What does the world have against America?

[adalekplunger]

Yeah, so it is about rights. The right to be counted as an equal with your fellow human being. Whether your strait, gay, hermaphroditic, auto-sexual, whatever. The homosexual people simply want to be accepted as a person, not as something less. Sure, money plays a part, but its still the whole "separate but equal" clause.

True, but they're fighting for a title that originates and is inseparable from a religious institution. It doesn't make any sense to me why they would want to have any sort of ties to the very thing that demonizes them, unless its some sort of elaborate troll to piss off the people who treat them as less than people.

In which case, I fully support it.

Its not even that. Marriage goes beyond religion. Every culture has marriage, it isn't simply a Christian phenomenon. So homosexual people want to legally do what their ancestors have been doing for millennia, getting married.

They can be married, it just isn't technically called marriage. They're actually just fighting for a right to be called something else. As you have said, every culture has marriage, so what I don't see is why a domestic partnership can't just be shelved in with whatever the arbitrary definition of a "normal" marriage is. Then again, I don't really have a way to look at it from their end, so maybe there's something I'm not seeing or are aware of.

And I never said marriage was solely a christian thing. It's just a ceremony showing lifelong partnership. However, the word "marriage" and "weddings" are predominantly a religious ceremony, and since christianity is the most common religion in the US, people tend to associate traditional weddings and such with the christian faith. If they're going to call it a marriage, people are going to associate it with christian traditions. Again, I don't really have a way to look at it from the other end, so maybe not everyone has that same view, it's just that every wedding I've ever heard of has had a priest of some sort.

Also, don't lump in the "separate but equal" clause in with this. That was used as an excuse to oppress minorities in the most underhanded way possible. This is absolutely nothing like that. Very few things annoy me more than the current comparison of the legalization of gay marriage to the fight for people to actually be recognized as real people, and not property, or some sort of lesser... race, I guess? While gays have had it rough in recent years, its absolutely nothing compared to the widespread violence against those in the civil rights era. Re-reading your post, I'm guessing you weren't comparing them, but eh... needed to be said, as many conversations on this tend to drift towards that.

 

[Ramzal]

I love my home itself because I have the opportunity to strive to be a better person, build a family and life that I'd love. In other places, I do not have that opportunity.

Thank you. This is why we love our country. Its not some misguided, uninformed nationalism. Its the fact that we can do whatever the hell we want and be assured that ourselves and our families are safe.

The resentment towards the US just blows my mind.

But...people in countries all around world can make families and better lives and so on for themselves. People and families all around the world are safe, exceptions notwithstanding. How exactly does that make America special?

Who said it made America 'special'? No one. We just said that that's why we appreciate our country and take pride from being able to contribute to it. Maybe when all you kids grow up and have families you will understand what security means.

Honestly, I've not seen a more immature, spoiled group of posters anywhere else. You all should appreciate what you have, not complain about it and take it for granted.

What? Where in this thread do you see anyone doing any of the things you've described? Not appreciating what we have? Taking things for granted? Those things have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

The dude you had quoted above, in the way he worded his post he made it sound as though America is the only place in the world where one could raise a family or something like that. Perhaps I was seeing something that wasn't there but unfortunately that's what I saw, to which I was merely saying that there's countries all over the world where people have the same opportunities.

And you wanna talk about immature? You've been spending this whole thread quoting people who agree with your viewpoint and basically doing nothing but giving the statement a big +1 while getting defensive as hell towards anyone who doesn't agree with you. You've been outright ignoring any valid points presented towards you. George Bush WAS an incompetent president. America WAS partly responsible for the global economic problems and saying things like " Yeah, and we also created nuclear energy. A clean and powerful resource for electricity. You're lucky the US developed it first, or our Earth would most likely be a fallout style nuclear wasteland." is some complete and utter bullshit. I'm not saying that it's not admirable that you seem to love your country so much but it's not perfect.

Yes some of the statements from people towards America are wrong. Yes some of them are just broad generalisations/stereotypes but there are those who are genuinely unhappy with actions and policies taken by America within the last few years. There are people who don't agree with the War on Terror, the killing of Saddam etc. Maybe you don't, that's fine but you don't have to go attacking every person that doesn't feel that way.

You missed what I said. I will put it quote it so that you can read it again.

Overall, I think people in general who just feel proud to be in a country and ride off past victories are delusional and spoiled. I love my home itself because I have the opportunity to strive to be a better person, build a family and life that I'd love. In other places, I do not have that opportunity. Although I may have better chances elsewhere.

I never said America was special hands down. You either missed what I said or only read what he quoted. America is far from perfect, that much is clear. But I can't name a single place on earth that is. I am just glad I have a -chance-. Many people around the world don't have a chance simply because of where they are born. I do not however have an out about your beliefs about American military policy pushed by our government.

