A fair few homosexuals got very exercised on these boards some time ago when I made a comment about Tim Cook coming out and his stance on gay marriage. I wanted to separate the institution of marriage, which after all is a religious institution that goes back to a time when culture and religion were one and the same. This is surprising to people in this day and age who do not realise that prior to the past 500 years, it was obvious to everyone who ever lived that the Earth and the heavenly bodies and people were created by some type of literal creator god. And if you had lived 500 years ago that is how you would think.
Now you see the mess that people like Tim Cook can create with their muddled thinking. By people like Tim Cook I mean, people who think that equal rights for homosexuals means equal everything without limit and that include appropriating words like 'marriage', which is obviously only between a man and a woman. These days people are free to change their sex, or have surrogate children and these 'rights', have become muddied and muddled.
In this instance Tim is correct in that the laws being passed under religious freedom are just bullshit ways to discriminate against homosexuals. And this is the mess you get into when gay people want to appropriate religious institutions. Non discrimination against gay people (as well as race, gender etc) should be a given and should be enshrined in law that cannot be over ridden by bullshit legislation about 'religious freedom' which basically is asking for freedom to abuse other people.
The tenet, 'your freedom ends where my nose begins, is true in this case.
Now the point I'm making is that Gay Marriage, (as opposed to a civil ceremony that bestows the exact same rights as marriage) is an issue that requires some deep thinking especially with regards to adopting children. I'm just saying that it needs a lot of reasoned thought and debate. But what happened is a knee jerk reaction from people like Tim who think that gay people can just appropriate the word 'marriage' and that is some type of 'non discrimination'. And the point is that now it undermines the correct point that Tim is now making.
The current legislation that Tim is opposing is obviously wrong and dangerous were it to be passed, but the gay marriage thing on the other hand is really just a trivial and petulant desire to appropriate a word. And this is the result of mixing up the trivial with genuine human rights.
A fair few homosexuals got very exercised on these boards some time ago when I made a comment about Tim Cook coming out and his stance on gay marriage. I wanted to separate the institution of marriage, which after all is a religious institution that goes back to a time when culture and religion were one and the same. This is surprising to people in this day and age who do not realise that prior to the past 500 years, it was obvious to everyone who ever lived that the Earth and the heavenly bodies and people were created by some type of literal creator god. And if you had lived 500 years ago that is how you would think.
Now you see the mess that people like Tim Cook can create with their muddled thinking. By people like Tim Cook I mean, people who think that equal rights for homosexuals means equal everything without limit and that include appropriating words like 'marriage', which is obviously only between a man and a woman. These days people are free to change their sex, or have surrogate children and these 'rights', have become muddied and muddled.
In this instance Tim is correct in that the laws being passed under religious freedom are just bullshit ways to discriminate against homosexuals. And this is the mess you get into when gay people want to appropriate religious institutions. Non discrimination against gay people (as well as race, gender etc) should be a given and should be enshrined in law that cannot be over ridden by bullshit legislation about 'religious freedom' which basically is asking for freedom to abuse other people.
The tenet, 'your freedom ends where my nose begins, is true in this case.
Now the point I'm making is that Gay Marriage, (as opposed to a civil ceremony that bestows the exact same rights as marriage) is an issue that requires some deep thinking especially with regards to adopting children. I'm just saying that it needs a lot of reasoned thought and debate. But what happened is a knee jerk reaction from people like Tim who think that gay people can just appropriate the word 'marriage' and that is some type of 'non discrimination'. And the point is that now it undermines the correct point that Tim is now making.
The current legislation that Tim is opposing is obviously wrong and dangerous were it to be passed, but the gay marriage thing on the other hand is really just a trivial and petulant desire to appropriate a word. And this is the result of mixing up the trivial with genuine human rights.
I think that they are only trying to appropriate the rights and benefits that are accorded to the institution of marriage. The fact, that in a secular country civil marriage has become intimately convolved with the religious meaning, is hardly their fault.
I think that they are only trying to appropriate the rights and benefits that are accorded to the institution of marriage. The fact, that in a secular country civil marriage has become intimately convolved with the religious meaning, is hardly their fault.
But they are not. Those who advocate gay marriage specifically want their union to be called 'marriage', because they see that as a big deal, a civil ceremony with the same rights and benefits are not good enough. And the reason for this is that some of those rights and benefits spill over into an area that has not been thought through and debated properly. Like adoption of children. That does not appear to me a benefit or right that should automatically apply to a gay couple. I see problems with that and I see a necessary open public debate on this issue. But gay rights have all been put into one big barrel, where adoption of children and the illegality of homosexuality, are all lumped in together.
