Rewriting history on civil unions

[CriticalThought]

Why are there traditional marriage folks out there trying to actively rewrite the history on civil unions and domestic partnerships for same sex couples?

Their version of events of the last twenty years is that gay rights folks were humbly offered the compromise of civil unions and/or domestic partnerships but that they arrogantly rejected the offer in order to redefine marriage.

Are the people who make this claim ignorant or are they just blatantly dishonest?

There are approximately twenty states where not just marriage is banned by the state constitution, but any form of civil unions or domestic partnerships. Do these people think that gay rights folks passed these bans?

In some states where civil unions have been legislatively passed, such as Hawaii, it has been vetoed by the traditional marriage leadership under the premise that it is "only different than marriage in name."

The official, traditional marriage supporting organizations like the National Marriage Organization and the American Family Association, reject civil unions and domestic partnerships for same sex couples as "stepping stones for marriage".

In states like Washington, they demonstrated their earnest belief in that view by seeking to override the legislatively passed "everything but marriage" bill which granted same sex couples all the same rights as marriage but not the name, with a referendum. That referendum was rejected by the people of Washington. The people of that state later approved a referendum making same sex marriage legal in that state.

I am just not seeing how social conservatives who support traditional marriage are getting this "gay rights supporters rejected civil unions" bullcrap. There has never been a traditional marriage group that has fought for civil unions or domestic partnership rights for same sex couples. Anywhere that union or limited rights for same sex couples have been earned has been through the efforts of gay rights groups and have been fought tooth and nail by pro traditional marriage groups.

There has NEVER been some grand compromise offered to gay rights supporters to leave marriage alone and have civil partnerships instead. To suggest otherwise is either a sign of blatant historical IGNORANCE or is flat out DISHONESTY.

 

[24107]

:violin:

 

[Chocolate]

well thats kinda sad actually, I thought marriage was a religious thing or a tradtion thing and due to many religions being against it gays had a domestic partnership. I am shocked some states are against that what religious standing do you have with that? it's not a priest claiming you two are wed so whats the problem

 

[Slartibartfast]

The civil union thing is a compromise position for many as they realize society isn't going to give them what they want, which is to turn back the clock a few decades in regards to this issue.

 

[chromium]

It's cause they don't want to come across as the complete bigots they truly are. They attempt to blame gay rights groups for the lack of equal rights ("they could have compromised") and also try to distance themselves from the NOM type hate groups. In reality, it's all the same statement: "I'm better than you."

 

[soot]

In reality, it's all the same statement: "I'm better than you."

I'll tell you, I'm about as pro gay rights, pro SSM as you can get.

And I hear, as I'm sure we all hear, numerous different arguments against gay marriage.

And in all but a very, very few circumstances I don't get the impression that anyone thinks they're "better than" gay folks.

I hear concern for our culture and it's underpinnings, I hear concern for children, I hear concern traditional conceptions of society, I hear a reluctance to cosign what is viewed as sinful behavior, but I hear very little true hate, superiority, or completely irrational fear.

Now, I don't share the fears of the anti gay marriage crowd, and I don't even think, frankly, that their fears are legitimate.

But I can definitely see where they're coming from given (what little) understanding I have of human nature, human psychology, and the development and history of Western society and culture and religion.

 

[AGENT J]

Why are there traditional marriage folks out there trying to actively rewrite the history on civil unions and domestic partnerships for same sex couples?

Their version of events of the last twenty years is that gay rights folks were humbly offered the compromise of civil unions and/or domestic partnerships but that they arrogantly rejected the offer in order to redefine marriage.

Are the people who make this claim ignorant or are they just blatantly dishonest?

There are approximately twenty states where not just marriage is banned by the state constitution, but any form of civil unions or domestic partnerships. Do these people think that gay rights folks passed these bans?

In some states where civil unions have been legislatively passed, such as Hawaii, it has been vetoed by the traditional marriage leadership under the premise that it is "only different than marriage in name."

The official, traditional marriage supporting organizations like the National Marriage Organization and the American Family Association, reject civil unions and domestic partnerships for same sex couples as "stepping stones for marriage".

In states like Washington, they demonstrated their earnest belief in that view by seeking to override the legislatively passed "everything but marriage" bill which granted same sex couples all the same rights as marriage but not the name, with a referendum. That referendum was rejected by the people of Washington. The people of that state later approved a referendum making same sex marriage legal in that state.

I am just not seeing how social conservatives who support traditional marriage are getting this "gay rights supporters rejected civil unions" bullcrap. There has never been a traditional marriage group that has fought for civil unions or domestic partnership rights for same sex couples. Anywhere that union or limited rights for same sex couples have been earned has been through the efforts of gay rights groups and have been fought tooth and nail by pro traditional marriage groups.

There has NEVER been some grand compromise offered to gay rights supporters to leave marriage alone and have civil partnerships instead. To suggest otherwise is either a sign of blatant historical IGNORANCE or is flat out DISHONESTY.

the great thing is that NOBODY honest falls for it, its simply a dishonest curtain to hide bigotry and or discrimination in a desperate and super transparent attempt to delay equal rights for gays

 

[AGENT J]

I'll tell you, I'm about as pro gay rights, pro SSM as you can get.

And I hear, as I'm sure we all hear, numerous different arguments against gay marriage.

And in all but a very, very few circumstances I don't get the impression that anyone thinks they're "better than" gay folks.

I hear concern for our culture and it's underpinnings, I hear concern for children, I hear concern traditional conceptions of society, I hear a reluctance to cosign what is viewed as sinful behavior, but I hear very little true hate, superiority, or completely irrational fear.

Now, I don't share the fears of the anti gay marriage crowd, and I don't even think, frankly, that their fears are legitimate.

But I can definitely see where they're coming from given (what little) understanding I have of human nature, human psychology, and the development and history of Western society and culture and religion.

then you simply aren't reading enough
some of the very things you listed are examples of thier irrational views

side note: many conservatives are for equal marriage and dont even fall for that BS either

 

[Hard Truth]

The misrepresentation of the conservative position on civil unions is not surprising since many conservatives also lie about their opposition to civil rights for African Americans and equal rights for women.

The right has lost the battle for public acceptance of their ideas as people have become more aware of the experiences of those that the right tries to oppress. Now they strategically use the language of the oppressed and their libreal/left defenders to try to claim that they are victims when they lose their "right" to dominate and oppress. When they can no longer force children in the schools to pray, they claim that they are being religiously persecuted and when they can't discriminate against people they claim that their freedom of association and property rights are being taken away. They have convinced themselves that losing the privileges and power that they never legitimately earned (but took through past violence and theft) is a form of oppression.

 

[CriticalThought]

I hear concern for our culture and it's underpinnings, I hear concern for children, I hear concern traditional conceptions of society, I hear a reluctance to cosign what is viewed as sinful behavior, but I hear very little true hate, superiority, or completely irrational fear.

I can post a link on this very forum of a man arguing that life imprisonment is an acceptable punishment for homosexuality or one showing a man arguing that gay people are "defective" or several others arguing that homosexuality is a mental disorder or another arguments from a poster arguing that gay men are vastly more likely to molest children or pages and pages of posts that homosexuality is "unnatural" despite there being no reason one way or the other to even care about whether it is natural.

I see plenty of hate and superiority. Do I think most traditional marriage supporters feel that way? No way. But there is plenty of virulent hatred out there. On this very forum you can see plenty of it. If you want, I would be happy to look up and post the links for you if you need to decide that for yourself.

 

[Logicman]

Why are there traditional marriage folks out there trying to actively rewrite the history on civil unions and domestic partnerships for same sex couples?

Their version of events of the last twenty years is that gay rights folks were humbly offered the compromise of civil unions and/or domestic partnerships but that they arrogantly rejected the offer in order to redefine marriage.

Are the people who make this claim ignorant or are they just blatantly dishonest?

There are approximately twenty states where not just marriage is banned by the state constitution, but any form of civil unions or domestic partnerships. Do these people think that gay rights folks passed these bans?

In some states where civil unions have been legislatively passed, such as Hawaii, it has been vetoed by the traditional marriage leadership under the premise that it is "only different than marriage in name."

The official, traditional marriage supporting organizations like the National Marriage Organization and the American Family Association, reject civil unions and domestic partnerships for same sex couples as "stepping stones for marriage".

In states like Washington, they demonstrated their earnest belief in that view by seeking to override the legislatively passed "everything but marriage" bill which granted same sex couples all the same rights as marriage but not the name, with a referendum. That referendum was rejected by the people of Washington. The people of that state later approved a referendum making same sex marriage legal in that state.

I am just not seeing how social conservatives who support traditional marriage are getting this "gay rights supporters rejected civil unions" bullcrap. There has never been a traditional marriage group that has fought for civil unions or domestic partnership rights for same sex couples. Anywhere that union or limited rights for same sex couples have been earned has been through the efforts of gay rights groups and have been fought tooth and nail by pro traditional marriage groups.

