Why do we bother any more?

[Archaea]

With domestic partnerships and "marriage", it seems we spend a lot of time fighting over a distinction with barely a difference.

We fight over symbols.

In the past fights were over something, such as freedom, voting, and matters that really affected lives.

Now we fight over little picture items using the language of the big picture items, almost mocking the accomplishments of the past by invoking them in a pipsqueak debate.

Has our philosophical life become so meaningless?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

With domestic partnerships and "marriage", it seems we spend a lot of time fighting over a distinction with barely a difference.

We fight over symbols.

In the past fights were over something, such as freedom, voting, and matters that really affected lives.

Now we fight over little picture items using the language of the big picture items, almost mocking the accomplishments of the past by invoking them in a pipsqueak debate.

Has our philosophical life become so meaningless?

separeate but equal. Shame on you, brother.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

separeate but equal. Shame on you, brother.

Shame on you for mocking race relations by comparing it to gay rights. The black voters recognized the distinction.

This isn't about education, physical facilities, places on the bus, voting, or anything else affecting daily life. This is about a title in front of name, or "legitimacy", and maybe some extra insurance.

It's a terrible analogy and comparison and mocks the lives of those who fought for something noble.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Shame on you for mocking race relations by comparing it to gay rights. The black voters recognized the distinction.

This isn't about education, physical facilities, places on the bus, voting, or anything else affecting daily life. This is about a title in front of name, or "legitimacy", and maybe some extra insurance.

It's a terrible analogy and comparison and mocks the lives of those who fought for something noble.

I don't know - what if (and I believe it is) sexual orientation is as immutable as race? Shouldn't it receive similar protections?

What if homosexuals took control of the government of Nevada and managed to change the state constitution to provide that men and women cannot marry each other; that people can only marry their own gender? If you lived in that state, wouldn't you consider it an abridgment of your civil liberties?

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Shame on you for mocking race relations by comparing it to gay rights. The black voters recognized the distinction.

This isn't about education, physical facilities, places on the bus, voting, or anything else affecting daily life. This is about a title in front of name, or "legitimacy", and maybe some extra insurance.

It's a terrible analogy and comparison and mocks the lives of those who fought for something noble.

The black civil rights movement was about all those things you list, but it was also about something more. It was also about being accepted in society as equals without prejudice. The gay rights movement of today shares that goal. Sure gays today are "more equal" than blacks were in the 60's but persecution does remain. The blacks had more to overcome, but it does not mean that this gay rights movement is unworthy of comparison.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I don't know - what if (and I believe it is) sexual orientation is as immutable as race? Shouldn't it receive similar protections?

What if homosexuals took control of the government of Nevada and managed to change the state constitution to provide that men and women cannot marry each other; that people can only marry their own gender? If you lived in that state, wouldn't you consider it an abridgment of your civil liberties?

A silly hypothetical.

May gays vote? Yes.

May gays own property? Yes.

May you fail to hire on the basis of orientation? In most cases, no.

May gays cohabitate? Yes.

May gays own property together? Yes.

May gays conjugate? Yes.

May gays have the name of Mr. and Mrs. legally? No.

May gays have instruments conveying property upon death? Yes.

I don't see much functionality in this debate.

And if I were denied the right to legal recognition, so what. The Church should get out of the business of "marriage" and focus upon "sealings". Sealing is a noble construct, marriage is a social construct that means whatever subcultures say it means.

Do away with the legal recognition of "marriage" altogether, make them all domestic partnerships or civil unions, and let the Churches decide upon what else should be heaped upon the union. That solution is much more elegant in my opinion.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Shame on you for mocking race relations by comparing it to gay rights.

You don't get it. If you don't see it this way, you're against us.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

The black civil rights movement was about all those things you list, but it was also about something more. It was also about being accepted in society as equals without prejudice. The gay rights movement of today shares that goal. Sure gays today are "more equal" than blacks were in the 60's but persecution does remain. The blacks had more to overcome, but it does not mean that this gay rights movement is unworthy of comparison.

it actually irritates my sensibilities for the unlawful persecution, human ownership, complete deprivation of any human rights to be compared to the deprivation of a minor legal distinction.

It is akin to Mormons laying claim to an analogy to the Jewish persecution of the Holocaust when they point to Haun's Mill. A mere shadow, and a mockery of the memories of those truly persecuted.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You don't get it. If you don't see it this way, you're against us.

I get it, but it makes me think you're a racist when you choose that analogy. But again, we should just do away with legal recognition of any marriage. That is a better approach. You've never commented why society should use a religious term in its civil recognitions. That's where we went awry, relying upon archaic pronouncements from our archaic, bigoted, religious past. Jettison the past.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Shame on you for mocking race relations by comparing it to gay rights. The black voters recognized the distinction.

The 70-30 ratio of votes in favor of Prop 8 among blacks may be the most convincing evidence ever that the gay marriage struggle is nothing like the civil rights struggle.