Cross another hypocrite off the list

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Cardus

How do you know that Matthew "loved?" Close personal friend?

Or, because he was gay, it is assumed that he "loved?" Maybe he was a miserable person who happened to be gay.

Cardus,
Those that murdered Matthew demonstrated hatred...is this not correct?
Again, you didn't answer the questions I asked.
1) Who should have their rights denied?
2) Why do you believe so?

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Cardus

And some murderers do not demonstrate hatred?

Your point????
Your answers to the other two questions????

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Wrong to the above.

Married couples are permitted to receive the above benefits.

Cardus,
For clarification purposes...
hetero= male/female partnerships.
homo= male/male,or female/female partnerships.

I guess either I'm wrong, or you don't know what these terms mean.

I'm also still waiting for your answers to my two questions.
If you are defeated in this debate, at least have the courtesy to admit it.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

If you are defeated in this debate, at least have the courtesy to admit it.

There is no way to really "win" this argument. I, for one, am for gay marriage but can completely see why people would be against it.

I think that civil unions are the answer, as they would give all the same rights to a couple, but would not use the word "marriage."

Sadly, most of my liberal brethren would not be happy with that, because they're so far gone that they would still think that was unequal, which means that we would be fighting for equality in words -- which is a most absurd notion when every right equal to marriage would be bestowed on these couples.

The reality is, that this issue just won't ever stop being an issue. But my generation is full of a disproportionate percentage of people who are for gay marriage -- so it's only a matter of time before we're the majority....and then true equality will occur.

[Danzig]

the thing i ca't figure out is...what would it hurt any person to know that gays can marry? what affect would it have to anyone other than the gay people who could legally commit to another person? would i still have the life i have? sure would. would my kids? well, yes.
as for 'respect for the sanctity of marriage' as an argument, that is fairly easy to dispute, knowing how many marriages end in failure. if hetero couples are so easily swayed from a supposed commitment, just how holy is matrimony anyway??
in your religion, if your church feels a certain way regarding marriage, that's one thing...
but as far as this country, and as far as church and state being separate, and as marriage is considered a 'legal agreement', than i would think the govt has no right to declare rights for some, but not all.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

the thing i ca't figure out is...what would it hurt any person to know that gays can marry? what affect would it have to anyone other than the gay people who could legally commit to another person? would i still have the life i have? sure would. would my kids? well, yes.
as for 'respect for the sanctity of marriage' as an argument, that is fairly easy to dispute, knowing how many marriages end in failure. if hetero couples are so easily swayed from a supposed commitment, just how holy is matrimony anyway??
in your religion, if your church feels a certain way regarding marriage, that's one thing...
but as far as this country, and as far as church and state being separate, and as marriage is considered a 'legal agreement', than i would think the govt has no right to declare rights for some, but not all.

which is exactly why you call it a "civil union" and then watch the mayhem that ensues. Anyone still against it would out themselves as an extremist. This way, homosexuals get the rights -- which they claim is the only thing they're after, and the Christian right gets to hold on to the semantics. Then, your left-wingers who still insisted it be called marriage would prove that they were lying the whole time, and that their agenda is about beating the Christian right, and not getting equal rights. Those on the Christian right who still wouldn't back it, would expose themselves as judgmental and proponents of inequality -- and therefore expose themselves as terrible Christians to begin with.

End of story -- everyone wins!

[Danzig]

i just don't understand why anyone really gives a rats behind about what others do.

what is that saying about when they went after a group, i said nothing...and then another, i said nothing... and then i was the one they came for, and there was no one left to speak up. a rather crude version, but essentially correct.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

i just don't understand why anyone really gives a rats behind about what others do.

what is that saying about when they went after a group, i said nothing...and then another, i said nothing... and then i was the one they came for, and there was no one left to speak up. a rather crude version, but essentially correct.

The problem with calling it a "civil union" or for that matter a "grilled cheese sandwich" is that it denotes a difference! Semantics can be important if wording is used to promote certain concepts...in this case that gay folks are "different". I don't hide my opinion...I'm rather straight forward! It's not about "beating" some group or ideology...there's room on this planet for different religions, philosophies, and ideologies as long as everyone respects the rights of others (unfortunately that's the fly in the ointment...well, more like the elephant in the fridge). I use to support the idea of "civil unions" as a first step but unfortunately...a person is either accepting of others or not, there is no middle ground here...well, "middle ground" is occupied by the hypocrites who call themselves "liberal" in many (no, not all) cases. Accepting a "compromise" when it comes to equality is akin to accepting "less than human" status...and that's simply not the path out of this mess!

