First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Gay People Belong on the Back of the Bus!
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/24/09
Rosa Parks is a famous African American woman because she refused to give up her seat to a white person. You see, in that time African American’s were allowed to sit on the front of the bus. However, if a white person wanted their seat they had to move to the back of the bus. Rosa refused to be discriminated against.

A civil union serves the exact legal purpose of a marriage. Riding on the back of the bus will still get you where you need to go. But why should you have to go to the back of the bus when everyone else gets to sit up front? It’s not that it’s going to hurt you, but the principle still stands. It legitimizes prejudice against homosexuals. This is my opinion, what do you think? Am I the only one who sees the parallel?
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 7/24/09 , edited 7/24/09
Me and Ellen see it too.

If they want to give them something that's exactly the same as marriage but just not call it marriage, that's just very clear discrimination. For some reason their union and love is not worthy of the title of 'marriage', the same way blacks were not considered worthy enough to sit in the front of the bus.

It's something small and ridiculous that is used to degrade people.
Posted 7/24/09
wow i see it too i want to ride at the front of the bus one day, but i sort of understand why i should stay at the back.
Oedi 
8588 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 7/24/09
I'm pretty sure that the main problem here is that marriage itself was issued by the Catholic church. Thus the religious debate can begin. I personally don't think this is at the same level as the Rosa Parks issue. There is no civil discrimination here. You get the same right as everyone else but call it differently to accommodate the history and traditional meaning that marriage have for people. Thus the controversy.

Lets not compare one of the greatest civil rights moments to the name marriage. The fact of the matter is was that marriage was originally intended for a man and a women. I have friends on both side of the fence and i think that a replacement name for marriage decided and voted for by gay's instead of say civil union would be the best compromise. Most people i know who are against it don't have an issue with gays and lesbians having the same rights but strongly feel that marriage must be used in a traditional sense.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/24/09

Yei wrote:

Me and Ellen see it too.

If they want to give them something that's exactly the same as marriage but just not call it marriage, that's just very clear discrimination. For some reason their union and love is not worthy of the title of 'marriage', the same way blacks were not considered worthy enough to sit in the front of the bus.

It's something small and ridiculous that is used to degrade people.


Well, I’m not sure about degrading. That may be a bit strong of a word. But it is at very least trying to make a clear distinction. It draws a line and treats homosexuals like they’re ‘different,’ it’s separating people based on things outside of their volition. We’ve done this with race, sex, religion-now sexuality. I don’t like drawing lines between people like that. There shouldn’t be this separation. Sexual preference is not such a big deal that it should have such major implications on your life. In the sixties it was inter racial marriage. Now it’s gay marriage. Why are we separating people? It’s segregation!
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/24/09

Oedi wrote:

I'm pretty sure that the main problem here is that marriage itself was issued by the Catholic church. Thus the religious debate can begin. I personally don't think this is at the same level as the Rosa Parks issue. There is no civil discrimination here. You get the same right as everyone else but call it differently to accommodate the history and traditional meaning that marriage have for people. Thus the controversy.

Lets not compare one of the greatest civil rights moments to the name marriage. The fact of the matter is was that marriage was originally intended for a man and a women. I have friends on both side of the fence and i think that a replacement name for marriage decided and voted for by gay's instead of say civil union would be the best compromise. Most people i know who are against it don't have an issue with gays and lesbians having the same rights but strongly feel that marriage must be used in a traditional sense.


That same exact argument was employed in the Supreme Court Case of Dred Scott to defend slavery. Also, my parents were married ‘by the authority of the state of Washington,’ not the Catholic church. It was a government function. If an individual church doesn’t want to break its tradition that’s fine. But why extend that and subject everyone else to –their- interpretation when most of us don’t even agree with it anymore?
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 7/24/09 , edited 7/24/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Yei wrote:

Me and Ellen see it too.

If they want to give them something that's exactly the same as marriage but just not call it marriage, that's just very clear discrimination. For some reason their union and love is not worthy of the title of 'marriage', the same way blacks were not considered worthy enough to sit in the front of the bus.

