| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/11/2008 04:56:12 AM · #626 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I like Olbermann. I've never seen him quite like this... seemed from the start he was barely containing himself. Came off as pretty genuine to me, he's kind of a tough nut. "Our world is barren enough of happiness... do you want to do good by your creator? Spread happiness." |
Just watched this.. LOL, what a Drama Queen. They actually air this stuff on TV in the US? Still, from the country that gave us "Friends" I guess it can be expected.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2008 07:57:13 AM · #627 |
| Olbermann is a drama queen, but he was perfect for the Bush Administration. He expressed the level of outrage that those villains deserved. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 08:42:17 AM · #628 |
Since I prefer to get my news and news commentary from print rather than TV, I hadn't encountered Mr. Obermann before.
His statement appeared to be carefully written and sincerely delivered. I expect it reached a lot of people who will now think abut this subject a bit more carefully.
Thanks for posting the link. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 09:50:02 AM · #629 |
Olbermann is a good tonic for the commentators on "the other side". Here he is dressing down O'Reilly early on in a subdued way, and here he is positively destroying him. (I highly recommend watching all eight minutes of that video.)
One of the things that fascinates me about people in general is rhetoric. I am awed by one who can speak well. Whether or not the message is agreeable to me, a speaker of beautiful words is truly captivating. That's why I admire Obama so much. The fact that his message is on point -- though too right of centre in my view -- is a bonus for me. I understand he writes is own speeches.
A good rhetorician is like a craftsman, and I admire one deeply. A poor rhetorician -- Dinesh D'Souza for example -- is like nails on a blackboard. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 10:00:18 AM · #630 |
But....but....but, this is a Fox report! It must be slanted way off course.
Surely you are not suggesting the US should actually DO something about this in the same manner we did somthing about Sadam and co. This must not happen often, not like the tens of thousands of Iraq citizens killed by their leader. Who are we to say Sadam was wrong? We should have never sent them help. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 10:05:56 AM · #631 |
| It seems odd to me that many here post on how compassionate we must be to those that abuse our government support system yet rail against our help to those dying under brutal dictators. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 10:16:48 AM · #632 |
Originally posted by Flash:
It seems odd to me that many here post on how compassionate we must be to those that abuse our government support system yet rail against our help to those dying under brutal dictators. |
Let's not divert the thread from the topic, though I'd like to point out the the common wisdom is that "charity begins at home." |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 10:28:39 AM · #633 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Olbermann is a good tonic for the commentators on "the other side". Here he is dressing down O'Reilly early on in a subdued way, and here he is positively destroying him. (I highly recommend watching all eight minutes of that video.)
One of the things that fascinates me about people in general is rhetoric. I am awed by one who can speak well. Whether or not the message is agreeable to me, a speaker of beautiful words is truly captivating. That's why I admire Obama so much. The fact that his message is on point -- though too right of centre in my view -- is a bonus for me. I understand he writes is own speeches.
A good rhetorician is like a craftsman, and I admire one deeply. A poor rhetorician -- Dinesh D'Souza for example -- is like nails on a blackboard. |
Perhaps Richard Dawkins feels the same as you do, and that's why he refuses to debate D'Souza face to face.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2008 11:37:02 AM · #634 |
| Legislated discrimination a la California and other states all but guarantees that more of this will happen to people minding their own business. And this happened in Canada, where same-sex marriages are as valid and legally protected as opposite-sex marriages. When the government codifies discrimination in law, there is little excuse for bigots to restrain themselves. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 11:53:20 AM · #635 |
How do you measure success ??? Originally posted by David Ey:
This must not happen often, not like the tens of thousands of Iraq citizens killed by their leader. Who are we to say Sadam was wrong? We should have never sent them help. |
As to not distance myself from the topic too much, I am of the opinion that this is an area where we remember that marriage is a legal exercise - and to some, a religious one. Either way, the license is a document of the state - and one that should not fall victim to judgment or discrimination.
Message edited by author 2008-11-11 11:57:20. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 12:30:19 PM · #636 |
Originally posted by metatate:
As to not distance myself from the topic too much, I am of the opinion that this is an area where we remember that marriage is a legal exercise - and to some, a religious one. Either way, the license is a document of the state - and one that should not fall victim to judgment or discrimination. |
But from the beginning, the laws concerning the granting of a marriage license by the state have been discriminatory in every state ( to the best of my knowledge ): e.g. a man cannot marry his mother, sister, aunt, or 1st cousin; a woman cannot marry her father, brother, uncle, or 1st cousin.
