a REAListic compromise on the 'gay marriage' issue?

[dR. O]

so the problem as I see it is that neither sides wants a compromise i.e. both sides want an all or none solution.....

now the word marriage has historically always been defined as the union between a man and a woman so I think changing the historical definition of a word to suit a "PC" agenda is lunacy, however, homosexuals should not be discriminated against and should have every right to a legal union as much as heterosexuals....so I was trying to think a some sort of compromise that both sides should be able to agree on and I thought why not just have 2 legal terms that are based ONLY on the sexual preference of the people involved i.e.

1-heterosexual marriage and 2-homosexual marriage

I would argue that anyone that has a problem with that solution is proving themself to be an extremist.

[msongs]

1. yawn nt

[asthmaticeog]

2. Marriage is marriage. That's hardly an extremist position.

Gay people pay the same taxes as hets, work the same jobs, and most importantly, live in the same country under the same Constitution. Every right I have, every other American MUST have, period. Your name-game won't assuage homophobes' queer panic. They'll continue to fight against equal rights no matter what semantic chicanery you want to apply. Equal rights must prevail. That's not extremist. That's the Constitution.

[FreedomAngel82]

6. Exactly

I always ask the question: why am I more special in the eyes of the law because I'm white, straight and Christian?

[dR. O]

8. well sorry

That's the Constitution.


sorry but the constitution does NOT say it is ok to REDEFINE words to suit the 'PC' agenda

'Your logic equates to taking the position that we shouldn't have recognized black people as "men" or "women" because we historically reserved the term "man" for whites.'

you are comparing apples and oranges....attempting to compare skin color to sexuality doesn't cut it....sure we can get into the nature vs. nurture argument of homosexuality if you wish

i have heard some people suggest seperating LEGAL unions from church weddings and i personally would have no problem with that...but i am a REALIST and i know that it will NEVER happen...so i think my proposal is far more realistic

[WindRavenX]

14. And what exactly is the "PC agenda"?

Hmmmm?

[ulysses]

19. ok

sure we can get into the nature vs. nurture argument of homosexuality if you wish

Let's do that. You go first.

[ultraist]

37. .

:popcorn:

[ulysses]

40. I don't seem to have a taker.

:D

[asthmaticeog]

24. Who are you quoting?

I didn't say any of that. I didn't bring skin color into this at all.

And your proposal of having two seperate categories for "heteopsexual marriage" and "homosexual marriage" is NOT more realistic than civil unions for two reasons: 1) it violates equal protection every bit as much as civil unions and 2) "homosexual marriage" is precisely what the right is fighting against.

On edit: I see you're quoting smartvoter. Why argue someone else's points with me?

[renaissanceguy]

59. Take a sociology class sometime.

Sociologists will tell you that societies DECIDE on labels/divisions like race and sexuality. When you think about it, we all have some degree of melanin in our skin, and we all have sex with and love other human beings. It's society itself that breaks it all up. Other societies--Britain, for instance--see skin color as "Whites" and "Blacks" only...Asians, Latinos, etc. are considered "Black." Who's right? NOBODY!

My point is that if you want to get technical about things...we can get on a MUCH more technical level, and you will be refuted. How about just accepting people as people and treating them accordingly?

[IndianaGreen]

58. Spain has approved gay marriage, courtesy of its Socialist government

If we had a Socialist government in America, abortion would be the exclusive choice of the mother, GLBTs would enjoy full rights of citizenship, the Religious Right would be curtailed severely, and the ruling class would see its profits diverted to help the working class.

If you want real equality, you must choose Socialism. What you got now is a system that doesn't work and that is beyond repair!

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

3. Why isn't the LEGAL definition for all: civil union

In other words, the law is only concerned with the concept of civil union whether it be heterosexual or homosexual.

If people choose to have a religious ceremony, that's up to the churches. The government only recognizes the concept of civil union granting all legal benefits under that definition.:shrug:

[Solo_in_MD]

35. a fundie friend recently did just that

The tax code in pretty screwy thing (not news). Depending on your kids, income and age, at time provides incentives and disincentives to get married. In his case it would have been a serious disincentive. They had a church ceremony and did not go the license route until it was tax advantageous. No one knew that until about 6 months ago when they got legally married. In the interim they had a fairly complex legal arrangement. I think it was kind of a slick approach myself.

Current/progressive/flat/consumption/*fair* tax systems all suck when it comes to handling the variety of different living arrangements equitably. Don't get me going on Social Security. While work on the gay marriage issue, I would really like to see that fixed as well

[ultraist]

38. Agree! Civil unions for all with NO sexual orientation listed

Listing sexual orientation is like listing race on birth certificates which was OUTLAWED because it's discriminatory.

Alabama Quietly Ends Race Certification

http://www.majorcox.com/columns/racecat2.htm

This path reached Alabama in 1991. That's the year state officials quietly ended some of the last official policies linked to racial segregation. The Alabama Department of Public Health, Center For Health Statistics, stopped certifying parents' race on birth certificates of infants born within the state. All certifications of new infant births filed with that department since 1991 are non-racial.

[jayctravis]

67. How is listing gender discriminatory?

There is a scientific difference between males and females.

[tedoll78]

57. I've been preaching that for years.

Let marriage remain with the churches, and let governments be issue civil unions. Yup.

I'm a hard-liner when it comes to separate-but-equal, and this passes my very-strict test.

[Raiden]

4. Separate but equal

How is that better?

[smartvoter]

5. It's about discrimination. The reason it has a historical context

as being between a man and woman is because it has always been about discrimination.

Your logic equates to taking the position that whites shouldn't have recognized black people as "men" or "women" because they historically reserved the term "man" for whites.

It's about civil rights. Both issues. The race issue cracked (or started to crack is probably more accurate -- long way to go) a little earlier is the only difference.

[smartvoter]

7. Better compromise here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2103635

[Lexingtonian]

9. No

Is marriage inherently defined by the way the two people have (or don't have) sex?

Yeah, I didn't think so either.

Btw, there is no need for some stupid compromise. There is no problem that needs this solution- in 2-3 years the issue is going to be moot and large chunks of the country will have legalized same sex marriage. You can call it anything you like in private.

[dR. O]

12. well

'there is no need for some stupid compromise'

further proof of who the extremists really are

[Lexingtonian]

18. Thank you very much.

I'll take that as a compliment.

"When you are right, you cannot be too radical; When you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative."

-- Martin Luther King, Jr

[asthmaticeog]

26. So anyone who disagrees with your totally vacuous proposal...

...is by definition an "extremist?" :eyes:

[ultraist]

39. Listing sexual orientation is equivalent to listing race on Birth Cert.

Your little "idea," Dr. o, is called SEGREGATION.

[smartvoter]

10. Definitions from dictionary.com:

mar·riage n.

1.a The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
1.b The state of being married; wedlock.
1.c A common-law marriage.
1.d A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

2. A wedding.

3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).

4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

[cally]

11. Marriage has changed over time

It is incorrect to say it always has been one man and one woman. In biblical times, men had multiple wives. Greeks often had a female wife and a male lover. It was completely acceptable for men to have mistresses while married during much of our history and in some social classes. Until very recently, it was illegal for different races to marry. We see the evolution of marriage in our own time. Younger people are more willing to agree that all should be allowed to marry.

I have no problem with religious institutions defining marriage according to their beliefs. The government has to treat all citizens equally. All should be granted the same rights, responsibilities, and priviledges. I don't believe in discrimination so I believe all should be allowed to marry in a civil ceremony.

[dR. O]

15. well

'It is incorrect to say it always has been one man and one woman. In biblical times, men had multiple wives'

historically marriage has ALWAYS been between opposite sexes....so if you argue changing the definition of a word to suit a 'PC' agenda then you are no better than the neocons and this is why the dems will keep on losing...it is really funny how everyone will attack me for suggesting a compromise that is ENTIRELY based on the REALITY of the sexual preference of the individual participants...truly sad indeed

[ulysses]

20. you seem to have a hangup on the 'PC' thing.

Why is that?

[asthmaticeog]

22. It's called a "red flag." n/t

[ulysses]

23. heh!

so it is. :D

[Douglas Carpenter]

72. you say the Dems loose because of the PC Agenda

Please state the name of just one single major Democrat politician who advocates and advances the "PC agenda" or "PC utopianism" (as you referred to it in another post). And MOST IMPORTANTLY please state what specific policies these "PC Democrat politicians" are advancing.

[lazarus]

13. Here's one I found works with an

admitted extreme right wing Christian.

