Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 The Bringer wrote:
I've been raised in a Republican household, and am a Christian. And although I don't agree with same-sex marriage, it is totally not our right to impose our beliefs on others, and in that way I am grateful the freedom of the LGB communicty has been preserved.

You are awesome for just saying that.

You understand this is the same thing Mitt Romney said during the 2012 election, yes?

No, and so?

Well you should educate yourself then, considering it was a major campaign issue in 2012 that helped get Obama elected because the media refused to acknowledge romneys stance on homosexual marriages.

Further, you applaud him for saying that, but so much if this thread has involved calling anyone that disagrees with homosexuality a bigot or homophobe.

Just trying to figure out what, exactly, qualifies someone as a homophobe or bigot these days. It's so very confusing.

 Jihadin wrote:

Why a white homo? Aren't the black ones cute enough to lure away black men to hell, also?

Whoa now Relapse...quite a few like Asian too. Term "Yellow" fever" infects all you know.

I just thought that was already understood! :

 cincydooley wrote:
Well you should educate yourself then, considering it was a major campaign issue in 2012 that helped get Obama elected because the media refused to acknowledge romneys stance on homosexual marriages.

Further, you applaud him for saying that, but so much if this thread has involved calling anyone that disagrees with homosexuality a bigot or homophobe.

Just trying to figure out what, exactly, qualifies someone as a homophobe or bigot these days. It's so very confusing.

Being obviously homophobic is a good clue.

For example, suggesting that the word "marriage" should be reserved for heterosexual religious ceremonies.

 cincydooley wrote:
Well you should educate yourself then, considering it was a major campaign issue in 2012 that helped get Obama elected because the media refused to acknowledge romneys stance on homosexual marriages.

Further, you applaud him for saying that, but so much if this thread has involved calling anyone that disagrees with homosexuality a bigot or homophobe.

Just trying to figure out what, exactly, qualifies someone as a homophobe or bigot these days. It's so very confusing.

Quick question. What exactly was Romney's stance? I know it is kind of foolish but... let's just say that politicians are very interesting in their focus
Anyways, from what I've gathered. He supported Don't ask Don't tell, he is okay with it being repealed as the wars dwindle down but not during them. Apparently he supports gay adoption however. Anyways, from what I can gather on August 2011 he pledged he would try to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act. Also, I've kinda sorta gathered he was against it in general but I can't tell if that is just media doing what media does or honest truth. Although earlier in his career he was apparently more supportive. Bah! Darn politicians you just seem to make it impossible to catch you...

 cincydooley wrote:
Well you should educate yourself then, considering it was a major campaign issue in 2012 that helped get Obama elected because the media refused to acknowledge romneys stance on homosexual marriages.

Further, you applaud him for saying that, but so much if this thread has involved calling anyone that disagrees with homosexuality a bigot or homophobe.

Just trying to figure out what, exactly, qualifies someone as a homophobe or bigot these days. It's so very confusing.

I'm just happy that a conservative christian doesn't believe in forcing religion opon other people. I'm ok with anybody being racist, homophobic, ect as long as they do not allow that to get in the way of doing the right thing. I personally don't care about people being anti-gay marriage (it is their religion after all), as long as they don't try to pass legislation against it, i'm fine. It's their opinion and they are allowed to have it. For me being a homophobe is not just someone who doesn't like gay people, but who actively uses that dislike to hurt gay people (physically, verbally or otherwise).

A bigot to me is best put by this definition.

A person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Basically as Co'tor Shas stated. In my personal opinion, homophobic isn't just not liking gay people. It's when you start passing legislation thatt says. It's fine for guys and girls to love but if I like a guy well then no marriage for you and possibly anti-sodomy laws tossed at you.. That, or physically or verbally abusing one (think a lot of the Russian drama)

 cincydooley wrote:
Well you should educate yourself then, considering it was a major campaign issue in 2012 that helped get Obama elected because the media refused to acknowledge romneys stance on homosexual marriages.

Look, I'd normally call someone who said this a liar, but the truth is that Mr. Romney has staked out both sides on so many positions that it's literally possible you're reasonably unaware Mr. Romney was in favor of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

“I join with those who support a federal constitutional amendment. Massachusetts has a law that attempts to restrain this infringement by restricting marriages of out-of-state couples to those where no impediment to marry exists in their home state. Even with this law, valid same-sex marriages will migrate to other states. For each state to preserve its own power in relation to marriage, a federal amendment to define marriage is necessary.” – 6/24/04 testimony before U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee

So lets dispense with the idea that Mr. Romney didn't think "it was his right to impose his belief on others, and that he would be grateful the freedom of the LGBT community was preserved". It is divorced from reality and he was perfectly OK with enshrining the LGBT community as second class citizens with diminished rights.

 Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Well you should educate yourself then, considering it was a major campaign issue in 2012 that helped get Obama elected because the media refused to acknowledge romneys stance on homosexual marriages.

Look, I'd normally call someone who said this a liar, but the truth is that Mr. Romney has staked out both sides on so many positions that it's literally possible you're reasonably unaware Mr. Romney was in favor of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

“I join with those who support a federal constitutional amendment. Massachusetts has a law that attempts to restrain this infringement by restricting marriages of out-of-state couples to those where no impediment to marry exists in their home state. Even with this law, valid same-sex marriages will migrate to other states. For each state to preserve its own power in relation to marriage, a federal amendment to define marriage is necessary.” – 6/24/04 testimony before U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee

So lets dispense with the idea that Mr. Romney didn't think "it was his right to impose his belief on others, and that he would be grateful the freedom of the LGBT community was preserved". It is divorced from reality and he was perfectly OK with enshrining the LGBT community as second class citizens with diminished rights.

Oh no, aware of all of this. He's been pretty consistent on that viewpoint, too. And like I said earlier, it's entirely due to the word "marriage."

He's also been pretty consistent on his stance that same sex couples should have equal protection under the law.

Which is why I advocated for us simply abolishing the word, making the legal protections contracts between two people, and allowing the churches, cults, covens, and guilds to dictate their "marriage" ceremonies on a personal basis as they deem fit.

Don't know why I climbed back into this. I'm out.

Why does it matter if the states uses the word "Marriage"?

Really... why?

If all the legal documents says civil union or whathaveyous FOR ALL couples. Why does it matter to have this word "marriage" state-recognized?

If you want that word, just fething using it.

Jeez...

Making homophobes unhappy makes me happy, is why it matters.

Next battle....expand the number of wives/husbands one individual can have...

edit
Sounds good but I think suicide/murder rate would go up on spouses....nagnagnagnagnagnagnanganganganagnagnganagnagnangagnangnagna

 cincydooley wrote:
Oh no, aware of all of this. He's been pretty consistent on that viewpoint, too. And like I said earlier, it's entirely due to the word "marriage."

He's also been pretty consistent on his stance that same sex couples should have equal protection under the law.

From your own link:

Meanwhile, in an interview with KDVR-TV in Denver, Romney said, "I don't favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name. My view is that domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights and the like are appropriate, but the others are not."

Emphasis mine. This is not the common understanding of "equal". I believe you are mistaken, but again, I find it difficult to be too hard on you because Mr. Romney is so hard to pin down on his stances.

 Jihadin wrote:
Next battle....expand the number of wives/husbands one individual can have...

I have no problem with polygamy or any variant of marriage that involves consenting adults. I don't think the state should be in the marriage business at all.

 Ouze wrote:


From your own link:

Meanwhile, in an interview with KDVR-TV in Denver, Romney said, "I don't favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name. My view is that domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights and the like are appropriate, but the others are not."

Emphasis mine. This is not the common understanding of "equal". I believe you are mistaken, but again, I find it difficult to be too hard on you because Mr. Romney is so hard to pin down on his stances.

Can't disagree there; the hardest part about that tidbit is that there doesn't seem to be any documentation of any extrapolation about that bolded part.

Truth be told, I'm also having trouble finding his quote about "not legislating against gay marriage," so there's that.

But again, I think we should just remove the word marriage from having any legal standing. Yes, I know there are arguments that we just "appease the homophobes" by doing that, But I disagree. Enable "marriage" for all (which again, I am not opposed to) and you still have a not insignificant portion of the population that has a problem with it and it remains a political issue. Remove "marriage" from having any legal standing and we can get equal rights for everyone (the really issue, right?) and move on to fixing our economy, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:


I have no problem with polygamy or any variant of marriage that involves consenting adults. I don't think the state should be in the marriage business at all.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

I don't think the state should be in the marriage business at all.

Careful Ouze...that perception going to lead you to my perception I will remain the "Bad" guy on that I don't share spot light with others

Jihadin, despite arguing with you a lot, I don't think you're a bad guy or anything particularly near it. I'd happily have a beer with anyone from dakka, despite how prickish I can be at times in OT.

Boss...stop ruining my 5 min will you....just 5 minutes is all I want as a "Bad" guy

 Jihadin wrote:

I don't think the state should be in the marriage business at all.

Careful Ouze...that perception going to lead you to my perception I will remain the "Bad" guy on that I don't share spot light with others

Well, what you want - and I could be wrong so tell me if I am - is for the government to still essentially handle marriage, but just change the name, right?

 Ouze wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

I don't think the state should be in the marriage business at all.

Careful Ouze...that perception going to lead you to my perception I will remain the "Bad" guy on that I don't share spot light with others

Well, what you want - and I could be wrong so tell me if I am - is for the government to still essentially handle marriage, but just change the name, right?

