| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/14/2008 02:41:01 PM · #926 |
| Ron, for somebody so quick to point out that others have not taken his words verbatim and thereby convoluted his message, your post sure looks dense. |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 02:42:36 PM · #927 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
And if Liza didn't get that idea from her parents, where did she get it? |
Maybe from the radio and TV commercials promoting Proposition 8 which saturated the airwaves prior to the election? |
Now that would be a stretch. I can't imaging Prop 8 PROPONENTS saturating the airwaves with claims the you should vote YES because that would make families headed by gay partners fall apart and make their children wards of the state.
Prop 8 OPPONENTS, I could see saying that, but not PROPONENTS.
Though, you could show me that my thinking is flawed. Do you have an example?
|
|
|
|
11/14/2008 02:44:00 PM · #928 |
Look Jeb, that was a legetimate question. I had no idea what they called each other. I've not read every Mouse response. My brother-in-law is gay as can be and they refer to each other as P and K.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2008 02:44:35 PM · #929 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
There's too much right-wing hate, intolerance, ignorance and judgement in here. I can't stand it anymore. |
I'm surprised that some so-called participants in this thread aren't shown the door. I mean, Jesus, after some of these comments... |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 03:13:00 PM · #930 |
No one has yet responded with actual differences in California between a marriage and a domestic partnership, I was thus forced to do my own research - and did find some differences:
1) Public employees can obtain long-term care insurance for their spouses; domestic partners cannot.
2) Domestic partners must be living together when their partnership is established; couples applying for marriage have no such requirement.
3) Domestic partners must be at least 18 to enter a partnership; a person can be married if younger than 18 with the consent of a parent, guardian or court order.
And there's one more, but it's not a issue of rights within California
California Secretary of State Debra Bowen stated that getting married will not affect a same-sex couple's domestic partnership. She added, "If same-sex couples choose to marry, I would suggest that they maintain their partnership registration because most other states do not recognize same-sex marriages, but many do recognize domestic partnerships". |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 03:31:10 PM · #931 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Look Jeb, that was a legetimate question. I had no idea what they called each other. I've not read every Mouse response. My brother-in-law is gay as can be and they refer to each other as P and K. |
I would have hoped you at least read the ones directed right at you or your comments, all made immediately after you've swooped in to ask one of your 'honest' yet inflammatory questions about consummation, reconstructive surgery, and what gays and lesbians call each other once they're wed.
I must have hoped wrong! |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 03:36:29 PM · #932 |
Originally posted by RonB:
No one has yet responded with actual differences in California between a marriage and a domestic partnership, I was thus forced to do my own research - and did find some differences:
1) Public employees can obtain long-term care insurance for their spouses; domestic partners cannot.
2) Domestic partners must be living together when their partnership is established; couples applying for marriage have no such requirement.
3) Domestic partners must be at least 18 to enter a partnership; a person can be married if younger than 18 with the consent of a parent, guardian or court order.
And there's one more, but it's not a issue of rights within California
California Secretary of State Debra Bowen stated that getting married will not affect a same-sex couple's domestic partnership. She added, "If same-sex couples choose to marry, I would suggest that they maintain their partnership registration because most other states do not recognize same-sex marriages, but many do recognize domestic partnerships". |
So you are conceding that domestic partnerships do not carry all the rights and responsibilites of marriage, even within the state of California? They they are factually, provably unequal, no matter how piddling you may see the differences as being?
Am I mistaken?
And again, I do not see why you are drawing what seems to me an arbitrary distinction between the importance of state rights vs. federal rights. They are a package deal, as I operate under both simultaneously, they are intricately intertwined, and any path to full equal rights must consider both.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2008 03:39:42 PM · #933 |
Originally posted by RonB:
a) using children as pawns is a despicable tactic
b) frightening children by even IMPLYING that their family would "fall apart" because of Prop 8 is even more despicable. And if Liza didn't get that idea from her parents, where did she get it? And if she DIDN'T get it from her parents, why didn't they reassure her instead of using her as a pawn to pressure her teachers?
c) talk about a "slippery-slope" argument! This is a classic example. There is absolutely NO evidence that passing Prop 8 would/could/will result in the children of same-sex households being made wards of the state.