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

The problem with calling it a "civil union" or for that matter a "grilled cheese sandwich" is that it denotes a difference! Semantics can be important if wording is used to promote certain concepts...in this case that gay folks are "different". I don't hide my opinion...I'm rather straight forward! It's not about "beating" some group or ideology...there's room on this planet for different religions, philosophies, and ideologies as long as everyone respects the rights of others (unfortunately that's the fly in the ointment...well, more like the elephant in the fridge). I use to support the idea of "civil unions" as a first step but unfortunately...a person is either accepting of others or not, there is no middle ground here...well, "middle ground" is occupied by the hypocrites who call themselves "liberal" in many (no, not all) cases. Accepting a "compromise" when it comes to equality is akin to accepting "less than human" status...and that's simply not the path out of this mess!

I totally understand the logic in what you're saying here -- but I just don't think the semantics should matter. I don't think that calling the same thing two different words should matter. I think that is a compromise that is fair to all parties.

What are we fighting for in the first place? We're fighting because the government stepped into a religious institution and gave those who enter into a religious "contract" certain benefits and rights. So if the government gives homosexual couples those very same benefits and rights, then what more is there? Parity is achieved. That really should end the story right there.

Let the religious right think that they are superior by forcing homosexuals to get those rights under a different name, let them do whatever they want. Homosexuals will be equal in the eyes of the law, and that should be all that matters.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I totally understand the logic in what you're saying here -- but I just don't think the semantics should matter. I don't think that calling the same thing two different words should matter. I think that is a compromise that is fair to all parties.

What are we fighting for in the first place? We're fighting because the government stepped into a religious institution and gave those who enter into a religious "contract" certain benefits and rights. So if the government gives homosexual couples those very same benefits and rights, then what more is there? Parity is achieved. That really should end the story right there.

Let the religious right think that they are superior by forcing homosexuals to get those rights under a different name, let them do whatever they want. Homosexuals will be equal in the eyes of the law, and that should be all that matters.

The problem is that there are two things that you can't legislate...morality and folks opinions. When the sweeping Civil Rights legislation was passed by the federal government in the 60's, it gave us in the movement leverage but didn't give black folks equality! Women are supposedly "equal under the law" but "glass ceilings" abound...the old prejudices, the old mis-information, the old mindsets take time (generations) to overcome BUT they will always exist if reinforced by societal constructs that illuminate "differences"...that's why the words are important!

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

The problem is that there are two things that you can't legislate...morality and folks opinions. When the sweeping Civil Rights legislation was passed by the federal government in the 60's, it gave us in the movement leverage but didn't give black folks equality! Women are supposedly "equal under the law" but "glass ceilings" abound...the old prejudices, the old mis-information, the old mindsets take time (generations) to overcome BUT they will always exist if reinforced by societal constructs that illuminate "differences"...that's why the words are important!

Right, but LEGALLY it did make them equal, even if it didn't change how people felt. If calling it marriage is still not going to change peoples' views (which it won't), then why delay it any further by insisting that it be called marriage? This fight becomes so much easier if people just back off of the marriage thing and ask for civil unions.

Based on this post...what does fighting for marriage accomplish? Whether it's called civil union, marriage, or "grilled cheese sandwich ", those who don't approve still won't approve. So if the rights can be granted faster by using a different word, then what's the hold up?

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Right, but LEGALLY it did make them equal, even if it didn't change how people felt. If calling it marriage is still not going to change peoples' views (which it won't), then why delay it any further by insisting that it be called marriage? This fight becomes so much easier if people just back off of the marriage thing and ask for civil unions.

Based on this post...what does fighting for marriage accomplish? Whether it's called civil union, marriage, or "grilled cheese sandwich ", those who don't approve still won't approve. So if the rights can be granted faster by using a different word, then what's the hold up?

A valid point Brian...my only answer is that once you legalize differences, they become canon. Whatever term is applied, you are correct, it won't change opinions already "set in stone" but the next generation, and the one after that will take their cues from what society has "set"...if children grow up seeing the emphasis on "differences", they will believe that people are different...if they grow up seeing that all folks are given the same rights, treated the same, they will more likely accept that all folks are the same. I respect your point of view that sometimes change is best accomplished by taking "baby steps" rather than giant leaps...I learned impatience in the 60's and have never outgrown it intellectually, pragmatically...I can deal!

