Politically Correct is Beautiful by AnthonyT

Politically Correct isn't BAD, technically, because the point of it is to try to encourage people to be respectful about other people and their differences.

However, INTOLERANCE is ugly, and it pops up both among the politically incorrect AND the politically correct.

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

Friday, May 1, 2009 5:31 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

She's also in trouble now - as are the pageant officials, apparently - because it's being reported that pageant organizers paid for her big fake boobies.

Makes ya wonder if maybe Perez Hilton knew something the rest of us didn't, huh?

But yes, Anthony - it IS hypocritical of the organizers to ask her to NOT talk about if now, after asking her about it during the pageant. They were the ones who opened this can of worms...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

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

Friday, May 1, 2009 6:48 AM

ELVISCHRIST

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
She's also in trouble now - as are the pageant officials, apparently - because it's being reported that pageant organizers paid for her big fake boobies.

Makes ya wonder if maybe Perez Hilton knew something the rest of us didn't, huh?

But yes, Anthony - it IS hypocritical of the organizers to ask her to NOT talk about if now, after asking her about it during the pageant. They were the ones who opened this can of worms...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Perez Hilton is scum.

And it seems that the Miss CALIFORNIA pageant people were the ones behind those breast implants, not the Miss USA people.

Does that make it okay?

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

Friday, May 1, 2009 7:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
it's being reported that pageant organizers paid for her big fake boobies.

Toldja they were augmented.
I was right & AURaptor was wrong.
Again.
He has no case.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Friday, May 1, 2009 7:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
it's being reported that pageant organizers paid for her big fake boobies.

Toldja they were augmented.
I was right & AURaptor was wrong.
Again.
He has no case.

The laughing Chrisisall

Oh, hell, Chris - was there anyone OTHER THAN Rappy who thought those sweater puppets were REAL? One look and I knew they were fake - I just didn't realize that they'd been bought and paid for by the pageant organizers themselves. It almost seems like they had her picked to win, and she somehow screwed it up.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

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

Friday, May 1, 2009 8:08 AM

Sock puppets like sweater puppets...

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Friday, May 1, 2009 8:10 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
INTOLERANCE is ugly

Bingo. That's just what I was going to say.

[/sig]

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

Friday, May 1, 2009 5:34 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I still think she should have watched Miss Congeniality. It's very clear that the only acceptable answer to any question is world peace

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- AURaptor

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

- World peace, and maybe mix in something about puppies. Who doesn't love cute, fluffy puppies ?

- As for my quote, the more I see it, the more brilliant it becomes. Seriously, the dude wanted to go out in an airplane, blowing up, and to make a statement. We could have given him his wish, on all 3 accounts!

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

Saturday, May 2, 2009 1:15 AM

America loves a winner!

It's "intolerant " to honestly reply to a question? It's " intolerant " to hold to the view that marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman, a construct that predates and may even be a pillar that helped form modern civilization?

We got along for 10,000k yrs with that idea, and now some PC nazis are suddenly going to determine that now, such thought is " intolerant" ?

Thinking a bit much of ourselves, yes ?

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

Saturday, May 2, 2009 2:02 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Rappy, the abject IDIOCY of that statement just opened a gravitational vortex of stupid - alas that if it sucks YOU in it'll choke.

That said, I'm far more (admittedly gratifyingly) amused by the flap over Miss Universe Australia, given how ridiculously extreme social ideas of "beauty" and "health" have become, particularly since many of the latter were established by Everett Koop, a known and now-admitted lunatic who was clinically insane while in office as surgeon general, well-known for skewing studies to "prove" his at times bizarre beliefs whether medically supported or not, and (I kid thee not) demanded burial at Arlington as a war hero despite never having served.

And THAT folks, is the guy who established the national-social idea of what "healthy" is, and is rarely refuted or even questioned, despite the fact that he's obviously INSANE.

Yeah, I'd like a second opinion, please...

As for Miss U Australia, if THIS is your idea of healthy and sexy, please stay the hell AWAY from me, yeeesh.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090423/od_nm/us_pageant_1

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

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

Saturday, May 2, 2009 2:14 AM

America loves a winner!

