| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/07/2010 04:48:59 PM · #5201 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
First, let me say I've been informed that "ilk" is construed as a negative word, sort of snarkish name-calling. I didn't mean it that way, I've never used it that way. So I just meant "conservatives like you" up there. R. |
I am rather intrigued by this comment... when did "Ilk" become snarkish name calling? I have used that particular word for a rather long time, and like you never said it in any condescending manner. I have yet to find a definition that suggest anything other than genre, type, and other similar words.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/07/2010 04:59:40 PM · #5202 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I am rather intrigued by this comment... when did "Ilk" become snarkish name calling? I have used that particular word for a rather long time, and like you never said it in any condescending manner. I have yet to find a definition that suggest anything other than genre, type, and other similar words.
Ray |
I get messages from people whenever I use it, warning me that it can be taken negatively. Apparently, for a lot of people "ilk" is used solely in conjunction with negative qualities; bad guys have ilks, good guys don't :-)
The language is drifting on us, Ray. Drifting, I tell you! Rudderless! No true course! We are doomed, I say, DOOMED!
R. |
|
|
|
11/07/2010 07:24:26 PM · #5203 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Emperor Nero married a man named Sporus in a very public ceremony... |
Nero also married his stepsister. I'm guessing the takehome message is that such marriages were, likewise, not exceptional.
The rumor was Caligula married his horse, but now nobody's sure if that really happened or not.
Message edited by author 2010-11-07 19:26:02. |
|
|
|
11/07/2010 07:27:03 PM · #5204 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Emperor Nero married a man named Sporus in a very public ceremony... |
Nero also married his stepsister and Caligula was purported to have married his horse. All of these I would call "exceptional"... |
Purported...remember that one very important word, and NOT all of these are "Exceptional", at least not in everyone eyes. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
11/07/2010 07:28:29 PM · #5205 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Emperor Nero married a man named Sporus in a very public ceremony... |
Nero also married his stepsister and Caligula was purported to have married his horse. All of these I would call "exceptional"... |
Purported...remember that one very important word, and NOT all of these are "Exceptional", at least not in everyone eyes. :O)
Ray |
The point, I think, Ray, is that you don't declare gay marriage to be commonplace based on the activity of a Roman emperor. They seem to do whatever they want and Nero, as shown, would hardly be the character anybody would want to back their claim.
I added the Caligula thing because it's just too rich and even the Encyclopedia Brittanica, according to wiki, reported it as true (although later retracting it).
The point doesn't even matter as I already said that polygamy is a version of marriage that had acceptance and varies from the one-man, one-woman view. Arguing about Nero and his boyfriend doesn't advance the argument.
Message edited by author 2010-11-07 19:30:57. |
|
|
|
11/07/2010 07:33:30 PM · #5206 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Emperor Nero married a man named Sporus in a very public ceremony... |
Nero also married his stepsister and Caligula was purported to have married his horse. All of these I would call "exceptional"... |
Purported...remember that one very important word, and NOT all of these are "Exceptional", at least not in everyone eyes. :O)
Ray |
The point, I think, Ray, is that you don't declare gay marriage to be commonplace based on the activity of a Roman emperor. They seem to do whatever they want and Nero, as shown, would hardly be the character anybody would want to back their claim.
I added the Caligula thing because it's just too rich and even the Encyclopedia Brittanica, according to wiki, reported it as true (although later retracting it).
The point doesn't even matter as I already said that polygamy is a version of marriage that had acceptance and varies from the one-man, one-woman view. Arguing about Nero and his boyfriend doesn't advance the argument. |
I do believe there was a bit more to the arguments proferred in this instance, and that same sex marriages were recognized in several different cultures.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/07/2010 07:39:10 PM · #5207 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I do believe there was a bit more to the arguments proferred in this instance, and that same sex marriages were recognized in several different cultures.
Ray |
At the end of the day I have to say that the argument same-sex marriage has had common acceptance in cultural history to be smoke and mirrors. That's why I was being diplomatic and used polygamy which has had obvious acceptance.
