More gay marriage discussion!

[RobinFinderson]

Really? Where did that come from? That's another conservative fixation that I just don't understand. Find any right-winger and it's guaranteed that they'll throw that out without any explanation or context.

No doubt. I sure hear a lot more PC griping coming from conservatives than I do from liberals. Calling someone a racist, or sexist, or homophobe is a decidedly un-PC thing to do. Yet when liberals call conservatives all of these things, the wussy conservatives get all worked up and demand that people stop hurting their feelings.

[byu71]

Slow down, you move too fast, you have to make the moments last.......I'm not trying to win anything. You aren't being led anywhere. You were the one that asked the questions, didn't you.

Your hypothetical wasn't on point. That is the problem. Perhaps you thought you were asking a tricky question by introducing public toilets and men and women being separate but equal (I still don't understand what you mean there). It may be a clever path, but I just don't see the comparison between being able to use a woman's bathroom and gays wanting the right to be married in lieu of a civil union.

This seems to upset you.

I am really not upset at all. I just don't want to get upset.

My hypothetical wasn't on point??? OK, I explain why I think it is and then you tell me why it wasn't, based on the fact people who think like I do have a lower capacity for understanding. However, I have the strongest desire to let you see how I think and accept that well meaning and thinking people can come to different conclusions. Be honest, that isn't your desire to understand where I am coming from. Your desire is to be the winner.

If I was mad, I wouldn't declare you the winner.

I am happy right now. I have been able to express my views and to this point haven't had the bigot card pulled on me.

[byu71]

Really? Where did that come from? That's another conservative fixation that I just don't understand. Find any right-winger and it's guaranteed that they'll throw that out without any explanation or context.

It is amazing that I really like you and I hope you have at least good feelings about me. Neither one of us can understand the others fixations.

[byu71]

No doubt. I sure hear a lot more PC griping coming from conservatives than I do from liberals. Calling someone a racist, or sexist, or homophobe is a decidedly un-PC thing to do. Yet when liberals call conservatives all of these things, the wussy conservatives get all worked up and demand that people stop hurting their feelings.

F-U Robin. Show me a conservative that gets all worked up.

[woot]

It is amazing that I really like you and I hope you have at least good feelings about me. Neither one of us can understand the others fixations.

Oh I do. There really aren't too many on here that I don't like (only maybe two that I can think of off hand). I do like to mix it up a little but no hard feelins.

[RobinFinderson]

I am happy right now. I have been able to express my views and to this point haven't had the bigot card pulled on me.

If someone did pull the bigot card on you, would you be upset? Would you feel that you had been maligned with inappropriate language? Would you wish for a society where such language would be discouraged?

Freaking wussy PC conservatives...

[creekster]

No doubt. I sure hear a lot more PC griping coming from conservatives than I do from liberals.

That is a brilliant insight. It's like saying you rarely hear liberals criticize liberals but you hear conservatives do ti all the time. Really?

[byu71]

If someone did pull the bigot card on you, would you be upset? Would you feel that you had been maligned with inappropriate language? Would you wish for a society where such language would be discouraged?

Freaking wussy PC conservatives...

No, I would just think the person calling me that was a prick. I have no problem though with someone doing that. I like to find out who the pricks are.

[Moliere]

Once gay civil unions are given all of these rights, what's to distinguish a civil union from a marriage? This is what I don't get about the debate from the side of those who are against gay marriage but support civil unions with full rights. But if you call the civil union a marriage...well...then they've crossed over the line. It then seems to be a question of semantics at that point.

The reality is that most of those who are against gay marriage are against civil unions with full rights of married couples. I just find it hard to believe that everyone is engaging in this fight simply to keep the definition of marriage as something between a man and a woman.

Let me ask the reverse. If civil unions give all the rights a marriage does, why still the need to have it called marriage?

In a way it's semantics. I view marriage as a religious rite, not a civil right. That's my view. A marriage would then be only performed by a church so if you get married in a church or by a clergy or whatever it is a marriage. Whether it is a civil union or a marriage you would have the same rights. The government could get out of the marriage business and deal exclusively with civil unions and it would seem that everyone could be happy then.

[RobinFinderson]

That is a brilliant insight. It's like saying you rarely hear liberals criticize liberals but you hear conservatives do ti all the time. Really?

That is not what I am saying. I'm not talking about the way conservatives complain about the PC movement. I'm talking about how conservatives are some of the biggest advocates of PC language. Specifically, PC conservatives hate to be tagged with decidedly un-PC labels like bigot, racist, sexist, homophobe, etc.

When liberals use those words to define conservatives, they are using broad brushes to inappropriately define a group of people, because the short-hand often speaks to the truth, and because it is useful. I hear liberals using this un-PC language more often than I hear conservatives using un-PC language, and I hear conservatives complain more often that they have been the target of language that unfairly portrays them as something they are not. This is the essence of the PC debate, and conservatives are at the center of trying to make certain un-PC words unacceptable in public discourse.

[TripletDaddy]

I am really not upset at all. I just don't want to get upset.

My hypothetical wasn't on point??? OK, I explain why I think it is and then you tell me why it wasn't, based on the fact people who think like I do have a lower capacity for understanding. However, I have the strongest desire to let you see how I think and accept that well meaning and thinking people can come to different conclusions. Be honest, that isn't your desire to understand where I am coming from. Your desire is to be the winner.

