Recommended Posts
Shotgun 1
I still don't understand why anyone _cares_ if gays want to marry each other.... It doesn't really affect anyone else, so why are some people so adamant about not letting them get married???
kelel01 1
Because obviously they're not trying. 
Just like they're not doing anything to educate each other about the AIDS epidemic.
Good thing we have experts here to tell us what gays aren't doing!
I'm sure they're busy lobbying to plenty of people who are slamming doors in their faces. Maybe they should slip a note under the door.
Just like they're not doing anything to educate each other about the AIDS epidemic.
Good thing we have experts here to tell us what gays aren't doing!
I'm sure they're busy lobbying to plenty of people who are slamming doors in their faces. Maybe they should slip a note under the door.
Quote...I'm sure they're busy lobbying to plenty of people who are slamming doors in their faces. Maybe they should slip a note under the door.
Getting a door slammed in one's face is par for the course in the day of a lobbyist. I have several friends who are lobbyists, and they had to get used to being told to STFU in polite terms.
Quote
If they believe it to be an issue of civil rights, they are free to take that vector when they engage the legislative/judicial system.
I thought that was what they were in fact doing.
so why are they whiny, exactly?
kelel01 1
Well, quit saying they're not trying, or "they should be trying". They are. Period.
And trying does not equal whining.
And trying does not equal whining.
QuoteI still don't understand why anyone _cares_ if gays want to marry each other.... It doesn't really affect anyone else, so why are some people so adamant about not letting them get married???
Dunno. It doesn't seem to make sense to me. Honestly, the idea that the gov't has any voice in who can and can't get married frightens me.
billvon 3,120
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Gay persons have just as many rights as heteros-Neither can
>marry one of the same gender.
And in 1940, by your argument, black men had exactly the same rights as white men - neither could marry people of the opposite race. Fortunately that sort of thinking didn't last long.
>If they feel that because of this they are relegated to second-class
> citienship, that is in their own minds, which is not the problem of
> others.
You make it your problem when you let it upset you. If you don't care about what other people think about themselves, then you wouldn't argue about it.
>I say again-if one dislikes the law, change it. You have just as much
> access to the legislative process as the rest of us.
In 1976, a bunch of evil 'activist judges' declared segregationist marriage policies illegal. Note that laws of the time prevented blacks from marrying whites, and most people wanted to keep blacks from marrying whites. The court did its job and enforced their interpretation of the constitution, despite laws and public opinion, and we are better off today because of it. I have faith in the system, and believe that freedom to love whoever one chooses will prevail in this case too - despite those who would deny people that right.
>marry one of the same gender.
And in 1940, by your argument, black men had exactly the same rights as white men - neither could marry people of the opposite race. Fortunately that sort of thinking didn't last long.
>If they feel that because of this they are relegated to second-class
> citienship, that is in their own minds, which is not the problem of
> others.
You make it your problem when you let it upset you. If you don't care about what other people think about themselves, then you wouldn't argue about it.
>I say again-if one dislikes the law, change it. You have just as much
> access to the legislative process as the rest of us.
In 1976, a bunch of evil 'activist judges' declared segregationist marriage policies illegal. Note that laws of the time prevented blacks from marrying whites, and most people wanted to keep blacks from marrying whites. The court did its job and enforced their interpretation of the constitution, despite laws and public opinion, and we are better off today because of it. I have faith in the system, and believe that freedom to love whoever one chooses will prevail in this case too - despite those who would deny people that right.
Ron 10
QuoteDo they indeed conflict? I've never read either in its entirety.
I would think (but I may be wrong) the the Genesis (OT) is a pretty major foundation of the Christian's "creation" theory.
Yes, but they do conflict, and when the conflict appears the NT "wins" in Christianity
.
OT
Leviticus 24:17-22 "Whoever kills any man shall surely be put to death. 18 Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, animal for animal. 19 If a man causes disfigurement of his neighbor, as he has done, so shall it be done to him – 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done to him. 21 And whoever kills an animal shall restore it; but whoever kills a man shall be put to death’”
NT
Luke 6:27 "But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 6:29 To the person who strikes you on the cheek,offer the other as well"
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
How did we get from Wally World being evil two discussing what the important parts of the bible are? 
Ron 10
QuoteHow did we get from Wally World being evil two discussing what the important parts of the bible are?
Ok try to keep up...
Sam Walton created Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart is Evil for buying from China.
