Politically Correct is Beautiful

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 6, 2009 04:06
VIEWED: 5480
PAGE 1 of 1

ANTHONYT

Friday, May 1, 2009 2:48 PM

Hello,

I am not a fan of the position opposing gay marraige. I don't think there is any logical argument that can be made against gay marraige, which is why in a recent Beauty Queen Q&A segment, Miss California was forced to defend her opposition with a simple and subjective, "That's How I Was Raised."

However, now the Beauty Pageant is opposing Miss California's vocal opposition to Gay Marraige. I am dismayed by this. It was the pageant itself that forced her to vocalize her position on the subject, when they asked her that question within the public competition. Now they chastise her for continuing to speak about it.

I have to believe that if she'd been asked about puppies, and voiced support for puppies, and then went out into the world and spoke on behalf of puppy advocate groups, we'd not be hearing complaints. But now the pageant is complaining about her being vocal about another issue that THEY THEMSELVES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIGHLIGHTING.

There is talk now about rescinding her crown, and there are official statements from the pageant chastising her for sharing her political opinions. The beauty pageants themselves are somewhat repugnant in purpose, but now their hypocrisy is doubly so. This is but one of the most recently visible places where people's right to have an opinion is respected, just so long as they have the correct opinion.

I think the movement to political correctness is ugly. I think the pageant judge's politicizing of the pageant is ugly. I think the hypocrisy of the pageant for asking her to shut up after making her speak out is ugly.

This PC sideshow is so ugly, I almost want to get a MAC.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Friday, May 1, 2009 2:52 PM

I still think she should have watched Miss Congeniality. It's very clear that the only acceptable answer to any question is world peace

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

BYTEMITE

Friday, May 1, 2009 3:24 PM

Politically Correct isn't BAD, technically, because the point of it is to try to encourage people to be respectful about other people and their differences.

However, INTOLERANCE is ugly, and it pops up both among the politically incorrect AND the politically correct.

KWICKO

Friday, May 1, 2009 3:31 PM

She's also in trouble now - as are the pageant officials, apparently - because it's being reported that pageant organizers paid for her big fake boobies.

Makes ya wonder if maybe Perez Hilton knew something the rest of us didn't, huh?

But yes, Anthony - it IS hypocritical of the organizers to ask her to NOT talk about if now, after asking her about it during the pageant. They were the ones who opened this can of worms...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

ELVISCHRIST

Friday, May 1, 2009 4:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
She's also in trouble now - as are the pageant officials, apparently - because it's being reported that pageant organizers paid for her big fake boobies.

Makes ya wonder if maybe Perez Hilton knew something the rest of us didn't, huh?

But yes, Anthony - it IS hypocritical of the organizers to ask her to NOT talk about if now, after asking her about it during the pageant. They were the ones who opened this can of worms...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Perez Hilton is scum.

And it seems that the Miss CALIFORNIA pageant people were the ones behind those breast implants, not the Miss USA people.

Does that make it okay?

CHRISISALL

Friday, May 1, 2009 5:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
it's being reported that pageant organizers paid for her big fake boobies.

Toldja they were augmented.
I was right & AURaptor was wrong.
Again.
He has no case.

The laughing Chrisisall

KWICKO

Friday, May 1, 2009 5:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
it's being reported that pageant organizers paid for her big fake boobies.

Toldja they were augmented.
I was right & AURaptor was wrong.
Again.
He has no case.

The laughing Chrisisall

Oh, hell, Chris - was there anyone OTHER THAN Rappy who thought those sweater puppets were REAL? One look and I knew they were fake - I just didn't realize that they'd been bought and paid for by the pageant organizers themselves. It almost seems like they had her picked to win, and she somehow screwed it up.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

CHRISISALL

Friday, May 1, 2009 6:08 PM

Sock puppets like sweater puppets...

The laughing Chrisisall

PHOENIXROSE

Friday, May 1, 2009 6:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
INTOLERANCE is ugly

Bingo. That's just what I was going to say.

[/sig]

AURAPTOR

Saturday, May 2, 2009 3:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I still think she should have watched Miss Congeniality. It's very clear that the only acceptable answer to any question is world peace

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- AURaptor

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

- World peace, and maybe mix in something about puppies. Who doesn't love cute, fluffy puppies ?

- As for my quote, the more I see it, the more brilliant it becomes. Seriously, the dude wanted to go out in an airplane, blowing up, and to make a statement. We could have given him his wish, on all 3 accounts!

AURAPTOR

Saturday, May 2, 2009 11:15 AM

It's "intolerant " to honestly reply to a question? It's " intolerant " to hold to the view that marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman, a construct that predates and may even be a pillar that helped form modern civilization?

We got along for 10,000k yrs with that idea, and now some PC nazis are suddenly going to determine that now, such thought is " intolerant" ?

Thinking a bit much of ourselves, yes ?

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, May 2, 2009 12:02 PM

Rappy, the abject IDIOCY of that statement just opened a gravitational vortex of stupid - alas that if it sucks YOU in it'll choke.

That said, I'm far more (admittedly gratifyingly) amused by the flap over Miss Universe Australia, given how ridiculously extreme social ideas of "beauty" and "health" have become, particularly since many of the latter were established by Everett Koop, a known and now-admitted lunatic who was clinically insane while in office as surgeon general, well-known for skewing studies to "prove" his at times bizarre beliefs whether medically supported or not, and (I kid thee not) demanded burial at Arlington as a war hero despite never having served.

And THAT folks, is the guy who established the national-social idea of what "healthy" is, and is rarely refuted or even questioned, despite the fact that he's obviously INSANE.

Yeah, I'd like a second opinion, please...

As for Miss U Australia, if THIS is your idea of healthy and sexy, please stay the hell AWAY from me, yeeesh.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090423/od_nm/us_pageant_1

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

AURAPTOR

Saturday, May 2, 2009 12:14 PM

Frem

That's why you're such a insignificant dick head. Here, I'm trying to have a on the level discussion, and all you do is delve into petty insults.

C Everett Coop ? Miss Australia ? WTF are you even BABBLING on about ? You won't even deal w/ the issue at hand How severe is your ADHD ? Why aren't you medicated more ?

Miss Australia needs to eat a sandwich. And some fries.

KWICKO

Saturday, May 2, 2009 3:22 PM

Quote:

We got along for 10,000k yrs with that idea, and now some PC nazis are suddenly going to determine that now, such thought is " intolerant" ?

Define "We".

Also, "10,000k yrs"? Really? Ten thousand THOUSAND years? That's 10,000,000 - TEN MILLION YEARS - you claim "we" got along fine with 1-man-1-woman being the norm. I think you might be mistaken a bit. By a factor of more than 10,000.

