Support NeoGAF

[Fenderputty]

Why do we call heterosexuals, heterosexuals?That will answer your question.

That doesn't answer anything but shed light on your less than informed position.

 

[NullPointer]

Why do we call heterosexuals, heterosexuals?That will answer your question.

Not. at. all.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I said this in a previous post, but leaving gay marriage up to states’ rights is a cop out. It would still allow states like Texas and the rest of the south enact bigoted policy. The conversation needs to be a national one.

Maybe calling Paul's approach "bigoted" isn't totally fair, but I'm not seeing much of a distinction since it allows states to stay as bigoted and lost in religious legislation as they want to.

+1

 

[DeathbyVolcano]

Ah, Gabron doesn't disappoint. Move them goalposts, ugh

 

[v1oz]

No actually, it's more why do we call heterosexuals people and homosexuals homosexuals? That should clear things up for you.

Homosexuals are people. Very good people in fact. It's just some people refuse to change their old fashioned views.

 

[Devolution]

It's not a new term. It's existed for a very long time around the world.

It would be a new legal term to create a division in the definition of marriage that dictates heterosexual partnerships are different from homosexual ones. You still don't get it. There is no reason homosexuals getting married should be labeled with anything but "marriage." You cannot say the partnerships are the same and then divide them up with terms, it's a logical inconsistency. If they are truly the same partnerships there is nothing stopping anyone from declaring the partnerships "marriages" except for some people who want to single gays out as different. It's a form of discrimination to say "well they're equal but their partnerships don't deserve to be labeled the same."

 

[v1oz]

That doesn't answer anything but shed light on your less than informed position.

Explain yourself how am I less informed? By saying gay couples should have an identity they can be proud of.

 

[NullPointer]

Homosexuals are people. Very good people in fact. It's just some people refuse to change their old fashioned views.

OK. Troll confirmed. Moving on...

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

Why do we call heterosexuals, heterosexuals?That will answer your question.

I think that's a different topic entirely. Love is love, partnership is partnership. What is the issue you have with calling both marriage?

 

[Gaborn]

So you're okay if a hospital doesn't allow a gay man to see his sick husband?
Or a company that fire every person found to be gay?

Company, yes. PRIVATE hospital with absolutely no federal or state funding? Yes.

Again, we've been over this before. The fact that you guys are trying to attack my position with hypotheticals when you know where I stand is a bit annoying.

 

[Pollux]

Mine did too. By a judge in San Francisco city hall.

You don't have to marry in a church people. Where do you get these ideas?

Well for me, Canon Law says that I have to get married in a Church unless I get special dispensation from thee Bishop.

 

[Clevinger]

Because he doesn't advocate that they do so. That is, a bigot believes they SHOULD be legally treated as less, Paul is for providing the states maximum leeway. That is not a bigoted position although I grant it may or may not be a good one.

Then I fail to see how it's any different than Obama's previous position, which you say was supporting bigotry, if not bigoted itself. The only difference between their policy was that Obama was against states banning gay marriage, and Paul was and is perfectly fine with it.

 

[Weenerz]

I have even less respect for Obama now, not because he "supports" gay marriage (which I do, if that matters at all), but because he doesn't stand up for what he believes in, he constantly changes his mind. How do we trust someone that can't make up their mind?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

And on other issues? The drug war? Civil liberties? Foreign policy? Again, stop pretending that I'm a single issue voter. I think Obama's position NOW, TODAY is better than Paul's on gay rights but on just about everything else? Nope.



Because he doesn't advocate that they do so. That is, a bigot believes they SHOULD be legally treated as less, Paul is for providing the states maximum leeway. That is not a bigoted position although I grant it may or may not be a good one.