I think some of the right wing religious parties, are maybe correct in their stance on the gay marriage issue but perhaps for the wrong reasons. Tim is obviously a very intelligent person who would be well aware of the nuanced stance that running a business such as Apple, requires. He must just as obviously be aware that 'gay rights' is equally nuanced and subtle.
So let me be clear, I'm not wanting to debate the merits or otherwise of 'gay marriage', I'm just saying that trying to ram your ideas down people's throats when the concepts are deeply engrained in the whole idea of society and has been for maybe 50,000 years, then you'll run up against the very problems that are now happening with the current laws on religious freedom.
Tim Cook is wasting a golden opportunity for a man of his influence.
Also I forgot to point out the irony that, when I last tried to reasonably put my views on gay marriage on the forum, views that were quite reasonable that suggested that perhaps adoption of children may require more thinking through, I was unhesitatingly labeled as a 'bigot'. So once again, if debates get down to name calling, then this is the result.
Also I forgot to point out the irony that, when I last tried to reasonably put my views on gay marriage on the forum, views that were quite reasonable that suggested that perhaps adoption of children may require more thinking through, I was unhesitatingly labeled as a 'bigot'. So once again, if debates get down to name calling, then this is the result.
I could find 100 people in the next 10 minutes (well, OK, it's 2AM -- but during the day) who would say the exact same thing about interracial couples adopting children -- were they being truly honest. I am absolutely positive that there are large numbers of people in this country who feel that a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, or Buddhist couple also shouldn't adopt children.
I don't see how anything is relevant other than whether or not the parents love the child, are dedicated to parenthood, and have the means and time to be good parents. Whether they are gay, straight, interracial, inter-faith, atheists, whatever -- none of that would be relevant in the slightest as far as I can figure out. How does any of that matter?
I could find 100 people...who would say the exact same thing about interracial couples adopting children
I don't see how anything is relevant other than whether or not the parents love the child, are dedicated to parenthood, and have the means and time to be good parents.
Look I have no doubt that given enough time you could find millions of people who say the most thoughtless, or just plain dumb things, however I fail to see the relevance of that. I mean everyone on earth can make that claim.
I believe you that you don't see any relevance in a gay couple adopting a child being enshrined in law as an unalienable right without any informed debate at all. The very fact that you are unable to even comprehend the difference between a black man and a white woman raising a child enshrined in law as a marriage, and two homosexual men, adopting a child, really makes the point better than I could ever make it myself. As I have already said, but you seem to want to ignore, is that this is not a point that I really want to debate because the issues are deep and complex and there is no solution to be found in an interweb forum.
My point in bringing up the gay marriage issue was to show how it has now become enmeshed in a genuinely serious discriminatory issue that may be enshrined in law, and that is the consequence of trying to ram home gay marriage into a society that has not debated it properly when it is understood where it can lead.
It is one thing for a couple of wealthy elderly gents like Elton John and his husband, adopting a child. But it is an entirely different matter if we peer into the future in a world where a couple of young twenty something boys, decide to get legally married and raise a child. I'm not even saying there's something wrong with it, but on the face of it, it certainly does not seem completely kosher.
Look I have no doubt that given enough time you could find millions of people who say the most thoughtless, or just plain dumb things, however I fail to see the relevance of that. I mean everyone on earth can make that claim.
I believe you that you don't see any relevance in a gay couple adopting a child being enshrined in law as an unalienable right without any informed debate at all. The very fact that you are unable to even comprehend the difference between a black man and a white woman raising a child enshrined in law as a marriage, and two homosexual men, adopting a child, really makes the point better than I could ever make it myself. As I have already said, but you seem to want to ignore, is that this is not a point that I really want to debate because the issues are deep and complex and there is no solution to be found in an interweb forum.
My point in bringing up the gay marriage issue was to show how it has now become enmeshed in a genuinely serious discriminatory issue that may be enshrined in law, and that is the consequence of trying to ram home gay marriage into a society that has not debated it properly when it is understood where it can lead.
It is one thing for a couple of wealthy elderly gents like Elton John and his husband, adopting a child. But it is an entirely different matter if we peer into the future in a world where a couple of young twenty something boys, decide to get legally married and raise a child. I'm not even saying there's something wrong with it, but on the face of it, it certainly does not seem completely kosher.
I'm sorry, but that's just total BS from start to finish.
That entire post is like where someone says something such as, "Look, I'm not a racist, but ...."
ETA: Oh, and:
Quote:
It is one thing for a couple of wealthy elderly gents like Elton John and his husband, adopting a child. But it is an entirely different matter if we peer into the future in a world where a couple of young twenty something boys, decide to get legally married and raise a child.
How in Hera's name is that different than ANY young couple adopting a kid? Jeez. I just cannot believe the crap in this thread.
I'm sorry, but that's just total BS from start to finish.
Now that I digest your cogent and intricately reasoned post, I must confess you have convinced me of the error of my logic with you careful and considered analysis, and brilliant refutation of my arguments and points.
p.s, it didn't take very long for you to break cover did it.
Now that I digest your cogent and intricately reasoned post, I must confess you have convinced me of the error of my logic with you careful and considered analysis, and brilliant refutation of my arguments and points.
p.s, it didn't take very long for you to break cover did it.
What "cover?" My position in all of these threads has been exactly the same since Day One. What are you insinuating? My desire to hide under "cover" of any kind, at any time in my life (that I can remember), adds up to zero.
The cover where you start off talking normally, then when you don't get the clichés that you obviously are on a hair trigger to respond to, you go, 'to hell with it', and then start with the abuse. I don't particular object to abuse per se as long as there's some reasoning padding it out.
Furthermore, what is really ironic and comical is that this article is about an extremist response to Tim Cook calling him a bigot, and that is exactly what you have done to me. Your method like the reporter to Cook is the same, just call someone a bigot, and hope that it sticks.
The cover where you start off talking normally, then when you don't get the clichés that you obviously are on a hair trigger to respond to, you go, 'to hell with it', and then start with the abuse. I don't particular object to abuse per se as long as there's some reasoning padding it out.
If you think that my calling your comment BS is abuse, then you have a seriously low tolerance. Believe me, if I were "abusing" you then you'd be quite aware of it.
If you think that my calling your comment BS is abuse, then you have a seriously low tolerance. Believe me, if I were "abusing" you then you'd be quite aware of it.
Why would you think that? Especially after I wrote...
Quote:
...I don't particular object to abuse per se as long as there's some reasoning padding it out.
Why would you think that? Especially after I wrote...
I believe it because it's true. I wasn't being abusive in the slightest. I was calling you out for writing a bunch of nonsense that was implying all sorts of absurdity and then pretending as if you knew what the hell you were talking about.
I think that they are only trying to appropriate the rights and benefits that are accorded to the institution of marriage. The fact, that in a secular country civil marriage has become intimately convolved with the religious meaning, is hardly their fault.
But they are not. Those who advocate gay marriage specifically want their union to be called 'marriage', because they see that as a big deal, a civil ceremony with the same rights and benefits are not good enough.
Well firstly, if the objection is that they want to have a Christian religious ceremony, then that is up to the church in question to decide. I'd agree that a church should not be required to bless such a union if it goes against church doctrine, but I've not heard any demands that a church be required to do that. On the other hand, if the objection is just to the use of the term "marriage", then I'm afraid that no religion has ownership and sole rights to that word. If that is the argument that you are making, then now you are clearly just trying to impose your views on others - exactly what you are accusing the gay rights movement of doing.
Quote:
And the reason for this is that some of those rights and benefits spill over into an area that has not been thought through and debated properly. Like adoption of children. That does not appear to me a benefit or right that should automatically apply to a gay couple. I see problems with that and I see a necessary open public debate on this issue. But gay rights have all been put into one big barrel, where adoption of children and the illegality of homosexuality, are all lumped in together.
But you just argued that a civil ceremony would give them the same rights and benefits. Are you now saying that the right to adopt is not only a separate right, and also not a civil issue, but a religious one? You really do sound as if you want to control their lives and determine what they may and may not do, based on your religious beliefs - starting by denying formal marriage as a vehicle to then push for further limitations. Why not leave religion out of it altogether, and let guidelines for adoption be determined by our elected representatives and the courts?
Quote:
I think some of the right wing religious parties, are maybe correct in their stance on the gay marriage issue but perhaps for the wrong reasons. Tim is obviously a very intelligent person who would be well aware of the nuanced stance that running a business such as Apple, requires. He must just as obviously be aware that 'gay rights' is equally nuanced and subtle.