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

my only answer is that once you legalize differences, they become canon. Whatever term is applied, you are correct, it won't change opinions already "set in stone" but the next generation, and the one after that will take their cues from what society has "set"...if children grow up seeing the emphasis on "differences", they will believe that people are different...

good good good point. just remember how attitudes are shifting on this though. Once my generation becomes the generation in charge, this won't even be an issue anymore. By and large, we don't give a **** about who marries who, and policy shifts will reflect that. By the time my kids come around, this whole argument will have been put to rest and everyone will be getting married anyway.

[Downthestretch55]

Somerfrost and Brian,
I just have to tell you that I've enjoyed your polite exchange.
You are both gentlemen.
You both have respected each other's opinions, and through the discussing, have demonstrated that there is agreement.
May I ask of both of you, do you not realize that the topic of "gay marriage" is yet another bogus attempt to divert attention from some other more pressing topics? Is this something that demands the best creative mental energies of those that really care? Or can you both, see the "side-track" for what it really is?
Danzig said it well.
There are some areas that the government holds no right to, including but not limited to, what occurs between consenting adults.
Equality is inclusive of ALL! It's just that simple.
Everything else is a "smoke screen", and should be seen as such.
DTS

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Somerfrost and Brian,
I just have to tell you that I've enjoyed your polite exchange.
You are both gentlemen.
You both have respected each other's opinions, and through the discussing, have demonstrated that there is agreement.
May I ask of both of you, do you not realize that the topic of "gay marriage" is yet another bogus attempt to divert attention from some other more pressing topics? Is this something that demands the best creative mental energies of those that really care? Or can you both, see the "side-track" for what it really is?
Danzig said it well.
There are some areas that the government holds no right to, including but not limited to, what occurs between consenting adults.
Equality is inclusive of ALL! It's just that simple.
Everything else is a "smoke screen", and should be seen as such.
DTS

DTS,
I agree 100%, unfortunately there are more than enough folks in this country who would rather use valuable resources to deny others equality than force the political opportunists to deal with "real" issues! We can blame Bush et al but in the end, this non-issue would wither and die if the public wasn't willing to nourish it!

[Danzig]

altho there are larger and smaller issues....and some may be more important in the 'grand scheme of things'...but, people need to live their life, and many times it's the smaller things that you deal with on a day to day basis. it's not as tho all day today, as i dealt with various work issues, i told everyone hey, there's more important things to worry about. for most people it is the smaller issues that you deal with--that's how life is. a big part of most peoples day is dealing with all the little things that make up their lives. all those issues are a part of the bigger picture.

as for sidetracking the govt--that's where flag burning type issues come into play.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

DTS,
I agree 100%, unfortunately there are more than enough folks in this country who would rather use valuable resources to deny others equality than force the political opportunists to deal with "real" issues! We can blame Bush et al but in the end, this non-issue would wither and die if the public wasn't willing to nourish it!

I agree completely. I am saddened by the fact that as far as their political advocacy goes, the religious right has become a two-issue group. Abortion and gay marriage. For those that believe that abortion is murder, I can see what that is an important issue to rally behind. However, poverty, injustices, etc etc have gone unnoticed because these two issues rile up the base better than any other. It's sad because so many people are wasting so much time when there are so many huge, pressing issues in this country that we would be better served to address than gay marriage. I take comfort in knowing like I said in my last post, that this will be a non-issue in the next 10-15 years.

[Downthestretch55]

Thanks Somerfrost, Danzig, and Brian.
Well said.
DTS

[Rupert Pupkin]

I totally disagree with anyone that says people's rights are being violated if gay marriage is illegal. Nobody's rights are being violated. Everyone has the same rights. Every man has the right to marry a woman. The rules are the same for everyone.

I'll give you a few different analogies. I live in a condominium building. They have rules. Since most people go to bed around 11:00pm, you are not allowed to play loud music after 11:00pm. Let's say that I'm different from most people. I stay up very late. I go to bed at 3:00am. If I made the same argument as you guys, I could say that my rights are being violated. I'm a night person, so the rules should be different for me. I should be allowed to blast my music late at night. Otherwise, my rights are being violated. This argument is silly. My rights are not being violated. The rules are the same for everyone. Everyone has to stop playing their music at 11:00pm. Just because I'm different and am a night person, that doesn't mean that the rules should change for me. I can't expect everyone else to accomodate me just because I'm different.