Did the gov'mint sanction your convent with Frazzled yet?

Is it wrong if I don't mind polygamy?

Well, what you want - and I could be wrong so tell me if I am - is for the government to still essentially handle marriage, but just change the name, right?

Remove the word marriage from all official government documentation and replaced with something else that covers all couple thereby removing the state and federal government from the issue on defending/fighting the word "Marriage"

Is it wrong if I don't mind polygamy?

One nagging wife for two and three? Not me...thank you

I would imagine the wives would get jealous. I know i would.

Meh. Different strokes for different folks I like to say. As long as the relationship makes everybody in the group happy (well, more happy than miserable) and it is all consensual... so be it.

 Jihadin wrote:
Of course they can marry. Just cannot use the title of "Marriage". Of course then the word "marry" gets replaced by the word Union. Your on the same track as me but still hung up on the word of "Marriage"

I'm not hung up on any word. I just see one last desperate act to deny something, anything, from homosexual people.

Now though...is a "chair" a moral or value? Its neither. Its a tool to set one butt in.

The chair is a hypothetical point in an analogy. It, and it's morality or lack thereof, is completely irrelevant. What matters is understanding that the word 'marriage' is just a word, and it's a word with absolutely nothing sacred about it. There is no protest or complaint from any church when an atheist couple wants to get married. That is simply an accepted thing - couples can enter the legal institution of marriage without doing it in a religious service, or being in anyway religious. And it gets called marriage j

I'm not changing anything about "Marriage" Just remove the word. You all clinging to the word "Marriage" for its title. If we, as in the USA, want the title of the word. Might as well bring back Noble titles to. Duke, Viscount, Knight, etc etc

You're not responding to my point, you're just repeating your initial belief. I'll repeat my point again - there is history to this debate, that are you well aware of, that involves marriage being denied to homosexual couples. After a long struggle, society is now reaching the point where we see homosexual couples as equal, and deserving of the same legal institutions that the rest of us can access. And the response to this by the people who've protested every single step of the progression is to realise they might be able to stop gay couples getting married, but they're going to try stopping them using the word 'marriage'. It's inane, and there is no reason at all to pretend there is any respectability to the attempt at all.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Both sides want the word/title "Marriage" on their certificate. If you appease one side the other will not like it.

Actually, I think you'll find that if conservative Christians continue to use the word marriage, gay people won't give a gak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
So arguing for the word "marriage" to be included in on the package hence knowing full well its going to drag out in court going to take years to process through. While removing the word marriage and coming up another title that includes all couples with the same "RIGHTS" is to be delayed.

You seem to be working under the assumption that granting conservative Christians the right to the word 'marriage' would mean an end to the struggle for marriage equality. That if conservative Christians managed to secure that word, suddenly all important despite never being important before, then they'd just accept it and go off happily. I don't know where you got that idea but it's completely wrong.

Giving up on the word marriage isn't a final compromise. It's a ploy by the conservative Christians to sneak one win after years of losing ground. Simply gifting them that win won't bring an end to this nonsense, it will lead it to drag out for even more years to come.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Why does it matter if the states uses the word "Marriage"?

Really... why?

If all the legal documents says civil union or whathaveyous FOR ALL couples. Why does it matter to have this word "marriage" state-recognized?

Ask yourself why it would matter to conservative Christians... ask yourself why, after years of happily living in a society where people could go to town hall and get married without involving God or religion at all, never leading them to complain about the use of the word 'marriage' in those ceremonies... they'd suddenly get bothered about the word being used to describe homosexual marriages.

Because it is just a word... and no-one ever fights over just a word. The fight here is over something real and meaningful - it is the last effort of people who are beginning to see the writing on the wall to find some kind of argument they can pretend still has any kind of legitimacy.

It is very, very important to make it very clear that there is no legitimacy to that effort, that religion does not own the word 'marriage', and there is nothing legitimate about denying rights to people because the person they love is of their own gender.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 StarTrotter wrote:
Basically as Co'tor Shas stated. In my personal opinion, homophobic isn't just not liking gay people.

Not liking someone because they are gay is pretty much exactly what homophobic means. I think all the other stuff you mention, laws restricting the rights of homosexuals, violence etc is the really important stuff, and should be what equality activists worry about, not whether random people choose to not like gay people.

And note that it doesn't mean that disagreeing with a homosexual or the homosexual community in and of itself means a person is a homophobe. Even on issues like gay marriage, a person can disagree with the homosexual community and their supporters, without it necessarily being for homophobic reasons.

Yeaaaah that was stupid of me. Then again, I really don't care if people like me for that or not. I really only mind wen it comes to laws and physical violence (or heavy emotional stuff)