If prop 8 passes...

[Kulindahr]

^ Well we're still more likely to see gay marriage before we see anyone doing anything much about your "proposal".

The only person playing victim here is you, advocating appeasement rather than mutual respect.

A beaten wife also thinks she's defined by her abusive husband and that his view of the world, claims and assertions rank in priority to hers. They don't.

Get your dictionary out and look up the words you're using.

By demanding "gay marriage", you're showing no respect at all. What you're calling "appeasement" is actually a matter of respect.

 

[White Eagle]

I'm gonna post this link in all threads I think is appropriate.

It looks like Calif gays are not going to let this Prop 8 get by. Here is a link to Courage Campaign to sign a pledge to restore equality to the Calif Constitution. I'm sure it will help with the more of us to sign it. I did.

http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/repealprop8

Fight the religious right: Repeal Prop 8 and restore marriage equality to California
Sign the pledge to build the Marriage Equality Movement

 

[Spensed]

Originally Posted by Spensed
^ Well we're still more likely to see gay marriage before we see anyone doing anything much about your "proposal".

The only person playing victim here is you, advocating appeasement rather than mutual respect.

A beaten wife also thinks she's defined by her abusive husband and that his view of the world, claims and assertions rank in priority to hers. They don't.

Get your dictionary out and look up the words you're using.

By demanding "gay marriage", you're showing no respect at all. What you're calling "appeasement" is actually a matter of respect.

Whether in its meaning of bringing peace or making concessions to someone else's hostility in the quest for peace, appeasement is exactly what you're advocating, in both cases, at the expense of mutual respect.

You complain that demanding "gay marriage" shows no respect. But you're blind to the notion that discrimination and exclusionary and proprietary claims on marriage are equally, if not, more disrespectful.

Demanding mutual respect is not disrespectful, even if someone else thinks it is.

 

[Kulindahr]

Whether in its meaning of bringing peace or making concessions to someone else's hostility in the quest for peace, appeasement is exactly what you're advocating, in both cases, at the expense of mutual respect.

You complain that demanding "gay marriage" shows no respect. But you're blind to the notion that discrimination and exclusionary and proprietary claims on marriage are equally, if not, more disrespectful.

Demanding mutual respect is not disrespectful, even if someone else thinks it is.

1. I'm calling for mutual respect, which at the moment isn't being offered,
2. There are no "exclusionary and proprietary claims on marriage" except what's being manufactured by gay advocates.
3. You have yet to show any desire to offer mutual respect.

 

[Backlum-Chaam]

There are no "exclusionary and proprietary claims on marriage" except what's being manufactured by gay advocates.

Yeah, I guess my partner's inability to apply for citizenship as my spouse has just been "manufactured" by some gay guy.

Shame on those "gay advocates" for manufacturing state's rights to ignore or nullify my relationship, while honoring and respecting heterosexual unions regardless of culture, religion or state/country of origin.

What a relief to know that the tangible differences between state unions and federal marriage have only been a figment of our imagination. That if we just click our heels and believe, our access to the rights and responsibilities of marriage will just magically appear in front of us for the taking.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah, I guess my partner's inability to apply for citizenship as my spouse has just been "manufactured" by some gay guy.

Shame on those "gay advocates" for manufacturing state's rights to ignore or nullify my relationship, while honoring and respecting heterosexual unions regardless of culture, religion or state/country of origin.

What a relief to know that the tangible differences between state unions and federal marriage have only been a figment of our imagination. That if we just click our heels and believe, our access to the rights and responsibilities of marriage will just magically appear in front of us for the taking.

<sigh>

One more post indicating we need a remedial reading-comprehension class around here.


There's nothing special about the word "marriage" that makes it so your partner can't apply for citizenship. Indeed, the insistence on getting to use that word by gay activists actually stands in the way of such citizenship applications.

All we need to do is take that word out of the law and tell the religious folk that can keep it pure all by themselves; we'll replace it in the law with "civil union" or "registered union", and the only definition will be that people came and registered with the government as united.

That's why the difficulty with the word "marriage" is manufactured: we don't need that word to get what we want, and I think we'd be better off without it -- then we can tell the people so anxious over keeping it pure to clean up their own act, because they're the ones who've made it into such a sorry thing, with divorces, etc. etc. etc. as someone else posted.

 

[Backlum-Chaam]

<sigh>

One more post indicating we need a remedial reading-comprehension class around here.

There's nothing special about the word "marriage" that makes it so your partner can't apply for citizenship.

<sigh>

One more post indicating we need a remedial immigration-law class around here.

Nice word-game attempt, tho. Of course he was able to apply for citizenship.

But please don't insult my intelligence and personal experience by pretending that his application is being handled exactly the same way as that of a heterosexual spouse.

Your pretense that we are only imagining this double-standard is demeaning and disrespectful.

 

[Backlum-Chaam]

Let's see -- you were 6 twenty years ago; I was at college living with a house full of 'evangelical' guys. And you know what? Near half of them, back then, were quite willing to grant gays every legal benefit and privilege heteros get -- if gays just would stop insisting on polluting something sacred by asking for marriage.

And you believed them?

 

[Kulindahr]

<sigh>

One more post indicating we need a remedial immigration-law class around here.

Nice word-game attempt, tho. Of course he was able to apply for citizenship.

But please don't insult my intelligence and personal experience by pretending that his application is being handled exactly the same way as that of a heterosexual spouse.

Your pretense that we are only imagining this double-standard is demeaning and disrespectful.

You've wandered so far from anything I'm talking about it's hard to even start here.

I'll just say that your last two lines have nothing to do with what I've been saying -- please go back and read my posts.

 

[Kulindahr]

And you believed them?

Yes -- they weren't the sort to say such things when they didn't mean them, and they had no motive to do so anyway; it was 'in-house' talk.

 

[Backlum-Chaam]

You've wandered so far from anything I'm talking about it's hard to even start here.

I'll just say that your last two lines have nothing to do with what I've been saying -- please go back and read my posts.

"Keep reading my posts until you agree with me" is not a rebuttal.

You've managed, in your own posts here and elsewhere, to completely disprove your own word-game pretense that "exclusionary and proprietary claims on marriage" have been manufactured by the gay community. If these discriminatory claims about the definition of "marriage" don't exist, then why do you keep demanding that we honor and respect such claims?

What's next - Rosa Parks "manufactured" the exclusionary/proprietary claims others made about her bus seat? Gee, if only she hadn't tried to call it a "bus seat". Better yet, they could have solved that so much easier by just not allowing anybody to ride busses. After all, public transportation is an oppressive institution that exerts "privilege" over pedestrians.

 

[Kurn]

Kuli: After reading the decision of May 16, I am completely in agreement with the NO on H8 position. The decision lays out how prop 22 was bad law; quite as bad and bad in its effects as Plessy v. Ferguson. It's not just the word.
Here I'll spell it out: Marriage equality means that 2 people of the same sex can pass on their lives and their traditions to others as best they can. It means things implied by the phrase "pursuit of happiness."
I'll repost it here if I find it.
Oh---it's in this thread and you've already perused it a little bit at least. Well, give 'er a go, man; skip the footnotes; I don't have to tell you.

 

[Spensed]

1. I'm calling for mutual respect, which at the moment isn't being offered,
2. There are no "exclusionary and proprietary claims on marriage" except what's being manufactured by gay advocates.
3. You have yet to show any desire to offer mutual respect.

Other than mouthing the words, nor have you.

Your posts consistently denigrate people who don't happen to agree with you. For example, from just a few posts back:

<sigh>

One more post indicating we need a remedial reading-comprehension class around here.

A completely gratuitous and disrespectful put down that adds nothing to the substance of your reply.

The exclusionary and proprietary claims on marriage are what you're asking gays to respect.

Otherwise, since many gays want marriage so much, it would make as much sense for you to suggest that marriage be reserved for gay couples and that the evangelicals and their fellow travelers should come up with their own word.

