 |
| |
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Just for the record, the three states whose initiatives last week refer only to the granting of marriage licenses are Montana, Oregon (the one place where the vote was very close), and Mississippi. The states that used marriage as a cover to mount an assault on contractual relationships of all kinds were Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah.
In pivotal Ohio, for example, the voters may not have realized it but they voted to strip people of the right to contractually arrange distribution of assets, child custody, pensions, and other employment benefits. They most definitely were not "protecting" marriage; they were attacking gay people. That is why the political and business establishment there, including Republicans, opposed the measure.
The evidence is that the voters who approved it also opposed its actual contents. In the official exit poll Tuesday night, 27 percent of the voters said they support full marriage rights, 35 percent supported civil unions, and only 27 percent oppose any legal rights for same-sex couples. In other words, to underline the importance of artifice and deception in our sound-bite culture, the voters approved a measure opposed substantively by 62 percent of the very same voters.
|
From a Boston Globe editorial. Link to full article:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...iage_deception/
What can I say? Boo, hiss, sigh.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
While you may believe this is so, it is false. I live a couple blocks from HRC, so I've seen the demonstrations. It was clearly an organized political top-down campaign. They got big money from somewhere in the last couple of years. |
DanS, I think your reasoning is flawed here. Of course there are gay leaders and gay organizations with their own agendas, some of them well-funded and well-organized. But as Last Conformist points out, this does not mean they in fact represent (or supported by) the general gay population.
It is very hard for gays to present anything like a united voice on the most prominent political issues facing the gay community (civil unions vs marriage, "don't ask, don't tell", closing bath houses during the AIDS crisis, fighting religious people vs reaching out to them, etc).
Sure, many gay people do agree on some very general things (e.g. discrimination is bad), or may reach higher levels of organization during times of acute crisis (e.g. getting funding to fight AIDS during the Reagan administration) but beyond that it's extrememly difficult to get the "gay masses" coodinated behind much of anything -- at least far more difficult that it is for minorities which have something more tangible in common, such as job type, place of residence, membership to an organized religion, or shared poitical ideology.
The basic poblem is that "who you fall in love with" is not much of a predictor of other attributes around which organizations or agendas can form. Compare with race, religious belief, etc, which generally affect other areas of behavior, viewpoint, or lifestyle which more naturally lead to agreement and organization.
This handicap presents an enormous obstacle to anyone who wants to organize or represent gays. That is why I took exception to your posting about "why doesn't some gay leader ...". There simply is no such person, for much the same reason that there is no "leader" or agenda of heterosexuals.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
I guess you still don't see the difference between being allowed to marry as often as you want, and being allowed to marry at all... |
Homosexuals want to marry certain people, polygamists want to marry certain people - both can't. What's the difference? You say the difference is that at least polygamists can marry, they just can't marry into a polygamist relationship. That's like saying homosexuals can marry, they just can't marry the same sex. You reject that argument when it comes to homosexuals but embrace it when it comes to polygamists. Why?
quote:
At least polygamists are currently allowed to marry |
But they are not allowed to marry into a polygamist relationship. You insist on requiring polygamists to marry in accordance with the majority's definition of marriage, but reject that majority's definition to accomodate homosexuals.
quote:
Personally, I don't mind giving polygamy a fair hearing, although I don't see any link between it and the gay marriage issue other than that they both involve marriage. |
The fact you wouldn't mind giving polygamists a fair hearing as if you're empowered to sit in judgement smacks of a double standard. Why do they need your blessing? You don't think homosexuals need to have the majority's blessing. As for the link - you say polygamists can marry using the majority's definition, well, so can homosexuals.
quote:
For the same reason I would not fault as selfish or hypocritical those who battled for inter-racial marriage for not also fighting for gay marriage. It's a different issue affecting different laws in different ways. |
I would if they turned around after winning their cause and told polygamists they have to use the majority's definition, a definition you reject when it comes to homosexuals.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
|
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
You say the difference is that at least polygamists can marry, they just can't marry into a polygamist relationship. |
While polygamists cannot marry as many as they wish, at least they can marry someone whom they wish. Gays cannot marry anyone whom they wish.
In other words, polygamists can in fact participate in marriage, just not to the degree they wish. Gays cannot participate at all. Big difference.
quote:
That's like saying homosexuals can marry, they just can't marry the same sex. You reject that argument when it comes to homosexuals but embrace it when it comes to polygamists. Why? |
Because, if one assumes that people generally marry for reasons of love, then gays by definition cannot marry. Polygamists can.
quote:
You insist on requiring polygamists to marry in accordance with the majority's definition of marriage |
I insist? I thought I said I was open to giving the idea a fair hearing. 
quote:
The fact you wouldn't mind giving polygamists a fair hearing as if you're empowered to sit in judgement smacks of a double standard. Why do they need your blessing? You don't think homosexuals need to have the majority's blessing. |
Well, I guess you got gays coming and going, don't you. If they are not willing to consider polygamy, they are "selfish hypocrites". If they are willing to consider it, they are "sitting in judgement". 
Your arguments are akin to claiming that someone is a hypocrite for advocating women's suffrage without simultaneously advocating multiple voting for some already enfranchised group.
quote:
As for the link - you say polygamists can marry using the majority's definition, well, so can homosexuals. |
I think it's safe to say that in our society the majority's definition of marriage is one based on a foundation of mutual romantic love. Based on that definition, gays cannot currently marry, polygamists can.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2004 21:18
@ Imran
.
|