I'll give you another analogy. Alcohol is legal in this country. Cocaine is not. Let's say that I dont like alcohol but I do like cocaine. I guess I could say that if I was a cocaine user that my rights are being violated. I could say that I'm not like most people. I don't like alcohol. I like cocaine. Therefore, the government has to make cocaine legal for me or my rights are being violated. This argument is silly. My rights are not being violated. The rules are the same for me as everyone else. We are all allowed to drink alcohol but we are not allowed to take cocaine. Just because I prefer cocaine, it does not mean that the government needs to change the laws for me.

You can't simply label yourself and then ask for special rights. You can't say, "I am gay. Therefore I should be allowed to marry a man". If it was that easy, and all you had to do was label yourself someting and then the laws would change for you, it would be ridiculous.

I have a good idea. I'm going to label myself as a high-energy, fast-paced person. Therefore, I like to drive fast so I should not have to obey the speed limits. I don't care if the speed limit is 65 mph. I am a fast-paced person and should be allowed to drive 90 mph. My rights are being violated if you don't let me drive 90 mph.

You can't simply label yourself as something and then demand special rights. You can't say, "I'm gay. Therefore I should be allowed to marry a man or otherwise my rights are being violated." It's a silly argument and that's the argument you guys are making. A couple of you have said that if someone says they are gay that they should be able to marry someone of the same sex or else their rights are being violated. I think that's a weak argument.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I totally disagree with anyone that says people's rights are being violated if gay marriage is illegal. Nobody's rights are being violated. Everyone has the same rights. Every man has the right to marry a woman. The rules are the same for everyone.

I'll give you a few different analogies. I live in a condominium building. They have rules. Since most people go to bed around 11:00pm, you are not allowed to play loud music after 11:00pm. Let's say that I'm different from most people. I stay up very late. I go to bed at 3:00am. If I made the same argument as you guys, I could say that my rights are being violated. I'm a night person, so the rules should be different for me. I should be allowed to blast my music late at night. Otherwise, my rights are being violated. This argument is silly. My rights are not being violated. The rules are the same for everyone. Everyone has to stop playing their music at 11:00pm. Just because I'm different and am a night person, that doesn't mean that the rules should change for me. I can't expect everyone else to accomodate me just because I'm different.

I'll give you another analogy. Alcohol is legal in this country. Cocaine is not. Let's say that I dont like alcohol but I do like cocaine. I guess I could say that if I was a cocaine user that my rights are being violated. I could say that I'm not like most people. I don't like alcohol. I like cocaine. Therefore, the government has to make cocaine legal for me or my rights are being violated. This argument is silly. My rights are not being violated. The rules are the same for me as everyone else. We are all allowed to drink alcohol but we are not allowed to take cocaine. Just because I prefer cocaine, it does not mean that the government needs to change the laws for me.

You can't simply label yourself and then ask for special rights. You can't say, "I am gay. Therefore I should be allowed to marry a man". If it was that easy, and all you had to do was label yourself someting and then the laws would change for you, it would be ridiculous.

I have a good idea. I'm going to label myself as a high-energy, fast-paced person. Therefore, I like to drive fast so I should not have to obey the speed limits. I don't care if the speed limit is 65 mph. I am a fast-paced person and should be allowed to drive 90 mph. My rights are being violated if you don't let me drive 90 mph.

You can't simply label yourself as something and then demand special rights. You can't say, "I'm gay. Therefore I should be allowed to marry a man or otherwise my rights are being violated." It's a silly argument and that's the argument you guys are making. A couple of you have said that if someone says they are gay that they should be able to marry someone of the same sex or else their rights are being violated. I think that's a weak argument.

No the silly argument is your's...utter crap! Your analogies are all faulty...what you are in fact saying is akin to the following:
A black man wishes to rent an apartment and is told "whites only"...so, according to your logic, his rights aren't being violated cause the rules are the same for everybody, you're white, you can live there, if you're black you can't! Afterall, he's free to change his skin color right? Gay folks don't label themselves...they are labeled by society! Two people are in love and wish to marry...it's society that has a problem if they are of the same sex, and it's society that afixes labels!