Gawain 0
Recommended Posts
quade 4
Quote
Will a gay couple in my neighborhood getting married hurt anyone? No. I don't see love as a violent crime, or as a crime with victims.
There IS a logic to banning gay marriage. Not the one being publicly voiced by GWB and the large corporations that fund him, but there IS a logic. It's simple and it makes perfect sense as to why "they" are against it.
First, let me make it perfectly clear that I believe that gays -should- be allowed to have either civil unions or marriage. Doesn't make one freekin' bit of difference to me what the heck it's called, but I guess to some it does. If it has to be marriage, then so be it. If it can only be civil union, then I would push for total equality with the status of marriage.
Now, to explain the logic and real reasons behind the issue.
With marriage, comes benefits. That's it. It's going to cost companies and the government money in benefits. Medical, Social Security . . . all that good stuff that married couples enjoy.
THAT is why GWB and his supporters are against it. Don't for a second think it has something to do with religious sanctity -- that's just a freekin' BS red-herring to throw people off guard and gain support of the religious right.
Look, gay people don't need anyone to approve of their life style least of all the government. What they should be entitled to is to live their lives with the same benefits all the rest of us enjoy. Do the right thing and make it known they you're against bigotry and discrimination. Fight any attempt to change the Constitution of the United States for the pleasure and whim of Corporate America.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
skydyvr 0
QuoteQuote
So if we don't like the laws of the land, we just ignore them and do what we want, right? Is that the answer?
YES... That's how change happens!
What happened to introducing ideas to your congressman, who would then introduce legislation to the House?
. . =(_8^(1)
Amazon 7
Quote*LOL* That coming from the very Jeanne that railed in on me for using a "special olympics" image to make fun of arguing on the internet...
Believe me that was not "railed" as I explained to you at the time, my younger step brother was born with downs syndrome. He is one of the most loving individuals you could possibly meet. So when you use that joke to denigrate others as it was used at the time it reflects more on you not on them.
QuoteWhen does that happen now? The verbal lashing that people get can cause much deeper damage
It happens frequently. I am glad you asked. The black man who was drug to death in Texas...the young gay man who was beaten and tied to a fence post to die in Wyoming...the list is long.. perpetrated by guys who have learned to hate their fellow americans because they are different. How about Eric Rudolph who killed 2 people and injured over 100 because someone believed differently than he did. How about the Gary Ridgeways who are punishing evildoers in the sex business...I guess he was saving all those young women from a life of sin. The common thread... contolling others peoples lives who are different from you to enforce your attitudes and morality( I would argue lack of) on others. Conform to your views or suffer the consequences. I would say the people who died would rather have gotten a right wing tounge lashing rather than what they actually got..
Gawain 0
QuoteWith marriage, comes benefits. That's it. It's going to cost companies and the government money in benefits. Medical, Social Security . . . all that good stuff that married couples enjoy.
Marriage is not required to get those benefits in California or Vermont. Some companies extend benefits to "domestic" partners (some only if they're homosexual too). I too could care less about people's private lives, but this whole issue about "gay-marriage" is indeed more than just benefits in my opinion. This is a grab at changing an institution whose purpose has been to embody the religious union between a man and a woman with a purpose of procreating.
It pushes one lifestyle into the conerstones of other lifestyles with no regard to tradition or the rights of these institutions. The legal system does not need to step on the traditions of the established institution to provide the equal benefits that are sought.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Gawain 0
QuoteQuote*LOL* That coming from the very Jeanne that railed in on me for using a "special olympics" image to make fun of arguing on the internet...
Believe me that was not "railed" as I explained to you at the time, my younger step brother was born with downs syndrome. He is one of the most loving individuals you could possibly meet. So when you use that joke to denigrate others as it was used at the time it reflects more on you not on them.
It was still PC. I do not need a relative to be sensative to the challenges of the handicapped, while still being able to see what is, in its context, a funny picture, with a funny statement, pointing out the obvious at the time in the middle of that thread (whatever it was about, probably politics).
As to the "punishment" that people received for their views, etc, the examples you cited came to mind after I posted. Our perceptions of "frequently" are different.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
This is a grab at changing an institution whose purpose has been to embody the religious union between a man and a woman with a purpose of procreating.
It pushes one lifestyle into the conerstones of other lifestyles with no regard to tradition or the rights of these institutions. The legal system does not need to step on the traditions of the established institution to provide the equal benefits that are sought.
It pushes one lifestyle into the conerstones of other lifestyles with no regard to tradition or the rights of these institutions. The legal system does not need to step on the traditions of the established institution to provide the equal benefits that are sought.
The Institution itself has no rights. Just because allowing differnt thinking people to enjoy the benefits that the rest of us enjoy should have no bearing on how we view ourselves. The same argument could have and was used to keep black folks and women from voting (a time honored tradition for land owning white men) or to keep mixed race marriges illegal. That's another thing I love about America...we try to learn from our mistakes...mostly...
Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for lost faith in ourselves.