To have those who claim that they are being vilified, turn right around and vilify their opponents is as hypocritical as hypocritical can be. It looks like there's just as much hate, intolerance, ignorance and judgment from the left as there is from the right. |
Maybe Dr Achoo truly is as ignorant as he claims, but you are well aware of Republican talking points and strategies. "Marriage between a man and a woman" is an assault on homosexual families. It's disingenuous of you to debate this point just to avoid the real debate: the morality of homosexuality and whether or not the state should suppress it. |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 03:58:11 PM · #934 |
| Fascinating and related and/or not related depending on your way of looking at it is common law marriage. Partners only have to live together and 'hold out' that they are married (joint taxes, name changing, etc.). This requires neither a church nor the law, which puts it in a very bizarre area. I haven't looked at any individual states yet, but I noted a couple who specifically use the term husband and wife (rather than man and woman). This would make an interesting test for anyone interested in making a point... |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 04:08:22 PM · #935 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Maybe Dr Achoo truly is as ignorant as he claims, but you are well aware of Republican talking points and strategies. "Marriage between a man and a woman" is an assault on homosexual families. It's disingenuous of you to debate this point just to avoid the real debate: the morality of homosexuality and whether or not the state should suppress it. |
Man, just when I think I'm getting free they drag me back in. First, I'm not sure what I'm being accused of being ignorant about. I've been called lots of things in my life, but ignorant is rarely one of them. Second, the morality of homosexuality is a very difficult subject because the opponents rarely agree on the moral principles that apply in the first place. I could ask you to elucidate your moral argument for/against homosexuality, but what happens when I reply with my own moral argument based on either a religious or separate secular philosophic principle? What then? The problem with moral relativism is that nobody gets to claim superiority. Nobody can point to being closer to "the truth" because there IS no truth. How does one judge whether Utilitarianism, Hedonism, Libertarianism, or a religious moral principle is the best schema to apply in this situation?
EDIT: To continue the thought let's just assume that you think homosexuality is ok because of (insert moral principle) and that I think it is not ok because of (insert moral principle). You think that makes me (insert adjective) and I think it makes you (insert adjective). We can save ourselves like 200 posts and a month if we just figure out we're going to wind up in this spot. The important thing now is to ask, where do we go from here? This is what's important and fruitful. We know we have differences and that they are more or less irreconcilable. However, finding a solution that is acceptable to both and involves compromise on both sides is what "the adults" do at the end of the day.
Message edited by author 2008-11-14 16:32:11. |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 04:42:41 PM · #936 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We know we have differences and that they are more or less irreconcilable. However, finding a solution that is acceptable to both and involves compromise on both sides is what "the adults" do at the end of the day. |
Sometimes, the only solution is for one side to abandon its position and accept the other. It usually involves issues of personal rights and equality, human dignity, empathy, or a desire to end suffering. |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 04:46:01 PM · #937 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by RonB:
No one has yet responded with actual differences in California between a marriage and a domestic partnership, I was thus forced to do my own research - and did find some differences:
1) Public employees can obtain long-term care insurance for their spouses; domestic partners cannot.
2) Domestic partners must be living together when their partnership is established; couples applying for marriage have no such requirement.
3) Domestic partners must be at least 18 to enter a partnership; a person can be married if younger than 18 with the consent of a parent, guardian or court order.
