<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> The Supreme Court of New Jersey has ruled in favor of gay marriage, sort of. By a vote of 4 to 3, the court says the state must afford gay couples all the ?rights and benefits? that straight couples have under the law. But the majority punted on the question of what to call gay marriages. If it doesn?t want to call them marriages, the legislature is free to come up with a term of its choosing for committed gay relationships. In other words, the court is fine with a nomenclature under which some marriages would be separate?but equal. In a sentence that will seem silly?and unjust?in 20 years, the court says this explicitly: ?We will not presume that a separate statutory scheme, which uses a title other than marriage, contravenes equal protection principles, so long as the rights and benefits of civil marriage are made equally available to same-sex couples.? The Plessy court couldn?t have said it better: separate railway cars for blacks are fine, as long as they are just as nice as the ones for whites. Don?t bother about that curtain between the black and white cars. ?Marriages,? ?civil unions,? ?two guys shacking up with a lot of All-Clad cookware??does the term really matter? </div> Source
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The Plessy court couldn’t have said it better: separate railway cars for blacks are fine, as long as they are just as nice as the ones for whites. Don’t bother about that curtain between the black and white cars. “Marriages,” “civil unions,” “two guys shacking up with a lot of All-Clad cookware”—does the term really matter?</div> I just love how people compare being gay to being black...lol...I mean they're almost the same thing?!?!?
are you sure, i remeber yesterday they said it was denied (im from new jersey they cut off my show to show it lol)
<div class="quote_poster">THE DREAM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I just love how people compare being gay to being black...lol...I mean they're almost the same thing?!?!?</div> I don't think you read this correctly. They are comparing it to Plessy v. Ferguson, a court case(in the late 1800s) in which the Court ruled that separate but equal facilities for whites and blacks were fine. This was overruled, obviously, by Brown v. Board of Education some 50 years later. The article, especially that part, has a sarcastic tone to it. They are pretty much saying that this separate naming thing is BS (just as the Plessy case was) and that if you are going to allow gay "unions", just call it marriage. I agree with the writer. I don't care if its called marriage also. It doesnt affect what I get called.
I wouldn't say it was a sarcastic tone. More of an exaggerating one. I agree with DREAM on this one. Marriage isn't a tangible institution like a university or a washroom, and giving different names is a trivial matter. It'll probably be changed eventually, but to call it unjust and then equate it with racial segregation is ridiculous and needlessly nitpicking.
This notion of "separate but equal" really highlights the stupidity of the anti gay marriage position. I always felt that if these conservative don't want to call gay unions a "marriage", then the term "marriage" should be scrapped from the law altogether. People can say they are "married" if they like, but by law they are called something else.
me wonders if the republicans are going to make this an election issue? i'm sure the campaign is going to be that the courts are undemocratic and only your elected officials, working for u and under GOD have the authority to define marriage
If this whole gay marriage thing ain't even a religious issue, but a political one, why not? To each his/her own. As long as they ain't hurting anybody, it should be fine. It doesn't offend me one bit unless they're forcing their views/behavior on everyone else which would violate my space. Now if gays/lesbians are forcing their views on the church and certain terminologies, they will cross the line with them. All I know is, If I freakin' turn gay one of these days, I'll be glad looking back with my current position as a straight person trying my best to be tolerant of something that is not very natural (weird) and hard to accept. As long as those groups are harmless, are peaceful together, and abide by true American values (which in my mind, means no selfish, one-sided position or prejudice, you live your life the way you want and respect others who do the same respect to you), then they will get along fine. I think I'm pretty secure in my preferences that even if a gay guy hit on me, I wouldn't change my stance on the gay marriage issue because of that. Of course, I'm a little bit disgusted, but maybe I should be flattered? I figure they just women in a dude's body. I think some hardcore religious types get offended because their beliefs are being attacked by the thought of a man-man, woman woman life partner. I mean everything we learned in sunday school at a young age started with old testament. Through Genesis and Adam and Eve. I mean it was Adam and Eve, it wasn't Adam and Adam. That would be funny though. "Hey, Adam, that adorable snake told us to eat this apple over there in the garden." "Are you sure it wasn't THIS adorable snake?" "Ohhhhh, you are naaasty!" "Instead of eating that apple, why don't you eat my--" "That would be suuuper" Okay, I just probably offended people that are offended FOR the gays and lesbians. LOL. But I'm kidding. BTW, Eve and Eve would be hot, granted they aren't wearing dock martins and flannel shirts. ... and they don't look dude-like when going "au naturel".