Where did I ever pretend you are a single issue voter? I said I don't care where you stand with Paul on other issues and I don't. On this issue you are just wrong. Paul is being a coward by putting the onus on the states. He is ok with the states banning gay marriage and he is ok with them not doing so. He is a limp leaf that refuses to take a stand. Obama may have been against gay marriage for some time but at least he took a position, not to mention that he has done more for gay rights than either Paul has ever done.

I have even less respect for Obama now, not because he "supports" gay marriage (which I do, if that matters at all), but because he doesn't stand up for what he believes in, he constantly changes his mind. How do we trust someone that can't make up their mind?

... I changed my mind too. Ask many here who knew me since 2008 when I was against gay marriage. I guess me changing my mind should be held against me too?

 

[Devolution]

Explain yourself how am I less informed? By saying gay couples should have an identity they can be proud of.

No one is proud of laws that discriminate. The hell is wrong with you.

 

[kame-sennin]

I said this in a previous post, but leaving gay marriage up to states’ rights is a cop out. It would still allow states like Texas and the rest of the south enact bigoted policy. The conversation needs to be a national one.

Maybe calling Paul's approach "bigoted" isn't totally fair, but I'm not seeing much of a distinction since it allows states to stay as bigoted and lost in religious legislation as they want to.

Yea it is. "State's rights" is a phrase that has consistently been used to provide cover for bigoted actions; slavery, anti-abortion laws, jim crow, and now anti-gay marriage laws. Further, if taking the state's rights position results in a predictably bigoted outcome, than those who advocate that position can certainly be called bigots.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

I don't think Paul's position is bigoted. I think its conservative--non-progressive. I don't see how people can fight this issue and not see the parallels to other civil rights movements over time.

 

[v1oz]

It would be a new legal term to create a division in the definition of marriage that dictates heterosexual partnerships are different from homosexual ones. You still don't get it. There is no reason homosexuals getting married should be labeled with anything but "marriage." You cannot say the partnerships are the same and then divide them up with terms, it's a logical inconsistency. If they are truly the same partnerships there is nothing stopping anyone from declaring the partnerships "marriages" except for some people who want to single gays out as different. It's a form of discrimination to say "well they're equal but their partnerships don't deserve to be labeled the same."

You are merely worried about a name. If they legally have the same rights, they are equal in all practical senses. Your human rights are what matter the most.

 

[Gaborn]

Then I fail to see how it's any different than Obama's previous position, which you say was supporting bigotry, if not bigoted itself. The only difference between their policy was that Obama was against states banning gay marriage, and Paul was and is perfectly fine with it.

Because Obama's public position was in support of civil unions. That's really the whole difference. When you support civil unions and you ADVOCATE that states and the government should adopt civil unions you are calling for a legally segregated system to be codified. And that is not acceptable.

 

[mannerbot]

Homosexuals are people. Very good people in fact. It's just some people refuse to change their old fashioned views.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here (in part because you aren't from the US and really just may not "get it") and suppose that you have been sincere in this thread. As such, maybe you're not naive but innocent. You should really try to get it through your head that while classifying things specifically may be neutral in a perfect world, these arbitrary divisions are loaded and created specifically to serve peoples' prejudices in this real, imperfect world.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Why can't we just call it marriage? It is bullshit.

" Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. -- "Letter from Birmingham Jail," April 16, 1963

Privelige. Power. Status. Wealth. It's a universal human flaw to cling to it all costs.

 

[Devolution]

You are merely worried about a name. If they legally have the same rights, they are equal in all practical senses. Your human rights are what matter the most.

More willfully ignorant bullshit that doesn't actually negate what I'm saying. If the two are truly equal why do they need separate names?

 

[Fenderputty]

Company, yes. PRIVATE hospital with absolutely no federal or state funding? Yes.

Again, we've been over this before. The fact that you guys are trying to attack my position with hypotheticals when you know where I stand is a bit annoying.

HAHAH ... I remember in a race realted thread where you claimed that the government shouldn't be able to control a companies right to segregate. That a company simply segregating would upset the free market enough to self correct.

