Post by: Paddy on August 27, 2007, 02:41:04 PM
Maybe we do need term limits.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20467347/
Post by: El Tejon on August 27, 2007, 02:42:51 PM
Post by: wooderson on August 27, 2007, 02:52:10 PM
In terms of gay men being able to get a quickie in the men's room? No.
In terms of this particular man with apparent gay interests having a viciously anti-gay record (in line with the rest of his party)? Hmm, lemme think.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 27, 2007, 03:48:34 PM
He was one of the staunchest pro-gun crowd in Congress.
Post by: Balog on August 27, 2007, 04:19:15 PM
Darn.
He was one of the staunchest pro-gun crowd in Congress.
He was one of the staunchest pro-gun crowd in Congress.
My thoughts exactly, until I read he was a big Romney supporter. What's up with that?
Post by: wooderson on August 27, 2007, 04:26:37 PM
Post by: Wizzo on August 27, 2007, 04:27:32 PM
Darn.
He was one of the staunchest pro-gun crowd in Congress.
He was one of the staunchest pro-gun crowd in Congress.
Yes. And an NRA Board of Directors member too (still is, I believe).
Post by: Paddy on August 27, 2007, 04:28:17 PM
Quote
Idaho has a huge Mormon population.
Which means what in the context of this discussion?
??
Post by: Balog on August 27, 2007, 04:35:12 PM
Post by: Standing Wolf on August 27, 2007, 05:08:43 PM
Quote
My thoughts exactly, until I read he was a big Romney supporter. What's up with that?
Romney is to integrity as AIDS is to health.
Post by: RocketMan on August 27, 2007, 05:15:05 PM
Sen. Craig will be forced to resign.
Post by: Nitrogen on August 27, 2007, 10:24:21 PM
Democratic Rep. Barney Frank was given a pass when his "boyfriend" was found to be running a male prostitution ring out of Frank's home.
Sen. Craig will be forced to resign.
Sen. Craig will be forced to resign.
Frank was shown to be unaware of what was going on in his house while he was away.
Besides, Frank is openly gay, and supports rights for gays. I can respect that.
I have a hard time respecting a closet case that rails against gays, then turns out to be one; no matter what his stance on guns is.
Post by: RocketMan on August 27, 2007, 10:46:47 PM
Frank was shown claimed to be unaware of what was going on in his house while he was away.
Fixed it for you.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 28, 2007, 02:41:12 AM
In terms of this particular man with apparent gay interests having a viciously anti-gay record (in line with the rest of his party)?
Now that I'm done laughing, I wonder if you could explain what constitutes a "viciously anti-gay record." I mean, not just "anti-gay" but viciously "anti-gay."
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 28, 2007, 02:43:23 AM
Quote
Now that I'm done laughing, I wonder if you could explain what constitutes a "viciously anti-gay record." I mean, not just "anti-gay" but viciously "anti-gay."
Maybe he uses anti-gay pit bulls.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 28, 2007, 03:38:19 AM
Now he's caught likely doing the gay cruising thing in public restrooms. Of course, it's "all a misunderstanding". Riiiiight.
Just...Ew. I don't care what party someone is, that's just...EW.
Post by: Antibubba on August 28, 2007, 07:45:28 AM
Quote
"At the time of this incident, I complained to the police that they were misconstruing my actions," he said. "I should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this matter. In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously."
Uh huh. Sure.
Quote
I have a hard time respecting a closet case that rails against gays, then turns out to be one; no matter what his stance on guns is.
Nitrogen nails it.
Post by: roo_ster on August 28, 2007, 08:24:08 AM
Quote
Now that I'm done laughing, I wonder if you could explain what constitutes a "viciously anti-gay record." I mean, not just "anti-gay" but viciously "anti-gay."
Maybe he uses anti-gay pit bulls.
The sick puppy (Sen Craig, not his anti-gay pitbulls) has got to go. Sex in public places, especially dog-nasty public restrooms, is unacceptable behavior.
I am not overly concerned about the dichotomy of his voting record and his penchant for unseemly behavior with other men. Lots of folks do what they know is wrong. At least he is not so calloused as to think it right and advocate for it.
Post by: MechAg94 on August 28, 2007, 09:33:21 AM
Was he anti-gay or just anti-gay-marriage?
Post by: Pew pew pew on August 28, 2007, 09:37:49 AM
LMAO.
The sick puppy (Sen Craig, not his anti-gay pitbulls) has got to go. Sex in public places, especially dog-nasty public restrooms, is unacceptable behavior.
I am not overly concerned about the dichotomy of his voting record and his penchant for unseemly behavior with other men. Lots of folks do what they know is wrong. At least he is not so calloused as to think it right and advocate for it.
The sick puppy (Sen Craig, not his anti-gay pitbulls) has got to go. Sex in public places, especially dog-nasty public restrooms, is unacceptable behavior.
I am not overly concerned about the dichotomy of his voting record and his penchant for unseemly behavior with other men. Lots of folks do what they know is wrong. At least he is not so calloused as to think it right and advocate for it.
So you're not at all concerned about hypocrisy in your politicians?
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 28, 2007, 09:44:30 AM
Quote
So you're not at all concerned about hypocrisy in your politicians?
I thought that was requirement #1 to be a politician.
Post by: roo_ster on August 28, 2007, 09:53:36 AM
LMAO.
The sick puppy (Sen Craig, not his anti-gay pitbulls) has got to go. Sex in public places, especially dog-nasty public restrooms, is unacceptable behavior.
I am not overly concerned about the dichotomy of his voting record and his penchant for unseemly behavior with other men. Lots of folks do what they know is wrong. At least he is not so calloused as to think it right and advocate for it.
The sick puppy (Sen Craig, not his anti-gay pitbulls) has got to go. Sex in public places, especially dog-nasty public restrooms, is unacceptable behavior.
I am not overly concerned about the dichotomy of his voting record and his penchant for unseemly behavior with other men. Lots of folks do what they know is wrong. At least he is not so calloused as to think it right and advocate for it.
So you're not at all concerned about hypocrisy in your politicians?
It is not a positive attribute, IMO, but better than having the likes of Craig advocating for what is wrong. The preferable situation is for congresscritters to both act and advocate for what is right.
I once read somewhere, "Hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue." I think that refers to folks who are gone far enough to do what is wrong, but know it as wrong and have the shame to try to keep it under wraps. A worse situation is someone who does what is wrong but does not understand it to be so and advocates for what is wrong.
I am still waiting for the example of "viciously anti-gay record" and how it differs from a "non-viciously anti-gay record."
wmenorr67 gets in the best cynical quip of the day.
Post by: MechAg94 on August 28, 2007, 09:58:26 AM
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 28, 2007, 10:01:27 AM
I have to disagree with you about what is worse. I say it is worse to know something is wrong and continue to support that wrong doing. If someone does something that they don't know is wrong there is a chance for them to change once the wrong is pointed out.
Post by: roo_ster on August 28, 2007, 10:18:15 AM
I think we are starting with different assumptions. I believe it is your contention that the person simply does not know what is wrong due to ignorance. Correct?
My assumption is that the person is not ignorant, has been made aware of it, and yet continues to advocate for what is wrong.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 28, 2007, 10:18:43 AM
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 28, 2007, 10:27:37 AM
I agree with you 100% in your latest statement.
Manedwolf,
I have heard that statement before and can't disagree with it.
Post by: MechAg94 on August 28, 2007, 12:29:39 PM
Mention Clinton's name and I hear that excuse all the time.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 28, 2007, 12:39:28 PM
Was he anti-gay or just anti-gay-marriage?
There is no difference.
Post by: Paddy on August 28, 2007, 02:49:29 PM
Quote
Sen. Craig will be forced to resign.
Really? He skated the first time. Deja vu all over again:
On June 11, 2007, Senator Craig was arrested at the Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport on suspicion of lewd conduct. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct on August 8, 2007, in a Hennepin County, Minnesota court.[22] He paid $575 including fines and fees and was given one year of unsupervised probation. A 10-day jail sentence was stayed.[23][24] According to Roll Call, the arresting officer sat in a bathroom stall as part of an undercover operation investigating previous reports of sexual activity in the bathroom. After about 13 minutes of sitting in the stall, he observed Craig linger outside and frequently peek through the stall's door crack at him. Craig then entered the stall next to his. The officer filed the following in his report of the incident as to what happened next:
At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot.... The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area. Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times.[25]
Craig stated "that he has a wide stance when going to the bathroom and that his foot may have touched mine," the arrest report states. Craig also told the arresting officer that he reached down with his right hand to pick up a piece of paper that was on the floor. "It should be noted that there was not a piece of paper on the bathroom floor, nor did Craig pick up a piece of paper," the arresting officer said in the report.
According to the police report, at one point Craig handed the plainclothes sergeant who arrested him a business card that identified him as a U.S. Senator and said, "What do you think about that?"[26]
In a press release on his website, Craig said that the officer misconstrued his actions, that he was not involved in any inappropriate conduct, and had failed to seek legal counsel: "In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously."[27]
As a result of this arrest, the Senator has removed himself from his role in Mitt Romney's presidential campaign.[24]
The full arrest report can be read here.
In a press release on his website, Craig said that the officer misconstrued his actions, that he was not involved in any inappropriate conduct, and had failed to seek legal counsel: "In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously."[28]
As a result of this arrest, the Senator has removed himself from his role in Mitt Romney's presidential campaign.[24] In an interview, Romney said of Craig, "Hes disappointed the American people."[29]
In an August 28, 2007, Wall Street Journal, James Taranto, recently noted in an opinion piece that the recent "outing" of Sen. Craig and calls of his hypocrisy by all sides appear to be fueling more anti-gay hyesteria than understading his predicament, with Mitt Romney, calling Craig's actions "disgusting.". As Taranto noted "To single out those who are for special vituperation is itself a form of antigay prejudice. Liberals pride themselves on their compassion, but often are unwilling to extend it to those with whose politics they disagree." And so, whatever Mr. Craigs political policies are, Taranto appears to be saying that the only ones getting hurt are gay people. Likewise, he notes "But there is nothing hypocritical about someone who is homosexual, believes homosexuality is wrong, and keeps his homosexuality under wraps. To the contrary, he is acting consistent with his beliefs. If he has furtive encounters in men's rooms, that is an act of weakness, not hypocrisy."[30]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig
Post by: Tallpine on August 28, 2007, 03:24:46 PM
Quote
the arresting officer sat in a bathroom stall as part of an undercover operation investigating previous reports of sexual activity in the bathroom
Geeze, I wonder how badly you have to screw up to get that assignment
Post by: Manedwolf on August 28, 2007, 03:38:21 PM
Quote
the arresting officer sat in a bathroom stall as part of an undercover operation investigating previous reports of sexual activity in the bathroom
Geeze, I wonder how badly you have to screw up to get that assignment
Maybe they were just confused? They'd been assigned to vice on prostitution, and were told to "look for johns"?
Post by: K Frame on August 28, 2007, 05:17:38 PM
In terms of this particular man with apparent gay interests having a viciously anti-gay record (in line with the rest of his party)?
Now that I'm done laughing, I wonder if you could explain what constitutes a "viciously anti-gay record." I mean, not just "anti-gay" but viciously "anti-gay."
My question exactly. Perhaps not climbing the outside of the Capitol dome and unfurling a "I Support Gay Marriage" banner is evidence of his being viciously anti-gay...
Oh, I know.
He's actually come out (no pun intended) and said that marriage should be between a man and woman.
Hell, that makes him worse that Hitler and Stalin combined.
Post by: Nitrogen on August 28, 2007, 06:05:08 PM
Hey, this is his personal life. His personal life shouldn't matter. How dare you judge him!!
I mostly agree with you. If he wanted to be a gay man, thats his business. If he wants to be against gay issues, thats also his (and his constituents) issues.
It was his personal life until he got arrested for it.
Having calmed down and really thought about this; I think it's pretty sad. I've known a few closeted gays, and they tend to act like this because they don't feel free to be who they are. Sex is a pretty basic human desire, and if your desires go against what you think is proper, you'll go about doing things that let you satisfy that desire in ways that don't get you "found out."
The sad thing is, that this man felt so conflicted that he had to go through this crazy, rotten process to, well, you know.
Post by: wooderson on August 28, 2007, 06:17:12 PM
Not that I expect better from the party of the Southern Strategy, mind you.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 28, 2007, 06:22:09 PM
Got it.
Post by: wooderson on August 28, 2007, 07:02:16 PM
But the functioning party itself? Absolutely.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 28, 2007, 07:10:56 PM
Quote
I've known a few closeted gays, and they tend to act like this because they don't feel free to be who they are. Sex is a pretty basic human desire, and if your desires go against what you think is proper, you'll go about doing things that let you satisfy that desire in ways that don't get you "found out."
Of course, if he had just did it with other guys, all would have been fine.
Oh, and "gays" is not a word. Try "homosexuals." Quote
What's 'viciously anti-gay'? Abandoning (alleged) conservative principles and hacking for a Constitutional amendment on gay marriage and consistently attacking the entire concept of marriage and civil unions. Do you honestly think that an entire party turning 'gay rights' into an issue in the run-up to 2004 was anything other than attempt to scapegoat homosexuals as a wedge issue?
So we had you nailed pretty good. Sorry, that word is a bit too suggestive in this thread, huh?
It is entirely disingenuous to blame conservatives for "turning 'gay rights' into an issue." We were not the ones trying to expand marriage laws to include homosexual relationships. In that fight, we are merely trying to keep govt. from expanding. Homosexuals simply can't make a case that they need govt. oversight of their bedroom activities. Isn't that what they're always opposing, anyway? "Keep govt. out of the bedroom," and such?
Look, I understand why some benighted souls believe that it's "anti-gay" to oppose legal recognition of homosexual "marriage." Never mind that many homosexuals don't support it, either. Never mind that "homosexual marriage" makes as much sense as a two-sided triangle. If you want to look for two-sided triangles, feel free. I just don't want you getting any govt. grants for it.
But to characterize opposition to homosexual marriage as "vicious" is just silly. In any case, one must wonder how people can bear the irony of abandoning any sexual morals, then demanding that others practice their fictional version of fairness or tolerance.
Post by: K Frame on August 28, 2007, 07:39:20 PM
That's funny, I remember gays making gay rights an issue in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, before it became a central plan in the Republican platform. Don't ask don't tell in the US Military? Which party make that a core "value"?
And you know, it's always amused me quite a bit how a Christian who is against gay marriage is a homophobe and a bigot, but a gay who savages someone based on their religious beliefs isn't a bigot, but is in fact a beacon of enlightenment.
Nah, that's not a double standard.
Post by: wooderson on August 28, 2007, 07:44:08 PM
Quote
It is entirely disingenuous to blame conservatives for "turning 'gay rights' into an issue."
No, it's not. Conservatives were behind DOMA. Were behind the various amendment proposals. Were behind the state to state campaigns organized to drum up the base for 2004.Your argument is akin to giving the Dixiecrats a pass on the politicization of race, because civil rights workers 'made it into an issue.'
Quote
Homosexuals simply can't make a case that they need govt. oversight of their bedroom activities.
You're in a car wreck and a determination needs to be made about your medical care - your wife gets to make the call.How does that work for a lesbian couple?
Quote
In that fight, we are merely trying to keep govt. from expanding.
DOMA and a Constitutional amendment usurping state powers keeps govt. from expanding? Pardon my gut-laugh.There is no expansion of government power in terms of 'legalizing' gay marriage - the state already has procedures in place for marriage. They require no alterations.
Quote
But to characterize opposition to homosexual marriage as "vicious" is just silly.
I didn't say opposition was - try again.What I said was that such obvious scapegoating - the millenial equivalent of Jesse Helms' "white hands" campaign - and the abrogation of cherished 'conservative' principles was vicious.
Post by: wooderson on August 28, 2007, 07:45:56 PM
Quote
I remember gays making gay rights an issue in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, before it became a central plan in the Republican platform.
"I remember black Americans making voting rights/education/miscegenation an issue in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s before it became a central plank among the Dixiecrats."Quote
And you know, it's always amused me quite a bit how a Christian who is against gay marriage is a homophobe and a bigot, but a gay who savages someone based on their religious beliefs isn't a bigot, but is in fact a beacon of enlightenment.
That's a mighty fine strawman there.
Post by: wooderson on August 28, 2007, 07:51:33 PM
But I know, 'wingers are just 'trying to protect their way of life, right? Never mind that nothing about striking down sodomy laws (another one vociferously opposed by the GOP at large) or legalizing gay marriage or simply staying the hell out of anyone's business poses a threat to their religion or beliefs. Nobody's making the Pentecostal preacher down the road marry Fred and Ted - just like they aren't making him marry a pair of Catholics today. Nobody's making anyone be less of a bigot - only that the state no longer discriminate.
Post by: K Frame on August 28, 2007, 08:05:44 PM
Wow! That's a shock!
That's almost as shocking as the fact that GAYS and LIBERALS have been agitating the issue for FAR longer than there has been an organized Republican response, and have been demanding legislation favorable to their pet beliefs for FAR longer than there has been an organized conservative opposition. But that's immaterial, right?
Who the hell do you think would have been behind it? The Chinese Communists?
And do you think there ever would have been a DOMA push-back from those who believe that homosexuality is aberrant and sin had it not been for the vocal proponents of such measures?
In essence, what you're bitching about is the simple fact that those with a different belief set said "Nope, that's not going to stand, I don't believe it in for (insert rational here) so I'm going to oppose it politically."
That's not bigotry, that's not viciousness, that's people organizing and standing up for what they believe in.
That's the way the political process in this country works.
It's pretty damned telling that the ONLY combined counter response that the gay community is capable of mustering is the attempt to paint opponents of their pet projects as narrow-minded bigots.
And that's simply pathetic.
Post by: Antibubba on August 28, 2007, 08:07:16 PM
Quote
It is not a positive attribute, IMO, but better than having the likes of Craig advocating for what is wrong. The preferable situation is for congresscritters to both act and advocate for what is right.
Nobody said he has to advocate for gay rights. But to denounce something out of one side of your mouth and engage in it with the other (and in this case, that is not merely metaphor)--well, whatever comes down on him is richly deserved. He could have spoken strongly on any number of conservative issues, and simply let this one pass.
Then again, it's usually the ones against it most strongly--whatever "it" is--who are most vociferously against it, as if publicly condemning it will somehow exorcize them of their desires.
And, PLEASE, can we not let this thread degenerate into a "gay vs homo" thread? This is about hypocrisy, not about a particular behavior.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 28, 2007, 08:13:14 PM
Quote
It is entirely disingenuous to blame conservatives for "turning 'gay rights' into an issue."
No, it's not. Conservatives were behind DOMA. Were behind the various amendment proposals. Were behind the state to state campaigns organized to drum up the base for 2004.Your argument is akin to giving the Dixiecrats a pass on the politicization of race, because civil rights workers 'made it into an issue.'
The civil rights workers did make it into an issue. That doesn't make them wrong or right, it just means that they were the ones pushing the issue into the spotlight. That is exactly what homosexuals have done, and explicitly based on the same model. The same cannot be said for conservatives. All those vicious things that you listed? Those were responses to a vocal minority, pushing for change. No matter what side of the issue you're on, you have to acknowledge the fact that the pro-homosexual movement started the discussion.
Quote
Quote
Homosexuals simply can't make a case that they need govt. oversight of their bedroom activities.
You're in a car wreck and a determination needs to be made about your medical care - your wife gets to make the call.How does that work for a lesbian couple?
Quote
Quote
In that fight, we are merely trying to keep govt. from expanding.
DOMA and a Constitutional amendment usurping state powers keeps govt. from expanding? Pardon my gut-laugh. There is no expansion of government power in terms of 'legalizing' gay marriage - the state already has procedures in place for marriage. They require no alterations.Actually, I'm not sure I agree with DOMA or any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But regardless, putting govt. in the business of licensing Steve and Lester to sleep together is a growth of govt. Not to mention that govt. will be involved again when they divorce.
Quote
Quote
But to characterize opposition to homosexual marriage as "vicious" is just silly.
I didn't say opposition was - try again. What I said was that such obvious scapegoating - the millenial equivalent of Jesse Helms' "white hands" campaign - and the abrogation of cherished 'conservative' principles was vicious.
Post by: K Frame on August 28, 2007, 08:13:28 PM
Yep, here we go. I wondered when this would come up...
The OTHER favorite plank of some in this particular movement.
Gays are the new black men!
HOMO! GO SIT IN THE BACK OF THE BUS! AND DON'T YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT DRINKING FROM THAT FOUNTAIN OR USING THAT WASHROOM! THOSE FACILITIES ARE FOR STRAIGHT PEOPLE ONLY!
Get off it.
It's a comparison that doesn't fly. What I don't understand is why the black community, a community that suffered TRUE disenfranchisement, TRUE discrimination, and TRUE persecution, allows its collective memory and suffering to be co-opted in such a cynical and shallow manner.
You'll have to do one hell of a lot better than that.
Post by: Paddy on August 28, 2007, 08:14:57 PM
Quote
You're in a car wreck and a determination needs to be made about your medical care - your wife gets to make the call.
How does that work for a lesbian couple?
How does that work for a lesbian couple?
That's another specious argument. The answer to your question is simple. Every state has a provision for appointing an 'Agent for Healthcare'. Fill out a form, sign it, and have it notarized. Name anyone you want as your agent, legal POA. And everyone, including heterosexual married couples, should have an Advance Healthcare Directive.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 28, 2007, 08:19:36 PM
On the off-chance the Dixiecrat comparison wasn't clear: it's never a question of who raises the issue - obviously the party feeling aggrieved attempts to make themselves heard. It's who, in reaction, tries to use the issue as a political weapon to divide people and bolster their ranks.
Oooh, we're dividing people. What does that even mean? As for bolstering the ranks, well, you caught us. The Democrats had taken the unpopular side of a controversy, and we shamefully benefited from it. I feel so dirty.
Post by: Paddy on August 28, 2007, 08:21:40 PM
Quote
This is about hypocrisy, not about a particular behavior.
Thank you. Because homosexuality is indeed a behavior. It isn't a state, or a condition, like being black or blind, or deaf or otherwise handicapped.
It's a behavior. It's something you do, not what you are.
Post by: K Frame on August 28, 2007, 08:23:01 PM
I keep meaning to do that, but I'm terrified that if I name Mtnbkr as my AHD individual, he'll finally let Abby tee off on me to get my guns and money...
