Am I a bigot?

a reply to: American-philosopher

I believe that having thoughts and feelings does not mean you are a bad person as a result.

Being a bad person is based off of how you react to and handle those thoughts and feelings.

I told her that I want and I am for same sex couples having the same rights and benefits as hetrosexual couples.

Here, you clearly say that you are for these things. I am a little confused though as to why you would be for these things, yet not place your vote to make such things legal. I am not looking to put you down here, I am just a little confused.

Your friend, on the other hand, is purely looking to be confrontational and to stir the pot.

One of my best friends is a rather devout baptist. He is thoroughly anti gay rights. I know how he feels, and he knows how I feel. If a new aspect of this topic comes up that one of us wants to discuss, we discuss it. But we do so in such a way as to be respectful of each others beliefs.

Your "friend", apparently does not. I would question whether she truly is a friend, and if you want to continue such a relationship with her.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
A civil union is a secular contract offered by the government. Only a civil union doesn't carry federal benefits. Why not extend the federal benefits to civil unions?

I already told you. Separate but equal.

Separate bathrooms, separate water fountains, separate marriages.

Civil Unions was just a step toward true marriage equality. It doesn't carry MANY state benefits as well. Each state would have to change its laws and not all states offer civil unions.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Civil union laws exist because the federal government hasn't extended marriage laws to gay people across the board yet. Basically you are asking to legitmize the bandaid that was created to ease the flow of blood from the wound instead of trying to stitch the actual wound.

You are asking for MORE bureaucracy to handle a problem that can be handled with less bureaucracy. Now I know the government loves things like this because the government breathes inefficiency, but damn to actually be on the side of inefficiency just to placate a bunch of haters... Wow...

I have to leave. It sucks because I was having a good conversation!!

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: EternalSolace
A civil union is a secular contract offered by the government. Only a civil union doesn't carry federal benefits. Why not extend the federal benefits to civil unions?

I already told you. Separate but equal.

Separate bathrooms, separate water fountains, separate marriages.

OK, so is having your separate civil union with all the same legal recognitions hurting you because it doesn't have the same word?

I'm enjoying myself here.

A member had a question.

Immediately, the PC Patrol zooms in to attack!

So instead of a rrational conversation with someone, this member gets beaten over the head with the "rhetoric stick" and is pummeled until. . . what?

He submits?

OP?

I've spent the better part of this thread joking because of the rabid beliefs that some protray.

It's funny.

People, in my opinion, are like jewels. They have numerous facets that all coalesce to make that person a unique individual.

We are all unique individuals.

We should be celebrating the unique aspects of everyone instead of trying to fit everyone into a recogniseable box.

That's just my opinion.

Yours may differ.

And that's okay too. Because you are also a unique individual.

Even though you aren't a rabbit. (which would make you better)

originally posted by: American-philosopher
I would not deny you marriage because you can't have children

...and yet, you want to deny homosexuals marriage because they 'can't' have children....

What, actually, are you afraid of?
How does it impact your life?

originally posted by: ketsuko
OK, so is having your separate civil union with all the same legal recognitions hurting you because it doesn't have the same word?

It's not hurting me. I'm married. But civil unions are only available in a few states, and in those states, they don't have all the state benefits of marriage.

originally posted by: beezzer
So instead of a rrational conversation with someone, this member gets beaten over the head with the "rhetoric stick" and is pummeled until. . . what?

We are having a rational discussion.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've never thought about if marriage is a right or privilege before, but don't you have to get a license from the city first? In which case, would make it a privilege and not a right. Same as driving.

a reply to: FlySolo

Here's an interesting take. It doesn't matter if "marriage" is a right or a privilege.

I would frame it as whether an individual has a right to decide *who* to marry. We have laws against marrying children because we generally agree that doing so harms them, partly because they aren't capable of giving informed consent. But as far as consenting adults are concerned, the default position should be that other individuals or the government shouldn't interfere with the choice of spouse. Government had no compelling interest in denying legal marriage to interracial couples. I submit that it has no compelling interest in denying it to same-sex couples, either.

Source

And if it is a privilege, think about what it would be like to say that gay people are not allowed to drive...

It seems as if those opposed feel that it will make their marriages less "special" or something? Its as if letting gay and lesbian people get "married" takes something away from them that they've had since time immemorial.

I think that's what it is -- it's a feeling that they are loosing something that was exclusive to them. Feeling a loss of something, especially when it's faith related must feel very frightening. It would seem as if their grip on morality is somehow being forcefully loosened. The old, "We're loosing the country!" or "The world is going to hell in a handbasket!" mentality.

Change is something that cannot be stopped, and growing pains are always going to happen. People thought Elvis was "devil music" but would hardly make that claim today. Times change, and people need to understand that.

Society can't stay in 1950's Pleasantville for all of eternity, no matter how much a small minority of people want it to.

If tomorrow the president signed an executive order that extended civil union to all, across all fifty states, and expanded its benefits to the federal level... would that be enough?

a reply to: EternalSolace

Why can't we just call it marriage and be done with it?
That word has been tarnished enough as it stands, allowing people of the same sex to use it ain't gonna do much

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I think you're right. And I think it's important to have these discussions to actually bring those fears to light. Many people have fears that are irrational. And if people could just really think about WHY they fear and how realistic their fears are, I think we could find common ground.

Someone being called a bigot is really neither here nor there. Some people are always going to lash out at those with whom they disagree.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Yeah you're right. Moot point.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
If tomorrow the president signed an executive order that extended civil union to all, across all fifty states, and expanded its benefits to the federal level... would that be enough?

Marriage and civil unions are STATE laws. If the president could wave his magic wand and make civil unions equal to marriage in all respects, for one thing, the states would go ballistic (and they should).

But if it's truly equal, why not call it the same thing? Why have a separation? Where would the line be? Only gay people would have civil unions and straight people would have marriage? Or would only religious people have marriage and everyone else have civil unions?

originally posted by: FlySolo
Yeah you're right. Moot point.

And when seen in the secular light of drivers licenses, what possible justification would a state have to deny gay people a drivers license OR a marriage license? It's just silly.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: EternalSolace
If tomorrow the president signed an executive order that extended civil union to all, across all fifty states, and expanded its benefits to the federal level... would that be enough?

Marriage and civil unions are STATE laws. If the president could wave his magic wand and make civil unions equal to marriage in all respects, for one thing, the states would go ballistic (and they should).

But if it's truly equal, why not call it the same thing? Why have a separation? Where would the line be? Only gay people would have civil unions and straight people would have marriage? Or would only religious people have marriage and everyone else have civil unions?

My only problem is that more studies should be done on a wider scale and over a long period of time regarding children that are adopted by same sex couples. If legal marriage is allowed unhindered, then you cannot deny gay couples the same opportunities to adopt. I know they can give those kids love and nurturing, but there is a psychological component that needs to be addressed and studied for straight children reared by gay couples.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Ok, I'll be more accurate. If all 50 states adopted civil unions and opened them for all, and the president signed an executive order extending federal benefits to civil unions, would that be enough?


I understand where you're coming from on calling it the same thing if they're equal. You have one side of the group whom want to maintain the integrity of marriage being between a man and a woman. You have another side that wants to take that from one group and open it up for gay marriage.

Does what I propose not offer a middle ground to both sides if it's really about the benefits of marriage?