| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/01/2011 05:44:10 PM · #5501 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
DrAchoo has also taken this stance. The disconnect that homosexuality can ONLY be defined by sexual ACTION and not sexual feeling. A gay couple can be celibate, yet still be gay, because of their love for each other. They can be physically affectionate without 'consumation'.
It's really a rather sad state of ignorance. |
I'm not sure that reflects my position because I don't even understand what you are saying. Is that whole paragraph supposed to reflect my position, or just the first line? |
Really? haha. Just the first line, obviously. You said so much in a response to me once.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2011 06:14:25 PM · #5502 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
DrAchoo has also taken this stance. The disconnect that homosexuality can ONLY be defined by sexual ACTION and not sexual feeling. A gay couple can be celibate, yet still be gay, because of their love for each other. They can be physically affectionate without 'consumation'.
It's really a rather sad state of ignorance. |
I'm not sure that reflects my position because I don't even understand what you are saying. Is that whole paragraph supposed to reflect my position, or just the first line? |
Really? haha. Just the first line, obviously. You said so much in a response to me once. |
So it's surprising if I would say I am in agreement with your line that "a gay couple can be celibate, yet still be gay"? I don't have any problem with that. I may not be in such a sad state of ignorance as you think. I certainly understand the idea of orientation. Maybe you misunderstood my response (whoa, that never happens on these threads). Perhaps we were talking about the moral implications? I would not consider it immoral simply to be sexually oriented to your own sex. |
|
|
|
07/01/2011 08:45:52 PM · #5503 |
I withdraw that question - wasn't relevant to the discussion.
But I do have what I consider a relevant question: Why do married people need/get different rights than single people?
Message edited by author 2011-07-01 21:16:13. |
|
|
|
07/01/2011 10:06:36 PM · #5504 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Why do married people need/get different rights than single people? |
Group discount. ;-) |
|
|
|
07/01/2011 10:36:30 PM · #5505 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Why do married people need/get different rights than single people? |
Group discount. ;-) |
Actually, it's not different rights than a single person. But what it is, at least for tax purposes is that 2 people are treated as one single person. It's not actually a benefit at all as in most cases now both partners work and this puts them at a higher tax bracket than either would be at a single person's rate. The standard deduction is doubled though. The only real benefit comes from the next of kin laws. Basically if I was single and on life support my mother or my child would decide whether or not to pull the plug. But if I was married my spouse would make that decision. And by being married, if I died it's assumed the spouse already also owns the same property (jointly owned) therefore there are no wills to probate, no new taxes to pay on what you already own. |
|
|
|
07/01/2011 11:51:25 PM · #5506 |
So why can't I, as a single person, have those same rights? That my next of kin can get all my worldly possessions without inheritance tax? Of course, I plan to spend it all, so the point is probably moot... :-)
So why does it matter if gay couples get tax discounts, the right to pull the plug, and jointly owned property? Oh, wait. That's the whole ongoing argument, isn't it. Sorry! |
|
|
|
07/02/2011 02:09:06 AM · #5507 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally I thought the SCOTUS would be the determiner, but upon reflection I'm not so sure. I think they will punt this back to the states to decide for themselves although they may rule on DOMA. My prediction is we will have a patchwork system for at least as long as you are alive (ie. decades). |
We've already been down this road with interracial marriage and interfaith marriage: some states adopt equality while others fight tooth and nail on the grounds of personal prejudice and religious dogma. The current situation of recognition only within certain states is untenable for the same reasons those were (including constitutional mandate), so gay marriage will be federally recognized within 5 years, and more likely within two. As with the first two issues, the conservative (traditional) crowd will scream and yell about all the bad things that will happen if freedom is granted, none of which will actually occur, and within two generations nobody will remember why it was such a big deal in the first place. It's inevitable. |
I'm ready and waiting for that day. It will come. I'm certain of it. I don't think everyone will be converted, there will still be those clinging, just like with racists. But most of them won't be so bold and public about their bigotry, that's for sure. When it finally falls out of public favor to gay bash. |
|
|
|
07/02/2011 02:19:45 AM · #5508 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, it probably won't make you feel better, but even millions of dollars is an absolute drop in the bucket. Ten million dollars is 1/10,000th of 1% of the GDP (0.0001%). So while it feels like it has to be an either/or thing and if they are spending money on this, they must not be spending money on the other, it's just not true.
Your last sentence, of course, is a double edged sword. If it's not for anybody to say what's right or wrong, then it isn't for you to say that spending money on this cause is wrong either. What you are saying is "Judgement on others is wrong", but that, of course, is a judgement... |
Right and wrong in what constitutes a family. I thought that was implied but I guess I have to be quite literal. And I don't believe I ever did say spending money was wrong. I just think it's a waste. A shameful waste. I make no bones about judgements. I judge people just like anyone else. But you wanna have your nuclear family, be my guest. I'd expect the same courtesy back to whatever family I'd like to have. Though for fear of more semantic picking, I have to say, with consenting adults in a non-harmful way.
Sigh. I see you made no mention of the real point of my argument and just picked at what you could. What say you of the need to have family? I mean that's what Christians go on and on about isn't it? Breaking down of the home, values, bonds, whatever the case. And then to go saying, well no no, but you can't do it THAT way. |
Careful escape. You'll always leave yourself open to picking, with the good Doc. You write, "non-harmful". To the people that he likes to "support" (he'll fight to the death to swear that he's only playing devil's advocate and none of what he writes are how HE feels, trust me), same-sex marriage is HORRENDOUSLY harmful. To everything they believe in. It's a no-win situation. |
It's only harm to the people that think this way is self-inflicted. That's the saddest part to me. It's this cyclical thing where it's like, 'gays or kids of gays won't grow up well adjusted cus they'll be picked on and live in sin! So gays are bad for families! So we shouldn't let gays have families! Why? Cus of people like us that will pick on them and tell them they live in sin.' I know the harm you mean is a bit different, but... I dunno. That's the sort of "logical" arugment I hear a lot against gay adoption.
In any case, adoption, marriage, sex its all looks to me like watching a kid being scared of a puppy. You feel sorry for the kid. And the puppy is just there, being a puppy going... wtf, mate? And sure the kid is feeling his own sense of hell, of harm, of whatever you want to call it, but it's got nothing to do with the puppy. It's all in his perception. That puppy's never gunna bite him, but he could make himself insane thinking it will. |
|
|
|
07/03/2011 01:02:24 PM · #5509 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Indeed. Nobody has EVER demanded the right to marry so they can have sex. They can do that anyway. News reports frequently profile gay couples who have been living together for decades, some into their nineties, without being married. Does anybody outside of Nullix and Achoo seriously think they were waiting all this time for the right to have sex?!? Of course not, it's absurd. I doubt you could find a single report anywhere on the planet of a gay couple equating the right to marriage with the right to have sex. EVERY news clipping, anecdote or story about gay marriage is for the simple reason of legal equality... the right to recognition of the commitments they're already making and the enormous list of social and legal benefits that come with it.
What you're both doing here is trying to tie a restriction against equality to the characteristic that led to the discrimination in the first place even though they're unrelated. It would be like Israel banning Christians from marriage because the religious majority associate that group with eating pork. Sure, most Christians eat pork, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with estate rights, survivor benefits, medical authority, custody rights, tax benefits, etc... and they'll still munch bacon either way. Women didn't seek equal rights so they could legally be women, blacks didn't fight for voting rights so they could have dark skin, and gays aren't seeking marriage for the right to have sex. |
Apart from a little hyperbole, this. This this this. |
|
|
|
07/05/2011 08:25:28 AM · #5510 |
LGBT at General Motors
GM PLUS (People Like US), the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) employee resource group, recently produced a video to support the âIt Gets Betterâ project - a movement to help LGBT youth struggling with bullying and coming out. During the filming, GM PLUS asked the participants what it was like to be a member of the LGBT community and work at GM.
The above reads to me as an evolvement.
Message edited by author 2011-07-05 08:26:59. |
|
|
|
07/20/2011 04:12:58 PM · #5511 |
Originally posted by Mick:
Personally, I think all of these anti-gay marriage laws and statutes are reprehensible. Whom exactly does it hurt? |
Catholic innkeepers sued for refusing to host gay wedding
Originally posted by The inn's owners, Jim and Mary O'Reilly:
We have never refused rooms or dining or employment to gays or lesbians. Many of our guests have been same-sex couples. We welcome and treat all people with respect and dignity. We do not however, feel that we can offer our personal services wholeheartedly to celebrate the marriage between same-sex couples because it goes against everything that we as Catholics believe in. |
|
|
|
|
07/20/2011 06:08:34 PM · #5512 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Mick:
Personally, I think all of these anti-gay marriage laws and statutes are reprehensible. Whom exactly does it hurt? |
Catholic innkeepers sued for refusing to host gay wedding
Originally posted by The inn's owners, Jim and Mary O'Reilly:
We have never refused rooms or dining or employment to gays or lesbians. Many of our guests have been same-sex couples. We welcome and treat all people with respect and dignity. We do not however, feel that we can offer our personal services wholeheartedly to celebrate the marriage between same-sex couples because it goes against everything that we as Catholics believe in. |
|
... and exactly what is your point  Nullix ? Surely you must recognize the fact that they did in fact discriminate against a couple based solely on the fact that they are gay.