Heck, even Sarah Palin and Miss Cali know the Earth ain't more than 6000 years old...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, May 2, 2009 3:48 PM

Quote:

" It's " intolerant " to hold to the view that marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman, a construct that predates and may even be a pillar that helped form modern civilization?

We got along for 10,000k yrs with that idea, and now some PC nazis are suddenly going to determine that now, such thought is " intolerant" ?"

Hello,

The idea of marriage being between 1 man and 1 woman is not, in fact, a 10,000k year tradition for most of the world. Polygamy was once quite common, with 1 man enjoying the services of as many wives as he could support. Often, a man would not only have multiple wives, but then enjoy as many concubines, servants, and slaves of both sexes as he wished.

Even in the United States, there was a tradition of polygamy until religious intolerance wiped it out.

In actuality, polygamy probably has a greater historical observance than the modern conception of Christian marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. One need only open their Old Testament to see that the pious and great men who formed the ancient foundation of the Christian faith frequently spread the love around quite a bit.

So, seeing as how single pair unions are a quaint modern invention, it is evident that modern man is capable of innovating the process. In comparison with the elimination of multiple wives, concubines, and soft, pliant servant boys as part of the sexual scope of the married man, allowing men or women to marry within their own sex is a rather mild evolution of the process.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

BYTEMITE

Saturday, May 2, 2009 5:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
We got along for 10,000k yrs with that idea, and now some PC nazis are suddenly going to determine that now, such thought is " intolerant" ?

Numbers aside, you're allowing Medieval-to-Victorian era perceptions to cloud your impressions of 10,000 years of human history.

The Romans had far different ideas about what was normal and socially acceptable than our mainstream culture today. As did the Greeks. And I'd pretty much call those two cultures the foundation of modern Euro and American culture. In about 300 AD, that's when you added in Christianity as an influence.

And I'd also like to add, in case the validity of my argument is contested by "well, but the Roman Empire fell," the Roman Republic lasted 500 years, and the western Roman Empire lasted an additional 400 years. That's 900 years total for what we would consider Roman culture. The Eastern Constantinople half of the Roman Empire (Byzantine) went on a further 1000 years, falling in 1453. Clearly, their tolerance of homosexuality didn't do too much to destabilize their society.

PHOENIXROSE

Saturday, May 2, 2009 7:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
...marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman, a construct that predates and may even be a pillar that helped form modern civilization?

We got along for 10,000k yrs with that idea...

Totally and abjectly false.
Anthony and Bytemite beat me to it (thank you very much, both of you, for your elegant and well-constructed thoughts on the matter) but I couldn't let such a foolish and false statement lie. I haven't even studied much in-depth history and I know how ridiculous it is for you to say this, how do you justify these things to yourself??

[/sig]

ANTHONYT

Saturday, May 2, 2009 7:14 PM

Hello,

There is a recent South Park Episode that explains this common phenomenon. It is the episode where Cartman assists in the creation of the world's funniest joke.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

AURAPTOR

Saturday, May 2, 2009 9:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

We got along for 10,000k yrs with that idea, and now some PC nazis are suddenly going to determine that now, such thought is " intolerant" ?

Define "We".

Humanity.

Quote:

Also, "10,000k yrs"? Really? Ten thousand THOUSAND years? That's 10,000,000 - TEN MILLION YEARS - you claim "we" got along fine with 1-man-1-woman being the norm. I think you might be mistaken a bit. By a factor of more than 10,000.

Heck, even Sarah Palin and Miss Cali know the Earth ain't more than 6000 years old...

Mike

10 K or 10,000 yrs , the meaning was clear. A very long time, is the issue here. Why the sudden change ? Why now? You'd rather not answer that, you'd rather harp on meaningless side issues which divert away from the topic.

KWICKO

Sunday, May 3, 2009 12:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

10 K or 10,000 yrs , the meaning was clear. A very long time, is the issue here. Why the sudden change ? Why now? You'd rather not answer that, you'd rather harp on meaningless side issues which divert away from the topic.

Why do you always do that? You post something that is CLEARLY wrong, and when you're called on it, you backpedal and try to change the meaning by saying "CLEARLY what I meant was..."

Look, dumbfuck, it ISN'T CLEAR because YOU WON'T CLEARLY SAT WHAT THE FUCK YOU MEAN!

If you post that we've done something this way for 10,000k years, am I supposed to take you up on what you WROTE, or on what you MEANT? I'm not inside that scary little tiny place that you call your mind, so I don't KNOW what you "meant".

And when I call you on your mistakes, you can't own up to them. You HAVE TO attack. You have to try to turn YOUR stupidity on others, like it's their fault that they didn't know what you oh-so-clearly meant. Except that it's NOT clear, or we'd know what the hell you were talking about.

Now, you say you "clearly meant" one thing, then say I'm only harping on the fact that you mangled your own words, and that I'm dodging the issue. I didn't. Look right up above, where I said, and I quote:

Quote:

Define "We".

You say that means "humanity". Whose humanity? White people?Americans? Christians? 'Cause you've already been proven wrong on pretty much every one of those counts.

Who is your alleged "we" that have always done things a certain way?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, May 3, 2009 11:37 AM

The intent of my comment was clearly meant, and you whining, bitching and adding colorful language won't change that in the least. Again, try to take away from the primary argument and distract with this nonsensical, childish obsession over a mistake where I was thinking of how to express a period of time, typing too fast and made a common error.

Just grow up, get the fuck over it, and get the fuck over YOURSELF.

How old is human civilization ? About 10k yrs ? THAT is the debate. How long has the concept of 1 man + 1 woman marriage been around ? I'd say about that long, if not longer.

So, the question to you is, if you're not too much of a coward to deal w/ it, is - why the sudden change ? Why should we, NOW , redefine marriage ? To fit the needs and desires an vast minority ? For what point ? Every LEGAL aspect of a marriage can be done by civil unions. Gay marriage, will never be a means of joining 2 family trees to form a new one. That seems to be what the template for what marriage is all about in society. By the very gender of those involved, why can't marriage stay as it has been, and why do gays need that to be changed ?

KWICKO

Sunday, May 3, 2009 12:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The intent of my comment was clearly meant, and you whining, bitching and adding colorful language won't change that in the least. Again, try to take away from the primary argument and distract with this nonsensical, childish obsession over a mistake where I was thinking of how to express a period of time, typing too fast and made a common error.

Just grow up, get the fuck over it, and get the fuck over YOURSELF.

Hey, I was responding to what YOU wrote. I can only assume that you're an effective communicator, because you CLEARLY go on and on and on about what you CLEARLY meant every time anyone here calls you on your all-too-common bullshit. If YOU can't be bothered to correctly word YOUR OWN statements, don't get pissy and throw one of your little temper tantrums when we call you on it. The only way we can CLEARLY know what the intent of your words is, is if you MAKE YOUR WORDS CLEAR! Otherwise, we assume you mean what you say, and say what you mean - because that's what you tell us you do. You say you deal only in facts, so when you post something, I'm supposed to assume that you know it to be true, and know what you're saying.