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I don't think you read this correctly. They are comparing it to Plessy v. Ferguson, a court case(in the late 1800s) in which the Court ruled that separate but equal facilities for whites and blacks were fine. This was overruled, obviously, by Brown v. Board of Education some 50 years later. The article, especially that part, has a sarcastic tone to it. They are pretty much saying that this separate naming thing is BS (just as the Plessy case was) and that if you are going to allow gay "unions", just call it marriage. I agree with the writer. I don't care if its called marriage also. It doesnt affect what I get called. </div> I realize that racism against blacks and discrimination against gays, are both discriminatory acts, BUT I find it interesting that the two are always mentioned together in the same breath, when they are incredibly different.
<div class="quote_poster">THE DREAM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I realize that racism against blacks and discrimination against gays, are both discriminatory acts, BUT I find it interesting that the two are always mentioned together in the same breath, when they are incredibly different.</div> They are both forms of irrational, often violent, prejudice against those who are different.
<div class="quote_poster">THE DREAM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I realize that racism against blacks and discrimination against gays, are both discriminatory acts, BUT I find it interesting that the two are always mentioned together in the same breath, when they are incredibly different.</div> both are immutable, things one can't change about oneself, although, homosexuals can conceal themselves, while people of colour can't. nevertheless, i don't know how familiar u are with the civil rights movement in the states -its enduring legacy was identifying the symbiosis of all oppressed people. to that end, segregation wasn't ended in the southern united states without the cooperation of jews and women, hopefully gays and lesbian can be included to enhance the continuing struggle that Dr. King spoke so eloquently about. to me linking gays and lesbians to the ongoing black struggle for civil rights is politically astute for blacks.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">nevertheless, i don't know how familiar u are with the civil rights movement in the states -its enduring legacy was identifying the symbiosis of all oppressed people. to that end, segregation wasn't ended in the southern united states without the cooperation of jews and women, hopefully gays and lesbian can be included to enhance the continuing struggle that Dr. King spoke so eloquently about. to me linking gays and lesbians to the ongoing black struggle for civil rights is politically astute for blacks. </div> Sorry to say it, but blacks historically and to this day have been discriminated against much much more harshly than gays....I'm not denying that gays get discriminated against...but you don't see large housing projects full of gay people, or prisons packed with people because they're gay......gay rights and racial rights are 2 seperate issues, that aren't remotely the same (except that they're forms of discrimination)......I wouldn't consider the state of gays as "oppressed"....is there discrimination there???...yes.....but not to the level of oppression against blacks in America or worldwide for that matter. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">both are immutable, things one can't change about oneself</div> that's the thing...I was born black.....there was never any doubt in my mind or anyone elses....I am black.....until I see 100% PROOF that being gay is "genetic", then I'm not buying it....all of the gay people who I associate with usually "turn" gay from experiences that they've encountered in their life time....the fact that I have gay/lesbian friends who have "turned" back to straight, shows me that "environment" plays a big role in your decision of being gay....I can't "consciously" decide whether I'm black or not, or turn the switch on and off, like gay people can.
