Is that CLEAR enough for you?
Edited by Jingthing, 2011-12-31 15:27:17.
0
How To Explain Gay Rights To Idiots
Started by Ijustwannateach, 2011-12-15 08:40
|
73 replies to this topic
#51
Jingthing
Member Schmember Posted 2011-12-31 15:02:37
Yes, there are legal methods. There are political methods. There are methods that involve the word marriage. There are methods that don't involve the word marriage. The core of the incredulity I have expressed and maintain is the ridiculous assertion that only methods that don't involve the word marriage are meaningful or valid options.
Is that CLEAR enough for you? #52
isanbirder
Endangered Member Posted 2011-12-31 16:38:21
Happy New Year, Jingthing. I shall continue to remain ridiculous!
#53
ProThaiExpat
Platinum Member Posted 2011-12-31 18:38:19
In the years I have monitored this issue in the U.S, we have seen a marked change in attitudes by many, particularly among the young. Thus I don't give up hope. It matters not if Obama "evolves" to our position before or after the next election, hopefully he will win in either case. As a "lame duck" president he will not have the political restraints he has now, particularly if he can carry the house of representatives.
Jingthing, don't give up hope, look what happened to the meaning of the word "gay" over the past fifty years!!! What worries me is the Supreme Court. Both Scalia and Thomas will require explicit language in the constitution before they will find gays are entitled to be treated as their straight neighbors and we know that our forefathers believed in a 'living" constitution to be interpreted in a contemporary way. Hopefully, a swing vote member will vote the right way when the equal rights of gays are under consideration. DOMA is the big hurdle and it will only go down when the House of Representatives is purged of some of the intolerant and obdurate Republicans. The courts may be our savior as it was in the inter-racial marriage issue in 1947 by the California Supreme Court followed by the US Supreme Court 17 years later. Judge Walker in San Francisco did such a great job of trying the issues and making a great legal record before he came down with his decision regarding the unconstitutional Prop 8 as violate of equal protection that the Supremes may not have much wiggle room to hold otherwise. #54
Jingthing
Member Schmember Posted 2011-12-31 18:41:23
If we get Obama for four more years, and even more so Clinton in 2016, there will be at least one additional friendly supreme court pick. That's the path for the US and no I have not given up hope. It is only a matter of timing now for full FEDERAL marriage equality which is the gold standard for equal gay civil rights in every regard. In the next five years, or fifty, that is the direction.
Edited by Jingthing, 2011-12-31 19:10:08. #55
jdinasia
Leave my member out of it! Posted 2011-12-31 20:04:41
I don't really care about the terminology as I do not reside in either the UK nor the US. (Though the concept of procreation being the purpose of marriage ended about the same time that a marriage could be ended when children were not conceived.) I want the rights and that is all. When and if the discussion comes in Thailand it certainly will not have the same overtones that it has in the West.
Since women's rights are decades behind the West here in Thailand, I assume that gay rights won't progress that quickly here. #56
Jingthing
Member Schmember Posted 2012-01-01 17:09:37
... I want the rights and that is all. ... #57
tombkk
It's a cultural thing Posted 2012-01-02 00:51:07
... I want the rights and that is all. ... Newflash: Jingthing wizensed up and suddenly understands that the word marriage is not always necessary! Miracles never cease to happen. Happy New Year! #58
Jingthing
Member Schmember Posted 2012-01-02 00:53:41
... I want the rights and that is all. ... Newflash: Jingthing wizensed up and suddenly understands that the word marriage is not always necessary! Miracles never cease to happen. Happy New Year! #59
tombkk
It's a cultural thing Posted 2012-01-02 01:05:03
... I want the rights and that is all. ... Newflash: Jingthing wizensed up and suddenly understands that the word marriage is not always necessary! Miracles never cease to happen. Happy New Year! JT, I said that the terminology doesn't matter but did say that you - as the expert about the US - said that it matters in the US, and I conceded that you are the expert about that country. You attacked me ad hominem for even suggesting that the the terminology might be limited to your country only. Please read your own postings for reference. Edit: I also said that I don't like the word "marriage" because of the religious burden it carries. Edited by tombkk, 2012-01-02 01:08:20. #60
Jingthing
Member Schmember Posted 2012-01-02 01:06:21
You are just twisting things around. You clearly insist that religion and marriage are necessarily linked, and they are not. You play the USA card when it pleases you. Face the reality, we have different positions and in my view your insistence that religion and marriage MUST be linked and also that progress for civil rights must NOT involve the word marriage are obviously totally wrong, and yes, ridiculously irrational.
Yes, I know what I just said is strong. What you are asserting is objectively wrong, objectively falsehoods. Not opinion. As someone who has cared about equal rights for gays all my life, I actually wouldn't want allies with as muddled views as yours on my side. Some of your rhetoric supports our enemies. Edited by Jingthing, 2012-01-02 01:11:25. #61
tombkk
It's a cultural thing Posted 2012-01-02 01:12:02
You are just twisting things around. You clearly insist that religion and marriage are necessarily linked, and they are not. You play the USA card when it pleases you. Face the reality, we have different positions and in my view your insistence that religion and marriage MUST be linked and also that progress for civil rights must NOT involve the word marriage are obviously totally wrong, and yes, ridiculously irrational. Yes, I know what I just said is strong. What you are asserting is objectively wrong, objectively falsehoods. Not opinion. Thank you for making clear that you really don't get it. I should not even taken your bait and replied... #62
Jingthing
Member Schmember Posted 2012-01-02 01:13:12
Thank you for making clear that you really don't get it. I should not even taken your bait and replied... Edited by Jingthing, 2012-01-02 01:37:54. #63
tombkk
It's a cultural thing Posted 2012-01-02 22:16:24
Thank you for making clear that you really don't get it. I should not even taken your bait and replied... Well, but even without mind reading you did get it right.  I think you must have been secretly reading my posts.  Mind you, I did say that you are the expert for the US, where you claim that the term Marriage is needed, and I only referred to The World, which is that little piece of unworthy real estate that is not in the US. So let's not mix up apples and pears, i.e. the US as you see it, and the rest of the world. #64
jdinasia
Leave my member out of it! Posted 2012-01-02 22:27:19
I don't really care about the terminology as I do not reside in either the UK nor the US. (Though the concept of procreation being the purpose of marriage ended about the same time that a marriage could be ended when children were not conceived.) I want the rights and that is all. When and if the discussion comes in Thailand it certainly will not have the same overtones that it has in the West. Since women's rights are decades behind the West here in Thailand, I assume that gay rights won't progress that quickly here. Note ---- the above is what I actually said and not the tiny line pulled to use out of context. #65
Jingthing
Member Schmember Posted 2012-01-02 23:11:15
Thank you for making clear that you really don't get it. I should not even taken your bait and replied... Well, but even without mind reading you did get it right. I think you must have been secretly reading my posts. Mind you, I did say that you are the expert for the US, where you claim that the term Marriage is needed, and I only referred to The World, which is that little piece of unworthy real estate that is not in the US. So let's not mix up apples and pears, i.e. the US as you see it, and the rest of the world. Here is a clue for you in the unfortunate event that you want to continue this obviously unproductive chit chat. When I am referring to peculiarities of US law, I say so. When I don't, you can assume I am talking about gay civil rights in a general INTERNATIONAL sense. I don't appreciate your snarky implication that I only care about or only comment about US gay civil rights issues. Anyone following my posting history here knows full well I see it is as an international civil rights/human rights struggle, just as Hillary Clinton does. I am happy for any level of progress towards that end. In some countries in Africa and the Middle East, it may be simply not murdering us. In the more enlightened countries (often meaning not being under the yoke of religious fundamentalists) it means completely equal civil rights under the law. Edited by Jingthing, 2012-01-02 23:39:36. #66
Jingthing
Member Schmember Posted 2012-01-02 23:30:53
I don't really care about the terminology as I do not reside in either the UK nor the US. (Though the concept of procreation being the purpose of marriage ended about the same time that a marriage could be ended when children were not conceived.) I want the rights and that is all. When and if the discussion comes in Thailand it certainly will not have the same overtones that it has in the West. Since women's rights are decades behind the West here in Thailand, I assume that gay rights won't progress that quickly here. Note ---- the above is what I actually said and not the tiny line pulled to use out of context. #67
tombkk
It's a cultural thing Posted 2012-01-03 11:35:38
Here is a clue for you in the unfortunate event that you want to continue this obviously unproductive chit chat. When I am referring to peculiarities of US law, I say so. When I don't, you can assume I am talking about gay civil rights in a general INTERNATIONAL sense. I don't appreciate your snarky implication that I only care about or only comment about US gay civil rights issues. Anyone following my posting history here knows full well I see it is as an international civil rights/human rights struggle, just as Hillary Clinton does. I am happy for any level of progress towards that end. In some countries in Africa and the Middle East, it may be simply not murdering us. In the more enlightened countries (often meaning not being under the yoke of religious fundamentalists) it means completely equal civil rights under the law. I am not sure why you sent this message. We agree on the second paragraph, but in another posting you said that it must be tied to the word Marriage, which totally contradicts your first paragraph. You have explained why the word is necessary in the US, but that has nothing to do with the rest of the world. We are going in circles. I offered before to agree to disagree, but you insisted on insutling me for that. I have nothng further to say. Next... #68
Jingthing
Member Schmember Posted 2012-01-03 11:53:52
Again, the twisting to save your face. I will let my posts stand.
#69
Daewoo
Senior Member Posted 2012-01-03 12:06:08
Hi, I'm Daewoo, it has been forever since my last gay experience... I'm not gay, I've never been gay, and don't think I ever will be...