I've served and I think the War on Terror was wasted effort in some cases. (Not all, but some.) Killing Saddam. I agree with you, that was stupid beyond all belief. If Saddam was a direct threat to the United States and he needed to be taken down then fine. No issue there. But he wasn't. And it wasn't our right to just do the job for people of their own country that they should have done.

I think you misunderstood me, and I didn't want that to happen. The United States is a wonderful place to live. But I have friends in Russia who feel the same about their country. Or England. Or Germany. There is no fault in loving your country, but I believe there is fault in not understanding your countries flaws, or out right ignoring them. Allow me to again, state that not rebuilding those Towers drives me insane. Not only as an American but a New Yorker. I find it mind bogging that you would leave something to lie when people would celebrate that you did.

I don't find myself disagreeing with you though. Just a misunderstanding.

 

[Starke]

For the record, the native Americans can stop whining about oppression. It's irritating.

I'm sure you should tell them that, just so.

My culture is gone, too, shockingly.

Is it? You demonstrated some knowledge of Gaelic a few posts back. You also threw a snitfit at being identified as British. Neither of those are the traits of someone who has assimilated into their monoculture environment.

But I don't get money from the British government, and I don't ask for any.

You sure about that? I'd have to check, but the last time I looked the British government did actually provide funds for medical care, housing, and some other expenses. Not great, as I understand it, but there are social services.

If I wanted compensation for the destruction of my ancestors, then I should also be taking money from the Italian and Scandinavian leaders. I don't see why I should stop at only four hundred years ago, I ought to go further.

This is how ridiculous they sound.

You forgot the French and Germans. Though, strictly speaking, the British got reparations out of the Germans, twice, though maybe they didn't share?

 

[anthony87]

I love my home itself because I have the opportunity to strive to be a better person, build a family and life that I'd love. In other places, I do not have that opportunity.

Thank you. This is why we love our country. Its not some misguided, uninformed nationalism. Its the fact that we can do whatever the hell we want and be assured that ourselves and our families are safe.

The resentment towards the US just blows my mind.

But...people in countries all around world can make families and better lives and so on for themselves. People and families all around the world are safe, exceptions notwithstanding. How exactly does that make America special?

Who said it made America 'special'? No one. We just said that that's why we appreciate our country and take pride from being able to contribute to it. Maybe when all you kids grow up and have families you will understand what security means.


Honestly, I've not seen a more immature, spoiled group of posters anywhere else. You all should appreciate what you have, not complain about it and take it for granted.

What? Where in this thread do you see anyone doing any of the things you've described? Not appreciating what we have? Taking things for granted? Those things have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

The dude you had quoted above, in the way he worded his post he made it sound as though America is the only place in the world where one could raise a family or something like that. Perhaps I was seeing something that wasn't there but unfortunately that's what I saw, to which I was merely saying that there's countries all over the world where people have the same opportunities.

And you wanna talk about immature? You've been spending this whole thread quoting people who agree with your viewpoint and basically doing nothing but giving the statement a big +1 while getting defensive as hell towards anyone who doesn't agree with you. You've been outright ignoring any valid points presented towards you. George Bush WAS an incompetent president. America WAS partly responsible for the global economic problems and saying things like " Yeah, and we also created nuclear energy. A clean and powerful resource for electricity. You're lucky the US developed it first, or our Earth would most likely be a fallout style nuclear wasteland." is some complete and utter bullshit. I'm not saying that it's not admirable that you seem to love your country so much but it's not perfect.

Yes some of the statements from people towards America are wrong. Yes some of them are just broad generalisations/stereotypes but there are those who are genuinely unhappy with actions and policies taken by America within the last few years. There are people who don't agree with the War on Terror, the killing of Saddam etc. Maybe you don't, that's fine but you don't have to go attacking every person that doesn't feel that way.

You missed what I said. I will put it quote it so that you can read it again.

Overall, I think people in general who just feel proud to be in a country and ride off past victories are delusional and spoiled. I love my home itself because I have the opportunity to strive to be a better person, build a family and life that I'd love. In other places, I do not have that opportunity. Although I may have better chances elsewhere.

I never said America was special hands down. You either missed what I said or only read what he quoted. America is far from perfect, that much is clear. But I can't name a single place on earth that is. I am just glad I have a -chance-. Many people around the world don't have a chance simply because of where they are born. I do not however have an out about your beliefs about American military policy pushed by our government.

I've served and I think the War on Terror was wasted effort in some cases. (Not all, but some.) Killing Saddam. I agree with you, that was stupid beyond all belief. If Saddam was a direct threat to the United States and he needed to be taken down then fine. No issue there. But he wasn't. And it wasn't our right to just do the job for people of their own country that they should have done.