<div class="quote_poster">THE DREAM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Sorry to say it, but blacks historically and to this day have been discriminated against much much more harshly than gays....I'm not denying that gays get discriminated against...but you don't see large housing projects full of gay people, or prisons packed with people because they're gay......gay rights and racial rights are 2 seperate issues, that aren't remotely the same (except that they're forms of discrimination)......I wouldn't consider the state of gays as "oppressed"....is there discrimination there???...yes.....but not to the level of oppression against blacks in America or worldwide for that matter. that's the thing...I was born black.....there was never any doubt in my mind or anyone elses....I am black.....until I see 100% PROOF that being gay is "genetic", then I'm not buying it....all of the gay people who I associate with usually "turn" gay from experiences that they've encountered in their life time....the fact that I have gay/lesbian friends who have "turned" back to straight, shows me that "environment" plays a big role in your decision of being gay....I can't "consciously" decide whether I'm black or not, or turn the switch on and off, like gay people can.</div> black exclusivity? interesting but outdated concept- the black panthers tried it and got their arses handed to them courtesy of j edgar hoover and COINTELPRO. i hate to tell u this but black people aren't history's only losers? the abroginals of N.A and australia, the armenians, the people of east timor and the jews share your plight. stop looking in the mirror and pop open a history book.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">black exclusivity? interesting but outdated concept- the black panthers tried it and got their arses handed to them courtesy of j edgar hoover and COINTELPRO. i hate to tell u this but black people aren't history's only losers? the abroginals of N.A and australia, the armenians, the people of east timor and the jews share your plight. stop looking in the mirror and pop open a history book. </div> Did I ever say that blacks are the only race to be discriminated against....no......but historically and to this day blacks have it the worst in American society when it comes politics, media, the judicial system, schools, etc....maybe you should open up the history book...or better yet your eyes. and far as black "exclusivity" is concerned, everyone else can be "exclusive" without it being viewed as "exclusive", but as soon as black people think like black people...oh then it's "exclusive"....I've heard this argument over and over. EDIT and J Edgar Hoover = BIGOT!!!
This is just from experience, but groups always seem to argue that they've been treated the most harshly. It's a pointless argument. I personally think that aboriginals have it the worst out of any group in NA. But, I've talked to aboriginals who simply refuse to debate that issue, because it doesn't contribute to any sort of solution. I'm not saying that black people haven't been/are discriminated against. But, arguing that one is more discriminated against than another is a waste of time. Anyways, back to the topic, I still agree with DREAM. Not only does equating discrimination against gays to black oppression generalize, but it also trivializes their own movement. There are many arguments/facts that one could use to fight against oppression of gays. Appealing to a historically significant era just shows an insecurity in the importance of your own cause. I feel the same way about this, whenever it is used (eg: people equating something with the Holocaust). Every movement/event is unique and should be treated as such.
<div class="quote_poster">THE DREAM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">that's the thing...I was born black.....there was never any doubt in my mind or anyone elses....I am black.....until I see 100% PROOF that being gay is "genetic", then I'm not buying it....all of the gay people who I associate with usually "turn" gay from experiences that they've encountered in their life time....the fact that I have gay/lesbian friends who have "turned" back to straight, shows me that "environment" plays a big role in your decision of being gay....I can't "consciously" decide whether I'm black or not, or turn the switch on and off, like gay people can.</div> i agree it is like comparing apples and oranges to some extent. they are both discrimination, but two major differences are 1) being gay is concealable (as is being Jewish) and 2) being gay, as is being Jewish, a "cultural" thing, not a fact that you are born with that you have no ability to change. A person born into Jewish faith can switch faith, as can a homosexual decide not to practice homosexual acts. But a black person cannot change their blackness. Although Michael Jackson has tried. And certain white people try to sound black. Luke Walton for example.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">This is just from experience, but groups always seem to argue that they've been treated the most harshly. It's a pointless argument. I personally think that aboriginals have it the worst out of any group in NA. But, I've talked to aboriginals who simply refuse to debate that issue, because it doesn't contribute to any sort of solution. I'm not saying that black people haven't been/are discriminated against. But, arguing that one is more discriminated against than another is a waste of time.</div> Yeah that wasn't even the point of my argument...cause that can lead to a HUGE debate. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Anyways, back to the topic, I still agree with DREAM. Not only does equating discrimination against gays to black oppression generalize, but it also trivializes their own movement. There are many arguments/facts that one could use to fight against discrimination. Appealing to a historically significant era just shows an insecurity in the importance of your own cause. I feel the same way about this, whenever it is used (eg: people equating something with the Holocaust). Every movement/event is unique and should be treated as such.</div> agreed. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Although Michael Jackson has tried.</div> and succeeded...lol
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting THE DREAM:</div><div class="quote_post">Yeah that wasn't even the point of my argument.</div> Yea, I know. It just seemed to be where you and deception were heading.