-Eric Hoffer -
Check out these Videos
-Eric Hoffer -
Check out these Videos
This is a grab at changing an institution whose purpose has been to embody the religious union between a man and a woman with a purpose of procreating.
Again, not all people see marrige the same. I certainly see no religious significance to marrige. I didn't get married in a church. If a religion chooses not to marry gay poeple that is there right. It's the state making the same moral distinction I take issue with.
Again, not all people see marrige the same. I certainly see no religious significance to marrige. I didn't get married in a church. If a religion chooses not to marry gay poeple that is there right. It's the state making the same moral distinction I take issue with.
Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for lost faith in ourselves.
-Eric Hoffer -
Check out these Videos
-Eric Hoffer -
Check out these Videos
Gawain 0
QuoteAgain, not all people see marrige the same. I certainly see no religious significance to marrige. I didn't get married in a church. If a religion chooses not to marry gay poeple that is there right. It's the state making the same moral distinction I take issue with.
Good point, though the State is already making a moral distinction, regardless of the direction that distinctin points (pro/con on any social issue).
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Amazon 7
QuoteOur perceptions of "frequently" are different.
You can ignore the obvious for only so long.
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/hate/
In 1996, law enforcement agencies in 49 states and the District of Columbia reported 8,759 bias-motivated criminal offenses to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the federal government agency mandated by Congress to gather the statistics. However, points out the FBI, these data must be approached with caution. Typically, data on hate crimes collected by social scientists and such groups as the Anti-Defamation League, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force show a higher prevalence of hate crime than do federal statistics
But at least here in this country they dont take people out and beat them or drag them to death for being different from them ....most of the time.
Yeah, I'm glad that them finally put a stop to all of that dragging to death stuff. Almost an epidemic.
never pull low......unless you are
Typically, data on hate crimes collected by social scientists and such groups as the Anti-Defamation League, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force show a higher prevalence of hate crime than do federal statistics
Color me suprised.
never pull low......unless you are
OATSF14 0
Bravo!
pajarito 0
You're right. Not all see marriage the same way but, I dare say, the vast majority do. If it were put to a vote, this thing would probably be settled. That is, instead of Judges imposing law on the people.
It's a shame you don't respect the institution of marriage for any reason other than money. It is more so a religious union than it is for State financial gain. The institution of marriage wasn't invented by people. It is, in fact, the “religious union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreating.” Do the math and try and put the square block in the round hole. It doesn’t make logical sense. I know you say that it’s all about money. It is, however, yet another way to gradually take God out of every institution we have in this country. As that happens, we will eventually cease to be the great country that we are. I know you’re going to say, “That’s a slippery slope” kind of reasoning but that’s what I sincerely believe.
It's a shame you don't respect the institution of marriage for any reason other than money. It is more so a religious union than it is for State financial gain. The institution of marriage wasn't invented by people. It is, in fact, the “religious union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreating.” Do the math and try and put the square block in the round hole. It doesn’t make logical sense. I know you say that it’s all about money. It is, however, yet another way to gradually take God out of every institution we have in this country. As that happens, we will eventually cease to be the great country that we are. I know you’re going to say, “That’s a slippery slope” kind of reasoning but that’s what I sincerely believe.
pajarito 0
Oh crap! I said you in that statement.
kallend 2,027
QuoteThe institution of marriage wasn't invented by people.
Please tell me who invented it then. Spiders? Martians?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteJohn,
I have no doubt that your knowledge of your field is excellent, I have relied on your posts relating to physics more than once and will continue to do so. Its your apparent inability to contribute a positive thought to a discussion where positive ideas were requested. I worry that you will pass this very narrow view of the world on to your students. But then my view of you is restricted to what I see on this forum and that is very narrow. I would hope you are less pessimistic in other facets of you life.
And Benny, you are in over your head, back off and stick to flipping hamburgers. You no longer amuse me.
Sparky,
They both act as trolls, looking for something controversial to use to stir shit. This is the type of person I won't jump with. If a person, IMO, can't find "positive" on the ground, I certainly won't trust them in the air. So, don't feed them and eventually they will go the way of many others I've seen over the years on this site.
FFF
"Upon seeing the shadow of a pigeon, one must resist the urge to look up."
pajarito 0
You can't derive that from my entire statement? God, of course. Why do you think it's primarily a religious institution? Genesis 2 18-25
skydyvr 0
QuoteYou're right. Not all see marriage the same way but, I dare say, the vast majority do. If it were put to a vote, this thing would probably be settled.
Gay marriage has been on state ballots before with mixed results. In California, the people voted NOT to allow gay marriage in 2000.
So that wacked SF mayor allowing those fake marriages to take place under his watch is not only saying "screw the law", he is also saying "screw the people".
. . =(_8^(1)
*LOL* That coming from the very Jeanne that railed in on me for using a "special olympics" image to make fun of arguing on the internet...
When does that happen now? The verbal lashing that people get can cause much deeper damage.
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites