Would Most Gays Have Settled for Civil Unions Instead Of Marriages?

[Mac1958]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

 

[PratchettFan]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

The transition on this has been interesting. It's been:

We will never compromise.
No way will we ever compromise.
I'll be damned if I ever compromise.
Oh - we lost?
How come they won't compromise?

 

[Seawytch]

Your religion has nothing to do with gays wanting to be married. Would we have turned down Civil Unions? Nope, we never did...we just didn't stop fighting for full equality.

No, we would not have "settled" for your separate water fountains. We'd have drunk from them, but we still would have fought for full equality.

 

[Seawytch]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

So you don't think that having civil marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is the epitome of separate but equal? Fighting against 2nd class citizenship equals "aggressive and absolutist"?

 

[Mac1958]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

So you don't think that having civil marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is the epitome of separate but equal? Fighting against 2nd class citizenship equals "aggressive and absolutist"?

As I said, I think this is far more about semantics and symbolism than anything else. Each "side" just has to "win".

What about my idea for a new word that describes a "marriage under God", or whatever? Would that not be acceptable, or would you want to usurp that term too?

.

 

[rightwinger]

Gays are all up about entitlements and marriage is a privilege, not a right. Nothing in the constitution about free love as far as a I found.

If it is a "privilege", by law, they deserve the same privilege from government as anyone else

 

[rightwinger]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

So you don't think that having civil marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is the epitome of separate but equal? Fighting against 2nd class citizenship equals "aggressive and absolutist"?

As I said, I think this is far more about semantics and symbolism than anything else. Each "side" just has to "win".

What about my idea for a new word that describes a "marriage under God", or whatever? Would that not be acceptable, or would you want to usurp that term too?

.

Good idea...why not just let christians change what they call their union

 

[Mac1958]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

So you don't think that having civil marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is the epitome of separate but equal? Fighting against 2nd class citizenship equals "aggressive and absolutist"?

As I said, I think this is far more about semantics and symbolism than anything else. Each "side" just has to "win".

What about my idea for a new word that describes a "marriage under God", or whatever? Would that not be acceptable, or would you want to usurp that term too?

.

Good idea...why not just let christians change what they call their union

I wonder, though, if the gay population will want that word then, too.

What I find so interesting here is that the side of the political spectrum that has worked so passionately and tirelessly to create a hyphenated America is so concerned with "separate but equal" in this one particular case.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

The transition on this has been interesting. It's been:

We will never compromise.
No way will we ever compromise.
I'll be damned if I ever compromise.
Oh - we lost?
How come they won't compromise?

Absolutely. It is the gays who refuse to compromise. Those hell-bound sinners!

 

[LoneLaugher]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

So you don't think that having civil marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is the epitome of separate but equal? Fighting against 2nd class citizenship equals "aggressive and absolutist"?

As I said, I think this is far more about semantics and symbolism than anything else. Each "side" just has to "win".

What about my idea for a new word that describes a "marriage under God", or whatever? Would that not be acceptable, or would you want to usurp that term too?

.

A win for one side means equality under the law. A win for the other means legalized unequal treatment under the law. Thinking people see one of those as a loss for the nation.

You claim to support same sex marriage, don't you? Why haven't you taken the right side here and fought for equal rights with vigor? Is it because you prefer to sit there on the sidelines and let others do it for you while you criticize the way they do it? I think it is.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Well syr was another of those overbearing, obnoxious faggots that got relinquished to the cybershit hole with her little faggot buddies.

i wasn't going to respond, I have already put you on ignore, have no idea what nasty shit you will write, but I want be reading it.

Not only did you spam the thread but you were just spewing shit out your ass when you were character assassinating me.

I don't want to see anyone dead or what was that other lunatic phrase, "locked up", only nasty ass faggots hate other people enough to wish things like that upon them.

Actually if you folks would just go find you another jungle / country to call home all would be fine. You want to create a society that I want no part of, you can't force me through laws and trying to shame me is fucking funny as shit.

Anyway like I have told the other score of silenced faggots, you may be spewing your shit, but I ain't got to step in faggot shit.

Have a nice life and enjoy your conversations with your faggot buddies of like mind.

Thanks fag...

You talking to yourself??

You are just another insignificant piece of dick breathed faggot shit, are you running a flag up so I will add you to the ignore list with the rest of your little nasty faggot buddies??

 

[mdk]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

That notion faded away when states decided civil unions were too close to marriage for their comfort and banned those as well. The social conservatives overplayed their hand and now they are claiming gay people should have been fine with civil unions despite the fact that they fought those at every opportunity. Civil unions only became a compromise option for these people when it became abundantly clear that they were losing the battle. By that time it was too late.

 

[Mac1958]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

That notion faded away when states decided civil unions were too close to marriage for their comfort and banned those as well. The social conservatives overplayed their hand and now they are claiming gay people should have been fine with civil unions despite the fact that they fought those at every opportunity. Civil unions only became a compromise option for these people when it became abundantly clear that they were losing the battle. By that time it was too late.