Marriage takes place in a church, according to that church's particular creed. Man/woman, turtle/Santorum, whatever.

These marriages have no legal standing.

Civil unions take place in a courthouse, by filing paperwork. You can whatever ceremony you want before or after.

Civil unions have full legal standing equal to the current concept of marriage today.

So, everyone's happy, because we can all call our relationships whatever the hell we want.

The angle to take on this is to ask if Christians really want the government involved in something between them and their god. Unless they're extreme fundy, they'll be saying no.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

16. Minor correction:

Santorum/dog

I think the turtle guy was from Texas(Cornyn, maybe?):evilgrin:

And your point is the same as my earlier post: LEGAL definition should be civil union for all. The church ceremony is strictly a religious event with no legal standing recognized by the government.

[dR. O]

17. well

LEGAL definition should be civil union for all

i have no problem with that as it is a form of compromise as well

'd A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.'

well you can't cite dictionary.com as a 'historical' source of a definition considering the internet has only been around for a few years and yes it is sad to see dictionary.com caving in to 'pc fascism'

[lazarus]

21. thanks for the correction

I think Cornyn is turtle boy.

Didn't read the thread thoroughly enough, GMTA!

[Lars39]

25. No legal standing recognized by the government

we thought we had. That could easily change if the theocracy gets the upper hand.
Theocrats could give extra rights and privileges to those who are
"married" and phase out rights for those who aren't married.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

27. When did "separate but equal" become constitutional again?

heres a brief history lesson on marriage from Tom Tomorrow:



so whats that about "marriage has historically always been defined as the union between a man and a woman"? Black people couldn't enter the White people's institution of marriage for years....it was never just a man women thing...it was also a class, race, subjugation thing...why should it stay a heteronormative thing?

If you think marriage is religious and shouldn't be subject to this crazy "PC Agenda" you speak of, why does the gov't use this institution to give over 1,000 federal benefits to people who enter into it? why shouldn't it be open to everyone equally?

[dR. O]

29. well

you seem to have a hangup on the 'PC' thing.
Why is that?


bc political correctness is perhaps the single worst form of censorship of all time bc it is so subtle in nature

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

30. I'm only quoting your words man

you've posted several things about this "PC AGENDA" that I have never heard of before.

I am talking about EQUALITY FOR ALL CITIZENS OF AMERICA. if that falls under your definition of "PC agenda" so be it. I just know i am talking about equality, you know, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness" for all (the Declaration of Independence) I guess equality must be part of that "crazy PC agenda" :eyes:

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IntravenousDemilo]

76. In my experience, people who tout themselves as "politically incorrect"

seem to think it's all right to act like dicks and say dicky things, but one mustn't under any circumstances call them dicks. Oh, please, I'm not stubborn and pigheaded at all, I'm just "tenacious". I'm not morbidly obese, I'm "big-boned". I'm not really an asshole, I'm "politically incorrect". People have a wonderful capacity for euphemizing and excusing their defects, don't they?

Equal but separate is not equal, and any suggestion to the contrary would make the suggester a dick.

Up here in Canada, at least, civil marriage is currently the only kind of marriage legally recognized, and it is now defined as a union between two persons (irrespective of sex). Religous marriages are to have no legal standing. However, clergy whose religions do not permit equal marriage are not required to perform them.

And I think that's exactly the right amount of compromise: same-sex marriage isn't going to be mandatory, and if your faith won't allow you to officiate at one, you don't have to do that either, but unless you can prove to my satisfaction that my marrying someone of my own sex would do you some substantive harm, exactly what business is it of yours, and how is your opinion on the matter even relevant?

[Rowdyboy]

28. There should be civil marriage and religious marriage

One civil, one religious.

[Silverhair]

31. The religious right won't buy it.

It is an effort to fool them by semantics. They will be opposed to the new word too. Nor do they really need to compromise. About 37 states have DOMA statues, and many have even amended their constitutions to prohibit an activist judge for throwing out the DOMA statues.

Right now, they have the power.

[dR. O]

32. well

EQUALITY FOR ALL CITIZENS OF AMERICA

I agree with that but equality does not give one the right to go changing the definition of words lol

[asthmaticeog]

33. Your OP is an excercise in redefinition. n/t

[smartvoter]

Definitions are often evolving. How do you square this with your

position?

[closeupready]

52. Those states may think that's kosher, but I doubt it.

Even if it is kosher (to prohibit judges from interpreting specific laws), DOMA itself is unconstitutional.

As to the OP, separate but equal is not acceptable. It has to be either marriage for everyone, or civil unions for everybody, going forward from some set point in the future, grandfathering in everyone who TO THAT POINT has gotten married.

How long would it take homophobes to disown, abuse and sort of ghettoize a similar-sounding, separate institution, members of which they hate? Ha, not long.

[buff2]

34. I don't have a problem with that

Seems like a good idea to me,but you would never get those rightwing bigots to go along with it. It has to be THEIR way or the highway,and the majority of them are homophobes to begin with. Can you imagine what Falwell and Robertson would say? LOL :hi:

[LTRS]

36. How are the marriages different?

Should we also have jewish marriage and christian marriage, black marriage and white marriage, asian marriage, and interracial marriage? Why not have rich marriage and poor marriage? And let's not stop there -- we could have republican, democratic, and non-partisan marriage as well.

Separate isn't equal -- that's kind of a basic concept. Nor is marriage any different depending on what kind of people are in it. Why do have to pretend for the sake of bigots that it is? I would argue that YOUR solution is extremist, not to mention just plain silly.

[ultraist]

41. Agree, the OP is extremist: "Seperate but equal"

Extremist conservative ideology. Hmmm...

[dR. O]

42. well

the 2 best solutions i have seen so far are my idea and the idea of removing church from govt. altogether with the 'civil union' thing

[ulysses]

43. well

why not this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2103848

:shrug:

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ulysses]

47. BINGO!

:D Guards!

[moobu2]

48. I’m waiting for the

“what’s to prevent you from marrying your dog” argument from dR. O..lol

[asthmaticeog]

49. They never do take too terribly long, do they?

"Fascist PC agenda" :rofl:

[ulysses]

50. it's too easy.

:)

[ultraist]

45. Your idea is a version of seperate but equal, very Jesse Helms like.

And you think that it's one of the best?

[moobu2]

46. What you’re proposing is called “separate but equal”

It creates second class citizens, you think that's a solution? it’s worse than nothing.

[election_2004]

51. They'll never to agree to it

Even when same-sex unions are given a lesser "civil union" status, and marriage remains defined as that between a man and a woman, the Far Right still squawks and whines that it's "special rights"...ultimately, the fundamentalists will oppose ANYTHING that gives homosexual couples any form of civil parity. They want the laws written exclusively according to their own ideals of morality.

[dR. O]

53. well

the pc fascist agenda is just as evil as the pseudo-Christian agenda basically 2 flip sides of the same coin and so I am using this thread to expose it and the arrogance some of you convey is just as smug as the neocons but you are too blind to see it

[ulysses]

54. who are these "PC fascists"?

[dR. O]

55. well

a person who argues changing the definition of a word to suit a politically correct agenda is a pc fascist i.e. 'my (pc) way or the highway'

[ulysses]

56. is gay marriage nothing but a PC agenda?

I'd really like an answer to this.

[dR. O]

60. well

"is gay marriage nothing but a PC agenda?
I'd really like an answer to this."

Telling others they must rewrite thousands of years of HISTORY by changing the definition of the word marriage to include 'homosexuals' is 'pc fascism' in it's worst form and so it is the WRONG thing to do. However, giving homosexual couples all the legal rights of heterosexual couples without attempting to change thousands of years of history is the RIGHT thing to do and the majority of the US public would support that. But the 'pc fascists' and the busheep will not support it bc it requires compromise.

[renaissanceguy]

62. Things change.

And so do institutions. After all, people make institutions what they are. How about changing your attitude? With your logic, black folks would still count as 3/5 a person and still be property. After all, they were "made inferior," weren't they? Or maybe they choose to be black. They could always have a Michael Jackson operation and be just like you.

[dR. O]

63. ahhh yes

"Things change.
And so do institutions. After all, people make institutions what they are. How about changing your attitude? With your logic, black folks would still count as 3/5 a person and still be property. After all, they were "made inferior," weren't they? Or maybe they choose to be black. They could always have a Michael Jackson operation and be just like you."


and it is the 'shoot the messenger' routine....see how much the 'pc fascists' have in common with the busheep???? oh no dems are pushing 'pc fascism' they say....get REAL

[Lexingtonian]

73. So-

How about answering the question?