I think you misunderstood me, and I didn't want that to happen. The United States is a wonderful place to live. But I have friends in Russia who feel the same about their country. Or England. Or Germany. There is no fault in loving your country, but I believe there is fault in not understanding your countries flaws, or out right ignoring them. Allow me to again, state that not rebuilding those Towers drives me insane. Not only as an American but a New Yorker. I find it mind bogging that you would leave something to lie when people would celebrate that you did.

I don't find myself disagreeing with you though. Just a misunderstanding.

Actually.....yeah. I did in fact miss that part that you quoted.

My bad.

 

[Starke]

- Racism -

Do you actually live here? I'm pretty sure I don't encounter any racism. As a matter of fact, mixed race relationships are more common now. We have a black president. Many of our doctors and scholars are immigrants and are very well respected.

No offense, but, Racism is still a pretty serious issue in some places. Generally speaking the coasts are more tolerant while inland that's less the case. Places like Wyoming, Montana, Kentucky, and even eastern Washington and inland Texas are home to some pretty virulent racism. Conversely, if you're talking about major urban areas or areas on the coast, this tends to be less the case.

- Highest amount of gun crime in the world -

Hmm, I'm not sure about this...I doubt it if you mean percentage wise. Maybe in volume, but I'd still like to see some numbers to back this up. Otherwise I call bullshit.

Honestly, the statistic is almost certainly accurate. US Gun laws are unusual, and there are few countries in the world where you could own the kind of hardware you can buy in the US. The mistake is thinking "gun crime = serious crime" because it doesn't. It simply reflects the availability of firearms.

- Some of the most embaressing and incompetant leaders in history (George W. Bush, need I say more?)

I'm afraid the only person that you're embarassing with this statement is yourself. Some of the most incompetent leaders in history? You mean like George Washington? Or Abraham Lincoln? Or Theodore Roosevelt? Or General Patton? Franklin D. Roosevelt? Yeah, some real incompetents, let me tell you.

Honestly, Hitler and Stalin should both be competing for that honor. Hitler managed to take the most disciplined, well equipped fighting force in the world and lost. Stalin managed to win through a war of attrition, on home ground. Both demonstrated absolutely staggering incompetence when it came to warfare. Beyond that there are Roman, Chinese, French and many other countries who have been lead into mind bogglingly stupid situations by their leaders.

Bush was fucking embarrassing, but everyone seems to get one of those once in a while.

- Has a history of military occupation in countries it went to war with (they still have a base in Germany) -

yeah, Germany once committed genocide and twice tried to take over Europe. In general, occupation of a defeated territory is just common sense. All the allies did it. Open your eyes.

To be honest, this is a pretty standard practice. When a country is overrun, it is almost always occupied by the invading forces at least long enough to pacify ongoing hostilities. Otherwise any resistance movement that sprung up will simply continue on taking the country back and resuming the conflict.

For instance, the French, US, British, and Soviets all occupied Germany after the Second World War. The current US military base there is under a separate treaty, signed sometime in the 60s (if I'm remembering correctly), and there are similar bases scattered all over the globe. (Though Germany's is one of the largest). The only two bases I can think of that do actually fit with this model are the sigint facility in Japan and Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. But, for instance, the US Military Base in Saudi Arabia isn't the product of having invaded and conquered, nor are the Military Bases in the UK.

 

[Flac00]

Yeah, so it is about rights. The right to be counted as an equal with your fellow human being. Whether your strait, gay, hermaphroditic, auto-sexual, whatever. The homosexual people simply want to be accepted as a person, not as something less. Sure, money plays a part, but its still the whole "separate but equal" clause.

True, but they're fighting for a title that originates and is inseparable from a religious institution. It doesn't make any sense to me why they would want to have any sort of ties to the very thing that demonizes them, unless its some sort of elaborate troll to piss off the people who treat them as less than people.

In which case, I fully support it.

Its not even that. Marriage goes beyond religion. Every culture has marriage, it isn't simply a Christian phenomenon. So homosexual people want to legally do what their ancestors have been doing for millennia, getting married.

They can be married, it just isn't technically called marriage. They're actually just fighting for a right to be called something else. As you have said, every culture has marriage, so what I don't see is why a domestic partnership can't just be shelved in with whatever the arbitrary definition of a "normal" marriage is. Then again, I don't really have a way to look at it from their end, so maybe there's something I'm not seeing or are aware of.

And I never said marriage was solely a christian thing. It's just a ceremony showing lifelong partnership. However, the word "marriage" and "weddings" are predominantly a religious ceremony, and since christianity is the most common religion in the US, people tend to associate traditional weddings and such with the christian faith. If they're going to call it a marriage, people are going to associate it with christian traditions. Again, I don't really have a way to look at it from the other end, so maybe not everyone has that same view, it's just that every wedding I've ever heard of has had a priest of some sort.

