5/7/2013 10:00 AM
I think they'd eat the burger, show appreciation that you'd gave them the burger, but tell you after that it really should be called a hamburger.  And continue to tell you that it should be called a hamburger until you change the name.
5/7/2013 10:01 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2013 9:52:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2013 9:47:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2013 9:32:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2013 9:19:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2013 9:18:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2013 9:16:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2013 9:00:00 AM (view original):

As I said, different situations call for different reactions. 

I don't think anyone has argued against civil unions where SS couples are granted all the same rights and privileges as "married" couples.   To me, that's a pretty big compromise.   However, for whatever reason, that doesn't seem good enough.    It's a different situation and a different term is being used to describe their union. 

Do you know why "civil union" is not good enough?

Because it isn't the same thing legally.
And if it was?
I don't know. Would you be ok if you weren't allowed to marry but you could have a civil union?
Sure.  Same thing, right?

If its the same thing, why not call it marriage?
To make the "traditional marriage" people happy.

Seems to me that everyone would get what they want.    And the definition of a word simply remains unchanged.
The definition has already changed.
5/7/2013 10:02 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/7/2013 9:57:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2013 9:51:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/7/2013 9:46:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2013 9:42:00 AM (view original):

It sort of is.  "No, we want to call it marriage!!!"

Silliness, assuming the same rights/privileges. 

Are you saying that the gay community could have the same legal rights in terms of marriage/civil unions, but because they're insisting on calling it "marriage" that they don't get that?  I'm just trying to understand your analogy correctly.
Yes.  I'm saying a civil union would be the exact same as marriage.   Just a different term. 

I think that would make the tecs/bizs of the world happy.    And should make the burnsylucks happy.

Why is that a bad thing?
That might be true.  But I would guess it's not; I don't think lawmakers, etc are holding back because the gay community want it called marriage.  And we discussed this, it wouldn't make the burnsylucks and the gay community as happy as they could be.  They'd still be fighting for marriage.  
"And we discussed this, it wouldn't make the burnsylucks and the gay community as happy as they could be.  They'd still be fighting for marriage."

And that's fine.

Isn't it better to (a) get the 99% you "need" in the first battle, and then try to get the additional 1% you "want" in a second battle, or (b) risk getting nothing at all by trying to get everything all at once?

That seems like a no-brainer to me.
5/7/2013 10:04 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2013 10:01:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2013 9:52:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2013 9:47:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2013 9:32:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2013 9:19:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2013 9:18:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2013 9:16:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2013 9:00:00 AM (view original):

As I said, different situations call for different reactions. 

I don't think anyone has argued against civil unions where SS couples are granted all the same rights and privileges as "married" couples.   To me, that's a pretty big compromise.   However, for whatever reason, that doesn't seem good enough.    It's a different situation and a different term is being used to describe their union. 

Do you know why "civil union" is not good enough?

Because it isn't the same thing legally.
And if it was?
I don't know. Would you be ok if you weren't allowed to marry but you could have a civil union?
Sure.  Same thing, right?

If its the same thing, why not call it marriage?
To make the "traditional marriage" people happy.

Seems to me that everyone would get what they want.    And the definition of a word simply remains unchanged.
The definition has already changed.
If one believes that the definition is "one man, one woman", then no, it has not changed.
5/7/2013 10:04 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/7/2013 10:00:00 AM (view original):
I think they'd eat the burger, show appreciation that you'd gave them the burger, but tell you after that it really should be called a hamburger.  And continue to tell you that it should be called a hamburger until you change the name.

Then, the next time you show up hungry, you're denied service. 

Sometimes it's just better to STFU and eat whatever they name their food.

5/7/2013 10:05 AM
I think it's important to fight for equal rights, and that includes the final 1%. Blacks didnt stop when they had separate drinking fountains even though they were exactly the same as white drinking fountains.
5/7/2013 10:05 AM
Would you prefer I say "The current definition of the word would remain unchanged"?
5/7/2013 10:06 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2013 10:04:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2013 10:01:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2013 9:52:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2013 9:47:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2013 9:32:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2013 9:19:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2013 9:18:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2013 9:16:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2013 9:00:00 AM (view original):

As I said, different situations call for different reactions. 

I don't think anyone has argued against civil unions where SS couples are granted all the same rights and privileges as "married" couples.   To me, that's a pretty big compromise.   However, for whatever reason, that doesn't seem good enough.    It's a different situation and a different term is being used to describe their union. 

