Actually if you read a little more carefully he advocated a position where everyone wouldn't be free to think and express their opinions. He said those thoughts should be illegal. That is why I made the Stalin/Hitler comment.
He went back later and added the the "not really" part but I responded to what I saw in the post, not the edit after my reply.
Nick
I read his post too and it was perfectly obvious that he wasn't serious. He was making a point using one of the oldest rhetorical devices in the book.
He's arguing in favour of tolerance and you've latched onto his use of irony in an attempt to make him look an extremist rather than debating the matter at hand. It's unnecessary.
If this choice is "irrational" then what is Roe v. Wade which was based on nothing but lies? Roe claimed she was raped when she wasn't. Does that mean the Supreme Court made an ignorant decision regarding abortion?
No, because that's not what the decision was about. It was about privacy.
Quote:
Finally I mentioned that there were "suburbanite" gay couples as well. I even mentioned that my uncle happens to be one of them. I also have an aunt who is a lesbian. I studied music education in Long Beach. (which is basically the So Cal version of San Francisco) I assure you I have met and encountered about as many homosexuals as one can encounter. They are in my family, they have been my fraternity brothers, they have been my co-workers, roommates, you name it.
well, aren't you worldly!
Quote:
That is why I (in case you hadn't read or noticed while pitching a fit) support civil unions with the same full legal rights as marriage. If a rose, as you mentioned, would smell just as sweet even if called another name, why would a civil union be any different than a marriage if the rights, and responsibilities listed under each is the same?
You can either fight the past, or move on to the future. Marriage is a word used in the past. It has various baggage associated with both religious and patriachal. I advocated civil unions not only for homosexuals but for heterosexuals who are uncomfortable with the baggage associated with the historical term marriage. How am I treating a group different when I advocate the same thing for both homosexuals and heterosexuals? Under law both would be the same and you would have churches off your back not thinking that you are stealing their history and attempting to rewrite it with a state institution.
Show me the losers in this scenario before you continue to rail against nothing.
Again with the attempts to own a word. Who are the losers? If the state says that religion x can't use the word 'marriage' for a same-sex union, then it's pretty ****ing obvious who the losers are.
giant, I agree with your arguments, and thank you Hassan for defending me...
I just think that if gay marriage was allowed but as a consolation it was called "civil union" instead, that would be a major step in the right direction. No, it won't be the end of the problems. When women got the right to vote in 1920, that wasn't the end to the oppression of women, which still goes on today (to a lesser extent, but it's there). Just because the slaves were freed as a result of the civil war didn't mean that all blacks were immediately treated as equals.
I agree that in a perfect world, we'd immediately accept everyone and their own beliefs for who they are without question. But there's no such thing as a perfect world so in the interest of making those against gay marriage a bit more inclined to support it, I take the viewpoint that the more moderate term of "civil union" is acceptable. For now. As time goes on, gays will be emancipated just as blacks and women have. It just takes time, compromise, and sacrifice.
I just think that if gay marriage was allowed but as a consolation it was called "civil union" instead, that would be a major step in the right direction... It just takes time, compromise, and sacrifice. [/B]
I agree 100%.
The problem, however, is that these folks are saying that a religion can't perform a same-sex marriage, even though a civil union would be permitted. It makes no sense, and ends up controlling religion unconstitutionally.
And maybe that's the context it needs to be put in. Any ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional control of religion by the state.
Marriage is: a) a union between two people for religious reasons, b) a check box on your tax forms so you can pay more taxes than you did when the both of you were single individuals.
Two people can "love" each other and be committed to each other for the remainder of their lives without being married.
Marriage is: a) a union between two people for religious reasons, b) a check box on your tax forms so you can pay more taxes than you did when the both of you were single individuals.
c) the ability to visit your loved one in the hospital.
d) a legal and binding contract.
What else have I missed? Why don't others that know more add 'e' through 'zzz' so we can decide if there are reasons outside of religion and taxes that make marriage essential for all civilians in the great bastion of freedom known as the United States of America.
a) very much a sacrament of religious beliefs. Marriage is the union of two people before God.
c)you don't have to be married for this to be true... where did this arguement come from?!
e) not necessarily.... an estate can be set up with joint ownership and right of survival without marriage. That's what trusts do - additionally, marriage does not in any way garauntee survivor benefits... a house can be a tenancy in whole even if a couple is married. In that case there is no automatic spousal ownership.
a) very much a sacrament of religious beliefs. Marriage is the union of two people before God.
