept/approve gay couples so there is no desire to create laws for something that is unacceptable/unapproved.
This, again, takes us back to the issue of focus. Is it really that shocking that the liberals are pushing the envelope of human rights and the conservatives are slow to catch up? Is that not the trend that has been followed by the Democratic and Republican parties in this country for decades? It is simply the nature of American politics. Republicans and conservatives are not bigots, hypocrites, and homophobes. They are simply being conservatives! But when the gay rights activists start labeling the conservatives as bigots, hypocrites, and homophobes, they create enemies of their movement and make it more difficult for themselves to reach their goal. If the gay rights movement was only about equal rights under the law, then it probably would be over with by now. Unfortunately, the gay rights movement has been turned into a battle for equal rights as well as a campaign to force the "bigots" into giving approval to the gay lifestyle. So much energy and resources have been pumped into the crusade against conservative philosophy that the gay rights movement has lost it's focus. They're attacking on too many fronts instead of going hard after one goal with all of their resources. |
|
|
|
04/15/2013 05:52:10 PM · #6209 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
[quote=johnnyphoto]... If the gay rights movement was only about equal rights under the law, then it probably would be over with by now... |
... and of just how is this transpiring exactly?
I am quite certain that equality under the law would be greatly appreciated by the gay community and that they truly do not give a damn about your approval relative to their lifestyle.
It is absolutely beyond comprehension that you would be so intolerant of something that has absolutely no impact whatsoever on your own lifestyle. I personally don't have a great liking for people who knock on my door to preach to me on the weekends, but I most certainly don't try to stop them from pursuing their beliefs because...that part of the equation has no impact on my life...
I do hope you can you appreciate the distinction.
Ray
Message edited by author 2013-04-15 17:53:33. |
|
|
|
04/17/2013 12:57:33 PM · #6210 |
Legalised in New Zealand today.
Here's the current state of play;
 |
|
|
|
04/17/2013 02:22:01 PM · #6211 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Unfortunately, the gay rights movement has been turned into a battle for equal rights as well as a campaign to force the "bigots" into giving approval to the gay lifestyle. |
That's got to be one of the weirdest perspectives on gay rights I have ever seen/heard.
Gay rights is about human rights, you know, the same ones you and I have when we marry, pay taxes, work, get health insurance, buy a house, etc.....
None of my gay friends give a rat's ass whether or not some "bigot" approves of their "lifestyle", which again, is not BEING gay in the first place. The gay lifestyle is about being recognized as being regular members of society like you and I.
I still have trouble understanding why that's an issue, much less hard to understand. And again......how are those two people over there getting married, be they old, young, white, black, gay, straight, or.........Canadian, affecting you, me, our respective spouses or significant others?
I have been in and out of the various gay rights and religious threads for most of the six and a half years I've been here and nobody yet has come up with an answer for that.
And it still isn't about acceptance, per se, it's about *NOT* discriminating against a whole segment of our society.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2013 06:18:59 PM · #6212 |
I wouldn't want to bet the house on this, but I do believe you are short a few countries.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/18/2013 06:36:15 PM · #6213 |
| JH's map is exactly right. France and Uruguay are also on the cusp of approving, probably within the next few weeks, and there is ongoing activity in 11 other countries. |
|
|
|
04/18/2013 06:40:38 PM · #6214 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I still have trouble understanding why that's an issue, much less hard to understand. And again......how are those two people over there getting married, be they old, young, white, black, gay, straight, or.........Canadian, affecting you, me, our respective spouses or significant others?
|
Wait, wait...Canadians are getting married now? Sheesh. What is the world coming to? |
|
|
|
04/18/2013 06:54:24 PM · #6215 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I really only entered to say that here we have a second lawsuit against someone exercising their religious conscience. IF they are liable then the takehome message is that if you object to gay marriage you better fight hard to keep it from becoming a reality in your state because if it does it WILL affect you. The argument that you shouldn't worry too much and just let the other people do what they want in their own little world has become obsolete. |
The problem with your argument is that it doesn't matter whether or not gay marriage is legal. Gay couples have been already been having "marriage" ceremonies for years, in churches, with pictures, cakes, dresses, tuxedoes, flowers, and the whole works. Making gay marriage legal doesn't change that, and it doesn't change the balance of whether or not turning down a photography (or flower) gig is discrimination. |
Your argument would hold more weight if you could show legal cases from more than a year or two ago involving "marriage" ceremonies... |
The New Mexico photographer case was from a lesbian committment ceremony. In New Mexico, where gay marriage isn't legal. |
|
|
|
04/18/2013 07:20:04 PM · #6216 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I wouldn't want to bet the house on this, but I do believe you are short a few countries.
Ray |
Well, it was a hotlink from this BBC article. I tend to trust the BBC for their background research a bit more than other media outlets. |
|
|
|
04/19/2013 05:38:39 AM · #6217 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I still have trouble understanding why that's an issue, much less hard to understand. And again......how are those two people over there getting married, be they old, young, white, black, gay, straight, or.........Canadian, affecting you, me, our respective spouses or significant others?
|
Wait, wait...Canadians are getting married now? Sheesh. What is the world coming to?
|
...they like to get married in warm summer weather though, so it's a very small window of opportunity, hence not that many marriages. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
04/23/2013 04:27:54 PM · #6218 |
| JH's map is now out of date. France is country #14. |
|
|
|
04/23/2013 04:54:41 PM · #6219 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
... hence not that many marriages. :O)
Ray |
For that matter, there aren't all that many Canadians ... ;-) |
|
|
|
06/26/2013 11:51:30 AM · #6220 |
|
|
|
06/26/2013 12:24:30 PM · #6221 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Guess what folks! |
Amazing news this morning,  Mousie.
Another nice headline and story
This is truly a landmark day in our country.
Message edited by author 2013-06-26 12:31:25. |
|
|
|
06/26/2013 12:34:08 PM · #6222 |
|
|
|
06/26/2013 01:23:29 PM · #6223 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Guess what folks! |
Yee HAW! :-) |
|
|
|
06/26/2013 02:02:37 PM · #6224 |
Originally posted by scalvert, 7/1/2011:
gay marriage will be federally recognized within 5 years, and more likely within two. |
Yup, two years. :-) |
|
|
|
06/26/2013 02:05:10 PM · #6225 |
| its what the people want so give it to them. |
|
