Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on August 9, 2012 at 7:55pm

What aren't they "allowed to do" when they have domestic partnership?

Be legally married.

It is equally wrong to tell proponents of marriage that what they value (marriage is heterosexual) is something they have to give up.

It's all in how you phrase it. 

It's not all in how you phrase it.  No anti-same-sex marriage person has to change their opinion, and no religious institution has to perform same-sex marriages.   The only thing that changes is that the law legally recognizes a civil definition of marriage that includes same-sex marriages.  With only a handful of exceptions, the only people directly affected by such a change is those desiring same-sex marriages.

Of course it's zero-sum. LGBT's get a form of marriage, which the proponents of heterosexual marriage will feel is a loss.

It doesn't matter if they feel it is a loss.  By that definition, any issue with diametrically opposed sides is a zero-sum game even with compromise, but that's really not what the term means.    The two sides are not equal on this issue.  The prospective gains and losses are not equal.  How people feel isn't particularly important; obviously everyone wants their side to win.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on August 9, 2012 at 8:13pm

@Kris

What aren't they "allowed to do" when they have domestic partnership?

Be legally married.

They are legally domestic partners, a kind of marriage.

It is equally wrong to tell proponents of marriage that what they value (marriage is heterosexual) is something they have to give up.

It's not all in how you phrase it.  No anti-same-sex marriage person has to change their opinion, and no religious institution has to perform same-sex marriages.   The only thing that changes is that the law legally recognizes a civil definition of marriage that includes same-sex marriages.  With only a handful of exceptions, the only people directly affected by such a change is those desiring same-sex marriages.

You've just restated my contention that a domestic partnership IS a marriage but you haven't stated clearly what the problem is. Of course "only people directly affected by such a change is those desiring same-sex marriages." Why? Because it was designed to give them marriage, which it does.

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on August 9, 2012 at 8:15pm

They are legally domestic partners, a kind of marriage.

Actually, it's a term that serves the purpose of enshrining rights without being a marriage.  To say that it is a type of marriage is to fundamentally misunderstand the term.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on August 9, 2012 at 8:28pm

@Kris

They are legally domestic partners, a kind of marriage.

Actually, it's a term that serves the purpose of enshrining rights without being a marriage.  To say that it is a type of marriage is to fundamentally misunderstand the term.

Well, but there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two in terms of rights. Both are defined legally the same way.

Here is how Dictionary.com defines "marriage" and how it is used. Reading it, I'm mystified as to what your point is:

a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.

I don't see the point you are trying to make in there.

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on August 9, 2012 at 8:34pm

While I'm not a huge fan of comparing the gay rights struggle to the black rights struggle, do you understand why having a whites only water fountain and a separate negros water fountain is an issue, even if they are identical fountains?

Permalink Reply by Unseen on August 9, 2012 at 8:45pm

While I'm not a huge fan of comparing the gay rights struggle to the black rights struggle, do you understand why having a whites only water fountain and a separate negros water fountain is an issue, even if they are identical fountains?

I do see THAT distinction. The black person lacked the right to use half the fountains in town (presumably whites were free to use a black fountain in a pinch). In this case, the rights are the same for gays and straights. Rights don't seem to be at stake here.

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on August 9, 2012 at 9:32pm

This is not a waste of my time.  I can't even tell if you're being serious or not.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on August 9, 2012 at 10:45pm

@Kris

So, if someone doesn't see things your way, they must be yanking your chain? I'm serious.

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on August 9, 2012 at 10:50pm

Don't give me that crap. We've had numerous disagreements and this is the first time I've said that.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on August 9, 2012 at 11:18pm

@Kris

That comment was not meant to apply to any other discussions.

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on August 9, 2012 at 11:30pm

If you are referring to a specific instance, using general terms like 'someone' as if it was a general statement is a little odd, to be honest.

I mean, I haven't even done it elsewhere in the discussion. Regardless, the assumption was faulty. I did not say that you must be joking, and even if I did, the assumption that it was simply because you disagreed with me is unevidenced and unlikely.

Permalink Reply by Jennifer Hall on August 9, 2012 at 12:42am

That may be why this fight is getting so muddy, because gays are getting confused on the issue -is it about rights or righteousness? My prediction is until the movement is solidified more, there will be only minor changes here and there in the United States. Simplifying it would be the way to go, to me. Stop focusing on the words, people!! Rights! Equal rights, not equal words!!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page