There has NEVER been some grand compromise offered to gay rights supporters to leave marriage alone and have civil partnerships instead. To suggest otherwise is either a sign of blatant historical IGNORANCE or is flat out DISHONESTY.

<yawn>

Here's the real history of sodomy laws.

Apologetics Press - The Founders on Homosexuality

But it goes back even further than that - back to the Torah of Moses' day, in Leviticus. And probably back even further to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, where one of the primary sins was sexual immorality and perversion.

 

[CriticalThought]

<yawn>

Here's the real history of sodomy laws.

Apologetics Press - The Founders on Homosexuality

But it goes back even further than that - back to the Torah of Moses' day, in Leviticus. And probably back even further to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, where one of the primary sins was sexual immorality and perversion.

I think you are in the wrong thread. You post has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

 

[soot]

I see plenty of hate and superiority. Do I think most traditional marriage supporters feel that way? No way. But there is plenty of virulent hatred out there. On this very forum you can see plenty of it. If you want, I would be happy to look up and post the links for you if you need to decide that for yourself.

No thank you; no need for you to waste your time posting links.

I think we're probably pretty much in agreement here other than perhaps in our definitions of what "plenty" or "a lot" mean.

My position is simply that the OVERWHELMING majority of people who oppose gay marriage do so for less than truly hateful reasons, and I'd also add that many of those are in the camp that oppose SSM but would probably be okay with civil unions.

I concede that there are some truly disgusting and hateful people out there, but they aren't driving the train, they're just along for the ride.

There are ALWAYS going to be "haters".

There are still Americans who think Africans Americans are inferior to whites and there are still Germans who think Jews are subhuman.

But other than keeping an eye on such folks for purposes of making sure they're not actually lynching or gassing anybody I think the reasonable approach to their hate is to recognize that it so minority and so marginalized that it fails to stand up on its own.

You're NEVER going to change the minds of people who truly hate, but you don't need to from a policy perspective.

What needs to be done is to bring the folks who fear you (or your lifestyle) around to the position that maybe you aren't all that scary after all.

And I think that's something that only time and experience can address.

As, over time, those in the moderate opposition come to see that God isn't going to send fire and brimstone to destroy America, and that gays aren't going to keep slave stables of nubile young boys for their sexual gratification, and that America isn't necessarily becoming a "worse" country because of our more open views toward, and acceptance of, homosexuality the opposition to full inclusion of homosexuals in American life, community, and culture will dissipate.

 

[chromium]

I'll tell you, I'm about as pro gay rights, pro SSM as you can get.

And I hear, as I'm sure we all hear, numerous different arguments against gay marriage.

And in all but a very, very few circumstances I don't get the impression that anyone thinks they're "better than" gay folks.

I hear concern for our culture and it's underpinnings, I hear concern for children, I hear concern traditional conceptions of society, I hear a reluctance to cosign what is viewed as sinful behavior, but I hear very little true hate, superiority, or completely irrational fear.

Now, I don't share the fears of the anti gay marriage crowd, and I don't even think, frankly, that their fears are legitimate.

But I can definitely see where they're coming from given (what little) understanding I have of human nature, human psychology, and the development and history of Western society and culture and religion.

Where is the concern for these things if not for letting "inferior" people into the marriage system? If you truly don't view gays as deviant/inferior/name your insult, why the concern in the first place? Aside from that, everything you said is pretty much paraphrased "I'm better than you." There needs to be rationality behind these concerns, or they're just worthless prejudice.

 

[CriticalThought]

No thank you; no need for you to waste your time posting links.

I think we're probably pretty much in agreement here other than perhaps in our definitions of what "plenty" or "a lot" mean.

My position is simply that the OVERWHELMING majority of people who oppose gay marriage do so for less than truly hateful reasons, and I'd also add that many of those are in the camp that oppose SSM but would probably be okay with civil unions.

I concede that there are some truly disgusting and hateful people out there, but they aren't driving the train, they're just along for the ride.

There are ALWAYS going to be "haters".

There are still Americans who think Africans Americans are inferior to whites and there are still Germans who think Jews are subhuman.

But other than keeping an eye on such folks for purposes of making sure they're not actually lynching or gassing anybody I think the reasonable approach to their hate is to recognize that it so minority and so marginalized that it fails to stand up on its own.