Who could marry who and for what reason has a very long history of changing at intervals of a few centuries. It is in fact an 'evolutionary' institution. An intelligent look at social anthropology will tell you that all the forms of marriage you can imagine have been instituted at some time, and they came into being and persisted for as long as they served the survival and success of the society as a whole.

Industrial Age society in the U.S. practices serial monogamy, centered around materially adequate raising of children. But once childbearing is completed there is no inherent or necessary constraint by function on further relationships/marriages being one man/one woman in the system. It can tolerate marriages that involve two partners willing to raise the children, such as there are, responsibly. IOW, it opens the door to gay marriage as an option not obviously better or worse than any other within the system.

It would be more honest of you to admit to a reactionary, essentially Puritanish and anti-evolutionary dogmatic ideal of marriage. Not that I consider Puritanism inherently wrong, it's simply a particularism that most of American society can fake for a time but can't really assimilate to.

[election_2004]

80. The problem is....

A civil union system would solve many (although not all) of the problems that American couples who are LGBT currently face.

The problem is that too many politicians (even some Democrats) simply won't agree to support civil union legislation, because they are too afraid of being perceived as condoning something that's supposedly "immoral."

They won't compromise in the true sense of the word...because, to them, not hanging us queers up by our feet is their way of "compromising."

Jackasses.

[Vektor]

64. I don't think there needs to be a compromise.

Why should there be? Let the gays marry, call it what it is -marriage- and let it alone.

Why the hell people try to prevent others from marrying the partner of their choice is beyond me. This shouldn't even BE an issue.

Just because some people are uncomfortable with what they consider to be "non-traditional couples" doesn't mean we need to start making laws to protect these small-minded bigots from having to face up to their hang-ups, or invent "new" words to describe a union these individuals don't want to look at. Those who have the prejudice are the ones with the problem. I refuse to do anything to accommodate their ignorance.

[dR. O]

65. classic PC FASCISM at it's finest

wow this is truly classic PC FASCISM at it's finest so let's break it down shall we....

"I don't think there needs to be a compromise."

i.e. my pc way or the highway...

" Why should there be? Let the gays marry, call it what it is -marriage- and let it alone. "

well if it weren't for the REALITY that the word marriage has always been between opposite sexes you might be correct

"Why the hell people try to prevent others from marrying the partner of their choice is beyond me. This shouldn't even BE an issue."

classic 'holier than thouism'....lol

"Just because some people are uncomfortable with what they consider to be "non-traditional couples" doesn't mean we need to start making laws to protect these small-minded bigots from having to face up to their hang-ups, or invent "new" words to describe a union these individuals don't want to look at. Those who have the prejudice are the ones with the problem. I refuse to do anything to accommodate their ignorance."

you are the one trying to REDEFINE a word and anyone that disagrees is to be belittled as 'small minded'???? who cares about history? it's all about 'my pc way or the highway' wow you win a gold medal in PC FASCIST UTOPIAVILLE

[jayctravis]

66. Essentially, the government should only recognize civil union.

That's the paperwork that gets filled out. You get your tax status, your joint custody and legal rights all the secular stuff.

The word "marriage" should be struck and be a function of any church or place of worship. Two people could marry in a church and not file for civil union, or they could file civil union and not even have any type of ceremony whatsoever.

Any two people can enter a civil union in the eyes of the government. The license would have two lines both signifying "spouse".

Marriage should be made a matter of beliefs of the unified. Whatever the ceremony or ritual, whether it takes place in an oaken church or a bare nekkid pagan forest binding or Las Vegas or justice of the Peace, that can be whatever. You can sign a civil union form for governmental purposes, but your marriage is all the flowers and party and prayer foodoo.

Simply change the language on all forms. Your tax status is "single" or "filing jointly". This only allows two, so the polygamists will have to make other arrangements. The bestial will be out since their friend cannot sign a form.

Edit to include: Oh, and of course your typical relatives are right out as well.

[wiley]

68. The word marriage has NOT always been defined as the union between

a man and a woman. Several states are scrambling to put those exact words into their constitutions as we speak. Congress is threatening to amend the constitution to say just that. Would we give the gay couples only 4/5 of a vote? The hysterical religious fanatics who claim that gay couples marrying weakens "their" institution of god sanctioned marriage have been soundly shown in Massachusetts and everywhere else that marriage between same sex couples is legal that it has no effect whatsoever on heterosexual marriage. This is the same type of fear mongering and pandering to discomforts with otherness that fueled the whole violent and disgraceful response of Americans to racial equality.