It's something small and ridiculous that is used to degrade people.


Well, I’m not sure about degrading. That may be a bit strong of a word. But it is at very least trying to make a clear distinction. It draws a line and treats homosexuals like they’re ‘different,’ it’s separating people based on things outside of their volition. We’ve done this with race, sex, religion-now sexuality. I don’t like drawing lines between people like that. There shouldn’t be this separation. Sexual preference is not such a big deal that it should have such major implications on your life. In the sixties it was inter racial marriage. Now it’s gay marriage. Why are we separating people? It’s segregation!


I'd say it is degradation because it's saying they are not worthy of having the title of marriage, they get a 'contract.' If it was just segregation they would be getting the same thing but just separated some how, but gays are getting something less meaningful. It's like they're second class citizens if they can't even say they are married and have the same fulfillment added to their lives as everyone else who can.
4945 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / France
Offline
Posted 7/24/09
Well..
stupid
thoughtless
rude
waste of time
and pain in the ass
Gay people should be no different than straight ones.
I still dont see an issue with people who sleep with the same sex.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/24/09

Yei
Well, I’m not sure about degrading. That may be a bit strong of a word. But it is at very least trying to make a clear distinction. It draws a line and treats homosexuals like they’re ‘different,’ it’s separating people based on things outside of their volition. We’ve done this with race, sex, religion-now sexuality. I don’t like drawing lines between people like that. There shouldn’t be this separation. Sexual preference is not such a big deal that it should have such major implications on your life. In the sixties it was inter racial marriage. Now it’s gay marriage. Why are we separating people? It’s segregation!


I'd say it is degradation because it's saying they are not worthy of having the title of marriage, they get a 'contract.' If it was just segregation they would be getting the same thing but just separated some how, but gays are getting something less meaningful. It's like they're second class citizens if they can't even say they are married and have the same fulfillment added to their lives as everyone else who can.

They are getting the same thing. A civil union and a marriage are completely the same. They’re just separated by title. I don’t think most people want to degrade gays. Just extremists Muslims and Christians, really. And in places like North Korea or France during its revolution the extremist atheists and ‘naturalists,’ of course. But, maybe I'm wrong. Is there any way you can think of to test our theories?
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 7/24/09 , edited 7/24/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

They are getting the same thing. A civil union and a marriage are completely the same. They’re just separated by title. I don’t think most people want to degrade gays. Just extremists Muslims and Christians, really. And in places like North Korea or France during its revolution the extremist atheists and ‘naturalists,’ of course. But, maybe I'm wrong. Is there any way you can think of to test our theories?


Would you be happy enough with getting a "contract" instead of getting married?

It also means no official wedding. I would be pissed.
Oedi 
8588 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 7/24/09
The problem in the two cases is that slavery is a grave breach in human rights and the other is about naming a controversial government institution. (I agree that the church and state should stay completely separate) There is a significant discrepancy in the importance here. thus I can see the reasons. I said the origins of marriage. I know who gives out marriage licenses. If you ignore the origins of the word altogether it would ignore the people who actually do care about the origins of the word. Marriage itself has romantic and religious connotations. People feel that it is still a sacred institution between a man and a woman. This is from of course, Christian fundamentalists and Catholics and what not. Also people who grew up thinking marriage was always between a man and a woman and felt that it was a sacred thing. Obviously it is not so much anymore given the divorce rate of the 21st century. I mean if your gonna ignore that marriage was originally sanctified by the church and that all it matters is that the government has given the authority to give you guys "marriage" then why even bother calling it marriage anymore. It just lost its meaning and perhaps everyone can have a "civil union" instead. It's the same thing right?

I would have to disagree when you say "most of us" don't agree with it anymore. After the results in California that didn't allow gay marriage, which i naturally assumed was open to homosexuality ala. San Francisco i think that a lot of people do actually care a lot more then they let on but they know to keep it quiet because it stirs controversy and makes them look bad. This is perhaps a much bigger issue then one would think.

