Joe reaches out to the gay community to offer his strategy to end the gay marriage debate
It just occurred to me that many of you may not know what my position is on gay marriage.
My position on gay marriage is that as long as the gay community continues the fight to modify the definition of the word "marriage," they are going to have an uphill battle because they are going to be fighting 2 groups, the religious right AND the government. That's 2 fronts people!!! The gay community would fare better if they only had one front to deal with. Hitler tried to fight multiple fronts and look where that got him ;)
Now..., the question is..., which front should the gay community [attack] / [focus on]? Which front is [weaker] / [more reasonable]? I'll give you a hint..., it's NOT the religious right ;)
Another good military strategy is to get one of your opponents to switch sides and join you in your fight against the other opponent. Now..., the question is..., which side is more likely to switch sides? I'll give you a hint..., it's not the government ;)
I know, I know..., it doesn't make sense..., but please hear me out.
The government maintains control by dividing the people against each other. They practice, "Divide and Conquer." Have you noticed how the government pays lip service to both sides and does nothing except watch the two groups go at each other's throat?
If the gay community were to petition the government to stop using the word, "marriage" [because of its religious connotations and separation of church and state] then the religious right might join in because they would love to own the word, "marriage" outright. Then..., once that's done..., you petition the government to use the term, "Civil Union" for every domestic partnership, gay or hetero.
I know, I know..., brilliant..., right? But that's what I do. Think outside the box ;)
When you think about it, my idea is just crazy enough that it might work ;)
Even if the gay community decides not to implement my idea, it is a hell of a lot more entertaining, and original, than anything else either side has to offer ;)
Brilliant., simply., brilliant
Side Score: 16
|
 |
Wait..., what? No!!!
Side Score: 18
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
I know that I am now going to be fighting 2 fronts (the gay community and the religious right). I also know that both sides are raging lunatics..., plus they get a lot of points by debating this topic..., they have a vested interest..., so there's no way I'll get anyone on my side. But I'm untouchable. I've lasted this long..., haven't I ;) As far as I'm concerned, my job here is done. I did my part. You people do whatever you want. BTW, here's a picture of me reaching out. P.S. Those 2 groups like to get together and bitch. They don't know how to function otherwise. I think if those 2 groups had to go a day without bitching, they might just fucking explode. ;) Side: Brilliant., simply., brilliant
1
point
|
1
point
Not really. It wasn't very hard for liberals to fight the uphill battle against the religious right and the government to get the practice of marriage to include heterosexual couples of mixed race. In terms of civil rights issues, the conservative side has been on the retreat from day one. They really dig their heels in sometimes, too, but they inevitably loose to greater personal freedom, as they always have. Not that I think the conservative platform should be silenced. It's important to have this metaphorical ball-and-chain dragging us down and preventing us from achieving progress and civilization too quickly. This gives all the delicate Republicans who are afraid of change time to adjust to new ideas without their hearts exploding and their brains hemorrhaging. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
1
point
1
point
It's not that it's not a good plan. I just wonder why you say there is two groups they have to fight. The homophobic people in the government are usually religious. There is only one group you'll need to fight, it is the religious. Once you did that, .. there is nothing left. I mean - can you give me an example of a man/woman who's against homosexuals getting married, who is not religious? The only argument I can find that would support an atheist who's against homosexuals is 'they can't reproduce'. But then they'd also have to be against women who reached menopause and women or men who are infertile getting married. Also they have to be against all kinds of protection. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
1
point
(1) This is not an original idea. I have heard it before from a lot of different people long before hearing it here. (2) This is not a good idea. Realistically, the term marriage is not going to be removed from the legal lexicon anytime soon; it's simply too entrenched. By pursuing civil unions instead of marriages, the LGBTQ community is settling for a separate but equal situation within the legal system which is inherently unequal (see Brown v. Board of Education). (3) The campaign for marriage equality is not about persuading the religious right or the politicians they control. It is about educating the larger population and presenting a counter view that homosexuality and same-sex relationships are not immoral, that LGBTQ people are not second-class or inferior for being who they are, and that LGBTQ people deserve equal treatment and respect within our society. Not addressing the extremist religious assertions allows misinformation and prejudice to continue unchecked, and that has very real negative ramifications. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
3) Are you saying that the goal of the gay community is to address the extremist religious assertions (that homosexuality is immoral) by using gay marriage as a tool to engage the country in a dialog about the negative ramifications of said assertions? Because..., if so..., it's not like..., once gay unions are considered a marriage, everyone is going to be automatically and instantly educated about homosexuals not being immoral, inferior, second class citizens and that they deserve respect and equal treatment within our society. The gay community cannot legislate acceptance anymore than religious extremist can legislate morality. In other words..., both sides of the gay marriage debate are insane ;) Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Not at all. My argument was that the campaign is directed not at convincing the religious right that they are wrong but at countering erroneous and prejudiced assertions by the religious right. If no one counters those statements then it is easy for them to continue on in a fashion which is detrimental not only to the LGBTQ population, but to society at large due to its divisiveness. I do not think that educational campaigns are "using gay marriage as a tool"; it is a necessary part of the campaign towards achieving equal civil marriage rights. If people do not understand the issue and how it directly affects the lives of same-sex couples and their families then they are more likely to oppose equal legal treatment. The purpose of any educational campaign is to show the counter view so that people can choose, and past educational campaigns (interracial marriage, hate crime legislation, civil rights, etc.) have demonstrated that this is a successful tactic. You cannot force people to stop being prejudiced or bigoted, but legally you can require equal treatment particularly by the government towards its constituency. There will always be extremists who will preach hate and intolerance, but educational campaigns are an effective counter to those socially damaging messages. It is a very different thing, on the other hand, to legislate morality because that is attempting to regulate what people believe rather than how others are treated or how they treat others. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
|