Post by: K Frame on August 28, 2007, 08:25:00 PM
Oh God... You've gone and done it now...
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 28, 2007, 08:26:23 PM
Quote
You're in a car wreck and a determination needs to be made about your medical care - your wife gets to make the call.
How does that work for a lesbian couple?
How does that work for a lesbian couple?
That's another specious argument. The answer to your question is simple. Every state has a provision for appointing an 'Agent for Healthcare'. Fill out a form, sign it, and have it notarized. Name anyone you want as your agent, legal POA. And everyone, including heterosexual married couples, should have an Advance Healthcare Directive.
True. And if homosexuals and their political allies really cared about those issues, they would have gone about it in an inclusive way, seeking to change laws for everyone. They would never have screwed up the whole crusade by tying it to "gay" sex. But this push isn't about marriage or love or family, etc. It's about using the political process to change moral views and behaviors.
Post by: Pew pew pew on August 28, 2007, 09:28:41 PM
Post by: Strings on August 28, 2007, 09:51:30 PM
Honestly, for all that I agree with the concept of letting two or more consenting adults do whatever they wish together, this statement by fistful makes absolute sense.
I just agreed with fistful. Yes, Armegedon is here...
Post by: Euclidean on August 28, 2007, 10:05:32 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on August 28, 2007, 11:37:23 PM
Hey, let me take this time to apologize to you all for us homosexual's pet beliefs being such a huge burden on you all. I mean, I know it's pretty hard to imagine some people wanting to get married to the person they are in love with, or serve in the military without hiding any romantic relationship they have, or adopt children. Sorry about that. We'll work on not wanting to do that anymore so we don't have to inconvenience you with our pet legislative projects.
Actually you could apologize for the demonizing of people who disagree as bigots and homophobes. Then you could apologize to the Civil Rights Movement for co-opting their moral achievements. Then you could apologize for making most of America spend time debating an issue that is of importance to about 5% of the population.
And AIDS.
And Rue Paul.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 28, 2007, 11:44:06 PM
As for the names, yes. Homophobe seriously annoys me.
I shut someone up on that quite abrubtly, once. I simply said "Phobe nothing. I'm not afraid of you. I just don't like you."
Do what you like in the privacy of your bedroom. I don't care, it doesn't affect me. But if you try to bring to the street, to equate a sexual preference that ought be one's own business with a public state of being like one's race, then you're annoying me, and belittling the accomplishments of people who fought to not be judged by the color of their skin.
I'm sorry, but if you equate being black with the choice to prance about with a lisp (which is completely learned behavior), delight in telling everyone you're "gay", publically read "gay fiction" in a deliberate attempt to signpost, wear homosexuality-proclaiming clothing and then ask not to be judged...it's not going to happen. You just look like a clown. It's not a freaking religion. Quit acting like you're somehow superior because you've "embraced" some sort of made-up "lifestyle".
That's what really gets to me, the sorts who have made it into a cult, complete with cult symbols (triangles, rainbow flags), push an agenda of exposing more people to that cult in popular entertainment, evangelize about that cult, and then proclaim themselves to be the victims the moment someone objects.
I'm sure I know some homosexual people, but I'd never know it, because they don't make their bedroom preferences part of their professional life. And that's as it should be.
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 29, 2007, 01:50:26 AM
"And everyone, including heterosexual married couples, should have an Advance Healthcare Directive."
I keep meaning to do that, but I'm terrified that if I name Mtnbkr as my AHD individual, he'll finally let Abby tee off on me to get my guns and money...
I keep meaning to do that, but I'm terrified that if I name Mtnbkr as my AHD individual, he'll finally let Abby tee off on me to get my guns and money...
Hell Mike, to hear you and Mtnbkr tell it, as soon as she finds out what a will is and that she is in it that will happen anyway.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 29, 2007, 02:17:59 AM
I apologize to you for believing that homosexual marriage is a fantasy in which govt. should not be involved. I apologize for saying that public schools should not undertake to teach children that some people are happy being homosexuals. I apologize for putting military efficiency ahead of the romantic entanglements of a few soldiers. I also apologize for my hateful belief that children should not be placed with adoptive parents who flaunt their sexual perversions.
Post by: wooderson on August 29, 2007, 07:23:47 AM
Wow! That's a shock!
You seem to have missed the assertion that 'wingers weren't, in fact, behind politicization of gay rights.
Quote
Gays are the new black men!
Or gays are the new women.Or gays are the new Chinese immigrants.
Or...
The fact is, denying the opportunity to marry is discrimination - no more or less than laws denying individuals the right to marry between races. (After all, to follow the standard argument about gay marriage: individuals were always free to marry within their race.)
That it's bigotry you find acceptable is irrelevant - it remains bigotry.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 29, 2007, 07:28:55 AM
The fact is, denying the opportunity to marry is discrimination - no more or less than laws denying individuals the right to marry between races.
No, actually, it's redefining the Western definition of marriage entirely.
Post by: wooderson on August 29, 2007, 07:31:49 AM
All those vicious things that you listed? Those were responses to a vocal minority, pushing for change. No matter what side of the issue you're on, you have to acknowledge the fact that the pro-homosexual movement started the discussion.
Again: It's not who raised the issue - as I've stated, an aggrieved party always speaks first.It's about who uses the issue as a stick to beat others with.
Civil rights workers 'raised the issue.'
Dixiecrats used race to prolong their reign and to continue discriminating against black Americans.
Quote
How does that work for two good friends who live together, but don't have sex? Or for two old widowers who have been taking care of each other since their wives passed away? If this issue needs to be addressed, do it in a way that treats everyone equally, not in a way that grants special privileges based on odd sexual practices.
Standard red herrings.Fact is, the state offers various benefits, privileges and protections to couples who've entered into a binding legal contract - that crazy little thing we call marriage.
Homosexuals are denied these benefits, privileges and protections - this is discrimination, plain and simple.
If all of these people above would like to enter into same binding legal contracts, regardless of their desire to bang, then they would receive the benefits, privileges and protections.
If they don't - as numerous straight couples do not, currently - then they would not receive them.
All very simple, actually.
Quote
Actually, I'm not sure I agree with DOMA or any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But regardless, putting govt. in the business of licensing Steve and Lester to sleep together is a growth of govt. Not to mention that govt. will be involved again when they divorce.
Government is already "in the business" of licensing Steve and Jane. Changing Jane to Lester changes absolutely nothing.
Post by: wooderson on August 29, 2007, 07:33:32 AM
Quote
Because homosexuality is indeed a behavior. It isn't a state, or a condition, like being black or blind, or deaf or otherwise handicapped.
It's a behavior. It's something you do, not what you are.
It's a behavior. It's something you do, not what you are.
Would the state be legally justified in prohibiting marriage between Christians?
Religion is not a physical quality.
It doesn't impinge their freedom of religion - worship all they want, they just can't marry, right?
Post by: Manedwolf on August 29, 2007, 07:36:18 AM
Quote
Fact is, the state offers various benefits, privileges and protections to couples who've entered into a binding legal contract - that crazy little thing we call marriage.
Homosexuals are denied these benefits, privileges and protections - this is discrimination, plain and simple.
Homosexuals are denied these benefits, privileges and protections - this is discrimination, plain and simple.
Then why don't the homosexual groups ever push for straight couples to be able to have the same benefits without marriage? When they cohabit? Their silence there is deafening. Selfishly so.
Also, this most certainly leads to the slippery slope. If that, why not polygamy? Group marriages? And so on and so on and so on.
There's also the fact that the agenda groups have used backhanded political methods to achieve their goals, which will result in a backlash. In NH, where the population overwhelmingly was against "civil unions", the homosexual agenda groups and Dem lawmakers managed to pass it anyway, without it being put to the voters! This has made everyone very angry. The Dems will be thrown out on their collective asses in the next election cycle, you can bet that, but the damage will take a while to undo.
Post by: wooderson on August 29, 2007, 07:37:30 AM
Quote
No, actually, it's redefining the Western definition of marriage entirely.
Howso? It's redefining the definition of marriage for this particular Western state.It is not, again, forcing anyone to accept 'gay marriage' - or go out and have one themselves.
It is not, again, forcing any church with religious objections to perform ceremonies.
Do all of you really believe that the state should be in the business of regulating morality when the actions involved do not infringe on the rights of another individual?
Post by: Manedwolf on August 29, 2007, 07:38:56 AM
Quote
No, actually, it's redefining the Western definition of marriage entirely.
Howso? It's redefining the definition of marriage for this particular Western state.It is not, again, forcing anyone to accept 'gay marriage' - or go out and have one themselves.
If I'm a small business owner and am forced to insure someone's newly defined "spouse", it sure is.
Post by: wooderson on August 29, 2007, 07:40:41 AM
Quote
Then why don't the homosexual groups ever push for straight couples to be able to have the same benefits without marriage? When they cohabit? Their silence there is deafening. Selfishly so.
The benefits and privileges are a function of entering a contract that homosexuals are not allowed to enter. Straight couples are allowed.Insofar as 'homosexual groups' are 'pushing' for marriage - why would they campaign for unmarried straight couples?
Quote
Also, this most certainly leads to the slippery slope. If that, why not polygamy? Group marriages? And so on and so on and so on.
If you remove religion and emotion from the equation, polygamy and group marriages between consenting adults are fairly easy to deal with legally. Everyone signs the contract, and anyone can leave at any time by breaking the contract. You know, just like divorce today.Division of assets might be a pain in the ass, but they get to hire their own lawyers to deal with that.
Post by: wooderson on August 29, 2007, 07:41:24 AM
Quote
If I'm a small business owner and am forced to insure someone's newly defined "spouse", it sure is.
You're not required to insure anyone's "spouse," gay or straight.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 29, 2007, 07:42:29 AM
Quote
Then why don't the homosexual groups ever push for straight couples to be able to have the same benefits without marriage? When they cohabit? Their silence there is deafening. Selfishly so.
The benefits and privileges are a function of entering a contract that homosexuals are not allowed to enter. Straight couples are allowed.Insofar as 'homosexual groups' are 'pushing' for marriage - why would they campaign for unmarried straight couples?
Quote
Also, this most certainly leads to the slippery slope. If that, why not polygamy? Group marriages? And so on and so on and so on.
If you remove religion and emotion from the equation, polygamy and group marriages between consenting adults are fairly easy to deal with legally. Everyone signs the contract, and anyone can leave at any time by breaking the contract. You know, just like divorce today.Division of assets might be a pain in the ass, but they get to hire their own lawyers to deal with that.
Ah, here we see the admission, polygamy and group marriages are "okay". No, they're not.
Basically, you've taken your sexual proclivities and made them into a political movement and cult religion. And a lot of people are fed up with that.
Post by: wooderson on August 29, 2007, 07:45:03 AM
Quote
Ah, here we see the admission, polygamy and group marriages are "okay". No, they're not.
Why not? How far should the tendrils of the state reach?Quote
Basically, you've taken your sexual proclivities and made them into a political movement and cult religion. And a lot of people are fed up with that.
My 'sexual proclivities' are actually that I'm a straight guy with no interest in polyandry, polygamy, bigamy or any other -y. In fact, I don't see any particular use for marriage at all.But if the state is going to offer privileges to those who wish to get married, those privileges must be extended as widely as possible.