10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/24/09

Yei wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:

They are getting the same thing. A civil union and a marriage are completely the same. They’re just separated by title. I don’t think most people want to degrade gays. Just extremists Muslims and Christians, really. And in places like North Korea or France during its revolution the extremist atheists and ‘naturalists,’ of course. But, maybe I'm wrong. Is there any way you can think of to test our theories?


Would you be happy enough with getting a "contract" instead of getting married?

It also means no official wedding. I would be pissed.


Marriage is just a contract. It’s a contract with a pretty name.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 7/24/09 , edited 7/24/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Yei wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:

They are getting the same thing. A civil union and a marriage are completely the same. They’re just separated by title. I don’t think most people want to degrade gays. Just extremists Muslims and Christians, really. And in places like North Korea or France during its revolution the extremist atheists and ‘naturalists,’ of course. But, maybe I'm wrong. Is there any way you can think of to test our theories?


Would you be happy enough with getting a "contract" instead of getting married?

It also means no official wedding. I would be pissed.


Marriage is just a contract. It’s a contract with a pretty name.


Ok, so you would be fine with not being allowed to get married and having to get one of these unions. But I actually want to get married and have a nice wedding, just like alot of other people.

They're not on the same level of respect. I remember this gay guy on Oprah saying it's not even about marriage, they don't care if they'll get to be married or not, they'll still have meaningful relationships regardless. The issue is whether their relationships are considered to be less worthy or not.

Just the fact that they can't say they are "married," they have to say "we have a contract," that's degradation. They are not allowed to get the prettier status that marriage provides. That's giving their relationships a lower, less prettier status.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/24/09

Yei
Ok, so you would be fine with not being allowed to get married and having to get one of these unions. But I actually want to get married and have a nice wedding, just like alot of other people.

They're not on the same level of respect. I remember this gay guy on Oprah saying it's not even about marriage, they don't care if they'll get to be married or not, they'll still have meaningful relationships regardless. The issue is whether their relationships are considered to be less worthy or not.

Just the fact that they can't say they are "married," they have to say "we have a contract," that's degradation. They are not allowed to get the prettier status that marriage provides. That's giving their relationships a lower, less prettier status.


Nobody says homosexuals can’t have ceremonies. They simply saying they can’t get married, but I don’t see how that’s degradation. They’re not saying gays aren’t worthy, gays aren’t good enough, or anything like that. They’re saying that marriage wasn’t meant for that. Most people who’re against gay marriage are also okay with gays. These days most people have a gay relative or friend with whom they usually get along fine. Honestly, the only difference between a marriage and a civil union is the name. Both are contracts by the state. Marriage can be by the church, but it’s not acknowledged until you get the authority of the state. Even pastors have to register with the state before they’re licensed to marry people.

I don’t think it’s degrading not being able to say you’re married. I can’t say that right now, probably never will be able to say that. I don’t feel degraded, but I do feel separated. And in fact statistics and studies show that people are discriminated against for not being married. We get paid less but work more and are more likely to get scheduled to work on holidays; moreover, it’s harder for us to get days off. I can link you to the studies if you like.

That’s what we do with homosexuals. We’re separating them with titles so that we can target them. The separation itself isn’t the degradation. It’s what inexorably follows. In Plessy vs. Ferguson the Supreme court ruled that segregation was constitutional under the summarized ideology of “separate but equal.” Then in Brown v. Board of Education they concluded that it is simply impossible to have a nationally legitimized and industrialized separation without treatment varying.

So, yes. I think we degrade gays. I do not accept this postulate that’s why people are against gay marriage. I think they’re interested more in their tradition, and that’s their right. But, for me the cost of protecting this tradition is too great.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 7/25/09
I don't think homosexuals deserve civil unions. It isn't marriage and shouldn't be treated as such. They may have it be a committed sexual relationship between two men/women, but it isn't marriage and it isn't a family. Just a perversion with a commitment. Something that isn't marriage doesn't deserve marital rights.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.