| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/25/2008 08:17:24 PM · #1476 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
(addressed to Jason): At this point, you have been involved on a pretty personal level with a bunch of people here who have presented all kinds of evidence, culture, thoughts, feelings; they've shared laughs, commiserated, poked fun, gotten angry, and just in general spent a lot of time together trying to offer up their views on many different sides of the issue, and we've all gotten to know one another a lot better.
Mousie has been really brave, and has opened his heart, mind, and life for our inspection quite freely, and there have been many of us who have bared our souls to one another.
I want a straight, no bullshit answer out of you.
Do you think on any level, really and truly, that Mousie is entitled to any less rights than you or I? |
I'm sorry to say that Jason could well answer that Mousie had as much right as anybody to marry a woman of his choosing and no right at all to marry a man, whether he loves him or not. You may need to rephrase your question...
R.
ETA: Hah! Did I call that one or what? LOL
Message edited by author 2008-11-25 20:21:39.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:18:28 PM · #1477 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
PS- you obviously don't know what a creed is either. |
"A system of belief, principles, or opinions:" That's definition #2. #1 had "religious" in it, but I was using the more general sense. nyah. |
Definition #2 isn't any better. Not believing in the tooth fairy is not a creed. THIS is a creed– a system of beliefs or principles. Atheism itself is not one (any more than not believing the earth is flat or unicorns purify water is a creed). |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:19:30 PM · #1478 |
A huge, carefully composed post that's on point and directly addresses the topic of this thread... WHILE tossing around derivatives of 'bigot' without hesitation... and it doesn't even get a single mention?
Sad photographer is sad.
What, did I get a pass for using 'bigot' correctly or something?
Message edited by author 2008-11-25 20:42:39. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:19:38 PM · #1479 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
PS- you obviously don't know what a creed is either. |
"A system of belief, principles, or opinions:" That's definition #2. #1 had "religious" in it, but I was using the more general sense. nyah. |
Definition #2 isn't any better. Not believing in the tooth fairy is not a creed. THIS is a creed– a system of beliefs or principles. Atheism itself is not one (any more than not believing the earth is flat or unicorns purify water is a creed). |
haha. Whatever Shannon. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:19:42 PM · #1480 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm sorry to say that Jason could well answer that Mousie had as much right as anybody to marry a woman of his choosing and no right at all to marry a man, whether he loves him or not. You may need to rephrase your question...
R. |
Yes, he could.....but that would speak volumes without saying anything, wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:20:32 PM · #1481 |
I'm glad DrAchoo has spent the last hour or so explaining how the definition of words can evolve over time.
So what's the problem again with that happening to the word marriage, too?
FWIW, the definition of bigot I gave is somewhere around 100 years old itself.
Message edited by author 2008-11-25 20:24:12. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:21:29 PM · #1482 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I'm glad DrAchoo has spent the last hour or so explaining how the definition of words can evolve over time.
So what's the problem again with that happening to the word marriage, too? |
Didn't Alice already alude to this and didn't I answer it with a Lewis quote? |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:22:01 PM · #1483 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Mousie has every right to marry any woman of his choice. |
...just as in the past people would argue that he had the right to marry any WHITE woman of his choice, and before that any WHITE, CHRISTIAN woman of his choice. There's that "B" word again. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:22:11 PM · #1484 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm sorry to say that Jason could well answer that Mousie had as much right as anybody to marry a woman of his choosing and no right at all to marry a man, whether he loves him or not. You may need to rephrase your question...
R. |
Yes, he could.....but that would speak volumes without saying anything, wouldn't it? |
Haha. What volumes would that be, eh Jeb? That I disagree with you? Those volumes have been spoken for a long time already. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:23:02 PM · #1485 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Mousie has every right to marry any woman of his choice. |
...just as in the past people would argue that he had the right to marry any WHITE woman of his choice, and before that any WHITE, CHRISTIAN woman of his choice. There's that "B" word again. |
Oops. I didn't say that. I mentioned the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Don't put words in my mouth. "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family." Interesting it mentioned race, religion but failed to mention sexual-orientation. Friggin bigots.
Message edited by author 2008-11-25 20:23:55. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:23:43 PM · #1486 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Mousie has been really brave, and has opened his heart, mind, and life for our inspection quite freely, and there have been many of us who have bared our souls to one another. |
That's not bravery, that's how I was raised! Maybe it was too much Shel Silverstein and 'Free To Be You And Me', but I don't have any problems sharing. Damn the consequences! I value candor immessurably.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:30:23 PM · #1487 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I mentioned the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Don't put words in my mouth. "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family." Interesting it mentioned race, religion but failed to mention sexual-orientation. Friggin bigots. |
It does mention gender. Both genders are allowed to participate equally. It doesn't however discriminate to say that it has to be a mixed gender arrangement. It is probably telling to go to something like the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' and start trying to use it to justify your position of limiting rights for certain classes of peoples. You'd think it would at least give you pause for thought.
Maybe homosexuality should become a religion, then everyone can rush to be on the other sides.
Message edited by author 2008-11-25 20:39:00. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:31:59 PM · #1488 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Mousie has every right to marry any woman of his choice. |
...just as in the past people would argue that he had the right to marry any WHITE woman of his choice, and before that any WHITE, CHRISTIAN woman of his choice. There's that "B" word again. |
Oops. I didn't say that. I mentioned the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Don't put words in my mouth. "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family." Interesting it mentioned race, religion but failed to mention sexual-orientation. Friggin bigots. |
But it did mention both men and women. So men have the right, and women have the right, but boys and girls do NOT have the right. You can take that statement as a pair, or individually. Any requirement that it be a man TO a woman is completely up to the reader's interpretation.
So, to say they are bigots for crafting such a neutral and fair phrase... only goes to show how your personal spin on the reading is based on your anti-gay worldview. Friggin bigots indeed? |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:33:06 PM · #1489 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Gordon:
I'm glad DrAchoo has spent the last hour or so explaining how the definition of words can evolve over time.
So what's the problem again with that happening to the word marriage, too? |
Didn't Alice already alude to this and didn't I answer it with a Lewis quote? |
Ah, no, Jason. I'm not sure you did answer it. But that's okay, I hear your words.
:-(( |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:33:27 PM · #1490 |
| I mean, seriously. Where in that phrase does it define what marriage is, or that it must be from a -> b or b -> a or what? |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:37:41 PM · #1491 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm sorry to say that Jason could well answer that Mousie had as much right as anybody to marry a woman of his choosing and no right at all to marry a man, whether he loves him or not. You may need to rephrase your question...
R. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Yes, he could.....but that would speak volumes without saying anything, wouldn't it? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Haha. What volumes would that be, eh Jeb? That I disagree with you? Those volumes have been spoken for a long time already. |
No, that kind of went without saying.
What I meant is I think you don't have the guts to say it out loud that you don't believe gays who marry should be entitled to the same rights as a man and a woman who marry.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:37:43 PM · #1492 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Mousie has every right to marry any woman of his choice. |
...just as in the past people would argue that he had the right to marry any WHITE woman of his choice, and before that any WHITE, CHRISTIAN woman of his choice. There's that "B" word again. |
Oops. I didn't say that. I mentioned the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Don't put words in my mouth. "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family." Interesting it mentioned race, religion but failed to mention sexual-orientation. Friggin bigots. |
Correction: you said exactly that. I quoted you, and pointed out that the standard of "allowable" marriages were until recently further narrowed to race, and before that religion. Those are attitudes that most modern societies now consider reprehensible prejudice and discrimination, and you are expressing the very same thing here. Within our lifetimes one more arbitrary barrier to love and freedom will fall, and such neolithic attitudes will be forever preserved on the internet as a source of embarrassment for future generations. Cheers. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:39:15 PM · #1493 |
While I'm here, it's interesting that among the more heartfelt and reasoned posts here,  mousie's and  posthumous's posts of today come to mind, some folks come nipping around the periphery and isolate little bits of data to take exception to.
Someone of these days perhaps we should stop being side-tracked. Still, the digressions are also illuminating.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:39:56 PM · #1494 |
Cats and dogs have the right to eat pet food.
But only if it's one cat and one dog eating the food together.
COME ON CAN'T YOU DO ANY BETTER???
Jeeze... I'm still reeling at the absurditity of such a forceful presentation of an argument with such spongy underpinnings, three posts later! Just analize the wording LOGICALLY for goodness sake!
Message edited by author 2008-11-25 20:41:35. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:40:22 PM · #1495 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Do you think on any level, really and truly, that Mousie is entitled to any less rights than you or I? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Straight up. He is entitled to every right listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Not so straight up, they don't define "marriage" (see article 16) so I'm gonna go with the current federal definition. Mousie has every right to marry any woman of his choice. |
You heard it here, folks.
Anyone unclear on where Jason stands?
|
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:45:33 PM · #1496 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm sure there are biased people full of hate that believe in discrimination who are very smart. An intelligent mind doesn't make discrimination right. |
An I'm sure an intelligent mind can find some common ground for both sides. Shall I write you off on that account? |
Oh, I understand the bigotry, fear, discrimination and bias alright. I just can't condone it, nor do I see the need to tiptoe around calling it what it is.
I'll admit that you're quite good with the gymnastics of reasoning, but it doesn't make your viewpoint any more palatable. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:46:46 PM · #1497 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Do you think on any level, really and truly, that Mousie is entitled to any less rights than you or I? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Straight up. He is entitled to every right listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Not so straight up, they don't define "marriage" (see article 16) so I'm gonna go with the current federal definition. Mousie has every right to marry any woman of his choice. |
You heard it here, folks.
Anyone unclear on where Jason stands? |
Dude, it took you 1495 posts to figure that out? |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:47:19 PM · #1498 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
While I'm here, it's interesting that among the more heartfelt and reasoned posts here, mousie's and posthumous's posts of today come to mind, some folks come nipping around the periphery and isolate little bits of data to take exception to.
Someone of these days perhaps we should stop being side-tracked. Still, the digressions are also illuminating. |
I just hope that to some extent you have had a chance to see and hear a few things that are going on around the country in other people's lives that indicate that you are not alone in your thinking.
Nice being here with you......8>)
|
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:48:07 PM · #1499 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm sure there are biased people full of hate that believe in discrimination who are very smart. An intelligent mind doesn't make discrimination right. |
An I'm sure an intelligent mind can find some common ground for both sides. Shall I write you off on that account? |
Oh, I understand the bigotry, fear, discrimination and bias alright. I just can't condone it, nor do I see the need to tiptoe around calling it what it is.
I'll admit that you're quite good with the gymnastics of reasoning, but it doesn't make your viewpoint any more palatable. |
My issue with you Spaz is you like to snipe from the sidelines and leave the heavy lifting to others who share your opinion. How about providing something to the conversation or simply remaining silent? |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:56:37 PM · #1500 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You heard it here, folks.
Anyone unclear on where Jason stands? |
I'm not quite sure where you're going with this... hasn't he been super clear about that all along? His opinions are nuanced and complex and while he feels for my position his God tells him I'm wrong so he can't support me or even support a higher ideal, like equal rights or the protection of minorities from the tyrrany of a majority, even if it should apply to me.
I feel comfortable saying this because it's what he's said himself in the past, and we can infer the last part from his statements of the last day. He's willing to stand up for my equal rights as far as man-made declaration goes, but since that document does not specifically define marriage, he's willing to let another man-made federal defnition pin it down it for him, and that's exactly how many rights I should get. What I don't understand is, if equal rights are subject to god's grace, why he lets man-made documents define the scope for him, and he does not apply them evenly for everyone.
After all, to dip into the bogeymen people always drag up when talking about gays, but for a counterexample, criminals and convicts can get married and raise kids.
And nobody's freaking out about that!
|
|
