What is good enough?

Fox,

"Win-Win" for everybody is when bigotry and prejudice lose.

Foxfyre wrote:

Well the way I see it the government isn't doing anything in the matter of marriage. I'm seeing people wanting to change a 200+ year old tradition that is vitally important to a substantial majority of Americans.

Now this can be handled coercively leaving ill will and hard feelings that extend into the next century. Or there can be a compromise allowing win win for everybody and going a long way to mending hard feelings and achieving harmony where prejudice and bigotry now exists.

I favor the second option.

0 Replies

Yup. Lets find some way around the bigotry against the religious and the pro-traditional marriage group, prejudice against the one man one woman concept, and bigotry and prejudice against gay and lesbian people. That's what I've been saying all along. Glad you agree Jer.

0 Replies

Quote:

Yup. Lets find some way around the bigotry against the religious and the pro-traditional marriage group, prejudice against the one man one woman concept, and bigotry and prejudice against gay and lesbian people. That's what I've been saying all along. Glad you agree Jer.

What an interesting attempt to turn the argument around and denounce those who are seeking more personal freedom for EVERY American as the TRUE bigots in this argument. Bravo.

I would again suggest that you seek employment with the GOP. You've got their tactics down pat.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Explain Cyclop. How is that sentence improper? Or are you sticking with the concept that it is more correct for one side to give up everything important to them and the other side get its way, and hard feelings on both sides continue forever?

Do they take a bone out of the head of left wing people that makes the concept of compromise implausible or impossible? This is just mystifying to me.

0 Replies

Since when do bones have anything to do with how you conceptualize?

0 Replies

The term bonehead comes to mind. :wink: But I think that has a negative connotation as does thick headed, so I would guess that having less bone would be a compliment.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Explain Cyclop. How is that sentence improper? Or are you sticking with the concept that it is more correct for one side to give up everything important to them and the other side get its way, and hard feelings on both sides continue forever?

You can make such a statement witout understanding how ridiculous it sounds, without seeing the bigotry? Just what exactly are you being asked to give up?

Foxfyre wrote:

Do they take a bone out of the head of left wing people that makes the concept of compromise implausible or impossible? This is just mystifying to me.

0 Replies

Fox wrote: This is neither a civil rights nor an equal rights issue as gay people have identical rights as heterosexual people now. Please read earlier posts for the rationale for that opinion. "

And (above) someone responded to this bogus argument by saying that, fifty years ago, people who were denied the right to marry someone of a different race "had the same rights as everyone else" because they could marry someone of the same race. Marrying someone you love, want to share your life with and want to possibly raise a family with is a subset of marrying just anyone, a subset from which gay Americans are currently excluded.

You know what Fox, I'm not going to continue to go in circles with you about this. I hope people who are just joining this thread will indeed read the previous posts. Your logic was flawed (or disingenuous) earlier, it still is, it will always be. And you know that.

Previously, I thought you were being reasonable by acknowledging that gay people deserve all and exactly the same rights as straight people, which they do not now have, but here we go again: you repeat this ridiculous assertion, and I have no choice but to question your real feelings.

Hmmmmm.

In any case, I will not continue to do this dance with you.

0 Replies

I'd still like to know where Fox's compromise is going to be. I haven't seen him/her/it offer up anything. And s/he/it hasn't been able to articulate what s/he/it would be losing if the right to marry were extended.

0 Replies

I actually don't need to compromise ehBeth as I am neither a bigot nor prejudiced against gays in any way. At least my gay friends, associates, and one relative tell me I'm not.

The African American community largely objects mightily to pulling the race card to justify 'gay marriage' as they quite correctly recognize this as comparing apples and oranges. Forbidding multi racial marriages did discriminate. To correct that situation required no change of cultural tradition and no change of definition. All it required was non interference.

The current marriage laws do not discriminate in any way. They are equal and equitable for everybody. I won't even attempt to explain why this is so as I have done that several times already and nobody is listening anyway.

However, those who for whatever reason cannot or do not wish to marry a person of the opposite sex do not have the same benefits of marriage: right of inheritance, right of shared insurance, right of hospital visitation, etc. The compromise I offer is to correct that with a civil union that provide those benefits.