I have no idea what you are trying to imply here.
Quote:
So let me be clear, I'm not wanting to debate the merits or otherwise of 'gay marriage', I'm just saying that trying to ram your ideas down people's throats when the concepts are deeply engrained in the whole idea of society and has been for maybe 50,000 years, then you'll run up against the very problems that are now happening with the current laws on religious freedom.
And this is what I really don't get - how the gay community wanting to have the same rights, in terms of union, amounts to ramming their ideas down anyone's throat. This accusation gets thrown around continually, and still makes no sense. The Church, and religion in general, is not being asked to do anything, but merely to stop interfering in the lives of others.
The only religious rights that are enshrined in law in the US are the rights to practice the religion of ones choice and not be discriminated against for doing so. There is no right, implicit or explicit, to use ones religious beliefs as a reason to do anything that is illegal for anyone else to do, or not to do anything that is required of anyone else. And there is no right to use ones religious beliefs to control the behavior of others, yet we have almost continuous lobbying from the religious right to do just that. I find the blind hypocrisy of that position to be simply staggering.
Further - your comment about this being engrained in society for 50,000 years reveals both your ignorance of history and your inability to distinguish your own rights from those of others.
Quote:
Tim Cook is wasting a golden opportunity for a man of his influence.
Remember folks (to paraphrase IHateregistering) that when a liberal interacts with a conservative, s/he can assume that s/he is dealing with an individual with a significantly lower IQ.
You had a customer DISCRIMINATE against an employee of yours, so you threw him out. That makes it ok for YOU, as the business owner, to DISCRIMINATE against people whom you know NOTHING about? On top of that, those very people most likely did/will do NOTHING discriminatory against you, your business or employees. That doesn't matter though... right? As long as you have a reason to judge someone, that makes it ok, even though your Christianity STRONGLY frowns upon judgement by mere mortals, as GOD is the ONLY one who passes judgement. That doesn't matter, though, as long as you can cherry-pick the parts of your religion to make things look good to cover your actions. It doesn't work that way.
It's people like you who don't deserve anything in life, because you believe you're better than others, and it's your views or nothing.
Religious freedom means you have the freedom to practice any religion you CHOOSE (religion is a CHOICE). It does NOT mean you should have the right to force your religious views onto others. Forcing religious views is the exact opposite of having religious freedom. You do realize that's why Christianity is such a popular religion, right? Because governments forced it upon citizens.
All of you should be stoned to death for your hatred of others (completely against the teachings of Christianity, as well as judgment of others). That's what your bible says, isn't it? It's the people like you who are committing the sin, not the people whom you know nothing about, like it's any of your business anyway.
I sincerely hope at least one of your customers with a brain reads your comments on here, then spreads the words of your bigotry and hatred, which leads to your business closing down. You don't deserve to be in business working with the public.
No when someone comes in my store and discriminates against one of my employees for no reason and says he doesn't want to be served by him due to the color of his skin that's a big problem. I presume you are a American, because your reply lacked judgment and intelligence. You don't choose the color of your skin, but your surely can choose your religion. It's funny you are quoting the bible because you probably don't know anything about it and just took a quote that appealed what you were writing without looking further. So with the above reply you would serve a racist customer that discriminates? Well that's your choice I don't.
Tim Cook is wasting a golden opportunity for a man of his influence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
Quote:
?Originally Posted by AnalogJack
A golden opportunity to do what?
An opportunity to not just be another 'celebrity coming out', but to be someone who can get all the complex and nuanced issues not only on the table but elucidated so that they are in a form to be placed on the table. While most of the issues as are straightforward as the civil rights movement there are other aspects, that involve children yet to be born and these children also have rights. I'm not talking about the rights of foetuses I'm talking about the rights of children to grow up in a world where their psychological well being is taken into account. And I'm talking about the rights of gay people to not be harassed by rednecks or women being able to not fear walking down the street at night, as well as children to have the right to be children rather than live their childhood in a strange world created by adults where the child can no longer be a child. Children have already been robbed of so much due to the ubiquitous plethora of adult pornography that they inevitably gain access to inappropriately too early.
Why would you think that? Especially after I wrote...
I believe it because it's true. I wasn't being abusive in the slightest. I was calling you out for writing a bunch of nonsense that was implying all sorts of absurdity and then pretending as if you knew what the hell you were talking about.