That you don't CLEARLY says more about you and your facts than it does about me.

So get the fuck over your own bad self, ya big baby.

Like I've said, you CLEARLY lack the ability to simply say, "I screwed up. Fixed. Sorry 'bout that." Instead, you MUST go into Attack Mode. It's your only defense. Are you too much of a coward to just say "I fucked up, this is what I meant, sorry for not being more clear."? Can't deal with that?

Quote:

How old is human civilization ? About 10k yrs ? THAT is the debate. How long has the concept of 1 man + 1 woman marriage been around ? I'd say about that long, if not longer.

YOU'D say. There's the rub. You have no case, you have no credentials, you base your "facts" on nothing but what YOU say and what YOU feel and what YOU think. And then you expect the rest of us to take your word for it - even when you can't CLEARLY express those words...

Quote:

So, the question to you is, if you're not too much of a coward to deal w/ it, is - why the sudden change ? Why should we, NOW , redefine marriage ? To fit the needs and desires an vast minority ? For what point ? Every LEGAL aspect of a marriage can be done by civil unions. Gay marriage, will never be a means of joining 2 family trees to form a new one. That seems to be what the template for what marriage is all about in society. By the very gender of those involved, why can't marriage stay as it has been, and why do gays need that to be changed ?

Again, why am I to take your word for it that this is anything like a "sudden change"? There's plenty of evidence that monogamy, 1-man-1-woman "marriage" is by far the more "sudden" and recent change. Why the rush to implement your religious beliefs on others? Why should "an vast minority" like Christianity be allowed to inflict their mores on me?

Quote:
Gay marriage, will never be a means of joining 2 family trees to form a new one.

Why do you think that? Are those who marry and don't have children no longer a joining of 2 family trees? Are those who adopt no longer forming a new family tree? "Family" is what you make it. Did you learn nothing from Buffy? ;)

As a purely financial issue, it's going to be much easier to legally define "marriage" as between two consenting adult humans than it is to go through every mention of the word "marriage" in every law and statute, and add in "and/or civil unions" so that it would stand up in court. There are literally tens of thousands of laws on the books, and a great deal of them mention "marriage" and/or "spouse". Changing the LEGAL definition of marriage means you don't have to pay people to sift through all of those and amend every single one. You amend the meaning of the word "marriage" and the law still applies.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'

AURAPTOR

Sunday, May 3, 2009 1:01 PM

So,to sum up, you're too much a coward to even answer the question.

Not surprised.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, May 3, 2009 1:04 PM

Hello Auraptor,

You continue to claim that 1 man + 1 woman marriage was the standard from 8,000 BC to the present day.

In fact, while 1 man + 1 woman marriage did exist, so did widespread polygamy. Your 10,000 year premise is thus flawed.

Your argument might hold more weight if you limited it to the past hundred years, and to Christian cultures only.

Of course, it may be more difficult to exclaim, "Why the sudden change" once it becomes evident that the sudden change is in fact the Christian definition of marriage as opposed to the time-honored ancient practices.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Sunday, May 3, 2009 1:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
So,to sum up, you're too much a coward to even answer the question.

Not surprised.

Try to keep up, dummy. I did address the question. ALL of them.

I guess you're just too much of a coward to read what I wrote. That, or your lips got tired from trying to read so much...

And speaking of cowardice, I note for the record that you never did answer my question from a couple weeks ago.

Quote:

Say the Iranians have tried and convicted a 30-year-old Iranian-American woman - an American citizen not serving in the military or the diplomatic corps - on charges of spying. Now, since she's clearly NOT a soldier, nor wearing the uniform of any recognized armed forces, then they are clearly within their rights to waterboard her, are they not? I mean, they can use whatever means necessary to "break" her, since she is, in essence, a "terrorist" - at least in their eyes, and according to their law.

So you're totally okay with them doing this, yes?

You've been dodging this one for quite a while, yet you're still very quick to label others cowards when they don't answer your question with opinions that agree with yours.

Not surprised. Not even a little bit. I would expect nothing less from you.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Sunday, May 3, 2009 1:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Auraptor,

You continue to claim that 1 man + 1 woman marriage was the standard from 8,000 BC to the present day.

In fact, while 1 man + 1 woman marriage did exist, so did widespread polygamy. Your 10,000 year premise is thus flawed.

Your argument might hold more weight if you limited it to the past hundred years, and to Christian cultures only.

Of course, it may be more difficult to exclaim, "Why the sudden change" once it becomes evident that the sudden change is in fact the Christian definition of marriage as opposed to the time-honored ancient practices.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Oh, Anthony, don't be a coward - answer the question!

(Just playin', Ant'ny)

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KIRKULES

Sunday, May 3, 2009 1:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

In fact, while 1 man + 1 woman marriage did exist, so did widespread polygamy. Your 10,000 year premise is thus flawed.

If you are addressing the original comment Auraptor made, I think you may be reading more into it than what it actually says. When he said "to hold to the view that marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman, a construct that predates and may even be a pillar that helped form modern civilization?" I think he is correct. If you look at the status of women in "modern" societies, those living in countries where monogamy is practiced are much better off than those living in perpetual servitude under polygamous societies. I would think that most would agree the "modern civilization" has benefited because of monogamy and polygamy remains a deterrent to advancing civilization in area where it is still practiced. Seems to me that monogomy "may even be a pillar that helped form modern civilization".

ANTHONYT

Sunday, May 3, 2009 2:08 PM

Hello Kirkules,

You may be quite correct that monogomy has helped the status of women in our society, raising them up from chattel to more equal human beings. This is certainly a defining element of what I consider civilization to be.

And so, I'll agree that women should be allowed to marry one another as a concession to a civilized society.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KIRKULES

Sunday, May 3, 2009 2:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
And so, I'll agree that women should be allowed to marry one another as a concession to a civilized society.

--Anthony

I would agree if you substitute "fill in the blank" for "marry". No need to redefine the meaning of an existing word to give everyone equal rights. Even if a we invented a new word to define the union of a man and woman, and changed "marriage" to mean same sex coupling, they'd just want that word too. For some this isn't about equal rights, it's about blurring the distinction between same sex and opposite sex unions.

KWICKO

Sunday, May 3, 2009 4:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:

I would agree if you substitute "fill in the blank" for "marry". No need to redefine the meaning of an existing word to give everyone equal rights. Even if a we invented a new word to define the union of a man and woman changed "marriage" to mean same sex coupling, they'd just want the word too. For some this isn't about equal right, it's about blurring the distinction between same sex and opposite sex unions.