The only compromise I would ask of the gay community is that they agree to pick anothe word for it. Voila, everybody except the few all-or-nothing fanatics get what they want.

Now I have explained this a number of times. Those of you who do not wish to accept it as reasonable fine. To me it is win-win. Those of you who want one side to give in completely and cannot see any value in compromise will go right on with your own brand of prejudice and bigotry.

But I'm done.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I actually don't need to compromise ehBeth as I am neither a bigot nor prejudiced against gays in any way. At least my gay friends, associates, and one relative tell me I'm not

Perhaps they should read some of your posts.

Foxfyre wrote:

The African American community largely objects mightily to pulling the race card to justify 'gay marriage' as they quite correctly recognize this as comparing apples and oranges. Forbidding multi racial marriages did discriminate. To correct that situation required no change of cultural tradition and no change of definition. All it required was non interference.

No change in your cultural tradition is required to allow gays to marry. That is a highly bogus strawman. As with the racial restrictions of the past, no change in definition is required, merely the removal of a restriction.

Foxfyre wrote:

The current marriage laws do not discriminate in any way. They are equal and equitable for everybody. I won't even attempt to explain why this is so as I have done that several times already and nobody is listening anyway.

Yes, and it has been thoroughly disected and refuted numerous times.

Foxfyre wrote:

However, those who for whatever reason cannot or do not wish to marry a person of the opposite sex do not have the same benefits of marriage: right of inheritance, right of shared insurance, right of hospital visitation, etc. The compromise I offer is to correct that with a civil union that provide those benefits.

Disingenuous, as you know full well that your solution is legally bankrupt, not to mention your own exception.

Foxfyre wrote:

The only compromise I would ask of the gay community is that they agree to pick anothe word for it. Voila, everybody except the few all-or-nothing fanatics get what they want.

You are concerned about the word used, yet you call others fanatics? Shocked

Foxfyre wrote:

Now I have explained this a number of times. Those of you who do not wish to accept it as reasonable fine. To me it is win-win. Those of you who want one side to give in completely and cannot see any value in compromise will go right on with your own brand of prejudice and bigotry.

Noone is refusing compromise. It is the offer of compromise that is empty. You simply refuse to address the problem of transferring the rights and benefits alloted to heterosexuals to your seperate but almost equal name.

0 Replies

The purpose of this thread was to discover if compromise was possible from the left. Apparently it is by some, and not by others.

I can't understand why compromise is that difficult an idea. Why must some peoples beliefs be trampled so others can feel equal when there is an alternative that would satisfy everybodies needs.

0 Replies

France annuls first gay wedding

France's first gay marriage, which was conducted last month by a local mayor, has been annulled by a court.

The tribunal in Bordeaux declared the marriage of Stephane Chapin and Bertrand Charpentier "null and void".

The mayor, Noel Mamere of the Green Party, was suspended for a month after defying government warnings that he would be breaking the law when he wed the two men in the town of Begles.

Justice Minister Dominique Perben had already declared the wedding invalid.

The prosecutor in the case said that the marriage was not in compliance with French law.

The couple's lawyers argued that no article in the French civil code forbade the marriage of two persons of the same sex and no text defined marriage as "the union of a man and a woman".

Shopkeeper Bertrand Charpentier, 31, and nurse Stephane Chapin, 33, have said through their lawyers that they would appeal against this ruling, AFP news agency reports.

"We will fight all the way as we announced almost two months ago," Mr Charpentier.

Mr Chapin said: "We were expecting it. In any case, we are still married, we will see later [what happens]."

Mr Mamere, who presided over the wedding in Begles on 5 June, also vowed before the ruling to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary.

The union generated intense controversy in France

A civil contract called the Pacs already gives some rights to cohabiting couples, regardless of their sex, but not the full rights of marriage, notably over taxes, inheritance and adoption.

link

0 Replies

I think civil unions, if they did indeed come with all the legal rights and benefits of marriage, would be an OK compromise for now - as an in-between step. However, civil unions do NOT come with all the rights and benefits of marriage, as stated here several times already - and in many states they won't, either, not if it's not forced on them, considering the public and political opinion about the issue in such states (Fox's assertion that "only a tiny minority" would object was already disproven by polls referenced in this thread). So we're asked if we would accept a compromise that is not in fact politically likely or feasible.