If people wan t to get married they can go to a church and get their fix. If they want to join in a civil union that guarantees them the exact same rights as the law affords those who are designated legally married, then I will continue to care less whether two people decide to "Get Married" or not. Come to think of it, if Congress and society is so eager to have men and women married, they would go further than eliminating the "marriage tax" and impose an incredibly hefty divorce tax.

Social engineering through taxation. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[dR. O]

69. please be REAL

'The word marriage has NOT always been defined as the union between
a man and a woman. '

you are kidding yourself...

[Douglas Carpenter]

70. Please define "PC Agenda" and what their specific proposals are

you stated in another post a few days ago that the Democratic Party keeps loosing elections because it promotes "PC Utopianism"

I asked you then 3 times and I will ask you again now; please name even one major Democratic Party politician who preaches or advocates "PC Utopianism". And MOST IMPORTANTLY what proposals advocated by these "PC Utopian Democrats" are outside the mainstream of common political discourse.

[ladylibertee]

71. Who really cares what you call it? As long as they get the same ..

benefits as every other couple in America Gay or Strait,they should be alright.Right?

[dR. O]

74. well

' asked you then 3 times and I will ask you again now; please name even one major Democratic Party politician who preaches or advocates "PC Utopianism". And MOST IMPORTANTLY what proposals advocated by these "PC Utopian Democrats" are outside the mainstream of common political discourse.'

the pc fascist are exposing themselves in this very thread so just read it

[Douglas Carpenter]

75. I have read it and and have seen a rather normal range of political

discourse. Is name calling really necessary?

"anyone that has a problem with that solution is proving themself to be an extremist."

Is it honest to simply dismiss arguments that you disagree with as "PC fascism" or extremist even when they are well within the range of common debate?


However, back to my original question. You have stated that Democrats keep loosing elections because of "PC Utopianism". Respectfully I ask you once again to name one single major or significant Democrat politician who is preaching or advocating "PC Utopianism" and what specific policies these alleged "PC Utopian Democrats" are advocating that is so far outside the range of normal political discourse to warrant the title "PC utopianism" or even "PC fascism"?

[ladylibertee]

77. Jessie Jackson ???

[Douglas Carpenter]

78. what specific positions does Jessie Jackson promote or advocate that would

be so far out of the range of normal discourse to warrant the term "PC Utopianism"?

[ladylibertee]

79. oh, I know.I know....STEWART!!!! Yeah baby.

[dR. O]

83. well

"I ask you once again to name one single major or significant Democrat politician who is preaching or advocating "PC Utopianism" and what specific policies these alleged "PC Utopian Democrats" are advocating that is so far outside the range of normal political discourse to warrant the title "PC utopianism" or even "PC fascism"? "

Barbara Boxer, Barney Frank.....basically any politician who advocates forcing basically half of the country to change the traditional definition of the word 'marriage' is preaching "PC UTOPIANISM" so go make yourself a list of those people and post it here if you wish


"Same-sex marriages have occurred throughout the ages. We cannot believe, ever, that "separate is equal!"

keep on lying to yourself if you will but i believe in REALITY

"To keep with the ideal of no state sanctioned religion, marriages, gay or str8, should never be mandated to be preformed by a religious institution. '

I would have no problem with that as I personally loathe organized religion but I know it is a completely unrealistic idea.

"So, why not allow gay marriages, whether by a religious institution or a civil one, be recognized? "

if instead of calling it a 'gay marriage' you called it a 'heterosexual marriage' OR a 'civil union' then I would have no problem with that

"It seems to me, the only ones with a "PC" agenda are the ones not wanting to see the evolution of a word."

what if suddenly next week all republicans demanded the word blue now stands for red and they wanted to make a constitutional amendment to make it so and damn anyone who dare say different????

