Yes, we can.

[scaeagles]

Why am I being disgusting?

All I said was that making something divisive by challanging the status quo is how change is made. I said being divisive isn't always a bad thing. I didn't say blacks were wrong, but it was damn divisive when Rosa Parks took the seat on the bus. That doesn't mean it was wrong. Wrong is often times moving dutifully to the back of the bus.

That isn't disgusting. It's fact. To say that being divisive itself is wrong is disgusting.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by JWBear

I would say that the issue is divisive, not the sides.

True.

scaeagles ~ The couples that sued CA are saying, "Hey, our relationships are just as valid and as important as straight ones. We deserve marriage equality." At that point, it's between those couples and the court. The Supreme Court of CA agreed. Now, the anti-gay marriage groups are up in arms saying that the state's constitution should be amended. The misinformed anti-marriage backers are forcing a choice on the issue, taking it to the masses and saying make a choice. Pro-gay marriage organizations (like Love Honor Cherish for example) are surfacing as a defensive move because of the misinformation anti-marriage orgs are spreading. When decisions were being made about interracial couples in the courts, they stood and that was that.
I see the wingnuts using it as a divisive issue because they are disagreeing with the courts and brought the issue forward. It was not the gay community that brought it to the people first and said 'You gotta listen to us and agree with us and choose sides'.

[scaeagles]

Ok - I can see that point, GC.

But I do stand by what I said that being divisive in and of itself is not wrong.

[innerSpaceman]

To clarify, i was not saying you are disgusting, scaeagles (though I'll have to think about that ), just that having to fight for the rights we and others were promised over two centuries ago, and which are ours regardless of the constitution in any event, is disgusting.


To which I will add we are not using the same English language. It is NOT divisive to try and JOIN with everyone else. It IS devisive to try and prevent that joining. Look it up.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Ok - I can see that point, GC.

But I do stand by what I said that being divisive in and of itself is not wrong.

Maybe, but what's the point on being divisive about issues that there is an impas on? Just so the issue can be played out nationally and on TV? Also, I don't understand what the Mormon church has to gain by stepping into this ruckus. Increased membership? More donations to their organization under the guise of "protecting traditional marriage"?

But getting back to the topic... I applaud Obama for saying what he said. It ain't perfect, but it's closer than McCain will ever get.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh yeah, Obama.


Hmmm, maybe he'll accept my thanks in trade. Then I can find out if it's twue.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by JWBear

By that logic, blacks shouldn't have gotten "uppity" in the 60's, and demanded equal rights.

That was my first thought- things were just hunky dory in America until those darned blacks started stirring the **** with 'Brown VS the Board of Education'. I'm very grateful for that decision on a personal level, as it opened the door for kids like mine (hearing disability) to attend the same schools as their peers. An unintended consequence, but certainly a positive one. Who knows what peripheral positives might occur when we stop denying a very large segment of our citizenry the same rights afforded to the majority?

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Oh yeah, Obama.


Hmmm, maybe he'll accept my thanks in trade. Then I can find out if it's twue.

public mojo - OH how that one made me laugh!

[Strangler Lewis]

As I see it, when we speak of divisiveness, distractions, etc., we are talking about appealing to people's prejudices to trick them into voting against their true self-interest and/or for the common good. We saw a bit of that in the Democratic primary when race and gender appeals were too common.

But . . . unless you want to say that there are no right and wrong positions on particular issues, you can't say that gays, like blacks of the fifties and sixties, use civil rights issues as divisive issues.

It certainly makes no sense to say that blacks were tricked into voting for pro-civil rights politicians when they should have voted the other way (assuming they could vote at at all).

With gays, conceivably an argument could be made that the "rich gays" with all the disposible income should be voting for lower taxing Republicans, not being distracted by gay marriage. This would only make sense if the overwhelming majority of gays didn't care about gay marriage and hadn't thought about it until a few anti-Republican gay activists with a larger agenda started pulling strings. I just don't think that's the case. This is a deeply felt civil rights issue. Thus, being against it is divisive. Being for it is not.

[scaeagles]

I'm curious, an as long as we're on the subject, I'm wondering why it is (I really have no opinion on it myself) that a large portion of the black does not equate their civil rights issues with gay marriage?