Do you feel that state judiciaries should repeal those discriminatory prohibitions, as well? |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 01:08:08 PM · #637 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by metatate:
As to not distance myself from the topic too much, I am of the opinion that this is an area where we remember that marriage is a legal exercise - and to some, a religious one. Either way, the license is a document of the state - and one that should not fall victim to judgment or discrimination. |
But from the beginning, the laws concerning the granting of a marriage license by the state have been discriminatory in every state ( to the best of my knowledge ): e.g. a man cannot marry his mother, sister, aunt, or 1st cousin; a woman cannot marry her father, brother, uncle, or 1st cousin.
Do you feel that state judiciaries should repeal those discriminatory prohibitions, as well? |
If those relationships are between consenting adults, I really don't think it's any of the state's business.
In the eyes of the law, marriage is a legal union. The presiding shaman, cleric, priest and whatever spells are chanted, prayers are made or magic foo foo dust is sprinkled remains irrelevant to the legal status of that union. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 01:20:35 PM · #638 |
Originally posted by RonB:
But from the beginning, the laws concerning the granting of a marriage license by the state have been discriminatory in every state ( to the best of my knowledge ): e.g. a man cannot marry his mother, sister, aunt, or 1st cousin; a woman cannot marry her father, brother, uncle, or 1st cousin.
Do you feel that state judiciaries should repeal those discriminatory prohibitions, as well? |
There was some discussion as to whether a civil union (same sex "marriage") in the UK should permit close relatives of the same sex to enter into a civil union. Following on from that, should the right be extended to opposite sex relatives for the same reasons.
The reasoning is that the legal rights associated with marriage (eg right to switch off a ventilator, rules and tax breaks on inheritance, pension rights etc) might be appropriately awarded to, say, siblings who have lived with each other for their lifetimes (by way of stereotype, think of a pair of old unmarried sisters who live with each other - shouldn't they be entitled to the legal rights on inheritance, pensions and medical intervention enjoyed by a married couple?).
I would support this extension of rights. The prohibition should be restricted to incest - which results in objectively ascertainable genetic weakening of the race (and therefore has a logical basis as well as the "taboo" basis).
|
|
|
|
11/11/2008 01:32:09 PM · #639 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by metatate:
As to not distance myself from the topic too much, I am of the opinion that this is an area where we remember that marriage is a legal exercise - and to some, a religious one. Either way, the license is a document of the state - and one that should not fall victim to judgment or discrimination. |
But from the beginning, the laws concerning the granting of a marriage license by the state have been discriminatory in every state ( to the best of my knowledge ): e.g. a man cannot marry his mother, sister, aunt, or 1st cousin; a woman cannot marry her father, brother, uncle, or 1st cousin.
Do you feel that state judiciaries should repeal those discriminatory prohibitions, as well? |
If those relationships are between consenting adults, I really don't think it's any of the state's business.
In the eyes of the law, marriage is a legal union. The presiding shaman, cleric, priest and whatever spells are chanted, prayers are made or magic foo foo dust is sprinkled remains irrelevant to the legal status of that union. |
Your first sentence is germain to my question ( I'll assume that your meaning is 'yes' you agree that the judiciary should repeal those prohibitions.
The rest of your diatribe is not germain. But thanks for sharing your vitriol. I hope that spewing it out eased your mind of the tension you must have been feeling. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 01:38:04 PM · #640 |
funny, but i didn't get one ounce of vitriol, diatribe, tension, OR spewing from matthew's statement.
it was well written and polite.
you, otoh... |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 01:42:25 PM · #641 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by metatate:
As to not distance myself from the topic too much, I am of the opinion that this is an area where we remember that marriage is a legal exercise - and to some, a religious one. Either way, the license is a document of the state - and one that should not fall victim to judgment or discrimination. |
But from the beginning, the laws concerning the granting of a marriage license by the state have been discriminatory in every state ( to the best of my knowledge ): e.g. a man cannot marry his mother, sister, aunt, or 1st cousin; a woman cannot marry her father, brother, uncle, or 1st cousin.
Do you feel that state judiciaries should repeal those discriminatory prohibitions, as well? |
If those relationships are between consenting adults, I really don't think it's any of the state's business.
In the eyes of the law, marriage is a legal union. The presiding shaman, cleric, priest and whatever spells are chanted, prayers are made or magic foo foo dust is sprinkled remains irrelevant to the legal status of that union. |
Your first sentence is germain to my question ( I'll assume that your meaning is 'yes' you agree that the judiciary should repeal those prohibitions.
