Prop 8 Nov. 15 Protest

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

It's not being prejudiced, it's all I "see" because it is a historical aspect of me - where I come from. I see prejudices in a lot of places. I'm just more likely to speak up about Black history / culture because that is what I am a part of.

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.

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

That Holocaust argument is really bothering me.

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.

Originally Posted by XOMichelle

I think it's kind of funny that the pro-marriage camp feels that having MORE people getting married will ruin the institution. If you were really interested in making lifelong commitment a more well-adhered to cultural practice, wouldn't you be excited that more people were interested in monogamy? It's like having a bunch of people agree with you!

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.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

That Holocaust argument is really bothering me.

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.

[agzg]

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

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.

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.

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.

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.

[XOMichelle]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

[OtterXO]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

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.

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.

[sigmadiva]

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

[OtterXO]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

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.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

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

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

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

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.

[RaggedyAnn]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

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

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.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Because as I've said, for me it is a moral issue, not a human rights issue.
Again, for me it is a moral issue, not a rights issue. But that is how I see it.

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.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by RaggedyAnn

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

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.

[SWTXBelle]

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

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

[agzg]

Originally Posted by AGDee

The only thing is, I don't like the term civil union itself because I'm not sure what you would say "We're getting unionized" doesn't seem like a logical term to me. "We're getting civilized" doesn't work either. "We're being civil unionized"? "We're being partnered" ??? I just don't know what to really call it so that it makes sense.

Maybe "espouse" or some such?