Be Woke, It's Much Easier Than Thinking!

Post Reply New Topic

So, like petulant children (which is how I am starting to view them and their supporters), the "woke" cult would prefer to have a tantrum until they get everything they want, rather than trying to find a compromise position?

They seem unwilling\uninterested in conforming to society in general, yet expect that same society to change in order to accomodate their every whim...

Why should people be forced to conform to what you say is normal.

Okay, lets talk a compromise. What is your base opinion that you want the other side to compromise against?

As I have been suggestion: remove "marriage" as a legal term, replace with "civil union" for "two consenting adults".

At that point, there is nothing to stop whoever claiming they are "married" as it has no legal definition. Civil celebrants can hold "weddings"\"marriage ceremonies"\whatever the "woke" term may be, etc., with everyone being "equal" in law, and people being able to determine whether to use "marriage" for their "civil union", or some other term, as they wish.

You would see much less push-back from those who see the "marriage equality" as a way to force religions to change their beliefs to suit a group who are not following the tenets of that religion, and with the only change being the words on the paperwork, most people wouldn't be concerned, seeing the "marriage" being related to the ceremony.

And maybe you should consider your initial question in a different way: Why should the majority of the population be expected to make what they may see as major changes\concessions to suit a minority who do not appear interested in compromise\changing their own expectations\behaviour\...?

Compromise means that both sides have to give something up to meet in the middle.

The other side's starting opinion is not at marriage, they want complete freedom from discrimination for loving the people that they are attracted to so that it receives the exact same with no distinction treatment with straight couples. This opinion exist not only in the legal definition but the social definition, where no child will be bullied for having a different sexual orientation, nor a lack of prestige held from the people that make up the couple being unable to make children with each other. This position will require that the movement make it impossible that someone would be called something like gay as an insult, and that their choice in partner would be seen different from straights including in historical legitimacy.

The best compromise would thus be to have their partnerships called marriages too, especially since there has never been any historical restrictions placed onto people who were not religious in getting married. The concept of marriage exists across many different cultures and religions, and thus no single current religion can impose their concept. You don't get to choose where the compromises meet, especially since gay people are still going to be facing a huge amount of discrimination regardless, where they are going to be harassed, bullied and still have their relationships treated as lesser because two men can't usually have a baby together. Those things are not going to be achievable until quite a long time when people stop being uncomfortable with same sex parents and methods of becoming a parent other than one parents impregnates the other and get seen as quite analogous.

If you want to look an alternative example that would be more along the lines of what you are asking for, it would be like the banning of the terms Christmas, where instead people will have to say "Happy Holidays", because saying Christmas is apparently offensive to other religions. Christians supposedly lose their minds at this supposedly being a thing. If marriage was removed from the defacto legal importance, you would just get a lot of Christians complaining that society is crumbling from not seeing marriage as important anymore, and they will act like the concept of marriage is under attack.

And so we return to the petulant child's approach...The best approach is that we give up nothing while the majority make changes to suit our agenda.

Had you taken the time to see what I had typed, you would have seen that people could call their ceremonies whatever they wanted, so you would have your "marriage" if that is what you were after.

However, under your approach, instead of getting legal equality, and using this (along with the ability to call the ceremony a "marriage") to allow the public to aclimatise to the change and so resulting in the change you want, you would rather throw a tantrum to try and FORCE people to your will.

And the "woke" wonder why people have such a low opinion of them..."Do what WE want, or we will throw a tantrum until you do".

No, I took the time to read what you wrote, I just don't think that it is enough. It would actually affect more people to force their relationships to then be called civil unions, it is much less work for everyone to just include more people in what is a marriage.

Please don't throw a tantrum and call me a child or imply that I am "woke" because you disagree with my opinion. Over 60% of the people who voted in the vote of to allow it said yes, those who disagree were the minority. If the people think that the civil unions thing would have been better, then that should have been put into a vote. The public had been acclimating for quite a long time for the idea of gay marriage, some people just seem to have missed it. The minority of people who disagree should not force the majority who said same sex marriage is fine.

Or do you have some thought that your opinion is the more natural and correct one? What problem do you have with gay, lesbian and bisexual people getting married? How does it actually affect you?

In simple terms...The legal name would be "civil union", but people were free to call it marriage\whatever they wanted, which I'm sure I have indicated on multiple occasions.

I can see you're not bothering to make an effort to understand what I have been saying, so at this point, I'm not going to bother further with wasting my time continuing this discussion.

No, I have made an effort to understand what you are saying, I would like to think that I know it pretty well.

You want marriage to be kept between a man and a woman, and this will be called a civil union in the legal sense, which those in homosexual relationships can also get but call it something else. You then what every legislation that includes marriage be changed to instead have civil union, which would require a lot of work. You are saying that you think that marriage is a sacred that has a historic attachment just to opposite sex couple, within religion, and so the government has no right to change the legal definition of that word itself. You think that doing this will cause less confusion than the alternative of changing the legal definition of marriage? Did I get anything wrong?