As has been pointed out, calling same-sex marriages anything OTHER than marriage creates a panoply of legal problems, inasmuch as the laws are written with words like "spouse" and "marriage". So to call it something else means you have to go back and rewrite every single law to include the new word.

And why do you see the need to HAVE such a distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex unions?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, May 3, 2009 5:20 PM

Hello,

It is in fact the heterosexual community who is rewriting or creating laws so that marriage is explicitly defined as between a man and a woman.

Leaving such specificity out would have ameliorated the situation much more easily.

I say again, the distinction that was absent from the law is Now being Created by persons who feel their sacred institution is somehow being endangered by people who request equality.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

BYTEMITE

Sunday, May 3, 2009 6:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:

I would agree if you substitute "fill in the blank" for "marry". No need to redefine the meaning of an existing word to give everyone equal rights. Even if a we invented a new word to define the union of a man and woman changed "marriage" to mean same sex coupling, they'd just want the word too. For some this isn't about equal right, it's about blurring the distinction between same sex and opposite sex unions.

The reason same sex couples want the same term is because they're worried being given a different label would not only make their union seem inferior and less binding in the eyes of society, but also in the eyes of the law.

Furthermore, as Kwicko was suggesting, they're concerned that a different term will make it easier for anti-homosexual activists to legislate their beliefs and take away rights and privileges from their union.

So, I would argue, giving a different term to gay marriage holds an inherent risk of creating further inequality.

KIRKULES

Sunday, May 3, 2009 6:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

As has been pointed out, calling same-sex marriages anything OTHER than marriage creates a panoply of legal problems, inasmuch as the laws are written with words like "spouse" and "marriage". So to call it something else means you have to go back and rewrite every single law to include the new word.

It doesn't sound that complicated to me. Why not just pass one law that says that from this day forth all humans entering into legal monogamous relationships have equal rights, including those rights previously given using the term "marriage". It's a very simple thing, but like I said, that's not what it's about for some. They want the social status that traditional marriage provides without earning it, because it has yet to be demonstrated that Gay civil unions will have a positive effect on society.

Quote:

And why do you see the need to HAVE such a distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex unions?

Why don't we call dogs, cats. They are both four legged furry mammal predators of various sizes and shapes. The reason American English has 10,000+ words is because small distinctions are important in properly describing suttle differences.

KIRKULES

Sunday, May 3, 2009 7:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

The reason same sex couples want the same term is because they're worried being given a different label would not only make their union seem inferior and less binding in the eyes of society, but also in the eyes of the law.

The inferiority or superiority of Gay civil unions in the "eyes of society" will be determined by what they do with these rights, not the law or the name given to the institution. If the effect on society is a negative one, I will guarantee that society will assign a name that wont be politically correct, but will be more descriptive.

RIVERDANCER

Sunday, May 3, 2009 7:15 PM

It's pretty fantastically funny that you talk about the wonder and beauty of the English language when it comes to descriptions, and you can't spell 'subtle.'

Also, it's not a simple matter, it's not a simple declaration followed by a simple rewrite of some single law, and your continued insistence that it hasn't been shown to improve society is small minded twittering. In short, dude you're just wrong.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, May 3, 2009 7:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiverDancer:
It's pretty fantastically funny that you talk about the wonder and beauty of the English language when it comes to descriptions, and you can't spell 'subtle.'

Don't be so down on the iliterit, dear.

The laughing Chrisisall

BYTEMITE

Sunday, May 3, 2009 7:19 PM

Kirkules: Except the view is ALREADY rather negative, through no fault of the gay couples.

This could colour whatever laws society might then make.

I'd rather not leave such a legal loophole open, especially not one that could lead the way to other forms of oppression.

KWICKO

Sunday, May 3, 2009 7:27 PM

Quote:

Why don't we call dogs, cats.

So are you saying that gays are a completely separate species from same-sex humans?

Just curious.

See what kind of trouble those subtle differences in words can get you into?

Quote:
They want the social status that traditional marriage provides without earning it, because it has yet to be demonstrated that Gay civil unions will have a positive effect on society.

It also has yet to be demonstrated that straight marriage will have a positive effect on society.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KIRKULES

Sunday, May 3, 2009 7:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiverDancer:
It's pretty fantastically funny that you talk about the wonder and beauty of the English language when it comes to descriptions, and you can't spell 'subtle.'

Also, it's not a simple matter, it's not a simple declaration followed by a simple rewrite of some single law, and your continued insistence that it hasn't been shown to improve society is small minded twittering. In short, dude you're just wrong.

KIRKULES

Sunday, May 3, 2009 7:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by RiverDancer:
It's pretty fantastically funny that you talk about the wonder and beauty of the English language when it comes to descriptions, and you can't spell 'subtle.'

Don't be so down on the iliterit, dear.

KIRKULES

Sunday, May 3, 2009 7:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Why don't we call dogs, cats.

So are you saying that gays are a completely separate species from same-sex humans?

Just curious.

See what kind of trouble those subtle differences in words can get you into?

KWICKO

Monday, May 4, 2009 1:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Why don't we call dogs, cats.

So are you saying that gays are a completely separate species from same-sex humans?

Just curious.

See what kind of trouble those subtle differences in words can get you into?

Kirk, I'm not trying to be an ass (at least not personally, to you), just trying to point out what even the tiniest subtleties in words can mean, especially when it comes to the word of law. YOU know what you meant, and I know what you meant, but in a court of law, and once you get lawyers involved, you can't even be sure what the meaning of "is" is.

Just sayin'.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

ANTHONYT

Monday, May 4, 2009 1:40 PM

Hello,

With the history of separate-but-equal policies, I can see why homosexuals and their supporters might be uncomfortable with marriage analogs that aren't called marriage.

Meanwhile, I find any arguments about the glorious variety of the English language to be hogwash. Certainly, I can agree that the English language has many fine words, but that doesn't mean new words should be invented and implemented when existing words do the job quite well.

I can open a car magazine and read about how the new Audi SX5 is the perfect marriage of form and function.

I can open a gun magazine and read about how the Colt Quantum is a bullpup configured weapon that marries the best qualities of a submachinegun and an assault rifle.

And yet, in a world where inanimate objects can be described as being married, we argue that human beings who wish to be married should be civilly unionized instead.

The Language and Appropriate Terminology arguments are the smoke bombs that Batman uses to evade police pursuit. It's a way to evade scrutiny, so that you can say 'the Niggers ought to drink from the Colored Fountain' without sounding bigoted.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Monday, May 4, 2009 2:29 PM

Thanks, Anthony. That sums it up beautifully.

CHRISISALL

Monday, May 4, 2009 2:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by RiverDancer:
It's pretty fantastically funny that you talk about the wonder and beauty of the English language when it comes to descriptions, and you can't spell 'subtle.'

Don't be so down on the iliterit, dear.

It was a joke dude.

The laughing Chrisisall

YINYANG

Monday, May 4, 2009 6:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
With the history of separate-but-equal policies, I can see why homosexuals and their supporters might be uncomfortable with marriage analogs that aren't called marriage.

Eew. Now I can see why most people don't use the term "homosexuals" except for people who don't like them. It's just... bizarre.

And, gay folk aren't the only ones who benefit from same-sex marriage. People who are bisexual, like PR, also benefit, and, I think, people who are trans or intersex (because if same-sex or opposite-sex marriage are equivalent, then it leads to gender and sex being completely irrelevant, doesn't it?).

AURAPTOR

Monday, May 4, 2009 7:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Auraptor,

Of course, it may be more difficult to exclaim, "Why the sudden change" once it becomes evident that the sudden change is in fact the Christian definition of marriage as opposed to the time-honored ancient practices.

--Anthony

Polygamy still exist today, but the construct of 1 man + 1 woman marriage certainly existed further back than " 100 years" as, you claim. Seems to me there being some book, w/ a story of a man and a woman, living in some garden somewhere?

Might be you've heard of it, hmmm? I'm just pointing out that this isn't some new fangled idea, dreamed up by Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, so it's ok to like it. Really, it's ok !

ANTHONYT

Monday, May 4, 2009 7:54 PM

"In fact, while 1 man + 1 woman marriage did exist, so did widespread polygamy. Your 10,000 year premise is thus flawed."

Hello,

Mr. Raptor, you should read in fullness and not in parts. If you scroll up, you might find this quote of mine, which obviates the point you are trying to make.

As for Adam and Eve, who were never married, the old testament texts heralding their arrival on Earth also tells tales of polygamy, concubines, and incest. All acceptable in the eyes of the Lord.

Now, do you really want to delve deep into this good and ancient tome and start trading passages? I am a Christian man, but I try not to harbor any illusions about my faith or the books they are based upon. If you want to use the Bible as evidence, you may find as much there to hinder you as to help you. In fact, in the Old Testament, it's mostly bad news for you.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KIRKULES

Monday, May 4, 2009 8:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Meanwhile, I find any arguments about the glorious variety of the English language to be hogwash. Certainly, I can agree that the English language has many fine words, but that doesn't mean new words should be invented and implemented when existing words do the job quite well.

Please don't attribute the insane ramblings of RiverDancer to me. I said nothing about the "glorious variety" of the English language. New words are invented every day to add specificity to new things or concepts.

Quote:

I can open a car magazine and read about how the new Audi SX5 is the perfect marriage of form and function.

I can open a gun magazine and read about how the Colt Quantum is a bullpup configured weapon that marries the best qualities of a submachinegun and an assault rifle.

I find it interesting that you would use the example of names and language used for advertisement purposes, because I think you have demonstrated one of the issues that I have alluded to. Advertisers have done much research to determine words that have positive connotations. Does it surprise you that they would misuse a word to lend credibility to their product, whether it deserves it or not. It's no different from using puppy dogs in a TV commercials to give the impression of loyalty and dependability. People have a positive response to the word "marriage" because they see it as a positive aspect of society. They could have just as easily have advertised their gun as the Gay union of Assault Rifle and Submachine Gun, but I doubt they would have sold many. The reason they wouldn't sell is not because people dislike Gay's, It's because there's no historical example to give them a positive association. If Gay unions turn out to be a huge success or disaster, that is what will determine the respect they are given, not the name chosen.

Quote:

The Language and Appropriate Terminology arguments are the smoke bombs that Batman uses to evade police pursuit. It's a way to evade scrutiny, so that you can say 'the Niggers ought to drink from the Colored Fountain' without sounding bigoted.

I see you have adopted and perfected the stereotypical tactics of the politically correct. One little paragraph and you managed to call me a racist and a bigot. I'm surprised you did'nt just use the "perfect marriage of" racist and bigot and jump straight to Nazi.

ANTHONYT

Monday, May 4, 2009 9:02 PM

Hello Kirk,

The 'Separate but Equal' and 'Colored Fountain' arguments are stereotypical because they are correct, not because they are politically correct. You'll note also that no one called you a racist or a bigot. You infer that conclusion on your own. You ARE using language arguments to avoid sounding bigoted, in my opinion. There is no material difference between your position and the 'Separate But Equal' advocates of the past. Yet you claim that your motives are different.

You are advocating that humans who want to enter into a legal union should have separate but equal terms for doing so. If the humans are of different sexes, the term should be marriage. If they are of the same sex, the term should be civil union. Or something else, maybe. Anything other than marriage. You say this is in the interests of clarity, but what exactly are you trying to clarify? That their unions are different than your unions? How so, if they are to be treated the same under the law?

If our metaphorical Fountain is a legal union between two individuals, then you are very much saying that homosexuals should use the Gay fountain. Same water. Different Fountain. But actually saying that in plain terms would indeed sound bigoted, and so lexiconographical arguments about precise language and meaning ensue. Arguments I find ironic, because they serve not to illuminate, but to disguise the nature of an issue and the feelings behind it.

Now, does this make you a bigoted person? Only you know yourself well enough to draw such conclusions, Kirk. I have in my time been a racist and bigoted warmonger. I used to embrace racial stereotypes until I spent some time amongst other races. I used to have prejudice against homosexuals before I found out one of my closest friends was a homosexual. I used to believe in the Manifest Destiny of the United States to Free the World from their Ignorance, until I spent some time speaking to a foreigner who was surprised to learn how ignorant and backwards they were.

Whatever conclusions you may draw about yourself, they don't define you forever. Recognizing yourself in the mirror is the first step to changing what you see.

So... Is the Separate but Equal argument wrong? Does it indicate negative prejudice? Or are you merely a lover of intricate organization, insisting that everyone get their own dewey decimal in the library? You'll have to tell me, Kirk. You are the only one that can know. But I can tell you what the argument sounds like to me. Middle-fingering unhappy faces notwithstanding.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CHRISISALL

Monday, May 4, 2009 9:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I'm surprise you did'nt just use the "perfect marriage of" racist and bigot and jump straight to Nazi.

LOL. Very clever, Kirk.

The laughing Chrisisall

KWICKO

Monday, May 4, 2009 9:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Polygamy still exist today, but the construct of 1 man + 1 woman marriage certainly existed further back than " 100 years" as, you claim. Seems to me there being some book, w/ a story of a man and a woman, living in some garden somewhere?

Might be you've heard of it, hmmm? I'm just pointing out that this isn't some new fangled idea, dreamed up by Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, so it's ok to like it. Really, it's ok !

So you're going with "the Bible told me so" as the basis for your entire belief system?

Dude, I thought you were smarter than that. Hell, I could've sworn you said you were an atheist. Maybe you've repented...

By the way, in that alleged "garden"... who "married" that couple? I don't recall there being anyone around to perform the service, except for maybe the serpent.