Ray |
|
|
|
07/20/2011 06:19:32 PM · #5513 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
... and exactly what is your point Nullix ? Surely you must recognize the fact that they did in fact discriminate against a couple based solely on the fact that they are gay.
Ray |
I think his point was that maybe 1000 posts ago the tone of this conversation was saying the religious people could have their view and nobody was forcing them to do anything but they should in turn allow others to do what they want. He's pointing out that as things progress this quickly does not appear to be the case and that there is a push-and-pull. It's always been argued that allowing religious freedom to inform social issues stifles expressions like gay marriage, but it appears to be as likely that allowing freedoms such as gay marriage stifles religious freedom.
The trick is going to be finding the balance. It would have been easier if one way allowed for the existence of both, but it doesn't seem to be that easy.
Message edited by author 2011-07-20 18:20:26. |
|
|
|
07/20/2011 06:37:27 PM · #5514 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... but it appears to be as likely that allowing freedoms such as gay marriage stifles religious freedom. |
No, it appears to be stifling commercial enterprise. If they don't rent their facilities to anyone for weddings then they don't have to rent to gay couples for weddings. |
|
|
|
07/20/2011 06:46:28 PM · #5515 |
There is a big difference between practicing faith and practicing business.
You sign up for certain responsibilities when you start a business, and commit to upholding certain standards. One of them is to not discriminate, as defined the laws in your area.
They are under no obligation to let gays marry on their property. They can tell everyone, equally, that they do not allow people to get married on their property. It's a bad business decision, perhaps, but nobody's stopping them from exercising their faith. Nobody.
Or is "thou shalt allow straight couples to get married on your property" a Christian precept I did not know about?
Message edited by author 2011-07-20 18:47:30. |
|
|
|
07/20/2011 06:48:09 PM · #5516 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... but it appears to be as likely that allowing freedoms such as gay marriage stifles religious freedom. |
No, it appears to be stifling commercial enterprise. If they don't rent their facilities to anyone for weddings then they don't have to rent to gay couples for weddings. |
Cute, Paul. You get the point.
Actually here is the pertinent paragraph from the statute and it does, on cursory viewing, appear that it would be illegal:
(a) An owner or operator of a place of public accommodation or an agent or employee of
such owner or operator shall not, because of the race, creed, color, national origin, marital
status, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity of any person, refuse, withhold from, or
deny to that person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of
the place of public accommodation.
An interesting question though, what about places like Curves? It appears Vermont has Curves locations which are women-only gyms. I'm curious as to whether anybody has challenged those?
Message edited by author 2011-07-20 18:49:07. |
|
|
|
07/20/2011 06:50:31 PM · #5517 |
Ah, that's such BS, Mousie. If you can't let your religion inform your life, then what is it worth?
You are just as welcome to be gay, but don't do it in public. That would be an equally unacceptable point of view. |
|
|
|
07/20/2011 06:59:27 PM · #5518 |
BTW, in an attempt to totally derail what would otherwise be a fruitless conversation :), I heard this song on, of all places, NPR Saturday morning and thought the lyrics really took the conciliatory approach that I agree with, though have probably not expressed adequately in this thread. Take a minute to listen to it. On NPR it was preceded by David telling a little parable about two farmers, a cat, a carpenter and a bridge that was cute (yet powerful), but that isn't on this YouTube clip.
Fearless Love By David Wilcox
Message edited by author 2011-07-20 19:00:05. |
|
|
|
07/20/2011 10:14:00 PM · #5519 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ah, that's such BS, Mousie. If you can't let your religion inform your life, then what is it worth? |
There is no problem whatsoever with letting religion inform your life Doc... the problem arises when it treats segments of our society as being less than equal.
Ray
|
|
|
|
07/20/2011 10:24:29 PM · #5520 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... but it appears to be as likely that allowing freedoms such as gay marriage stifles religious freedom. |
No, it appears to be stifling commercial enterprise. If they don't rent their facilities to anyone for weddings then they don't have to rent to gay couples for weddings. |
Cute, Paul. You get the point.