Post by: One of Many on August 29, 2007, 09:52:10 AM
This is similar to the police issuing tickets for speeding, driving erratically, making illegal turns, etc. One man's word VS another man's word, with no supporting evidence. If there had been video cameras and voice recorders that captured the alleged inappropriate conduct, then the charges would be legitimate (and there would be no plea bargain - plea bargains are where there is insufficient evidence to assure a conviction based on evidence, and people want to avoid the inconvenience of appearing in court for an unspecified period of time, and the associated expenses for lawyers fees).
I had someone contact the police claiming I forced them off the road, and ended up in court. Their vehicle had damage that might have been a result of contact with another vehicle, or might have been from backing into a pole; my vehicle had no damage corresponding to the alleged contact with the other vehicle. My lawyer said that the best thing was to accept a plea to a lessor driving offense and pay a small fine; the alternative was to spend a lengthy period of time in a court battle, with very high expenses, and no assurance that I would be found innocent of the alleged offense. My insurance company decided it was cheaper to pay the damage claim for the other vehicle, than to support me in defending against the bogus claim. What did I do? I decided to accept the advice of my lawyer and plea down, even though it still rankles me that scum like the guy that filed that charge can get away with that stuff. It sure leaves a bitter taste in the mouth, that never goes away, when the legal system is used as an assault weapon to take advantage of you, by a stranger for his personal gain. Theft by court action, instead of robbery with a gun.
Why did my lawyer offer the advice that he did? The person that filed the complaint against me had friends or relatives that were in powerful positions in the political and legal community. I had just moved into the state (in fact my vehicle had out of state plates when the complaint was filed - the guy thought I was passing through, and was an easy target for his scam).
I see striking similarities between my own case of being victimized by unscrupulous persons abusing the legal system, and what is reported about Senator Craig. I am not passing judgment on the basis of what has been reported. The charges as reported may not be true, and unless it goes to court, the truth may never be known. The one thing that is sure, is that the system is weighted against the person being charged, and the Senator is being tried in the court of public opinion, without hard evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the Senator. Just because a cop says so, does not make it so. Show me the evidence.
Post by: Pew pew pew on August 29, 2007, 09:54:06 AM
Actually you could apologize for the demonizing of people who disagree as bigots and homophobes. Then you could apologize to the Civil Rights Movement for co-opting their moral achievements. Then you could apologize for making most of America spend time debating an issue that is of importance to about 5% of the population.
And AIDS.
And Rue Paul.
And AIDS.
And Rue Paul.
Sure, it must be so hard for ya'all. I mean, after you get called a homophobe, it must really damage you. And I also apologize to the civil rights movement for co-opting their achievements. I know that religion is a choice is protected by laws in our society, and even though most gay people are silly enough to believe they were somehow born that way (the nerve of those bastards!) we really should listen to what other people are saying who aren't gay. Sorry!
I'm also sorry for taking up America's precious time. So sorry! There's not a whole bunch of us, so who cares, right? I don't know what I was thinking. Maybe I'll go try and convert some more of your sons and daughters in order to make us a majority, that way our lives and how we live them can be important for America.
Rue Paul is on your hands.
Quote
I'm sorry, but if you equate being black with the choice to prance about with a lisp (which is completely learned behavior), delight in telling everyone you're "gay", publically read "gay fiction" in a deliberate attempt to signpost, wear homosexuality-proclaiming clothing and then ask not to be judged...it's not going to happen. You just look like a clown. It's not a freaking religion. Quit acting like you're somehow superior because you've "embraced" some sort of made-up "lifestyle".
I'm no prancing nancy-boy. Hell, I'm not interested in marriage or adoption. (The military is another story.) I have gay friends who would make great parents. I have gay friends who would like to get married. They are good people. I cannot fathom why they aren't allowed to.
You know those asshats you see on TV? Yeah, they're the ones that make us look bad. Just like everyone I talk to envisions beer-swigging hillbilly slobs as the only gun-nuts. But even then, a lot of those people are good people, too. I just don't agree with the way they approach politics and activism because I do believe it alienates people. Don't think I don't get at least that much.
Quote from: fistful
I apologize to you for believing that homosexual marriage is a fantasy in which govt. should not be involved. I apologize for saying that public schools should not undertake to teach children that some people are happy being homosexuals. I apologize for putting military efficiency ahead of the romantic entanglements of a few soldiers. I also apologize for my hateful belief that children should not be placed with adoptive parents who flaunt their sexual perversions.
The government stands to make money off the marriage deal and it does not effect you. YARGH. I'll agree with you to the school thing to a point, even if I do like playing devil's advocate with it. The military? Military efficiency? Did you serve in the same military I did?
Children not placed with people who flaunt their sexual perversions
Give me a break. What if they don't practice the right religion? What if they don't believe in gun rights? Are you going to allow children to be placed with them?Look, I don't look at married people and think to myself, "GEE! He likes to F*** people in the P****! GROSS!" I don't even squeam when a guy and a girl kiss in front of me. Believe it or not, it's about a lot more then sex.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 29, 2007, 10:17:19 AM
But if the state is going to offer privileges to those who wish to get married, those privileges must be extended as widely as possible.
States have traditionally recognized marriage as a privileged state and built laws of inheritance and taxation around it. And it's true that the single greatest predictor for criminal behavior comes from growing up in a single-parent household. So the traditional two-parent family does have value to society as a whole. Almost all problems in society have post-dated the break-up of the traditional family.
But if gay couples want to have the same, or similar, rights they could push for some civil union situation, similar to a business partnership. But they don't. They want "gay marriage". So there is more on the agenda than mere equality.
Post by: Nitrogen on August 29, 2007, 10:36:01 AM
I'll go out on a limb here and use some strong language. Anyone that's against giving homosexuals these rights is just as bad as the racists before them. Your ignorance clouds your judgement.
Post by: wooderson on August 29, 2007, 10:47:19 AM
Quote
Why?
States have traditionally recognized marriage as a privileged state and built laws of inheritance and taxation around it. And it's true that the single greatest predictor for criminal behavior comes from growing up in a single-parent household. So the traditional two-parent family does have value to society as a whole.
Not sure what the latter has to do with gay marriage in the least.States have traditionally recognized marriage as a privileged state and built laws of inheritance and taxation around it. And it's true that the single greatest predictor for criminal behavior comes from growing up in a single-parent household. So the traditional two-parent family does have value to society as a whole.
As to tradition - times change.
Quote
Almost all problems in society have post-dated the break-up of the traditional family.
This is absurd. Since the 'break-up' of the 'traditional family' (which was never that traditional anyway), we've made enormous strides in education, gender equality, racial equality, basic decency, technology, on and on and on.The idea that there was some golden age when everyone had two parents and an idyllic childhood is a myth. There are benefits to having two parents, just as there are benefits to growing up upper-middle class: but to blame an entire 'social breakdown' on the family just doesn't hack it.
Even if we stipulated to this argument, we can't determine whether or not a "same sex two-parent" union would have the same benefits because same-sex couples have never had the same marriage and family abilities as 'traditional' couples.
Quote
But if gay couples want to have the same, or similar, rights they could push for some civil union situation, similar to a business partnership. But they don't. They want "gay marriage". So there is more on the agenda than mere equality.
A 'civil union' without the exact same privileges is not equivalent to marriage and thus discriminatory.A 'civil union' with the exact same privileges is, itself, 'marriage' - and thus it boils down to meaningless semantics and the people in opposition are doing so merely because they're offended by homosexuality.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 29, 2007, 10:52:08 AM
Quote
Why?
States have traditionally recognized marriage as a privileged state and built laws of inheritance and taxation around it. And it's true that the single greatest predictor for criminal behavior comes from growing up in a single-parent household. So the traditional two-parent family does have value to society as a whole.
Not sure what the latter has to do with gay marriage in the least.States have traditionally recognized marriage as a privileged state and built laws of inheritance and taxation around it. And it's true that the single greatest predictor for criminal behavior comes from growing up in a single-parent household. So the traditional two-parent family does have value to society as a whole.
As to tradition - times change.
That's a hardcore liberal viewpoint.
As to things "changing", EVERY society in history that became so permissive has collapsed.
Post by: wooderson on August 29, 2007, 10:55:29 AM
The US is awfully permissive in terms of guns - are we headed for a downfall?
We have a permissive attitude toward expression and protest enshrined in our founding documents - have we yet collapsed?
Or is it only permissiveness of teh gai secks?
Why does that seal a nation-state's fate?
God's wrath?
Post by: The Rabbi on August 29, 2007, 10:55:41 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on August 29, 2007, 10:58:31 AM
What's exactly WRONG with giving people of the same sex in any relationship the same rights that married people have?
Fixed it for you.I'll go out on a limb here and use some strong language. Anyone that's against giving homosexuals these rights is just as bad as the racists before them. Your ignorance clouds your judgement.
I'll go out on a limb here and say anyone who has to resort to calling people racists isn't going to get a good reception on this board, and is scraping the very bottom of the barrel in terms of argumentation.
Post by: wooderson on August 29, 2007, 11:00:59 AM
Quote
But obviously the semantics are important because I have yet to see the gay rights crowd push for anything but marriage.
Yes, they want to have the same status offered by the state as everyone else.He didn't call anyone a racist.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 29, 2007, 11:04:24 AM
Quote
But obviously the semantics are important because I have yet to see the gay rights crowd push for anything but marriage.
Yes, they want to have the same status offered by the state as everyone else.And they can. Any homosexual can marry any woman not related to him or already married and enjoy the exact same benefits as any straight man. That is equality.
Post by: roo_ster on August 29, 2007, 11:06:23 AM
Quote
Homosexuals simply can't make a case that they need govt. oversight of their bedroom activities.
You're in a car wreck and a determination needs to be made about your medical care - your wife gets to make the call.How does that work for a lesbian couple?
http://www.nolo.com/product.cfm/ObjectID/6E9ED903-C9B4-42E0-9C2E235DD87A0A8A/309/
Quote
Simply launch Quicken WillMaker Plus to create your own:
* Will
* Living Trusts, including an AB Trust
* Health Care Directive:
o Living Will
o Health Care Power of Attorney
* Financial Powers of Attorney
* Final arrangements document
* Important documents for executors
* Will
* Living Trusts, including an AB Trust
* Health Care Directive:
o Living Will
o Health Care Power of Attorney
* Financial Powers of Attorney
* Final arrangements document
* Important documents for executors
Mr. & Mrs. jfruser will the above buy for ~$50.00 when it is released in OCT2007. There have been versions of this for years.
Post by: Nitrogen on August 29, 2007, 11:06:47 AM
Arguing on the internet is like....
Post by: wooderson on August 29, 2007, 11:12:38 AM
Quote
And they can. Any homosexual can marry any woman not related to him or already married and enjoy the exact same benefits as any straight man. That is equality.
Answered.Quote
OK, I'll bite (yukyuk):
Also answered.Bo-ring.
Post by: roo_ster on August 29, 2007, 11:14:56 AM
Basically, the only real argument for denying homosexuals the right to marriage is "Because we don't like them."
Nice straw man. Perhaps you ought to enlighten yourself on the arguments against it & come back later.Arguing that gays in a comitted relationship should go through different procedures just because they are gay reeks of "Seperate but Equal"
If no men are allowed to marry other men, all are being treated equally. Same for the gals. ---------
As to my previous Willmaker post, it pretty much answers all the legal problems two unmarried folks (of whatever combination of the two sexes) might encounter. For $50.