You do stand by your ideals ... I'll give you that.

 

[Gaborn]

You are merely worried about a name. If they legally have the same rights, they are equal in all practical senses. Your human rights are what matter the most.

So you would have no problem if some state gave all straight couples civil unions and gay couples marriage?

 

[IrrelevantNotch]

lol @ Gabron. Too late? Too late for what? Do gay people no longer want to marry each other?

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

You are merely worried about a name. If they legally have the same rights, they are equal in all practical senses. Your human rights are what matter the most.

WHY are we calling them different things? And yes, it does matter. You are making a distinction between the two by giving them different names. Please explain, in words, why they have to be called different things, classified differently. Explain.

 

[Weenerz]

lol @ Gabron. Too late? Too late for what? Do gay people no longer want to marry each other?

Too late to be sincere. This is strictly for votes.

 

[Pollux]

" Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. -- "Letter from Birmingham Jail," April 16, 1963

Privelige. Power. Status. Wealth. It's a universal human flaw to cling to it all costs.

Wasn't he against gay marriage and homosexuality in general?

So you would have no problem if some state gave all straight couples civil unions and gay couples marriage?

This is an honest question, why can't we call all "marriages", whether gay or straight, "civil unions" with regards to the state? If everything was called a civil union and then people could call their civil union whatever they wanted, would that be a better solution than having civil unions for gay people and marriage for straight people?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Too late to be sincere. This is strictly for votes.

Do you know this for a fact? If so, please do show your evidence. When I went from being against gay marriage to for it, was that insincere too?

 

[Gaborn]

lol @ Gabron. Too late? Too late for what? Do gay people no longer want to marry each other?

It could have been beneficial in other states fighting for marriage rights. For example, instead of adopting separate but equal civil unions perhaps Illinois would have been more amenable to the views of its former senator and adopted same sex marriage.

 

[Weenerz]

You doubt a politician is doing this for anything but himself?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

It could have been beneficial in other states fighting for marriage rights. For example, instead of adopting separate but equal civil unions perhaps Illinois would have been more amenable to the views of its former senator and adopted same sex marriage.

Has Ron Paul ever come out in favor of civil unions? Has he ever come out in favor of repealing DADT?

You doubt a politician is doing this for anything but himself?

Do you have proof he isn't?

 

[ivysaur12]

Because Obama's public position was in support of civil unions. That's really the whole difference. When you support civil unions and you ADVOCATE that states and the government should adopt civil unions you are calling for a legally segregated system to be codified. And that is not acceptable.

Obama came out against every single anti-gay vote and constitutional amendment since he took office. He said while he supported civil unions, he had no problem with states legalizing same-sex marriage.

So...?

 

[btkadams]

Do you know this for a fact? If so, please do show your evidence. When I went from being against gay marriage to for it, was that insincere too?

out of curiosity, what did change your mind?

 

[speculawyer]

It could have been beneficial in other states fighting for marriage rights. For example, instead of adopting separate but equal civil unions perhaps Illinois would have been more amenable to the views of its former senator and adopted same sex marriage.

Well if we had only elected Ron Paul earlier we would now be living in gay marriage paradise.

 

[Gaborn]

Do you know this for a fact? If so, please do show your evidence. When I went from being against gay marriage to for it, was that insincere too?

Did you tell a gay group 16 years before you came out in favor of gay marriage that you REALLY DID favor it and then spend the next 16 years supporting civil unions? If you did my answer is yes, it was insincere when you re-came out in favor of gay marriage.

Ivysaur - opposing marriage bans is not the same as saying "I think Illinois should adopt marriage equality"

 

[KHarvey16]

The difference in the title is the WHOLE ISSUE. That difference represents everything! It is literally the entire fight for equality condensed into a single, quantifiable difference in letters. The inability to understand why calling a heterosexual relationship marriage and refusing to apply it to homosexual relationships may as well be used to define the phrase "missing the point."

 

[Gaborn]

Has Ron Paul ever come out in favor of civil unions? Has he ever come out in favor of repealing DADT?]

Yes, and in fact voted in favor of repeal. Facts, you know.

 

[Souldriver]

It could have been beneficial in other states fighting for marriage rights. For example, instead of adopting separate but equal civil unions perhaps Illinois would have been more amenable to the views of its former senator and adopted same sex marriage.

Uh, at this point it seems like you're actively searching for ways to make Obama's position seem worse than it is. It's definitely better than of the politician you support.

Are you really convinced about what you're saying in this thread, or is it because you feel cornered that you're defending that questionable first post of yours so vehemently?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

out of curiosity, what did change your mind?

It was a thread on NeoGAF actually. It was the thread involving Ms.California stating that she was against gay marriage during the Ms.America contest. Just talking to some folks in that thread, reading different view points, being shown statements by Coretta Scott King, etc.

Yes, and in fact voted in favor of repeal. Facts, you know.

...thats why I was asking you as I didn't know for sure...

 

[Talon]

The legislature is the path of the the majority. The courts are the path for the oppressed.

It's been that way for 200+ years of US history, and it will be the same for gay marriage.

I like Gary Johnson. He's Huntsman with less baggage and more humor.

Can't take Ron Paul seriously because he seems to ignore that currency control is an absolute necessity.

 

[way more]

Even though I support gay rights Obama's announcement actually makes me dislike him even more. I mean, to support something when already half the nation does, it's passe, he should try to be a trendsetter.

 

[Godslay]

Too late to be sincere. This is strictly for votes.

So what? Voting for him reaffirms the fact that you support same-sex marriage. Not voting or voting for Romney confirms the opposite. Is that too hard? Sincerity shouldn't really be a factor.

 

[Arment]

Too late to be sincere. This is strictly for votes.

That Nathan Fillion gif would work so well here.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Even though I support gay rights Obama's announcement actually makes me dislike him even more. I mean, to support something when already half the nation does, it's passe, he should try to be a trendsetter.

Name me another sitting President who has come out in support of gay marriage. Whats that you say about him not being a trend setter?

 

[Gaborn]

Uh, at this point it seems like you're actively searching for ways to make Obama's position seem worse than it is. It's definitely better than of the politician you support.

Are you really convinced about what you're saying in this thread, or is it because you feel cornered that you're defending that questionable first post of yours so vehemently?

I believe what I'm saying, and i was asked the question. The fact that Obama delayed voicing his support for marriage equality could have had all sorts of effects on efforts to achieve that equality on the state level. It certainly would not have guaranteed equality in all cases but are you saying it wouldn't have moved the needle in the state he represented for so many years coming as President and saying it?

 

[ivysaur12]

Did you tell a gay group 16 years before you came out in favor of gay marriage that you REALLY DID favor it and then spend the next 16 years supporting civil unions? If you did my answer is yes, it was insincere when you re-came out in favor of gay marriage.

Ivysaur - opposing marriage bans is not the same as saying "I think Illinois should adopt marriage equality"

But how is that ANY different than Ron Paul's position? When was Ron Paul going "I think Illinois should adopt marriage equality?"

 

[kehs]

You doubt a politician is doing this for anything but himself?

Obama is going to divorce Michelle soon and marry Joe Biden.

 

[Gaborn]

But how is that ANY different than Ron Paul's position? When was Ron Paul going "I think Illinois should adopt marriage equality?"

He wasn't, but he also wasn't calling for gay couples to be treated as separate but equal.

 

[btkadams]

It was a thread on NeoGAF actually. It was the thread involving Ms.California stating that she was against gay marriage during the Ms.America contest. Just talking to some folks in that thread, reading different view points, being shown statements by Coretta Scott King, etc.

that's cool! i'm glad the gay marriage threads have opened up minds rather than just cementing both sides with their prior beliefs.