We are supposed to be having a discussion on a forum are we not. Isn't that the implied contract? So if I say something, you may if you like say, 'well that is a complete and utter load of bollox'. But then that is not the reason that anyone joins a forum is it. One expects 'that's a load of bollox', to be followed by... 'for these reasons...',
Now if you draw someone into a discussion and then just say 'that's crap', and nothing more, then the abuse is not that you said 'that's crap', the abuse is that you have drawn someone into taking the time to answer your objection, with not the slightest intention of responding to their response.
We are supposed to be having a discussion on a forum are we not. Isn't that the implied contract? So if I say something, you may if you like say, 'well that is a complete and utter load of bollox'. But then that is not the reason that anyone joins a forum is it. One expects 'that's a load of bollox', to be followed by... 'for these reasons...',
Now if you draw someone into a discussion and then just say 'that's crap', and nothing more, then the abuse is not that you said 'that's crap', the abuse is that you have drawn someone into taking the time to answer your objection, with not the slightest intention of responding to their response.
Wrong.
A forum, like this one, is supposed to be made up of intelligent discussion. I'm sorry if yours doesn't reach that level. I question whether you know a damn thing about Apple, Tim Cook, or, say, the next iPhone. I think that you are just a debatable asshole who wants to talk about a country he doesn't understand, and talk about in a way that most of his own countrymen would find abhorrent.
I don't respect you, no. I do, OTOH, respect someone like Karrie Webb. So it has nothing to do with your nationality.
Comments
"Religious Freedom, Freedom of Association, and That Indiana Law"
http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-372-religious-freedom-freedom-of-association-and-that-indiana-law/
A fair few homosexuals got very exercised on these boards some time ago when I made a comment about Tim Cook coming out and his stance on gay marriage. I wanted to separate the institution of marriage, which after all is a religious institution that goes back to a time when culture and religion were one and the same. This is surprising to people in this day and age who do not realise that prior to the past 500 years, it was obvious to everyone who ever lived that the Earth and the heavenly bodies and people were created by some type of literal creator god. And if you had lived 500 years ago that is how you would think.
Now you see the mess that people like Tim Cook can create with their muddled thinking. By people like Tim Cook I mean, people who think that equal rights for homosexuals means equal everything without limit and that include appropriating words like 'marriage', which is obviously only between a man and a woman. These days people are free to change their sex, or have surrogate children and these 'rights', have become muddied and muddled.
In this instance Tim is correct in that the laws being passed under religious freedom are just bullshit ways to discriminate against homosexuals. And this is the mess you get into when gay people want to appropriate religious institutions. Non discrimination against gay people (as well as race, gender etc) should be a given and should be enshrined in law that cannot be over ridden by bullshit legislation about 'religious freedom' which basically is asking for freedom to abuse other people.
The tenet, 'your freedom ends where my nose begins, is true in this case.
Now the point I'm making is that Gay Marriage, (as opposed to a civil ceremony that bestows the exact same rights as marriage) is an issue that requires some deep thinking especially with regards to adopting children. I'm just saying that it needs a lot of reasoned thought and debate. But what happened is a knee jerk reaction from people like Tim who think that gay people can just appropriate the word 'marriage' and that is some type of 'non discrimination'. And the point is that now it undermines the correct point that Tim is now making.
The current legislation that Tim is opposing is obviously wrong and dangerous were it to be passed, but the gay marriage thing on the other hand is really just a trivial and petulant desire to appropriate a word. And this is the result of mixing up the trivial with genuine human rights.
A fair few homosexuals got very exercised on these boards some time ago when I made a comment about Tim Cook coming out and his stance on gay marriage. I wanted to separate the institution of marriage, which after all is a religious institution that goes back to a time when culture and religion were one and the same. This is surprising to people in this day and age who do not realise that prior to the past 500 years, it was obvious to everyone who ever lived that the Earth and the heavenly bodies and people were created by some type of literal creator god. And if you had lived 500 years ago that is how you would think.
Now you see the mess that people like Tim Cook can create with their muddled thinking. By people like Tim Cook I mean, people who think that equal rights for homosexuals means equal everything without limit and that include appropriating words like 'marriage', which is obviously only between a man and a woman. These days people are free to change their sex, or have surrogate children and these 'rights', have become muddied and muddled.
