It's because they Hate Gays, there is no other reason

Is it Ellie? Then will you please explain why BOTH THE FUCKING TOPICS ON THIS THREAD are about people taking away CIVIL UNIONS?

Honestly, did you even bother to read before you posted? You just injected some false argument about the word marriage to justify this bullshit?

I pity you and those like you. It must take a cold cold heart to deny adults and children healthcare benefits and then turn around and frame another argument on a word.

Black and white restrooms, schools, drinking fountains, restaraunts, bus seats, etc etc etc etc.

If one group of people is separated from another group of people in respect to where they can go or even what something they do is called, something will happen to make one better than the other.

If gay people are "allowed" to "marry" and it's exactly the same as "straight marriage" at the time the law is created with the exception of the name... well what's to stop someone in the future from altering the definition of "gay marriage?" It would be quite simple, and it wouldn't change "straight marriage" at all.

On the other hand, if both are called exactly the same thing, then it becomes much more difficult to refuse rights to one of the groups.

Why get so worked up and rude, Neehai ?

Even if every prior posting was indeed as you claim, that does not mean I am off topic.

I am seeking to offer an explanation of one significant reason why equality faces such severe opposition. I am suggesting that if all demands for possession of the words was dropped, huge numbers more of reasonable people would recognise the justice of the cause.

I may, of course, be wrong. But its hardly off-topic is it ? Calm down, my friend. The world is not full only of enemies.

Put another way, changing the wording to make "gay marriage" a different name than "straight marriage" would be easy and might make some people less opposed to it...

But you have to remember that the quick and easy path leads to the Dark Side

Ellie - Perhaps the backlash you are experiencing relates to so many recent threads where this very topic has been debated to death. Here are just a few that I could find with a quick search.

/120/7f/47009/1.html
/120/ad/47001/1.html
/120/82/46242/1.html
/120/44/42807/1.html
/120/68/38783/1.html
/120/6e/38041/1.html

As I've said before, I personally don't care what we call gay civil unions. However, the unintended consequences of calling it something other than "marriage" are where many of believe that a separate but equal or secondary classification will evolve.

I'm not being rude. Considering the actions of those denying me basic human right, I would say I'm being downright friendly.


I know what you are suggesting and I still find it offensive. Basically, since marriage is a long standing discrimination it should remain so.

This is not about a word. This is about the MD governor vetoing same sex benefits not even called marriage and then in CA people trying to take away non-marriage civil union rights.

So we try to call it marriage and we get your bullshit excuse. We don't call it marriage and we still get screwed. Got any other bright insights? Sometimes bigots are just bigots.

As for what to call it, I turned in my tap shoes. I'm tired of dancing for the breeders.

Out of curiousity, what do you mean by "breeders"?

It's worse than that --you agree with ME.

Shall I bow or curtsy?

A term for "straights". Interestingly, also used in some "Childfree" circles. Those who breed.

Ok, Neehai, I can see you are too hurt and angry to want to even consider whether what I propose might reduce opposition, or whether you even want the opposition reduced on such terms.

Im afraid I'm going to say something to really upset you now, bacause I think its a simple fact. However unpalatable it may be, the rights enjoyed by any minority in a democracy are only and exactly those which the majority are willing to give them. Justice doesn't come from God, it comes from the hearts and minds of your fellow voting citizens. To take their more subtle feelings into account, and avoid creating antagonism which is not essential to your cause, is not capitulating to them, or being abused. It is simple common sense. The majority does, at the end of the day, exercise the power.

I found Liannes contribution much more sober and thought provoking:



I had not heard this precise argument before, and it certainly made me stop and think hard.

Is she right ? Would it be harder in the future to re-legislate for new discrimination if the words were the same?

Is that sufficiently probable that it would make it worth foregoing the improvement in relations with the majority which I suggest would result from dropping the claim to the "marriage" words?

Difficult to assess the best strategy.

It obviously hinges on the degree to which these two claims are true. I'm pretty sure my effect would be substantial (other estimates welcome).

But how about Lianne's?

If I were trying to draft new discriminatory legislation, would I indeed find it more difficult if there were no different name or category for me to peg it on?

In one case I would presumably be amending legislation which had been previously drafted with a new clause redefining legal marriage as being between "two adult partners of any sex, joined together by mutual consent in a binding sexual relationship, and registered" etc etc so that "marriage" simply covered everybody, who was thus included wherever it is mentioned in other legislation. This presumably is what you envisage, and are asking for.

In the "equal but separate" case, this would presumably have been originally implemented by introducing a new but separate definition of a civil union which is not marriage, and is blind to gender, and has its own name (say "civil union". There would then be a master clause, so that every little bill and regulation didn't need individual amendment. This would say something like " wherever, in any area of legislation, the terms "marriage" "wedding" "spouse", "husband" or "wife" occur, these words shall be interpreted as to include the corresponding relationships in a "Civil Union" and all such rights and obligations shall therefore equally apply".

Ok. Would one be easier than the other to amend discriminatorially in the future ?

Superficially, it might seem so, but I have severe doubts. If it is what the legislators have decided upon, it is no more diificult to redraft the definition of marriage than to redraft the master clause. The lack of the defined words "civil union" makes it no more difficult. It is perfectly simple to incorporate a new discriminatory phrase such as "where the partners are of the same sex...etc etc".

Further, I see no reason why one change should be more or less difficult to swing the population behind. If anything, it might be easier for the one type of wording you would have chosen, ie to get support for reverting to an older definition of marriage.

I don't know whether this "it would be harder to re-discriminate" argument is your own, Lianne, or whether it has wide circulation. But I am afraid my conclusion, after the very careful consideration I lay out above, is that it is not well founded.

I come back to my view, however unpalatable, that changes in the law in favour of minorities ultimately must rely on the good will, and sense of fairplay, of the voting majority.

On balance, I believe that abandoning the cry for "marriage" and finding and embracing with enthusiasm a nicer name for "civil union", would dramatically enhance the necessary goodwill, as I have described previously. As such I consider it the rational course of action, even for those who (maybe quite naturally) would prefer to show no consideration for heterosexual sensitivities.

Ellie, I think you may be on to something. We could have a law stating that any two consenting adults can get civil unioned, and that any jurisdiction could choose to call some civil unions marriages, or all of them, or none of them. But in all cases under the law, a marriage is a civil union, and a civil union is a marriage, and all the same rights and responsibilities apply equally to each. So in Alabama, you might have to get a civil union, or you could go to Massachusetts and get a marriage, but in either case they always and forever mean the same thing under the law. And any document that mentions marriage means civil union, and any document that says civil union means marriage.

It's just the sort of ridiculous legal game that could defuse a lot of the tension!

No Ellie, I am not too hurt or angry to consider what you are saying. As a matter of fact, what you suggest is what homosexuals have been doing for the past decade. Where have you been? But clearly, that's not fucking enough for people as the civil union laws we do have are being challenged and new ones are being vetoed. Thus the purpose of this entire thread. Did you not bother to read it?

Honestly, if people would have left it alone I could buy your argument, but it is not about the word. It is about hating gay people.


It is simple common sense to READ. We have tried that and this thread lists two examples of where that wasn't fucking good enough for the majority. What else do you want?


Of course she is right because what she mentions was referenced in this very thread. Since you refuse to read it, people in California are now petitioning to overturn the civil union rights of homosexuals.


Well you would be wrong as evidenced by this think I like to call fact. This thread was created because a Governor vetoed legislation using the heterosexual-approved words. So much for that idea. Maybe you could suggest another name that we could try next time. Maybe Friendly Fags or Sensible Shoes Synergy. If you let me know what the gracious majority would approve, we'll give it a good look see and try to implement it.


Breeders: Those who breed.

My favorite word is snafu.

Oh and also eclectic

A Breeder is the second stage of life for the Pak, or any of the hominids descended from them. A Breeder has reached adulthood and fertility, but has not yet eaten the root of the Tree-of-Life and become a Protector. Pak variants can be found in many parts of the galaxy, and include humans here on Earth. Tree-of-Life was not able to grow successfully on Earth, though, so there are no human Protectors.

I've read it, Neehai. I've read it all, including the link. I understand it.
I still think my point is valid.

From your own link :
"Opponents of marriage rights for same-sex couples in California began a petition drive Thursday to put a broad constitutional ban against gay marriage on next year's ballot.
In addition to denying marriage licenses, the proposed amendment would take away....."

Its clear to me what is happening here. As long as the request here was for legal rights for civil unions, the opposition whinged but didn't really mobilise, and these rights were to a substantial degree written into the legislation. They obviously hadn't objected much up to that point.

But when it came to discussion of actual "marriage licenses" the opposition awoke, shook itself and swung into action. They declared war. And of course, once you-re up and fighting, you don't stop there. You go for broke and try to cut back even what was initially gained without anywhere near this much conflict.