Frem

That's why you're such a insignificant dick head. Here, I'm trying to have a on the level discussion, and all you do is delve into petty insults.

C Everett Coop ? Miss Australia ? WTF are you even BABBLING on about ? You won't even deal w/ the issue at hand How severe is your ADHD ? Why aren't you medicated more ?

Miss Australia needs to eat a sandwich. And some fries.

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

Saturday, May 2, 2009 5:22 AM

Quote:

We got along for 10,000k yrs with that idea, and now some PC nazis are suddenly going to determine that now, such thought is " intolerant" ?

Define "We".

Also, "10,000k yrs"? Really? Ten thousand THOUSAND years? That's 10,000,000 - TEN MILLION YEARS - you claim "we" got along fine with 1-man-1-woman being the norm. I think you might be mistaken a bit. By a factor of more than 10,000.

Heck, even Sarah Palin and Miss Cali know the Earth ain't more than 6000 years old...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

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

Saturday, May 2, 2009 5:48 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:

" It's " intolerant " to hold to the view that marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman, a construct that predates and may even be a pillar that helped form modern civilization?

We got along for 10,000k yrs with that idea, and now some PC nazis are suddenly going to determine that now, such thought is " intolerant" ?"

Hello,

The idea of marriage being between 1 man and 1 woman is not, in fact, a 10,000k year tradition for most of the world. Polygamy was once quite common, with 1 man enjoying the services of as many wives as he could support. Often, a man would not only have multiple wives, but then enjoy as many concubines, servants, and slaves of both sexes as he wished.

Even in the United States, there was a tradition of polygamy until religious intolerance wiped it out.

In actuality, polygamy probably has a greater historical observance than the modern conception of Christian marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. One need only open their Old Testament to see that the pious and great men who formed the ancient foundation of the Christian faith frequently spread the love around quite a bit.

So, seeing as how single pair unions are a quaint modern invention, it is evident that modern man is capable of innovating the process. In comparison with the elimination of multiple wives, concubines, and soft, pliant servant boys as part of the sexual scope of the married man, allowing men or women to marry within their own sex is a rather mild evolution of the process.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

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

Saturday, May 2, 2009 7:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
We got along for 10,000k yrs with that idea, and now some PC nazis are suddenly going to determine that now, such thought is " intolerant" ?

Numbers aside, you're allowing Medieval-to-Victorian era perceptions to cloud your impressions of 10,000 years of human history.

The Romans had far different ideas about what was normal and socially acceptable than our mainstream culture today. As did the Greeks. And I'd pretty much call those two cultures the foundation of modern Euro and American culture. In about 300 AD, that's when you added in Christianity as an influence.

And I'd also like to add, in case the validity of my argument is contested by "well, but the Roman Empire fell," the Roman Republic lasted 500 years, and the western Roman Empire lasted an additional 400 years. That's 900 years total for what we would consider Roman culture. The Eastern Constantinople half of the Roman Empire (Byzantine) went on a further 1000 years, falling in 1453. Clearly, their tolerance of homosexuality didn't do too much to destabilize their society.

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

Saturday, May 2, 2009 9:10 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
...marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman, a construct that predates and may even be a pillar that helped form modern civilization?

We got along for 10,000k yrs with that idea...

Totally and abjectly false.
Anthony and Bytemite beat me to it (thank you very much, both of you, for your elegant and well-constructed thoughts on the matter) but I couldn't let such a foolish and false statement lie. I haven't even studied much in-depth history and I know how ridiculous it is for you to say this, how do you justify these things to yourself??

[/sig]

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

Saturday, May 2, 2009 9:14 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

There is a recent South Park Episode that explains this common phenomenon. It is the episode where Cartman assists in the creation of the world's funniest joke.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

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

Saturday, May 2, 2009 11:21 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

We got along for 10,000k yrs with that idea, and now some PC nazis are suddenly going to determine that now, such thought is " intolerant" ?

Define "We".

Humanity.

Quote:

Also, "10,000k yrs"? Really? Ten thousand THOUSAND years? That's 10,000,000 - TEN MILLION YEARS - you claim "we" got along fine with 1-man-1-woman being the norm. I think you might be mistaken a bit. By a factor of more than 10,000.