Post by: BrokenPaw on August 29, 2007, 11:20:47 AM
But obviously the semantics are important because I have yet to see the gay rights crowd push for anything but marriage.
The semantics are important because the term "marriage" describes two different things, and the people arguing for gay marriage and the people arguing against gay marriage are arguing, respectively, for and against two different things.
Marriage (in a governmental sense) is a binding legal contract between free individuals granting them certain rights (next-of-kin status and so on). That it is referred to as "marriage" as opposed to "civil union" is what clouds the issue, because:
Marriage (in a religious sense) is a covenant before one's chosen Divinity, binding the spirits of two free individuals in a profound (and some would say inextricable) way.
Government should not (must not) address the religious/spiritual implications of a sacred covenant; to do so legitimizes some spiritual paths and dismisses others. Government should address only a legal contract between free individuals. By any name (marriage, civil union, partnership, corporation, what-have-you) it is solely a legal contract.
Churches should not (must not) address the legal implications of the matter. If a person wishes to be eternally joined with his stuffed rabbit, and he can find a religious order to perform the ceremony, then whether the government recognizes the union is of no consequence; only the spiritual joining is addressed in the spiritual ceremony.
Any free consenting adults should (must) be allowed to enter into the legal contract that we refer to as "marriage" (in the legal sense), by law, otherwise the government is acting in a discriminatory way. Whether the rule is that those of different races, or that those of different religions, or that those of different castes, or that homosexuals may not enter into a legally-binding union...these things are not in the government's purview.
On the other hand, churches of any sort must never be required to perform ceremonies uniting those who shall not be united according to church doctrine.
I have never received an adequate explanation as to why two consenting adults (of any race, religion, caste, sexuality, class, monetary status, or creed) choosing to bind themselves to one another legally will lead to the downfall of western society, but that's usually the outcome that is professed by those who wish to prevent it.
Quote
If no men are allowed to marry other men, all are being treated equally.
And if no one is allowed to marry outside of his or her own skin color, all are being treated equally.And if no one is allowed to marry outside of his or her own caste, all are being treated equally.
And if no one is allowed to marry outside of his or her own religion, all are being treated equally.
-BP
Post by: Manedwolf on August 29, 2007, 11:24:34 AM
Quote
Any free consenting adults should (must) be allowed to enter into the legal contract that we refer to as "marriage" (in the legal sense), by law, otherwise the government is acting in a discriminatory way.
Group marriages a la hippie free-love communes, with screwed-up children?
Brother and sister?
Uncle and niece?
Parent and child?
Can we say "ew" and "it'd happen" and "utter breakdown of society" in one breath? Because that's your slippery slope you're embarking on.
Quote
Brother and sister fight Germany's incest laws
German brother and sister are challenging the law against incest so that they can continue their relationship free from the threat of imprisonment. Patrick Stübing, an unemployed locksmith, and his sister Susan have had four children together since starting a sexual relationship in 2000. Three of the children are in foster care, and two have unspecified disabilities.
German brother and sister are challenging the law against incest so that they can continue their relationship free from the threat of imprisonment. Patrick Stübing, an unemployed locksmith, and his sister Susan have had four children together since starting a sexual relationship in 2000. Three of the children are in foster care, and two have unspecified disabilities.
Looking down that slippery slope, yet?
Post by: wooderson on August 29, 2007, 11:31:40 AM
It's not an argument that most people like to advance - because it's not politically viable and because for most people laissez-faire feelings only run so deep. But if we disregard that: what's wrong with incest and polygamy between consenting adults?
In the past (and as far as modern fundie Mormon polygamy), both were problematic because they generally featured a dominant male abusing a submissive female partner. But we have laws against that - akin to drunk driving. We're okay with you drinking, so long as you don't do anything stupid. Why can't we be okay with a three-way marriage, so long as no one is being abused and no one is a 13-year old girl being sold off by her parents?
So if a brother and sister wish to enter into a marriage contract, why do you give a damn? How does it harm anyone else. (And don't even try the genetic angle - there is essentially no risk involved with procreation between close relatives in a single generation.)
Post by: One of Many on August 29, 2007, 11:32:41 AM
My two cents worth. Marriage was set up in the Judeo-Christian religion, as the recognized (by civil authorities and religious authorities) union of a man and a woman, for the purpose of legitimizing the children produced by that couple. Legitimate children had (have) certain rights under religious/civil law, that those born into bastardy do not possess, such as inheritance of property and title (royalty). There has for centuries been a stigma associated with the lack of parents who have recognized marital status.
Some states have even gone as far as to allow by law the "common law marriages", that are a legal recognition of the intent of a man and a woman, to be recognized by society as married without a civil or religious ceremony being performed. The federal government even recognizes these "common law marriages" for tax purposes of filing status (married filing jointly). These "common law marriages" even require a formal civil divorce, in order to be dissolved under the law.
Since homosexuals can not create children by joining the sperm of one and the egg of the other partner, there is no question of the legitimacy of offspring, and the rights of children to inherit from birth parents. All other issues become a matter of legal recognition of contractual obligations between the government and partners in a joint venture. That joint venture is no different that a business relationship between two legal entities under the law. It is not a marriage when two people or businesses decide to form a partnership to achieve some shared goal that they derive benefit from, whether that benefit is financial, political, social, or otherwise.
If the homosexual community wants to have equal rights under the law, as married men and women, then work to achieve that status as any other business law would be placed into affect; just don't call that relationship between the government and the homosexual partners a marriage, because it has no common purpose with the institution of marriage.
Post by: Nitrogen on August 29, 2007, 11:33:03 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on August 29, 2007, 11:33:20 AM
Why is it any of your business if a brother and sister wish to marry, manedwolf?
It's not an argument that most people like to advance - because it's not politically viable and because for most people laissez-faire feelings only run so deep. But if we disregard that: what's wrong with incest and polygamy between consenting adults?
In the past (and as far as modern fundie Mormon polygamy), both were problematic because they generally featured a dominant male abusing a submissive female partner. But we have laws against that - akin to drunk driving. We're okay with you drinking, so long as you don't do anything stupid. Why can't we be okay with a three-way marriage, so long as no one is being abused and no one is a 13-year old girl being sold off by her parents?
So if a brother and sister wish to enter into a marriage contract, why do you give a damn? How does it harm anyone else. (And don't even try the genetic angle - there is essentially no risk involved with procreation between close relatives in a single generation.)
It's not an argument that most people like to advance - because it's not politically viable and because for most people laissez-faire feelings only run so deep. But if we disregard that: what's wrong with incest and polygamy between consenting adults?
In the past (and as far as modern fundie Mormon polygamy), both were problematic because they generally featured a dominant male abusing a submissive female partner. But we have laws against that - akin to drunk driving. We're okay with you drinking, so long as you don't do anything stupid. Why can't we be okay with a three-way marriage, so long as no one is being abused and no one is a 13-year old girl being sold off by her parents?
So if a brother and sister wish to enter into a marriage contract, why do you give a damn? How does it harm anyone else. (And don't even try the genetic angle - there is essentially no risk involved with procreation between close relatives in a single generation.)
And here we have the liberal philosophy laid bare. You can see what he's endorsing here.
I don't accept it at all.
Quote
But if we disregard that: what's wrong with incest and polygamy between consenting adults?
Because it's just FREAKING WRONG. PERIOD.
WRONG. Perhaps you, in your liberal hedonism, are fine with it. I'm not. It's not part of any society that can call itself better than "animal".
Post by: wooderson on August 29, 2007, 11:34:57 AM
Ah, OK, you went back and answered. Why is it WRONG WRONG WRONG? And why should your beliefs about right and wrong define the laws for other people?
Dogmatic solipsism is mighty boring.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 29, 2007, 11:35:07 AM
And if no one is allowed to marry outside of his or her own skin color, all are being treated equally.
And if no one is allowed to marry outside of his or her own caste, all are being treated equally.
And if no one is allowed to marry outside of his or her own religion, all are being treated equally.
OK. And the problem inherent with that is, what exactly? Why shouldn't society, through its government, dictate a societal norm? If people don't like those things they can change them.
Post by: wooderson on August 29, 2007, 11:37:49 AM
Quote
Marriage was set up in the Judeo-Christian religion, as the recognized
And in the Judeo-Christian religion, so shall it forever be (except for those sects that disagree, obviously).
But marriage, even as a legal concept in the Western World was hardly defined (much less created) by 'Judeo-Christians.'
Post by: Manedwolf on August 29, 2007, 11:39:29 AM
That's not an answer.
The "answer" is that your perceptions of what's perfectly alright are morally bankrupt, and would reduce human civilization to the level of bonobo chimps.
How's that?
Post by: wooderson on August 29, 2007, 11:42:22 AM
Post by: Strings on August 29, 2007, 11:42:40 AM
So long as those involved are all consenting adults, where's the problem? If Dick and Jane and Mary all want to marry each-other (in the legal sense), why shouldn't they be allowed to?
>OK. And the problem inherent with that is, what exactly? Why shouldn't society, through its government, dictate a societal norm? If people don't like those things they can change them.<
Rabbi: that's what gays are TRYING to do! And yet you (and others here) are demonizing them for it. Could y'all pick one stance, and stick to it?
Post by: Manedwolf on August 29, 2007, 11:44:01 AM
>Also, this most certainly leads to the slippery slope. If that, why not polygamy? Group marriages? And so on and so on and so on.<
So long as those involved are all consenting adults, where's the problem? If Dick and Jane and Mary all want to marry each-other (in the legal sense), why shouldn't they be allowed to?
So long as those involved are all consenting adults, where's the problem? If Dick and Jane and Mary all want to marry each-other (in the legal sense), why shouldn't they be allowed to?
You going to cover the bills for the therapy any kids involved are going to need for the rest of their lives?
Post by: Strings on August 29, 2007, 11:47:31 AM
Y'all will pardon me for a sec. I'm trying VERY hard not to take personal issue with this statement.
I'm what's refered to as "polyamorous". Means I love more than one person. The others involved get along just fine. In your view, this is "morally bankrupt". Based on what, I have to ask. You're Judeo-Christian viewpoint? If not, then I have to ask where it comes from.
Rev Disk hit the nail on the head: there are two different definitions of "marriage", and each side of the debate is using it's own definition. Might actually be a good idea to get a single definition set for the discussion...
Post by: Strings on August 29, 2007, 11:50:02 AM
Some of the best adjusted, most lovingly cared for kids I've ever seen have been from multi-partner relationships. Odd thing: THE worst cases of messed up kids I've seen have come out of two parent, overtly Xtian families (fistful has heard me talk about this)...
Post by: Manedwolf on August 29, 2007, 11:55:25 AM
You work with kids, Manedwolf? You spend any time dealing with other's kids?
Some of the best adjusted, most lovingly cared for kids I've ever seen have been from multi-partner relationships. Odd thing: THE worst cases of messed up kids I've seen have come out of two parent, overtly Xtian families (fistful has heard me talk about this)...
Some of the best adjusted, most lovingly cared for kids I've ever seen have been from multi-partner relationships. Odd thing: THE worst cases of messed up kids I've seen have come out of two parent, overtly Xtian families (fistful has heard me talk about this)...
Funny, my experience has been the opposite. Most conservative Christian (and Jewish!) families I know of are stable, loving familes who raise their kids right and keep them out of trouble. I'm from one myself. Didn't get into drugs, any of that. I was taught not to lie, cheat, or steal, to have a conscience, and to have a sense of right and wrong. I'm not overly religious, but it's a good way to be, to have a sense of morals and civilization. My dad, an Air Force officer, taught me how to play sports and shoot and served as a good example for how to be a good man. He still is my role model, and knows it. Family friends were mostly all good, strong families, too.
Work with kids? Yeah, I taught during the summers in college. I saw kids from functional parents and dysfunctional parents.
And most of the "poly" people I've met have been unstable drama addicts, posting endless angst on online journals, almost always on multiple antidepressants/antipsychotics and always talking about that. And, like homosexuals, a lot of have made a quasi-cult out of it, calling it a "lifestyle" and a "community".
Post by: Strings on August 29, 2007, 12:03:19 PM
There's one family I know in the southwest of our nation. Both parents are bi, and have "extra partners". There are 4 or 5 adults that live in the house. Kids are raised communaly, and there's ALWAYS a "parent" home to deal with whatever problems might arise. The kids are respectful, drug free, get good grades, and are generally fun to talk to.
There's another family I know, not that far south of me. The father has raped his daughter for close to 20 years, with the wife's encouragement. Since the girl was roughly 9, "daddy" has been selling her "services" to other men, as well as selling/trading porn he's made using his daughter and son. If you walk into their house, there's something Christian on EVERY wall. The kids are hooked on drugs, and will never be able to have normal lives.
However, you go ahead and push for your Judeo-Christian morals. This poly pagan did his time to protect your right to do so. And hopefully, you'll never have to call me or my brothers and sisters because some "good Xtian" got ahold of your kids...
Post by: The Rabbi on August 29, 2007, 12:04:39 PM
>OK. And the problem inherent with that is, what exactly? Why shouldn't society, through its government, dictate a societal norm? If people don't like those things they can change them.<
Rabbi: that's what gays are TRYING to do! And yet you (and others here) are demonizing them for it. Could y'all pick one stance, and stick to it?
Right. And those of us who think the idea of "gay" marriage is abhorrent and morally corrupt are trying insure it won't happen. And which group demonizes the other as bigots, homophobes, unenlightened right wingers, etc?
In my state (TN) the good guys have the upper leg, having passed a constitutional amendment recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 29, 2007, 12:06:23 PM
Funny, my experience has been the opposite. Most conservative Christian (and Jewish!) families I know of are stable, loving familes who raise their kids right and keep them out of trouble. I'm from one myself. Didn't get into drugs, any of that. I was taught not to lie, cheat, or steal, to have a conscience, and to have a sense of right and wrong. I'm not overly religious, but it's a good way to be, to have a sense of morals and civilization. My dad, an Air Force officer, taught me how to play sports and shoot and served as a good example for how to be a good man. He still is my role model, and knows it. Family friends were mostly all good, strong families, too.
Work with kids? Yeah, I taught during the summers in college. I saw kids from functional parents and dysfunctional parents.
And most of the "poly" people I've met have been unstable drama addicts, posting endless angst on online journals, almost always on multiple antidepressants/antipsychotics and always talking about that. And, like homosexuals, a lot of have made a quasi-cult out of it, calling it a "lifestyle" and a "community".
Also mirrors my experience with the homeschooling crowd. The right wing Christian kids seem pretty well adjusted while the left-wing crowd is all taking mind altering drugs. Granted I don't know any gay couples homeschooling.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 29, 2007, 12:08:25 PM
There's one family I know in the southwest of our nation. Both parents are bi, and have "extra partners". There are 4 or 5 adults that live in the house. Kids are raised communaly, and there's ALWAYS a "parent" home to deal with whatever problems might arise.
And you're quite aware that DHS would raid that place in the blink of an eye and take the kids if they knew about it, right? That would absolutely be considered an "unsuitable environment" for kids. And those kids will never learn what it is to have a normal relationship. I consider that a serious loss for their sake. Those kids have to know that mommy is sleeping with multiple guys, or their daddy...if they know which one is their daddy, is sleeping with another daddy, or whatever.
They're gonna be normal? Uh...no. Wait'll they reach dating age in high school and absolutely fail to function in being able to meet and socialize in terms of getting closer to a person as a relationship outside of a "group". What they've been raised to regard as "sharing" would be regarded by anyone they're likely to get close to in the real world as "cheating". They'd fail.
Which tends to lead to depression, to drugs, etc...
Quote
There's another family I know, not that far south of me. The father has raped his daughter for close to 20 years, with the wife's encouragement. Since the girl was roughly 9, "daddy" has been selling her "services" to other men, as well as selling/trading porn he's made using his daughter and son. If you walk into their house, there's something Christian on EVERY wall. The kids are hooked on drugs, and will never be able to have normal lives.
Uh...if this is true, you've not reported this to the authorities so the guy can be arrested and thrown in prison forever...why? If you know of a crime like that and don't report it, you're guilty of aiding and abetting!
Post by: wooderson on August 29, 2007, 12:23:17 PM
Quote
Right. And those of us who think the idea of "gay" marriage is abhorrent and morally corrupt are trying insure it won't happen.
And you have a much higher 'standard of evidence' to reach. Why should the "abhorrent and morally corrupt" nature of homosexuality be a matter for the state?
Post by: Manedwolf on August 29, 2007, 12:24:50 PM
Quote
Right. And those of us who think the idea of "gay" marriage is abhorrent and morally corrupt are trying insure it won't happen.
And you have a much higher 'standard of evidence' to reach. Why should the "abhorrent and morally corrupt" nature of homosexuality be a matter for the state?Generally, if you pull all the bricks out of a foundation, the building falls down.
Like it or not, the nation was founded...written down on paper...by the founding fathers with certain precepts, certain ideas, certain solid certainties. And there are some that are just "Don't go there" things you can't mess with, or you're kicking bricks out of that foundation. Marriage is one of those.
You're trying to turn a civilization upside-down. That is not a good thing to do if you want it to be stable and prosperous.
Post by: roo_ster on August 29, 2007, 12:32:47 PM
Also, a really good way for girls to be sexually abused is to have adult men not their biological father living with them under the same roof.
Thing is, the points above were known for millenia before social science confirmed them.
Too many folks nowadays think that all who went before them were idiots, prudes, repressed, whatever. They then go on to make the mistakes that the ancients made and learned from.
George Santayana had something to say about such folk....
Post by: wooderson on August 29, 2007, 12:41:42 PM
Quote
There is plenty of data out there & nearly all of it points to the old-school mom & dad as providing the most likely way for the rugrats to turn out better educated, with better jobs, less incarceration, fewer drug problems, less abuse, etc.
All arguable - the nuclear family has hardly been isolated from other factors (location, socio-economic class, parental achievement).And, again, the data is negligible in terms of mom & mom and dad & dad families. Which makes for a catch-22 - there's no way to evaluate life under same-sex couples (who are, generally, of high income and educational attainment) without marriage and full adoption rights, and without that evaluation some people will continue to point to the wonders of the nuclear family.
Quote
Also, a really good way for girls to be sexually abused is to have adult men not their biological father living with them under the same roof.
Sounds like an issue with our fine, loving heterosexual relationships, doesn't it?
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 29, 2007, 01:01:20 PM
Quote from: fistful
I apologize to you for believing that homosexual marriage is a fantasy in which govt. should not be involved. I apologize for saying that public schools should not undertake to teach children that some people are happy being homosexuals. I apologize for putting military efficiency ahead of the romantic entanglements of a few soldiers. I also apologize for my hateful belief that children should not be placed with adoptive parents who flaunt their sexual perversions.
The government stands to make money off the marriage deal and it does not effect you. YARGH. I'll agree with you to the school thing to a point, even if I do like playing devil's advocate with it. The military? Military efficiency? Did you serve in the same military I did?
I served in the U.S. Army, active duty, from 97 to 2000. I don't know what you are trying to say about military efficiency, but what I'm saying is this. The military should not be a playground for social experimentation. We don't allow Klan members to serve, because it causes problems. Homosexuals often have a similar effect. If we reach a point where the vast majority (as in ~98%) of straight men don't mind sharing a pup tent with a homosexual man, or showering with them, then we will no longer need any rules against it. But let's just keep our priorities straight.
Quote
Children not placed with people who flaunt their sexual perversions Give me a break. What if they don't practice the right religion? What if they don't believe in gun rights? Are you going to allow children to be placed with them?
Give me a break. What if they don't practice the right religion? What if they don't believe in gun rights? Are you going to allow children to be placed with them?When children don't have parents or other guardians, the govt. has to do some nanny-stating. It has to have some standard of who is fit to parent and who is not. I don't think homosexual couples meet that standard, and I will vote for politicians who agree with me.
Quote
Look, I don't look at married people and think to myself, "GEE! He likes to F*** people in the P****! GROSS!" I don't even squeam when a guy and a girl kiss in front of me. Believe it or not, it's about a lot more then sex.
Is that supposed to surprise me, or what? Post by: Strings on August 29, 2007, 01:16:12 PM
And this will be my last post on this topic, if not this forum.
The case in question is a BACA case. The ONLY reason dady dearest isn't in jail is the psychological dynamic of what's refered to as "Domestic Human Traffiking": the victim has been so conditioned that this is "normal", and so beaten down, that getting evidence and prosecuting is problematic at best. But the investigation is being carried out, and we're hopeful that someday soon the father will be spending quality time with Bubba.
But Maned, before you make an accusation my way, that I would condone such (aiding and abetting?), I suggest you find out a little bit about what I do. I submitted to a federal background check (on my own dime), spend countless hours busting my ass, and have even lost a job because a child in need came first in my life. And I'm expected to just take some jag-off prick on an internet forum not only judging my lifestyle, but making veiled accusations in my direction?
If this is the quality of discourse here, then I think I made a mistake in joining...
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 29, 2007, 01:22:39 PM
Fact is, the state offers various benefits, privileges and protections to couples who've entered into a binding legal contract - that crazy little thing we call marriage.
Homosexuals are denied these benefits, privileges and protections - this is discrimination, plain and simple.
Sir, one cannot expect the benefits of a particular legal category, if one refuses to meet the requirements of that category. Marriage requires partners of opposite sex. That's what it is. Putting two men or two women together simply is not a marriage. That is not moral teaching or traditionalism, it is irreducible fact. It is as if you are convinced that a triangle can be composed of only two sides. Homosexuals are denied these benefits, privileges and protections - this is discrimination, plain and simple.
Quote
Quote
Actually, I'm not sure I agree with DOMA or any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But regardless, putting govt. in the business of licensing Steve and Lester to sleep together is a growth of govt. Not to mention that govt. will be involved again when they divorce.
Government is already "in the business" of licensing Steve and Jane. Changing Jane to Lester changes absolutely nothing.Marriage, in its legal sense, is not a licensing of bed-mates. In its legal sense, it is not about love or any other gushy things. It is about legal recognition of family ties.
Post by: Paddy on August 29, 2007, 01:39:59 PM
Post by: Pew pew pew on August 29, 2007, 01:50:04 PM
Right. And those of us who think the idea of "gay" marriage is abhorrent and morally corrupt are trying insure it won't happen. And which group demonizes the other as bigots, homophobes, unenlightened right wingers, etc?
It must be really, really hard on you.
Quote from: fistful
I served in the U.S. Army, active duty, from 97 to 2000. I don't know what you are trying to say about military efficiency, but what I'm saying is this. The military should not be a playground for social experimentation. We don't allow Klan members to serve, because it causes problems. Homosexuals often have a similar effect. If we reach a point where the vast majority (as in ~98%) of straight men don't mind sharing a pup tent with a homosexual man, or showering with them, then we will no longer need any rules against it. But let's just keep our priorities straight.
You can go ahead and look up other militaries that have gays serving openly. It doesn't effect anything negatively. You'd have a lot more Arabic linguists, too.
Quote from: fistful
Sir, one cannot expect the benefits of a particular legal category, if one refuses to meet the requirements of that category. Marriage requires partners of opposite sex. That's what it is. Putting two men or two women together simply is not a marriage. That is not moral teaching or traditionalism, it is irreducible fact. It is as if you are convinced that a triangle can be composed of only two sides.
It's a word. You're treating it like it's something special. It's just a word.
Quote from: fistful
I don't think homosexual couples meet that standard, and I will vote for politicians who agree with me.
Based on WHAT? My friend who teaches autistic children all day long, just because he's gay, he's not fit to raise children?
Quote
Is that supposed to surprise me, or what?
No. People seem to focus purely on the "icky sex". It's about a little bit more then that.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 29, 2007, 01:54:11 PM
But in fairness, Strings, things got heated back there, and sometimes you just can't sort out the guy with the child abuse cause from the archaeologist guy from that mouthy guy from New Hampshire. Still a pretty stupid thing to say.
Post by: Euclidean on August 29, 2007, 02:20:23 PM
Quote
It's so simple, just dissolve marriage as a legal entity. The government should treat all people the same regardless of their marital status anyway. Everybody wins.
Figured I should quote myself, as that simple measure solves all of these problems.
See here's my thing: I actually agree with most if not all of the criticisms of the idea of a "gay marriage". It's a violation of the First Amendment to make me recognize such a union, and it's also a ridiculous concept from a purely logical, secular viewpoint.
But... to pass any law defining marriage is to open a huge can of worms, even if that law agrees with my personal beliefs. See, if the state of Texas (where I live) can make a law that says Marriage = 1 Male + 1 Female, then they can also make a law that says Marriage = 1 (Fe)Male + 1 (Fe)Male. And the thing is, as society's morals tend to decline, they probably will.
The cost of protecting my freedom to believe that Marriage = 1 Male + 1 Female is to recognize that no one has any right to define what a marriage is. I don't have the right to try to force people to "be good" or follow my beliefs by using the government as my tool.
Another issue I have is that it's my understanding that in some states, just for instance, that a man who say beats his wife is subject to a different set of laws than a man who attacks a woman who he may be involved with but is not his wife. One is considered "domestic violence" and the other is assault. That's ridiculous, the punishment for attacking someone should be uniform and the law should ignore the marital status of the parties in question.
Furthermore, consider the ridiculous concept of "common law" marriages. The government has no business telling anyone that they're married due to cohabitation or what they may say in public.
This is just scratching the surface, but when one considers that the idea of so tightly regulating and licensing marriage began as a racist measure to keep blacks from marrying white people, the reality that all these laws are just a tool of tyranny becomes apparent.
I can't stop people from smoking tobacco or marijuana, and I shouldn't be able to. I know that the products are detrimental to those who consume them. But just because I know it's not a good idea to live that way and genuinely care about people enough to try to make them not smoke, doesn't mean I should have the authority to force them to live up to my standards.
Similarly, I can't stop people from being queer, and I shouldn't be able to. I actually pray for these people, because they're often hurt, or confused, or traumatized. It's pretty well documented among various sources (google suicide rates among homosexuals or similar) that these people suffer from higher incidences of suicide, mental disorders, etc. than normal people, so I know it's bad for them. But do I have any authority to make them live up to my standards?
No, I simply don't. And I shouldn't, because what if they gain the upper hand and try to force me to adopt their standards? That's not right either. Might doesn't make right.
Freedom means tolerance. And note that tolerance, contrary to left wing dogma, does not imply acceptance or endorsement. Freedom comes at the price of co existing with bizarre religious beliefs, language that offends, and bizarre practices which offend to the very core.
Only when we can establish direct harm to another party are we empowered to act against any such thing. If I am to have freedom to follow my beliefs, it also means others must have the freedom to follow theirs, and everyone must be free to choose. The freedom of all people to choose will in the end be the most effective means by which to spread my moral and religious beliefs. I have every confidence in the world that my belief of what constitutes a marriage is logically and morally superior, and does not need something so weak and petty as a mortal government to support it. I recognize there will always be a minority which will never agree with me, which is regretful but it is the price I pay for freedom. Furthermore, if one truly believes that Marriage = 1 Male + 1 Female, only by removing government compulsion to follow this practice can you empower others to believe in this idea of their own free will, which is a darn sight more effective than trying to force it on them.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 29, 2007, 02:31:41 PM
Yeah, Maned Wolf, how does that paw taste? Yikes.
But in fairness, Strings, things got heated back there, and sometimes you just can't sort out the guy with the child abuse cause from the archaeologist guy from that mouthy guy from New Hampshire. Still a pretty stupid thing to say.
But in fairness, Strings, things got heated back there, and sometimes you just can't sort out the guy with the child abuse cause from the archaeologist guy from that mouthy guy from New Hampshire. Still a pretty stupid thing to say.
Well, as to my comment, I'll put it this way. When someone says they "know of" a deviant lifestyle household that DHS would raid as an unsuitable environment (the commual bisexual whatever one with multiple partners), and then says they know of an ongoing abuse household, and DOES NOT SAY that they are any sort of social cases volunteer involved in an investigation in the latter case, how is anyone supposed to know what the deal is?
Did they say "I am a social cases volunteer involved with investigating..." in relation to that, to explain why it wasn't busted up, if they knew about it? I see no such clarification earlier.
If you're going to present cases like that that are a criminal event, saying what your involvement is goes a long way towards preventing misunderstanding!
Quote
I suggest you find out a little bit about what I do.
Not being part of the FBI, I can't exactly do that unless you include the info with your post, y'know?
Post by: The Rabbi on August 29, 2007, 02:59:03 PM
Quote
Right. And those of us who think the idea of "gay" marriage is abhorrent and morally corrupt are trying insure it won't happen.
And you have a much higher 'standard of evidence' to reach. Why should the "abhorrent and morally corrupt" nature of homosexuality be a matter for the state?Because the state's laws are an expression of the will of the people?
Post by: roo_ster on August 29, 2007, 03:08:52 PM
Weren't you briefed? Telepathy is required if you are to make a post supporting the traditionalist viewpoint.
Also, you are required to keep up with the numerous user-name changes some folks are prone to. I won't name names, as they are apt to change purty quick-like.
Post by: roo_ster on August 29, 2007, 03:33:56 PM
Quote from: fistful
I served in the U.S. Army, active duty, from 97 to 2000. I don't know what you are trying to say about military efficiency, but what I'm saying is this. The military should not be a playground for social experimentation. We don't allow Klan members to serve, because it causes problems. Homosexuals often have a similar effect. If we reach a point where the vast majority (as in ~98%) of straight men don't mind sharing a pup tent with a homosexual man, or showering with them, then we will no longer need any rules against it. But let's just keep our priorities straight.
You can go ahead and look up other militaries that have gays serving openly. It doesn't effect anything negatively. You'd have a lot more Arabic linguists, too.
Speaking of the Dutch, I think they are re-thinking the wisdom of having such a large pool of possible Arab linguists these days...
fistful, was your last sentence quoted above written with mirth aforethought?
Post by: wooderson on August 29, 2007, 05:09:41 PM
Sir, one cannot expect the benefits of a particular legal category, if one refuses to meet the requirements of that category.
Yawn - this argument's 'slippery slope' toward segregation of all types been repeated ad infinitum. Try reading one of those responses.Quote
Marriage requires partners of opposite sex. That's what it is. Putting two men or two women together simply is not a marriage. That is not moral teaching or traditionalism, it is irreducible fact. It is as if you are convinced that a triangle can be composed of only two sides.
Marriage is a word, a concept. It has no physical being, their is no innate definition or factuality. 'Marriage' is whatever a society chooses to definite marriage as.Quote
It is about legal recognition of family ties.
I see childless hetero married couples all the time.When you go sign up for a marriage license, does the clerk question you about the timetable for procreation?
Post by: wooderson on August 29, 2007, 05:12:46 PM
Quote
Because the state's laws are an expression of the will of the people?
In which case we should simply stop pretending that the Constitution is a meaningful document, right? It was, after all set up to thwart the will of the majority (in both conduct and in the majority's ability to modify the Constitution).Don't 'wingers often proclaim "we're not a democracy, we're a republic" and bound by the rule of law?
Post by: wooderson on August 29, 2007, 05:14:37 PM
Quote
The (primary) purpose of marriage is to provide a secure environment suitable for the bearing and raising of children, and the protection of their mother, who is the primary 'nurturer', if you will.
Oh, really? Should be easy to find definitive evidence of this in our laws regarding marriage then.
If a woman is incapable of producing offspring, should she be deemed un-marry-able?
Post by: The Rabbi on August 29, 2007, 05:29:16 PM
Quote
Because the state's laws are an expression of the will of the people?
In which case we should simply stop pretending that the Constitution is a meaningful document, right? It was, after all set up to thwart the will of the majority (in both conduct and in the majority's ability to modify the Constitution).Don't 'wingers often proclaim "we're not a democracy, we're a republic" and bound by the rule of law?
Huh? You are drifting into incoherence. The Constitution does not thwart the will of the majority but can be amended at any time. And what the Constitution has to do with laws enacted by states is beyond me. Another red herring.
Post by: wooderson on August 29, 2007, 05:43:43 PM
Quote
Huh? You are drifting into incoherence. The Constitution does not thwart the will of the majority but can be amended at any time.
It does thwart the will of the majority - it was designed to ensure that 'mob rule' democracy would never be the order of the day.To be amended, the Constitution requires much more than a majority.
Quote
And what the Constitution has to do with laws enacted by states is beyond me. Another red herring.
DOMA and proposed amendments are federal concerns - and the state-by-state push on bands was orchestrated by the White House.You seem to be confusing 'the state' in my post with 'states.'
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 29, 2007, 06:12:26 PM
Post by: Pew pew pew on August 29, 2007, 06:36:51 PM
So what about the Yankees-Red Sox series?
Steroids?
Post by: Pew pew pew on August 29, 2007, 06:42:10 PM
Post by: Nitrogen on August 29, 2007, 08:33:00 PM
Post by: LadySmith on August 29, 2007, 10:39:18 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 01, 2007, 07:08:09 PM
You can go ahead and look up other militaries that have gays serving openly. It doesn't effect anything negatively. You'd have a lot more Arabic linguists, too.
Your first answer is not very satisfactory. I thought we were talking about the U.S. military, not other militaries. Other out-and-open militaries may be in nations where attitudes are much different. You're the second homosexual I have talked to that brings up the issue of homosexual Arab linguists. I'm curious about the connection, there. That would be a line of argument I would be open to, if the cost-benefit analysis is convincing. Quote
Quote from: fistful
Sir, one cannot expect the benefits of a particular legal category, if one refuses to meet the requirements of that category. Marriage requires partners of opposite sex. That's what it is. Putting two men or two women together simply is not a marriage. That is not moral teaching or traditionalism, it is irreducible fact. It is as if you are convinced that a triangle can be composed of only two sides.