Actually here is the pertinent paragraph from the statute and it does, on cursory viewing, appear that it would be illegal:
(a) An owner or operator of a place of public accommodation or an agent or employee of
such owner or operator shall not, because of the race, creed, color, national origin, marital
status, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity of any person, refuse, withhold from, or
deny to that person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of
the place of public accommodation.
An interesting question though, what about places like Curves? It appears Vermont has Curves locations which are women-only gyms. I'm curious as to whether anybody has challenged those? |
Nice try Doc... by this logic one could argue that anything but "Unisex" bathrooms would also be illegal.
Ray |
|
|
|
07/20/2011 11:42:38 PM · #5521 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Nice try Doc... by this logic one could argue that anything but "Unisex" bathrooms would also be illegal.
Ray |
I guess you are admitting that you are purely sexually driven and not better off then a monkey. |
|
|
|
07/20/2011 11:57:52 PM · #5522 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... but it appears to be as likely that allowing freedoms such as gay marriage stifles religious freedom. |
No, it appears to be stifling commercial enterprise. If they don't rent their facilities to anyone for weddings then they don't have to rent to gay couples for weddings. |
Cute, Paul. You get the point.
Actually here is the pertinent paragraph from the statute and it does, on cursory viewing, appear that it would be illegal:
(a) An owner or operator of a place of public accommodation or an agent or employee of
such owner or operator shall not, because of the race, creed, color, national origin, marital
status, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity of any person, refuse, withhold from, or
deny to that person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of
the place of public accommodation.
An interesting question though, what about places like Curves? It appears Vermont has Curves locations which are women-only gyms. I'm curious as to whether anybody has challenged those? |
Nice try Doc... by this logic one could argue that anything but "Unisex" bathrooms would also be illegal.
Ray |
Actually the whole statute has some exceptions in it. It's much longer than that one paragraph. It was an honest question. I couldn't see how a Curves could withstand that paragraph and I didn't see an exception clause. It's possible nobody has bothered to challenge it. |
|
|
|
07/21/2011 12:06:35 AM · #5523 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... but it appears to be as likely that allowing freedoms such as gay marriage stifles religious freedom. |
No, it appears to be stifling commercial enterprise. If they don't rent their facilities to anyone for weddings then they don't have to rent to gay couples for weddings. |
Cute, Paul. You get the point.
Actually here is the pertinent paragraph from the statute and it does, on cursory viewing, appear that it would be illegal:
(a) An owner or operator of a place of public accommodation or an agent or employee of
such owner or operator shall not, because of the race, creed, color, national origin, marital
status, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity of any person, refuse, withhold from, or
deny to that person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of
the place of public accommodation.
An interesting question though, what about places like Curves? It appears Vermont has Curves locations which are women-only gyms. I'm curious as to whether anybody has challenged those? |
Nice try Doc... by this logic one could argue that anything but "Unisex" bathrooms would also be illegal.
Ray |
Actually the whole statute has some exceptions in it. It's much longer than that one paragraph. It was an honest question. I couldn't see how a Curves could withstand that paragraph and I didn't see an exception clause. It's possible nobody has bothered to challenge it. |
I think the curves issue is more of a business model and the right to promote a business how you see fit(pun). |
|
|
|
07/21/2011 12:13:19 AM · #5524 |
Originally posted by TheDruid:
I think the curves issue is more of a business model and the right to promote a business how you see fit(pun). |
I honestly don't see the difference. If you can promote a business model that discriminates based on gender, why can't you promote a business model that discriminates based on sexual orientation? Both are listed in the paragraph of the statute so I would think either both would be disallowed or both would be allowed.
From the statue, arranged for clarity:
An owner or operator of a place of public accommodation...shall not, because of...sex...deny to that person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of the place of public accommodation.
An owner or operator of a place of public accommodation...shall not, because of...sexual orientation...deny to that person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of the place of public accommodation.
Message edited by author 2011-07-21 00:13:38. |
|
|
|
07/21/2011 12:29:25 AM · #5525 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I honestly don't see the difference. |
So do schools have to provide co-ed locker rooms?
The courts tend to allow exceptions for reasons of personal privacy, if those exceptions do not confer a distinct advantage to one of the parties.
"Separate but equal" fail in the most practical sense because it's rarely equal; however, dressing rooms and exercise equipment of equal quality and cost are readily available to men.
It's also possible that it is legally structured as a private membership "club" and not as a facility "open to the public" at all; I don't think it was the courts which made the Augusta National admit a couple of token Black members ... |
|