Do you know why "civil union" is not good enough?

Because it isn't the same thing legally.
And if it was?
I don't know. Would you be ok if you weren't allowed to marry but you could have a civil union?
Sure.  Same thing, right?

If its the same thing, why not call it marriage?
To make the "traditional marriage" people happy.

Seems to me that everyone would get what they want.    And the definition of a word simply remains unchanged.
The definition has already changed.
If one believes that the definition is "one man, one woman", then no, it has not changed.
Sure, your own bis-like definition can be whatever you want, but legally, the definition already includes gay couples.
5/7/2013 10:06 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2013 10:05:00 AM (view original):
I think it's important to fight for equal rights, and that includes the final 1%. Blacks didnt stop when they had separate drinking fountains even though they were exactly the same as white drinking fountains.
Comparing getting the exact same rights, with the exception of one word, to the plight of the blacks 50 years ago is goddam stupid.    Jesse Jackson should picket your house.
5/7/2013 10:09 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2013 10:06:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2013 10:05:00 AM (view original):
I think it's important to fight for equal rights, and that includes the final 1%. Blacks didnt stop when they had separate drinking fountains even though they were exactly the same as white drinking fountains.
Comparing getting the exact same rights, with the exception of one word, to the plight of the blacks 50 years ago is goddam stupid.    Jesse Jackson should picket your house.
Why? It certainly isn't exactly the same but the situations are comparable.
5/7/2013 10:17 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2013 10:04:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/7/2013 10:00:00 AM (view original):
I think they'd eat the burger, show appreciation that you'd gave them the burger, but tell you after that it really should be called a hamburger.  And continue to tell you that it should be called a hamburger until you change the name.

Then, the next time you show up hungry, you're denied service. 

Sometimes it's just better to STFU and eat whatever they name their food.

Again, I don't think it's the proper analogy.  I don't see signs that gays would get more rights if they shut up about marriage.  
5/7/2013 10:18 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2013 10:06:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2013 10:05:00 AM (view original):
I think it's important to fight for equal rights, and that includes the final 1%. Blacks didnt stop when they had separate drinking fountains even though they were exactly the same as white drinking fountains.
Comparing getting the exact same rights, with the exception of one word, to the plight of the blacks 50 years ago is goddam stupid.    Jesse Jackson should picket your house.
Yea, the water fountain/marriage comparison makes me uncomfortable.  It's not the same thing. 

That said, it's a comparison for a reason.  It IS "separate but equal."
5/7/2013 10:19 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2013 10:09:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2013 10:06:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2013 10:05:00 AM (view original):
I think it's important to fight for equal rights, and that includes the final 1%. Blacks didnt stop when they had separate drinking fountains even though they were exactly the same as white drinking fountains.
Comparing getting the exact same rights, with the exception of one word, to the plight of the blacks 50 years ago is goddam stupid.    Jesse Jackson should picket your house.
Why? It certainly isn't exactly the same but the situations are comparable.
Well, you're right.   Except for them not being comparable.

"You cannot eat in this establishment.  And, if you think you can, we might just hang your *** when the sun goes down."    
"You cannot call your union a marriage.  And, if you think you can, we'll see you in court!!!"

Yeah, pretty much the same thing. 
5/7/2013 10:19 AM
They're comparable in this way:

1)  First, blacks were slaves and had no rights.
2)  Then, they were given "separate but equal rights" for many, many, many years
3)  Then, they achieved full rights.

So if you insist on applying the course of the civil rights movement for blacks to the SSM movement, you should be OK with moving from step 1 to step 2 as an incremental step, and not trying to move directly from step 1 to step 3 while skipping step 2 altogether.
5/7/2013 10:20 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/7/2013 10:17:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2013 10:04:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/7/2013 10:00:00 AM (view original):
I think they'd eat the burger, show appreciation that you'd gave them the burger, but tell you after that it really should be called a hamburger.  And continue to tell you that it should be called a hamburger until you change the name.

Then, the next time you show up hungry, you're denied service. 

Sometimes it's just better to STFU and eat whatever they name their food.

Again, I don't think it's the proper analogy.  I don't see signs that gays would get more rights if they shut up about marriage.  
As tec said earlier, the wrong battleground was chosen.  

Fight for equal rights and privileges for civil unions.   **** a definition.
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.