Civil Unions - Separate But Equal

[3sleepingbananas]

this was really cool! great video!!!!

[dukeljk]

Is this guy a faggot?

[AshaVahista]

Great video. I make many of the same points when I get in arguments with people about this issue. Usually when I point out that we recognize Buddhist marriages, Hindu marriages, Atheist marriages (non-Christian in other words)and infertile marriage and elderly marriage (no child rearing). If we wanted to be strict about marriage, we would have to ban divorce (it is illegal in the Bible, after all, unless in the case of adultery), ban single parent households, and ban contraception.

[Jillersaurus]

5 states allow it now. :) <3 Indeed, things do change over time...I love this video!! AHHH!

[Jillersaurus]

I just sent this to my Social Studies teacher..... :D

[hellraiser2006234]

So you went through all this talking just to say any can marry anyone.. Look kid your not saying anything that the next person hasnt. As far as same sex marital status goes. Who cares, if you like being a fudge packer be my guest; After all you have your constitutional rights correct?

[Wally773MTG]

you are a fucking moron

[JasperAvi]

I was going to ignore it... Lol

But thanks.

[fedorajoe]

Wow, awesome video. I'd gay marry you in a New York minute.

[gmussina]

civil unions are not a separate but equal situation. saying that it is, is like saying there's a separate but equal situation when we call two guys or two girls a homosexual relationship instead of heterosexual. if you really think civil unions are separate but equal, how come you dont consider the term "homosexual" separate but equal? there should be a distinction between hetero and homosexuality, just like there should be a difference between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual one.

[JasperAvi]

The scenario, as being represented by you, is fallacious.

It is not merely separate but equal because of the wording. The real reason is because of the vanquishing of rights.

[gmussina]

"The real reason is because of the vanquishing of rights."

civil unions offer at least 95% of rights that marriages do. what you should be doing is fighting for those other 5% of rights to be included in civil unions instead of trying to change the long established definition of marriage. i seriously would not mind if gay couples and heterosexual couples swtiched marriages and civil unions. it's very important that there's a distinction between a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual one

[mogulwraith]

the long standing definition of marriage should be revised just as the long standing defintion of women's rights was revised, and slavery and segregation were abolished.

[gmussina]

no it should not and here's why.

being a woman, or being of a different race is not controversial at all. it was once thought to be wrong to be those things and that was the fault of the people who thought that.

it always has and always will be controversial to be gay. there are still a very small percentage who are racist and sexist, but there will always be a large portion of people who think being gay is wrong. so please dont try to compare a behavior with what someone is when they are born

[mogulwraith]

Its wrong of the people who think being gay is wrong. Its just as controversial as it was letting blacks drink from the same fountain, sit where they want in a restraunt or bus etc. Your argument just doesn't stand up to reason. Its a bigotted argument.

[gmussina]

(continued)

someone could be very right when they say being gay is wrong. and unless you are gay, you have no right to say that being gay doesnt go against nature. i always hear people say that being gay doesnt go against nature, and its one thing for a gay person to say it, but its another when a straight person says it.

a straight person should never say that being gay doesnt go against nature because they are contradicting themselves by not being gay.

[mogulwraith]

An overwhelming percentage of gays claim they were born that way. You're a bigot.

[gmussina]

you are not born gay you ignorant son of a bitch. people dont even get the concept of sexuality until there at least 4 or 5. so youre telling me, when you were about 1, you knew that you were gay or straight? youre telling me that you knew the difference between hetero and homosexuality? how ignorant are you for you to think that anyone would believe that?

[mogulwraith]

I'm not gay. Plenty of homosexuals have said they always felt different. Its ignorant not to know the facts as you clearly don't. Have you read one white paper on the issue? Not just some article in a news paper but an actual study? Try reading one or three then admit you want to be a bigot because you don't like gays.

[gmussina]

i dont hate gays. i love everybody, honestly. i have an uncle that's gay, and i come from a country that is filled with gays(phillipines). my main argument is that there has to be a difference between a heterosexual relationship, and a homosexual one. just like we give different names for someone who is gay and someone who is straight, we give different names for a gay relationship and a straight one. in states that offer both civil unions and marriages, marriage is just a word, thats all it is.