Also, don't lump in the "separate but equal" clause in with this. That was used as an excuse to oppress minorities in the most underhanded way possible. This is absolutely nothing like that. Very few things annoy me more than the current comparison of the legalization of gay marriage to the fight for people to actually be recognized as real people, and not property, or some sort of lesser... race, I guess? While gays have had it rough in recent years, its absolutely nothing compared to the widespread violence against those in the civil rights era. Re-reading your post, I'm guessing you weren't comparing them, but eh... needed to be said, as many conversations on this tend to drift towards that.

Except they haven't been fighting for rights purely. If they did then this all would have ended some time ago. No, homosexual people want to do what every other person can do, marry. Not some other thing, whether its "domestic partnerships" or what, that isn't important. They want marriage, in the fullest sense. This has less to do with rights and more to do with the fact that they want to be able to do what everyone else can.
Second, I know you did not say it was a Christian thing, I felt it was sort of implied so thats a misunderstanding.
Thirdly, again, they want to do what everyone else can. If that includes doing it in a Christian way, then thats fine. But that doesn't mean religious ideals should rule over the rights of the people getting the marriage. The point is they should have the ability to do it no matter what, its their choice.
Finally, of coarse I am going to lump "separate but equal" into this. This has everything to do with civil rights. Yes, it is not even slightly as bad for homosexuals as it was for african americans, but that doesn't make it right. They are people, they have rights, their basic rights are being infringed on, how hard is this to understand? By giving them a separate section of marriage follows in the same line of thinking as the "separate but equal" clause. The ideology: "They are not people (or full people), they do not deserve the rights I have. Therefor they should not get what I have, something else instead." This is a less radical part of the civil rights movement, but its still a part.

 

[Starke]

Also, don't lump in the "separate but equal" clause in with this. That was used as an excuse to oppress minorities in the most underhanded way possible. This is absolutely nothing like that. Very few things annoy me more than the current comparison of the legalization of gay marriage to the fight for people to actually be recognized as real people, and not property, or some sort of lesser... race, I guess? While gays have had it rough in recent years, its absolutely nothing compared to the widespread violence against those in the civil rights era. Re-reading your post, I'm guessing you weren't comparing them, but eh... needed to be said, as many conversations on this tend to drift towards that.

Finally, of coarse I am going to lump "separate but equal" into this. This has everything to do with civil rights. Yes, it is not even slightly as bad for homosexuals as it was for african americans, but that doesn't make it right. They are people, they have rights, their basic rights are being infringed on, how hard is this to understand? By giving them a separate section of marriage follows in the same line of thinking as the "separate but equal" clause. The ideology: "They are not people (or full people), they do not deserve the rights I have. Therefor they should not get what I have, something else instead." This is a less radical part of the civil rights movement, but its still a part.

At the risk of wading in here half-cocked...

"Separate but Equal" was the doctrine that basically set up and reinforced segregation. I'm not sure where we'd have that in a discussion on gay rights. The issue with civil unions as opposed to marriage could be described as "separate but equal", distinct terms for the same rights. However, it probably shouldn't be as that evokes an (almost) entirely different issue.

I'm pretty sure there's a meaty argument to be made saying that the mentality behind the segregation laws is still alive and well, in the spirit of nearly every hate crime we see against gays, lesbians, and gender disphorics in places like Texas or Wyoming, but again, using the phrase "separate but equal" only serves to muddy the discussion's waters. Or am I missing something here?

 

[adalekplunger]

Except they haven't been fighting for rights purely. If they did then this all would have ended some time ago. No, homosexual people want to do what every other person can do, marry. Not some other thing, whether its "domestic partnerships" or what, that isn't important. They want marriage, in the fullest sense. This has less to do with rights and more to do with the fact that they want to be able to do what everyone else can.
Second, I know you did not say it was a Christian thing, I felt it was sort of implied so thats a misunderstanding.
Thirdly, again, they want to do what everyone else can. If that includes doing it in a Christian way, then thats fine. But that doesn't mean religious ideals should rule over the rights of the people getting the marriage. The point is they should have the ability to do it no matter what, its their choice.
Finally, of coarse I am going to lump "separate but equal" into this. This has everything to do with civil rights. Yes, it is not even slightly as bad for homosexuals as it was for african americans, but that doesn't make it right. They are people, they have rights, their basic rights are being infringed on, how hard is this to understand? By giving them a separate section of marriage follows in the same line of thinking as the "separate but equal" clause. The ideology: "They are not people (or full people), they do not deserve the rights I have. Therefor they should not get what I have, something else instead." This is a less radical part of the civil rights movement, but its still a part.