"Are sex, gender, identity, and behavior so cut and dried? "

YIPPEEE...in PC UTOPIAVILLE all humans are the SAME and everyone lives happily ever after with fairy tales, sugar plums, and lollipops


what so many of you repeatedly fail to REALize is that basically i am on your side but i am attempting to develop more intelligent arguments to defeat the repukes with their own ammo

[Douglas Carpenter]

84. frankly, support for gay marriage is a minority opinion--I doubt it is

going to pass anytime soon (at least on a nation wide level) even under your variation. But, it is hardly such a fringe opinion to describe it as PC utopianism or PC fascism. Obviously, the victims of discrimination want nothing less than full equality. Even if it is not a majority opinion and it is unlikely to pass in the very near future.

If your point is that civil-unions are a more achievable goal at least for the foreseeable future, you might have a point. But, I don't think it is helpful to call everyone who disagrees with you a fascist.

[dR. O]

86. well

"Obviously, the victims of discrimination want nothing less than full equality"

you see them as 'victims of discrimination' where i see them as people who don't understand the simple definition of a WORD and who insist that all people change the definition of that word to fit an agenda where 'no one is ever offended by anything' i.e. UTOPIA

[Douglas Carpenter]

87. are suggesting that gay people are not victims of discrimination???

I doubt you are suggesting that, at least I would hope not.

As I said above, I agree that gay-marriage even under your variation is not likely to become the law of the land across the U.S. anytime in the near future.

If gay marriage had not been seriously proposed by credible office holders (although a very small number) -- the prospect of civil-unions would not even be under discussion.

I for one agree that civil unions are a step in the right direction that should not be dismissed. Every step in the right direction away from discrimination is progress.

[Behind the Aegis]

81. No compromise

Words, like humans, evolve. It is not a "PC" conspiracy. Same-sex marriages have occurred throughout the ages. We cannot believe, ever, that "separate is equal!"

To keep with the ideal of no state sanctioned religion, marriages, gay or str8, should never be mandated to be preformed by a religious institution. Many marriages are preformed by Justices of the Peace, they are just as valid in the legal sense. So, why not allow gay marriages, whether by a religious institution or a civil one, be recognized?

It seems to me, the only ones with a "PC" agenda are the ones not wanting to see the evolution of a word.

[closeupready]

88. Exactly.

Thank you. :hi:

To the threadstarter: Yes, there have been same-sex marriages throughout the ages, though it doesn't seem to occur in societies as much as heterosexual marriage, which is intuitive.

But it's all irrelevant. Women have hardly ever been treated equally with men in the history of the world. Should we take their rights away, then?

[baron j]

82. So what is the definition of a man and a woman, if we are to argue

semantics? Since semantics is what this discussion is about, the meanings of words--such as marriage, and civil union--we also need to establish how we define a man and a woman.

Are sex, gender, identity, and behavior so cut and dried? I'm not so certain. All of them may be viewed on a continuum, not just existing as polar opposites, and all may be mismatched. One could be male in sex, feminine in gender, heterosexual in identity (how one perceives oneself), and bisexual in behavior. Or any multitudes of combinations.

So what happens if a person who was born female--yet had a sex change operation--wants to marry a woman? Or, what if a person who is intersexual or a hermaphrodite wants to marry? Are they a man or a woman?

And, in your scenario: "1-heterosexual marriage and 2-homosexual marriage", how do we define what is a heterosexual marriage, and what is a homosexual one? What if a bisexual marries a heterosexual of the opposite sex? Is bisexual considered homosexual? What if a bisexual considers him or herself to be heterosexual? What if a woman who considers herself a lesbian marries a heterosexual man...what if he is gay? etc.


Sex: Unknown

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/gender/

How Many Sexes? How Many Genders?
When Two Are Not Enough

http://web.uvic.ca/~ahdevor/HowMany/HowMany.html

[Mairead]

85. Why should civil rights be different for different groups?

What theory makes it okay to have different or differently-labelled civil rights for different groups of citizens?

[terrya]

89. Then we gay people will always be second class citizens...

under your proposal.

I guess I'm an extremist then, since I have a quite a few problems with your "solution". I'm an American, law abiding. Hold down a job, pay my taxes. In short, an American just like you. And...I demand and deserve the same rights as you. Period.

We gay people deserve the same rights...including those of marriage...as you. Plain and simple. And we will not, nor should we not, expect anything less. Including civil unions and "homosexual marriage" that only imparts some of the same rights as those enjoyed by heterosexuals like yourself.

[Moderator]

90. Locking

Full civil rights for all people is the progressive aim. DU doesn't support "separate but equal"