And there's one more, but it's not a issue of rights within California
California Secretary of State Debra Bowen stated that getting married will not affect a same-sex couple's domestic partnership. She added, "If same-sex couples choose to marry, I would suggest that they maintain their partnership registration because most other states do not recognize same-sex marriages, but many do recognize domestic partnerships". |
So you are conceding that domestic partnerships do not carry all the rights and responsibilites of marriage, even within the state of California? |
Of course I concede that point. How could I not, since I'm the one who finally had to ferret them out because none of those arguing that there WERE differences would do so.
Originally posted by Mousie:
They they are factually, provably unequal, no matter how piddling you may see the differences as being? |
I don't understand why you take such an attitude towards me. I haven't taken such a tone with you.
Anyway, I don't see the differences as being "piddling" in the least - especially not if a gay man or lesbian was employed by the state and couldn't get long-term care insurance for their partner. That is not "piddling". That's a potentially major problem.
Originally posted by Mousie:
Am I mistaken? |
No. Does that make you feel better?
Originally posted by Mousie:
And again, I do not see why you are drawing what seems to me an arbitrary distinction between the importance of state rights vs. federal rights. They are a package deal, as I operate under both simultaneously, they are intricately intertwined, and any path to full equal rights must consider both. |
I am not drawing a distinction between the IMPORTANCE of state rights vs. federal rights. I am drawing a distinction between the ACTUALITY of state rights vs. federal rights.
Message edited by author 2008-11-14 16:47:02. |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 04:46:40 PM · #938 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We know we have differences and that they are more or less irreconcilable. However, finding a solution that is acceptable to both and involves compromise on both sides is what "the adults" do at the end of the day. |
Sometimes, the only solution is for one side to abandon its position and accept the other. It usually involves issues of personal rights and equality, human dignity, empathy, or a desire to end suffering. |
Blah blah blah. Talk to me when you wanna be an adult Louis. Just in those two sentences you basically said, "my moral values are most important and the only answer is for you to accept them as I see they apply". That's a non-starter. Of course I believe in "personal rights and equality, human dignity, empathy, or a desire to end suffering" but obviously it ends in a different result. Deal with it and let's move on. Less "who's right and who's wrong" and more "what should we do?" We've already come up with an answer that at least you and I have upheld at some point here. Call everything a "civil union".
Message edited by author 2008-11-14 16:48:20. |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 04:51:08 PM · #939 |
| Wtf? I didn't say which side, did I? That's a pretty childish reaction, Jason. |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 05:13:49 PM · #940 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Wtf? I didn't say which side, did I? That's a pretty childish reaction, Jason. |
OK, assuming you were speaking rhetorically and weren't pushing your opinion, I'll say sorry. You can at least understand that I know your position and assumed you were implying your position held more closely to the principles you listed.
I agree sometimes one side does abandon their position. My guess is the position is usually abandoned out of pragmatism rather than a new understanding and belief. |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 06:40:04 PM · #941 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
EDIT: To continue the thought let's just assume that you think homosexuality is ok because of (insert moral principle) and that I think it is not ok because of (insert moral principle). You think that makes me (insert adjective) and I think it makes you (insert adjective). We can save ourselves like 200 posts and a month if we just figure out we're going to wind up in this spot. The important thing now is to ask, where do we go from here? This is what's important and fruitful. We know we have differences and that they are more or less irreconcilable. However, finding a solution that is acceptable to both and involves compromise on both sides is what "the adults" do at the end of the day. |
Is this why you still haven't directly responded to my proposal for a framework to move forward, yourself?
What could be simpler than agreeing to admit you were wrong about something if another party can provide factual examples contrary to your assertion?
I won't bother re-re-quoting you.
Did you assert that marriage has been unchanging for millennia? True/False?
Did you assert that marriage across all cultures has been same as the American conservative definition of marriage? True/False?
If those two answers are true, will you agree to concede that you were wrong if I am able to provide a specific number of counter-examples, that number chosen by you?
If either or both answers are false, will you explain why what you said does NOT assert what I have concluded from your statement?
This seems very straightforward to me, and exactly the sort of things adults would do.