 

[FirmaFan]

If it is wrong for gays to expect to be included, it is wrong for Christians to expect the government to exclude anyone. The religious folks are the ones who want it all their way. Gays just want the same rights as everyone else.

I have been saying the same thing for days, but Kulindahr has trouble understanding the fact that law, not religion, is what gay people are trying to change, and every time that explanation is attempted, he simply reiterates his proposal to eliminate marriage from law altogether, which is fine and well, but, until that occurs, marriage is law, and as such, every gay person in the US has the right to try to change it, regardless of how he believes the changing of a LAW is somehow and offense against a BELIEF.

 

[Kulindahr]

"Keep reading my posts until you agree with me" is not a rebuttal.

That's not what I said; that you can write that shows you're not reading well. I said to read my posts and understand what I said, because you're writing things appended to quotes of my posts, but they have nothing to do with those posts.

You've managed, in your own posts here and elsewhere, to completely disprove your own word-game pretense that "exclusionary and proprietary claims on marriage" have been manufactured by the gay community. If these discriminatory claims about the definition of "marriage" don't exist, then why do you keep demanding that we honor and respect such claims?

There's no word game pretense: the claims that Spense referred to with that phrase are only a problem because gay advocates insist on making one, by demanding use of the word "marriage". What I keep saying is that that word doesn't belong in the law, because as Random Dude said "it certainly caters to Christians".
As to your second sentence, as far as I can tell you're mixing things together that don't belong together, to where I can't tell what you're talking about.

What's next - Rosa Parks "manufactured" the exclusionary/proprietary claims others made about her bus seat? Gee, if only she hadn't tried to call it a "bus seat". Better yet, they could have solved that so much easier by just not allowing anybody to ride busses. After all, public transportation is an oppressive institution that exerts "privilege" over pedestrians.

More evidence that you have no comprehension of the other sides' views.... and that you haven't really read what I've said, or maybe are just being lazy, because that paragraph neither has any point of comparison with the battle over gay marriage nor makes much sense.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kuli: After reading the decision of May 16, I am completely in agreement with the NO on H8 position. The decision lays out how prop 22 was bad law; quite as bad and bad in its effects as Plessy v. Ferguson. It's not just the word.
Here I'll spell it out: Marriage equality means that 2 people of the same sex can pass on their lives and their traditions to others as best they can. It means things implied by the phrase "pursuit of happiness."
I'll repost it here if I find it.
Oh---it's in this thread and you've already perused it a little bit at least. Well, give 'er a go, man; skip the footnotes; I don't have to tell you.

This seems a bit thin; I'm not sure what you're driving at. But I think your statement about "Marriage equality" points up the problem: so long as the word "marriage" is demanded, there will be cultural warfare, and "one man, one woman" laws will keep being passed in a way that lock out equality. But just let it read this way: ...equality means that 2 people of the same sex can pass on their lives and their traditions to others as best they can. It means things implied by the phrase "pursuit of happiness." and a lot of opposition fades away.

 

[Kulindahr]

Your posts consistently denigrate people who don't happen to agree with you. For example, from just a few posts back:

False.
People are saying things about my posts that aren't in them. That means they either aren't reading well, or are purposefully lying. I choose to think their reading comprehension is weak.

The exclusionary and proprietary claims on marriage are what you're asking gays to respect.

Otherwise, since many gays want marriage so much, it would make as much sense for you to suggest that marriage be reserved for gay couples and that the evangelicals and their fellow travelers should come up with their own word.

False. I'm asking gays to respect their opponents, and to recognize the fact that by demanding use of the word "marriage", they're being rude, insulting, and inciting opposition that wouldn't otherwise be there. It's like deciding to set off on a war, and deliberately choosing a path that will gain your enemy allies who will keep you from winning.

That last paragraph shows that you have no comprehension at all of what the opponents on this issue feel... or don't care. They're standing on an institution with at least five thousand years of history, and gays.... Besides which, as you very well know, the great majority of Americans consider the word "marriage" to be religious.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, actually, I'm not even sure why marriage has to be a matter of law in the first place. But the legal system certainly did go out of it's way to cater specifically to Christians. If civil unions are the only unions that are legally recognized, than the recognition of traditional marriages by the law should stop.