Besides, even though Anthony might have written "100 years", you should CLEARLY know what he meant, right? I mean, you're not going to be a stickler for details NOW, are you?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

ANTHONYT

Monday, May 4, 2009 9:30 PM

Hello,

I recently received an email from a thoughtful fellow of strong faith whom I respect on this board. I wanted to post my reply here, because it may further illuminate my position on both the Bible and this issue.

-=-=-=-

I appreciate your position and your strong faith. I share a strong faith, but not as strong a conviction in the source material. I believe that Jesus came to Earth, sent by God, to save us all. I believe that this salvation is unprejudiced, and that sinners of all types can expect forgiveness merely by asking for it.

I also believe that by intention or accident, human beings have been corrupting their Holy Bible since it was first written. That you can walk into a library today and find twenty subtly different versions of the text is telling. In ages past, it was worse. Before these books were assembled into a single volume, vast tracts of it were discarded for both legitimate and political purposes. I am not entirely secure in what the Bible might have originally said. I hope and pray that its central theme is intact. I consider that central theme to be one of redemption. I cling to this interpretation, to use recent political phraseology, and have faith that it is the correct 'Final Answer.'

Even if we accept what the Bible of today says at face value, we are confronted (especially in the Old Testament) with a panoply of horrors difficult to process or justify. God seems to demand actions and perform actions that mirror the worst genocides and crimes against humanity of the 20th century. If these things occurred as written, I must have faith that they were done for good reasons. I must also pray for enlightenment on those reasons, but must also accept that He is not required to answer to me. I will admit freely that many of these things are troubling to me.

In the end, though, if we go Old Testament, then we are stoning our neighbors to death for a variety of misdeeds. If we go New Testament, we are forgiving everyone. I go New Testament whenever I am strong enough to do so.

But in terms of Marriage, there are two ways to view it. Either it is a secular matter, in which case logic should prevail. (There is no good reason to reject marriage.) Or it is a matter of God, in which case God will decide. We shall each of us die and face the Lord. If Gay Marriage is wrong, I leave it to Him to judge. I do this because God has instructed that I leave this matter to Him.

Judge Not. And so I shan't. Let them marry, whosoever wishes it. It is between them and their mates, and between them and God, not between them and I.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KIRKULES

Monday, May 4, 2009 9:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

So... Is the Separate but Equal argument wrong? Does it indicate negative prejudice?

Of course it's wrong, your own example is flawed. Nobody is asking Gays to drink out of a separate fountain or anything like that. It's more like if a Gay bar decides to name the fountain in their place the "Gay Fountain" and I sue in order to get them to call it the "Straight Fountain". It's simply a name, meant to acknowledge the fact that it's a Gay Bar. They have expressed no indication that they would prohibit me from drinking out of it. You might have an argument if they named it the "Gays Only Fountain". Are you saying it is bigotry to call the women's restroom something different than the men's. That is were this is designed to go, where it is illegal to even suggest that there's a difference between man/woman, Gay/Straight.

I am through with this subject, I have already said more than once that I favor Gay legal unions. But of course, that's not enough for the politically correct. I must not only accept them, but must agree that they are good, and not only that, equivalently as good as traditional marriage, with no evidence to support it, and the evidence that does exist showing possibly otherwise.

AURAPTOR

Monday, May 4, 2009 9:52 PM

I said the construct of 1 man + 1 woman, dude. It's an old story, told , yes ... IN THE BIBLE, as it was intended by those who wrote it ( men ) to reflect their views on how best to run society. I'm not saying " the bible says it, i believe it ", but simply using it as an example of just how old the 1 man + 1 woman , as a couple so as to perpetuate the species idea has been around.

If nothing else, it shows , historically, the IDEA of marriage goes back to long before Jerry Falwell.

Try not to paint it as something it isn't.

ANTHONYT

Monday, May 4, 2009 10:00 PM

Hello,

I do not ask that you approve of them. Nor that you declare them good. Nor that you value their merits highly. You may in fact shake your head at them and name them despicable if you wish. I will of course think you prejudiced in that case, but thoughts on that matter likely mean little more to you than the temperature on Mars this morning.

What I do ask you to do, as a rational and fair human being, is to acknowledge their right to get married if they so wish it.

Or, if you so approve of the 'Union' language, it would be less rational but more fair to discard the marriage moniker completely, and give everyone civil unions.

What is NOT fair is to deny them marriage and offer them civil unions instead, while declaring voiciferously that they are legally identical and convey the same rights.

Both fountains convey the same water. But you are indeed requesting that they name their fountain something else. Something inoffensive to you. Somehow it seems as though you think they want to usurp your fountain. They do not. They simply wish to share it as your equals.

This is, to me, the difference between political correctedness and justice. Justice demands they be allowed to marry. Political Correctness would demand that you sing a joyful song about it. I don't demand the Joyful song. Not from Miss California, not from you. Tell me what you think, but don't deny people their rights. The two things are not the same.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTHONYT

Monday, May 4, 2009 10:07 PM

Hello Auraptor,

The Bible also says that 1 man + many women existed all those ages ago.

And if historical sources are your ballywick, there are sources showing that 1 man + 1 man, and 1 man + many women, and 1 man + many women + servant boys, were all historical norms at one time or another.

What is recent, Auraptor, and peculiar in the wide scope of history, is the narrowing of married life to 1 man + 1 woman.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, May 4, 2009 10:27 PM

Marriage - A patently ridiculous concept caused by improper government sponsorship of a religion bordering on mental illness causing an artificial limitation of personal relationships in a form that is more often than not unsustainable in practice and detrimental to the mental health and well being of all involved.

ILIC.

-F

BYTEMITE

Monday, May 4, 2009 10:40 PM

Quote:
It's simply a name, meant to acknowledge the fact that it's a Gay Bar. They have expressed no indication that they would prohibit me from drinking out of it.

Kirkules: I think what you're saying is that by Gay marriage calling itself a gay bar, that you can still drink from straight marriage/a straight bar.

...I don't know if I'm making any sense.

Okay, but if that is anything remotely like what you're trying to say... Then using the same analogy...

What if there were people who didn't allow gay people to open the bar. Then when other people said it was unconstitutional to not allow this, they changed their minds but said that they needed to call it a gay bar. And what if, after opening the gay bar, the patrons of this bar became harassed, maybe by the police, maybe by certain citizens, maybe by laws restricted when and how they can go into the gay bar, and what is served there?

KIRKULES

Monday, May 4, 2009 10:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Or, if you so approve of the 'Union' language, it would be less rational but more fair to discard the marriage moniker completely, and give everyone civil unions.

That's pretty much what I said previously.