Again, what rights are they not getting? Aside from the "right" to call themselves married, that is.
I think the divide between us is what a "right" is. I consider a right as something that no other person should be able to take away from a legal citizen, something that everyone is entitled to. A universal example of this would be the U.N.'s declaration of human rights, i.e. everyone is entitled to an education, to political asylum, etc.
I don't consider the "right" to give yourself a label an actual right. As I've said before, they have the exact same rights as a married couple, but they just aren't called marriage. If that wasn't the case, I would completely agree, but since their only apparent reason for fighting for it is for, from what I can tell, appearances, I can't see why they care. This is also why I strongly dislike the comparison to Civil Rights. Those who participated were fighting for the rights for equality in very vital areas of life, like a voice in the government, equal working conditions for all people, and equal protection under the law. It is absolutely not even in the same league as that. Its fighting for a label. Nothing more. No one is entitled to a label. What they are entitled to is equality in regards to benefits and rights. Those conditions are being met, so I just cannot see why they're fighting so hard for it. Again, if anyone could clarify it to me, I'd be more than happy to acknowledge that I'm dead wrong. At least then, I could make sense of it.

 

[Starke]

Again, what rights are they not getting?

One thing that comes to mind off hand is there have been a string of cases where one member of a same sex couple is hospitalized, and the other member is absolutely refused access by hospital personnel. Also related to that, instances where the hospital has to wander off and find someone's estranged family member and get their consent, instead of the person who lives with them, loves them, and is right there.

There are other bits, I'm sure, but those two come to mind off hand.

 

[adalekplunger]

Again, what rights are they not getting?

One thing that comes to mind off hand is there have been a string of cases where one member of a same sex couple is hospitalized, and the other member is absolutely refused access by hospital personnel. Also related to that, instances where the hospital has to wander off and find someone's estranged family member and get their consent, instead of the person who lives with them, loves them, and is right there.

There are other bits, I'm sure, but those two come to mind off hand.

A simple google search disagrees. In fact:

As of 2007, California affords domestic partnerships most of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5). Among these:
Making health care decisions for each other in certain circumstances
Hospital and jail visitation rights that were previously reserved for family members related by blood, adoption or marriage to the sick, injured or incarcerated person.
Access to family health insurance plans (Cal. Ins. Code §10121.7)
Spousal insurance policies (auto, life, homeowners etc..), this applies to all forms of insurance through the California Insurance Equality Act (Cal. Ins. Code §381.5)
Sick care and similar family leave
Stepparent adoption procedures
Presumption that both members of the partnership are the parents of a child born into the partnership
Suing for wrongful death of a domestic partner
Rights involving wills, intestate succession, conservatorships and trusts
The same property tax provisions otherwise available only to married couples (Cal. R&T Code §62p)
Access to some survivor pension benefits
Supervision of the Superior Court of California over dissolution and nullity proceedings
The obligation to file state tax returns as a married couple (260k) commencing with the 2007 tax year (Cal R&T Code §18521d)
The right for either partner to take the other partner's surname after registration
Community property rights and responsibilities previously only available to married spouses
The right to request partner support (alimony) upon dissolution of the partnership (divorce)
The same parental rights and responsibilities granted to and imposed upon spouses in a marriage
The right to claim inheritance rights as a putative partner (equivalent to the rights given to heterosexual couples under the putative spouse doctrine) when one partner believes himself or herself to have entered into a domestic partnership in good faith and is given legal rights as a result of his or her reliance upon this belief.[5]

 

[Starke]

Again, what rights are they not getting?

One thing that comes to mind off hand is there have been a string of cases where one member of a same sex couple is hospitalized, and the other member is absolutely refused access by hospital personnel. Also related to that, instances where the hospital has to wander off and find someone's estranged family member and get their consent, instead of the person who lives with them, loves them, and is right there.

There are other bits, I'm sure, but those two come to mind off hand.

A simple google search disagrees.

Not entirely. I wasn't speaking with California in mind, no offense. And the instances I've read about haven't been there.

On the off chance you're not American, it's worth explaining something quickly: In the US, laws are broken up in three levels, Local, State, and Federal. Local affects a city (usually called ordinances), State affects that state, and only that state (with some peculiar exceptions), Federal governs laws that affect the entire country. With each tier trumping the previous one.

California is a bit... notable, for their state laws being somewhat outside the norm. So, while it's good to know they had some equity in mind, it is far from the norm. Additionally, there's an argument with the Full Faith and Credit clause, where other states have to accept the civil union, but don't accept the associated values which California places on it, leading back to the scenarios I posted above, if someone from California does leave the state.

 

[Flac00]

Except they haven't been fighting for rights purely. If they did then this all would have ended some time ago. No, homosexual people want to do what every other person can do, marry. Not some other thing, whether its "domestic partnerships" or what, that isn't important. They want marriage, in the fullest sense. This has less to do with rights and more to do with the fact that they want to be able to do what everyone else can.
Second, I know you did not say it was a Christian thing, I felt it was sort of implied so thats a misunderstanding.
Thirdly, again, they want to do what everyone else can. If that includes doing it in a Christian way, then thats fine. But that doesn't mean religious ideals should rule over the rights of the people getting the marriage. The point is they should have the ability to do it no matter what, its their choice.
Finally, of coarse I am going to lump "separate but equal" into this. This has everything to do with civil rights. Yes, it is not even slightly as bad for homosexuals as it was for african americans, but that doesn't make it right. They are people, they have rights, their basic rights are being infringed on, how hard is this to understand? By giving them a separate section of marriage follows in the same line of thinking as the "separate but equal" clause. The ideology: "They are not people (or full people), they do not deserve the rights I have. Therefor they should not get what I have, something else instead." This is a less radical part of the civil rights movement, but its still a part.

Again, what rights are they not getting? Aside from the "right" to call themselves married, that is.
I think the divide between us is what a "right" is. I consider a right as something that no other person should be able to take away from a legal citizen, something that everyone is entitled to. A universal example of this would be the U.N.'s declaration of human rights, i.e. everyone is entitled to an education, to political asylum, etc.
I don't consider the "right" to give yourself a label an actual right. As I've said before, they have the exact same rights as a married couple, but they just aren't called marriage. If that wasn't the case, I would completely agree, but since their only apparent reason for fighting for it is for, from what I can tell, appearances, I can't see why they care. This is also why I strongly dislike the comparison to Civil Rights. Those who participated were fighting for the rights for equality in very vital areas of life, like a voice in the government, equal working conditions for all people, and equal protection under the law. It is absolutely not even in the same league as that. Its fighting for a label. Nothing more. No one is entitled to a label. What they are entitled to is equality in regards to benefits and rights. Those conditions are being met, so I just cannot see why they're fighting so hard for it. Again, if anyone could clarify it to me, I'd be more than happy to acknowledge that I'm dead wrong. At least then, I could make sense of it.

I think our disagreement here is based off of different perspectives. From what you have said (or what I have interpreted), you don't see marriage as a single entity or an idea, more a creation that is just a name for unity between two people (out of love ect.). I see marriage differently, I see it as something specific, although by different name sometimes it consists of the same thing.
To explain better: To me, marriage is something sacred (not in a religious or spiritual way, more cultural or social). The end all or be all of a relationship is marriage. This is how it is in every culture. And although the practice is different in other cultures, it is technically the same thing. So to me, legal basis is only the government's way of either incentiving or just supporting the idea of marriage. Therefor, government does not determine marriage, the two people determine the marriage.
From this, my issue with the "Domestic Relationships" (or whatever it is called) is that it is not marriage, it is something else. I think marriage in of it self is a right. Just as it is morally wrong to say that a person of dark skin cannot marry a person of lighter skin (outlawing interracial marriages), it is morally wrong to say two members of the same sex cannot marry (homosexual marriage).

To sum it up: from my perspective, marriage is a RIGHT. People have a RIGHT to choose who they want to marry no matter what. It is their RIGHT to choose. Restriction on this by changing the definition of the relationship to something else would be breaking that right as it would inhibit their ability to MARRY one person or another. From this, marriage is not a label, it is instead a right protected under the law.

"A rose by any other name is not a beautiful" (as to misquote Shakespeare).

Finally, as to quote an important gay activist (Harvey Milk), "These are our lives we are fighting for. Of coarse it matters to us, without this we are nothing."
Of coarse homosexuals fight so hard for this. If what separates them from their fellow human beings is a label, then they will break that wall. This is about equality, as a whole. If they are to be counted as the same, they are to be labeled as the same. This way, they are Americans, not homosexual Americans. They are people, not homosexual people. They have love, not homosexual love. And they marry, not have domestic relationships. Then it will be unity, not just in law, but in treatment and in words.

 

[adalekplunger]

Not entirely. I wasn't speaking with California in mind, no offense. And the instances I've read about haven't been there.

On the off chance you're not American, it's worth explaining something quickly: In the US, laws are broken up in three levels, Local, State, and Federal. Local affects a city (usually called ordinances), State affects that state, and only that state (with some peculiar exceptions), Federal governs laws that affect the entire country. With each tier trumping the previous one.

California is a bit... notable, for their state laws being somewhat outside the norm. So, while it's good to know they had some equity in mind, it is far from the norm. Additionally, there's an argument with the Full Faith and Credit clause, where other states have to accept the civil union, but don't accept the associated values which California places on it, leading back to the scenarios I posted above, if someone from California does leave the state.

Sorry, I can't vouch for the rest of the states. I was talking mainly about California because I live there, I know the issues, and it's currently poised as a sort of example for the rest of the states due to its battle with the legality of gay marriage, hence the focus from the media on issues like prop 8.