In this instance Tim is correct in that the laws being passed under religious freedom are just bullshit ways to discriminate against homosexuals. And this is the mess you get into when gay people want to appropriate religious institutions. Non discrimination against gay people (as well as race, gender etc) should be a given and should be enshrined in law that cannot be over ridden by bullshit legislation about 'religious freedom' which basically is asking for freedom to abuse other people.
The tenet, 'your freedom ends where my nose begins, is true in this case.
Now the point I'm making is that Gay Marriage, (as opposed to a civil ceremony that bestows the exact same rights as marriage) is an issue that requires some deep thinking especially with regards to adopting children. I'm just saying that it needs a lot of reasoned thought and debate. But what happened is a knee jerk reaction from people like Tim who think that gay people can just appropriate the word 'marriage' and that is some type of 'non discrimination'. And the point is that now it undermines the correct point that Tim is now making.
The current legislation that Tim is opposing is obviously wrong and dangerous were it to be passed, but the gay marriage thing on the other hand is really just a trivial and petulant desire to appropriate a word. And this is the result of mixing up the trivial with genuine human rights.
I think that they are only trying to appropriate the rights and benefits that are accorded to the institution of marriage. The fact, that in a secular country civil marriage has become intimately convolved with the religious meaning, is hardly their fault.
I think that they are only trying to appropriate the rights and benefits that are accorded to the institution of marriage. The fact, that in a secular country civil marriage has become intimately convolved with the religious meaning, is hardly their fault.
But they are not. Those who advocate gay marriage specifically want their union to be called 'marriage', because they see that as a big deal, a civil ceremony with the same rights and benefits are not good enough. And the reason for this is that some of those rights and benefits spill over into an area that has not been thought through and debated properly. Like adoption of children. That does not appear to me a benefit or right that should automatically apply to a gay couple. I see problems with that and I see a necessary open public debate on this issue. But gay rights have all been put into one big barrel, where adoption of children and the illegality of homosexuality, are all lumped in together.
I think some of the right wing religious parties, are maybe correct in their stance on the gay marriage issue but perhaps for the wrong reasons. Tim is obviously a very intelligent person who would be well aware of the nuanced stance that running a business such as Apple, requires. He must just as obviously be aware that 'gay rights' is equally nuanced and subtle.
So let me be clear, I'm not wanting to debate the merits or otherwise of 'gay marriage', I'm just saying that trying to ram your ideas down people's throats when the concepts are deeply engrained in the whole idea of society and has been for maybe 50,000 years, then you'll run up against the very problems that are now happening with the current laws on religious freedom.
Tim Cook is wasting a golden opportunity for a man of his influence.
Also I forgot to point out the irony that, when I last tried to reasonably put my views on gay marriage on the forum, views that were quite reasonable that suggested that perhaps adoption of children may require more thinking through, I was unhesitatingly labeled as a 'bigot'. So once again, if debates get down to name calling, then this is the result.
Also I forgot to point out the irony that, when I last tried to reasonably put my views on gay marriage on the forum, views that were quite reasonable that suggested that perhaps adoption of children may require more thinking through, I was unhesitatingly labeled as a 'bigot'. So once again, if debates get down to name calling, then this is the result.
I could find 100 people in the next 10 minutes (well, OK, it's 2AM -- but during the day) who would say the exact same thing about interracial couples adopting children -- were they being truly honest. I am absolutely positive that there are large numbers of people in this country who feel that a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, or Buddhist couple also shouldn't adopt children.
I don't see how anything is relevant other than whether or not the parents love the child, are dedicated to parenthood, and have the means and time to be good parents. Whether they are gay, straight, interracial, inter-faith, atheists, whatever -- none of that would be relevant in the slightest as far as I can figure out. How does any of that matter?
I could find 100 people...who would say the exact same thing about interracial couples adopting children
I don't see how anything is relevant other than whether or not the parents love the child, are dedicated to parenthood, and have the means and time to be good parents.
Look I have no doubt that given enough time you could find millions of people who say the most thoughtless, or just plain dumb things, however I fail to see the relevance of that. I mean everyone on earth can make that claim.
I believe you that you don't see any relevance in a gay couple adopting a child being enshrined in law as an unalienable right without any informed debate at all. The very fact that you are unable to even comprehend the difference between a black man and a white woman raising a child enshrined in law as a marriage, and two homosexual men, adopting a child, really makes the point better than I could ever make it myself. As I have already said, but you seem to want to ignore, is that this is not a point that I really want to debate because the issues are deep and complex and there is no solution to be found in an interweb forum.
My point in bringing up the gay marriage issue was to show how it has now become enmeshed in a genuinely serious discriminatory issue that may be enshrined in law, and that is the consequence of trying to ram home gay marriage into a society that has not debated it properly when it is understood where it can lead.
It is one thing for a couple of wealthy elderly gents like Elton John and his husband, adopting a child. But it is an entirely different matter if we peer into the future in a world where a couple of young twenty something boys, decide to get legally married and raise a child. I'm not even saying there's something wrong with it, but on the face of it, it certainly does not seem completely kosher.
Look I have no doubt that given enough time you could find millions of people who say the most thoughtless, or just plain dumb things, however I fail to see the relevance of that. I mean everyone on earth can make that claim.
I believe you that you don't see any relevance in a gay couple adopting a child being enshrined in law as an unalienable right without any informed debate at all. The very fact that you are unable to even comprehend the difference between a black man and a white woman raising a child enshrined in law as a marriage, and two homosexual men, adopting a child, really makes the point better than I could ever make it myself. As I have already said, but you seem to want to ignore, is that this is not a point that I really want to debate because the issues are deep and complex and there is no solution to be found in an interweb forum.
My point in bringing up the gay marriage issue was to show how it has now become enmeshed in a genuinely serious discriminatory issue that may be enshrined in law, and that is the consequence of trying to ram home gay marriage into a society that has not debated it properly when it is understood where it can lead.
It is one thing for a couple of wealthy elderly gents like Elton John and his husband, adopting a child. But it is an entirely different matter if we peer into the future in a world where a couple of young twenty something boys, decide to get legally married and raise a child. I'm not even saying there's something wrong with it, but on the face of it, it certainly does not seem completely kosher.
I'm sorry, but that's just total BS from start to finish.
That entire post is like where someone says something such as, "Look, I'm not a racist, but ...."
ETA: Oh, and:
How in Hera's name is that different than ANY young couple adopting a kid? Jeez. I just cannot believe the crap in this thread.
I'm sorry, but that's just total BS from start to finish.
Now that I digest your cogent and intricately reasoned post, I must confess you have convinced me of the error of my logic with you careful and considered analysis, and brilliant refutation of my arguments and points.
p.s, it didn't take very long for you to break cover did it.
Now that I digest your cogent and intricately reasoned post, I must confess you have convinced me of the error of my logic with you careful and considered analysis, and brilliant refutation of my arguments and points.
p.s, it didn't take very long for you to break cover did it.
What "cover?" My position in all of these threads has been exactly the same since Day One. What are you insinuating? My desire to hide under "cover" of any kind, at any time in my life (that I can remember), adds up to zero.
The cover where you start off talking normally, then when you don't get the clichés that you obviously are on a hair trigger to respond to, you go, 'to hell with it', and then start with the abuse. I don't particular object to abuse per se as long as there's some reasoning padding it out.
Furthermore, what is really ironic and comical is that this article is about an extremist response to Tim Cook calling him a bigot, and that is exactly what you have done to me. Your method like the reporter to Cook is the same, just call someone a bigot, and hope that it sticks.
The cover where you start off talking normally, then when you don't get the clichés that you obviously are on a hair trigger to respond to, you go, 'to hell with it', and then start with the abuse. I don't particular object to abuse per se as long as there's some reasoning padding it out.
If you think that my calling your comment BS is abuse, then you have a seriously low tolerance. Believe me, if I were "abusing" you then you'd be quite aware of it.
Why would you think that? Especially after I wrote...
Why would you think that? Especially after I wrote...
I believe it because it's true. I wasn't being abusive in the slightest. I was calling you out for writing a bunch of nonsense that was implying all sorts of absurdity and then pretending as if you knew what the hell you were talking about.
?Originally Posted by AnalogJack
I think that they are only trying to appropriate the rights and benefits that are accorded to the institution of marriage. The fact, that in a secular country civil marriage has become intimately convolved with the religious meaning, is hardly their fault.
But they are not. Those who advocate gay marriage specifically want their union to be called 'marriage', because they see that as a big deal, a civil ceremony with the same rights and benefits are not good enough.
Well firstly, if the objection is that they want to have a Christian religious ceremony, then that is up to the church in question to decide. I'd agree that a church should not be required to bless such a union if it goes against church doctrine, but I've not heard any demands that a church be required to do that. On the other hand, if the objection is just to the use of the term "marriage", then I'm afraid that no religion has ownership and sole rights to that word. If that is the argument that you are making, then now you are clearly just trying to impose your views on others - exactly what you are accusing the gay rights movement of doing.
But you just argued that a civil ceremony would give them the same rights and benefits. Are you now saying that the right to adopt is not only a separate right, and also not a civil issue, but a religious one? You really do sound as if you want to control their lives and determine what they may and may not do, based on your religious beliefs - starting by denying formal marriage as a vehicle to then push for further limitations. Why not leave religion out of it altogether, and let guidelines for adoption be determined by our elected representatives and the courts?
I have no idea what you are trying to imply here.
And this is what I really don't get - how the gay community wanting to have the same rights, in terms of union, amounts to ramming their ideas down anyone's throat. This accusation gets thrown around continually, and still makes no sense. The Church, and religion in general, is not being asked to do anything, but merely to stop interfering in the lives of others.
The only religious rights that are enshrined in law in the US are the rights to practice the religion of ones choice and not be discriminated against for doing so. There is no right, implicit or explicit, to use ones religious beliefs as a reason to do anything that is illegal for anyone else to do, or not to do anything that is required of anyone else. And there is no right to use ones religious beliefs to control the behavior of others, yet we have almost continuous lobbying from the religious right to do just that. I find the blind hypocrisy of that position to be simply staggering.
Further - your comment about this being engrained in society for 50,000 years reveals both your ignorance of history and your inability to distinguish your own rights from those of others.
A golden opportunity to do what?
No when someone comes in my store and discriminates against one of my employees for no reason and says he doesn't want to be served by him due to the color of his skin that's a big problem. I presume you are a American, because your reply lacked judgment and intelligence. You don't choose the color of your skin, but your surely can choose your religion. It's funny you are quoting the bible because you probably don't know anything about it and just took a quote that appealed what you were writing without looking further. So with the above reply you would serve a racist customer that discriminates? Well that's your choice I don't.
Quote:
?Originally Posted by AnalogJack
A golden opportunity to do what?
An opportunity to not just be another 'celebrity coming out', but to be someone who can get all the complex and nuanced issues not only on the table but elucidated so that they are in a form to be placed on the table. While most of the issues as are straightforward as the civil rights movement there are other aspects, that involve children yet to be born and these children also have rights. I'm not talking about the rights of foetuses I'm talking about the rights of children to grow up in a world where their psychological well being is taken into account. And I'm talking about the rights of gay people to not be harassed by rednecks or women being able to not fear walking down the street at night, as well as children to have the right to be children rather than live their childhood in a strange world created by adults where the child can no longer be a child. Children have already been robbed of so much due to the ubiquitous plethora of adult pornography that they inevitably gain access to inappropriately too early.
Why would you think that? Especially after I wrote...
I believe it because it's true. I wasn't being abusive in the slightest. I was calling you out for writing a bunch of nonsense that was implying all sorts of absurdity and then pretending as if you knew what the hell you were talking about.
We are supposed to be having a discussion on a forum are we not. Isn't that the implied contract? So if I say something, you may if you like say, 'well that is a complete and utter load of bollox'. But then that is not the reason that anyone joins a forum is it. One expects 'that's a load of bollox', to be followed by... 'for these reasons...',
Now if you draw someone into a discussion and then just say 'that's crap', and nothing more, then the abuse is not that you said 'that's crap', the abuse is that you have drawn someone into taking the time to answer your objection, with not the slightest intention of responding to their response.
We are supposed to be having a discussion on a forum are we not. Isn't that the implied contract? So if I say something, you may if you like say, 'well that is a complete and utter load of bollox'. But then that is not the reason that anyone joins a forum is it. One expects 'that's a load of bollox', to be followed by... 'for these reasons...',
Now if you draw someone into a discussion and then just say 'that's crap', and nothing more, then the abuse is not that you said 'that's crap', the abuse is that you have drawn someone into taking the time to answer your objection, with not the slightest intention of responding to their response.
Wrong.
A forum, like this one, is supposed to be made up of intelligent discussion. I'm sorry if yours doesn't reach that level. I question whether you know a damn thing about Apple, Tim Cook, or, say, the next iPhone. I think that you are just a debatable asshole who wants to talk about a country he doesn't understand, and talk about in a way that most of his own countrymen would find abhorrent.
I don't respect you, no. I do, OTOH, respect someone like Karrie Webb. So it has nothing to do with your nationality.