That's a good question. Among other things, marriages were taken note of by the government due to inheritance law. Why anyone should need a "license" from the government for something which is a matter of a basic right -- freedom of association -- is beyond me.

Of course when "the legal system went out of its way", the definition was basically the only one around (save for a few "Mohammetans" with multiple wives), so it was a rather understandable oversight.

If all the law recognized was "civil unions" (registered unions, whatever), traditional marriage would be recognized -- as one form qualifying for recognition under the civil union law. And if two gay guys (or three -- why not?) found a church or something to marry them, then that gay marriage would qualify as well (as would the "Mohammetan" and his three wives).

If it is wrong for gays to expect to be included, it is wrong for Christians to expect the government to exclude anyone. The religious folks are the ones who want it all their way. Gays just want the same rights as everyone else.

Shhh!
That's the little secret we don't want to let out.

It IS wrong for Christians to expect the government to exclude anyone. That they're doing it on a religious basis makes it all very, very unconstitutional -- and if they'd be honest and face the scriptures, they'd realize that in that stance, they're in rebellion against God, because it says to "submit to the ruling authority", which in the U.S. means the Constitution. An honest Christian would call on the government to change the law so it didn't talk about marriage any more, but rather provide something open to everyone.

 

[Kulindahr]

I have been saying the same thing for days, but Kulindahr has trouble understanding the fact that law, not religion, is what gay people are trying to change, and every time that explanation is attempted, he simply reiterates his proposal to eliminate marriage from law altogether, which is fine and well, but, until that occurs, marriage is law, and as such, every gay person in the US has the right to try to change it, regardless of how he believes the changing of a LAW is somehow and offense against a BELIEF.

The changing of a law is offensive against a belief -- that's what I've been trying to explain -- at least in this case. I can't figure out why you can't grasp that.

Once more, then...

Maybe like this: you're essentially saying that there are two words, both of them spelled m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e. One's a religious word, and one's a law word. So you don't see what the problem is changing the law word, because it's not the religious word.

The problem is that to the people you're antagonizing by trying to make this change, there aren't two words -- there's one. M-a-r-r-i-a-g-e is to them a word given by God, and it has one meaning, and it can't be changed. Taking something contrary to that definition and forcing them to accept it under the M-word is blasphemous, idolatrous, something to be fought with every resource they have as an affront to God. It's something so horrific to them that none of the examples I've thought of so far really make a dent (how about... requiring you to not only sit down to dinner every night with Dick Cheney, but to let him share your bed?).

And it's no good trying to explain that there really are two different words, that just look alike; that concept isn't one available to them.

 

[Spensed]

False.
People are saying things about my posts that aren't in them. That means they either aren't reading well, or are purposefully lying. I choose to think their reading comprehension is weak.

I cited a specific disrespectful example from one of your posts, the insulting thrust of which you now repeat in denying you denigrate other posters. Funny.

False. I'm asking gays to respect their opponents, and to recognize the fact that by demanding use of the word "marriage", they're being rude, insulting, and inciting opposition that wouldn't otherwise be there. It's like deciding to set off on a war, and deliberately choosing a path that will gain your enemy allies who will keep you from winning.

That last paragraph shows that you have no comprehension at all of what the opponents on this issue feel... or don't care. They're standing on an institution with at least five thousand years of history, and gays.... Besides which, as you very well know, the great majority of Americans consider the word "marriage" to be religious.

Asking for the use of the word "marriage" isn't any of the things you say it is, unless you think that others have more of a right to it than gays do. And, no matter what you and they say, they don't.

If you analogize to race, you're saying it's an affront to slave owners to ask them not to keep slaves because of the history of slavery and their entrenched sense that they should be allowed to continue it.

Obviously, I'm not saying that disrespecting someone who disrespects you is the only tactic, but then neither is just playing Uncle Tom.