Marriage predates all modern religions, with the possible exception of Hinduism, so any religious signifigance was tacked on later.
Quote:
c)you don't have to be married for this to be true... where did this arguement come from?!
In many hospital situations you can't visit a person in intensive care or in certain areas unless you are family. Gay lovers, under current laws, can never qualify as "family," and thus many gays die alone in cold dark rooms without the comfort of their loved ones, all because we can't marry.
Quote:
e) not necessarily.... an estate can be set up with joint ownership and right of survival without marriage.
We'd still be slammed with estate taxes, unlike straight married couples, which could cause use to lose our homes or businesses.
Okay, i'll bite, I hate to hit these topics that are personal in nature, despite the politics. I myself don't see homosexuals as being natural, present your arguments, it's moot, I won't be swayed from my conviction on this. But as a person with high regard for the American "ideals", I'd like to see same sex unions legalized. Hell half of the US sees it as wrong but what the hell, half of heterosexual unions are apparently wrong. Live and let live, I don't care who you ****, just don't try to **** me. No, seriously, gay people are peeps too, they do deserve the same rights despite my or anyone else's personal reservations. Statisically the gay population also do better financially and educationally than the heterosexual population. Conclusion they are productive members of society, so step you ignorant mofos.
Statisically the gay population also do better financially and educationally than the heterosexual population.
That's something of a warped statistic. The truth is probably that, demographically, gays and lesbians are no different than other Americans in terms of income or education. However, since higher education and income are tied together and higher education tends towards political liberalism, educated gays and lesbians are more likely than their less educated counterparts to come out and be publicly professed as gay.
Yes, I'll conceed that, but it is difficult to include closeted homosexuals in statistics, and statistics are always skewed. That is why they are always updated and it probably best to look at sets of statistics over a given period to make a more accurate analysis. But still those statistics are what I hear. But back to the point, homosexuals are productive members of society and should be afforded the same rights, privleges and protections as every other productive member of society, my personal feelings on the nature of it notwithstanding.
And frankly there are some 420 or so rights and privileges both state and federal that straight people have access to when they marry in this country that are denied to gays, no matter how long the gay partnership lasts, due to a lack of civil union or marriage rights. I want access to all of them. Every single one.
Kirkland, Unfortunatly with our compartmentalized system that is going to take time, a whole lot of it. Hope you are patient, really really patient, or have an ass load of money, lobbyists and lawyers.
That they are valid reasons to support marriage for gays. That's the list I was asking we create, to show that there are reasons outside of religion and taxes.
Kirkland, Unfortunatly with our compartmentalized system that is going to take time, a whole lot of it. Hope you are patient, really really patient, or have an ass load of money, lobbyists and lawyers.
I think instead I'll move to Canada. This country is going down the fundamentalist toilet anyway.
a) very much a sacrament of religious beliefs. Marriage is the union of two people before God.
In my country, I can marry my girlfriend in a civil ceremony at Hackney Town Hall.
Neither of us believe in the existence of the One True God of Abraham, Siva the Destroyer, Obatala of the Yoruba, or any deity of any kind. There would be no priest there, no mention of God in the ceremony and no-one will sing any hymns. If we choose to do this it'll because we want to commit to each-other for a number of years, not to legitimise our union in the sight of any Church or presiding temple deity.
Can you do this in your country too? We call this a 'Civil Marriage' in Britain.
Secondly, regarding the semantic question of what 'marriage' means, you can marry terracotta floor paint with grey walls. It looks good. You can marry a cinema flat panel monitor with a G4 PowerBook if you have the space, and an iPod with a Windows machine, too. You can also have a civil marriage of two people, and I see no good reason why those two people shouldn't both be women if they understand the nature of the commitment they're making.
Who the FECK are you to impose meaning on the words of the language I use to agree with your ideological understanding of the world and YOUR understanding of love and commitment?
Finally, you're free to object to homosexuality as being 'against nature' until you're blue in the face. I would like you to stop using your refridgerator, watching television and contemplating your SCUBA holiday in Sharm-el-Sheik. I would like you to campaign against smoking, surgery with anaesthesia and make-up.
I'd also like you to refuse your next offer of a blow-job. This might be hard but it's the price of consistency.