[mogulwraith]

I don't know the laws in your country. I assumed you were in America. My mistake. However, I would use the same arguments where you live. There shouldn't be a difference because if you have Marriage for straights and Civil Unions for gays that is two seperate laws that can change seperately. This is bad. Its not equal because at any time the Civil Union law could be changed to remove rights but not marriage. Likewise marriage could have rights added but not civil unions.

[gmussina]

i actually live in california now. i meant to say that i am originally from the philippines.

marriages and civil unions are not separate laws. all they are are separate words. just like the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual" are separate terms, we also give a heterosexual relationship a different term(marriage) and a homosexual relationship a different term(civil unions). the difference between a marriage and civil union is the same difference between the terms heterosexual and homosexual.

[mogulwraith]

sorry but that is not true. Not only do Civil Unions not come with the same rights as marriage but are governed by seperate laws. Please look into this as it is fundamentally important to understand. On top of that, not every state has civil unions but all have marriage. So once again, not equal SIMPLY in the sense that if gays could marry, and the laws were appended to remove discrimination, they would instantly be able to do so in all states without having to draw up civil union laws.

[Chucklehound]

It's a bit harsh to call it prejudice. Where you would say prejudice, others would say faith. Some religions preach that homosexuality is wrong, and some people truly believe it.

Otherwise, I completely agree. Bring on civil partnerships. (and we already have them in Britain *smug grin*)

[JasperAvi]

Calling something faith does not revoke its classification as prejudice. They are not mutually exclusive.

[Chucklehound]

There is a difference between prejudice and faith. Believeing something to be true (for example, that eating human flesh is morally wrong) does not make you automatically prejudiced against cannibals. You can condemn the act without condemning the people. To generalise and claim that all members of a religion are prejudiced is unfair.

[mogulwraith]

It is prejudice, what's more its discrimination. Look, people argued similarly that God wanted them to have slaves. The Bible clearly supports slavery. Why do we not have slavery in America? Its because we re-evaluated that behavior and found it to be predjudice and intollerable.

[vinelandoo]

Marriage was a human custom long before Christianity or Judaism was ever heard of,& it was totally secular during times of ancient Egypt. Also,marriage has been redefined many times in the past with legalization of divorce,criminalization of marital rape,legalization of interracial marriage,recognition of women's rights to own property in a marriage,& elimination of parent's right to choose the mate.

[bignastydragon]

how about marriage itself being demoted to a mere religious practice, and the civil partnership being the law binding procedure. bigotted christians can then still decide their laws for marriage and all that can happen is that they lose followers because they are not willing to change.

[bmlee1024]

Good job. Take 8 to the Supreme Court. STRAIGHTS FOR GAY RIGHTS. FIGHT PROP 8.

[jesuriah]

I disagree with the phrase "gay rights" I think "human rights" is more appropriate.

[j025431f]

Amen to that!

The revolution is coming.  Keep speaking out :)

[usurper17]

It's a shame that respected California lawmakers were able to see what you're seeing some months back, yet the voters of California, some even more than twice your age, are too narrow-minded to think thoroughly and logically unbiased on the matter.

That's where the problem lies. Irrational people.

[depfox]

I agree 100%

[RedPandaBoy]

i think that explains it all. It's literall separate but equal.. and it was already ruled during Brown vs the School Board.. that it's not equal.

If we look at our recent history, the answer was already given. But people prefer to be blissfully ignorant and try to make a case that was defeated.

[Beskargam]

Why is separate inherently not equal?

[RedPandaBoy]

the same reason why separate but equal was ruled out by the supreme court in the case Brown vs the School Board.

Because blacks and whites had separate schools, the quality of the two schools were 'different'

Please don't tell me i need ti educate you on the history that ended segregation....

[Beskargam]

But in that case, separate was actually not equal. If you apply the same rights to 2 different things (marriage and civil union) then they would be equal. The quality and rights provided by each would be equal, thus making it actually separate AND equal.

[RedPandaBoy]

But the point of Brown vs the school board was that over time difference will form. If you treat differently, it won't be enforced the same way.