I just disagree that this would be a fair trade for equality. I think that the term marriage and married has become separated from its old religious roots, and is evidenced enough that married people already receive benefits while the country is also secular. So in recognising same sex couples as just as equal as opposite sex couples, it would be simpler for everyone's sake to just change the legal definition of marriage. After all it would be much simpler than to alter older legislation to change it to civil union that could be missed, and creating legitimization of the LGB. Did I get anything wrong here?

Please correct anything I said here that is incorrect.

I know I'm going to regret this...But one last try.

What I said was:
Replace "marriage" in laws with "civil union" (simple change, minimal fuss probably).
Define "civil union" as being between 2 consenting adults" (simple change, minimal fuss probably).

At this stage, you have the "marriage equality" - there is no difference between any couple.

The actual ceremony can be named as wished by those involved.

This way, you would have what was wanted (equality), can call the union a "marriage" if you wanted, and (almost) everyone is happy.

The approach taken, however, involved a forced redefinition of a term which was not required, and was approached in a way guaranteed to turn people away from your cause...This way, with the removal of the "legal definition", you could call any union a "marriage", and there would be much less push-back\resistance. Even better, if you didn't mention that component, just push for redefinition, and rename so as to ensure "equality", there would have been more than the 60% approval.

Taking a combative approach, as the "woke" seem to prefer, puts people off-side, when a conciliatory approach, stating what you wanted "marriage equality", but suggesting a compromise position, would result in more support.

I hope this is easy to understand.

The reason your approach wouldn't be enough from what I've gathered over time watching as an objective party is that the crux of the issue is acceptance. Proponents feel that people at large have not accepted at large that same sex marriage is equal to hetero marriage and for proponents, that needed to change.

Playing devil's advocate here, the way you describe would be taken by proponents to mean:

"Legally let's make it where anyone can be legally joined to anyone else and then we can continue to personally call that union whatever we wish. We can choose to call it marriage or we can choose to personally define marriage in ways that we personally see fit and that definition might be counter to the way you'd like it to be (on either side).

That doesn't solve the proponents' problem because it does little toward people at large accepting that it's the same. Changing the laws to force religious institutions, for example, to accept that it's the same is forcing acceptance. Acceptance is the goal here. Not "You call it what you want and I'll call it what I want."

With a lot of things in the world there are people that feel that unless everyone else thinks what they do or what they believe is "Ok" and acceptable, even if they believe it's "Ok" and acceptable....it troubles them and they don't feel accepted/acceptable unless other people do.

The advantage of this option is that once the legally equal bit is taken care of, the use of "marriage" for either "traditional" or "new" union will become mainstream with little push-back.

The alternative, which is what the "woke" push for, seeks to force this acceptance (and often to force religious institutions to perform these ceremonies, even where it goes against that institutions tenets) and antagonises both the religious and traditionalists.

In one way, you get what you want with minimal opposition, but it may take slightly longer for the terminology to become mainstream. In the other, you antagonise a large portion of the population in a push for "instant" acceptance, with this antagonism likely to follow for any other "campaign" you may have in the future, taking considerably longer to allow the "acceptance" you wanted to become mainstream.

Most reasonable people would take the compromise position, knowing that it's better to get most of what you want (which can be used as a starting point to push for "more" a little later) while keeping a large portion of the population onside, than to demand everything you want, but end with a large section of the population set against you and any future causes you may have.

The sad part is that over here, the "woke" took the "Give us everything we want" approach, then seemed surprised that a large portion of the population were offended by this and campaigned heavily against them...Were the roles reversed and they were being told to change something that had meaning to them, so as to abide with the rest of the population's expectations, they would be having a huge tantrum.

Unfortunately, the approach they take to these sorts of things sets their desire for "acceptance" back, whereas trying to work with others would speed this process up.

I am sorry if I am not understanding, but this looks like it is the exact same result. You change the laws to have civil unions instead of changing the definition of "marriage", but then you are changing or creating a new definition for marriage anyway by saying any civil union could be a marriage. If every same sex couple called their civil union "marriage" (thus married), all you have effectively done is needlessly created more work in altering all the relevant laws. What is gained from doing it this way?




Do you know that this is a fact, and not that they would have to rewrite like a hundred different pieces of legislation, mostly replacing a single word, but have to possibly go through a length process to have each one signed off? And there is always the chance that some obscure legislation might be missed. As opposed to just changing a single legislation that defines marriage. I am not a law expert, I took some law subjects as part of my bachelor, but I think that would be a lot of work.

Wait, how does changing the legal definition of marriage force churches to accept that definition for their own beliefs and makes them have to perform the ceremonies. Do you have any proof that since this has happened that religious institutions have.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-02/ssm-churches-cant-forced-to-marry-same-sex-couples-if-yes-wins/8997154

I am really confused, where did you hear that churches would be forced to marry gay men after the law was changed?

This only gives churches the option to marry same sex couples if they want to.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-15/same-sex-marriage-uniting-church-gives-ministers-right-to-decide/9995602

There is no repercussions if they choose not to.
https://theconversation.com/same-sex-marriage-is-legal-so-why-have-churches-been-so-slow-to-embrace-it-91564