Except they haven't been fighting for rights
I think our disagreement here is based off of different perspectives. From what you have said (or what I have interpreted), you don't see marriage as a single entity or an idea, more a creation that is just a name for unity between two people (out of love ect.). I see marriage differently, I see it as something specific, although by different name sometimes it consists of the same thing.
To explain better: To me, marriage is something sacred (not in a religious or spiritual way, more cultural or social). The end all or be all of a relationship is marriage. This is how it is in every culture. And although the practice is different in other cultures, it is technically the same thing. So to me, legal basis is only the government's way of either incentiving or just supporting the idea of marriage. Therefor, government does not determine marriage, the two people determine the marriage.
From this, my issue with the "Domestic Relationships" (or whatever it is called) is that it is not marriage, it is something else. I think marriage in of it self is a right. Just as it is morally wrong to say that a person of dark skin cannot marry a person of lighter skin (outlawing interracial marriages), it is morally wrong to say two members of the same sex cannot marry (homosexual marriage).

To sum it up: from my perspective, marriage is a RIGHT. People have a RIGHT to choose who they want to marry no matter what. It is their RIGHT to choose. Restriction on this by changing the definition of the relationship to something else would be breaking that right as it would inhibit their ability to MARRY one person or another. From this, marriage is not a label, it is instead a right protected under the law.

"A rose by any other name is not a beautiful" (as to misquote Shakespeare).

Finally, as to quote an important gay activist (Harvey Milk), "These are our lives we are fighting for. Of coarse it matters to us, without this we are nothing."
Of coarse homosexuals fight so hard for this. If what separates them from their fellow human beings is a label, then they will break that wall. This is about equality, as a whole. If they are to be counted as the same, they are to be labeled as the same. This way, they are Americans, not homosexual Americans. They are people, not homosexual people. They have love, not homosexual love. And they marry, not have domestic relationships. Then it will be unity, not just in law, but in treatment and in words.

Exactly, and because of that, we won't meet any kind of middle ground. I just consider marriage to be the name we give to an outdated ritual that doesn't mean the same thing it did when it was made. Because of that, I don't hold much reverence for it, and just consider it something that a society could do without. So just re-naming it something else doesn't hold any sway with me.

I would say that your second part would be solid, if it wasn't for the fact that straight people may also get a domestic partnership. They aren't drawing a line between straight and gay. Like I've said countless times before, the only thing they're being denied is a label. Nothing more. Just a label. But as I also said, our different levels of care for any kind of special meaning of that label prevents any kind of agreement.

 

[Starke]

Sorry, I can't vouch for the rest of the states. I was talking mainly about California because I live there, I know the issues, and it's currently poised as a sort of example for the rest of the states due to its battle with the legality of gay marriage, hence the focus from the media on issues like prop 8.

Yeah, the proposition system (among other things) means that California state law is not terrible reflective of laws nation wide. So something that isn't an issue in California can still easily be an issue elsewhere in the country.

I just consider marriage to be the name we give to an outdated ritual that doesn't mean the same thing it did when it was made. Because of that, I don't hold much reverence for it, and just consider it something that a society could do without. So just re-naming it something else doesn't hold any sway with me.

I would say that your second part would be solid, if it wasn't for the fact that straight people may also get a domestic partnership. They aren't drawing a line between straight and gay. Like I've said countless times before, the only thing they're being denied is a label. Nothing more. Just a label. But as I also said, our different levels of care for any kind of special meaning of that label prevents any kind of agreement.

Honestly, that ritual means a lot more to some people than others, no offense. And being denied that label is a more than subtle insult in some cases.

Additionally, Full Faith and Credit means that if one state says you're a married couple, every other state has to acknowledge that. (Basically, the full faith and credit clause sets up that each state has to acknowledge and accept documents issued by another state, like drivers licenses.) The problem is, many states look down their nose at Civil Unions as "not really marriages" so we don't have to respect them.

At the risk of being way off in my data, I vaguely recall a case where a couple was declared a civil union in New York, later moved to New Jersey, and could not file for divorce because New Jersey didn't have any concept of a civil union on the books.

 

[Luciella]

Sorry, I can't vouch for the rest of the states. I was talking mainly about California because I live there, I know the issues, and it's currently poised as a sort of example for the rest of the states due to its battle with the legality of gay marriage, hence the focus from the media on issues like prop 8.

Yeah, the proposition system (among other things) means that California state law is not terrible reflective of laws nation wide. So something that isn't an issue in California can still easily be an issue elsewhere in the country.

I just consider marriage to be the name we give to an outdated ritual that doesn't mean the same thing it did when it was made. Because of that, I don't hold much reverence for it, and just consider it something that a society could do without. So just re-naming it something else doesn't hold any sway with me.

I would say that your second part would be solid, if it wasn't for the fact that straight people may also get a domestic partnership. They aren't drawing a line between straight and gay. Like I've said countless times before, the only thing they're being denied is a label. Nothing more. Just a label. But as I also said, our different levels of care for any kind of special meaning of that label prevents any kind of agreement.