Unbelievable. Our teacher at uni is always saying that the powers that be are all being puppetted, maybe there's more truth in what he says than I thought. But from this, it just looks like scared little Howard is being a sheep following Bush's shadow.
Nothing makes me more angry than people who don't make their own decisions.
Does he honestly think that the survival of the species depends on gay marriage? Cripes, I thought people were smarter than that. It's not going to stop people being gay, John.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Actually if you read a little more carefully he advocated a position where everyone wouldn't be free to think and express their opinions. He said those thoughts should be illegal. That is why I made the Stalin/Hitler comment.
He went back later and added the the "not really" part but I responded to what I saw in the post, not the edit after my reply.
Nick
I read his post too and it was perfectly obvious that he wasn't serious. He was making a point using one of the oldest rhetorical devices in the book.
He's arguing in favour of tolerance and you've latched onto his use of irony in an attempt to make him look an extremist rather than debating the matter at hand. It's unnecessary.
Originally posted by trumptman
If this choice is "irrational" then what is Roe v. Wade which was based on nothing but lies? Roe claimed she was raped when she wasn't. Does that mean the Supreme Court made an ignorant decision regarding abortion?
No, because that's not what the decision was about. It was about privacy.
Finally I mentioned that there were "suburbanite" gay couples as well. I even mentioned that my uncle happens to be one of them. I also have an aunt who is a lesbian. I studied music education in Long Beach. (which is basically the So Cal version of San Francisco) I assure you I have met and encountered about as many homosexuals as one can encounter. They are in my family, they have been my fraternity brothers, they have been my co-workers, roommates, you name it.
well, aren't you worldly!
That is why I (in case you hadn't read or noticed while pitching a fit) support civil unions with the same full legal rights as marriage. If a rose, as you mentioned, would smell just as sweet even if called another name, why would a civil union be any different than a marriage if the rights, and responsibilities listed under each is the same?
You can either fight the past, or move on to the future. Marriage is a word used in the past. It has various baggage associated with both religious and patriachal. I advocated civil unions not only for homosexuals but for heterosexuals who are uncomfortable with the baggage associated with the historical term marriage. How am I treating a group different when I advocate the same thing for both homosexuals and heterosexuals? Under law both would be the same and you would have churches off your back not thinking that you are stealing their history and attempting to rewrite it with a state institution.
Show me the losers in this scenario before you continue to rail against nothing.
Again with the attempts to own a word. Who are the losers? If the state says that religion x can't use the word 'marriage' for a same-sex union, then it's pretty ****ing obvious who the losers are.
1. rallying anti-gay conservatives and moderates to a "moral" cause
2. keeping the tax revenue stream from shrinking, which would make this administration's financial performance look even worse than it does.]
There, is that better than my original novel?
I just think that if gay marriage was allowed but as a consolation it was called "civil union" instead, that would be a major step in the right direction. No, it won't be the end of the problems. When women got the right to vote in 1920, that wasn't the end to the oppression of women, which still goes on today (to a lesser extent, but it's there). Just because the slaves were freed as a result of the civil war didn't mean that all blacks were immediately treated as equals.
I agree that in a perfect world, we'd immediately accept everyone and their own beliefs for who they are without question. But there's no such thing as a perfect world so in the interest of making those against gay marriage a bit more inclined to support it, I take the viewpoint that the more moderate term of "civil union" is acceptable. For now. As time goes on, gays will be emancipated just as blacks and women have. It just takes time, compromise, and sacrifice.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
I just think that if gay marriage was allowed but as a consolation it was called "civil union" instead, that would be a major step in the right direction... It just takes time, compromise, and sacrifice. [/B]
I agree 100%.
The problem, however, is that these folks are saying that a religion can't perform a same-sex marriage, even though a civil union would be permitted. It makes no sense, and ends up controlling religion unconstitutionally.
And maybe that's the context it needs to be put in. Any ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional control of religion by the state.
Two people can "love" each other and be committed to each other for the remainder of their lives without being married.
Originally posted by fahlman
Marriage is: a) a union between two people for religious reasons, b) a check box on your tax forms so you can pay more taxes than you did when the both of you were single individuals.
c) the ability to visit your loved one in the hospital.
d) a legal and binding contract.
What else have I missed? Why don't others that know more add 'e' through 'zzz' so we can decide if there are reasons outside of religion and taxes that make marriage essential for all civilians in the great bastion of freedom known as the United States of America.
f) having your spouse covered on your insurance
a) very much a sacrament of religious beliefs. Marriage is the union of two people before God.
c)you don't have to be married for this to be true... where did this arguement come from?!
e) not necessarily.... an estate can be set up with joint ownership and right of survival without marriage. That's what trusts do - additionally, marriage does not in any way garauntee survivor benefits... a house can be a tenancy in whole even if a couple is married. In that case there is no automatic spousal ownership.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
in regards to....
a) very much a sacrament of religious beliefs. Marriage is the union of two people before God.
Marriage predates all modern religions, with the possible exception of Hinduism, so any religious signifigance was tacked on later.
c)you don't have to be married for this to be true... where did this arguement come from?!
In many hospital situations you can't visit a person in intensive care or in certain areas unless you are family. Gay lovers, under current laws, can never qualify as "family," and thus many gays die alone in cold dark rooms without the comfort of their loved ones, all because we can't marry.
e) not necessarily.... an estate can be set up with joint ownership and right of survival without marriage.
We'd still be slammed with estate taxes, unlike straight married couples, which could cause use to lose our homes or businesses.
Kirk
Originally posted by LiquidR
Statisically the gay population also do better financially and educationally than the heterosexual population.
That's something of a warped statistic. The truth is probably that, demographically, gays and lesbians are no different than other Americans in terms of income or education. However, since higher education and income are tied together and higher education tends towards political liberalism, educated gays and lesbians are more likely than their less educated counterparts to come out and be publicly professed as gay.
Kirk
And frankly there are some 420 or so rights and privileges both state and federal that straight people have access to when they marry in this country that are denied to gays, no matter how long the gay partnership lasts, due to a lack of civil union or marriage rights. I want access to all of them. Every single one.
Kirk
Originally posted by Kirkland
Bunge, what do you mean "all look good?"
That they are valid reasons to support marriage for gays. That's the list I was asking we create, to show that there are reasons outside of religion and taxes.
Originally posted by LiquidR
Kirkland, Unfortunatly with our compartmentalized system that is going to take time, a whole lot of it. Hope you are patient, really really patient, or have an ass load of money, lobbyists and lawyers.
I think instead I'll move to Canada. This country is going down the fundamentalist toilet anyway.
Kirk
Originally posted by OBJRA10
a) very much a sacrament of religious beliefs. Marriage is the union of two people before God.
In my country, I can marry my girlfriend in a civil ceremony at Hackney Town Hall.
Neither of us believe in the existence of the One True God of Abraham, Siva the Destroyer, Obatala of the Yoruba, or any deity of any kind. There would be no priest there, no mention of God in the ceremony and no-one will sing any hymns. If we choose to do this it'll because we want to commit to each-other for a number of years, not to legitimise our union in the sight of any Church or presiding temple deity.
Can you do this in your country too? We call this a 'Civil Marriage' in Britain.
Secondly, regarding the semantic question of what 'marriage' means, you can marry terracotta floor paint with grey walls. It looks good. You can marry a cinema flat panel monitor with a G4 PowerBook if you have the space, and an iPod with a Windows machine, too. You can also have a civil marriage of two people, and I see no good reason why those two people shouldn't both be women if they understand the nature of the commitment they're making.
Who the FECK are you to impose meaning on the words of the language I use to agree with your ideological understanding of the world and YOUR understanding of love and commitment?
Finally, you're free to object to homosexuality as being 'against nature' until you're blue in the face. I would like you to stop using your refridgerator, watching television and contemplating your SCUBA holiday in Sharm-el-Sheik. I would like you to campaign against smoking, surgery with anaesthesia and make-up.
I'd also like you to refuse your next offer of a blow-job. This might be hard but it's the price of consistency.
I thought I could trust our Prime Minister.
I honestly thought that we finally had an honest, decent politician that was all for representing Australia & Australians.
Below are two reports from our newspapers, only this morning this was in the paper:
Link:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/we...aug2003-43.htm
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...55E421,00.html
Unbelievable. Our teacher at uni is always saying that the powers that be are all being puppetted, maybe there's more truth in what he says than I thought. But from this, it just looks like scared little Howard is being a sheep following Bush's shadow.
Nothing makes me more angry than people who don't make their own decisions.
Does he honestly think that the survival of the species depends on gay marriage? Cripes, I thought people were smarter than that. It's not going to stop people being gay, John.
Jimzip
(Note the lack of my usual: