Stem-Cells, Gay rights, Abortion, Janet Jackson's boob..what's the problem ?? by JaynezTown

The rights of the many gay people who don't flash small children to marry their equally inoffensive partners should not be trampled just because there is a minority of gay people who do run around clad scantily in gay pride parades. (Frankly, what are you doing watching a gay pride parade with your children at all if that sort of thing embarrasses or offends you?)

To hold all people in a minority responsible for the few bad apples is unfair and illogical. If there are people doing dangerous things in a society (never mind how I feel about public nudity-- that's another thread entirely) then everyone in the society is equally responsible for finding a legal way to put a stop to it without punishing innocent parties in the process. According to the law of this land, protecting the innocent has always taken precedence over punishing the guilty.

If people can't marry their partners because they're gay, that's discrimination. Plain and simple. I'm sorry if it offends you, but I'm calling a spade a spade. Just because you have gay friends who acknowledge how very far away we are from equality doesn't mean they wish to abdicate the right to have their long-term, monogomous relationaships sanctioned and supported by the state to which they pay taxes.

As for the whole perversion question which keeps getting tossed casually arounnd in this conversation, the number of heterosexual perverts in this country is far greater than the number of homosexual perverts, where the word pervert is used to describe molesters, sex offenders, and people who would harm others in a sexually intimate way. Yet somehow, heterosexuals are allowed to marry without anyone questionning their right to do so. EVEN PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS are allowed to get married to whomever they want if their partners are consentual and of the opposite gender. I've never heard anyone mention this as a concern.

Child molestation is completely separate from homosexuality, just as it is completely separate from heterosexuality. Generally, molesters are people who have suffered such abuse at the hands of others that the only way they can feel good about themselves, feel powerful, is to hurt somebody else. I'll get back to you with some statistics on that separation of loving versus non-loving sexuality.

There is no such thing as a weed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 3, 2005 7:41 AM

RADHIL

I bet the guy who started this thread is now shaking his head - in amusement or irony - at the "unimportant" arguements that have now hijacked the thread.

Ah well.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 3, 2005 10:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Actually it’s called Tyranny. That’s what you call it when the government, under the control of a single person, usurps the will of the people and imposes his own will in its place.

I really think that you should check a dictionary about this word.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Tyranny
"
A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
"
Note the "absolute." If the local government in this case had absolute power then this would still be happening. It isn't, so therefore there is no absolute power and thus isn't a tyranny.

But, don't you have a precedence legal system down there? If so, wouldn't this be an attempt to set one?

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Yah, you're right. Same-sex marriage isn't part of civil rights.

I agree.

You're one of those people that like quoting out of context aren't you.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

I'd say that what you are saying is a joke if it wasn't so sad

The truth can have that affect on people.

Um, what?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 3, 2005 10:19 AM

@Radhil:
How has the thread been hijacked? This is about gay-rights which is in the threads title.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 3, 2005 10:31 AM

Interesting thread - so many things to comment on, but I'll start with polygamy.

RhymePhile:

Quote:
Polygamy does still exist in the U.S. and Canada, albeit illegal. It has everything to do with the original tenets of the Mormon faith, and those who practice polygamy believe in the classical, fundamentalist interpretation of the faith, as begun by Joseph Smith.

As a current and former, although non-practicing (I'm an observant agnostic), Mormon (I'm not concerned with the looong, "proper" name), I feel qualified to interject.

I don't know about "classical" but it is "fundamental." Joseph Smith initiated polygamy because (this is the party line given to women, I'm sure the actual reasoning was quite different) many more women were being converted to the Church than men, and since only temple marriage guaranteed accession to the highest "heaven" (Eternal Kingdom in Mormon parlance), polygamy was introduced to ensure as many souls made it as possible. *sarcasm alert* It had nothing to do with a bunch of dirty old men wanting to boink the fresh-faced immigrants joining the community. /sarcasm

Quote:
It's an enlightening read about a religious segment of the U.S. population that many don't even know about, and how the practice of polygamy is destroying families.

Many don't know about it because they don't live in Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Northern Mexico, or British Columbia.

Quote:
After reading Krakauer's book, you may surprised to learn that almost all of the fundamentalist Mormons (and their huge families) live off the government, using welfare payouts; girls are forced to marry much, much older men and are expected to bear even more children; and that these poor kids and women have barely any education at all.

I wouldn't be surprised, but then again, I've known about this most of my life. In addition to living off the gummint, these "patriarchs" don't pay much in the way of taxes, and yet a lot of the wealthier ones have "family" businesses to keep them in the style to which they've become accustomed. If not their younger wives and children, because if the gummint's paying for them, why should the patriarchs bother?

Just my cynicism coming out, nothing to worry over.

On the other hand, this is just one sect of a religion that now (publicly) rejects the article of polygamy. While mainstream Mormonism does not practice polylgamy, in the here-and-now, it does practice afterlife polygamy. A man can marry more than one woman in the temple, if he is divorced or widowed, thus having more than one wife in the hereafter. Women cannot, just as they cannot hold the priesthood. Until very recently, women could not even get a temple divorce, it must be obtained by her husband - the temple divorce cuts all ties, both now and after death.

Incidentally, I found out my mother and father had been divorced in the temple only after my mother remarried in the temple. But that's probably just a personal issue and I should shut up about it now. ;-D

As for the thread topics: Stem cell research - yes. Gay rights - gay people are human beings, and deserve anything and everything every other human being is owed. Abortion - don't care for it, but it's none of my business what another human being does with her body. Jane Jackson's boob - hasn't she gone bananas like her brother, yet?

I don't see what all the kerfuffle is about gay marriage, or even polygamous marriage. Somebody else's personal relationship is no concern of mine. My relationship with my husband is no concern of anybody else, and I don't see how two (or more) people getting married affects our marriage in any way. I mean, seriously. If my friend Richard married the love of his life (which he will be doing shortly), it will make me happy for him, and surprise lessen my commitment to my husband not one iota. If five people decide to marry each other because that's the way they feel about it, same consequence.

It's not my business until I'm invited to the ceremony, and even then, I would attend in a spirit of celebration and support.

Take religion out of the polygamy issue, and there is no issue. If a family abuses the system, it is up to the system to rectify the situation, but judging all polygamists by self-righteous religious wingnuts is just as bad as jumping to conclusions about two guys falling in love and wanting to celebrate that by committing their lives to each other.

Take religion out of all these issues, please. Myth and legend should not bear upon our laws, only morality and ethics. If you ("you" being the wackaloons who think their religious beliefs should be the foundation of everyone else's behaviour, not a particular "you-you") really want to obey the Bible, then kill your son next time he speaks back to you, or your wife if she nags, or your neighbour if he takes the name of God in vain, then argue your high ground and Biblical literalism.

I'd appreciate it, although I'm sure your local law enforcement will be pissed at me for incitement to violence.

"There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 3, 2005 5:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I really think that you should check a dictionary about this word.

Okay.

Tyrant:
an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b : a usurper of sovereignty
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=tyrant

In other words, a Mayor who ignores democratically enacted law by the will of the people in favor of his own ideology might be called a tyrant. Unless he’s usurping the will of the people in a way you agree with, then I guess it’s okay, right?

Quote:
Originally posted by Unicorn:
The rights of the many gay people who don't flash small children to marry their equally inoffensive partners should not be trampled just because there is a minority of gay people who do run around clad scantily in gay pride parades.

True. But why can’t I criticize perverts for being perverts without being accused of being anti-gay? The way I see it, and the way I think millions of American see it, is that the pro-gay marriage camp is telling me that I must accept the perverts with the gay marriage or else I’m a bigot. I must accept the tyrant Mayors with the gay marriage. I must accept the insulting and dismissive attitude towards my sacred traditions. I must accept all of these things with the gay marriage or else I’m a bigot. That’s not good enough. If that’s the choice you intend to give Middle America, then Middle America will choose NOT gay marriage. Not because they are necessarily opposed to it or something like it, but because they are opposed to the perverts and the tyrant Mayors and the dismissing of their traditions. I’m in favor of gay marriage, but if I feel that in order to bring the gay community into the mainstream of American families I must acquiesce the perverts, then it’s not going to happen.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 3, 2005 6:44 PM

I don't have a problem if you're offended by nudity in public. You're free to have your feelings about it and free to talk about it. As far as I'm concerned, public nudity is a completely separate issue from gay marriage. Frankly, I find it offensive that so many people seem to think these issues are linked.

But there are a lot of people who aren't as offended by frat guys --who show up in speedos to have a kegger in stadium seats in mid November, not even when they paint their bare chests in school colors and get drunk on TV-- as you say you are by men wearing thongs in Boystown parades. I don't see a difference there, and it mystifies me that some people do.

The pro-gay-marriage movement is about human rights. The people on this side of the argument who are really serious about it aren't asking for the 9:00 News to be shot in the nude. They're not asking to pose nude in storefronts up and down Michigan Avenue. They're not asking to mandate public nudity in all midtown parks between the hours of six and nine every second Thursday. They're not interested in affecting at all what other people do when they get married. We don't disdain other people's customs and beliefs. All we're asking is that our equally valid rights and beliefs be respected, which right now, they aren't.

Why do the people on the anti-marriage side of this issue always seem to think they have to give up something, anything, that's rightfully theirs? If your church holds that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, fine. Nobody's forcing your church to change its stance. But at a national level, there should be no laws governing what consenting adults can and can't do with their own bodies and lives, provided no laws that affect other people's safety or physical well-being are broken. I ask the room: can somebody please tell me what the 'anti-'s are giving up if nice gay couples can marry? Please?

Finn--
Not knowingly having accused you of anything (if I'm wrong, show me the quote, and I mean the complete sentence), I can't speak for the people who call you anything. I reiterate that in my view, to be anti-gay marriage is to take an unsupportable (and I say again, Unconstitutional) stance against the civil rights of a minority of United States citizens, including gays, lesbians, and all members of churches wishing to be free of state interference in bestowing the sacrements of marriage.

In my view such a stance is bigoted. I have deliberately criticized the position rather than the people holding that position outright because I have no personal knowledge of any of those people. This is not a personal attack on a person or persons. This is my strong criticism of what I feel to be an unsupportable and unconscionable position.

I've had my husband helping me out looking around on the internet for information. (I'm such a slave driver...) I wish I could remember where I read the statistical information I remember. Anyway, here is a site which had a wealth of statistics and citations. (The four to six religious sites I looked at regarding the 'evils' of being gay all had the same single article blaming the scandal in the Catholic Church on gays, although they offer very little in the way of studies, statistics, or scientifically arrived-at data to bolster their claims; there were no numbers used in that article.)

http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html

In particular, direct your attention down the page a ways to:

3) Homosexuals are no more promiscuous or predatory than heterosexuals

And read from there. Lots of statistical data from reputable sources. Most mainstream psychologists and psychiatrists agree that statistically speaking, homosexuals are no more likely to commit sex offenses or acts of pedophilia than are straight people.

There is no such thing as a weed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 3, 2005 7:07 PM

RADHIL

OK, sum-up reply to everything I see - too lazy to make separate posts here.

Finn: True. But why can’t I criticize perverts for being perverts without being accused of being anti-gay? The way I see it, and the way I think millions of American see it, is that the pro-gay marriage camp is telling me that I must accept the perverts with the gay marriage or else I’m a bigot. I must accept the tyrant Mayors with the gay marriage. I must accept the insulting and dismissive attitude towards my sacred traditions.

Maybe you're listening to some loud-mouthed lunatic fringe lefty a bit much. I'm of the opinion that all lunatics should be ignored, myself. You are talking with what appears to be a crowd of reasonable people here, on this board. If you're being called bigot here (I've seen some statements of yours to suggest it's possible), it's also being pointed out why, and I doubt it's simply because of a problem with thongs. If it's from some lunatic somewhere else, it's worthy of being ignored.

On the tyrant thing: Yes, rule of the majority by a minority (or singular) is tyranny. On the flip side, rule of the minority by a majority is mob rule. You cannot justify something as right simply because it falls into either category. Both are something to be avoided, in my opinion. To avoid either, it takes reason, and balance - traits in precious and rare supply these days, at least in the public spotlight.

Sigmanunki: How has the thread been hijacked? This is about gay-rights which is in the threads title.

Re-read the title. It's asking how these things are so important against so many other things. Thus, I say hijack. This thread was surely NOT intended to be a new debate on these topics. I merely find it amusing that it has.

Reequeen: Take religion out of all these issues, please. Myth and legend should not bear upon our laws, only morality and ethics.

Great post, by and large. Just one small flaw. Myth, legend, religion, all inform our morality and ethics. They are some of the founding blocks. It is impossible to separate morals from some legend that demonstrates it. Someone can come up with ethical and moral thoughts on their own, surely, but a religion often provides a grounding in practicality and reality (I say this with full sense of irony) that free-form ethics lack. The problem is not involvement of religion - the problem is the priority of religion. When beliefs come before reason, when a faith is more important than the results of that faith, is where it all goes FUBAR.

A stolen line that puts it more bluntly: Does the sacred brook no improvement?

Unicorn: Thank you for saying everything I probably would have tried to say and screwed up.

Rhymepile: I am not suprised. At all. Leeches are leeches, whether dealing with wives or money.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 3, 2005 10:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Okay.

Tyrant:
an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b : a usurper of sovereignty
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=tyrant

In other words, a Mayor who ignores democratically enacted law by the will of the people in favor of his own ideology might be called a tyrant. Unless he’s usurping the will of the people in a way you agree with, then I guess it’s okay, right?

Perhaps you should look up the world absolute. Again if the mayor had absolute power, this would still be going on, period.

The mayor was restrained by law.

But, then again, the bay area has a huge gay population and the turn out was massive to get married. So, then it was the will of at least a large chunk of the local population to have this done.

Thus an argument could be made that this was the will of the people.

And I'd really like to hear a comment from you on my comment about your presedence type legal system.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

True. But why can’t I criticize perverts for being perverts without being accused of being anti-gay?

You can, no-one is saying otherwise. What we are saying is that you can't make gross generalizations based on a select minority of any populace.

If the gay community told me that I'm a womanizing

because they based what I am on the sterotypical jock at university, I'd be calling them a bigot just the same.

You seem to be confusing what a pervert is, or aren't you aware of any hetero perverts?

You also complain about being called anti-gay when what this statement also says is that you think gays are perverts?

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

The way I see it, and the way I think millions of American see it, is that the pro-gay marriage camp is telling me that I must accept the perverts with the gay marriage or else I’m a bigot. I must accept the tyrant Mayors with the gay marriage. I must accept the insulting and dismissive attitude towards my sacred traditions.

Where the hell are you getting this? No-one is telling you that you have to accept such things.

And what the hell is with the sacred traditions?

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Not because they are necessarily opposed to it or something like it, but because they are opposed to the perverts and the tyrant Mayors and the dismissing of their traditions. I’m in favor of gay marriage, but if I feel that in order to bring the gay community into the mainstream of American families I must acquiesce the perverts, then it’s not going to happen.

I really think that you are against it.

You start off saying that you're for it and then say that you can't speak of perverts without being called anti-gay? What the hell?!?!?

I'm really starting to think that your legal stance against gay marriage is some sort of justification for you yourself being anti-gay.

You spout off about the "perverts" and then compain about being called a bigot? If I were gay and you were talking about us, the word "pervert" kept coming up and you spoke of us as you are doing now... I be calling you a bigot and justifibly so.

You can keep talking about how same-sex marriage is illegal, the act of one mayor, the acts of a minority of minorities, blah, blah, blah until the cows come home. You still aren't addressing the issue and are being quite prejudice in the process.

You have to start talking about what we are, which is what should be and the reasons why. We have posted a number of links which are found above and backed it up with logic.

You've posted prejudice, bigotry and opinion. All your arguments are, is a house of cards. You can't build a case based on exceptions to a rule.

I find it absolutly stunning that people like you actually still exist. I guess it's just proof of how far we still have to go and a race.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 3, 2005 10:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:

Sigmanunki: How has the thread been hijacked? This is about gay-rights which is in the threads title.

Re-read the title. It's asking how these things are so important against so many other things. Thus, I say hijack. This thread was surely NOT intended to be a new debate on these topics. I merely find it amusing that it has.

"Stem-Cells, Gay rights, Abortion, Janet Jackson's boob..what's the problem ??"

We seem to be discussing that now.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 3, 2005 10:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:

Great post, by and large. Just one small flaw. Myth, legend, religion, all inform our morality and ethics. They are some of the founding blocks. It is impossible to separate morals from some legend that demonstrates it.

Sure it is. Name one religion from the west and one from the east and they teach certain values differently. If the value wasn't seperable from the legend then it couldn't be taught another way and that way would be across the world. It isn't, thus qed.

Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:

...
but a religion often provides a grounding in practicality and reality (I say this with full sense of irony) that free-form ethics lack.

Speaking specifically to this conversation.

Which religion? There are a number of radically differently ones in North America as with the world and it's just getting more and more diverse because of the relative ease of immigration.

So, which one do we follow to guide the laws?

It's one of the reasons why I like secular government so much.

Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:

The problem is not involvement of religion - the problem is the priority of religion. When beliefs come before reason, when a faith is more important than the results of that faith, is where it all goes FUBAR.

I think that problem is both... and more. The priority of religion is as you say, way too high. But religion should have no bearing no what is commanded to the public in general.

Should christians be allowed to force there way on those that don't wish it? Should any religion?

I really think that this gay-rights things boils down to that. The people in power are trying to oppress a people. This never works out for the best.

(not directed at Radhil specifically, just a comment

)
Look at Rome. They tried to supress the christians and look what happened. So, if this happened to them, then I could happen to GW and friends.

But then again, I wouldn't suggest that a christian in north america would know about such things. That would require reading outside of the scope of the bible, which is after all, evil.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 3, 2005 11:41 PM

Radhil:

Quote:
Great post, by and large. Just one small flaw. Myth, legend, religion, all inform our morality and ethics. They are some of the founding blocks. It is impossible to separate morals from some legend that demonstrates it.

I beg to differ, although I thank you for your analysis. Philosophy - not religious philosophy, the other kind - has of old searched for moral and ethical foundations people can live with, and use to live with other people, without resorting to the "Great Beard in the Sky Said So" argument. It is most definitely possible to separate the morals from the legend, since legends sprang up to explain the morals. Although that could be a long chicken'n'egg argument....

(edited because I'm up at 2am with Insomnia)

"There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 7:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Unicorn:
Finn--
Not knowingly having accused you of anything (if I'm wrong, show me the quote, and I mean the complete sentence), I can't speak for the people who call you anything. I reiterate that in my view, to be anti-gay marriage is to take an unsupportable (and I say again, Unconstitutional) stance against the civil rights of a minority of United States citizens, including gays, lesbians, and all members of churches wishing to be free of state interference in bestowing the sacrements of marriage.

I don’t think you’ve said anything that would constitute a personal attack against me; and you’ve certainly not said anything to me that I found offensive. Compared to many discussions that I’ve been involved in, this one has been very civil and interesting.

But I’m using my own experiences more as a metaphor then anything else. I’m trying to point out how immature the pro-gay marriage argument has become. I realize that you feel that you are arguing in favor of civil rights and freedom, and you may be, but the issue is more complex then polarizing it as gay marriage is right and traditionalists are bigots. I believe that until the pro-gay marriage camp can learn to appreciate that one can oppose gay marriage without being a bigot, they will have a very hard time getting gay marriage to stick.

Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:
Maybe you're listening to some loud-mouthed lunatic fringe lefty a bit much. I'm of the opinion that all lunatics should be ignored, myself. You are talking with what appears to be a crowd of reasonable people here, on this board. If you're being called bigot here (I've seen some statements of yours to suggest it's possible), it's also being pointed out why, and I doubt it's simply because of a problem with thongs. If it's from some lunatic somewhere else, it's worthy of being ignored.

On the tyrant thing: Yes, rule of the majority by a minority (or singular) is tyranny. On the flip side, rule of the minority by a majority is mob rule. You cannot justify something as right simply because it falls into either category. Both are something to be avoided, in my opinion. To avoid either, it takes reason, and balance - traits in precious and rare supply these days, at least in the public spotlight.

Without a doubt the lunatic fringe of the Left is where this kind of thing gets most attention, and I’m not necessarily referring to anything or anyone here. The problem is that the pro-gay marriage camp has become a mop up organization seeking to “cover-up” the problems with the gay community instead of pointing them out and denouncing them. I realize that many people who favor gay marriage believe that they must protect the image of the gay community in order to protect American sympathy for the gay community, but this is a mistake, because Americans need to see more maturity coming from the gay community. Americans need to know that the gay community can police itself, set boundaries and understand the reasons why grown men dry-humping themselves in public is not the kind of behavior that washes with the American family. You all seem to be arguing (some more bluntly then others) that traditionalists are the problem, and that the core of American traditionalism needs to change in order to suit gay marriage. What the pro-gay marriage camp seems to refuse to see is that there needs to be change in the gay community and in the way that community presents itself as well, and in fact, first. People seem to insist that the gay community has no problems and that the apparent corruption and indecency displayed by the gay community is just a few fringe elements. Maybe, maybe not. I don’t know. What I do know is that gay marriage will never be reality so long as traditionalists form the core of the American populus and gay rights activists intend to put forth a divisive and aggressive policy. So you have two options, wait and hope that the American core changes to something less traditional, which is at best a long wait, or change the policy used by the gay rights activists to something more mature.

I don’t know that I can say this any more clearly. I’m fairly sure that some of you will refuse to see anything I say as reasonable so long as I’m not agreeing with you, and some of you may understand what I’m saying and simply not agree with me. I don’t think the problem is the gay community, but nor do I think the problem is traditional America, rather I think it is the gay rights activists, who are operating on immature arguments and simply have not thought things through very far. The gay rights activists are trying to persuade traditional America to their side, but they are doing it the wrong way.

I don’t really feel like I’m getting anywhere with this line of debate, so I’ll end it here and hopefully someone will think about what I’m trying to say.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 10:38 AM

Oh, for crying out loud. Trying to say, as Finn Mac Cumhal has, that:

Quote:
but the issue is more complex then polarizing it as gay marriage is right and traditionalists are bigots.

is like saying that peanut butter and banana sandwiches have subtle layers. Please. The people who want to get married just want that. There is no agenda, unless you call wanting the same thing everybody else has an agenda. The religious wingnuts of this country are the ones who have polarized the issue, so worried are they that Christianity will suddenly *poof* disappear if gay people are allowed to marry those they love.

Quote:
The problem is that the pro-gay marriage camp has become a mop up organization seeking to “cover-up” the problems with the gay community instead of pointing them out and denouncing them.

So, denying them a theoretically stabilizing institution like marriage makes it all just go away, does it? Makes the gays behave according to some sort of pre-approved seemliness? Makes everyone sit up and take notice how extremely well-behaved and discreet most Christian bananaboats are, yes?

(snipping rest of post because, well, yuck)

If everyone else is being polite to you, Finn, I will take a deep breath, gird my loins, and be rude. Because I don't have the patience to be nice - you're touting a bigoted line, you've fooled yourself into thinking you're broad-minded, and you're proselytizing. Which, to me, is about the rudest thing anyone can do.

Here's the deal: Christian Rightwing Wingnuts, of every variety and flavour, those Biblical literalists, those moon-faced morons who gave up their higher brain functions to believe everything will be oh. kay. for them if they just believe in what they're told to believe in, these same religious angels of vengeance think that marriage will somehow dissolve as a sacrament if people of the same sex have it too. To this end, they argue that somehow gay culture is, well, strident or promiscuous, or whatever their tiny little minds imagines it to be. As if there was such a thing as "gay culture," all people being individuals. Should we follow that reasoning, however, wouldn't it make more sense for those scared folks to advocate marriage, for everybody, since it cuts down on the promiscuity. At least in theory. I mean, if gays were all married to each other, they wouldn't be bothering the Straight White Male Protestants, now, would they? What with their fun lifestyles and carefree ways.

I'd love to know what "problems" the gay community has. I mean, besides the normal problems people have with each other in every situation.

People are people, people. We're all different, and we're all the same. Dividing us into pre-approved groups only serves to make you look stupid.

Unless you're a religious nutjob, in which case, enjoy your faith in the privacy of your own home, as long as it doesn't disturb anybody or frighten the horses.

/over-the-top

"There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 12:22 PM

I do go on...

I have to get my baby girl, so this will actually be very short.

Finn--
I can agree with you that of course the gay community has problems (I don't personally know anybody who claims otherwise) if you can agree with me that these problems are not unique to the gay community. Everybody has problems.

Heck, hets have: Mardi Gras, Las Vegas, strip clubs, football games, soccor matches, basketball games, golf, Florida, gambling boats and other establishments, and reality TV in which to riot and flaunt quick nudity here and there, dressing flambuoyantly, disturbing the peace, overturning cars, and flashing people indiscriminately in some cases, usually freely yelling profanities and other explitives all the while. (I may be wrong about the majority of these types of events, but I know what I've seen on TV. I assume that's where most of the people opposed to gay marriage are getting their information too.)

I don't think anyone should be held legally responsible for the flambuoyant actions of others, but I agree with you that a nuanced position is vital in any discussion if you're going to come up with a solution that really works.

There is no such thing as a weed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 1:46 PM

@Finn mac Cumhal:
All you've done is come up with straw-man arguments and complain that no-one is listening to you.

If you would read the posts in response to yours you'll see that we have, very logically, gone through your arguments and argued against them, showing the straw-man-ness of them. And quite effectively if I might say so.

Why you still cling to what has been proved otherwise here I have no idea.

Perhaps you should actually read the lit. from the gays instead of (from what I can gather here) listening to the right-wing religious nuts telling you what they think the gays want and the implications as well.

I'm really actually boggled by the "reality" you live in.

How can you say that gays are perverted people because of x, y, z when x, y, z are the fringe of there culture. Not to mention that hetero culture has x, y, z (or at least the analog of it) as well.

Have you actually listened to yourself? Because by your arguments, heteros shouldn't be getting married because they are deviants as well.

You should really take the time to find out what gay culture really is and what they really do, because your idea of what it and what they are, is very very off.

You should also find out what the real implications to same-sex marriage are as what you think is, again, very very off.

And I'll mention it once more here because it really needs to be said... again.

If you are being called a bigot here, with all the quite intelligent resonable people that post to this forum... well, you might want to think about that.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 2:53 PM

Okay, one last post:

Quote:
Originally posted by Unicorn:
I can agree with you that of course the gay community has problems (I don't personally know anybody who claims otherwise) if you can agree with me that these problems are not unique to the gay community. Everybody has problems.

I don’t know. Do you think I can agree with that? I’ll leave that up to you, but let me remind you of a recent post from me to you:

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
These pink thong wearing gay men certainly demonstrate a horrendous degree of immaturity by exposing themselves in such a manner that children are likely to see. But heterosexuals are just as likely to do that same thing. There are perverts are both sides. The difference is that if a heterosexual pervert does something that is offensive to me or my family, I can do something about it. I can criticize it. I can insist that there is something wrong with exposing my children to this and most intelligent people in this country will respect my feelings. But if a gay man does something similar and I criticize it, I’m as likely to be called a bigot or a homophobe. There’s no consideration given to the idea that I’m not a bigot or a homophobe. That I have no ill will towards gay people and even have some friends who are gay (who happen to agree with me on many things), or that I, in fact, support gay rights. Just that I criticized a gay man or the gay community is enough to get me labeled a bigot by a segment of the Left in this country. That’s the greater immaturity. It’s not rational, or just or equitable. It’s an immaturity of thought.

To further illustrate my point:
Examine SIGMANUNKI’s posts who has consistently called me a bigot with no support for such a claim other then his contention of his own self-proclaimed reasonableness.

Examine REEQUEEN’s post who introduced his/herself to this discussion by calling me a bigot, whose support for my presumed bigotry apparently lies in her contention that Christians are “Rightwing Wingnuts” and “moon-faced morons.”

Now granted SIGMANUNKI and REEQUEEN may represent a fanatical wing of this discussion, but aside from their use of adhomenem and insults, their arguments are not dissimilar from the typical pro-gay marriage argument. The pro-gay marriage strategy is to zealously and prejudicially attack traditionalism, asserting that an anti-gay marriage position is paramount to bigotry. Indeed, one can be in favor of gay marriage (as I am), but to criticize the gay rights movement is enough to get one labeled a bigot. The desire is not to discuss the issues, but to silence dissent and criticism, through false accusations and intimidation. And when you understand this, you understand why the gay rights activists put on parades in which they ALLOW weirdoes in pink thongs to represent the gay community. These promiscuous individuals did not happen to be in the parade by mistake. They were allowed to be in the parade by parade organizers. Following the strategy as is used by SIGMANUNKI and REQUEEN, which is to say: Traditionalists are bigots therefore we will insult them. Do you believe this is a strategy that is likely to prevail, or an immature attitude which needs revising? Indeed, it did NOT prevail and in fact, now there are eleven new States with laws restricting marriage to the traditional definition.

A quote from Tammy Bruce who is, by the way, a lesbian.
“In classic Thought Police fashion and like children throwing a tantrum, the name-calling flies—those who oppose gay marriage are “homophobes,” “haters” and, the label du jour, “bigots.” Once again, the Left, unable to answer critics with respect, resort to name-calling only to further the divide they need to validate their inevitable victimhood.”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12339

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 4:05 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

English common law has traditionally defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Show me a historical quote in English common law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Then show me a historical quote in US law (preferably legislated Federal law, or State legislated law, or Federal or State state common law) that DEFINES marriage as between a man and a woman. Definitions have meaning in law, so a presumption that that's what they WOULD have said is not adequate. To make your claim, you need to find a bona fide definition that actually says what you claim.

And I think you 'misunderestimate' history. Do you not think homosexuals actually existed in the past? For hundreds of years common laws covered all sorts of things - including when abortion is the perogative of a woman. Why is there no specific, ancient common law against homosexual relationships? Was it because they didn't happen? (Unlikely) More likely, the neighbors simply - looked the other way. Did not check too deeply into the nature of the relationship between same sex people living together BECAUSE it would not produce children, or paternity and inheritance questions. I find the silence of common law to a common situation simply astounding, and extremely revealing.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 4:16 PM

According to FindLaw, a database of legal definitions and jurisprudence.

Quote:
. . . a common law marriage can occur only when:
1. a heterosexual couple lives together in a state that recognizes common law marriages
2. for a significant period of time (not defined in any state)
3. holding themselves out as a married couple -- typically this means using the same last name, referring to the other as "my husband" or "my wife" and filing a joint tax return, and
4. intending to be married. [Emphasis mine]

http://public.findlaw.com/family/nolo/faq/709FAEE4-ABEA-4E17-BA3483638
8313A3C.html

Since Common Law forms the bases of our statutory law, it is enough that Common Law defines marriage as being between a man and woman to support the precedence behind statutory and constitutional marriage definitions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 4:20 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

That is the CURRENT state of the law, not a historical one. As you may remember, the DOMA was adopted by many states in 1996 or later, which altered their common-law marriage rules.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 4:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
That is the CURRENT state of the law, not a historical one. As you may remember, the DOMA was adopted by many states in 1996 or later, which altered their common-law marriage rules.

I doubt the Common law definition has changed in at least a hundred years. In fact, I doubt it’s changed significantly in a thousand years. In regards to gender, anyway.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And I think you 'misunderestimate' history. Do you not think homosexuals actually existed in the past? For hundreds of years common laws covered all sorts of things - including when abortion is the perogative of a woman. Why is there no specific, ancient common law against homosexual relationships? Was it because they didn't happen? (Unlikely) More likely, the neighbors simply - looked the other way. Did not check too deeply into the nature of the relationship between same sex people living together BECAUSE it would not produce children, or paternity and inheritance questions. I find the silence of common law to a common situation simply astounding, and extremely revealing.

Well, if by marriage you mean a state sanctioning of a sexual relationship between two individuals of the same sex, the answer to your question is that, in general, it probably didn’t happen. If you mean two members of the opposite sex living together and having sex, that was, at certain times and places, quite common. And in fact, usually quite accepted by the people, so there would have been no need to “look the other way,” as you contend. The state however, rarely sanctioned such relationship even in places, such as the ancient Greco-Roman world, where homosexual acts were, under certain conditions, quite common and accepted. The closes thing I know of, to a state sanctioning of a homosexual relationships, was in Ancient Greece, and I’m not completely sure that I remember the details. But while homosexual acts were, under certain conditions, not only accepted but often praised, that doesn’t mean that homosexuals were necessarily so tolerated. In fact, being gay in the ancient world was often a death sentence.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 6:55 PM

Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Okay, one last post:

Promises, promises...

Quote:

Examine REEQUEEN’s post who introduced his/herself to this discussion by calling me a bigot, whose support for my presumed bigotry apparently lies in her contention that Christians are “Rightwing Wingnuts” and “moon-faced morons.”

Yes? So? If you align yourself with the propaganda espoused by those I label nutbars and religious wackaloons, then it isn't my fault that you're offended.

I stated right up front that I wasn't going to be polite.

By the way, I am female, hetero, the mother of three sons - all straight - and live in Utah. Is that enough biographical detail for you? Or do you also need to know that I'm agnostic, far left liberal, and pretty damn quick off the posting box?

To correct your mistaken impression, I did not leap into the fray with both size 9 1/2 feet by calling you a bigot. I posted a rather nicely written piece about Mormon polygamy, as I recall. Perhaps you didn't read it, because you're too focused on your own crusade? Don't matter.....

Quote:
Now granted SIGMANUNKI and REEQUEEN may represent a fanatical wing of this discussion, but aside from their use of adhomenem and insults, their arguments are not dissimilar from the typical pro-gay marriage argument.

Nah, my insults were fully deserved, and didn't come out of nowhere. If you hadn't expected heated debate, you would never have brought up your rather twisted logic. As for being "fanatical," well, fantatical is as fanatical does. I don't see me with a sign, hanging about churches, spreading the gospel of agnosticism or "gay" rights (as opposed to rights that everybody are owed, which is a point I think some have already mentioned). Nor do I pretend to be unbiased or unopinionated.

My opinions matter to me, as they should to everybody. I have the ability to say what I mean, and I intend to continue doing so. If that bothers you, it's really too bad.

Quote:
The pro-gay marriage strategy is to zealously and prejudicially attack traditionalism

Right. Because retaining everything traditional is so much better than introducing social skills and practices that would be more beneficial for everybody. If everyone obeyed tradition, we wouldn't even have this country, because people would've been too discreet to rock the British boat.

Please. There's nothing wrong with tradition, in it's place. However, worshipping tradition as the basis of everything (perceived) good, is blind and advertises ignorance. If we still practiced many traditions, I would not be able to sit here and metaphorically rave at you, Finn. I would be knitting or something. Perhaps bringing in the coal so my husband could relax after a hard day's work at the papermill. Or whatever.

I would certainly be dead, because "traditional" medicine would've killed me when I had appendicitis at 15. Progress is what forced doctors to actually get education, and progress - while not always to the good - ensures that our society is not stagnant and insular.

Quote:
Indeed, one can be in favor of gay marriage (as I am), but to criticize the gay rights movement is enough to get one labeled a bigot.

Hmm...you say you support gay marriage, but then you say:

Quote:
the gay rights activists put on parades in which they ALLOW weirdoes in pink thongs to represent the gay community. These promiscuous individuals did not happen to be in the parade by mistake. They were allowed to be in the parade by parade organizers.

So the fu

ck what? Why do you care that some guy in a pink thong is in a parade? Did you go to the parade? Did you see the parade on tv? Or did you just hear about it? And even if you were accidentally exposed to the allegedly pink thong, why do you care so much that you were? I see things all the time that offend me, but I've learned that I don't have to look. It's easy - don't effing look. I mean, jayzus.

The sad thing is, this seems to be the only thing that bothers you, at least the only thing I can really get a grip on. I realize you're offended by the perceived promiscuity the pink thong represents, but is it really any of your business? It's none of mine, just as it's none of my business what church you go to, or what underwear you wear. I don't care because I'm smart enough to know that those things don't affect me, just as the pink thong doesn't affect you. Not really. You've just convinced yourself that it does.

Why do you care what other people do? Have they scared your horses?

Personally, I'm not so big on the whole "gay rights" thing, because I'm more of a inclusionary person. I think all people deserve the rights that some people are given without question. Why is that such a difficult step to make? That everyone deserves to express themselves, even when it embarasses or upsets you, Finn.

Quote:
Following the strategy as is used by SIGMANUNKI and REQUEEN, which is to say: Traditionalists are bigots therefore we will insult them.

Well, to tell you the truth, my observation has been that most traditionalists most definitely are bigots. I like to say what I think, and that is what I think. Sometimes I use language that offends, and that can be amusing.

Quote:
Do you believe this is a strategy that is likely to prevail, or an immature attitude which needs revising? Indeed, it did NOT prevail and in fact, now there are eleven new States with laws restricting marriage to the traditional definition.

Hmmm....then explain the state that does allow gay marriage. And then explain, in a few months or years time, why the Supreme Court did what it had to do, by voiding those laws for being unConstitutional. It could be a long time coming, but it will come. It's something called "change," you may have heard of it.

As for the immature attitude, hey baby, it's what keeps me young.

Hiding behind traditionalism, and the fact that the bigots got a hold of several state legislatures, doesn't make you right. It does, however, make you a bit of a follower. "Oh, this is the popular mood, I'll go with that!" Just because you're in the majority in this country, doesn't make you a better person. Neither, by the way, does pointing out someone else's bad behaviour. That just makes you smarmy and obnoxious.

I, on the other hand, know I'm smarmy and obnoxious. I think I'm funny, and that's really all I need.

"There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 7:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
Hmmm....then explain the state that does allow gay marriage. And then explain, in a few months or years time, why the Supreme Court did what it had to do, by voiding those laws for being unConstitutional. It could be a long time coming, but it will come. It's something called "change," you may have heard of it.

As for the immature attitude, hey baby, it's what keeps me young.

Explain what? You have one state, at most two. The Traditional Marriage Camp has 38. And ultimately, the only solution that you can see is the anti-democratic option of a Supreme Court ruling to impose a minority will on the country, supposing that it comes and supposing that the ruling is in your favor? There are a lot of ifs there, a part form the questionable ethics of relying on judges to impose law in democratic system where law is supposed to be written by elected officials of legislative body. But I admire your spunk. Most people would call that loosing.

Let me offer you an alternative:

Let’s assume that this Supreme Court ruling actually comes (I could be wrong, but I don’t think the Supreme Court would take it), and let’s assume that the ruling is in your favor. Now assuming that the pro-gay marriage camp has not made any more friends in the traditional marriage camp, and by your demeanor that would seem to be reasonable assumption, all that the traditional marriage camp has to do is hold a Convention and amend the US Constitution to negate your Supreme Court ruling (otherwise known as your one and last chance at gay marriage) thereby solving the gay marriage argument in favor of the traditionalists, presumably, forever. (Including taking away your only two states.)

They really wouldn’t even have to go to that much trouble though, because Congress could just pass a law striping the courts of any authority to act on the definition of marriage. My personal favorite, because it assures that the states can continue to legislate their own definitions of marriage, thereby preserving at least your two states (You can thank me anytime.)

Ideally the best solution for all involved, would be for both the Left and the Right in this case to come together and BOTH learn a lesson on tolerance and acceptance, but if that’s not good enough, then the Right in this case, has the power to end this for you, and there’s your change.

Like I said, the pro-gay marriage people are just not thinking this stuff through.

This really has to be my last serious post on this matter, because I've got too much work to do. And I can't spend my time thinking about this.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 9:03 PM

Finn--
I understand your distress. Example: Half of my background is Jewish, both German and Russian Jewish, and I have always identified with my Jewish and heathen roots rather than anything approaching other organized religions. (Unitarian Universalism is the exception because if you know anything about them, they are a decidedly DISorganized religion.) In college I doubled majored in English and religion with an emphasis on Judaism, my interest strongly based in the text of the Hebrew Bible and in figuring out what was in there and what we only thought was in that (I believe) largely misunderstood book of books. (Not that I believe for a moment that I even get it.)

When I visited Germany for a weekend while I was overseas a few years back, my companion for the two-day trip was a Jewish girl who said, as our train blustered through the picturesque German countryside on the way to Dresden, "Don't you feel the cold, the darkness descending over you like a plague? Can't you feel the hate? Don't you feel the horrible weight of the shadow of death, now that we're in Germany? It's like when we crossed the border, all the color drained away. Don't you feel it?" (I know, I know, we were in a writers' workshop together.)

Now outside, the weather was maybe 65 degrees F. and sunny, with a bright blue, clear sky that had a few bleach-white, fluffy clouds drifting languidly through it. We were passing beautiful rock formations, pristine rivers against a backdrop of rugged grey mountains and emerald-deep forests. We were passing glorious fields of bright orange, poppy-looking flowers, or pastures in which small herds of horses or cattle or goats ran free and uninhibited. You could tell there was a gentle breeze by looking at the trees we passed. In short, Germany, one of the lands of my ancestry, was wonderful, shiny even.

So I said, "No, I really don't feel that. I can't blame this place today for its history. The holocaust was a terrible thing, but it is an event in the past, and my Jewish roots are from here."

My companion stopped listening at 'no I don't feel that' and started shrieking at me that I was a terrible anti-semite for not feeling the jaws of Germany closing around my neck in a mystical death-grip. (Later that evening, this companion would tell some young German men we made friends with that I had told her all Germans were evil and responsible for the holocaust, which fortunately they mostly seemed to ignore, though I wanted to strangle her when she said it!) She wouldn't ever let me get a word in after that conversation on the train, though, and it was deeply frustrating and upsetting to me.

At my heart's core, I try very hard to refrain from judging people. Oh, I'll adamantly rip into an argument I feel can't hold water, and I can be quite ferocious, but I really try to understand people, where they are coming from, so this girl just totally flabbergasted me. She couldn't listen to a thing I said, and she didn't understand me at all, or try to. In her defense, her grandmother had survived one of the camps, so I can understand that it was difficult for her to feel the sun on her back in Germany. I just wish she could have accepted where I was coming from, too.

To answer your answer to my question (sheesh!), you did indeed assert that everyone has problems. But you still insist on linking disparate issues together, when they have nothing to do with each other.

And I disagree with you about someone doing harm to your family. You can raise outcry whenever that happens, no matter who does the harm. Sure there may be a few people claiming you're only accusing someone because he's gay, but there are always a few people claiming to be a minority-under-siege in some way; the truth will out.

But may I ask you a question? What harm does the guy in the thong do exactly, if you aren't in Boystown to see it? (If a guy in Boystown wears a thong and no offended people are there to see it, is it still offensive?) And why does it matter so much to some people whether the guy in the thong is gay in the first place?

You keep saying it doesn't matter to you, but you'll be persecuted for calling a flasher out if he or she is gay; you know you aren't a basher, just as I know I'm not an anti-semite, so screw the people who'd say so. Your numerous gay or liberally-minded friends can vouch for you; I say again, the truth will out.

And another question. Where are you worried that all of this exposure to flambuoyant behavior will come from? How is it any different from that of heterosexuals, really? Especially considering that in all of the venues I laid out previously, such as Vegas and Mardi Gras, the weird and kinky are considered par for the course.

I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm trying to understand where the panic comes from. Where is all of this gay exposure you feel bombarded with (or that you feel others are forcibly bombarded with) coming from, and how is it harmful? Obviously there are a few liberals dogging your heels in this chat room, but I haven't seen any gay flashers, not even on Queer As Folk, and believe me, I've been looking.

I can list only innocuous exposure: Will and Grace (totally mainstream, except for that one character is gay). I see Queer Eye, which, yes, it's stereotyping members of the gay and straight communities, but it's very tongue-in-cheek about it; it's okay to caricature yourself, and after all, even when Carson flames to the max, we all get to see that it's really harmless. Queer As Folk is not for the faint of heart where graphic sex is concerned, and it's less a good show than it is a soap opera with a totally good heart, but you've gotta love the characters, and it's only on late at night when, presumably, no decent conservative would be watching anyway. Oh-- there were two episodes of Joan of Arcadia where the show suggested God didn't mind gays. Is that the offensive coverage? Inara slept with a woman, but that was her job, and Fox took the show off shortly thereafter, I've always thought, politically. I'm just not seeing the exposure you're describing.

There are much more offensive programs in the reality market, people selling themselves out in all manner of ways; none of the worst of these are gay.

If you were talking about two men walking down the street holding hands (which you aren't I know), I'd have to disagree with you. Straight people hold hands in public all the time without encountering accusations of indecency. There are people who argue that this is precisely the sort of gay behavior up with which they shall not put. Why? In my mind, this is not flauting the laws of nature by flaunting something obscene in public; this is a public expression of affection for a dear one, and why should gays be denied that simplest of joys?

The people who are shouting about a concern for marriage and the harm that gay marriage would do are also the people who happen to control just about every branch of government right now. These are the people who are looking for ways to make it even harder for minority representation to get a toe in the door, messing with the fillibuster and only today giving up on changing the law about indicted committee chairs. These are the people who deliberately messed with redistricting across the country to try to give themselves a political edge in the past couple of elections, even if that meant that a large number of the masses were shorted due representation. These are the people who are in the majority of the power seats right now, though they're there by the narrowest of margins. They don't have to panic. They're sitting pretty. They're claiming the defensive, but when you occupy most of the power seats, that's offense you're playing, and to claim otherwise is frankly kind of dishonest.

The shouting tone of the pro-gay-marriage camp is entirely due to the fact that we're always on defense, and every time we turn around, we come under assault again. And the offense isn't using statistics or science, because these things don't support their position. They're telling lies, saying that all gays want to take over the earth and promote a lifestyle of Sodom the likes of which not even they could imagine. They appeal to the fears, to the emotions, of the people most likely to listen and believe, because that's their most powerful weapon, and the truth be damned.

We shout because we don't want to be drowned out by the majority in their bully-pulpit, because we want to be the ones defining who we are, and because nobody else will speak for us if we don't make ourselves heard.

There is no such thing as a weed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 9:10 PM

Sorry for the double. Here, simply put, it's like this:
Regarding the will of the minority and so on,

Most times, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

But there are times when the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.

It happened when thousands of white people didn't want hundreds of black people to desegregate and vote. It should happen again now, because nobody is hurt of gays can marry, but quite a few people are hurt if gays can't marry.

I'll repeat the most important part of that: Nobody is hurt if gays can marry.

Thank you, Spock.

There is no such thing as a weed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 7:13 AM

Finn:

Actually, the only thing I "loosed" was my irritation. Nice try, though, sweetie....

Clearly you are afraid of anything other than complete mob rule. If you're in the majority, that must make you right. I think you forget that your majority is only a majority by a very slim margin. Still doesn't make it right.

Of course, it must be a relief to finally be in the majority after all those years of frustration. I mean, between the years of Reagan/Bush/Reagan/Bush/Bush/Dork and Bush/Cheney/Bush/Cheney.

Turn about is fair play, and we liberals did get spanked. I think your main concern here is that we enjoy it. True enough, masochism has it's good points, but the wheel keeps turning. That's your fear. For all the retrogressive, pseudo-Christian, and anti-humane laws passed now, there will be an accounting. That must really frighten you.

Good.

"There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 10:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Unicorn:
Finn--
I understand your distress. .

Actually, if your example is any indication, I don’t think you do. Basically, you’re just calling me a bigot; you’re just using more words. Isn’t that really what you’re saying? Did I miss your point?

A better analogy would be to say that I’m telling you that I think there is something wrong with the way the Nazis are doing things and that they will hurt Germany, which most intelligent people would say is accurate. And in response you’re telling me that I’m saying all Germans are Nazis, when it is quite clearly obvious that I am only criticizing the Nazis.

Likewise, (for what has to be the tenth time now) I’m telling you that I think the gay rights movement is making a mistake in the way they are handling things and it will (and has) hurt the gay community. In response you’ve completely ignored direct comments by me, because they didn’t support the typical accusations of bigotry, and then went ahead and accused me of blaming all the gay community for the actions of a few. It’s quite obvious that is not what I’m doing.

Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
Clearly you are afraid of anything other than complete mob rule. If you're in the majority, that must make you right. I think you forget that your majority is only a majority by a very slim margin. Still doesn't make it right.

It has nothing to do with what I want or fear. It has to do with reality. The gay rights movement cannot challenge Traditional America directly on the issue of marriage. If it comes down to a political battle of wills, you will lose.

My position remains the same. I personally support gay marriage, but I do no think that society has the maturity to deal with the issue of gay marriage, right now. And just about all your comments serve to support my position. There needs to be a movement away from this offensive, ad hominem-style politics. And the gay rights activists need to make the first move.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 11:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

To further illustrate my point:
Examine SIGMANUNKI’s posts who has consistently called me a bigot with no support for such a claim other then his contention of his own self-proclaimed reasonableness.

Actually, if you go back and read my posts you will find that I logically discard your opinion and call you a bigot for very logical reasons.

Yourself on the otherhand have not contested any of the points that I have brought up. You just keep stating the same very wrong opinions about the gay community.

YOU ARE BASING YOUR "KNOWLEDGE" AND OPINIONS ABOUT GAYS ON THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE AND NOT THE RULE ITSELF.

The rule being that gays are people and have the same problems in the same proportions that the rest of us have.

I've even used your own reasoning against you proving that by your reasoning, heteros shouldn't be getting married as well. Funny you didn't comment on that.

I challenge you, again, to prove me otherwise.

You can keep saying that I've not provided support for my arguments, but as anyone can see, it is there. You just choose to ignore them.

Also, I have not called those "traditionalists" bigots. I call those that are anti-gay-marriage because all they see in the gay community is the pink thong, etc (that you keep going back to) bigots. So, if the shoe fits...

I call them bigots just like I'd call someone who says that all blacks are stupid and worthless because some inner city school's black population gets more than poor grades and a lot also go to jail a bigot as well.

Just like I'd call anyone that calls German nothing but a bunch of Nazis a bigot.

etc

As you can see, I'm not calling you a bigot because you are against gay marriage. If you were only against gay marriage that'd be a different discussion. It is the reasons why you are against it that I call you a bigot and that is what you fail to see.

Currently, you are, at least, behaving like a bigot. Now if you would just get a clue of what the gay community is really about, then we could have a conversation. The majority of the gay community isn't the pink thong, etc that you state it is. They are normal, law abidding people that just want the same rights as everyone else. The only difference is there sexual orientation.

Basically, what we know, is that bigotry comes from fear and misunderstanding. It is this misunderstanding that you must fix before you can have any meaningful discussion on this topic.

Also, you keep coming back a non-point that we aren't addressing the point that the gay community has problems with it. This is fay-fay duh pee-yen. We have addressed it by basically saying, yes but the "straight" community has the same problems in the same proportions. Thus the non-point. Re-read the above posts if you don't believe me.

And how you get from being flamboyant to promiscuous I do not know. Just because someone is flamboyant doesn't mean that they are promiscuous. It just means that they are probably a tease, but doesn't mean anything more.

And perhaps you should supply some defense for your opinions. Just because you don't like how other people argue doesn't mean that they don't have a point. It just means you don't like the delivery method or are interpreting things wrong. Don't confuse those things.

Now, you say that gays (who are currently primarily "older" though this is changing as more and more "youths" are "coming out") are promiscuous. Well let's assume that this is true for a significant portion of the gay community.

Well, what about the fact that for straight singles in there 30s+, they are quite promiscuous in general as well. You are aware of the 3rd date rule right (if it even takes to the 3rd date)?

What about for a lot of teens now, oral sex is like shaking hands, or you don't even need to know the persons name to do it?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd catagorize these things as rather promiscuous. So, the "straights" have the same problem here as the "gays."

So then, how again is this a point to keep something from the gays that the straights have?

The problem with your arguments, that I as well as others have brought up before in round about ways, is the tunnel vision of them.

You bring up points, that although valid, are narrow minded for the simple fact that you don't acknowledge the fact that the problems you bring up are not unique to the gay community, but are problems in society in general.

This makes your arguments moot (and I've stated this before) as it implies that "straights" shouldn't marry as well. Why do you refuse to address this flaw in your argument?

Basically, if you want to have a meaningful conversation about this, you must start to address what other people are saying about your arguments because they are just as flawed as you say other peoples are.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 12:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
This makes your arguments moot (and I've stated this before) as it implies that "straights" shouldn't marry as well. Why do you refuse to address this flaw in your argument?

Because it's not my argument. It's something you invented.

You can't logically accuse me of bigotry if you use my argument, so you invent something and then pretend that I said it. But I never made any of the claims you accuse me of having made. You invented them all. You're entire posts is essentially a fabrication.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 12:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

A better analogy would be to say that I’m telling you that I think there is something wrong with the way the Nazis are doing things and that they will hurt Germany, which most intelligent people would say is accurate. And in response you’re telling me that I’m saying all Germans are Nazis, when it is quite clearly obvious that I am only criticizing the Nazis.

Um, what's your timeframe, because this statment is either kind of right or wholly wrong depending on when and where you are talking about. This analogy is rather bad in general because of this.

In the beginning of the the Nazi movement they were a small political party and thus couldn't be confused with Germans in general.

During the hieght of there power, there may have been confusion for the sheer amount of power that they had. But it was clear to many that many Germans were helping the allies.

And if you look to the intellecutal newspapers in the time period when the Nazis where rising to power and in influence, they definitly were saying how horrible the Nazis were. A lot even left the country before (and after) the war broke out and lived in England.

When my German wife gets home I can ask her about how many Germans in general supported the war if anyone is interested.

Now, the Nazis are just an annoyance which everyone just lets yell and shout to prove there ignorance. They are a threat only to there direct surroundings; kind of like a gang in North America. So, no confusion is there.

What at least myself (and some others) are saying is that you are a bigot because you only consider but a fraction of the gay community when you form your opinions. You must consider the whole community and compare it to our own community to see if any real differences exist. It is clear that none really do.

Gay man in pink thong - Fat man in spedo on beach
Promiscuous gay man - Promiscuous straight people
Obnoxious anti-gay marriage activist - Obnoxious pro-gay marriage activist
etc

ALL of what you've said about the gay community have a equivalent in the straight community in the same proportions. I find it interesting that you don't comment on these things.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 12:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
ALL of what you've said about the gay community have a equivalent in the straight community in the same proportions. I find it interesting that you don't comment on these things.

It’s not that I don’t comment on these things, but rather that you conveniently choose to ignore where I have said. You pick and choose my comments out of context to suit your pre-conceived accusation of bigotry. You fabricate a bigoted argument and claim I said it, when in reality I said no such thing. This is called a strawman.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 12:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Because it's not my argument. It's something you invented.

You can't logically accuse me of bigotry if you use my argument, so you invent something and then pretend that I said it. But I never made any of the claims you accuse me of having made. You invented them all. You're entire posts is essentially a fabrication.

So, you never said that gays are promiscuous? Wait a minute, you did.

So, you never said (you know certain words have meanings and imply certain things, right?) that all gay men are the same type on the parade floats? Wait a minute, you did.

I could go on, but if you're not even going to read what you wrote, there's no point.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 12:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
So, you never said that gays are promiscuous? Wait a minute, you did.

Some gays are.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
So, you never said (you know certain words have meanings and imply certain things, right?) that all gay men are the same type on the parade floats? Wait a minute, you did.

Actually I did not. You invented this.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I could go on, but if you're not even going to read what you wrote, there's no point.

This is the pot calling the kettle black.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 12:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

ALL of what you've said about the gay community have a equivalent in the straight community in the same proportions. I find it interesting that you don't comment on these things.

It’s not that I don’t comment on these things, but rather that you conveniently choose to ignore where I have said. You pick and choose my comments out of context to suit your pre-conceived accusation of bigotry. You fabricate a bigoted argument and claim I said it, when in reality I said no such thing. This is called a strawman.

All I've read from you is something like, "The gay community is promiscuous and wears pink thongs on parade floats and I find that offensive!"

I've brought up (and others) that the straight community has the same problems in the same proportions.

Quote yourself addressing this.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 1:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

So, you never said that gays are promiscuous? Wait a minute, you did.

Some gays are.

But you imply that they ALL are. Which is my problem with this and you never address the fact that a lot of straights are as well.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

So, you never said (you know certain words have meanings and imply certain things, right?) that all gay men are the same type on the parade floats? Wait a minute, you did.

Actually I did not. You invented this.

You did read the word imply right? If you didn't want to say this the you shouldn't have kept going on about only refering to gays that are on the parade floats. You should have said something like, "I know that they aren't representive of the gay community, but..." which is what you exactly didn't do. But then again, that'd take a lot of wind out of the sails of your argument.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

I could go on, but if you're not even going to read what you wrote, there's no point.

This is the pot calling the kettle black.

What?

On a different note, I'm finding this quick back and forth somewhat amuzing

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 1:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
All I've read from you is something like, "The gay community is promiscuous and wears pink thongs on parade floats and I find that offensive!"

Well, since I never made that quote, there is no possible way you could have read that from me. So this statement of yours is basically a lie.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I've brought up (and others) that the straight community has the same problems in the same proportions.

Quote yourself addressing this.

Previously posted by me. (And unlike your fabricated quote, this is a real quote by me in this thread, which presumably you read, but clearly ignored):

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
These pink thong wearing gay men certainly demonstrate a horrendous degree of immaturity by exposing themselves in such a manner that children are likely to see. But heterosexuals are just as likely to do that same thing. There are perverts are both sides.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 1:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
You did read the word imply right? If you didn't want to say this the you shouldn't have kept going on about only refering to gays that are on the parade floats. You should have said something like, "I know that they aren't representive of the gay community, but..." which is what you exactly didn't do. But then again, that'd take a lot of wind out of the sails of your argument.

Ah. So finally we get to the crux of it. You assumed that is what I meant. A convenient assumption, I think.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 2:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

All I've read from you is something like, "The gay community is promiscuous and wears pink thongs on parade floats and I find that offensive!"

Well, since I never made that quote, there is no possible way you could have read that from me. So this statement of yours is basically a lie.

Um, you clearly didn't read the "something like" in the sentence.

Basically, what this boils down to is that you think that I've (and others) have misinterpreted you. But, it's your job to type a clear as possible post that you can. It's our job to read your posts as best we can and see if we can't get what you meant.

Clearly, at times there are going to be misunderstandings and at that point they must be cleared up... by you. This is exactly what I don't see you doing.

All I see you doing is saying stuff like, "That's not what I said, this is just a lie!" Where is the, "I didn't mean that. What I actually meant was..."?

You just post a reponse attacking the person who attacked you saying that they have no right to call you a bigot, etc, not even acknowledging the possibility that the other person may have a point. That the problem could have been in the way you are communicating your ideas or you may actually be that way (though I imagine none of us wants to think of ourselves in that way).

I've been, in not so many words, called a bigot before on a select few occasions as well. My response was to stop the person and find out why they thought what they did and then fix the problem. This has always ended up in an "I'm sorry" type situation.

So, what are you doing to rectify the situation here besides just telling us that you aren't?

Here's my argument:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot
bigot:
"
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
"

What I've read of your posts is that you are intolerant of those that differ (gays, on floats at least). That you are strongly partial to your own notion of marriage (man and woman only) and unaccepting of another way.

You say that you're for it, but then make an argument against it. Should we not be fighting for what's right and not saying that it shouldn't be done because of how a few are going about trying to make it happen? Is this not reasonable?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=prejudice
prejudice:
"
An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
"

What I've read of your posts you are holding an unreasonable notion of gays basing your knowledge about them on only a select few that are on the fringe of gay culture. As I've said before, to base an opinion about a people on only the extreme and/or the delinquents is irresponsible. It also does less than justice to the reasonable majority of the gay population.

The above is at least a short explination of my opinion of you based on what you've said here. So, if you would care to re-state your position with greater clarity so that we may have a chance of understanding what you actually originally meant, please do so.

But even throwing aside the bigotry issue, how do you justify not allowing gays to marry given that it is unConstitutional to do so? Or is it now, america the free, unless you're gay? Do you not see the future implications by not allowing gays to marry? How many other things might come up in the future that are Constitutional, but because the majority find it icky or are uncomfortable with it and thus want it banned, it will be banned? What happened to all that freedom that I keep hearing you guys talking about?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 2:41 PM

We've already determined that your assumptions about what I've said are essentially fabrications. This is simply further fabrication.

And you're fabrications and accusations of bigotry continue to prove my point.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 3:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Unicorn:
Finn--
I understand your distress. .
Actually, if your example is any indication, I don’t think you do. Basically, you’re just calling me a bigot; you’re just using more words. Isn’t that really what you’re saying? Did I miss your point?

Yes, you totally missed my point. I'm no anti-semite. I'm half Jewish, for crying out loud! But I've been unfairly called an anti-semite by a very emotional person (the girl in my story above) who couldn't be reasoned with and who woiuld not listen to a word I said after she made that decision about me. Therefore I understand your distress at being called a bigot when you take pains not to be one. That's all I was trying to illustrate with my (apparently too long and complicated) story.

Now quit accusing me if name-calling! I'm working very hard to keep this conversation civil and reasonable, because it's the only way to get anything done and still feel good about the result.

I apologize for the emoticon (or the embarrassing, flubbed use of such); they're not really my style, but I was testing out usage.

There is no such thing as a weed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 5:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Unicorn:
Yes, you totally missed my point. I'm no anti-semite. I'm half Jewish, for crying out loud! But I've been unfairly called an anti-semite by a very emotional person (the girl in my story above) who couldn't be reasoned with and who woiuld not listen to a word I said after she made that decision about me. Therefore I understand your distress at being called a bigot when you take pains not to be one. That's all I was trying to illustrate with my (apparently too long and complicated) story.

Now quit accusing me if name-calling! I'm working very hard to keep this conversation civil and reasonable, because it's the only way to get anything done and still feel good about the result.

Well, then I did miss your point, and I owe you an apology. I’m sorry for jumping to conclusions. I perhaps should have reread your posts before responding so hastily, but starting work this week has placed serious constraints on my time. I hope you’ll accept my apology.

And after re-reading your post, I realize what you actually said was not what I originally construed it to mean, and if you’ll permit me, I’ll address the question that you asked.

There is no difference between the flamboyant behavior of heterosexuals and homosexuals. Traditionalists don’t like sexual promiscuity among heterosexuals anymore then they like it under homosexuals, particularly the ones who have teen-age daughters. But traditionalists, by and large, also don't know that much about homosexuals, and in the absence of other images, these sexuality explicit ones take on much more emphasis then perhaps they should. There’s already a huge uphill climb for gay marriage, and it’s only going to get worse if gay rights activists intend to put forth this image of the gay community has promiscuous. Now you can say all day that one gay person doesn’t represent the whole, and I agree with you, but when that one (or one like him) gay person, seems to find his way into the gay pride parades every single year, it does not make Traditionalists feel any better about accepting gay marriage. If the gay community puts forth an image of homosexuals as being responsible adults, then I think traditionalists will come to accept gay marriage.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2005 12:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

We've already determined that your assumptions about what I've said are essentially fabrications. This is simply further fabrication.

And you're fabrications and accusations of bigotry continue to prove my point.

Actually no you haven't, you've just stated that without proof. Which incidentally, I've asked for.

Also, I put forth an argument without using any personal attack or any such thing. I put forth an argument based on what americans keep telling the rest of the world and what I know of that country of yours.

I've also stated that there has clearly (from what you've said) been a misunderstanding. I've asked you to re-state your arguments (hopefully without using pink thong gay guy) and I'll reply accordingly.

I find it interesting that you've not commented on this. It kind of tells me that you havn't been reading my previous posts and are you just assuming the content.

I'll quote myself you need not use the page up key

Quote:

But even throwing aside the bigotry issue, how do you justify not allowing gays to marry given that it is unConstitutional to do so? Or is it now, america the free, unless you're gay? Do you not see the future implications by not allowing gays to marry? How many other things might come up in the future that are Constitutional, but because the majority find it icky or are uncomfortable with it and thus want it banned, it will be banned? What happened to all that freedom that I keep hearing you guys talking about?

I think that at this point I must mentioned that there are other things in a gay pride parade besides what you keep refering to. There are typically hundreds of normally dressed individuals walking in the parade as well.

I think that it must also be mentioned, that it is an unreasonable demand to say that it is only the gay community that must put forth a better image of themselves to prove that they are more than what some people perceve them as.

Reason dictates that it is the others in society that must do the same. Because the "traditionalists" are coming off just as crazy as you say the gay rights people are.

And even given what I've experienced talking to these people, even if one sticks to statistics, civil liberties, etc in the discussion, they won't listen.

So, how would it help if the gay community did this? When I've done it, they just tell me that I'm lieing, etc. That if they don't want it to happen in there country, they'll vote and that'll be it, human rights be damned.

So, why can't it be both? That is the logical, reasonable solution. You know, to require both the behave in a civilised fashion.

Basically, I agree with you that the gay pride parades must be made more... tame. But I disagree with you that it is only the gay community that must do something for forward this.

It is the resonsibility of all "traditionalists" to truely understand the issue before coming to a conclusion. This is what the (most at least) "traditionalists" have not done.

It is the resonsibility of the gays to not yell and scream about this. Perhaps they did in the beginning (or maybe just in your country because this certainly didn't happen in mine), but I see no evidence that this is still going on. If it is, please provide proof to the contrary.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2005 7:09 PM

SigmaNunki:

Quote:
Also, I put forth an argument without using any personal attack or any such thing.

I think what's-his-name was mostly unhappy with my rudeness (and I did have a disclaimer/warning at the top of my post that I was going to be rude, so I don't think anybody should've been surprised), and he just threw in your name because, well, you disagreed with him.

Quote:
I find it interesting that you've not commented on this. It kind of tells me that you havn't been reading my previous posts and are you just assuming the content.

This happens a lot - I do it all the time, because I simply haven't got the patience for people who write what they think are literate rebuttals, when what those posts really are, are screeds. I've written more than a few, so I should know.

SigmaNunki, you clearly have more patience than I do, and I happen to admire that. I just can't emulate it because there's a not-a-thing-you-can-tell-me dynamic at work here. Since I already know I am not going to convince anyone (meaning Finn) that he's wrong, no matter how many times he's told he's wrong, and no matter what factual, reasoned, and logical reasons he's given that prove he's wrong, I went with the rant option.

It's much less stressful that way, I find posting a screed or three often relieves tension. I understand that some people may not "get" this, and that's okay. We're not all built like obsessive/compulsive keyboard monkeys.

Quote:
I think that it must also be mentioned, that it is an unreasonable demand to say that it is only the gay community that must put forth a better image of themselves to prove that they are more than what some people perceve them as.

This is the rub, isn't it? To admit that heterosexual Christians may not act in a generally socially acceptable way is to admit that someone else may be right.

"There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 7, 2005 1:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:

[snip]
and he just threw in your name because, well, you disagreed with him.

Well, although I don't think I was rude (I backed up what I said) I definitly wasn't polite and I was somewhat aggressive. So I understand being thrown in that pile.

Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:

SigmaNunki, you clearly have more patience than I do, and I happen to admire that. I just can't emulate it because there's a not-a-thing-you-can-tell-me dynamic at work here. Since I already know I am not going to convince anyone (meaning Finn) that he's wrong, no matter how many times he's told he's wrong, and no matter what factual, reasoned, and logical reasons he's given that prove he's wrong, I went with the rant option.

I don't know that it's patience, probably more akin to stubbornness

Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:

This is the rub, isn't it? To admit that heterosexual Christians may not act in a generally socially acceptable way is to admit that someone else may be right.

< sarcasm >
What do you mean wrong? They're the majority! How can they be wrong?
< /sarcasm >

Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:

"There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi

LOL, that awesome!

Do you find it as interesting as I do regarding the tumble-weeds blowing by in this thread?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 7, 2005 3:22 PM

Tumblin' along with the tumblin' tumbleweeds.

Quote:
Well, although I don't think I was rude (I backed up what I said) I definitly wasn't polite and I was somewhat aggressive. So I understand being thrown in that pile.

Don't you know aggressiveness is often arbitrarily mistaken for rudeness? My gosh! Heh.

Quote:
I don't know that it's patience, probably more akin to stubbornness

Yeah, I know about stubbornness. Love the stubbornness. When I agree with the stubbonrnness.

Is that wrong?

Quote:
< sarcasm >
What do you mean wrong? They're the majority! How can they be wrong?
< /sarcasm >

Omigod. I see what you mean. My bad.

And now that we've completely managed to throw this thread off-track, I think our work is done here. Hah! It's not done till it's over-done!

(The "cat on fire" is quoted from Cosi, a lovely little Australian movie about a bunch of institutionalized nutbars (psychologically-speaking) putting on a production of Cosi fan Tutti. The guy who says it is recalling when he actually set cats on fire. Toni Collette and Barry Otto, who played Scott Hastings' father, Doug in Strictly Ballroom, are in it.) /extraneous detail

"There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 8, 2005 12:49 PM

WEASY

*slaps head on forehead*

Okay, first of all, isn't it wierd I have to write essays about this stuff! I'm actually going to write both sides off the argument - just based on the bible, and church canon- and then write my actual opinion.

Why just from the bible? Because the christian's here so poorly argued their point I felt sorry for them.

Even though I'm not actually a christian.

Christian fundamentalists these are your balanced points:
It says in the bible in the OT (Leviticus 18:20) - man lying with man is and abomination against the law and punishible by death.
Rational Christian replies in italic:
the same passage has no problem with polgamy, and as previously mentioned says you can't wear a garment made of two different types of cloth -they don't like homosexulaity because it mixes roles, not because there's necessarily anything intrinsically wrong with it. Plus abomination may be a mis-translation, more like shameful.

Genesis 19 Sodom and Gomorrah brought down by God for amongst other things trying to rape a man.
this is actually about kindness to strangers - a huge theme in the OT, Lot actually chucks out one of his daughters(or wives can't remember) to be raped instead.

Moore (a monk) said that M/M homossxuality was not permissible not because it was homosexual but because one partner takes on the female 'subservient' role.
With the rise of women talking their place in the workforce that's a bit of a moot point

St Paul condemns homosexuality in Corinths 6:9-10 and Romans 1.
Paul is actually trying to define the difference between christians and gentiles - we're special because we don't do this - honestly he could have picked anything

According to the pope (highest link to God), sex is a procreative and unitive event - gays can't have kids therefore immoral.
given that this is actually a 60s change to the original statment that sex was just about procreation ~ there is a change coming in the church me thinks. Plus some m/f couples can't have children - does that make their marriages immoral? The pope also says in the same document 'We are called to love each other as God loves his creations' It doesn't say it has to be m/f love.

According to natural law, (ie what nearly all christian teaching is based on) it is immoral to use anything in a way that does not fulfil it's natural purpose. genitallia is to procreate can't procreate with homosexual sex.
as before - as well as naturalistic fallicy - just because something ought to be used for a particular thing doesn't meant it won't get used for something else, and does it mean it's wrong to use it for anything else? example - mouths are to eat with, so should we never talk?

Jesus said absolutely nothing about homosexuality - and it *was* around at the time. What does that mean? That he probably didn't give a rats ass about it either way - 'Cos everything he thought was important he bangs on about all the time, things like love and respect and being kind to your neighbours even if they believe different things to you.

less religious-y points:
homosexuality spreads desease (like AIDS)
so does hetoresexual sex - i didn't really want to put in the AIDS point, but I thought someone would eventually, and I'd rather have the rebuffle up before they did

There is a decrease in population
what about priests - catholic ones can't have kids? the infertile? Plus it may actually be good for the world at this point to have a decreasing population. (though we don't to be clear)

Males taking role of women to have children - wrong, goes against the complimentalitry of man/woman two parts making one whole as with Adam/Eve.
these roles are becoming defunct. besides - who says that complimentarity they were describing wasn't actually love? in which case there's no reason why there can't be homosexual relationships, between loving homosexuals as with heterosexuals.

It undermines family life/ changes family structure.
so do a lot of things. What about this Tsunami? Thousands of orphans, and as many as can are being placed with family, even if that means just one grandparent, is that wrong?

It's bad for children to be brought up without a male or female rolemodel
I guess we're gunna have to take away all those kids of single mothers. There are masses of homosexuals wanting to adopt and masses of children that need adopting, it's unfair to children to leave them without a real home and in foster care when they could have loving parents whatever there sex

It confuses childrens idea about the family ideal
the family ideal has broken down anyway, because women go to work - there are now always third parties being brought in as nannies and sitters and actually there always were in the past among the rich, so what if you have to bring in artificial milk, and other kids ask them weird questions. After the first few generations no one will think it's strange anymore like every other huge issue of the time.

About Marriage:
You have to consider marriage as:
a religious sacrament
a civil contract
a personal contract between two people
a long term co-habitation
and a relationship.

Religious Marriage: (Christian here but obviously this differs)
Now, Finn and others, in the OT there is absolutely nothing wrong with Polygamy. In fact, Jacob forefather of Jesus himself - had two wives. So if you're going to argue that homosexual marriage is a slippery slope to polygamy - too late it's already there. Plus as someone else pointed out, the mormons never bothered to stop practicising it.
By the settlement in Israel polygamy was outlawed.
yes, but because it got confusing for the poor father of the bride who had to sell his lil' girl off age thirteen-ish.

a civil contract
a personal contract between two people
a long term co-habitation
and a relationship.

so far as these go, there's no reason why they can't apply to homosexuals as well heterosexuals

Basically as far as marriage goes 'religiously' I think homosexuals actually fulfil it. Indeed better in some cases than heterosexual couples.

Without thinking about religion. I concur, there is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Sorry for the long post! Especially as I'm just agreeing with you all, but it seemed a bit pointless fighting against the pitiful opposition, so I set up my own hardier argument, then knocked it down.

And I did want to add, that even though I DON'T think religion should have any part in politics, if you're going to bring it you ought to at least know your stuff. And when you do bring it and actually think about it, I really don't think GOD would object to homosexual marriage.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 8, 2005 2:52 PM

Weasy:

Quote:
Genesis 19 Sodom and Gomorrah brought down by God for amongst other things trying to rape a man.
this is actually about kindness to strangers - a huge theme in the OT, Lot actually chucks out one of his daughters(or wives can't remember) to be raped instead.

Sorry to be nit-picky, but that's just me and nothing to do with any ongoing argument hereabouts. I thought your post was highly entertaining, Weasy, I just have to get this off my chest: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibg.htm

As far as I can tell, browsing the sites and what remains of my religious upbringing, what the crowd outside Lot's house wanted was to rape, have sex with, or "know" the angels who were visiting him. It does have to do with hospitality, but also to do with the state of the cities in that area at the time and why they were punished like the naughty little monkeys they were. (For a given accuracy of the history recorded, of course.) So, Lot offered up his daughters to the crowd to prevent the angels from being harmed.

The site linked says that the crowd refused the daughters, which may be part of where a preference for males becomes so offensive in some passages of the bible. I mean, if a human male wants to engage in non-consensual acts of intercourse with an angel (legendarily asexual, although generally male-ish), how perverse must he be?

What irritates me (among so many other things, not going to go into them right now

) is that Biblical literalists take what they want, when they want to be fundamentalist in their treatment of the Biblical canon, but ignore the stuff they'd get the chair for. Mostly. I know I've seen fundies wear polyester and nylon together, and you can't tell me that's right.

"There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 8, 2005 2:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Weasy:
Why just from the bible? Because the christian's here so poorly argued their point I felt sorry for them.

I don’t remember anyone trying to argue a Christian religious point here. I could be mistaken. I’m also not so sure that your presentation of the Christian religious opinion on gay marriage is terribly genuine and certainly not well argued, since you seem to be trying to debunk it, not present it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Weasy:
homosexuality spreads desease (like AIDS)
so does hetoresexual sex - i didn't really want to put in the AIDS point, but I thought someone would eventually, and I'd rather have the rebuffle up before they did

Yes AIDS can be spread as efficiently through heterosexual sex as it can be through homosexual sex, but in reality we don’t see this. What we see is AIDS being spread largely by and within the gay community. What this suggests is that there is a larger amount of unprotected casual sex in the gay community then in the heterosexual community. Indeed, it suggests that promiscuity among the gay community may actually be a more common phenomenon then it is among the heterosexual community. And this stands to reason, as gay relationships are rarely burdened by unexpected pregnancies

Quote:
Originally posted by Weasy:
Religious Marriage: (Christian here but obviously this differs)
Now, Finn and others, in the OT there is absolutely nothing wrong with Polygamy. In fact, Jacob forefather of Jesus himself - had two wives. So if you're going to argue that homosexual marriage is a slippery slope to polygamy - too late it's already there. Plus as someone else pointed out, the mormons never bothered to stop practicising it.
By the settlement in Israel polygamy was outlawed.

Actually, federal law clearly prohibits polygamy, and so do the laws of most states. In fact, I’m not sure there are any states in which polygamy is legal. Gay rights activists were seeking to impose gay marriage through the courts in one state and then to seek a Supreme Court ruling to support the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, thereby bypassing the democratic process. I don’t believe this will work, but if the gay rights activists had managed to succeed, it is certainly reasonable to believe that polygamist would seek the same loophole. Gay marriage may yet become an institution, and if it does then it is likely that polygamists will seek establishment of polygamy. So the slippery slope argument is quite alive and well.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 8, 2005 4:58 PM