All of which is irrelevant to your unfounded (and unsupportable) claim that the Civil Rights Movement is the only reference or connection being made by "their" side.I agree with much of what you said. But since it did get brought up, I think it is useful for illustrating that there isn't any group that has a monopoly on being discriminated against, and there are lessons to be learned from all instances of discrimination.
Not really, because from the "pro-marriage" side, those advocating for gay marriages are not agreeing with you. The two sides are operating from a fundamental disagreement about what the word "marriage" means, with the "pro-marriage" side believing that a same-sex union cannot, by definition, be a marriage. Whether others disagree with them doesn't make their opinion go away. Hence, the impasse. But I think this explains why polls show that many people who are not comfortable with gay marriages (because they are convinced that a marriage, by definition, can only exist between a man and a woman) are willing to support civil unions.

Good. Now you know how I feel when people try to make comparisons of gay rights with Black American struggle for civil rights - there is no comparison.

But, if the gay rights issue wants to align themselves with other people who have been persecuted, then why not the Jews too? Why not American Indians? Why not the Japanese in the US during WWII?

If gays feel that they are being maligned for what ever reason, then I don't think they should just base their argument on one group. There are plenty other groups out there too.

So, instead of just showing a White only / Black only water fountain, why not depict Jews being rounded up a forced to live in one area, and the same for American Indians.

I think you're missing my point, which was at least they're drawing on an AMERICAN experience.

What help would it be to compare themselves to European Jews, when we are not European? Furthermore, IT WAS NOT JUST THE JEWISH POPULATION THAT WAS AFFECTED BY THE HOLOCAUST.

I'll give it to ya, the African American experience in the United States has been bad, very bad. Yes, it was worse than homosexuals have been treated.

But when fighting an American fight, doesn't it stand to reason to draw from the American experience? I'm not black, nor am I gay, but the experiences of both of these groups have become part of the general American conscience, as well, myself included.

The Holocaust? Sad, sad occurrence. I'm sure people that were distant distant relatives were affected. But it doesn't affect my daily conscience.

Since you seem to keep refusing read the memo, I'll say it one more time. They aren't.

And to be clear, they're not basing any arguments on any "groups." They are comparing what they see as current injustices and discriminations to past injustices and discriminations.

Because the separate-but-equal accomodations reference (made by a straight poster) is much more analogous to the issue at hand than is forcing people to live in ghettos or reservations.

I feel like this is an argument that just doesn't make a lot of sense when you consider the institution in the abstract. It also proves to an extent that a lot of this debate is centered in prejudice.

This is just driving me nuts reading some of these posts. The gay community and the people in this thread are not "aligning" themselves with anyone. We were having a discussion comparing past situations where one group was discriminated against to the current situation regarding gay marriage. No one is saying that the gay marriage issue is more horrible or less horrible than any past injustice to ANY group of people. You can't jump in and say "well it's not as bad as _____ so don't compare the two." Comparing doesn't mean equalizing the situations, it's about having a discussion about mistakes in history and learning what we can from them. But then again, this has been said NUMEROUS times in the past several pages of this thread but none of it seemed to make an impact.

Well then maybe KSigRC should have selected a different / "better" image than he did to make his point.

But that's just the point, he didn't have to select a "better" image. He used it as an example of what he thinks the logic is behind the civil union vs. marriage debate. It's the same logic, NOT the same issue.

But there is a comparison, a DIRECT comparison- they both fought/are fighting for a basic human RIGHT.

You're seriously ignoring every subsequent post?

Tell you what - you come up with a substantive rejoinder to anything I've posted (instead of simply quoting "agree to disagree"), complete with an analysis of how the following analogy is suspect:

The term "civil union" : the status of "married" :: the concept of "separate" : the reality of "equal"

. . . and I'll reconsider. Remember - the argument has nothing to do with scale, only with logic and the lessons we all should have learned from mistreatment of blacks for centuries.

Again, this isn't about "worse" - this is about human rights. You'd think those who consider themselves the "worst" off would be interested in helping others who are suffering, but apparently my ideas of empathy are awkwardly wrong. I guess I learned something today.

Hijack/ Not really distant. My grandmother was in a German labor camp in the war. My mother was affected in how she was raised and that affected how she raised me. /end Hijack

Back on topic-it has been less than 30 years that the first gay couple went to prom-or were allowed to go to prom because they won a court case.

So, if the majority of people in this country decided that it was immoral for a blond to marry a brunette, they should be able to make it illegal because they think it's immoral? Is that really what our country is all about? Or ,make second marriages illegal because some churches don't believe second marriages are valid in the eyes of God? MORAL issues are not legal issues. This *is* a rights issue whether you want to believe it or not.

I meant distant relatives of mine, in the fact that the holocaust has not become part of my conscience as an American, versus the civil rights movement, which has.

Interesting article. . .
 

http://www.slate.com/id/2204661/

I feel like I'm on "Coffee Talk". Discuss.

Maybe "espouse" or some such?