The heart of it was that the government should not acknolwedge such a difference or it won't be able to enforce it the same.

We already have a society that view homosexuals as separate but not equal (the debate over marriage is proof), having the government enforce that will strength the equality.

[Beskargam]

Actually, in Brown vs, the primary problem was that the inequality had been there from the get-go.

If you acknowledge a difference between two things, but make laws that force the two things to be treated identically, then you have separate and equal law.

[RedPandaBoy]

the ruling wouldn't have been the way it was if the supreme court didn't think it was impossible to make it equal.

I understand your reasoning, but if you primary acknowledge a difference, it's that difference that will prevent them from being treated equal.

[Beskargam]

Being treated equally by people, or under the law?

[RedPandaBoy]

under the law. Though let's admit.. the idea of our government is that law rules the country -- but people still enforce those laws.

[RedPandaBoy]

though I can break through all the tit for tat and go down to the heart.

Under the our law, it has two ways of handling civil unions vs marriage.

It's a technical and insignificant difference and treated the same; Or there is a significant difference and an attempt to treat them the same.

[fanficbug]

The protections of Civil Unions do not extend beyond the border of the state in question and no federal protections are included with a Civil Union. Civil Unions offer some of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, but only on a state level.

That last part is important. It's only on a state level. Ergo, not equal.

[Beskargam]

And what would the alternative be? I mean, if a state as socially liberal as California can pass Prop 8, then what chance is there for civil unions to be created on a national level?

If the national gov't did recognize it though, would it be equal?

[fanficbug]

Let me put aside your first question just for a moment, and address your second one first. Your question was "If the national gov't did recognize it though, would it be equal?"

I would say it is only equal if it has the exact same rights, responsibilities, privileges, and connotations as marriage. After all, equal means "the same." My question to you is this: if something is the same, then why is it different? Why does it need to be called by a different name?

[Beskargam]

Well, ideally, it would have all the same rights/responsibilities and so forth but a different name in order to compromise with the people who seem to want marriage to continue to mean what it has meant for so long under American gov't.

[fanficbug]

That would still not solve the issue of connotation. Someone who has a civil union does not have a marriage, and thus:

1. You cannot call your spouse "my husband" or "my wife." That is reserved for marriage.

2. You cannot keep the prejudice out of civil unions, unless straight people were to take them. Some do, but not the amount needed to keep it from becoming an issue of abuse and hatred.

[fanficbug]

3. Some Christians believe that marriage is the only sanctified relationship allowed by God, and yes there are gay Christians. See the documentary "For the Bible Tells Me So" for more information.

4. We still come back to the issue of "separate but equal politics." If you truly believe that people would always be treated the same as their married counterparts, then you are entitled to your optimism, but I can tell you that bigotry is alive and well in this country, and that I am not convinced.

[fanficbug]

To answer your first (two) question(s), let's revisit the last instance of "separate but equal" politics. When the verdict of Brown v. Board of Education came out, it was unpopular in some places. However, there is no question in my mind that the opponents of it were wrong. There may be a majority voting for keeping gays from marrying, just like in some areas (such as in Arkansas, my home state) an overwhelming majority wanted to keep black people from going to the same schools.

[fanficbug]

In fact, years before a great majority of people all across the United States had overwhelmingly supported segregation while a small minority favored slavery. During that time, because the majority thought it was all right, does that make it all right? I would answer no.

The same thing can be applied to each of the arguments I've seen on gay rights. My question is this: will the ban on marriage still seem "right" twenty years from now?

[Beskargam]

The difference is that freedom and education are core values of America. Marriage is not. As for your "20 years from now" question, I can only give the honest answer, "I don't know".

[fanficbug]

I would argue that marriage falls under a privilege as well. Under the "core values of America," that indeed would be not included.

However, the 14th Amendment states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." To me marriage, which is a privilege, would be protected by that.

[Beskargam]

Yeah, but that's statewise, dealing with marriage on a national level is where it really matters.

[fanficbug]

There is already a national law in place! Please tell me you've read at least part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866? Here, I'll quote the first part: "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and territory to make and enforce contracts" . . . there is of course more, but since marriage is a contract it is covered by only that much.