I can see that. That's why I suggest that they give a name to a man-woman/religiously-based union, and we can all get on with our lives.

.

 

[PratchettFan]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

That notion faded away when states decided civil unions were too close to marriage for their comfort and banned those as well. The social conservatives overplayed their hand and now they are claiming gay people should have been fine with civil unions despite the fact that they fought those at every opportunity. Civil unions only became a compromise option for these people when it became abundantly clear that they were losing the battle. By that time it was too late.

I can see that. That's why I suggest that they give a name to a man-woman/religiously-based union, and we can all get on with our lives.

.

Who is stopping you?

 

[Mac1958]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

That notion faded away when states decided civil unions were too close to marriage for their comfort and banned those as well. The social conservatives overplayed their hand and now they are claiming gay people should have been fine with civil unions despite the fact that they fought those at every opportunity. Civil unions only became a compromise option for these people when it became abundantly clear that they were losing the battle. By that time it was too late.

I can see that. That's why I suggest that they give a name to a man-woman/religiously-based union, and we can all get on with our lives.

.

Who is stopping you?

From what?

.

 

[mdk]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

That notion faded away when states decided civil unions were too close to marriage for their comfort and banned those as well. The social conservatives overplayed their hand and now they are claiming gay people should have been fine with civil unions despite the fact that they fought those at every opportunity. Civil unions only became a compromise option for these people when it became abundantly clear that they were losing the battle. By that time it was too late.

I can see that. That's why I suggest that they give a name to a man-woman/religiously-based union, and we can all get on with our lives.

.

Or we can stop wasting time and money crying over which words won't hurt the feelings of people that were never going to be cool with gay people in the first place. Do you honestly believe if you come up with a new institution for religiously based unions that it has any chance of success?

 

[Mac1958]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

That notion faded away when states decided civil unions were too close to marriage for their comfort and banned those as well. The social conservatives overplayed their hand and now they are claiming gay people should have been fine with civil unions despite the fact that they fought those at every opportunity. Civil unions only became a compromise option for these people when it became abundantly clear that they were losing the battle. By that time it was too late.

I can see that. That's why I suggest that they give a name to a man-woman/religiously-based union, and we can all get on with our lives.

.

Or we can stop wasting time and money crying over which words won't hurt the feelings of people that were never going to be cool with gay people in the first place. Do you honestly believe if you come up with a new institution for religiously based unions that it has any chance of success?

Oh, not really. But "hurt feelings" apply to both ends of this issue. And I can't help but think that if the Christians came up with a new word for what they want, the other "side" would find a reason to object.

Both ends of this issue need to bend a little, and neither will.

.

 

[PratchettFan]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

That notion faded away when states decided civil unions were too close to marriage for their comfort and banned those as well. The social conservatives overplayed their hand and now they are claiming gay people should have been fine with civil unions despite the fact that they fought those at every opportunity. Civil unions only became a compromise option for these people when it became abundantly clear that they were losing the battle. By that time it was too late.

I can see that. That's why I suggest that they give a name to a man-woman/religiously-based union, and we can all get on with our lives.

.

Who is stopping you?

From what?

.

Giving a name to a "man-woman/religiously based union".

 

[mdk]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

That notion faded away when states decided civil unions were too close to marriage for their comfort and banned those as well. The social conservatives overplayed their hand and now they are claiming gay people should have been fine with civil unions despite the fact that they fought those at every opportunity. Civil unions only became a compromise option for these people when it became abundantly clear that they were losing the battle. By that time it was too late.

I can see that. That's why I suggest that they give a name to a man-woman/religiously-based union, and we can all get on with our lives.

.

Or we can stop wasting time and money crying over which words won't hurt the feelings of people that were never going to be cool with gay people in the first place. Do you honestly believe if you come up with a new institution for religiously based unions that it has any chance of success?

Oh, not really. But "hurt feelings" apply to both ends of this issue. And I can't help but think that if the Christians came up with a new word for what they want, the other "side" would find a reason to object.

Both ends of this issue need to bend a little, and neither will.

.

I suppose we will ever know b/c this is very unlikely to happen.

 

[Mac1958]

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

That notion faded away when states decided civil unions were too close to marriage for their comfort and banned those as well. The social conservatives overplayed their hand and now they are claiming gay people should have been fine with civil unions despite the fact that they fought those at every opportunity. Civil unions only became a compromise option for these people when it became abundantly clear that they were losing the battle. By that time it was too late.

I can see that. That's why I suggest that they give a name to a man-woman/religiously-based union, and we can all get on with our lives.

.

Who is stopping you?

From what?

.

Giving a name to a "man-woman/religiously based union".

Because I'm neither a Christian nor anti-gay marriage.

It's just a suggestion to get us past this.

.