Despite being raised in a Christian house, going to Sunday School, going to Church youth groups sometime by choice (mostly to chase girls), and being married (still married) in a church, I don't consider myself to be a Christian either... I believe, The Church gave up Copyright of the word 'marriage' the day the ceremony was allowed to be conducted by a 'civil celebrant' or any other non-church afffiliated party... In my opinion, marriage, is a legal term to describe a legal contract, simillar to mortgage... who witnessed the execution of the contract is irrelevant... in fact, (in Australia) even in a Church wedding, it is an actual contract that is signed and witnessed by the wedding party, and without it, you aren't married... The Church should not be forced to marry Gays if they don't want to... It's their club, their beliefs, and they should be allowed to set the rules... If The Church want's to call their ceremonies Religious Wedding, and internally, the outcome as a Religious Marriage, up to them, but all State documentation should just include the name for the type of contract 'Marriage'... So long as the title married is used to represent legal entitlements, it should be open to any two parties who agree to be bound to the rules of the contract... can't say I can see myself ever agreeing to it being extended beyond two parties, but never gave it much thought... Marriage has nought to do with producing kids... or else you would need to rule out anyone on their second (or third or thirteenth) marriage who has already had kids and has no intention to start again... you would need to exclude people who just know they aren't destined for that life... Medical reasons, Vegas weddings, Celebrity weddings, redheads (who shouldn't be allowed to reproduce), and The Greeks who only know how to do it in the backdoor... P.S. Jingthing, if you want to be taken seriously, pull your head in an have a rational discussion... Daewoo Edited by Daewoo, 2012-01-03 12:08:25. #70
Jingthing
Member Schmember Posted 2012-01-04 14:57:31
I reckon this interesting article is relevant to the differences between civil unions vs. marriage, in the state of Illinois, USA. The USA has no federal (national) gay marriage OR civil unions. Its focus is the implications of HETEROSEXUAL civil unions rather than gay ones.
Quote Civil unions, once seen as a way station between nonrecognition of gay and lesbian relationships and full marriage equality, may turn out to be more interesting than their origin in compromise might have predicted. In the case of same-sex couples, civil unions end up underscoring the point that committed gay and lesbian relationships are less than straight ones. As the Massachusetts Supreme Court stated in a 2004 opinion, calling gay and lesbian unions civil unions rather than marriage is a “considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status.” Edited by Jingthing, 2012-01-04 14:58:14. #71
Ijustwannateach
Star Member Posted 2012-01-04 15:40:30
Because of internet issues I have unfortunately been unable to continue participating until now- however, I would have to say that I agree with ProThaiExpat (and welcome back, btw) if my understanding of his post is correct. It appears to me that he is advocating for ALL civil unions (those accomplished with contracts by the state) to be called CIVIL UNIONS and not marriages. This would be true for both straight and gay couples, and I agree that would accomplish the result of no legal discrimination. In other words, no one would be LEGALLY married- because the state contract would no longer be called a 'marriage'. The churches could continue whatever voodoo they want and call it whatever they like, and their believers could exclude anyone they wished on the basis of whatever superstitious claptrap they preferred. It might play havoc with legal terminology and it would certainly be hard on the language ('Hi, I'm Susan. This is Bill, my civil union partner'), but it would work legally and democratically.
Then, whenever anyone told me they were married, I could simply reply that their religious beliefs were none of my business....  
#72
Jingthing
Member Schmember Posted 2012-01-04 15:43:58
Interesting academic point. Please name me ONE country where that is likely to actually EVER happen? I like to keep my civil rights struggles based in REALITY.
#73
Ijustwannateach
Star Member Posted 2012-01-04 16:01:13
JT- you seriously need to chill out on this thread. I'm not saying that as a moderator, but as someone who is concerned. A little perspective is called for.
(PS, this is not a response to your last post, which is fine- I just saw that). #74
Daewoo
Senior Member Posted 2012-01-05 07:13:25
I originally started from the standpoint of dispensing with the legal concept of the term 'marriage' and creating a new term, and leaving that term to The Church, from where it originated... but upon reflection, I realised that The Church has not had sole rights to the term for many decades... so why should everyone who wants to be 'married' (like me), regardless of who conducted the ceremony, have to use a different term to appease the few (specifically within The Church), opposed to sharing it...
Let the Church create a new term to differentiate 'their' marriages, which would have no legal bearing... and anyone married within The Church still needs to complete the legal contract required for marriage... To be honest, I never understood why Gay's have fought so hard to be recognised by an organisation that expressly excludes them, until I understood that 'marriage' is not the domain of The Church, but the domain of society in general... Of course, when I use the term, 'The Church', I refer to organised religion, not religious people who may or may not be accepting of GLBT people... Cheers, Daewoo |
Sponsored by ... |