The rest of your diatribe is not germain. But thanks for sharing your vitriol. I hope that spewing it out eased your mind of the tension you must have been feeling. |
Since one of, if not the, main argument against gay marriage has been that somehow allowing homosexuals to marry would defile the religious "sanctity of marriage", my second point is entirely germane to the topic at hand.
There's no vitriol, a wide variety of religions have a wide variety of ceremonies. I see no reason to discriminate there either. You may restrict your view of marriage to the typical christian view, but you really should take a look around. The point remains that whatever religious ceremony a couple chooses for their ceremony, the religious component is irrelevant and unnecessary for that marriage to exist legally.
Message edited by author 2008-11-11 13:50:17. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 01:44:30 PM · #642 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by RonB:
But from the beginning, the laws concerning the granting of a marriage license by the state have been discriminatory in every state ( to the best of my knowledge ): e.g. a man cannot marry his mother, sister, aunt, or 1st cousin; a woman cannot marry her father, brother, uncle, or 1st cousin.
Do you feel that state judiciaries should repeal those discriminatory prohibitions, as well? |
There was some discussion as to whether a civil union (same sex "marriage") in the UK should permit close relatives of the same sex to enter into a civil union. Following on from that, should the right be extended to opposite sex relatives for the same reasons.
The reasoning is that the legal rights associated with marriage (eg right to switch off a ventilator, rules and tax breaks on inheritance, pension rights etc) might be appropriately awarded to, say, siblings who have lived with each other for their lifetimes (by way of stereotype, think of a pair of old unmarried sisters who live with each other - shouldn't they be entitled to the legal rights on inheritance, pensions and medical intervention enjoyed by a married couple?).
I would support this extension of rights. The prohibition should be restricted to incest - which results in objectively ascertainable genetic weakening of the race (and therefore has a logical basis as well as the "taboo" basis). |
Matthew, thanks for a more civil response that that exhibited by a previous respondent.
You've obviously inferred the point I was leading to - that IF gay marriage is legalized, then there is no reason to NOT legalize marriage between close blood relatives, so long as one of the pair is certifiably "sterile" ( e.g. has had a hysterectomy, tubal ligation, or vasectomy ), or is post menopausal.
Of course, that begs the question as to whether the a mere sexual coupling is still "incest" if it does not bear the risk of pregnancy.
I asked the question to see if metatate had thought about implications of his position beyond the issue at hand. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 01:46:20 PM · #643 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
funny, but i didn't get one ounce of vitriol, diatribe, tension, OR spewing from matthew's statement. |
Neither did I. See my response to him for my reaction.
Originally posted by rossbilly:
it was well written and polite. |
Yes, I agree. And said so in my response to him.
Originally posted by rossbilly:
you, otoh... |
???
|
|
|
|
11/11/2008 01:52:52 PM · #644 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Of course, that begs the question as to whether the a mere sexual coupling is still "incest" if it does not bear the risk of pregnancy.
|
Are you going to start an "incest" thread or further derail this one? |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 02:07:36 PM · #645 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by metatate:
As to not distance myself from the topic too much, I am of the opinion that this is an area where we remember that marriage is a legal exercise - and to some, a religious one. Either way, the license is a document of the state - and one that should not fall victim to judgment or discrimination. |
But from the beginning, the laws concerning the granting of a marriage license by the state have been discriminatory in every state ( to the best of my knowledge ): e.g. a man cannot marry his mother, sister, aunt, or 1st cousin; a woman cannot marry her father, brother, uncle, or 1st cousin.
Do you feel that state judiciaries should repeal those discriminatory prohibitions, as well? |
If those relationships are between consenting adults, I really don't think it's any of the state's business.
In the eyes of the law, marriage is a legal union. The presiding shaman, cleric, priest and whatever spells are chanted, prayers are made or magic foo foo dust is sprinkled remains irrelevant to the legal status of that union. |
Your first sentence is germain to my question ( I'll assume that your meaning is 'yes' you agree that the judiciary should repeal those prohibitions.
The rest of your diatribe is not germain. But thanks for sharing your vitriol. I hope that spewing it out eased your mind of the tension you must have been feeling. |
Since one of, if not the, main argument against gay marriage has been that somehow allowing homosexuals to marry would defile the religious "sanctity of marriage", my second point is entirely germane to the topic at hand. |
A) I wasn't arguing against gay marriage.