[Beskargam]

Yeah, but marriage is still a word with a definition. Until we have a national definition that doesn't mention the sex of either party, it likely won't change.

[JasperAvi]

Definitions of the word are NOT consistent as MAN AND WOMAN. Proof? Watch the last few minutes of the video again or go to Webster's Dictionary website.

[Beskargam]

I meant the legally accepted definition.

[JasperAvi]

The legally accepted definition is one drawn not from a dictionary or from some script, these things are, more often than not, drawn from the public consciousness crossed with the legality as accepted by the Constitution. And, as referenced in the video, it is legally reprehensible for gays to be barred from marriage.

[Beskargam]

And the perception of the public on definitions is drawn from well, dictionaries.

[fanficbug]

But also connotations.

I will try to make this clear one more time. Civil Unions, even if they were elevated to the same status as marriages, would still have negative connotations, making them inherently unequal to marriages.

Much like schools back before Brown v. the Board of Education were still called schools, and yet some of them were black schools and some of them were white. And despite the fact that their dictionary definitions were the same, they were treated differently.

[fanficbug]

You are confusing connotation with denotation. Connotation: "The emotional implications and associations that words may carry, as distinguished from their denotative meanings." Denotation: "The literal or dictionary definition of a word. Denotation contrasts with connotation." As for your implication that words don't change, I suggest you look into Etymology.

This is the weakest defense you've used yet. Please come up with a GOOD reason why gays should be barred from marrying, if you can.

[Beskargam]

You misunderstand. There ISN'T a good reason why gays shouldn't be married, but I accept that public opinion is against it, which is what really drives a democracy.

[fanficbug]

But the point is that the majority is not always right. And it is the court's duty to make sure the law gets followed. The law is pretty clear to me, stating that everyone should have an equal right to form contracts, and that no state can take away this right. Whether the majority believes it's okay or not does not change the meaning of the laws, and does not change the moral obligation that the courts have to uphold those laws.

[JasperAvi]

If you aren't aware, the United States isn't a democracy. Furthermore, we have a fun little document called the Constitution, from which we draw important things like civil liberties. Shall we leave 1st amendment rights up to populous too?

[Beskargam]

No, but it IS a democratic republic, meaning that we can elect people to change the entire Constitution through amendments (which is populous control by proxy). We're one step above mob rule, and it's not a hell of a big step.

[fanficbug]

As for what the alternative will be? It will be what it has always been for these people: a lot of hoping, a lot of disappointment. A lot of education. And a lot of people never seeing those rights that should have been theirs because of their citizenship to this nation.

I believe that with time, this debate will seem as hateful as the debate on blacks' rights seems now. The injustice of this is that people don't live forever. Some don't have that time, and so will never get that justice.

[vinelandoo]

As long as 31 states allow for lgbt citizens to be dismissed from their jobs & refused public accomodations,as long as there is no fully inclusive hate crimes law,& as long as Don't Ask,Don't Tell policies continue,the atmosphere for marriage equality will remain poisoned.Hopefully,the newly elected Congress & President Obama will bring us

ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act),the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act,& changes in military policy as promised.Then we'll have one more door to open.

[billwenham]

Beautiful. Awesome video. I've posted two similar videos too. Check 'em out.

[Oraokardia]

Very well said and point well proven.

[NemoUtopian]

i find it a bit disturbing that (according to the last stats i heard anyway)60% of Americans are against gay marriage,but 60% are for civil unions.this means that there is 20% that are willing to share everything but a word.

[NemoUtopian]

it is pretty much saying(and legislating)"you can have everything we have,so long as you do not have the nerve to think what you have is equal to what we have."they have the right to think and say that,but not legislate it.

[JasperAvi]

Which is exactly the main problem with trying to make  separate but equal out to be purely equal.

[Isaiah469]

And it is not just about gay marriage it is about the future of our children. If I choose to send my children to public school, they will be taught that gay marriage is the same as straight marriage even though I teach them from the Bible and it says that homosexuality is a sin. Should I tell them that sex before marriage is okay too because I don't want to offend anyone? What about incest? Should I not try to offend those people? It is all sexual sin and should be avoided.

[JasperAvi]

As long as PUBLIC school is funded by PUBLIC taxpayer money, it will and should reflect the matters of fact about society and not that which is promoted by some particular religion. Gay marriages ARE the same as straight marriages: A consensual agreement formed by two adults of appropriate age.

Furthermore, if we are going to start dictating particular action or inaction as sin on the basis of religion, how will we decide who's religion to follow? It's not as if yours is the only one.

[brouhajoe]

Shinto.

[williamcardno]

Feel free to teach your children that wearing fabric made of two threads is evil and abhorrent - not to mention that putting two different seeds in the same crop is a sin - oh, and that love means KILLING ANYONE WHO IS DIFFERENT THAN YOU. Your religion is wonderful - lets all adhere to it.

[Isaiah469]

Good job on hearing something someone else said and passing it off as your own ideas, and then misquoting it anyways... The bible never says to, "kill anyone who is different than you." People in the bible have been put to death because of their sins yes. If you followed all the teachings of Christianity you would be the most peaceful person on the earth, so try not to take a passage that you don't understand and try to say that the bible is teaches to kill everyone who doesn't argee w/ it.

[ApplyUrBrain]

Oh please. Get a grip. Today God would be thrown in prison before you could say, "Kill people at the drop of a pin." He loved slavery, told people where to buy their slaves & allowed owners to beat their slaves to a pulp, provided they didn't die within a couple of days of it. God had 2 bears eat 42 kids just for being kids, making fun of a bald guy. God sent people on genocidal rampages, to kill man, woman, child, even pets—except were allowed to keep the virgins as their reward! Get real.

[Isaiah469]

This issue is a MORAL issue. Homosexuals have not been given the right to marry because thus far society has not wanted to indorse this moral behavior. Only now as sexuality has been distanced from morality has this behavior been started to be accepted. Sex outside of a husband and a wife is wrong, period. Homosexuality cannot produce life, but it does produce a wide variety of disease and death. Fact. This is evidence that it is wrong in God's sight but of course you may not believe in God.

[JasperAvi]

Only those confused by a 2000 year old book can somehow equate "not sleeping with a person of a the same sex" to be a moral issue on par with "don't kill another human being". There is a very clear disconnect between the two as one is a matter of social disruption and the other is merely an allowance for love and care. If you can't see that you're hopeless.

Furthermore, so long as the appropriate amount of protection is used it is safe and completely harmless.

[Isaiah469]

I didn't compare the to, they are both moral issues, yes, don't I didn't compare them. With homosexuality it clearly goes against the obvious design of sex and relationship. We clearly see the design of marriage and of the family. That image is being destroyed, and not just by homosexuality, but including it. You have to agree that the best example for a family is a man and a woman (who aren't crazy of course) raising children. There is no stronger unit than this type of loving family.

[Isaiah469]

As far as "safe sex" goes. You should NEVER have to "protect" yourself from your parnter. We were never meant to put condoms or any other contraption on. That the best situation is to have one life long sexual partner of the opposite sex, then you don't have to worry about any type of STD of course as long as they are faithful too. Hey I don't think of gays as any better/worse than a promiscuous person, the difference is that gays want to be defined by their sin and for us to embrace it i can't

[ApplyUrBrain]

Both my comments are replies to Isaiah469. Read other comment first. Look, YOUR GOD behaved in those evil ways (it's all in your BIBLE!), and then you have the nerve to suggest we should take our queues on morality from this character??? What a joke! Pick some obscure ancient texts & ues 'em to club people just for being different, while ignoring this Elephant God in the living room. Read the Old Testament. He behaved immorally, the most notorious serial killer in history, & for no good reasons!

[Isaiah469]

You have a lot of false assumptions. Gay marriage is a slippery slope. One, a British woman already and a non-legal marriage to a dolphin, you can google it. Two, there is a push to remove the age of consent laws so that eventually someone could married a 12 yr old. And three, if gay marriage what about polygamy, shouldn't we allow that? That is what polygamy supports are already saying. And we can date marriage back 1000s of yrs being man and woman but now it has to change its almost funny

[JasperAvi]

Where to start...

1) The fact that the woman married a dolphin, assuming she did, has nothing to do with gay marriage.