Quote:
Kirkules
That's one of the reasons I believe the term "Marriage" should be totally removed from laws regarding partnership between same sex or traditional couples. Let's give everyone equal rights without pretending that the bond between two of opposite sex is marriage. If they want to invent a new word that describes gay union, that's fine, but let's not change the meaning of existing words just for silly political correctness.

AURAPTOR

Monday, May 4, 2009 10:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Auraptor,

The Bible also says that 1 man + many women existed all those ages ago.

And if historical sources are your ballywick, there are sources showing that 1 man + 1 man, and 1 man + many women, and 1 man + many women + servant boys, were all historical norms at one time or another.

What is recent, Auraptor, and peculiar in the wide scope of history, is the narrowing of married life to 1 man + 1 woman.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

That the bible 'mentioned' these other things, is hardly relevant. The point I'm making here is, when the Bible was written, all those yrs ago, by men who deemed themselves wise ( or believed themselves under the influence of God™ ), Genesis was first and foremost a basic plan stating on how civilization should be set up. Anyone could have written what ever the hell they wanted to write, but the fact that the fairy tale of Adam and Eve was written out that way was, to show contemporaries and those who'd come later as to what their view of how humans should best live their lives. It's more than just a parable of following God™ and doing what HE says, there's more to it than just the apple and the serpent, and what happens when you disobey the big guy upstairs. It's a commentary on what was going on at the time, and what HAD been going on, and all the B.S. that mankind has done in the past and continues to keep doing today.

ANTHONYT

Monday, May 4, 2009 11:02 PM

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Or, if you so approve of the 'Union' language, it would be less rational but more fair to discard the marriage moniker completely, and give everyone civil unions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kirkules:

"That's pretty much what I said previously.

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirkules
That's one of the reasons I believe the term "Marriage" should be totally removed from laws regarding partnership between same sex or traditional couples. Let's give everyone equal rights without pretending that the bond between two of opposite sex is marriage. If they want to invent a new word that describes gay union, that's fine, but let's not change the meaning of existing words just for silly political correctness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Kirk,

Not quite. I've added some emphasis to the points where we disagree.

A fairness doctrine would mean that Nobody gets marriage or Everyone gets marriage. No 'separate but equal' terminology and laws. As for 'changing the meaning of words' that is what is happening now, but it is not the homosexual community that is doing it. Previous marriage laws were largely un-specific as to gender. New laws are being created that change the legal definition of marriage to 1 man + 1 woman. And the change is quite silly. However unintentional it may have been, the ambiguous laws were the fair ones.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KIRKULES

Monday, May 4, 2009 11:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

A fairness doctrine would mean that Nobody gets marriage or Everyone gets marriage.

Isn't that what removing the term "marriage" from the law means. I wasn't suggesting that separate terms be used for legal purposes, I'm only saying it shouldn't be "marriage". That would mean in the eyes of the law nobody could get "married", all would get "fill in the blank". Outside of the courtroom anyone who whats to pretend that what they are doing is marriage would be free to do so.

ANTHONYT

Monday, May 4, 2009 11:38 PM

Hello,

I believe then that I misunderstood you. By removing marriage from all law everywhere, and leaving it entirely out of government purview, the problem of unequal government treatment would be solved.

Thus no one could legally claim married status.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KIRKULES

Monday, May 4, 2009 11:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I believe then that I misunderstood you. By removing marriage from all law everywhere, and leaving it entirely out of government purview, the problem of unequal government treatment would be solved.

Thus no one could legally claim married status.

I think having non-breeding couples with the same rights might even lead to a fairer tax code. I've always thought it unfair to burden single people and those without children for the expense of schooling for those that choose to have seven kids. Getting rid of the tax benefits for having children might also lead to lower reproduction levels and help the environment as a consequence.

KWICKO

Monday, May 4, 2009 11:54 PM

Kirk, you said earlier that you might have a problem with calling it the "gays-only fountain" - but in fact, what you are trying to do is call the other fountain the "straights-only fountain", and you're saying that gays don't have the right to drink out of it, but that straights DO have the right to drink out of the gay fountain.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Monday, May 4, 2009 11:59 PM

Quote:

That the bible 'mentioned' these other things, is hardly relevant.

Oh, goodie - now you're going to regale us all with your version of what is and isn't relevant in the bible! I wait with baited breath...

KWICKO

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 12:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

A fairness doctrine would mean that Nobody gets marriage or Everyone gets marriage.

Isn't that what removing the term "marriage" from the law means. I wasn't suggesting that separate terms be used for legal purposes, I'm only saying it shouldn't be "marriage". That would mean in the eyes of the law nobody could get "married", all would get "fill in the blank". Outside of the courtroom anyone who whats to pretend that what they are doing is marriage would be free to do so.

Ah, Kirk - I'm still catching up on the latest posts, and now I think I've got a better handle on where you're coming from. I think we may not be that far apart on this issue, after all.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KIRKULES

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 12:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Kirk, you said earlier that you might have a problem with calling it the "gays-only fountain" - but in fact, what you are trying to do is call the other fountain the "straights-only fountain", and you're saying that gays don't have the right to drink out of it, but that straights DO have the right to drink out of the gay fountain.

Mike

All of the fountains are identical, anyone is free to drink out of any the please. The only difference is the name. You are not free to change the name of the other groups fountain by force of law to get even for a historical injustice.

KWICKO

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 12:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I believe then that I misunderstood you. By removing marriage from all law everywhere, and leaving it entirely out of government purview, the problem of unequal government treatment would be solved.

Thus no one could legally claim married status.

I think having non-breeding couples with the same rights might even lead to a fairer tax code. I've always thought it unfair to burden single people and those without children for the expense of schooling for those that choose to have seven kids. Getting rid of the tax benefits for having children might also lead to lower reproduction levels and help the environment as a consequence.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have an agreement!

See the "stealth taxation" thread where I posted just such an idea.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 12:15 AM

Hello,

Does anyone know what the sustainment level of reproduction is for a society, and what we're currently at?

I myself have no idea.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 12:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Kirk, you said earlier that you might have a problem with calling it the "gays-only fountain" - but in fact, what you are trying to do is call the other fountain the "straights-only fountain", and you're saying that gays don't have the right to drink out of it, but that straights DO have the right to drink out of the gay fountain.

Mike

All of the fountains are identical, anyone is free to drink out of any the please. The only difference is the name. You are not free to change the name of the other groups fountain by force of law to get even for a historical injustice.

I think I get it now. Sorry it took me so long to catch up and figure out exactly what you were talking about. We're all good now.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

RIVERDANCER

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 5:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
the insane ramblings of RiverDancer

A completely factual statement that you were talking about the subtlety of the language while not being able to spell subtle is an insane rambling now? Mm, okay, you've totally refuted me. Good job.

As to completely ditching the term 'marriage' I'm all for that, but since that's a near-impossible task considering the sheer volume of laws that would have to be rewritten, I also think it would be much more efficient to just stop harping about the word. Really. Please.