Now as purely a theoretical exercise, thats fine, sure: yes, I would for now (if I were American, here we already have gay marriage - and experiencing no problems, thank you very much) accept civil unions as compromise if they came with all marriage rights. But if the collorary is - "well, then, why cant you just give up asking and campaigning for gay marriage then?", I would point out the obvious: because the alternative deal you're suggesting is simply not available and not likely to become available. So why in heavens name would I give up on a legitimate cause in exchange for a prospect of an alternative thats not in fact going to materialise? If equal rights for gays are to be achieved, federal law seems to be the only way to get 'em - just like it was with race.

Regarding race, I have not once seen Fox respond to the obvious parallel concerning her argument that gays already have the same rights as straights - as in, a gay man can marry a woman just like a straight man can. As Angie wrote, "fifty years ago, people who were denied the right to marry someone of a different race 'had the same rights as everyone else' because they could marry someone of the same race." I assume from what I read that Fox does not consider that right to have implied equal rights. Why would the same logic now suddenly be legitimate?

0 Replies

My original thesis to resolve this issue would be to have EVERYONE get a civil union that granted federal and state rights and recognition. Then, if you so choose, you then can get married by the church or religious ceremony of your choice.

This allows equal rights under the law and keep marriage a sacrament for those who believe that.

0 Replies

Quote:

My original thesis to resolve this issue would be to have EVERYONE get a civil union that granted federal and state rights and recognition. Then, if you so choose, you then can get married by the church or religious ceremony of your choice.

This allows equal rights under the law and keep marriage a sacrament for those who believe that.

Now, THIS is a good idea. But I think it would never fly.

Why? Because those who are against gay marriage would never go for it. Fox talks about compromise, and this would certainly seem to be one, but the fact is a lot of gay folks would be walking around married, which is unacceptable for a lot of folks in this country.

To them, this would be 'changing the definition' just as much as making a federal law. The end result is the same; gays get to marry as they see fit, and enjoy the rights of all us straight folks. This isn't a compromise as far as many people are concerned - the word 'marriage' would be used to describe what many consider to be an unholy union.

Because the argument isn't really about rights, or definitions. It's about fear.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

My solution gets around that because everyone would have a civil union. Not everyone would be married. It allows for the colloquial definition of marriage to remain.

0 Replies

Yeah, I see that, but the fact is that if gay people are allowed to get married if they can find a church to marry them, then they will get married. If law forced us to recognize those marriages to the same extent that we recognize the straight marriages, there would be no applicable difference.

I think those against the concept of gay marriage might have an even bigger problem with us changing the system to a 'civil union' basis. THAT would be a much more transative change than allowing gays to marry each other.

Still, I support your idea, McG. I wish more people did.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I do !

(no pun intended)

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

The purpose of this thread was to discover if compromise was possible from the left. Apparently it is by some, and not by others.

I can't understand why compromise is that difficult an idea. Why must some peoples beliefs be trampled so others can feel equal when there is an alternative that would satisfy everybodies needs.

The reason that I object to the so called compromise is because I think it is simply unworkable. Just the idea of trying to give the same benefit and rights of what is now called marriage to another word (whatever you may call it) would be technically complex, and costly if even possible.

If done as a blanket grant of all rights and benefits, those with narrow minds that are now so upset will still be upset. If done piecemeal, one right/benefit at a time, then the bickering would be endless.

In my opinion it is the idea that some peoples "beliefs are being trampled upon" that is overblown. When it comes down to it marraige as it now exists is just a civil union. Some people choose to have that civil union exercised with a religious ceremony. Allowing gays access to the legal contract of marriage would have no impact on any particular religious ceremony.

I really think that the issue is rights/benefits, not the name. There is going to be much opposition to the granting of rights/benefits if the polls tell us anything.

0 Replies

What is good enough?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know