Surely this confirms my point? Its the actual marriage licenses that they feel assault all their precious myths, beliefs and resonances. Thats what will electrify them into action, then they fight to take back much more significant stuff too. You end up rousing the sleeping giant by trying to take the one toy he cares about most. He'll maybe let you have the others, which after all, are the ones that matter, but not that one which, after all, doesn't much.

It's what I said. There are lots of fair-minded people who agree that equal legal rights are only just. But if you go one step further and assault their emotional belief system, they'll turn against you. They can't see why you need it, or that it is in any sense a legal right the same as all the others. The others, it is easy to see, are needs. That one may look to many more like a preference.

Yes, I knew that. Hence my point.

Seems like lots of different people can turn a bigoted phrase. Just like the idiot Governor of Maryland.

I think you are not reading carefully enoufgh to notice the actual question I was asking about whether she was right.

I find nothing anywhere to suggest that the existence of the civil union has made it easier for these petitioners to act. Don't you see, you can't say "if we already had the marriage thing, it would have been too late for them to do this". Thats nonsense. If you had gone for the marriage thing, rejecting the civil union, you would simply have woken the giant sooner, and maybe have got nothing at all. This way there is at least a chance they will not manage to take away whats been achieved. If no-one had been demanding actual "marriage licences" the giant might still be asleep, and full legal equality might have been perfectly achievable.

I say again - its the words "marriage" and "wedding" and "bride" they will fight you for. Some will fight to the death. On other things they are probably too lazy, unless once aroused.

You are so wrong. Look at the legislation these people pass in their own states.

It not only bars marriage but any type of civil union. It's about hating gays.

I'm done with you, your "you asked for it" defense of bigotry is disgusting. I suppose you also think women in suggestive clothing are just "asking for trouble" if they get raped.

As I said before, I pity you.

I never claimed that all would be lovely if you didn't go for "marriage" or that all opposition would vanish. Of course not.

Just that if you insist on it you will push some otherwise decent people to side with the haters. Make things harder. There will always be a core of real haters. Their strength will depend on who they can persuade to join in.

Its not black-and-white. Its a matter of degree.

Sheesh - you must be having a bad time ! I really am sorry.
I think we both want the same target, but we surely don't agree about what might be helpful/unhelpful in getting there.

Ellie ... I *kind* of get what you are saying but mostly not. Words are *very* important, yes. But as Lianne and Paolo explained, separate but equal does not a good decision make. What would you suggest to prevent a repeat of the "white" drinking fountains and the "black" drinking fountains?

Is this type of recoil of legal rights a recent thing, that has only been happening since the the bar was raised from civil unions to marriage? IOW could it be an overcompensation--a backlash--against the whole concept of gay unions/marriage? If so, it would mean that this is being fueled by the fear that it's the only way to protect what many people consider the religious/cultural definition of marriage... I guess either that or Neehai's right.

You are probably right. It is just the fact that we uppity homosexuals (not unlike the uppity negroes during the civil right movement) just don't seem to know our place.

Miss Ellie and Mister Garoad, I sure am sorry for pushin them bad words on you. Me and my people will try to be as accomodating as possible in the future as we and our children try to get by without healthcare or hospital visits.

I don't know why we insist on being so damn willful all the time and just hurtin ourselves. You nice heterosexuals were going to give us something and we were just ungrateful. I'm so so sorry Miss Ellie. If you could forgive us we would love a chance to get access to basic human rights in the future.

Please forgive us.

Why do people who read "separate but equal" insist on reaacting to it as though it read "separate but not equal".

How could it possibly support "fountain" type discrimination?

Haven't I described how the law could easily ensure equal really was equal, as far as all laws and regulations and rights are concerned. There is absolutely no necessity to redefine "marriage" to achieve this.

Insisting on this legally unnecessary extra step is counterproductive, by upsetting and antagonising many citizens who would otherwise be supportive, or at least neutral. It increases the backlash, as your own link clearly indicates.

You seem, Neehai, to want more than equal rights. You seem by the tone of your replies to be bent on a sort of revenge. To want to take hold of the majority's nose and "rub their faces in it". BAD move. You need the votes of the fairminded people who see the legal injustices, but want to protect their concept of "marriage". Don't turn them into opponents. Dont push them into the same camp as the haters.

Bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Your choice I guess. But expect to have to fight three times as hard. Even to hold on to "civil union". And maybe lose.

In my opinion the US is in a dangerous state at the moment. Heading towards fascism. If you don't get what you need very soon, your chance may be gone for a generation.