Heck, even Sarah Palin and Miss Cali know the Earth ain't more than 6000 years old...

Mike

10 K or 10,000 yrs , the meaning was clear. A very long time, is the issue here. Why the sudden change ? Why now? You'd rather not answer that, you'd rather harp on meaningless side issues which divert away from the topic.

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

Saturday, May 2, 2009 2:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

10 K or 10,000 yrs , the meaning was clear. A very long time, is the issue here. Why the sudden change ? Why now? You'd rather not answer that, you'd rather harp on meaningless side issues which divert away from the topic.

Why do you always do that? You post something that is CLEARLY wrong, and when you're called on it, you backpedal and try to change the meaning by saying "CLEARLY what I meant was..."

Look, dumbfuck, it ISN'T CLEAR because YOU WON'T CLEARLY SAT WHAT THE FUCK YOU MEAN!

If you post that we've done something this way for 10,000k years, am I supposed to take you up on what you WROTE, or on what you MEANT? I'm not inside that scary little tiny place that you call your mind, so I don't KNOW what you "meant".

And when I call you on your mistakes, you can't own up to them. You HAVE TO attack. You have to try to turn YOUR stupidity on others, like it's their fault that they didn't know what you oh-so-clearly meant. Except that it's NOT clear, or we'd know what the hell you were talking about.

Now, you say you "clearly meant" one thing, then say I'm only harping on the fact that you mangled your own words, and that I'm dodging the issue. I didn't. Look right up above, where I said, and I quote:

Quote:

Define "We".

You say that means "humanity". Whose humanity? White people?Americans? Christians? 'Cause you've already been proven wrong on pretty much every one of those counts.

Who is your alleged "we" that have always done things a certain way?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

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

Sunday, May 3, 2009 1:37 AM

America loves a winner!

The intent of my comment was clearly meant, and you whining, bitching and adding colorful language won't change that in the least. Again, try to take away from the primary argument and distract with this nonsensical, childish obsession over a mistake where I was thinking of how to express a period of time, typing too fast and made a common error.

Just grow up, get the fuck over it, and get the fuck over YOURSELF.

How old is human civilization ? About 10k yrs ? THAT is the debate. How long has the concept of 1 man + 1 woman marriage been around ? I'd say about that long, if not longer.

So, the question to you is, if you're not too much of a coward to deal w/ it, is - why the sudden change ? Why should we, NOW , redefine marriage ? To fit the needs and desires an vast minority ? For what point ? Every LEGAL aspect of a marriage can be done by civil unions. Gay marriage, will never be a means of joining 2 family trees to form a new one. That seems to be what the template for what marriage is all about in society. By the very gender of those involved, why can't marriage stay as it has been, and why do gays need that to be changed ?

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

Sunday, May 3, 2009 2:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The intent of my comment was clearly meant, and you whining, bitching and adding colorful language won't change that in the least. Again, try to take away from the primary argument and distract with this nonsensical, childish obsession over a mistake where I was thinking of how to express a period of time, typing too fast and made a common error.

Just grow up, get the fuck over it, and get the fuck over YOURSELF.

Hey, I was responding to what YOU wrote. I can only assume that you're an effective communicator, because you CLEARLY go on and on and on about what you CLEARLY meant every time anyone here calls you on your all-too-common bullshit. If YOU can't be bothered to correctly word YOUR OWN statements, don't get pissy and throw one of your little temper tantrums when we call you on it. The only way we can CLEARLY know what the intent of your words is, is if you MAKE YOUR WORDS CLEAR! Otherwise, we assume you mean what you say, and say what you mean - because that's what you tell us you do. You say you deal only in facts, so when you post something, I'm supposed to assume that you know it to be true, and know what you're saying.

That you don't CLEARLY says more about you and your facts than it does about me.

So get the fuck over your own bad self, ya big baby.

Like I've said, you CLEARLY lack the ability to simply say, "I screwed up. Fixed. Sorry 'bout that." Instead, you MUST go into Attack Mode. It's your only defense. Are you too much of a coward to just say "I fucked up, this is what I meant, sorry for not being more clear."? Can't deal with that?

Quote:

How old is human civilization ? About 10k yrs ? THAT is the debate. How long has the concept of 1 man + 1 woman marriage been around ? I'd say about that long, if not longer.

YOU'D say. There's the rub. You have no case, you have no credentials, you base your "facts" on nothing but what YOU say and what YOU feel and what YOU think. And then you expect the rest of us to take your word for it - even when you can't CLEARLY express those words...

Quote:

So, the question to you is, if you're not too much of a coward to deal w/ it, is - why the sudden change ? Why should we, NOW , redefine marriage ? To fit the needs and desires an vast minority ? For what point ? Every LEGAL aspect of a marriage can be done by civil unions. Gay marriage, will never be a means of joining 2 family trees to form a new one. That seems to be what the template for what marriage is all about in society. By the very gender of those involved, why can't marriage stay as it has been, and why do gays need that to be changed ?

Again, why am I to take your word for it that this is anything like a "sudden change"? There's plenty of evidence that monogamy, 1-man-1-woman "marriage" is by far the more "sudden" and recent change. Why the rush to implement your religious beliefs on others? Why should "an vast minority" like Christianity be allowed to inflict their mores on me?

Quote:
Gay marriage, will never be a means of joining 2 family trees to form a new one.

Why do you think that? Are those who marry and don't have children no longer a joining of 2 family trees? Are those who adopt no longer forming a new family tree? "Family" is what you make it. Did you learn nothing from Buffy? ;)

As a purely financial issue, it's going to be much easier to legally define "marriage" as between two consenting adult humans than it is to go through every mention of the word "marriage" in every law and statute, and add in "and/or civil unions" so that it would stand up in court. There are literally tens of thousands of laws on the books, and a great deal of them mention "marriage" and/or "spouse". Changing the LEGAL definition of marriage means you don't have to pay people to sift through all of those and amend every single one. You amend the meaning of the word "marriage" and the law still applies.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

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

Sunday, May 3, 2009 3:01 AM

America loves a winner!

So,to sum up, you're too much a coward to even answer the question.

Not surprised.

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

Sunday, May 3, 2009 3:04 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Auraptor,

You continue to claim that 1 man + 1 woman marriage was the standard from 8,000 BC to the present day.

In fact, while 1 man + 1 woman marriage did exist, so did widespread polygamy. Your 10,000 year premise is thus flawed.

Your argument might hold more weight if you limited it to the past hundred years, and to Christian cultures only.

Of course, it may be more difficult to exclaim, "Why the sudden change" once it becomes evident that the sudden change is in fact the Christian definition of marriage as opposed to the time-honored ancient practices.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

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

Sunday, May 3, 2009 3:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
So,to sum up, you're too much a coward to even answer the question.

Not surprised.

Try to keep up, dummy. I did address the question. ALL of them.

I guess you're just too much of a coward to read what I wrote. That, or your lips got tired from trying to read so much...

And speaking of cowardice, I note for the record that you never did answer my question from a couple weeks ago.

Quote:

Say the Iranians have tried and convicted a 30-year-old Iranian-American woman - an American citizen not serving in the military or the diplomatic corps - on charges of spying. Now, since she's clearly NOT a soldier, nor wearing the uniform of any recognized armed forces, then they are clearly within their rights to waterboard her, are they not? I mean, they can use whatever means necessary to "break" her, since she is, in essence, a "terrorist" - at least in their eyes, and according to their law.

So you're totally okay with them doing this, yes?

You've been dodging this one for quite a while, yet you're still very quick to label others cowards when they don't answer your question with opinions that agree with yours.

Not surprised. Not even a little bit. I would expect nothing less from you.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

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

Sunday, May 3, 2009 3:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Auraptor,

You continue to claim that 1 man + 1 woman marriage was the standard from 8,000 BC to the present day.

In fact, while 1 man + 1 woman marriage did exist, so did widespread polygamy. Your 10,000 year premise is thus flawed.

Your argument might hold more weight if you limited it to the past hundred years, and to Christian cultures only.

Of course, it may be more difficult to exclaim, "Why the sudden change" once it becomes evident that the sudden change is in fact the Christian definition of marriage as opposed to the time-honored ancient practices.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Oh, Anthony, don't be a coward - answer the question!

(Just playin', Ant'ny)

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

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

Sunday, May 3, 2009 3:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

In fact, while 1 man + 1 woman marriage did exist, so did widespread polygamy. Your 10,000 year premise is thus flawed.

If you are addressing the original comment Auraptor made, I think you may be reading more into it than what it actually says. When he said "to hold to the view that marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman, a construct that predates and may even be a pillar that helped form modern civilization?" I think he is correct. If you look at the status of women in "modern" societies, those living in countries where monogamy is practiced are much better off than those living in perpetual servitude under polygamous societies. I would think that most would agree the "modern civilization" has benefited because of monogamy and polygamy remains a deterrent to advancing civilization in area where it is still practiced. Seems to me that monogomy "may even be a pillar that helped form modern civilization".

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

Sunday, May 3, 2009 4:08 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Kirkules,

You may be quite correct that monogomy has helped the status of women in our society, raising them up from chattel to more equal human beings. This is certainly a defining element of what I consider civilization to be.

And so, I'll agree that women should be allowed to marry one another as a concession to a civilized society.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

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

Sunday, May 3, 2009 4:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
And so, I'll agree that women should be allowed to marry one another as a concession to a civilized society.

--Anthony

I would agree if you substitute "fill in the blank" for "marry". No need to redefine the meaning of an existing word to give everyone equal rights. Even if a we invented a new word to define the union of a man and woman, and changed "marriage" to mean same sex coupling, they'd just want that word too. For some this isn't about equal rights, it's about blurring the distinction between same sex and opposite sex unions.

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

Sunday, May 3, 2009 6:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:

I would agree if you substitute "fill in the blank" for "marry". No need to redefine the meaning of an existing word to give everyone equal rights. Even if a we invented a new word to define the union of a man and woman changed "marriage" to mean same sex coupling, they'd just want the word too. For some this isn't about equal right, it's about blurring the distinction between same sex and opposite sex unions.

As has been pointed out, calling same-sex marriages anything OTHER than marriage creates a panoply of legal problems, inasmuch as the laws are written with words like "spouse" and "marriage". So to call it something else means you have to go back and rewrite every single law to include the new word.

And why do you see the need to HAVE such a distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex unions?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

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

Sunday, May 3, 2009 7:20 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

It is in fact the heterosexual community who is rewriting or creating laws so that marriage is explicitly defined as between a man and a woman.

Leaving such specificity out would have ameliorated the situation much more easily.

I say again, the distinction that was absent from the law is Now being Created by persons who feel their sacred institution is somehow being endangered by people who request equality.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

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

Sunday, May 3, 2009 8:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:

I would agree if you substitute "fill in the blank" for "marry". No need to redefine the meaning of an existing word to give everyone equal rights. Even if a we invented a new word to define the union of a man and woman changed "marriage" to mean same sex coupling, they'd just want the word too. For some this isn't about equal right, it's about blurring the distinction between same sex and opposite sex unions.

The reason same sex couples want the same term is because they're worried being given a different label would not only make their union seem inferior and less binding in the eyes of society, but also in the eyes of the law.

Furthermore, as Kwicko was suggesting, they're concerned that a different term will make it easier for anti-homosexual activists to legislate their beliefs and take away rights and privileges from their union.

So, I would argue, giving a different term to gay marriage holds an inherent risk of creating further inequality.

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

Sunday, May 3, 2009 8:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

As has been pointed out, calling same-sex marriages anything OTHER than marriage creates a panoply of legal problems, inasmuch as the laws are written with words like "spouse" and "marriage". So to call it something else means you have to go back and rewrite every single law to include the new word.

It doesn't sound that complicated to me. Why not just pass one law that says that from this day forth all humans entering into legal monogamous relationships have equal rights, including those rights previously given using the term "marriage". It's a very simple thing, but like I said, that's not what it's about for some. They want the social status that traditional marriage provides without earning it, because it has yet to be demonstrated that Gay civil unions will have a positive effect on society.

Quote:

And why do you see the need to HAVE such a distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex unions?

Why don't we call dogs, cats. They are both four legged furry mammal predators of various sizes and shapes. The reason American English has 10,000+ words is because small distinctions are important in properly describing suttle differences.

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

Sunday, May 3, 2009 9:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

The reason same sex couples want the same term is because they're worried being given a different label would not only make their union seem inferior and less binding in the eyes of society, but also in the eyes of the law.

The inferiority or superiority of Gay civil unions in the "eyes of society" will be determined by what they do with these rights, not the law or the name given to the institution. If the effect on society is a negative one, I will guarantee that society will assign a name that wont be politically correct, but will be more descriptive.

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

Sunday, May 3, 2009 9:15 AM

RIVERDANCER

It's pretty fantastically funny that you talk about the wonder and beauty of the English language when it comes to descriptions, and you can't spell 'subtle.'

Also, it's not a simple matter, it's not a simple declaration followed by a simple rewrite of some single law, and your continued insistence that it hasn't been shown to improve society is small minded twittering. In short, dude you're just wrong.

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

Sunday, May 3, 2009 9:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiverDancer:
It's pretty fantastically funny that you talk about the wonder and beauty of the English language when it comes to descriptions, and you can't spell 'subtle.'

Don't be so down on the iliterit, dear.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Sunday, May 3, 2009 9:19 AM

Kirkules: Except the view is ALREADY rather negative, through no fault of the gay couples.

This could colour whatever laws society might then make.

I'd rather not leave such a legal loophole open, especially not one that could lead the way to other forms of oppression.

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

Sunday, May 3, 2009 9:27 AM

Quote:

Why don't we call dogs, cats.

So are you saying that gays are a completely separate species from same-sex humans?

Just curious.

See what kind of trouble those subtle differences in words can get you into?

Quote:
They want the social status that traditional marriage provides without earning it, because it has yet to be demonstrated that Gay civil unions will have a positive effect on society.

It also has yet to be demonstrated that straight marriage will have a positive effect on society.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

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

Sunday, May 3, 2009 9:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiverDancer:
It's pretty fantastically funny that you talk about the wonder and beauty of the English language when it comes to descriptions, and you can't spell 'subtle.'

Also, it's not a simple matter, it's not a simple declaration followed by a simple rewrite of some single law, and your continued insistence that it hasn't been shown to improve society is small minded twittering. In short, dude you're just wrong.

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

Sunday, May 3, 2009 9:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by RiverDancer:
It's pretty fantastically funny that you talk about the wonder and beauty of the English language when it comes to descriptions, and you can't spell 'subtle.'

Don't be so down on the iliterit, dear.

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

Sunday, May 3, 2009 9:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Why don't we call dogs, cats.

So are you saying that gays are a completely separate species from same-sex humans?

Just curious.

See what kind of trouble those subtle differences in words can get you into?

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

Sunday, May 3, 2009 3:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Why don't we call dogs, cats.

So are you saying that gays are a completely separate species from same-sex humans?

Just curious.

See what kind of trouble those subtle differences in words can get you into?

Kirk, I'm not trying to be an ass (at least not personally, to you), just trying to point out what even the tiniest subtleties in words can mean, especially when it comes to the word of law. YOU know what you meant, and I know what you meant, but in a court of law, and once you get lawyers involved, you can't even be sure what the meaning of "is" is.

Just sayin'.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

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

Monday, May 4, 2009 3:40 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

With the history of separate-but-equal policies, I can see why homosexuals and their supporters might be uncomfortable with marriage analogs that aren't called marriage.

Meanwhile, I find any arguments about the glorious variety of the English language to be hogwash. Certainly, I can agree that the English language has many fine words, but that doesn't mean new words should be invented and implemented when existing words do the job quite well.

I can open a car magazine and read about how the new Audi SX5 is the perfect marriage of form and function.

I can open a gun magazine and read about how the Colt Quantum is a bullpup configured weapon that marries the best qualities of a submachinegun and an assault rifle.

And yet, in a world where inanimate objects can be described as being married, we argue that human beings who wish to be married should be civilly unionized instead.

The Language and Appropriate Terminology arguments are the smoke bombs that Batman uses to evade police pursuit. It's a way to evade scrutiny, so that you can say 'the Niggers ought to drink from the Colored Fountain' without sounding bigoted.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

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

Monday, May 4, 2009 4:29 AM

Thanks, Anthony. That sums it up beautifully.