Wal-Mart Being Evil means that Sam Walton is the Devil.
The Devil is a bad thing, and only believing in a book (Really a set of books) that was written a really long time ago (so they must be true) can save the world from low cost chinese made stuff...The problem is which version of the "truth" do you want? Old? Older? Old and written in a different language? Maybe the revised version?
Geeze how stupid can you be, its simple
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
TomAiello 26
QuoteI still don't understand why anyone _cares_ if gays want to marry each other.... It doesn't really affect anyone else, so why are some people so adamant about not letting them get married???
Unfortunately, it does have an impact on other people.
Because the government sanctions marriage, there are a whole host of benefits available only to those who have government endorsement of their marriage (insurance benefits from a spouse, rights of survivorship in property, if you want we can start a long list). Unfortunately, some of these benefits amount to the government forcing an extension of one persons benefits to another (the spouse). So, extending the category of "spouse" will naturally extend the level of the governments coercion, as well as incurring additional public expenditures.
Personally, I think the whole thing could be solved if the government got out of the business of regulating marriage.
-- Tom Aiello
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
Ron 10
QuoteUnfortunately, some of these benefits amount to the government forcing an extension of one persons benefits to another (the spouse). So, extending the category of "spouse" will naturally extend the level of the governments coercion, as well as incurring additional public expenditures.
And when does that stop? Can my company be made to force my buddy on my health insurance?
One company I know of dropped "Domestic Partner" benefits since people were trying to get their siblings and roomates health insurance.
QuotePersonally, I think the whole thing could be solved if the government got out of the business of regulating marriage.
And this I agree with 100%. Also I have no issue with two people having legal papers drawn up giving each other the same rights as "married" people have.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Shotgun 1
QuoteUnfortunately, it does have an impact on other people.
To some extent, but not any more than other heterosexual marriages. The homosexual population is such a small percentage of the US that allowing them to marry is not really going to affect insurance rates or anything like that.
rehmwa 2
QuoteWell, quit saying they're not trying, or "they should be trying". They are. Period.
And trying does not equal whining.
I think he said that: some are trying, some are whining - those that are whining are making it more difficult for those that are trying to succeed.
Which is true for any issue.
All the counterarguments appear to be making the incorrect assumption that whining = trying (which is funny based on your last statement - pott/kettle thing). I'm thinking both can happen and one is constructive and the other anti-constructive.
I don't believe DM took a side in the issue but is unfairly being accused of taking a side just because he notes that the efforts are being sabotaged by the ineffective whining of a small sub-group.
Frankly, if the issue isn't broken up into reasonable pieces, it'll just be a bunch of crying sand generalizations (I don't see who it hurts) type comments on both sides:
1 - Leave the term "Marriage" to the churches
2 - in terms of "civil unions" or whatever you want to call the governemental licensing process for partnering two people in the 'eyes of the governement'
a - develop the list of 'tangible' benefits the government wants to accrue to all unions
b - develop the supplemental list of 'tangible' benefits the governmetn want to accrue to heterosexual unions - if they want to differentiate here - and they might
c - develop the list of 'tangible' benefits the government wants to give to people raising children and be specific on which benefits accrue to the following situations:
1) for heterosexual parents
2) for homosexual parents
3) for single parents
4) for kids raised by wolves
If we really are in the business of encouraging specific family types as well as specific parental arrangements (won't somebody think of the children), then it must be broken down and specific and clear. This topic is way too emotional and generalized to slogans, for it ever to resolve to something clear.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Quote
I think he said that some are trying, some are whining - those that are whining are making it more difficult for those that are trying to succeed.
Which is true for any issue.
All the counterarguments appear to be making the incorrect assumption that whining = trying (which is funny based on your last statement - pott/kettle thing). I'm thinking both can happen and one is constructive and the other anti-constructive.
I don't believe DM took a side in the issue but is unfairly being accused of taking a side just because he notes that the efforts are being sabotaged by the ineffective whining of a small sub-group.
Ding! (+10)
rehmwa 2
QuotePersonally, I think the whole thing could be solved if the government got out of the business of regulating marriage.
Here, here. If we want to encourage raising children (ie. the whole argument for heterosexual marriage), then take the contractual relationship of the parents out of it and accrue the benefits directly based on the children.
It's our money.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Keith 0
Huh?? On a side note, Huh???
Keith
Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville
Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville
The energy spent in fruitless whining is better spent in trying tactics that actually have a chance of succeeding.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites