sidenote

women fought for equal rights to men
and blacks fought for equal rights to whites

YET, they were able to do it without insisting they be given the same label or insisting society dont aknowledge any differences,,,,


a civil union would have the 'equal' rights of a marriage, but it would not be the SAME as a marriage (Which involves a legally expected sexual element)

What do you mean they did it without insisting on the same label? That makes no sense. Interracial marriages are still called marriages. When women were allowed to vote, the same word was used. What labels are yiu talking about?

We're all born with different preferences. For some reason I just happened to be born with heterosexual preferences...But this is not the case for everyone. Some people have an attraction to same-sex partners. And they gained awareness about their preferences at an early age. (Just as I did when I entered my teenage years.)...It's not easy to be "different." Or easy to be a minority in our society...I'm friends with a Black man in his 70's out here in the West. (He grew-up in the South and experienced a lot of "horrors" as a child just because he happened to be Black.)...He went on to serve in the Marines for many years. And later became a police officer in No. CA...Despite the fact that he's lived an "honorable life" and been an "upstanding citizen" he still runs into some "flack" once in awhile from ignorant people who judge him solely on the color of his skin...I accept that some people are born with an attraction to their same sex. (Just as I was born with an attraction to the opposite sex.) And I support their right to marry the people they love.

because they still PRODUCE LIFE< and because race is a social construct,, not a biological reality....and has nothing to do with the creation of children who need a foundation,,,,


GENDER is all that matters where creating life is concerned,,,


Im talking about 'marriage', the foundation of family (child creation) and therefore of community, and therefore of country,,,,


it only happens with HETEROSEXUAL relations


if the issue is the 'rights',, than have a process called a 'civil union' which is understood to have no significance to creating life ,,,,or creating a root from which a society can grow,,,,

What labels were you talking about?

marriage (heterosexual union) vs civil union (union concerned only with civil rights)

sidenote

women fought for equal rights to men
and blacks fought for equal rights to whites

YET, they were able to do it without insisting they be given the same label or insisting society dont aknowledge any differences,,,,


a civil union would have the 'equal' rights of a marriage, but it would not be the SAME as a marriage (Which involves a legally expected sexual element)

No, I'm referring to this post:



I'm wondering what different labels they used.

women were still women and blacks were still blacks

they just gained more of the same 'civil rights'

(again, marriage is not a RIGHT)

the 'rights' that people attach to marriage are not really 'rights' either by definition that not everyone has them

BUT, for the sake of equality, I dont oppose allowing ANY consenting adults who wish to share their lives, benefits, insurance, bills,, etc,, with each other to enter a contract which provides for that consentual choice,,,,

And gay people are still gay people. Women and blacks still used the word voting. Interracial couples still used the word marriage. What you're saying isn't making sense.

that is different

VOTING is an action , done by ONE citizen, that black citizens also wanted the right to do

MARRIAGE Is a contract, entered by TWO people, that is aknowledged by the government and whose terms are therefore defined by the government,,,

MARRIAGE is the contract for heterosexual unions with the idea that we all come from them and we benefit (ideally) most when those unions are committed to each other

there is no such consideration for HOMOSEXUAL activity, there is no social benefit that extends from that relationship, there is no benefit that would as strongly support a government sanctioning and encouraging such commitments,,,

HOWEVER, if the debate (the more logical one, in my opinion) is with the fact that certain benefits are awarded those in a marital contract that are exempted from homosexuals who cannot enter those contracts,,,than there only needs to be a CIVIL contract created to ensure those benefits ARE available to homosexuals,, or any other consenting adults sharing a life who feel they should have them,,, or who want or need them,,,

Again, you're not making sense. You brought up women fighting for equal rights to men. Women weren't banned from getting married, so that has nothing to do with the marriage discussion. Perhaps if you were a bit more clear on exactly what you're talking about, I could try to understand where you're coming from.

You kept saying women are still women and blacks are still blacks. As I've stated gay people are still gay people. That's not changing. So again, I don't understand what you're saying.

great to be in a country where we can decide what to support or not support

I dont know from 'attraction' (I have a loved one supposedly BORN With an attraction to males who was with males over twenty some years of his life but CHANGED And is now with a woman, I dont believe the hype that attraction is hardwired and unalterable)

I cant be inside peoples heads though to know what 'attracts' them.

I dont support HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR, however, which like all behavior is indeed a CHOICE.

and I dont support the government sanctioning that behavior and equating it with heterosexual unions that have the beauty of being responsible for the lives of each of us.....

I do support equal 'rights' (and marriage is not a right because it involves TWO PEOPLE) , and think regardless of sexual PREFERENCE, if two consenting adults want the government to aknowledge their decision to enter into lifes (non sexual) responsibilities and privileges together, there should be a contract called a 'civil union' which offers them that option....

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I just have different views about it.

women fought to own property
women fought to have more equal pay (still fighting for it)
women fought to vote

all 'individual' rights to do what other 'individuals' were permitted to do

a man and a man is not a man and a woman

that UNION doesnt need to have the same LABEL to have equal rights

anymore than a woman has to be called a man to have equal rights,,,

The same terms are still used. They still own property, they still get paid and they still vote. Same labels are used. So what you're saying still doesn't make sense.

You keep bringing this back to marriage. What I was commenting on was you saying they didn't use the same labels, when they do. You haven't shown me where they use different labels for anything.

the thread is about marriage

marriage is a contract, the contract between a man and woman is called marriage

a different contract, could be called a civil union


women fought for equal rights to men without wishing to also be called men

blacks fought for equal rights to whites without wishing to be called white

the ANATOMY is different so the label is different but doesnt require unequal rights

the details of a CONTRACT are different so the contractual label is different but doesnt impose on anyones rights


,,I cant make it any simpler,, Im out of analogies,,,