FA+
Shop
Your opinion on something
10 years ago
Once again I've escaped from Psymon long enough to write some stuff...
As we are all aware the right to marriage as finally been granted to those of us in the LGBT community in all states(Huge victory for us). Granted there are those who still don't believe in such rights, poor little things but we can just ignore them now like we do all others who spout nonsensical nonsense.
Late last night my brother showed me a conversation between 3 people in regards to the new marriage law and I'd like your opinion on who is right and who is wrong. Naturally names have been changed for anonymity.
John: Not trying to open that can of worms lol - edited.
Terrance: It's called marriage no matter what God they believe in man. There really is no other word for it.
Mike: Non-christians get marred all the time, Christians don't seem to give two shits when Atheists, Hindus, and Scientologists get married. He's just using his religion to mask his own inner prejudices. Which is gross. Thank you Terrance for not being gross.
Terrance: I was blessed with being raised by intelligent and open minded parents. Not everyone is that fortunate. Many have trouble overcoming the conditioning they've received since birth. John is open to the idea of marriage equality. His one hang up is the use of a word. I too used to have that same issue.
Change takes time. My views didn't change over night. It was something I too had to think on and consider before I came to the realization that it was just a word and how it was used really wasn't as important as the problem of inequality.
Wouldn't it be a shame if your angry words closed an open mind all because of an issue over one word?
Mike: Sorry, I just know too many people who are deeply and intrinsicly affected by this decision to be able to give anyone a pass on their ignorance. If Atheist Steve and buddhist Jane can get married and not have people saying, "I agree that you deserve to have a union but don't call it marriage" then there is literally nothing different except for internalized ignorance masquerading as religious devotion. As internet sensation "Sweet Brown" once said, "Ain't nobody got time fo dat."
John: I rarely say anything on here. I don't look down on you Mike I just think the term should be respected as I respect your right to union to have same benefits as married couples. Just my opinion not trying to debate. I'll gladly attend your ceremony with open arms mate.
Mike: I don't have a right to a union, I have a right to a marriage. Calling it anything different leads to discrimination, because if they are equal, they'd be called the same thing, regardless. I don't gay park a car, I don't gay study for exams, so I wouldn't get gay married, I'd get married. I would never get a 'union' because that's not equal, that's discrimination. You chose to be christian, people don't choose to be gay
John: Wasn't trying to rain on your gay parade, pun intended, congrats Mike.
Terrance: John is not an enemy of the LGBT community. If anyone here is an enemy of the LGBT cause it's you. You're actions are causing way more harm than anything else discussed here. So congratulations in showing that the only thing different between you and the people you're fighting against is what side of the line you're standing on.
Mike: I'm sorry you feel that way, but the LGBT community fights for equal rights, not "almost equal" or "separate but equal". Equal. Not half-equal, not equal on certain days, not equal if you make enough money, not equal if you're the right skin color. Equal. Calling them "unions" is the same thing as having "whites only" and "blacks only" water fountains. It's not equal. We tried that before, I'm sure I needn't tell you how it ended, dude.
John: Well that did a death spiral fast..sorry Terrance.
Terrance: Bah I'm not worried about it John. I've come to enjoy a good argument.
Terrance: And how effective was calling them racist bastards in changing their minds Mike? It wasn't. Laws change easier than the masses opinions.You can be as steadfast in your belief as you want but you'll still never successfully force you're opinion onto someone else.
Mike: Dude I never called him any names. I never said he was an enemy of lgbts, I just said he was masking his own internalized prejudices by using religion as a convenient shield. I don't wish to force my opinion on anyone else, I don't care enough about other people to do that. But when I see something ignorant going down, I have no problem calling it out.
John: I believe the terms gross and internally ignorant were used.
Mike: you're right, the term gross was used to describe a behavior, not a person. and internalized ignorance was used to describe the motivation behind that behavior (again, not a person)
John: Still cuts deep
Mike: Try being told you don't deserve to get married because of a misinterpretation of some ridiculous magical fairy tale full of hypocrisy and bigotry. Then try doing that since birth.
Terrance: So you're intent was simply to start an argument?
John: Define every word that goes into getting married. Marriage - minister - blessing. It's all holy, sacred or biblical in origin. This is all I am saying. No hard feelings Mike I'll still stick up for your rights to union.
Mike: Not when the law is involved. Separation of church and state, bro. As of yesterday your church no longer has a legal hold on the lives of millions of gay people. I can't help it if you're one of the ones who got butthurt from it. That's on you. I'm sorry that EQUALITY offends you so much.
Mike: My intent was not to start an argument, he had stated his opinion, I was stating mine. It was his aversion to the constitution was what started the argument.
Mike: Again, I don't care about rights to drink from the "gays only" water fountain or to sit in the civil unions section of the bus. I care about my right to be MARRIED. Which thankfully is a right that I now have, regardless of anyone's disagreement for that right.
Mike: Also marriages existed before christianity, saying that it's biblical in origin just means you need more education.
Terrance: This is just going in circles so I'm ending it with this.
In this social movement there are three groups. Those for equality, those against equality, and those that are in the middle. Generally when either side of an issue tries to win those from the middle they chose to show them how their side is right. They usually don't go around telling them how wrong they are for thinking they way they do.
And that's the end. So, what are your thoughts on this? Who is in the Right and who is in the Wrong?
Late last night my brother showed me a conversation between 3 people in regards to the new marriage law and I'd like your opinion on who is right and who is wrong. Naturally names have been changed for anonymity.
John: Not trying to open that can of worms lol - edited.
Terrance: It's called marriage no matter what God they believe in man. There really is no other word for it.
Mike: Non-christians get marred all the time, Christians don't seem to give two shits when Atheists, Hindus, and Scientologists get married. He's just using his religion to mask his own inner prejudices. Which is gross. Thank you Terrance for not being gross.
Terrance: I was blessed with being raised by intelligent and open minded parents. Not everyone is that fortunate. Many have trouble overcoming the conditioning they've received since birth. John is open to the idea of marriage equality. His one hang up is the use of a word. I too used to have that same issue.
Change takes time. My views didn't change over night. It was something I too had to think on and consider before I came to the realization that it was just a word and how it was used really wasn't as important as the problem of inequality.
Wouldn't it be a shame if your angry words closed an open mind all because of an issue over one word?
Mike: Sorry, I just know too many people who are deeply and intrinsicly affected by this decision to be able to give anyone a pass on their ignorance. If Atheist Steve and buddhist Jane can get married and not have people saying, "I agree that you deserve to have a union but don't call it marriage" then there is literally nothing different except for internalized ignorance masquerading as religious devotion. As internet sensation "Sweet Brown" once said, "Ain't nobody got time fo dat."
John: I rarely say anything on here. I don't look down on you Mike I just think the term should be respected as I respect your right to union to have same benefits as married couples. Just my opinion not trying to debate. I'll gladly attend your ceremony with open arms mate.
Mike: I don't have a right to a union, I have a right to a marriage. Calling it anything different leads to discrimination, because if they are equal, they'd be called the same thing, regardless. I don't gay park a car, I don't gay study for exams, so I wouldn't get gay married, I'd get married. I would never get a 'union' because that's not equal, that's discrimination. You chose to be christian, people don't choose to be gay
John: Wasn't trying to rain on your gay parade, pun intended, congrats Mike.
Terrance: John is not an enemy of the LGBT community. If anyone here is an enemy of the LGBT cause it's you. You're actions are causing way more harm than anything else discussed here. So congratulations in showing that the only thing different between you and the people you're fighting against is what side of the line you're standing on.
Mike: I'm sorry you feel that way, but the LGBT community fights for equal rights, not "almost equal" or "separate but equal". Equal. Not half-equal, not equal on certain days, not equal if you make enough money, not equal if you're the right skin color. Equal. Calling them "unions" is the same thing as having "whites only" and "blacks only" water fountains. It's not equal. We tried that before, I'm sure I needn't tell you how it ended, dude.
John: Well that did a death spiral fast..sorry Terrance.
Terrance: Bah I'm not worried about it John. I've come to enjoy a good argument.
Terrance: And how effective was calling them racist bastards in changing their minds Mike? It wasn't. Laws change easier than the masses opinions.You can be as steadfast in your belief as you want but you'll still never successfully force you're opinion onto someone else.
Mike: Dude I never called him any names. I never said he was an enemy of lgbts, I just said he was masking his own internalized prejudices by using religion as a convenient shield. I don't wish to force my opinion on anyone else, I don't care enough about other people to do that. But when I see something ignorant going down, I have no problem calling it out.
John: I believe the terms gross and internally ignorant were used.
Mike: you're right, the term gross was used to describe a behavior, not a person. and internalized ignorance was used to describe the motivation behind that behavior (again, not a person)
John: Still cuts deep
Mike: Try being told you don't deserve to get married because of a misinterpretation of some ridiculous magical fairy tale full of hypocrisy and bigotry. Then try doing that since birth.
Terrance: So you're intent was simply to start an argument?
John: Define every word that goes into getting married. Marriage - minister - blessing. It's all holy, sacred or biblical in origin. This is all I am saying. No hard feelings Mike I'll still stick up for your rights to union.
Mike: Not when the law is involved. Separation of church and state, bro. As of yesterday your church no longer has a legal hold on the lives of millions of gay people. I can't help it if you're one of the ones who got butthurt from it. That's on you. I'm sorry that EQUALITY offends you so much.
Mike: My intent was not to start an argument, he had stated his opinion, I was stating mine. It was his aversion to the constitution was what started the argument.
Mike: Again, I don't care about rights to drink from the "gays only" water fountain or to sit in the civil unions section of the bus. I care about my right to be MARRIED. Which thankfully is a right that I now have, regardless of anyone's disagreement for that right.
Mike: Also marriages existed before christianity, saying that it's biblical in origin just means you need more education.
Terrance: This is just going in circles so I'm ending it with this.
In this social movement there are three groups. Those for equality, those against equality, and those that are in the middle. Generally when either side of an issue tries to win those from the middle they chose to show them how their side is right. They usually don't go around telling them how wrong they are for thinking they way they do.
And that's the end. So, what are your thoughts on this? Who is in the Right and who is in the Wrong?
Eh, that's just me though. Equality is something gays, races, and genders have been fighting for for decades. We're slowly getting there though. Just takes time for people to learn to be more tolerant.
Mike shouldn't have made that comparison.
Mike shouldn't have overreacted about it
on the one hand mike has a point, if you call it anything other then mairage...its not, technicly, eqaul
on the other hand...as shakespeir put it, whats in a name? a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, so long as a 'union' has the same exact rights as a mairage, then there is no issue, its a word nothing more...what becomes an issue is if those with 'unions' and htose with 'mairages' are treated diffrently in practice of a 'united couple' is not allowed to be together in the hospital the way a 'married' couple would be...that is where the problems would lie, not in the name itself
or we could take this the other way around...mike wants his equality, john wants his religious sanctity alright strip the legal rights away from the church and make 'mariage' exclusivly a religious cerimony with no legal ties and have all bonds made legaly be called 'unions' there, the church has its thing, the law has its, and they are no longer connected...yes it makes geting hitched have more headaches then it did before...but ther eyou have youre equality without steping on anyones toes.
would this piss alot of folks off...yes...but as benajmin franklin once said, the best compromise is one that leaves all involved angry.