BetterMost Community Blogs > The Twist Family Bible Study
My sexual orientation and my positions on gay rights
Marge_Innavera:
--- Quote from: Clyde-B on September 23, 2008, 06:46:47 pm ---Yes, if the two pieces of legislation are the same, then what's the reason to have two pieces of legislation?
And, please, a real reason. Not a made-up justification.
--- End quote ---
If we buy into the fantasy of civil unions being the same as marriage, sooner or later there will be various kinds of lawsuits involving the legal protections of marriage and the question will come up as to why two identical institutions, varying only with the gender mix of the couple, are given two different names. That's when the fantasy falls apart.
Not that it's kept a former President and both of our magnificent Dem candidates from using it as a dodge. That's why regardless of who's elected in November, we advocates of marriage equality will have to keep holding their feet to the fire.
Marge_Innavera:
--- Quote from: DavidInIndy on September 23, 2008, 07:47:40 pm ---I never said people are restaurants! What are you talking about? ???
--- End quote ---
Apparently, there's a certain difficulty with analogies.
--- Quote ---I don't think that analogy makes sense at all. People are not restaurants, and no one is excluded from restaurants.
--- End quote ---
The claim that "no one is excluded from restaurants" is either disingenuous or the poster has zilch interest in history, even fairly recent history. Plenty of people were excluded from restaurants, which were labeled "White Only" instead of "Marriage", and guess what? we heard exactly the same arguments about tradition and the same intransigent opposition from powerful religious institutions. To the same end, there's the same aggressive promotion of the notion that the whole issue could be avoided by a separate-but-equal approach -- which our Democratic candidate considers plenty good enough for gays, although he obviously would find it inconvenient if applied to himself.
The analogy was a very apt one.
Jeff Wrangler:
--- Quote ---But, it seems by most that the uncompromising need to carry the word 'marriage' on a legallly equal certificate is just a finger in the eye of traditional families who have every right to be traditional if they choose to be.
--- End quote ---
Here we go again. The same old beside-the-point tripe trying to pass as argument. As if gay people being married somehow prevents straight people from having the traditional marriage they want.
But will we ever get an explanation of how this is so? No, of course not. All we ever get from the Opposition is assertions. And as someone, I think maybe it was Louise, has already said on this thread, just to assert something is true does not make it true.
Jeff Wrangler:
--- Quote ---Take insurance policies, for example. They vary from state to state and are not transferable across state borders; a totally new and different contract would be required.
--- End quote ---
Yes, but if, say, you have a car, and it's insured in say, Pennsylvania, and you have an accident in Ohio, your insurance is not invalid because you crossed state lines--unless, of course, your contract stipulated that to be the case.
So this insurance policy analogy is an invalid comparison to marriage.
southendmd:
"Tradition" -- that's the way it's always been. That's no argument at all.
"Tradition" says the definition of a "voter" is a white man with property. Gee, that's changed, and things are fine.
"Tradition" says a white man could only marry a white woman. Gee, that's changed, and things are fine.
"Tradition" will always beg to be changed.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version