(June 28, 2015 at 12:12 pm)Lek Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 11:24 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: The decision wasn't what I was pointing at. The definition of marriage as a fundamental right, one that is guaranteed by the 14th amendment, is what I was pointing at. If you agree that even with his definition of marriage he was right, now you have to provide a reason that two men don't qualify for equal protection and due process under the law, and why this fundamental right becomes exclusionary.

I keep stating over and over that I believe equal rights should be given to all.  That's why I suggested a legal civil union which applies to all Americans, straight or gay, who enter into that contract.  Marriage would be a private matter.  In that way, government would not be redefining an institution that is so important to so many citizens, yet it would confer equal status and benefits under the law to all who qualify.  What is so terrible about that?  Marriage came about long before any government was involved.

I don't know why you're still debating this; it's too late. The decision has been made; the ruling handed down. I'm sorry you don't like it (no I'm not), but put on your big boy pants and deal with it.

Quote:Marriage came about long before any government was involved.

And gay people were around long before bigoted bungholes who felt that there should be different rules for different kinds of people.

Boru

Anyway, ignoring the haters for now.

This is cool. Gay pride was yesterday in Houston and there's that much more to celebrate because of that ruling. I mean, the whole time I was there, I was wondering "How many newly weds are there out here?"

And, of course, there were more anti-gay protesters than previous years; that surprised me a little, though, since this year we moved to a much less convenient location for them. I guess it shouldn't have been a surprise, though; You know what they say about backing an animal into a corner, right? The homophobes have started to realized they're being backed into their corner and the result is that they're coming out that much more. I don't mind, though; they're fun to laugh at (I even specifically threw beads at one of them).

It did leave me to wonder something, though, what will the next civil rights fight be? I mean, there are certainly legitimate racial, religious and gender issues in the country, but the laws don't reflect those problems so it's not really much of a "civil" issue. What dos that leave? Trans rights? Those are certainly up there, with a lot of laws that hurt us. Still, I can't help but think I notice trans rights first because I am trans and these are issues that effect me, personally. If I belonged to some other demographic, would I notice issues that effect that group more? Or if I didn't belong to any specific demographic, what group would I notice from more of a third-person perspective?

Tara, there's no doubt in my mind that there will ALWAYS be groups who need to have the rights protected (or even established).  Brian37 pointed out (in an unrelated topic) that human beings are natural groupers, and outside groups are usually treated with animosity.  I don't disagree with Brian on this, but it still distresses and saddens me.

Keep fighting the good fight.

Boru

(June 28, 2015 at 12:12 pm)Lek Wrote: I keep stating over and over that I believe equal rights should be given to all.  That's why I suggested a legal civil union which applies to all Americans, straight or gay, who enter into that contract.  Marriage would be a private matter.  In that way, government would not be redefining an institution that is so important to so many citizens, yet it would confer equal status and benefits under the law to all who qualify.  What is so terrible about that?  Marriage came about long before any government was involved.

What's so terrible?

Why does your religion get to claim ownership over a concept that predates it, simply because it means a lot to them?

For that matter, why do the feelings of religious bigots on your side override the feelings of gay people who want to get married? You don't think it's important to them? It's probably more so: they've had to fight for it, they have some sense of its value.

There's this unspoken assumption, all throughout what you're saying, that your status quo means more than the desires of anyone else here. That's what's so terrible: it's just another extension of the unearned privilege that the religious enjoy every day.

(June 26, 2015 at 9:09 pm)IanHulett Wrote: I'm so happy! It means so much to me! 

It doesn't really mean anything to me personally. I'm not gay. It won't affect my life at all.

But, you know what? I'm absolutely thrilled!

Quote: I'm not gay. It won't affect my life at all.

See, this is exactly what puzzles me about people opposed to same-sex marriage:  If you don't like the idea of gay people getting married...THEN DON'T MARRY A GAY PERSON!!!!!!  I don't like Jean Claude Van Damme films, so I don't go to one.  I don't like pizza (sorry, but it's true), so I never order it.

It is astoundingly simply to keep most of the things you disapprove of from impacting your life.  Fuxxake, people...this isn't rocket surgery.

Boru

Congratulations America.

You have dragged even the resisters into the 21st century.

Must admit I've been laughing reading the exploding head reactions of the conservatives...

(June 28, 2015 at 12:27 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Let me see if I can help Lek out.  He's married and now if gays can get married he thinks that somehow makes him gay.


It's a little like when someone points out that Hitler was a vegetarian and all the vegetarians go apeshit because no one wants to be in any club that Hitler was a member of.

Well to be fair, the Christians in this case are not claiming something demonstrably false, like Hitler being vegetarian or Hitler being an atheist. It is actually true that gays can get married in their country now and they actually are in the same 'club', if they choose to think of it that way. 

Personally, I am offended that if I get married I will be in the same 'club' as theists who have such bizarre notions about what marriage has been, is and should be and which couples don't deserve to get one. But I'm not going to get all pissy about it and demand that theists get something other than marriage to protect my fragile sense of identity, because I'm not an overgrown child who wants to stop the kids I find uncool from playing in my team.

(June 28, 2015 at 2:29 pm)TaraJo Wrote: It did leave me to wonder something, though, what will the next civil rights fight be?  I mean, there are certainly legitimate racial, religious and gender issues in the country, but the laws don't reflect those problems so it's not really much of a "civil" issue.  What dos that leave?  Trans rights?  Those are certainly up there, with a lot of laws that hurt us.  Still, I can't help but think I notice trans rights first because I am trans and these are issues that effect me, personally.  If I belonged to some other demographic, would I notice issues that effect that group more?  Or if I didn't belong to any specific demographic, what group would I notice from more of a third-person perspective?

Edit: sorry for the weird font changes in this post, I can't fix it while on my phone.

I think the most outrageous human rights violation in the US right now is the fact that Obama has signed off on documents that make it nearly impossible for all the people in Guantanamo Bay who are known officially to be innocent (which is over half of those currently in there) to EVER be released. They literally give financial reasons for keeping innocent, suicidal men imprisoned until the day they die in the hellhole where they have been tortured and run by the same guards who've been abusing them for over a decade.

George Bush never did anything that evil. Hundreds of innocent men were dumped back in their home countries with no explanation, apology or compensation on his watch. Better than what this bastard is doing.

But if you do specifically want suggestions for CIVIL rights - those affecting your own citizens only - I strongly suggest children. As a demographic they can be denied cancer treatment by their parents and even worse in my opinion, can be denied pain medication while they die of cancer, in many states. Other people's religious rights are being prioritised over the individual's right not to be medically neglected as a minor.