You're NEVER going to change the minds of people who truly hate, but you don't need to from a policy perspective.

What needs to be done is to bring the folks who fear you (or your lifestyle) around to the position that maybe you aren't all that scary after all.

And I think that's something that only time and experience can address.

As, over time, those in the moderate opposition come to see that God isn't going to send fire and brimstone to destroy America, and that gays aren't going to keep slave stables of nubile young boys for their sexual gratification, and that America isn't necessarily becoming a "worse" country because of our more open views toward, and acceptance of, homosexuality the opposition to full inclusion of homosexuals in American life, community, and culture will dissipate.

Fair enough. There are plenty of bigots on both sides.

 

[soot]

Where is the concern for these things if not for letting "inferior" people into the marriage system?

That doesn't make any sense.

What inferior people?

If you truly don't view gays as deviant/inferior/name your insult, why the concern in the first place?

What "concerns", specifically, are you referring to?

Aside from that, everything you said is pretty much paraphrased "I'm better than you."

That doesn't make any sense.

There needs to be rationality behind these concerns, or they're just worthless prejudice.

Again, what concerns?

 

[CriticalThought]

That doesn't make any sense.

What inferior people?



What "concerns", specifically, are you referring to?



That doesn't make any sense.



Again, what concerns?

I think where the disagreement spurns from is actually in relation to relationships. Most people who oppose same sex relationships view them as inferior to opposite sex relationships. They may not view gay people as inferior, but they tend to view their relationships as inherently inferior.

 

[chromium]

That doesn't make any sense.

What inferior people?



What "concerns", specifically, are you referring to?

You tell me. If it's really not about viewing gays as inferior, why be worried about them joining the marriage ranks? You do realize the same exact arguments you made were used to defend interracial marriage bans..."Derrr, tradition" just isn't going to cut it.

 

[sneakosview]

Not so larry.

 

[Koros]

<yawn>

Here's the real history of sodomy laws.

Apologetics Press - The Founders on Homosexuality

But it goes back even further than that - back to the Torah of Moses' day, in Leviticus. And probably back even further to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, where one of the primary sins was sexual immorality and perversion.

No one cares what you think. Go troll elsewhere. You're not even on topic here.

 

[CLAX1911]

No one cares what you think. Go troll elsewhere. You're not even on topic here.

Some people desperately want their voice heard. They think their objection being repeated over and over again adds validity.

 

[AGENT J]

No thank you; no need for you to waste your time posting links.

I think we're probably pretty much in agreement here other than perhaps in our definitions of what "plenty" or "a lot" mean.

My position is simply that the OVERWHELMING majority of people who oppose gay marriage do so for less than truly hateful reasons, and I'd also add that many of those are in the camp that oppose SSM but would probably be okay with civil unions.

I concede that there are some truly disgusting and hateful people out there, but they aren't driving the train, they're just along for the ride.

There are ALWAYS going to be "haters".

There are still Americans who think Africans Americans are inferior to whites and there are still Germans who think Jews are subhuman.

But other than keeping an eye on such folks for purposes of making sure they're not actually lynching or gassing anybody I think the reasonable approach to their hate is to recognize that it so minority and so marginalized that it fails to stand up on its own.

You're NEVER going to change the minds of people who truly hate, but you don't need to from a policy perspective.

What needs to be done is to bring the folks who fear you (or your lifestyle) around to the position that maybe you aren't all that scary after all.

And I think that's something that only time and experience can address.

As, over time, those in the moderate opposition come to see that God isn't going to send fire and brimstone to destroy America, and that gays aren't going to keep slave stables of nubile young boys for their sexual gratification, and that America isn't necessarily becoming a "worse" country because of our more open views toward, and acceptance of, homosexuality the opposition to full inclusion of homosexuals in American life, community, and culture will dissipate.

the issue is thought the things you named in the first post ARE irrational

I hear concern for our culture and it's underpinnings, I hear concern for children, I hear concern traditional conceptions of society, I hear a reluctance to cosign what is viewed as sinful behavior, but I hear very little true hate, superiority, or completely irrational fear.

in the above quote you separate the two when they are one in the same
concern for children
concern for tradition
culture and underpinnings
cosgin sinful behavior

worrying about those things in regards to equal rights for gays IS irrational and hateful and reeks of superiority

while the majoirty of americans are for equal rights the majority of those who are opposed, meaning they want to stop it, would vote to stop it or are actively trying to stop it do so based on irrationality.