Message edited by author 2010-11-07 19:40:00. |
|
|
|
11/07/2010 09:00:22 PM · #5208 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
At the end of the day I have to say that the argument same-sex marriage has had common acceptance in cultural history to be smoke and mirrors. |
If same sex marriage were historically exceptional, then there wouldn't be a need to outlaw it any more than outlawing marriage to horses. If the objections were truly required by religion, then it wouldn't have taken a brutal dictator to discourage gay relationships hundreds of years after the key religious figures were dead. If efforts to stop gay marriage were not a matter of unabashed discrimination and prejudice, then DOMA and similar laws would not have been pursued to derail impending acceptance under federal and state constitutions. And lastly, if some of the more vocal opponents were not plainly homophobic, then they wouldn't be posting articles on firefighters attending a gay pride parade or prejudiced Christians being turned down for adoptions when neither case had anything to do with gay rights or marriage and only served to provoke fear that legal equality would somehow result in opponents being forced to participate and/or support gay activities. |
|
|
|
11/07/2010 11:01:04 PM · #5209 |
It seems to be typical Rant that I make an attempted consensus building post and all people want to do is harp on a clause I put in parenthetically. And to argue the parenthetical statement doesn't even improve their position because it's already conceded that the point is made with a better example.
Who needs a drink?
Message edited by author 2010-11-07 23:01:48. |
|
|
|
11/08/2010 10:27:19 AM · #5210 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
...if some of the more vocal opponents were not plainly homophobic, then they wouldn't be posting articles on firefighters attending a gay pride parade or prejudiced Christians being turned down for adoptions when neither case had anything to do with gay rights or marriage and only served to provoke fear that legal equality would somehow result in opponents being forced to participate and/or support gay activities. |
Vocal opponent here.
I only point these articles out to show how acceptance of gay marriage effects others. People forced to attend gay pride parade. People not being aloud to adopt due to their religious views. Adoption agencies shutting down. People being sued for their religious views.
I keep on reading here, "How does gay marriage effect you?" and these acticles point this out.
Here's another article you might be interested in. I don't think it'll provoke fear, but it does seem like a neat idea. Homosexuals Plan 'Kiss-In' in Front of Pope During Spain Visit I'm sure the Pope will bless them as he passes by. |
|
|
|
11/08/2010 10:38:17 AM · #5211 |
| Here's another bit of news that may be of interest. Openly gay Bishop steps down.. Poor guy was victim to all sorts of abusive behavior including death threats. Seems a shame to me. |
|
|
|
11/08/2010 10:42:32 AM · #5212 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I only point these articles out to show how acceptance of gay marriage effects others. People forced to attend gay pride parade... |
That had absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. San Diego's been having gay pride parades for a LONG time, at least 15-20 years if memory serves. (I used to have a studio in Hillcrest, which is/was the "gay neighborhood" for San Diego.) And I take exception to your implication that there's something "off" about a firefighter being "forced" to attend a gay pride parade. The fact is, firefighters/police are required to "show the flag" at all sorts of public functions, it's part of their ongoing community relations programs.
It's not reasonable to single out gay parades and suggest that because an individual firefighter believes gays are abominations that he can just opt out of this assignment. What about a firefighter who believes his town is being taken over by the rapidly-growing Latino population (this is an issue for a LOT of people in San Diego and other border cities): should he not have to do assigned functions in the barrio neighborhoods?
No, I'd go in the opposite direction; I'd consider that any civil servant who feels this way should be dismissed; there's no place for any kind of prejudice in the public sector. If you can't tolerate gays, or blacks, or hispanics, whatever, you shouldn't be a firefighter, or a cop, or for that matter a librarian.
R.
Message edited by author 2010-11-08 10:46:55. |
|
|
|
11/08/2010 10:44:17 AM · #5213 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'd consider that any civil servant who feels this way should be dismissed; there's no place for any kind of prejudice in the public sector. If you can't tolerate gays, or blacks, or hispanics, whatever, you shouldn't be a firefighter, or a cop, or for that matter a librarian. |
+1
|
|
|
|
11/08/2010 11:01:12 AM · #5214 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I only point these articles out to show how acceptance of gay marriage effects others. People forced to attend gay pride parade. People not being aloud to adopt due to their religious views. |
Then you have failed miserably. Neither case has anything whatsoever to do with gay marriage. I don't know what the backstory is on the parade (likely a community support issue as Bear suggested), but it wasn't gays who forced the firemen to attend- it was their boss. Allowing gay marriage does not in any way mean others will be required to attend gay parades or rallies. It's a total disconnect and undisguised homophobia. The adoption story had nothing to do with gay marriage either. It was about prejudice. You have a right to your religious views, but you don't have the right to visit them upon others. The adoption agency's primary concern is for the welfare of the children, and if your religious beliefs hold that girls must not be educated, left-handedness is evil, or homosexuality is an abomination, then no adoption agency is going to risk potential mistreatment by placing a child with you. Even YOU must agree that it's not in the best interest of children to be raised by adoptive parents who fundamentally disapprove of their very nature!
Message edited by author 2010-11-08 12:27:03. |
|
|
|
11/08/2010 12:22:23 PM · #5215 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by scalvert:
...if some of the more vocal opponents were not plainly homophobic, then they wouldn't be posting articles on firefighters attending a gay pride parade or prejudiced Christians being turned down for adoptions when neither case had anything to do with gay rights or marriage and only served to provoke fear that legal equality would somehow result in opponents being forced to participate and/or support gay activities. |
Vocal opponent here.
I only point these articles out to show how acceptance of gay marriage effects others. People forced to attend gay pride parade. People not being aloud to adopt due to their religious views. Adoption agencies shutting down. People being sued for their religious views.
I keep on reading here, "How does gay marriage effect you?" and these acticles point this out.
Here's another article you might be interested in. I don't think it'll provoke fear, but it does seem like a neat idea. Homosexuals Plan 'Kiss-In' in Front of Pope During Spain Visit I'm sure the Pope will bless them as he passes by. |
Wow. Just. Wow.
Everyone else said it much more succinctly and diplomatically than I would have, so I'm just going to leave it there.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2010 02:33:58 PM · #5216 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Here's another bit of news that may be of interest. Openly gay Bishop steps down.. Poor guy was victim to all sorts of abusive behavior including death threats. Seems a shame to me. |
Yes, that is a shame. |
|
|
|
11/08/2010 05:12:54 PM · #5217 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'd consider that any civil servant who feels this way should be dismissed; there's no place for any kind of prejudice in the public sector. If you can't tolerate gays, or blacks, or hispanics, whatever, you shouldn't be a firefighter, or a cop, or for that matter a librarian.
R. |
I have always held a very high regard for you and your views my friend, and this only serves to augment the degree of esteem I have for you. You truly are a very cerebral and caring person, unafraid to take a stand, even if it does run counter to the ideology of the day.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/08/2010 05:52:09 PM · #5218 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Nullix:
I only point these articles out to show how acceptance of gay marriage effects others. People forced to attend gay pride parade... |
That had absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. San Diego's been having gay pride parades for a LONG time, at least 15-20 years if memory serves. (I used to have a studio in Hillcrest, which is/was the "gay neighborhood" for San Diego.) And I take exception to your implication that there's something "off" about a firefighter being "forced" to attend a gay pride parade. The fact is, firefighters/police are required to "show the flag" at all sorts of public functions, it's part of their ongoing community relations programs. |
Originally posted by From the Article:
Four San Diego firefighters won a court battle in the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District when the court upheld a jury verdict at the trial court level against the city compelling the firefighters to participate in San Diegoâs 2007 Gay Pride Parade.
City firefighters said that they had been subjected to obscene gestures, catcalls, and other offensive sexual conduct during the parade. Fire Captain John Ghiotti, a 28-year veteran, said that in the past he had been subjected to the emotional trauma of burned families, injured colleagues, and similar pressures, but âIâve never been so stressed out before as in this incident.â |
Doesn't seem like I'm implying anything. The California Court of Appeal seems to agree with me.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2010 06:26:08 PM · #5219 |
Originally posted by From the Article:
City firefighters said that they had been subjected to obscene gestures, catcalls, and other offensive sexual conduct during the parade. Fire Captain John Ghiotti, a 28-year veteran, said that in the past he had been subjected to the emotional trauma of burned families, injured colleagues, and similar pressures, but âIâve never been so stressed out before as in this incident.â |
Is he honestly saying that what he has seen in his work, burned dead families, children i imagine, was less traumatic and stressful than some obscene gestures and catcalls from some partying gays? Bloody hell, what an utterly obnoxious person. That is hideous, truly hideous. |
|
|
|
11/08/2010 06:51:07 PM · #5220 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I only point these articles out to show how acceptance of gay marriage effects others. People forced to attend gay pride parade. |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Doesn't seem like I'm implying anything. The California Court of Appeal seems to agree with me. |
Where does the California Court of Appeal agree that "gay marriage effects[sic] others?" You're directly implying that gay marriage would force others to participate, but this was a city/fire department decision. If Irish firefighters sued for the traumatic experience of having to participate in a Puerto Rican Day parade, how would that be a logical consequence of Puerto Ricans being allowed to marry each other or live as equal members of society? |
|
|
|
11/08/2010 07:23:05 PM · #5221 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
.....implying that gay marriage would force others to participate,...... |
In effect it does force me to participate by giving them social security survivors rights that I have paid into. However, I don't have a problem with giving gays these rights. These folks deserve the same divorce/separation "benefits" as us straight people. Welcome to the world of loosing half or more of your stuff. :)
Message edited by author 2010-11-08 19:24:03. |
|
|
|
11/08/2010 09:02:20 PM · #5222 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Doesn't seem like I'm implying anything. The California Court of Appeal seems to agree with me. |
It still has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage. It has nothing to do with gays, legally speaking. It was a squabble between the firefighters and the city. It wasn't like the gays were forcing these firemen to be there, or like the gays were suing the city to have firefighter representation at the parade.
So what we seem to have here is an issue where the firefighters don't think they should be required to do outreach into communities they don't, personally, agree with.
I stand by what I said before; regardless of what the Court of Appeals had to say, I think this is very wrong. I don't think we should have firefighters & policemen who pick and choose which groups to support during the course of their jobs. If the impact of the court case is to rule that the city can't require firefighter participation at anything but fires and 911 emergencies, I just don't know how that's gonna work.
Heckfire, man, there are neighborhoods where, when the firefighters go in to FIGHT FIRES, they get booed, stoned, shot at even, disrespected in every possible way as representatives of authority, and they are required to take it. So is the court now telling us they can refuse to go into the ghettos and barrios to fight fires or provide EMT services? That this is optional, up to the individual? I doubt it.
And where are you gonna draw the line? When, exactly, does an activity stop being mandatory and become optional? If your captain tells you to go give a show & tell at the local elementary school, can you refuse if you can't stand little kids? C'mon, think straight!
R. |
|
|
|
11/08/2010 09:09:52 PM · #5223 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
C'mon, think straight!
|
Now you're talkin! |
|
|
|
11/08/2010 10:52:06 PM · #5224 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
C'mon, think straight!
|
Now you're talkin! |
Oh, snap! ;-)
R. |
|
|
|
11/09/2010 04:42:45 AM · #5225 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...And where are you gonna draw the line? When, exactly, does an activity stop being mandatory and become optional? If your captain tells you to go give a show & tell at the local elementary school, can you refuse if you can't stand little kids? C'mon, think straight!
R. |
I have to agree with  Bear_Musicon this one. In my 30 years in the police force I can tell you that there were circumstances where I truly wanted to be elsewhere, but I had no options. This is almost akin to those people who join the military and become conscientious objectors whenever a war unconveniently breaks out.
Ray |
|
