Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
It's not in the definition of 'unnatural'. There are many unnatural things that are positive. Telephones, for one.
|
Okay, I understand what you are saying then. We are speaking of two different contexts of unnatural. I would say that they use unnatural to describe homosexuality in the same way that they would use unnatural to describe beastiality, i.e, sick and wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
I don't know, and that's besides the point. Point being that the civil union folk, depending on what exactly they'd have a civil union entail, would not be opposed to gay couples receiving the same rights.
|
If it depends on what they would have a civil union entail, then civil unions is simply another gateway for oppression, like Jim Crow laws in response to african-american voting rights. The fact that they are willing to make a completely seperate category for relationships, just for homosexuals, indicates an attempt to ghettoize and seperate that portion of the population. If they did that with african-americans, or asians, or any ethnicity, they'd be called racists and rightfully so.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
No, there is an emotion much less negative than that: "Let's protect an institution that has done the world much good and is falling apart." And once again, (1)the quality of the reasoning is irrelevant so long as the position is superficially plausible and (2)the civil union faction strikes down the generalization that they're all out to deny gay couples benefits. They're still out to deny something, but it's likely to be framed in the erroneous 'separate yet equal' mindset. "It's deserving of the same legal framework, but it's not marriage. It's something else."
|
If they have two brain cells to rub together, they should understand how vile the concept of "seperate but equal" is, from their own history. If they do not, this implies either one of two things. Either 74% of Texas didn't make it through American History, or they are willfully discriminating. While the former is possible, it is unlikely. Therefore, the second is the more realistic possibility. This means that regardless of their voiced stance or approach, they consider homosexuals as inferior or less deserving of rights.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
And honestly, I don't think it takes all that much in the way of emotional commitment to mark a box on a piece of paper. Just a vague idea that you're helping to preserve society would be enough. I don't think it needs to take much more emotional commitment than buying groceries, it could be taken as just another errand.
|
Considering the low voter turnouts this country routinely experiences, the motivation to get out and vote for this particular issue represents a more substantial emotional commitment then buying groceries.