Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Morrigi]

Us Americans need a Libertarian Party that actually matters. As for who to vote for, at this point the only option I see is Ron Paul. I don't agree with everything he says, but if you do the research he makes sense and is consistent on a lot of major issues. I can't vote for Obama because he's continued to infringe upon American citizen's rights by extending the Patriot act. Again. And I just can't vote for just about any of the Republican candidates besides Paul because of the massive amount of bullshit and hypocrisy that surrounds them. Give me a name and I'll start.

[Andir]

Ah. I get your meaning now. But still, you don't seem to be American because Civil Rights here is not just about race anymore.

I was born in Hawaii, so yes... just like Obama, I am.

If the link would have pointed to a civil rights page instead of an article on segregation, it may have made more sense.  They aren't making laws that state stores need to place signs stating they don't serve gays.

[nenjin]

No, instead some bureaucrat with an agenda decides to give you your civil union that isn't recognized across state lines, isn't recognized by insurance companies, medical professions, adoption, custody disputes or many other things.

Separate But Equal was how the South legally continued to discriminate against blacks, just the same way Civil Unions are a way some states can still legally discriminate against homosexual couples if they choose to.

I was born in Hawaii, so yes... just like Obama, I am.

I wasn't sure. Some of the things you were saying made it seem like you didn't have a good grasp of American history.

[Morrigi]

I was born in Hawaii, so yes... just like Obama, I am.

A lot of people STILL need to understand that yes, Hawaii is in the opposite direction of Africa, and yes, Hawaii is a state.

[Andir]

No, instead some bureaucrat with an agenda decides to give you your civil union that isn't recognized across state lines, isn't recognized by insurance companies, medical professions, adoption, custody disputes or many other things.

Separate But Equal was how the South legally continued to discriminate against blacks, just the same way Civil Unions are a way some states can still legally discriminate against homosexual couples if they choose to.

I was born in Hawaii, so yes... just like Obama, I am.

I wasn't sure. Some of the things you were saying made it seem like you didn't have a good grasp of American history.

I have a grasp, but I still don't associate the two.  They feel like separate matters to me.

[Leafsnail]

If gay people and married people have two different kinds of unions, insurance companies can treat them differently.  States can make different laws for civil unions and marriages, wheras if gay people could marry they'd have to be explicitly anti-gay (which would probably be struck down as unconstitutional).

In the same way that black schools got lower funding and a worse standard of education in practise, and it was totally fine since it was targeting schools rather than black people directly.

[nenjin]

Yeah, we've each explained it about three times now. I'm not sure what else to say.

[jester]

I vote we ban marriage for everybody

[Andir]

Yeah, we've each explained it about three times now. I'm not sure what else to say.

Separate but Equal was basically the federal stating that they are equal people, but you had to put up a sign stating that you only serve a certain crowd.  As I said earlier, there's no federal mandate stating that you can union, but companies have to put up signs stating they will only serve straight people.

Civil Rights is a broader aspect of that and includes gay rights and is in no way related to "Separate but Equal" laws of the past.  The government has not come in and said: "Gays have equal rights as straight people in our minds, but if stores do not want to serve their kind they must post a sign."  They're basically ignoring the issue which is in some ways worse.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Separate but Equal was basically the federal stating that they are equal people, but you had to put up a sign stating that you only serve a certain crowd.  As I said earlier, there's no federal mandate stating that you can union, but companies have to put up signs stating they will only serve straight people.

No, no, no. Seperate But Equal was a federal mandate stating that equal rights were considered preserved even if segregated, as long as facilities for whites and facilities for everyone else were equal in status, if seperated. This is never how it turned out in reality.

Supporting Civil Unions instead of Same-Sex Marriage is a very similar stance. In wording, Civil Unions are intended to have all the same rights as Marriage, but seperated from it. This is not how it will turn out in reality.

History repeats, are you seeing the parallel yet?

[Andir]

Nope, totally different issues... The civil union issue as I see it is the federal government not recognizing State civil unions where you say (ie: Seperate but Equal) they recognize it but treat it differently.

EG:  In Separate but Equal, the federal government recognized minorities as equals where the Marriage vs. Civil Union they do not.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't know how to make this any more apparent, so I give up on trying to explain this.

[Andir]

They are simply two different issues.  I don't see why you need to equate Separate but Equal to gay marriage.  The issue is more akin to concealed carry permits than Separate but Equal.  The federal government allows gun carry, but will not observe concealed carry permits from states just as they allow gay marriage but do not recognize state permits to union.

If the federal government changed their stance to say "We recognize state civil unions on a federal level and consider them separate but equal to marriage but we will allow the states to treat them differently," then you have a correlation.  However, they are not.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If the federal government changed their stance to say "We recognize state civil unions on a federal level and consider them separate but equal to marriage but we will allow the states to treat them differently," then you have a correlation.  However, they are not.

And that is exactly what is going to happen if people support Civil Unions instead of Same-Sex Marriage.

[Andir]

Sure, but we are not to that point yet.

Ideally, you should be arguing that the point of a union (gay and straight) has been accepted in all 50 states and it should become a federally regulated process opposed to a federally recognized process.  More ideally, quit treating marriage as something special.  Something I could argue is that marriage in itself is an issue where someone who is single, while having the equal rights of someone married, is treated differently by that association only by being denied access to tax deductions, insurance rates, etc.