Kingdom of Gay (name modified by request)

[Timber Loftis]

Hey, Yorick shut himself up! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I wholeheartedly support gay rights the world over. If they make the mistake of arguing for marital rights when in the current climate they could garner support for civil unions, then so be it. I support gar rights completely, but I think they would all be better off to take what they can get (i.e., civil unions), without pushing for more (i.e., gay marriage).

As a warrior for the cause, I think the concessions that *can* be gotten should be gotten.... and save the rest for later.

[Dave_the_quack]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: My darling, I'm glad you're posting here again, and I'm glad there's a thread about this, and I'm just generally glad... but please, please edit the title of this thread.

Your wish is my command, luv.

[Dave_the_quack]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Hey, Yorick shut himself up! [img]tongue.gif[/img] I wholeheartedly support gay rights the world over. If they make the mistake of arguing for marital rights when in the current climate they could garner support for civil unions, then so be it. I support gar rights completely, but I think they would all be better off to take what they can get (i.e., civil unions), without pushing for more (i.e., gay marriage). As a warrior for the cause, I think the concessions that *can* be gotten should be gotten.... and save the rest for later.

I agree with you completely on the civil unions... and then after that debate over the rights of marriage (which I presume would not come too far behind the former), but what these guys are trying to do is just create their own Government themselves... and, knock on wood, they seem to be succeeding thus far. Good on them.

[Timber Loftis]

Dave, with 11 out of 11 states having gay marriages bans on the ballot (all approved) and 4 out of them having no "rights similar or equal to marriage" given, I've got to point out the obvious -- pushing for more has set the gay community back a bit. Obviously. Had they just settled for "civil unions" i.e. "right similar or equal to marriage," they would be much better off than they are now, after pushing gay marriage, as in Mass. The cause is hurt, just as much as it was when Bowers v. Hardwick was pushed before the Supreme Court.

Americans are generally more than happy to give rights to gays - they just don't want it to be called "marriage." And, that is the climate.

[ 11-30-2004, 02:50 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

I meant that you said "gay's" when you meant "gays" because you got my hopes up. It sounded like one gay fighting back (which I guess it might be interpreted as), not a group.

[Luvian]

I agree with Timber here. You're fighting for equality, not a name.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by Luvian: I agree with Timber here. You're fighting for equality, not a name.

What's in a name? Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet?

The fight is for equality, this is true... and a better strategy would be to go for civil unions and then move from there onto pushing for marriage. But there won't be equality until gay couples recieve the full recognition that straight couples do.

[Dave_the_quack]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Dave, with 11 out of 11 states having gay marriages bans on the ballot (all approved) and 4 out of them having no "rights similar or equal to marriage" given, I've got to point out the obvious -- pushing for more has set the gay community back a bit. Obviously. Had they just settled for "civil unions" i.e. "right similar or equal to marriage," they would be much better off than they are now, after pushing gay marriage, as in Mass. The cause is hurt, just as much as it was when Bowers v. Hardwick was pushed before the Supreme Court. Americans are generally more than happy to give rights to gays - they just don't want it to be called "marriage." And, that is the climate.

Sorry.. must've misspoke. I was trying to state what Illumina put into better words than I. I agree that first we should fight for civil unions. It is my belief that Gay Marriage could not be too far off from that particular point in this whole terrible discrimination.

I figure this with the following reasoning:

a jump from no rights to civil unions - HUGE leap

a jump from civil unions to marriage - less of a huge leap.

I know people say "what does a name mean to you?" I put this back at you... if the name doesn't bear so much meaning... why are you fighting so hard as to keep us from it? It may be a small thing, but it is still discrimination nonetheless, and wanting to be recognised the same as heterosexuals are should be a compliment, not a threat. I am not a lesser being to anyone in this forum, not even Choc.

[Luvian]

Dave, let's not get into the details of this, but marriage is tied to religion. Most faith have no place for homosexuality, so they don't want to be tied to it in anyway, even with a word.

To fix the problem of marriage, you would have to change those religions.

That's why I suggest the community come up with a new title that would give the same benefits, without being based on religion.

I don't know, call it bonding, life sentence, combining, anything but marriage, and then you might lose most of the opposition you have.

[ 11-30-2004, 03:25 AM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Luvian: I agree with Timber here. You're fighting for equality, not a name.

I'm not so sure its even a good idea to fight for equality. Equality just means sharing in the oppression. Gay people don't want to simply be equal in their unfreedom with straight people, or at least I can't think why they would. Making Equality the issue ignores why there is prejudice and divisions in society in the first place - that we're in a pretty messed up state all round. Theres a reason its most normally called a liberation campaign - its about liberty, not equality.

[ 11-30-2004, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: Ziroc ]