B) I didn't say it wasn't germane to the TOPIC at hand, I said it wasn't germane to my QUESTION. And it wasn't.
C) There were some who criticized Sarah Palin for not responding directly to questions during her debate with Joe Biden, but, instead, using the opportunity to pontificate on points that were not germane to the question.
If you don't want that same criticism applied to you, then please try to respond to what is said/asked, instead of doing the same. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 02:25:12 PM · #646 |
Originally posted by RonB:
If you don't want that same criticism applied to you, then please try to respond to what is said/asked, instead of doing the same. |
You're asking me to stick to the topic?
Physician heal thyself. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 02:27:11 PM · #647 |
Beastiality is next distraction ... but anyway,
In the interest of a utilitarian society attempting to maintain some degree of civility, it might be in the state's interest to question who procreates rather the who marries.
I say this tongue-in cheek, of course.
At least those who disagree with gay marriage can relish in the fact that they will not create offspring with the same desires (as opposed to incest). |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 02:29:03 PM · #648 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Of course, that begs the question as to whether the a mere sexual coupling is still "incest" if it does not bear the risk of pregnancy.
|
Are you going to start an "incest" thread or further derail this one? |
In case you didn't notice, it was Matthew who brought up the subject - and it IS germane to the subject "at hand" - i.e. the legalization of "marriage" between "consenting adults" of whatever sexual persuasion.
The question is germane because
a) if gay marriage is legalized, then it effectively negates the "procreation" rationale as a reason for the state to grant special rights to those who are "married", and
b) if that prohibition is removed, then the laws against close relatives marrying, become cloudy, especially if
1) it is an act between "consenting adults" - which, according to YOU, shouldn't be "any of the state's business" anyway, and
2) the couple is incapable of procreating ( i.e. one or both are sterile, or they are of the same sex ).
Further, if the laws against close relatives marrying ( including gay relatives ) become cloudy, then so do the laws against incest, so long as they meet the same criteria as close relatives as stated above, i.e. consenting adults, and incapable of procreating.
The topic IS about broadening the definition of marriage, is it not? |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 02:35:36 PM · #649 |
 RonB, You are trying to make the slippery slope argument that allowing gay marriage would remove barriers to incestual unions. Just to point out the obvious, such arguments are highly fallacious. In essence it takes the debate down this path:
A) Gay marriage is being argued for.
B) Allowing gay marriage opens questions about incestual marriage. (we automatically go down the slope)
C) Incest is wrong. (this is also a straw man argument)
D) Therefore gay marriage is wrong.
Yes, what happens in gay marriage could have an effect on arguments for any number of marriage related arguments, but those other arguments should take place on their own merits since they are different cases with different variables (i.e. serious genetic problems related to incest).
edited to fix grammar
Message edited by author 2008-11-11 14:36:26. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 03:00:32 PM · #650 |
Originally posted by JMart:
RonB, You are trying to make the slippery slope argument that allowing gay marriage would remove barriers to incestual unions. Just to point out the obvious, such arguments are highly fallacious. In essence it takes the debate down this path:
A) Gay marriage is being argued for.
B) Allowing gay marriage opens questions about incestual marriage. (we automatically go down the slope)
C) Incest is wrong. (this is also a straw man argument)
D) Therefore gay marriage is wrong.
Yes, what happens in gay marriage could have an effect on arguments for any number of marriage related arguments, but those other arguments should take place on their own merits since they are different cases with different variables (i.e. serious genetic problems related to incest).
edited to fix grammar |
It appears that you are allowing emotions to rule logic. I did not make any point about incest being "wrong". If that is a straw man argument, it is one that YOU made, not me. In fact, I made the argument, or at least raised the question, whether "incest" is still "wrong", from a state's interest perspective, if the couple is incapable of procreation.
I am merely attempting to point out that what seems to be a "simple" change of "a" law about "marriage" has far more implications that that which is apparent - arguing neither FOR nor AGAINST the change, itself.
In Nebraska, the "safe haven" law permitting a parent to abandon a child without fear of prosecution did not specify an age limit. Elsewhere, a child is defined as anyone under the age of 19. The unintended consequence of the law is that many older children - in one case TEN siblings ranging in age from 1 to 17 - have been abandoned.
I'm saying that there may be unintended consequences in the laws surrounding marriage, as well - and pointing out what some of them might be from a logical perspective, not slippery slope or straw man arguments.
-edited to fix spelling -
Message edited by author 2008-11-11 15:02:35. |
|