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Marriage - A patently ridiculous concept caused by improper government sponsorship of a religion bordering on mental illness causing an artificial limitation of personal relationships in a form that is more often than not unsustainable in practice and detrimental to the mental health and well being of all involved.

ILIC.

-F

AgentF,
come on, it's not the concept of marriage that's detrimental, it's the dishonesty and disrespect of people who enter into it. Any relationship can and will be unsustainable if people are incompatible and refuse to communicate. Sexual, parental, friendly relationship... it can all turn to disaster - or go well. It doesn't take an "official" structure like marriage to destroy what people do well on their own.

I do think that monogamy - if that's what you're really arguing against - can and does work. Just not for everyone, and the problem there is people unwilling to admit that or unwilling to face the consequences of honesty.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 1:55 PM

Nah, I got no issue with Monogamy, hell, most of my relationships have been - and most of them have ended on quite civil terms, cause of the other factors...

See, my issue with that is that very level of dishonesty and disrespect you mention, and believe me, that ain't limited to monogamous relationships neither - that comin from someone who nearly had to crack a few mormon skulls to get the message across not all that long ago.

I was speaking of it from the angles of government-sponsored religion, which is bad enough, but also the social and political aspect of favoring one type of relationship, and a single facet thereof, to the point of sanctioning it not only with official language but also special privleges, as anyone who's ever filed taxes would know.

This, and religion (Oh I can tell some horror stories here*) tends to lead folk into marrying when they shouldn't, or people that they shouldn't, don't really-truly want to, and all manner of other ills, from men (mostly formerly, but still on many an occasion today) using it as an exploitive contract, to the other end and marriage baiting by girls in high school/college using shotgun weddings to ensnare a guy into supporting them, their lifestyle, and a child they pay not a mind to cause they're busy clubbing while he slaves at two jobs to keep the bills paid - that's happened to a couple friends, and would easily lead down the path to misogynism were I the type of moron to not look at the social structure which rewards and encourages (often even accepts!) that behavior as the root cause.

It's a special kind of lunacy, at least from my viewpoint, to sanction just ONE kind of relationship out of infinite possibility, you see ?

*And instead of a horror story, lemme give you a happy ending for once.

Young girl, forced into an early marriage at an early age to a man with serious "problems" by an overbearing fire-n-brimstone church which was itself extremely exploitive and manipulative - and being that said church didn't believe in marriage counselling, psychiatry, or any other kind of mediation, and I can see why given that I myself consider that belief system and much of it's practices somewhat disturbing from a mental health viewpoint myself...

Spends almost a decade getting roughed up by a violent tempered dude while the church intimidates her into staying with him with threats of the firey pit and hells torments, yadda yadda.

Finally takes a header, eventually landing in the ghetto due to a lack of life/job skills and any real kind of assertiveness, since developing such was extremely discouraged.

Enter a dude so cold-blooded (at the time) he bordered on robotic, nearly devoid of empathy and burned out on the violence of his own life to the point of almost complete apathy - tripping over a girl so pathetic, so NEEDING to be cared about, and responding in the way two folks cling to a life preserver in a shipwreck.

Fast forward about seven years later, as they've grown and headed their seperate ways before being each others crutch sours what they shared, and her ex showing up all down on his luck trying to crawl his way back into her life.

Fast forward a few days to him losing his temper over some minor, petty thing - and her stepping into him and telling him flat out if that hand came at her, his ass was NOT leaving the room alive, and meaning every damn word of it.

At that moment I felt a pride in her that I'd never felt for a human being before, and it helped light the fuse of destiny, as it were, that one can BE the positive change in other peoples lives, if they only care enough to be.

As for bully boy, he grabbed his duffel and hauled his carcass out the door and ain't been seen since, meh.

Marriage can be a positive or negative force, it's all in what folks put in it.

But any kind of FORCED dependancy, whether it be social, religious, or legal in the nature of that "encouragement" or "sanction" (which amounts to a form of force) is destructive to the very ends it was enacted to preserve, in the end of it.

Anyhow, t

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 5:55 PM

Frem,

I misunderstood, then. Primarily because I don't think that it's all about sponsorship of religion, so I didn't quite catch that angle of social pressure. It wasn't just Christianity that looked down on, say, homosexuality in ancient times, and sexual self-determination was the exception rather than the rule for women throughout history.

To me, the oppressive nature of marriage (until recent history) and the suppression of alternative lifestyles are utterly a cultural development rather than a religiously motivated one. Religion is just a handy tool these days and became involved in the legal aspects of marrage after the middle ages.

I agree that government sponsorship of marriage is a muddy, unhelpful issue, though. It rightfully angers those who are excluded (visitation rights, medical rights, inheritance, taxes, etc.) and sometimes unpleasantly ties together those who would prefer not to be (especially financially), and I'm sure that the world would be a better place if that were cleaned up.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

PS- Yes, admittedly, the post you're quoting was mostly sarcasm and snark, mind you - I figured most folk would catch that out, but at times my "subtle" borders on WTF-cryptic.

A deadly force, combining subtle sarcasm with my infamously dysfunctional sarcasm detector... Mea culpa.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 6:33 PM

Heck, I say get religion and government both out of it. The institution promises a ridiculous amount and doesn't really deliver. I see too many shiny-eyed kids who think their whole purpose in life is to get married to someone, for forever "and eternity," and procreate until past doomsday. And yes, they're Mormon. But it's a big problem in the rest of society too, this belief that finding someone else and getting married can solve all your problems. Laughable. Cruel, even, for everyone involved.

I think people should come together and separate as needed without some social control over the whole thing. It should be a natural occurrence, a consequence of living among people in a community, not some... vaunted ideal spewing propaganda in everyone's ears.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 1:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I think people should come together and separate as needed without some social control over the whole thing. It should be a natural occurrence, a consequence of living among people in a community, not some... vaunted ideal spewing propaganda in everyone's ears.

Amen to that.
(pun very much intended!)
And all the ones you see starin and twitchin in shocked horror at the very thought ?

Thems the folk you wanna stay AWAY from, cause they obviously got 'problems' somewhere upstairs.

-F

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 2:59 AM

Yeah. *Sigh* those are the people it's so much fun being me around.

"Never marry and have children? How sad for you! Well I'm sure it's just a phase and you'll find someone just PERFECT! (hearts, little sparklies, * <3 ** <3 * hugs and kisses)"

And then I smile, walk away, and try not to pull my hair out from the frustration.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 4:06 AM

Yanno, that's *exactly* the response of most of the folk I know, which is polite and all, but really, there ARE some benefits to having a nasty personal rep even if it is highly inflated by gossip and rumor.

There is, I must admit, a certain satisfaction in having THIS as an optional reply to that.

-F