(Closed) Trying to get other views on this..

posted 6 years ago in LGBTQ
Post # 3
Member
3182 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: May 2012

How would you feel if someone told you you couldn’t get married, but it would be “just as good?”  It wouldn’t work for the same reason separate but equal didn’t work with segregation.  

Post # 4
Member
2559 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: September 2010

Because getting married but calling it something else still seems like discrimination – they would still not receive equal social  respect, even if the legal ramifications matched exactly. That’s like being “separate but equal” – it didn’t work racially, it won’t work this way either.

Post # 5
Member
802 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: April 2012

I don’t think you were “wrong” but there is nothing else that has the same benifits as married people have. They can have a wedding all day long, but the state doesn’t recognize it (depending on your state of course). She probably got mad because she wants to marry her partner, if she has one, and wants it to be the same as you and your FI’s, legally.?

Post # 6
Member
2559 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: September 2010

@Natalieh86:  Took the words right out of my mouth 🙂

Post # 7
Member
1024 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: July 2014

yes, you were wrong. It’s like saying “yes you can ride the bus, but only at the back” 

Post # 8
Member
3182 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: May 2012

Also the only justification for it not being called marriage would be because marriage implies some kind of religious ceremony.  That is obviously not true, otherwise I wouldn’t be married because our wedding was not a religious one.  And I would be pissed if someone tried to tell me that my marriage wasn’t valid. 

Post # 9
Member
2783 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: August 2012

Yeah, you were wrong. The whole point is to have the same rights, and be equal to heterosexual couples. If we call it something else, then it’s not equality. It’s segregation.

Post # 10
Member
2783 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: August 2012

@teabiscuit:  thank you! I was trying to come up with an example, and not a single one worked, lol.

Post # 11
Member
369 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: September 2011

I appreciate the fact that you are honestly trying to figure out how you feel about this.  I am gay, got married last year, and the fact that our marriage isn’t “real” is unbelievably upsetting to me. 

How would you like it if someone told you that your relationship wasn’t worthy of equal status?  And who is worthy of deciding what RIGHTS I am entitled to?  I am a citizen just like everybody else, pay taxes just like everybody else, yet, I am not entitled to the same protections and benefits as everyone else.  And it sucks. 

Post # 12
Member
5095 posts
Bee Keeper
  • Wedding: June 2011

I hope you don’t get flamed here, because I really think it’s great that you’re trying to think this through.

Simple answer: Separate but equal isn’t. Any time the government designates a certain group of people and gives them different rights than others have, simply by virtue of who they are, that is unjust.

Post # 13
Member
4371 posts
Honey bee

Brown v. Board of Education: Separate but equal can never truly be equal (paraphrased).

Post # 14
Member
1765 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: September 2012

That’s “separate but equal”. Remember how that turned out, race wise? Doesn’t work. It’s HUGELY unfair and discriminatory. Every human being deserves the same rights. If I was her, I would definitely be mad too.

Post # 15
Member
3182 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: May 2012

@mightywombat:  Agreed.  OP it sounds like you at least have an open mind, which a lot of people don’t about this issue!

Post # 16
Member
5095 posts
Bee Keeper
  • Wedding: June 2011

And another way of thinking of it that’s more pragmatic and less philosophical:

Who is materially harmed by either position?

Gay people are materially harmed when their relationships are denied the same rights, protections, and obligations as straight people.

Straight people are NOT harmed by marriage equality. Their relationships are not affected by whether or not men can marry men or women can marry women.  They lose nothing by it. No churches would be forced to perform marriages of which they disapprove, any more than they’re required to marry couples who live together before marriage, who are divorced, etc.

So, given that, why should the harm that is actively being done continue, when changing it would harm nothing?

The topic ‘Trying to get other views on this..’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors