| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/25/2008 08:59:21 PM · #1501 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
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? |
Actually, it's another rights thing.....he has every right to just sit back and take the shot, whether you like it or not.
Kind of like Mousie's right to NOT be harassed and discriminated against.
Because in spite of your glib replies, Mousie doesn't have equal rights, and truth be told, it's because of people like you.
You feint and dodge, but you won't move on towards progress that is right because you don't think it is.
Maybe it won't happen today, and I figure it won't happen in your house, but your numbers will diminish, compassion and decency WILL prevail, and your kind will go the way the rest of the dinosaurs did.
How you can play at this when you're so obviously cornered is amazing to me.....and kind of offensive.
ETSA: I don't mean to be harsh or cruel, I'm saddened.....I had hope for you with the way that you can think and speak.
Message edited by author 2008-11-25 21:01:09.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2008 09:14:32 PM · #1502 |
How about this Jeb, maybe it will make you feel better. Like I said, I agree Mousie deserves all the rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It includes marriage but does not define it. IF our government declared that marriage is between two consenting adults, I would agree Mousie has the right to do so and I wouldn't stand in his way (I would continue to disagree morally but realize my government feels otherwise). If he wanted to get married in Massachusetts tomorrow, I wouldn't stop him.
However, until that time I do not have to declare Mousie has the right to declare his union with Erik a "marriage". I have the right (under article 17) "to freedom of thought, conscience and religion". I also have the right (under article 19) "to freedom of opinion and expression". I have the right (under article 21) "to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives." and the same article declares that "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government."
Straight up Jeb. Do I have those rights? |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 09:35:25 PM · #1503 |
| I am still not clear exactly what DrAchoo is opposed to. Is he opposed to Mousie and his spouse having the same legal rights as other spouses, or is he opposed to his spousal arrangement being called a marriage? I am assuming that he is opposed to the manner in which Mousie and his partner see fit to express their feelings to one another in private, in which case if the majority of the people in the constituted US felt that way, and legislated that way, he would not mind their being legally prosecuted which of course would require the gathering of evidence in a manner I would not like to think about. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 09:46:43 PM · #1504 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How about this Jeb, maybe it will make you feel better. Like I said, I agree Mousie deserves all the rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It includes marriage but does not define it. IF our government declared that marriage is between two consenting adults, I would agree Mousie has the right to do so and I wouldn't stand in his way (I would continue to disagree morally but realize my government feels otherwise). If he wanted to get married in Massachusetts tomorrow, I wouldn't stop him.
However, until that time I do not have to declare Mousie has the right to declare his union with Erik a "marriage". I have the right (under article 17) "to freedom of thought, conscience and religion". I also have the right (under article 19) "to freedom of opinion and expression". I have the right (under article 21) "to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives." and the same article declares that "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government."
Straight up Jeb. Do I have those rights? |
I'm not asking you to declare rights as they are rights......you don't have to do that anyway.....whether or not you say them doesn't change them.
I want to know if you really BELIEVE in your heart that Mousie doesn't have the right to marry another man and be afforded the same societal rights.
I think that's what you believe, but I really have trouble fathoming why a bright guy like you would believe such a thing.
And if you do, how come you're dancing around it.
If that's what you truly believe, then I really cannot offer up anything that will make sense to you on this subject at all because my beliefs have to be as alien to you as yours are to me.
What I don't understand is how after being as embroiled in this thread as you havbe been is why you won't just say it.
By what I consider colloquial American usage, amongst well educated people of the term as I've used it in context over the last four decades or so, the concept of denying gay people what to me are inalienable rights is bigotry.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2008 10:19:19 PM · #1505 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
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? |
Ha! I'm sorry if my questions and commenting on your biased and discriminatory opinions bothers you. (OK, I'm not really sorry, honestly, you deserve it.)
I just don't feel the need to elaborate for pages, I can call it what it is in a few sentences. Then a couple of posts later, you put some more lipstick on the pig. I just keep calling it a pig, you keep trying to pass it off as something else. Guess what? It's still a pig. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 10:28:18 PM · #1506 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I want to know if you really BELIEVE in your heart that Mousie doesn't have the right to marry another man and be afforded the same societal rights.
I think that's what you believe, but I really have trouble fathoming why a bright guy like you would believe such a thing. |
Recall Haidt talking about Jon Stewart...
Quickly realizing the futility of this effort, Stewart remarked, “It is so funny; you know what’s so interesting
about this is ultimately you end up getting to this point, this crazy stopping point where literally we can’t get any further. I don’t think you’re a bad dude, I don’t think I’m a bad dude, but I literally can’t convince you.” The stopping point Stewart felt was the invisible wall separating liberal and conservative moralities. Santorum’s anti-gay-marriage views were based on concerns for traditional family structures, Biblical authority, and moral disgust for homosexual acts (which he had previously likened to incest and bestiality). To Stewart these concerns made about as much sense as the fear of theta waves; it was impossible to see why a decent, moral person (or at least not a bad dude) would want to violate the rights of a group of people who weren’t hurting anyone. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 10:32:33 PM · #1507 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I want to know if you really BELIEVE in your heart that Mousie doesn't have the right to marry another man and be afforded the same societal rights.
I think that's what you believe, but I really have trouble fathoming why a bright guy like you would believe such a thing. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Recall Haidt talking about Jon Stewart...
Quickly realizing the futility of this effort, Stewart remarked, “It is so funny; you know what’s so interesting
about this is ultimately you end up getting to this point, this crazy stopping point where literally we can’t get any further. I don’t think you’re a bad dude, I don’t think I’m a bad dude, but I literally can’t convince you.” The stopping point Stewart felt was the invisible wall separating liberal and conservative moralities. Santorum’s anti-gay-marriage views were based on concerns for traditional family structures, Biblical authority, and moral disgust for homosexual acts (which he had previously likened to incest and bestiality). To Stewart these concerns made about as much sense as the fear of theta waves; it was impossible to see why a decent, moral person (or at least not a bad dude) would want to violate the rights of a group of people who weren’t hurting anyone. |
I'm at that point.
I don't think you're a bad dude.
I think my stumbling block is because my head and my heart match with what seems to me to be unerring clarity.
G'nite.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2008 11:39:29 PM · #1508 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I want to know if you really BELIEVE in your heart that Mousie doesn't have the right to marry another man and be afforded the same societal rights.
I think that's what you believe, but I really have trouble fathoming why a bright guy like you would believe such a thing. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Recall Haidt talking about Jon Stewart...
Quickly realizing the futility of this effort, Stewart remarked, “It is so funny; you know what’s so interesting
about this is ultimately you end up getting to this point, this crazy stopping point where literally we can’t get any further. I don’t think you’re a bad dude, I don’t think I’m a bad dude, but I literally can’t convince you.” The stopping point Stewart felt was the invisible wall separating liberal and conservative moralities. Santorum’s anti-gay-marriage views were based on concerns for traditional family structures, Biblical authority, and moral disgust for homosexual acts (which he had previously likened to incest and bestiality). To Stewart these concerns made about as much sense as the fear of theta waves; it was impossible to see why a decent, moral person (or at least not a bad dude) would want to violate the rights of a group of people who weren’t hurting anyone. |
I'm at that point.
I don't think you're a bad dude.
I think my stumbling block is because my head and my heart match with what seems to me to be unerring clarity.
G'nite. |
I have to ask, what would it take to make one a "bad dude"?
Message edited by author 2008-11-26 00:15:33. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 12:24:27 AM · #1509 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I have to ask, what would it take to make one a "bad dude"? |
Leather chaps and a Harley? |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 12:30:42 AM · #1510 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I have to ask, what would it take to make one a "bad dude"? |
Leather chaps and a Harley? |
If they were assless chaps, one would be a GAY bad dude. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 06:34:48 AM · #1511 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Recall Haidt talking about Jon Stewart...
Quickly realizing the futility of this effort, Stewart remarked, “It is so funny; you know what’s so interesting
about this is ultimately you end up getting to this point, this crazy stopping point where literally we can’t get any further. I don’t think you’re a bad dude, I don’t think I’m a bad dude, but I literally can’t convince you.” The stopping point Stewart felt was the invisible wall separating liberal and conservative moralities. Santorum’s anti-gay-marriage views were based on concerns for traditional family structures, Biblical authority, and moral disgust for homosexual acts (which he had previously likened to incest and bestiality). To Stewart these concerns made about as much sense as the fear of theta waves; it was impossible to see why a decent, moral person (or at least not a bad dude) would want to violate the rights of a group of people who weren’t hurting anyone. |
There is a mysterious disconnect in this argument. Gay men and women don't stop being gay nor do they stop entering into long and meaningful relationships as a consequence of the law or the definition of marriage.
The impact of gay marriage is to add a binding element to the relationship, some tax breaks, and recognition that their partner is the next of kin. The hazard to the family unit, the biblical outrage, and the moral distaste are unchanged whether those facilities exist or not.
If these were the real concerns, then surely DrAchoo should be campaigning to restrict the human rights of gay people - his senses would be offended and as part of a majority he has the power to impose his sensitivities on the minority. Taken to its logical conclusion, society should outlaw religious blessings of gay relationships. Make gay sex illegal. Imprison people who offend. Execute serial offenders who won't learn to change their ways. This is God's will...
Or is there a shred of reason that makes this (and the arguments against gay marriage) transparently nonsense?
|
|
|
|
11/26/2008 06:49:08 AM · #1512 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Or is there a shred of reason that makes this (and the arguments against gay marriage) transparently nonsense? |
I think anti-gay-marriage people (those of them who aren't raging homophobes who would, in fact, bring back all this persecution if they somehow could) may be thinking/emoting somewhat along these lines: "I'm willing, begrudgingly, to admit these people ought not be persecuted for being different than me, no matter how repellent I find their behavior, but I'm damned if I want to be part of a society that elevates their perversion to a higher moral level by telling the world that their couplehood is in every way the equivalent my heterosexual one. I'm following the traditions of millennia, doing what God intended, trying to raise a family with good, moral values, and this whole gay marriage thing makes a mockery of these values and underscores the rapidly degenerating condition of American society."
Or something like that :-) It's not logical unless you see yourself as someone who's trying to make a last-ditch stand against wholesale immorality.
R. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 07:01:18 AM · #1513 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Or something like that :-) It's not logical unless you see yourself as someone who's trying to make a last-ditch stand against wholesale immorality.
R. |
The problem with that arises when the difference between choice and natural occurrence arises.
Nobody chooses to be gay, so if it's a natural occurrence, how can it be immoral?
|
|
|
|
11/26/2008 08:06:07 AM · #1514 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How about this Jeb, maybe it will make you feel better. Like I said, I agree Mousie deserves all the rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It includes marriage but does not define it. IF our government declared that marriage is between two consenting adults, I would agree Mousie has the right to do so and I wouldn't stand in his way (I would continue to disagree morally but realize my government feels otherwise). If he wanted to get married in Massachusetts tomorrow, I wouldn't stop him.
However, until that time I do not have to declare Mousie has the right to declare his union with Erik a "marriage". I have the right (under article 17) "to freedom of thought, conscience and religion". I also have the right (under article 19) "to freedom of opinion and expression". I have the right (under article 21) "to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives." and the same article declares that "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government."
Straight up Jeb. Do I have those rights? |
Having the right to an opinion is very different from having the right opinion. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 08:14:57 AM · #1515 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Recall Haidt talking about Jon Stewart...
Quickly realizing the futility of this effort, Stewart remarked, “It is so funny; you know what’s so interesting
about this is ultimately you end up getting to this point, this crazy stopping point where literally we can’t get any further. I don’t think you’re a bad dude, I don’t think I’m a bad dude, but I literally can’t convince you.” The stopping point Stewart felt was the invisible wall separating liberal and conservative moralities. Santorum’s anti-gay-marriage views were based on concerns for traditional family structures, Biblical authority, and moral disgust for homosexual acts (which he had previously likened to incest and bestiality). To Stewart these concerns made about as much sense as the fear of theta waves; it was impossible to see why a decent, moral person (or at least not a bad dude) would want to violate the rights of a group of people who weren’t hurting anyone. |
There is a mysterious disconnect in this argument. Gay men and women don't stop being gay nor do they stop entering into long and meaningful relationships as a consequence of the law or the definition of marriage.
The impact of gay marriage is to add a binding element to the relationship, some tax breaks, and recognition that their partner is the next of kin. The hazard to the family unit, the biblical outrage, and the moral distaste are unchanged whether those facilities exist or not.
If these were the real concerns, then surely DrAchoo should be campaigning to restrict the human rights of gay people - his senses would be offended and as part of a majority he has the power to impose his sensitivities on the minority. Taken to its logical conclusion, society should outlaw religious blessings of gay relationships. Make gay sex illegal. Imprison people who offend. Execute serial offenders who won't learn to change their ways. This is God's will...
Or is there a shred of reason that makes this (and the arguments against gay marriage) transparently nonsense? |
Actually, Proposition 8 makes a lot of sense to a homophobe. They have various civil rights movements as historical precedents. They know that acceptance is contagious, that quietly letting people live their lives creates a tacit acceptance of those people.
Unfortunately for them, loudly trying to put people down doesn't seem to work either. It energizes their supporters, and makes the oppressors look bad. For a bigot, any news is bad news, because exposure to the oppressed people exposes them... as people. And once you see the other person as a person, the game is just about over. Certain things occur to you, like "hmm... marriage is a lifelong decision... there is no way someone would get married in order to undermine marriage, but even further, there is no way someone would get married to make a political statement... omg, they are getting married for the same reasons I got married..."
There's no coming back from a realization like that. That's why civil rights movements always win eventually. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 09:40:42 AM · #1516 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Or is there a shred of reason that makes this (and the arguments against gay marriage) transparently nonsense? |
I think anti-gay-marriage people (those of them who aren't raging homophobes who would, in fact, bring back all this persecution if they somehow could) may be thinking/emoting somewhat along these lines: "I'm willing, begrudgingly, to admit these people ought not be persecuted for being different than me, no matter how repellent I find their behavior, but I'm damned if I want to be part of a society that elevates their perversion to a higher moral level by telling the world that their couplehood is in every way the equivalent my heterosexual one. I'm following the traditions of millennia, doing what God intended, trying to raise a family with good, moral values, and this whole gay marriage thing makes a mockery of these values and underscores the rapidly degenerating condition of American society."
Or something like that :-) It's not logical unless you see yourself as someone who's trying to make a last-ditch stand against wholesale immorality.
R. |
Not exactly the words I would have used but close enough to be representative. Pretty decent insight in my opinion. The larger question though is what does it matter? If those feeling this way are in the minority and destined to be over run (as is claimed elsewhere in this thread) then what does it matter? So what if some feel the practice of same sex sex is immoral? It does not stop those who wish to engage in it from doing so. It does not stop those who wish to commit to a single partner from doing so. And it only temporarily is preventing some of those from realizing a marriage document - which for the price of a plane ticket, they can get elsewhere. I simply wish that all those who are so concerned about "rights" were consistent with their concern. There are many "rights" being trampled, and some of those doing the trampling are by those concerned about this one. When I proposed advocating on behalf of gay rights here in the states if Louis would champion gun rights in Canada - he said "no way!". Well are some rights more important than others? They are? Well what is the difference between that and what you are charging the immorality claimants with? None. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 10:05:14 AM · #1517 |
Originally posted by Flash:
When I proposed advocating on behalf of gay rights here in the states if Louis would champion gun rights in Canada - he said "no way!". Well are some rights more important than others? They are? Well what is the difference between that and what you are charging the immorality claimants with? None. |
Guns present the risk of death to others. It is therefore an issue of public safety. Gay marriage is an issue of tolerance, and acceptance presents zero risk to public safety. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 10:40:24 AM · #1518 |
Originally posted by Flash:
When I proposed advocating on behalf of gay rights here in the states if Louis would champion gun rights in Canada - he said "no way!". Well are some rights more important than others? They are? Well what is the difference between that and what you are charging the immorality claimants with? None. |
I don't remember reacting that way, but I'll take your word for it.