I have said I won't drop this until you respond directly, and even gave you the option of refusing to answer my challenge, as long as you were explicit in your refusal. So please, if you are honest about your intentions to find a way forward, why not engange me using this framework? Do you think it's unfair?
|
|
|
|
11/14/2008 06:58:08 PM · #942 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Did you assert that marriage has been unchanging for millennia? True/False?
Did you assert that marriage across all cultures has been same as the American conservative definition of marriage? True/False?
|
I asserted that marriage has always, for all general intents and purposes, involved members of the opposite sex. I did not assert that polygamy didn't exist. I did not assert that interracial marriages have not waxed and waned in their acceptance. When I say marriage has not changed I am saying it is always between men and women. I am not saying it has not changed in other ways. The square in our analogy has sometimes been bigger and sometimes been smaller. It has sometimes been red, sometimes green. It has, however, always had "four equal sides" and nobody has claimed, wait for it I'll make it easy this time, a triangle is a square.
So. I'm being as straightforward as you want. If you want to impress me, show me cultures across time that have accepted marriages as being exclusively between members of the same sex. I'll grant so far that Nero apparently felt he was able as emperor to declare such a marriage for himself. You can keep going and offer more examples. Whole culture examples would be more impressive than just anecdotal reports of single instances (like Nero the nut).
EDIT: to make it perfectly clear, I'm not expecting you to show me a culture where they ONLY accepted gay marriages. I'd just like to see cultures that have accepted them as at least a normal option for folks.
Message edited by author 2008-11-14 19:16:53. |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 07:21:46 PM · #943 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It has, however, always had "four equal sides" and nobody has claimed, wait for it I'll make it easy this time, a triangle is a square. |
I really think you should drop this odd analogy. FWIW, a triangle and a square are identical and indistinguishable in certain branches of mathematics. You could call that a different cultural viewpoint, if it helps stretch the analogy further.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2008 07:27:59 PM · #944 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It has, however, always had "four equal sides" and nobody has claimed, wait for it I'll make it easy this time, a triangle is a square. |
I really think you should drop this odd analogy. FWIW, a triangle and a square are identical and indistinguishable in certain branches of mathematics. You could call that a different cultural viewpoint, if it helps stretch the analogy further. |
The analogy is sorta strange. The point I'm trying to make is that we can find examples of things where some parameters can change but others cannot without changing the definition of the thing. Squares can be bigger or smaller and still be squares, but the thing that is its essential "squareness" is having "four equal sides" (actually I'd guess you'd need to add "four right angles"). I'm contending that marriages have changed over the years. Sometimes polygamy is accepted, sometimes not. Sometimes interracial marriages are accepted, sometimes not. But historically the thing that is essential to "marriageness" (to coin a word) is having "opposite genders involved". The idea that marriage can just involve men or just involve women is new.
Message edited by author 2008-11-14 19:29:31. |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 07:33:20 PM · #945 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It has, however, always had "four equal sides" and nobody has claimed, wait for it I'll make it easy this time, a triangle is a square. |
I really think you should drop this odd analogy. FWIW, a triangle and a square are identical and indistinguishable in certain branches of mathematics. You could call that a different cultural viewpoint, if it helps stretch the analogy further. |
The analogy is sorta strange. The point I'm trying to make is that we can find examples of things where some parameters can change but others cannot without changing the definition of the thing. Squares can be bigger or smaller and still be squares, but the thing that is its essential "squareness" is having "four equal sides" (actually I'd guess you'd need to add "four right angles"). I'm contending that marriages have changed over the years. Sometimes polygamy is accepted, sometimes not. Sometimes interracial marriages are accepted, sometimes not. But historically the thing that is essential to "marriageness" (to coin a word) is having "opposite genders involved". The idea that marriage can just involve men or just involve women is new. |
Yup, but you'd be wrong from a mathematical perspective. In fact, I think you are really making the point that you are trying not to make. Mathematical definitions of squares and triangles and the like vary, depending on what your cultural view is. The essential nature of a square is very different in certain branches of mathematics.
In geometry, all squares are rectangles and plenty of rectangles are square (an infinite amount actually) but there's a larger infinite amount that aren't squares (much like your argument). Switching to a topological cultural view, triangles, squares and rectangles all look exactly the same and the things you might want to cling to as defining and differentiating what a square is disappears in the face of homeomorphism, which somehow seems apt, too.
Message edited by author 2008-11-14 19:33:47. |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 07:42:52 PM · #946 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The idea that marriage can just involve men or just involve women is new. |
The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for the union of same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. Emperor Constantine banned it, which obviously he'd have little incentive to do if it didn't exist. Likewise, trangender humans have been around basically forever (and not of their own choosing)... and they married SOMEbody.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2008 07:56:13 PM · #947 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The idea that marriage can just involve men or just involve women is new. |
The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for the union of same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. Emperor Constantine banned it, which obviously he'd have little incentive to do if it didn't exist. Likewise, trangender humans have been around basically forever (and not of their own choosing)... and they married SOMEbody. |
The Constantine idea isn't a bad one. I'd agree it meant it was going on on some scale. I not sure if it indicates it was either a) common or b) accepted. Incest has probably been nearly universally shunned, but I'm not sure actual laws against it have always existed in societies. I'm also not sure cultures that have laws against it have to "convict" people with any regularity.
I guess we'd need to flesh out that idea. Unfortunately my time is up. I'm leaving for a most enjoyable photography expedition this weekend and hope to have fun. I'm expecting the conversation to be long and far from this point when I return and if I'm smart perhaps I'll stay out like I tried to do yesterday. :) |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 07:56:50 PM · #948 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
In geometry, all squares are rectangles and plenty of rectangles are square (an infinite amount actually) but there's a larger infinite amount that aren't squares (much like your argument). Switching to a topological cultural view, triangles, squares and rectangles all look exactly the same and the things you might want to cling to as defining and differentiating what a square is disappears in the face of homeomorphism, which somehow seems apt, too. |
Heck, you don't need to get so esoteric as to bring in topology -- just draw your figures on a sphere (like the Earth) one look at a globe will show that triangles there have interior angles which sum to more than the 180° they are allowed in classical Euclidian plane geometry -- rather ironic since the very word means "to measure the Earth." |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 08:03:03 PM · #949 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The idea that marriage can just involve men or just involve women is new. |
The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for the union of same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. Emperor Constantine banned it, which obviously he'd have little incentive to do if it didn't exist. Likewise, trangender humans have been around basically forever (and not of their own choosing)... and they married SOMEbody. |
Waitaminute. Did Constantine ban gay marriage or homosexuality in general? I can't find anything that says one or the other.
Nevermind. I found it. He probably banned both, but he does mention "those men who marry men as if they were women."
Message edited by author 2008-11-14 20:05:22. |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 08:47:15 PM · #950 |
Yesterday I watched a documentary called the "The Times of Harvey Milk", which was about San Francisco's first elected gay councillor Harvey Milk who was murdered shortly after being elected. There's also a movie coming out in December staring Sean Penn as Milk. I highly recommend the documentary.
Anyway, the point of bringing this up is when I was watching the documentary it reminded me of this thread. Back in 1978 California was also trying to pass a proposition. It was called Prop 6, also referred to as the Briggs Initiative. It was a measure to ban gays and lesbians from working in California's public schools. I found it quite sad and rather pathetic that here we are some 30 years later and we're still pulling the same crap. I find it tragically ironic that so many conservatives today argue vehemently that government should keep their hands off their guns yet turn around and argue in the guise of "protecting the family" that gays are a threat to society and their way of life yet guns and bullets that ARE a threat, and what ultimately ended Milk's life, is A-OK. What a world we live in. :(
Message edited by author 2008-11-14 20:48:42.
|
|
