Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It's no stereotype, I've lived it.> But it doesn't describe some of the small towns I know, X. You do paint with too broad a brush here.
Originally Posted By Mr X Boy, I really ticked you off there RT huh? Geez, you're taking MY views as typical for all "libs" and "defenders of liberalism and diversity"? That's heavy. I'm hardly a tolerant guy. I absolutely despise Mormons, for example.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<My eyes sure have been opened in this election. You great defenders of liberalism and diversity are the LEAST TOLERANT, LEAST ACCEPTING OF DIFFERENCES people that I've ever seen.>> Actually, you are pretty much equal to the 'rednecks' on the Branson Boards. You are opposite sides of the same coin. This country is never going to solve its problems until everyone stops hating everyone else. And let me tell you, you "libs" are every bit as hate filled as those on the other side.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <And let me tell you, you "libs" are every bit as hate filled as those on the other side. > Now, now. Speaking of broad brushes...
Originally Posted By hopemax For the record, who are you all including in the word "you great defenders" and you guys. You made it plural, so it's more than just Mr. X. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't stereotyping everyone here like you accused Mr X of doing with small town people. But for my part, I will say that yes, I am intolerant toward people who are intolerant. That is the expectation for Obama when it comes to people like Rev Wright or Farakan or Ayers, is it not? I just don't get it, on one hand we're supposed to reject intolerant behaviors or actions because staying silent is a sign of tacit acceptance. But if people do that, then they get accused of being the least accepting of differences? So where's the line?
Originally Posted By fkurucz >><<the Republican Party has become the champion of the needs and desires of those in small towns?>> No, that's what they want rural small towns to believe but it's simply not true. That's the whole point.>> Doesn't Warren Buffet live in a small town? If its good for Buffet it has to be good for the small town.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Well, they seem to be drinking the Kool-Aid. All you need to do is look at the red/blue map to know that they have small town American in their pocket.>> Read "Deer Hunting with Jesus" for a front line account of how they pull this off.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***And let me tell you, you "libs" are every bit as hate filled as those on the other side.*** Oh, I'd say more scorn filled than hate filled. I always sneer scornfully when I fly over them on my way to L.A. or New York or some other part of "fake America".
Originally Posted By RoadTrip You can be intolerant towards those who are truly intolerant. But to classify an entire group of people as intolerant just because a small percentage of them actually are is completely unfair. It is also unfair to classify people as intolerant just because they have a different point of view than you on some issues. As for the "hot button" issues, I think people on both sides have to calm down on that. They are very controversial issues and there are people on both sides of the issue who are good, decent people who have legitimate differences of opinion. There is a huge difference between a person who feels 'fags' are sinful and should be jailed and a person who is entirely supporting of gay people's right to live their lives as they see fit, but are hesitant to change the traditional meaning of 'marriage'. I think you tend to lose track of that. You accuse the other side of getting hung up on a word. You are just as hung up on the word. If legal unions provided 100% of the rights and obligations as 'marriage', what is the difference? If a gay couple wants to consider themselves married they certainly can. If they go to a church that will provide a marriage ceremony that is great. What is the big deal over what the state calls it? To a certain extent it seems like you not only want equal treatment under the law, but you want to shove it in people's faces. I'm sure I've pissed off just about everyone by now, but that is really not my intent. I just want everyone to take a couple of steps back and be a little more tolerant of each other.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***You accuse the other side of getting hung up on a word. You are just as hung up on the word. If legal unions provided 100% of the rights and obligations as 'marriage', what is the difference?*** If black drinking fountains provided 100% of the nutrition and refreshment of white drinking fountains, what is the difference RoadTrip?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<If black drinking fountains provided 100% of the nutrition and refreshment of white drinking fountains, what is the difference RoadTrip?>> What's the difference? The public humiliation involved in having to use a different drinking fountain. Where is the public humiliation in legal unions? You can have a church service. You can wear a ring. You can tell all of your friends you are married. Where the hell is the public humiliation in that?
Originally Posted By Mr X See, I can't really argue this too vehemently with you RT because as I said on the other thread if it were only what it says on the face of it it wouldn't bother me that much. MY personal view, however, is that it's a step in the wrong direction for folks who DO want to accomplish a whole lot more, all the way down to criminalizing same sex affection. So, for me it's more the slippery slope argument than why marriage in and of itself is all that important. Though can understand why it could be for some, and I personally would never attempt to get in their way in terms of fighting for equality.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Ah... those slippery slopes are just all kind of trouble, aren't they? Kind of like the conservatives who think Obama's talk of "spreading the wealth" means we would be on the slippery slope to Socialism. God, you all just have to get off the slippery slope thing. There IS NO SLIPPERY SLOPE!! Well, except for Plummet Summit at blizzard Beach. But that is the only one.