You are looking at the "right" to gun ownership from an American perspective. The rest of the world has no such constitutionally enshrined right. It's a non-starter for me. I can easily dismiss out-of-hand anyone's claim to rights of gun ownership. It's frankly nonsensical to me. My position is blandly simple: nobody should have the right to own a gun, and all gun ownership should be banned. Easy. The totemization of guns and the squabbling for the "right" to own them is an offense to me.
Further, that you can draw a comparison between the "right" to own a device that exists for the sole purpose of murdering people -- oh, sorry, for protecting your family and fer shootin' holes in thangs -- and the right of gay people to be treated just like everyone else is a chilling twist of logic. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 10:53:22 AM · #1519 |
I was reading something yesterday along the lines of comparing the decisions to allow personal gun ownership as being similarly unconstitutional as the abortion position taken in Roe v Wade.
The expectation was that if activist judges and writing laws from the bench was such an anathema, that Roe v Wade should be overturned right around the time that personal gun rights should be revoked, outside of properly established militias.
Essentially either both District of Columbia v. Heller & Roe v Wade are examples of judicial overreaching, or neither are.
Probably should be its own thread, if anyone want's to pick up on it. This one is all about people telling Mousie why he shouldn't have the same rights they enjoy.
Message edited by author 2008-11-26 10:53:58. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 11:07:21 AM · #1520 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
He was deemed to have a coat of arms and a landowner? :) Sweet. |
Just catching up, but I had to reply that my husband must be a gentleman. He has a coat of arms and is a landowner. In fact, he owns land held by the family since 1654 - a king's grant, no less. Course, he passes gas and swears, just like the rest of us. :P |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 11:15:23 AM · #1521 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Just catching up, but I had to reply that my husband must be a gentleman. He has a coat of arms and is a landowner. In fact, he owns land held by the family since 1654 - a king's grant, no less. |
Hey, me too! My coat of arms is on the Maryland license plate since my direct ancestor, Lord Baltimore Calvert, founded the state. I'd like it back, please. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 11:21:14 AM · #1522 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Just catching up, but I had to reply that my husband must be a gentleman. He has a coat of arms and is a landowner. In fact, he owns land held by the family since 1654 - a king's grant, no less. |
Hey, me too! My coat of arms is on the Maryland license plate since my direct ancestor, Lord Baltimore Calvert, founded the state. I'd like it back, please. |
Why sir, you must be a gentleman! Wait, do you own land or pass gas? |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 11:30:18 AM · #1523 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Why sir, you must be a gentleman! Wait, do you own land or pass gas? |
I own 3 acres, and there's a Gulf station on my way to work. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 12:19:12 PM · #1524 |
Originally posted by Flash:
When I proposed advocating on behalf of gay rights here in the states if Louis would champion gun rights in Canada - he said "no way!". Well are some rights more important than others? They are? Well what is the difference between that and what you are charging the immorality claimants with? None. |
How do you come up with ideas like this?
There is absolutely no tie-in on any level between gun ownership and gay rights.
Of course Louis said no as would anyone with any sense of reason.
The two are not interconnected.
Your whole premise is nonexistent.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2008 12:28:05 PM · #1525 |
Originally posted by Flash:
... When I proposed advocating on behalf of gay rights here in the states if Louis would champion gun rights in Canada - he said "no way!". Well are some rights more important than others? |
While the rights you refer to are indeed covered under your constitution, you must remember that no such rights exist in Canada. Viewed in this perspective your question is moot.
Ray |
|
