telling us off for wanting two unequal status's to be equal
Last edit: 05:43, 14 May 2012
did i say that? no. But your acting like there isnt a problem when there is; american civil unions are not viewed as equal to marriages; and they aren't. you telling us "why are you complaining" just makes you look like an ass
Yeah, except that I conceded quite early on that the US is different and I was talking from a NZ POV, and then asked if you'd make the same argument if you lived in NZ where civil unions are the same as marriage.
I think the heat of the arguement was getting to me then :/ sorry , personally i'd only take issue if marriage was still seen as better.
But here's the thing. is the NZ thing REALLY equal? Can gays marry? That's all I want to know. or are they too different to be allowed to marry?
so I googled. NZ does NOT allow gay marriage. "marriage" is "special" for straights only. how can you not see that this makes gays less, Ace? they dont' get to play with your toys. they are not good enough. why? ONE REASON ONLY.
They are gay. (black, muslim, women, etc.) it's bigotry.
Well for something you claim is so horribly bigoted the populace seems pretty docile, happy and calm about it.
That's cause it's better than it was, not cause it's equal. Have you asked gay NZers if they are really "fine" with not having the same status as straights?
Tell me why it's ok to tell gays they cannot marry. you keep avoiding that.
Sorry, but by "not the same status" you mean it doesn't use the same word?
Why so much dodging? Just answer the question.
Also, it seems not everyone is happy.
But what about the rights of futanari to marry!?
But seriously, Godot, Hypothetical. Lets say Both Hetro and Homo unions were renamed to, I dunno Der Flagnsah for Hetro, and Der Gutongo for Homo, would that be bigoted?
I think so, personally. When you make one institution for one group, and some other institution for some other group, you are saying they are, at their core, not the same. So what is the motivation for doing this? In the US, it was decided that even if the facilities were EXACTLY THE SAME, saying blacks and whites cannot share a bathroom means they are not on equal footing.
I can think of no governmental entity that should separate any of us, for the same basic service. not men and women - (I would balk at "men's social security" and "women's social security" even if they gave the same amount), or blacks and white (I HATE the idea of Bureau of Indian Affairs -- we don't have Bureau of Black affairs, or Bureau of Japanese affairs). I do not think Christians should get one kind of Marriage Certificate and Muslims get another and Atheists a third.
One place i *do* see separation as useful is for age. I find it fine that we have special services for children and the elderly, cause they are NOT equal to us, in the sense that they often need more care, can be abused easier, etc. But otherwise, a service or institution should not be setting us up into little categories. It's not only bigoted, it's illegal. at least in the US.
I was actually surprised to hear gay marriage isn't legal here, when someone told me last week. I actually said, "What?! No, that can't be true... you guys are so nice!" The kiwi with whom I was speaking was actually embarrassed, and then I felt bad for making her represent her whole country on a matter of national policy.
NZ is very progressive in some ways, but not this one.
I can barely believe it - Mikalos disagreeing with Ace. Not only that but you're on the right side of the argument too. It's like watching a butterfly emerge from a cocoon - a sycophantic cocoon. Well done mate; incidentally I want blacks to have all the advantages of marriage, but they really can't use our word can they? When was the last time you saw a bride walk down the aisle in a black dress? QED.