Originally Posted By hopemax >You accuse the other side of getting hung up on a word. You are just as hung up on the word. If legal unions provided 100% of the rights and obligations as 'marriage', what is the difference? Because words ARE important. Once upon a time, our country was almost destroyed over who and who wasn't a person, by law. If we gave one group that was considered "not a person" the rights and obligations accorded to a person but stopped short of calling them a person because a great number of people were hesitant, and there WERE a great number of people who were hesitant, would that have been enough? And that wasn't the first time the word "person" was redefined in terms of legal protection...non-landowners, women, children. Heck, a "legal person" includes corporations, and the classification grants them the rights to sue, enter contracts, etc. And never would we say that doing so was rubbing it in someone else's face. As long as states legally recognize a call something "marriage" that is what we should call it involves a same-sex couple. Why legally call it something different, when legally it is exactly the same? So people feel more comfortable? Doesn't that sound just silly?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip It is redefining a term. It would be like saying that while Miss has traditionally been used to define a woman who has never been married, we will now also use it to define a woman who has been widowed or divorced. What difference does it make? They are all currently unmarried. The difference is it would be changing how a term has always been used. We didn't redefine Miss when we felt that distinction made no difference. We came up with the title Ms. Is that discriminatory?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Not a good analogy. Gay people want to be legally married, which is not redefining the word, but rather simply being allowed to take part. The couple in the Loving case were legally married in another state, but according to the state of Virginia, their marriage was "null and void" there. Their definition that marriage could only be between people of the same race DID matter. Many people don't know this, but in many states, slaves couldn't even be legally married to each other. The reason was that they took seriously the "What God has joined together, let no man tear assunder" thing, yet slaveholders always wanted to reserve the right to sell couples (and their children) away from each other if that was in the slaveholder's interest. So slave couples lived as married couples, had children together... but were not legally married, so what was the big deal with selling the husband but keeping the wife, thus separating them? They weren't "really" married anyway, and their kids were "illegitimate." Words matter, and legal status matters. Even in states with gay marriage, according to the federal government, gay couples who have been together 30 years are legally "strangers" to each other and that matters a LOT on a whole host of issues.
Originally Posted By mele <<If legal unions provided 100% of the rights and obligations as 'marriage', what is the difference?>> But they don't provide 100% and that is my problem. State unions don't necessarily mean federal protection. I think that gay should be allowed to adopt children, that is not always the case in many states where civil unions aren't allowed. Unfortunately, these things have to be fought for because rarely does equality just "happen". I don't give a crap about the word used. But I would never say that "separate but equal" is a good idea. Not with black people, not with gays, not with women, etc.
Originally Posted By mele <<To a certain extent it seems like you not only want equal treatment under the law, but you want to shove it in people's faces.>> How so? By people having the right, it's getting shoved in other people's faces? Isn't it pretty egotistical to think that someone else's marriage has anything to do with you at all? By that logic, every single married heterosexual couple has been shoving it in everyone's faces since the beginning of time. Can't you see how that sounds? Damn those uppity gays. Who do they think they are? They should wait quietly in the corner until we give them what they want, and then have the decency to go off and hide? WTH?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<So slave couples lived as married couples, had children together... but were not legally married, so what was the big deal with selling the husband but keeping the wife, thus separating them? They weren't "really" married anyway, and their kids were "illegitimate." >> I didn't realize there was a big problem with gay people being bought and sold. But if Ellen is for sale, I'M BUYING!! The heck with romance. I’m fine if she just hangs out and makes me laugh. ;-) <<But they don't provide 100% and that is my problem. State unions don't necessarily mean federal protection. I think that gay should be allowed to adopt children, that is not always the case in many states where civil unions aren't allowed. Unfortunately, these things have to be fought for because rarely does equality just "happen".>> I was using "the state" in the macro sense of the word. I would not want it left up to individual states. I would make it federal law. <<Can't you see how that sounds? Damn those uppity gays. Who do they think they are? They should wait quietly in the corner until we give them what they want, and then have the decency to go off and hide? WTH?>> Frankly I don't care how it sounds. I care about long term results, not short term victories. Right now if it were put to a public referendum gay marriage would not pass. Sure, it is getting closer, but it is not there yet. If gay marriage is forced on an unwilling public you know and I know that some states will take away rights that had previously been granted to gay people. We've seen that happen already in some states. I think there would be very little resistance to a Federal law creating legal unions with 100% of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Take that now, and in another 5 or 10 years people will more than likely be fine with gay marriage. Protests in the streets of America did not bring the Vietnam War to an end. The Vietnam War was brought to an end when Joe Middle America (Joe the Plumber's brother) got damned tired of watching their kids come home in body bags. In the long run you will achieve your result more quickly if you wait for the public to embrace the concept. All you need to do is look at the polls of what young people think and you know it won't be a long wait. Or you can alienate the majority and set the cause back 20 years. Your choice.
