Separate but equal isn't equal. We've seen that demonstrated in our nation's recent history. But aside from that, Christians didn't invent marriage. Christians don't get to own it and exclude whoever they want from it. I agree that male and female is a matter of genitals and calling someone with male or female genitals male or female isn't a bad thing. But if they want to be something different, I don't have a problem with that either.
I hope this serves a lesson for Piers Morgan about pandering to LGBT. I still think it's a guy with a mutilated penis.
You can't compare using a different term as "separate but equal." We're not talking about segregated schools, or whites only dining rooms. It isn't even freaking close. And even as a white man, this kind of comparison drives me bonkers when it is brought up. We're talking about a word that even as you state, is rather meaningless. Civil unions would have had the exact same rights as marriages. They chose to argue over semantics, and I personally think it was an ignorant choice. They wasted valuable time, money and effort that could have been used to enact real change for their cause. But nope, they decided to get in to a pissing match with the evangelicals in the country over the meaning of a word. Let's pick a fight with the most stubborn and well financed people in the US over something trivial. That'll teach 'em! EDIT: Also, I find it amusing that the LGBT community can come up with so many new terms to "define" who they are - but they couldn't come up with a new term to define gay marriage, or civil unions. It just all seems so ridiculous to me.
The latter would actually be an interesting discussion, but I think this thread is already too far gone...
I disagree. Having one group of people that can be married, and one group that have to be in civil unions is most definitely separate but equal. And it's worth a struggle to not have citizens put into those separate categories. They should all be included in one.
Says the guy who runs around calling people "freaks" because they have different political views than he does.
Back in the '60's, if you called someone a freak, it was just another word for hippy. So maybe he's just hip!
So you're one of those "marriage belongs to Christianity" freaks aren't you? Do you seriously not see how flawed that logic is in the context of human history?
You can't compare that, it isn't even freaking close. And even as a straight man, this kind of comparison drives me bonkers when it is brought up.
I never said they can't or shouldn't use it. Go for it, I don't care. There's no such thing as sanctity in marriage anymore considering most marriages end in divorce. I said it was just a word and thus, worthless - but there are tens of millions of Americans on each side of the argument that obviously don't feel the same way. So they bicker and argue over semantics, all the while the LGBT community doesn't realize that it is simply a stall tactic that has been working for 40 years. I'm far from a grandpa, I'm a realist. If I can get from point A to point B with no hassle, little effort in a timely fashion - why wouldn't I? Fighting over the term "marriage" has been an ongoing battle since the 1970s. Personally I think the fight over the word "marriage" has set the overall progress of gay rights back at least a few decades, maybe more. And for what? Having the term M-A-R-R-I-A-G-E spelled out in black and white on legal documents? Did you even read my reply? Instead of putting words in my mouth, learn basic reading comprehension. My entire point was they are fighting a huge battle over an extremely stubborn, entrenched and financially backed opponent. Evangelicals will throw money and raise hell about it for decades, and they have. I think the gay community could have gotten farther, faster by calling them civil unions or coming up with a different term to embrace all their own. That's the point. WTF does it matter what it is called if their legal rights are the same? Are you defined by what the government says you are? It is the same, exactly the same. They don't fit in to the basic gender roles that society came up with, so they invented a lot of new ones. They don't fit in to the same "marriage" roles that society came up with, so why not invent new ones? I don't see the difference in the slightest.
I do, greatly. I just think they don't really battle on a united front. They are the occupy wall street of social injustice. Infighting keeps them from a focused message. I've had conversations with many LGBT who agree with me, and then many who don't - and that's the point. I look at it logically. What can you do to get "equal" rights the fastest? Easy, stop going to war with half the country. Take the equal rights now, and worry about the definition of a word later.
i guess i see it differently. to me the gay marriage act is about attaining the same rights as traditional marriage, where the gender issue want people to recognize them for who they are inside instead of their anatomy. to me these are separate issues. you could lump them under the equal rights umbrella, but that's a big umbrella
I just look at it from the perspective as I know a lot of people on both sides of the issue. I'm a Christian, and I know those who are fighting gay marriage are on the wrong side of history - but I also know they aren't going to change overnight. The old fashioned will die out eventually, but that could take decades. Long story short, I think the best thing for the future of the country is to get it over with as soon as possible and challenging the word marriage wasn't the fastest way. Once they had equality, they could then leverage for the terminology.
I've never understood the argument that a segment of America should accept a lower status than the rest of the population. I didn't understand it back when Blacks were fighting for their rights (not that the fight's over), Latinos doing the same, or any other minority. The LGBT community is simply another minority that some Americans are fighting to deny equal rights. All this other stuff, the "they should just wait!" argument, I find absurd. If those most ardently making that argument were treated as second class citizens, would they be content to "wait a decade" for equal rights? A very nebulous promise, a promise that amounts to hot air? I think not. Equal rights for all. It ain't Rocket science.
She's not gay though. She's not a cross dresser either (which doesn't mean gay either) There are gay people who identify with their intended gender (effeminate/butch males/women who know they're males/women), and there are people who through biochemistry or mental physiology who really identify themselves as the opposite sex. I admit it's confusing as hell, and it's not a topic you generally discuss over the dinner table. So it's not a cut and dried matter. Also, public perception about this isn't clear since the science backing it up isn't casually intuitive, which is why the OP called her a "thing" and why you're lumping her into previously defined norms, a gay male who maybe likes dressing up in girly clothes and happened to have a sex change, though in your eyes is still gay in a literal sense given with what she was born with. Personally, I don't have a word or pronoun outside "transgendered" to accurately describe what she is, though I can see how that matters even if some hippies/loudmouthed "color blind" conservatives say it shouldn't.
