Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage

[Jedi276]

this thread is awesome, so many different people saying the same solution over and over, but of course we can't resolve our issue, we must continue to argue for arguement's sake!

 

[SouthtownKid]

this thread is awesome, so many different people saying the same solution over and over, but of course we can't resolve our issue, we must continue to argue for arguement's sake!

That's the exact problem: For you, it's about denying equal rights to a large subsection of our population for zero reason other than just for argument's sake. Extending to them the same rights and privileges you benefit from now would not harm you or affect your life or your marriage in the least. It wouldn't alter how you define your own marriage or sully your religion in any way.

The only thing you get out of denying them rights equal to yours is the smug satisfaction of a bigot's job well done. If you'd been born 30 years earlier, you'd be one of the guys fighting to keep schools segregated. Maybe you can't turn gay people un-gay, but you can sure as hell make sure their lives don't get any easier if you can help it. Give yourself a pat on the back.


There is right and there is wrong in this world. Sure there are shades of gray, but right and wrong still exist. Equality is right, and bigotry is wrong. You can run around in circles trying to find excuses for yourself, but in the end, it doesn't change the very simple equation of equality versus bigotry. You fall squarely on the side of bigotry. Your problem is that on some level, you do understand and accept that bigotry is wrong. So you try to rationalize your behavior as somehow being not bigoted. But it doesn't work, because there really is no other way to describe the things you say. You don't see these people as being your equals, and you want them to suffer.

 

[Giga Power]

Are you saying homosexuals want equal rights only so they'll be "equal" but not because they want to make use of those rights (ie all the beneficial parts of a marriage contract.)

???

In a sense, yes. I think they want both but the equality issue is more important as a whole.

 

[Jedi276]

That's the exact problem: For you, it's about denying equal rights to a large subsection of our population for zero reason other than just for argument's sake. Extending to them the same rights and privileges you benefit from now would not harm you or affect your life or your marriage in the least. It wouldn't alter how you define your own marriage or sully your religion in any way.

The only thing you get out of denying them rights equal to yours is the smug satisfaction of a bigot's job well done. If you'd been born 30 years earlier, you'd be one of the guys fighting to keep schools segregated. Maybe you can't turn gay people un-gay, but you can sure as hell make sure their lives don't get any easier if you can help it. Give yourself a pat on the back.


There is right and there is wrong in this world. Sure there are shades of gray, but right and wrong still exist. Equality is right, and bigotry is wrong. You can run around in circles trying to find excuses for yourself, but in the end, it doesn't change the very simple equation of equality versus bigotry. You fall squarely on the side of bigotry. Your problem is that on some level, you do understand and accept that bigotry is wrong. So you try to rationalize your behavior as somehow being not bigoted. But it doesn't work, because there really is no other way to describe the things you say. You don't see these people as being your equals, and you want them to suffer.

SouthTownKid, I swear you must be a part of my family to know me so well, its awesome. Here is where what you say ceases to work well, you state that there is right and wrong in this world as fact, but who determines what is right and what is wrong, you? I sure hope not. If me not agreeing with everyone doing whatever they want makes me a bigot to the people on this forum, so be it, I am certainly not going to lose any sleep over the opinion of a few people on this forum.

 

[Lagduf]

SouthTownKid, I swear you must be a part of my family to know me so well, its awesome. Here is where what you say ceases to work well, you state that there is right and wrong in this world as fact, but who determines what is right and what is wrong, you? I sure hope not. If me not agreeing with everyone doing whatever they want makes me a bigot to the people on this forum, so be it, I am certainly not going to lose any sleep over the opinion of a few people on this forum.

Dude, you're an idiot.

Sleep well friend.

 

[lithy]

Is it too early to ask them to decriminalize ganja as well?

I'm sure the farmers would love growing hemp.

So if I read that last sentence as... "I'm sure the flamers would love growing hemp." What does that make me?

 

[bokmeow]

So if I read that last sentence as... "I'm sure the flamers would love growing hemp." What does that make me?

In need of remedial English, stat.

 

[lithy]

In need of remedial English, stat.

It might have been the beer talking.

I was also about to make a post in the beer thread detailing how I'm down to less than 150 beers in the house right now...but I realized it was silly and closed that tab.

But really, I'm slowly diminishing my beer supply which I am happy about, I want to keep the right things around and my drinking needs with be sated with homebrew.

 

[Segata_Sanshiro]

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter"

Search your feelings Jedi, you know what Southtown said is true

 

[Poonman]

I know this is a very trollish thing to say but....
Jedi276 is to gay marriage what STK was to owning a black car in California.

Both were arguing in favor of an absurd, arbitrary rule that in no way affects their lot in life. Both placing credence in bullshit that some idiot pulled out of his ass (be it a verse in the bible or a new traffic law).





So anyway.... the "holy" union of man and wife: hate to break it to you, but it's not really that sacred, Mr. Jediwhateverthefuck.
Husbands fuck babysitters, wives fuck poolboys, deacons fuck little girls and priests fuck little boys...all under the eyes of their GOD.