Honestly, that ritual means a lot more to some people than others, no offense. And being denied that label is a more than subtle insult in some cases.

Additionally, Full Faith and Credit means that if one state says you're a married couple, every other state has to acknowledge that. (Basically, the full faith and credit clause sets up that each state has to acknowledge and accept documents issued by another state, like drivers licenses.) The problem is, many states look down their nose at Civil Unions as "not really marriages" so we don't have to respect them.

At the risk of being way off in my data, I vaguely recall a case where a couple was declared a civil union in New York, later moved to New Jersey, and could not file for divorce because New Jersey didn't have any concept of a civil union on the books.

As adalekplunger said, homosexual fights for marriage are just a label what they are fighting for.
If you look back in history and do some research ull see that marriage by itself was mainly to protect women and their children:

" Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.[14] Legitimacy is the consequence of this transaction rather than its motivation. In Comanche society, married women work harder, lose sexual freedom, and do not seem to obtain any benefit from marriage.[15] But nubile women are a source of jealousy and strife in the tribe, so they are given little choice other than to get married. "In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition."-wikipedia

The implications of marriage itself is to secure legaly women and children, since in ancient times women were not supposed to work and be independent as we are now.

In all and all legal and comitment rights are achived via other sources that are not called marriage but do exactly the same.

The movement in general could be by all means called -superficial- also arent less and less couples be straight or gay that get separated or in marriage case divorced?
And the couples that DO stay together are a minority?

Whats the point to fight for something that in the end ur going to trash away?

 

[Biodeamon]

two words: Very Demotivational [http://verydemotivational.memebase.com/?s=america &utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=sharewidget]
need i say more?

oh ffs. She isnt holding her baby and giving it 100% of her attention for every second of the day, so obviously shes a TERRIBLE PERSON!

Thats just a photo from one second in time. It doesnt mean anything.

follow the link, then you'll understand

 

[Starke]

two words: Very Demotivational [http://verydemotivational.memebase.com/?s=america &utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=sharewidget]
need i say more?

oh ffs. She isnt holding her baby and giving it 100% of her attention for every second of the day, so obviously shes a TERRIBLE PERSON!

Thats just a photo from one second in time. It doesnt mean anything.

follow the link, then you'll understand

I did, some if it's really goddamn funny. Like the demotivational that attributed obesity in Japanese monkeys to America. The Asian escalator being America's fault was pretty funny as well. Really, it's like everything else on the internet that wants to be Something Awful, random shit, some of which is amusing, all of which is predicated on someone with the intellectual capacity of an iguana saying or doing something idiotic, and then disseminating it to everyone everywhere.

Congrats, she's not paying attention to her baby at this moment. Clearly she's an unfit parent because she's texting someone and has an idiotic expression on her face.

 

[Starke]

The movement in general could be by all means called -superficial- also arent less and less couples be straight or gay that get separated or in marriage case divorced?
And the couples that DO stay together are a minority?

Whats the point to fight for something that in the end ur going to trash away?

Actually, Gay/Lesbian marriages are statistically less likely to end in divorce, at least in the United States.

Additionally? Why? I'd ask, why not? What compelling reason is there to say, "you love this person, but fuck you, you cannot undergo a ritual that obviously means a lot to you to affirm that love for this person"?

You're right, historically marriage was a very different thing, but at least in the United States, marriage is basically never about political or economic alliances anymore. So dragging up models of marriage that predate the modern incarnation is misleading, and does a serious disservice to your argument.

 

[Thyunda]

Is it? You demonstrated some knowledge of Gaelic a few posts back. You also threw a snitfit at being identified as British. Neither of those are the traits of someone who has assimilated into their monoculture environment.

The amount of ignorance in this post blew my mind so hard it's taken me this long to form a coherent response. Gods, you'd think there'd been a war fought over the country, and that Irish Gaelic had been outlawed, and so had Irish clothing. The only reason the language is even still used in conversation is because the Irish are independently minded, and it takes more than the law to stop an Irishman showing off his nationality.

 

[Starke]

Is it? You demonstrated some knowledge of Gaelic a few posts back. You also threw a snitfit at being identified as British. Neither of those are the traits of someone who has assimilated into their monoculture environment.

The amount of ignorance in this post blew my mind so hard it's taken me this long to form a coherent response. Gods, you'd think there'd been a war fought over the country, and that Irish Gaelic had been outlawed, and so had Irish clothing. The only reason the language is even still used in conversation is because the Irish are independently minded, and it takes more than the law to stop an Irishman showing off his nationality.

And yet all of this independent nationalism is an indication of how fine the Irish are with being British? Not an indicator of it being an occupied colony of the still living British Empire?