Skip to main content

View Diary: We won so now can I say something without being told to shut up? (93 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There's a difference between hating gay people (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tmo, MA Voter

    and thinking that we shouldn't necessarily alter the traditional definition of marriage just because a civil union isn't good enough for some people.

    -5.38, -5.90 Deus mihi iustitiam dabit.

    by cjallen on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 08:56:39 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  no there's not-- (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      milton333, Moment

      Thinking that means that gay people are not seen as equal. I think that matters.

      I'm hetro and married. I like being married. I want my friends to have the same rights as me.

      The SAME EXACT RIGHTS.

      Yeah I know it's "easier to win if we call it something else" -- but the fact that we have to call it something else is a sign the homophobia is out there.

      The homophobia needs to go.

      •  Yes there is. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MA Voter

        They already have the same exact freedom to marry as you do- the freedom to marry someone of the opposite gender- and many of them do that.  Making it so that you can marry people of the same gender would mean expanding everyone's freedom.  Not that I'm against that.

        I have nothing against gay people, I just have something against people who would put their narrow interests (particularly when it's just a case of having a different name for their institution) before other people's.

        Frankly, I think government should get out of the marriage business.  It's too caught up with religious connotations to be a good civil institution.  Civil unions for all.

        -5.38, -5.90 Deus mihi iustitiam dabit.

        by cjallen on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 09:13:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  sorry. (0+ / 0-)

          I have nothing against gay people, I just have something against people who would put their narrow interests (particularly when it's just a case of having a different name for their institution) before other people's.

          I don't think it's "narrow" --I think it's sad that people need different names to feel OK with this-- it's a symptom of the homophobia in our culture.

          •  You can't legislate bigotry. (0+ / 0-)

            You can legislate laws.  Like civil unions, domestic partnerships, or even gay marriages.  But if your objection is to the existence of homophobia, you can't legislate that away.  If you want gay marriage, you're probably going to have to wait until my generation is in control, in 20-30 years, because we, by and large, have no problem with gay people.  If you want a world free of homophobia, don't hold your breath.

            -5.38, -5.90 Deus mihi iustitiam dabit.

            by cjallen on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 10:00:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Civil unions for all sounds like a good idea (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          futurebird

          to me.

          Can you see people accepting that?  These are the same people who have a problem with gays getting the same rights as them.  Why would they accept what could be construed as a lowering of their rights.  Take marriage altogether out of the control of the state, and give any two people who love each other the right to a civil union?  Sounds fabulous to me, but it wouldn't fly.

          Now, this:

          I have nothing against gay people, I just have something against people who would put their narrow interests (particularly when it's just a case of having a different name for their institution) before other people's

          That shows a lack of understanding about what this is about.  It is NOT about a different name for the institution.  It is about not only having so-called equal rights (which aren't totally equal anyway) but THE SAME rights.  It's not a small group of people putting forward their narrow interests at the expense of other people - it is the civil rights battle of our time, and winning this battle will benefit everyone in the society.

          Rosa sat so Martin could walk. Martin walked so Barack could run. Barack ran so our children could fly. YES WE CAN!

          by Moment on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 09:40:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  How is it not about having the same name for the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rweba

            institution?  That's all this is about.

            If civil unions afford gays and lesbians the same treatment as marriage does heteros, what's the problem?  The name.  That's it.  Should they all have the same name?  Sure.  Do we have to get everything we want right now, though, like a spoiled child?  No.  If this were about the legal and financial issues involved in marriage, I could understand the impatience, because those are very practical concerns, but it isn't.  In my state domestic partnerships guarantee gay and lesbian couples the same treatment under state law, but still there is the clamor for marriage.  This is about the name.

            -5.38, -5.90 Deus mihi iustitiam dabit.

            by cjallen on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 09:51:48 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, there's a difference (2+ / 0-)

      between hate and lesser bigotry, but that doesn't mean the lesser bigotry is okay.

      I have never understood what it is about the term "marriage" that so many people feel that it should only apply to opposite-gendered couples.  I heard an interview with someone who said "I mean, they should have the same rights and everything, but why does it have to be called 'marriage'? Why can't it be called 'wedlock' or something else?"  

      Why do these people want to keep the so-called "traditional" definition of marriage?  If they really feel that same-gender couples should have the same rights, what keeps them from feeling like the same institution is the way to do that?  

      The answer is homophobia.  We should not be afraid to call it that.  

      Rosa sat so Martin could walk. Martin walked so Barack could run. Barack ran so our children could fly. YES WE CAN!

      by Moment on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 09:28:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What that person was saying was (0+ / 0-)

        "I'm okay with them having the same rights, so long as I don't really have to think about it, but just don't take something that I feel is unnatural or immoral and shove it in my face and force me to accept it."

        This is something that I don't get- why not take your victory- like the victory in my state which was widely celebrated when domestic partnerships (originally the bill titled them civil unions) were passed, granting gay and lesbian couples every state privilege that married couples were granted- and say "That's good.  We can live and love in peace" rather than "Not good enough!  All of America must approve of us being together!"

        You're confusing the battle with ending bigotry with the battle to get equality.  One is a battle over hearts and minds of the entire country, the other is a battle over legislation.  If someone won't go all the way to accepting homosexuality, but will accept that they have equal treatment under the law, that gets you to equality even if they still are homophobic.  So what's the problem?  That they are still homophobic?  That's never going to go away.  But discriminatory laws can.

        -5.38, -5.90 Deus mihi iustitiam dabit.

        by cjallen on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 09:44:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ending discriminatory laws is part of ending (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          futurebird

          bigotry.  And the end goal here is that marriage is for everyone, everyone has THE SAME rights, not similar rights.

          Why do you want same-sex couples to just roll over and say, "Thanks for throwing us a bone!  I know it's not the same what you've got, but it's good enough."  NO!  It's not good enough.  Segregated schools theoretically could have given black kids the same education as white kids, but they were still segregated, and that sends a message, which is not positive for our society.  

          I think we all want to see homophobia go away.  Part of that process has to come from legislation if it is going to happen at all.  Legislating that it is illegal to offer one group a privilege but not offer the same privilege to another group is one kick-in-the pants our country needs.

          Rosa sat so Martin could walk. Martin walked so Barack could run. Barack ran so our children could fly. YES WE CAN!

          by Moment on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 09:56:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  But that's not at all what I'm saying. (0+ / 0-)

            In my state, domestic partnerships offer the same treatment under state law that marriages do.  The exact same.  Not different.  Not lesser.  The exact same.  The different name is all that's different.  And maybe we should change it, but why right now, when most people are against it?

            And if you think passing gay marriage would make people more accepting, why did Southern whites vote overwhelmingly against Barack Obama?  We passed the civil rights acts long ago.  Shouldn't that have ended racism by now?  That's not the way it works.  You can only fight bigotry over the long term, and it happens by people having personal experiences with those people being discriminated against.

            -5.38, -5.90 Deus mihi iustitiam dabit.

            by cjallen on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 10:07:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (134)
  • Community (62)
  • Elections (40)
  • 2016 (38)
  • Environment (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (35)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Culture (30)
  • Republicans (29)
  • Media (29)
  • Climate Change (27)
  • Education (23)
  • Spam (23)
  • Congress (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Labor (21)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Law (20)
  • Texas (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site