For many of us, belief in "God" is a common manifestation of an unhappy, guilty, life.
For pathetic people he's a crutch,
for the poor and weak he is false hope,
for the greedy he is the unseen hand that takes money from the first two
and for Jedihatesfags.com he is something to hide behind when he wants to bash fags.

So instead of bringing God into any of this, why don't you just stop pussyfooting and tell everyone why you hate gays?

If the church of your denomination is sanctioning gay marriage, then you take it up with them, not with neo-geo.com and NOT with the state of Vermont.
Because neither one gives a fuck.

HELL, even GOD doesn't give a fuck anymore...because if he still hated fags he would've killed them all (like he did in Genesis 18.16-19.29) lol.


Pack up your bible and fuck off.

 

[SouthtownKid]

SouthTownKid, I swear you must be a part of my family to know me so well, its awesome.

All I did was read the bigoted garbage you posted.

Here is where what you say ceases to work well, you state that there is right and wrong in this world as fact, but who determines what is right and what is wrong, you? I sure hope not.

The value judgment in this case is not very difficult to make.

On one side you have equality between groups of American citizens.

On the other side, you have the decision to punish one group for having different beliefs than you. A group that poses no threat to you and has done nothing whatsoever to harm you.

The choice is that simple. Equality or bigotry.

If me not agreeing with everyone doing whatever they want makes me a bigot to the people on this forum, so be it

That is not what makes you a bigot. Discriminating and helping oppress a minority group is what makes you a bigot. Your lack of self-awareness is mind boggling. Can you really not see what you are doing?

If you don't want to think of yourself as a bigot, how would you describe your attitude towards gay people? How would you describe your not wanting them to enjoy the same freedoms and rights that you and I enjoy? What do you call that? Maybe in the sad, little closed-off world you come from, you've never had to examine your own behavior or question the prejudices your parents instilled and nurtured in you. But you really ought to. You're full of hate and intolerance and you don't seem to even be aware of it.

I know this is a very trollish thing to say but....
Jedi276 is to gay marriage what STK was to owning a black car in California.

Both were arguing in favor of an absurd, arbitrary rule that in no way affects their lot in life.

Wrong. I never, never argued in favor of that proposed law. All I said was I didn't give a fuck what color my car was. If they could prove that light colored cars did actually make a big impact on the environment, I would not be against such a law. But I think I expressed doubt in my first post of that thread that such a thing was proven. I know I said more than once in that thread that I thought it was a dumb idea.

I also ridiculed people who get worked up into a lather over car color choice. But I didn't once say I thought the proposed law was a good idea or express hope that it might pass.

 

[Zenimus]

Pack up your bible and fuck off.

Wow, what a disaster. There's a lot of hate going on in this thread.

I'm not married, so I haven't studied tax benefits and government aid for married couples, but don't most states already have civil unions that give the exact same benefits to committed gay couples?

If so, then what's the big deal over whether or not a state allows gay couples to "marry"? It's the same thing minus a big ceremony isn't it?

 

[Poonman]

Wow, what a disaster. There's a lot of hate going on in this thread.

No, it's not hate.
I'm just blindly judging an individual for being the way that he is, and then telling him what he should do with himself even though it is none of my business.

All on account of my upbringing, though. No hate here.



@STK: Oops. Sorry.

 

[SouthtownKid]

@STK: Oops. Sorry.

Apologies always feel so weird and out of place at n-g.com. Don't worry about it, I already walked it off.

 

[rarehero]

I haven't been reading any of the arguing or anything,
but whey hey. good job homosexuals!
so that's like what. 5 or so with about 45 to go?
I firmly believe that gay folks have the same right to be as happy or unhappy
as hetero folks in civil unions. congratulations. really.

 

[SML]

It's the same thing minus a big ceremony isn't it?

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation there, but

Same thing [qualifier] != Same thing

 

[Zenimus]

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation there, but

Same thing [qualifier] != Same thing

Well, from a legal standpoint, a civil union is the same as a marriage isn't it? So why does it make headlines if a state "legalizes" gay marriage? I wouldn't doubt that Vermont already had civil unions, so what has really changed?

You guys know that I tend to fall on the conservative side most of the time, but I'm not against gay marriage. If two people want to get married, it's none of my business. But it's this whole "gay rights" issue that I think is a little weird. When civil unions are factored in, they have the same rights as straight people. It might be called something different, but it's the same as a legal marriage, isn't it?

It seems like there's a subsection of militant gays that apparently think that the name "civil union" makes it sound less legitimate, so "gay marriage" needs to be legalized. It's like they feel insecure, so they need to push their relationship into the faces of others, instead of just being a happy couple (basically the old "we're here, we're queer, so get used to it" attitude).

That's why traditionalists take issue with comments like San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's "it's coming, whether you like it or not!" It's the arrogance of the whole movement, not homophobic hatred.

 

[Lagduf]

Well, from a legal standpoint, a civil union is the same as a marriage isn't it? So why does it make headlines if a state "legalizes" gay marriage? I wouldn't doubt that Vermont already had civil unions, so what has really changed?

You guys know that I tend to fall on the conservative side most of the time, but I'm not against gay marriage. If two people want to get married, it's none of my business. But it's this whole "gay rights" issue that I think is a little weird. When civil unions are factored in, they have the same rights as straight people. It might be called something different, but it's the same as a legal marriage, isn't it?