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

Monday, May 4, 2009 4:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by RiverDancer:
It's pretty fantastically funny that you talk about the wonder and beauty of the English language when it comes to descriptions, and you can't spell 'subtle.'

Don't be so down on the iliterit, dear.

It was a joke dude.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Monday, May 4, 2009 8:09 AM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
With the history of separate-but-equal policies, I can see why homosexuals and their supporters might be uncomfortable with marriage analogs that aren't called marriage.

Eew. Now I can see why most people don't use the term "homosexuals" except for people who don't like them. It's just... bizarre.

And, gay folk aren't the only ones who benefit from same-sex marriage. People who are bisexual, like PR, also benefit, and, I think, people who are trans or intersex (because if same-sex or opposite-sex marriage are equivalent, then it leads to gender and sex being completely irrelevant, doesn't it?).

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

Monday, May 4, 2009 9:38 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Auraptor,

Of course, it may be more difficult to exclaim, "Why the sudden change" once it becomes evident that the sudden change is in fact the Christian definition of marriage as opposed to the time-honored ancient practices.

--Anthony

Polygamy still exist today, but the construct of 1 man + 1 woman marriage certainly existed further back than " 100 years" as, you claim. Seems to me there being some book, w/ a story of a man and a woman, living in some garden somewhere?

Might be you've heard of it, hmmm? I'm just pointing out that this isn't some new fangled idea, dreamed up by Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, so it's ok to like it. Really, it's ok !

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

Monday, May 4, 2009 9:54 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"In fact, while 1 man + 1 woman marriage did exist, so did widespread polygamy. Your 10,000 year premise is thus flawed."

Hello,

Mr. Raptor, you should read in fullness and not in parts. If you scroll up, you might find this quote of mine, which obviates the point you are trying to make.

As for Adam and Eve, who were never married, the old testament texts heralding their arrival on Earth also tells tales of polygamy, concubines, and incest. All acceptable in the eyes of the Lord.

Now, do you really want to delve deep into this good and ancient tome and start trading passages? I am a Christian man, but I try not to harbor any illusions about my faith or the books they are based upon. If you want to use the Bible as evidence, you may find as much there to hinder you as to help you. In fact, in the Old Testament, it's mostly bad news for you.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

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

Monday, May 4, 2009 10:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Meanwhile, I find any arguments about the glorious variety of the English language to be hogwash. Certainly, I can agree that the English language has many fine words, but that doesn't mean new words should be invented and implemented when existing words do the job quite well.

Please don't attribute the insane ramblings of RiverDancer to me. I said nothing about the "glorious variety" of the English language. New words are invented every day to add specificity to new things or concepts.

Quote:

I can open a car magazine and read about how the new Audi SX5 is the perfect marriage of form and function.

I can open a gun magazine and read about how the Colt Quantum is a bullpup configured weapon that marries the best qualities of a submachinegun and an assault rifle.

I find it interesting that you would use the example of names and language used for advertisement purposes, because I think you have demonstrated one of the issues that I have alluded to. Advertisers have done much research to determine words that have positive connotations. Does it surprise you that they would misuse a word to lend credibility to their product, whether it deserves it or not. It's no different from using puppy dogs in a TV commercials to give the impression of loyalty and dependability. People have a positive response to the word "marriage" because they see it as a positive aspect of society. They could have just as easily have advertised their gun as the Gay union of Assault Rifle and Submachine Gun, but I doubt they would have sold many. The reason they wouldn't sell is not because people dislike Gay's, It's because there's no historical example to give them a positive association. If Gay unions turn out to be a huge success or disaster, that is what will determine the respect they are given, not the name chosen.

Quote:

The Language and Appropriate Terminology arguments are the smoke bombs that Batman uses to evade police pursuit. It's a way to evade scrutiny, so that you can say 'the Niggers ought to drink from the Colored Fountain' without sounding bigoted.

I see you have adopted and perfected the stereotypical tactics of the politically correct. One little paragraph and you managed to call me a racist and a bigot. I'm surprised you did'nt just use the "perfect marriage of" racist and bigot and jump straight to Nazi.

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

Monday, May 4, 2009 11:02 AM