2) Age of consent is relevant to when we believe an individual is able to coherently enter into a relationship or partake in particular actions. This too has no relation to homosexuality.

3) One thousand years ago where? Native American tribes, less than a thousand years ago, praised homosexual marriage/relationships.

[Isaiah469]

It all has to do with marriage and this is what this is about. And yes age of concent has a lot of do with gay marriage. NAMBLA "North American Man Boy Love Association" is at many gay rallies marches at parades and are among the groups trying to repeal the age of consent.  Well we know that Israel has been practicing marriage between man and for at least 3500 years, I would say longer, but to be conservative at least then.

[JasperAvi]

LOL

Israel was established as a state in 1948. That's 60 years. If you mean the hebrews, again that's one culture. We can't base marriage as such on the practices of one culture.

Furthermore, NAMBLA showing up at gay rallies is completely irrelevant. Try to stay with relevant responses, and steer clear of making insulting references please.

[CitizenWorm]

You should have started making videos long ago my friend. Good job.

[JasperAvi]

Thanks:)

I appreciate the support!

[yassau]

I agree!

[jacksoga789]

separate but equal... reminds me of "animal farm--- some are more equal than others"

[brouhajoe]

Right. And to go even further on the history of marriage, there are historic examples of homosexual marriage in Native America and Africa not only being practiced, but praised as a holy endeavor.

[JasperAvi]

Awesome point.

I completely forgot to mention that it was recognized and treasured by many Native American tribes.

[Z3vZ3vZ3v]

Unfortunately several Native American tribes/nations have been passing or attempting to pass bans on same-sex marriage in the past decade, including Cherokee and Navajo, the latter of whose president actually vetoed the ban.

[brouhajoe]

True, and unfortunate yes, but a separate issue from pointing out examples of homosexual marriage in history. The point in doing so is to show that the term "traditional marriage" is relative to culture, not to history, as homosexual marriage has existed in many different cultures throughout history.

[Isaiah469]

We can also show civilations that worshipped their gods while scraficing their children to fire. Does that justify killing babies? Because that was practiced by many different cultures throughout different time periods.

[JasperAvi]

It shows that morality is something taken culture by culture, generation by generation. It is subjective, relative, the same way that "real marriage" is subjective.

[brouhajoe]

1st, pointing out that homosexual marriage has existed throughout history is a counter argument to the false notion, perpetuated by those against equal rights, that marriage has "always" been between a man and a woman, and that we are now trying to change that. It is not an endorsement of homosexual marriage, it's a correction of the historical record on that fact.

2nd, your example is not analogous, as it involves victims, where marriage does not.

[i3muda2005]

But they don't make babies the same lmao. Just messing around, good video Avi.

[JasperAvi]

Speaking from experience? Have you tried!?

[rkearns1985]

Thank you so much!!!! I have trouble thinking of arguments but you have helped me so MUCH thank you... Now i know what to say... With full time work and school i have not had the time to look things up about facts... LOL thats why i love youtube!!!

[JasperAvi]

Welcome, my pleasure.

[AtheistAtLARGE]

you're too smart for me

[heinz57girl]

You made excellent points and it was a pleasure to watch. Keep going! Share your genius with the world!

[Z3vZ3vZ3v]

Great video, good points raised. However I do feel that political/judicial recognition of marriage doesn't give it any more credit due to these factors being heavily (originally or nowadays) influenced by religion. Marriage is a religious institution, and using it as a template for various rights granted to couples is but a severe breach of the separation of church and state so lauded by this country (a separation which I of course agree with).

[JasperAvi]

The only reason I'll disagree there is because of, as I raised in the video, the historicity of marriage is not entirely traced or traceable.

As such, it's unlikely we can assess marriage as something of a religious nature.

[Z3vZ3vZ3v]

The argument can go both ways. Since the historicity of marriage can't be entirely traced, neither can the historicity of it being anything judicial or political. Marriage, along with both its legal and its religious properties all manifested together.

[JasperAvi]

Thus it is what we make it. It can be political if so chosen to be, just as it can be religious if so chosen to be. But, as I said, even if it could be traced back to religious roots, there is no reason why a term or concept cannot be adopted into a new sector of society.