It seems like there's a subsection of militant gays that apparently think that the name "civil union" makes it sound less legitimate, so "gay marriage" needs to be legalized. It's like they feel insecure, so they need to push their relationship into the faces of others, instead of just being a happy couple (basically the old "we're here, we're queer, so get used to it" attitude).

That's why traditionalists take issue with comments like San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's "it's coming, whether you like it or not!" It's the arrogance of the whole movement, not homophobic hatred.

Seriously though if a civil union bestows the same rights as marriage then why not just call it marriage?

I mean which side is really the one being "militant" and "stubborn" in their beliefs?

What other legal contracts that homosexuals can be a part of have different names?

Maybe we should have a different name for when minorities marry each other or for when interracial couples get married?

I mean it might be called something different but it's still the same isn't it?

Your sex and the sex of your partner shouldn't matter with regard to legal marriage (just like your race doesn't) because it's a contract that gives each other certain mutual rights. For what reason is there to distinguish between a legal homosexual and heterosexual marriage when both grant the same rights?

There isn't.

 

[Zenimus]

Seriously though if a civil union bestows the same rights as marriage then why not just call it marriage?

I mean which side is really the one being "militant" and "stubborn" in their beliefs?

Well, you were making a good point...

What other legal contracts that homosexuals can be a part of have different names?

Maybe we should have a different name for when minorities marry each other or for when interracial couples get married?

I mean it might be called something different but it's still the same isn't it?

Your sex and the sex of your partner shouldn't matter with regard to legal marriage (just like your race doesn't) because it's a contract that gives each other certain mutual rights. For what reason is there to distinguish between a legal homosexual and heterosexual marriage when both grant the same rights?

There isn't.

... up until that part. That example is too much of an exaggeration to fit.

As far as I and the state are concerned, a civil union is a marriage. The only disparity is that there isn't really a wedding ceremony for it (as far as I know). Since a wedding ceremony is traditionally performed between a man and a woman at a church by a pastor, that's where the discrepancy pops in. Most churches won't do a gay ceremony, which leaves some gay people feeling left out, I guess.

Remember that story awhile back of that gay couple that wanted to go to a religious retreat, but were turned away? They made a huge stink about it and tried to make the church staff look like bigots, when it was they who disrespected that church's traditions in the first place.

That's the kind of attitude that gets under my skin. Again, I'm not against gay marriage, but this idea of imposing yourself on others just because you feel slighted seems pretty selfish and disrespectful.

 

[HeartlessNinny]

That's the exact problem: For you, it's about denying equal rights to a large subsection of our population for zero reason other than just for argument's sake. Extending to them the same rights and privileges you benefit from now would not harm you or affect your life or your marriage in the least. It wouldn't alter how you define your own marriage or sully your religion in any way.

The only thing you get out of denying them rights equal to yours is the smug satisfaction of a bigot's job well done. If you'd been born 30 years earlier, you'd be one of the guys fighting to keep schools segregated. Maybe you can't turn gay people un-gay, but you can sure as hell make sure their lives don't get any easier if you can help it. Give yourself a pat on the back.


There is right and there is wrong in this world. Sure there are shades of gray, but right and wrong still exist. Equality is right, and bigotry is wrong. You can run around in circles trying to find excuses for yourself, but in the end, it doesn't change the very simple equation of equality versus bigotry. You fall squarely on the side of bigotry. Your problem is that on some level, you do understand and accept that bigotry is wrong. So you try to rationalize your behavior as somehow being not bigoted. But it doesn't work, because there really is no other way to describe the things you say. You don't see these people as being your equals, and you want them to suffer.

Best post I've read in a while. Kudos, STK.

 

[Nesagwa]

Well, you were making a good point...



... up until that part. That example is too much of an exaggeration to fit.

As far as I and the state are concerned, a civil union is a marriage. The only disparity is that there isn't really a wedding ceremony for it (as far as I know). Since a wedding ceremony is traditionally performed between a man and a woman at a church by a pastor, that's where the discrepancy pops in. Most churches won't do a gay ceremony, which leaves some gay people feeling left out, I guess.

Remember that story awhile back of that gay couple that wanted to go to a religious retreat, but were turned away? They made a huge stink about it and tried to make the church staff look like bigots, when it was they who disrespected that church's traditions in the first place.

That's the kind of attitude that gets under my skin. Again, I'm not against gay marriage, but this idea of imposing yourself on others just because you feel slighted seems pretty selfish and disrespectful.

In most states there are no civil unions. Not sure why you think theyd allow it.

And no, if it were the same as marriage it would be called marriage.

This is the separate but equal thing again.

 

[norton9478]

In most states, you can get fired from any job for simply being gay.

In Many states, a gay person can't adopt a child.

 

[abasuto]

I love the "seperate but equal" arguement.

I seem to recall this was the exact logic behind Jim Crow Laws.

 

[Jedah Doma]

.........................

 

[bokmeow]

.........................

If this was the work of a benevolent mod to filter all of eggbert's responses into ellipses, thank you.