If I was mad, I wouldn't declare you the winner.

I am happy right now. I have been able to express my views and to this point haven't had the bigot card pulled on me.

I think foremost you need to drop this self-deprecation thing. If you truly consider yourself to be a knucklehead, so be it, but no need to keep bringing it up.

You initially asked why the desire for marriage vs civil unions. I gave an honest answer.

I do understand where you are coming from. You have stated that you don't think that men engaging in anal sex is normal. You also seem to suggest that in your mind, gays should be satisfied with civil unions, assuming that a civil union entitles them to all the rights and benefits that accompany marriage. Your viewpoint is not unique nor is it shocking. It is commonly held by a lot of people....both the homophobic aspect (anal sex is gross and that is what I think of when I think of gay people) and the legal aspect of civil unions vs marriages.

There is no "win" in this debate, so there is no outcome in this thread that would placate anyone, at least not imo. How does one "win" a gay marriage discussion on a message board? It is impossible.

You made a comment about men and women being "separate but equal." This makes no sense to me. I still don't know what it means and how it relates to the gay marriage discussion.

Anyhow, that is my take. I don't think this issue makes you a bigot. It does likely confirm that you are a homophobe, esp given your comments in this thread. But that is just my opinion. I am sure you do not consider yourself a homophobe...and really, that is all that should matter. If you can lift up that white sheet and look yourself in the mirror and be happy, then who am I to judge!

[Jacob]

Slow down, you move too fast, you have to make the moments last.......I'm not trying to win anything. You aren't being led anywhere. You were the one that asked the questions, didn't you.

Your hypothetical wasn't on point. That is the problem. Perhaps you thought you were asking a tricky question by introducing public toilets and men and women being separate but equal (I still don't understand what you mean there). It may be a clever path, but I just don't see the comparison between being able to use a woman's bathroom and gays wanting the right to be married in lieu of a civil union.

This seems to upset you.

I found his hypothetical on point. At least in my advanced con law class the liberal professor thought it important to discuss separate men's and women's bathrooms as part of the separate but equal discussion.

Men are prohibited from entering womens restrooms, and vice-versa and this is not seen as problematic like blacks being prohibited from white bathrooms, or gays from straight bathrooms. Or gays being denied the word marriage.

[Jacob]

That is not what I am saying. I'm not talking about the way conservatives complain about the PC movement. I'm talking about how conservatives are some of the biggest advocates of PC language. Specifically, PC conservatives hate to be tagged with decidedly un-PC labels like bigot, racist, sexist, homophobe, etc.

When liberals use those words to define conservatives, they are using broad brushes to inappropriately define a group of people, because the short-hand often speaks to the truth, and because it is useful. I hear liberals using this un-PC language more often than I hear conservatives using un-PC language, and I hear conservatives complain more often that they have been the target of language that unfairly portrays them as something they are not. This is the essence of the PC debate, and conservatives are at the center of trying to make certain un-PC words unacceptable in public discourse.

You have defined being un-PC as unfairly portraying someone as something that they are not. I don't see how that has anything to do with the PC debate. You are not using the same definition of political correctness as anybody else I've heard discuss it.

You complain that conservatives who don't think they are racists don't like being called racists. Big surprise! I'm guessing liberals who don't think they are racists also don't like being called racists. But again, that has nothing to do with political correctness.

[Moliere]

I found his hypothetical on point. At least in my advanced con law class the liberal professor thought it important to discuss separate men's and women's bathrooms as part of the separate but equal discussion.

Men are prohibited from entering womens restrooms, and vice-versa and this is not seen as problematic like blacks being prohibited from white bathrooms, or gays from straight bathrooms. Or gays being denied the word marriage.

Having one restroom would make taking my little girls to the bathroom so much less nerving. They hate going into the boys restroom.

[byu71]

I think foremost you need to drop this self-deprecation thing. If you truly consider yourself to be a knucklehead, so be it, but no need to keep bringing it up.

You initially asked why the desire for marriage vs civil unions. I gave an honest answer.

I do understand where you are coming from. You have stated that you don't think that men engaging in anal sex is normal. You also seem to suggest that in your mind, gays should be satisfied with civil unions, assuming that a civil union entitles them to all the rights and benefits that accompany marriage. Your viewpoint is not unique nor is it shocking. It is commonly held by a lot of people....both the homophobic aspect (anal sex is gross and that is what I think of when I think of gay people) and the legal aspect of civil unions vs marriages.

There is no "win" in this debate, so there is no outcome in this thread that would placate anyone, at least not imo. How does one "win" a gay marriage discussion on a message board? It is impossible.

You made a comment about men and women being "separate but equal." This makes no sense to me. I still don't know what it means and how it relates to the gay marriage discussion.

Anyhow, that is my take. I don't think this issue makes you a bigot. It does likely confirm that you are a homophobe, esp given your comments in this thread. But that is just my opinion. I am sure you do not consider yourself a homophobe...and really, that is all that should matter. If you can lift up that white sheet and look yourself in the mirror and be happy, then who am I to judge!

We are still great friends. Perhaps if I valued your opinion more on this subject, I would be mad or hurt.


Note: I edited my own post. I do value DDD's opinion, just not on this subject.