It's a word. You're treating it like it's something special. It's just a word.
Quote
Quote from: fistful
I don't think homosexual couples meet that standard, and I will vote for politicians who agree with me.
Based on WHAT? My friend who teaches autistic children all day long, just because he's gay, he's not fit to raise children?
Based on what I and many experts think is good for children. There's really no escaping moral judgments when it comes to the issue of govt. regulation of adoption. Unless of course, you think we should let cult leaders adopt children, and people who practice animal sacrifice, and porn producers and so forth. As I said, it's an area where the nanny-state is quite fitting, as we're talking about children without natural parents.
Quote
Quote
Is that supposed to surprise me, or what?
No. People seem to focus purely on the "icky sex". It's about a little bit more then that.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 01, 2007, 08:35:18 PM
Sir, one cannot expect the benefits of a particular legal category, if one refuses to meet the requirements of that category.
Yawn - this argument's 'slippery slope' toward segregation of all types been repeated ad infinitum. Try reading one of those responses.Quote
Quote
Marriage requires partners of opposite sex. That's what it is. Putting two men or two women together simply is not a marriage. That is not moral teaching or traditionalism, it is irreducible fact. It is as if you are convinced that a triangle can be composed of only two sides.
Marriage is a word, a concept. It has no physical being, their is no innate definition or factuality. 'Marriage' is whatever a society chooses to definite marriage as. Or better yet, if marriage is whatever we choose it to be, why is your idea of it better than my idea? There is obviously some "innate definition" that appeals to you, which makes you think homosexuals should be included. Otherwise, why mess with what society has chosen?
Quote
Quote
It is about legal recognition of family ties.
I see childless hetero married couples all the time.When you go sign up for a marriage license, does the clerk question you about the timetable for procreation?
Now I didn't say that marriage is legally recognized because of the kids. I said "family ties." Marriage, legally, is there to clear up who belongs to what family, inheritance, custody, visitation rights, etc. Homosexuality has nothing to do with these things. It does not produce children. It does not create families. It does not provide any more pressing need to visit a loved one than any other close friendship. If these issues need to be addressed for non-marriage relationships, let them be dealt with as such, not on the basis of private sexual behavior.
*I'm not calling you a "progressive," as I don't know whether you are. I'm just identifying that mistake in reasoning as one that usually comes from regressive - uh, I mean progressive - thinking.
Post by: wooderson on September 01, 2007, 08:54:27 PM
The idea that any social issue can fit the racial template is especially old. Race = Sex = Sexuality = Age = Ability = Whatever But of course, it isn't true. A marriage between a man and woman of different skin color isn't the same issue as a "marriage" between two men.
The 'racial template' is irrelevant. The issue is whether or not the state can restrict the conduct of or benefits/privileges given to individuals, in an arbitrary nature.
Quote
That is nothing but sophistry. If you really believe that pablum, then let's all cheer the President for his glorious, immediate and total victory in Iraq. Glory, victory, peace, democracy, freedom? But words that we can define as we wish, with no innate definition or factuality. Marriage is an avocado sandwich and hatred is two cartoon bunnies kissing in a dewy meadow.
The President is an interesting one to bring up. He declared 'victory' by his own defintion - and we had 'won' the war against Saddam. So, yes, we do redefine 'victory' as situations arise and change.But, no, the idea that definitions, norms and cultural mores change over time - that there is no universal and unchanging definition of a legal/social/religion construct like marriage - is not sophistry. (Ironically, denying language's capacity for growth is more akin to what we call sophistry today.)
When I refer to an object, the language used is also a construct (just to head off that particularly boring bit). But when you and I are in the same room with a 'chair' - it has physical presence. We cannot alter its shape, texture or color with our words. Marriage has no such qualities - there is nothing immutable about 'marriage.' It exists purely in our minds (and the documents and rituals our mind create for it).
Quote
Or better yet, if marriage is whatever we choose it to be, why is your idea of it better than my idea?
Because 'my idea' affords the most freedom to the most people. Because 'my idea' renders the state neutral on matters of personal morality.Because there is no legitimate argument that two men should not be able to marry - it brings no harm to anyone else. All opposition is centered in desire rather than need. "I don't want gays to marry."
Quote
When you got your Concealed Carry Permit, were you asked whom you planned to shoot and when? Do your local police come by to make sure you're carrying your gun? I doubt it, but in many states, you are required to demonstrate that you can actually fire the piece. Of course, one must meet certain standards to get a driver's license, but no one checks to make sure you are driving. Likewise, there are requirements for a liquor license. Is it revoked if no one ever buys a beer?
Heh - you slipped up there: "demonstrate that you can actually fire the piece."So the state would then be justified in denying the privilege and benefits of marriage to individuals of either sex who are incapable of procreation?
Quote
I said "family ties." Marriage, legally, is there to clear up who belongs to what family, inheritance, custody, visitation rights, etc. Homosexuality has nothing to do with these things. It does not produce children. It does not create families.
You're contradicting yourself - "I didn't say it was about children - rather, about 'family ties.' But then you want to redefine 'family ties' solely in terms of children and child-rearing. (Of course, 'marriage' does not actually deal with custody or visitation rights - court decrees do in cases of separation, divorce or non-marriage.)And, of course, you ignore the fact that gay couples who adopt - would, and do, face all manner of 'family issues.'
Quote
It does not provide any more pressing need to visit a loved one than any other close friendship. If these issues need to be addressed for non-marriage relationships, let them be dealt with as such, not on the basis of private sexual behavior.
Answered, still boring.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 01, 2007, 10:01:43 PM
The issue is whether or not the state can restrict the conduct of or benefits/privileges given to individuals, in an arbitrary nature.
Again, more leftist sophistry. Gender is real. It is not arbitrary. The heterosexuality of marriage is not arbitrary, it is in fact the reason why marriage exists, because the sexual relationship between men and women is different than other relationships. Two dudes living together, who cares? Why do we need to recognize that in our laws? If they want to get powers of attorney or put each other in their wills, then let them. But when men and women live together, there are suddenly children running about, and families happening. Nothing arbitrary about that difference. Quote
Quote
That is nothing but sophistry. If you really believe that pablum, then let's all cheer the President for his glorious, immediate and total victory in Iraq. Glory, victory, peace, democracy, freedom? But words that we can define as we wish, with no innate definition or factuality. Marriage is an avocado sandwich and hatred is two cartoon bunnies kissing in a dewy meadow.
The President is an interesting one to bring up. He declared 'victory' by his own defintion - and we had 'won' the war against Saddam. So, yes, we do redefine 'victory' as situations arise and change.Quote
But, no, the idea that definitions, norms and cultural mores change over time - that there is no universal and unchanging definition of a legal/social/religion construct like marriage - is not sophistry. (Ironically, denying language's capacity for growth is more akin to what we call sophistry today.)
I'm not talking about semantics, I'm talking about a concept having some continuity, no matter how minimal. Of course marriage changes. Marriage has been polygamous, it has been used as a tool of foreign policy and business. Marriages have taken place between small girls and old men, between people who've never seen each other before, and between those who did not consent to the union. Marriages have been life-long, and they are often laughably short today. But like anything else, there are qualities that are essential, and there are qualities that are accidental. I can't think of any quality more essential to marriage than its heterosexuality. Love is not always there. Sex is not always there. Children are not always there. Longevity is not always there. Commitment and caring are not always there. But heterosexuality is always there. Quote
When I refer to an object, the language used is also a construct (just to head off that particularly boring bit). But when you and I are in the same room with a 'chair' - it has physical presence. We cannot alter its shape, texture or color with our words. Marriage has no such qualities - there is nothing immutable about 'marriage.' It exists purely in our minds (and the documents and rituals our mind create for it).
How very deep of you. A concept is not less real than a physical object. And when you change it too much, you change it into a new concept. In the same way, the chair will be a stool, if you cut it down some.
Quote
Quote
Or better yet, if marriage is whatever we choose it to be, why is your idea of it better than my idea?
Because 'my idea' affords the most freedom to the most people. Because 'my idea' renders the state neutral on matters of personal morality.Because there is no legitimate argument that two men should not be able to marry - it brings no harm to anyone else. All opposition is centered in desire rather than need. "I don't want gays to marry."
Firstly, I don't say "gays" in my head, I say "homosexuals." I like to use real words. Need and desire? Where did I discuss my desires? Is that just your prejudiced opinion about people like me? Just flailing against whatever makes us uncomfortable, right? And as far as need goes, please explain why homosexuals "need" to see their partners in the hospital more than close, non-sexual friends do. Or why homosexual couples "need" to adopt children more than two non-sexual room-mates do.
Furthermore, I still await the legitimate argument that homosexuals are even capable of marrying one another, in any real sense, or that they should have govt. sponsorship when they attempt to. And again, there is no morality involved in the state limiting its marriage licenses to heterosexual pairings. Just a simple recognizance of who is male and who is female, and a basic grasp of a fundamental concept (marriage).
Quote
Quote
When you got your Concealed Carry Permit, were you asked whom you planned to shoot and when? Do your local police come by to make sure you're carrying your gun? I doubt it, but in many states, you are required to demonstrate that you can actually fire the piece. Of course, one must meet certain standards to get a driver's license, but no one checks to make sure you are driving. Likewise, there are requirements for a liquor license. Is it revoked if no one ever buys a beer?
Heh - you slipped up there: "demonstrate that you can actually fire the piece." So the state would then be justified in denying the privilege and benefits of marriage to individuals of either sex who are incapable of procreation?And how do we know who is incapable of procreation? Fertility tests would be costly and intrusive. In any case, the "infertile" have often had children, especially today. No, friend that's not a slip. In all three cases, I mentioned that licenses are not granted to anybody who walks in. Otherwise, why bother? There are always standards. And two men who want a marriage license make as much sense as a blind, vegetative quadriplegic requesting a driver's license. The standard for a marriage license is not the touchy and private matter of fertility, it is the public fact of gender. One is male. One is female. Not related. Good to go.
Quote
Quote
I said "family ties." Marriage, legally, is there to clear up who belongs to what family, inheritance, custody, visitation rights, etc. Homosexuality has nothing to do with these things. It does not produce children. It does not create families.
You're contradicting yourself - "I didn't say it was about children - rather, about 'family ties.' But then you want to redefine 'family ties' solely in terms of children and child-rearing. (Of course, 'marriage' does not actually deal with custody or visitation rights - court decrees do in cases of separation, divorce or non-marriage.)And, of course, you ignore the fact that gay couples who adopt - would, and do, face all manner of 'family issues.'
Quote
It does not provide any more pressing need to visit a loved one than any other close friendship. If these issues need to be addressed for non-marriage relationships, let them be dealt with as such, not on the basis of private sexual behavior.
Answered, still boring.Children, custody, family, and so on and so forth. These are things that come directly from heterosexual pairings. Homosexuality does not produce these things. It is not a relevant factor, hence there is no need to codify it or to give it more recognition than other types of relationships. Marriage has existed and been recognized by law in almost all cultures since the dawn of time. Why? Because it matters. It is important who is related to whom. Homosexuality does not matter, legally, because it doesn't affect those things. Should we be recognizing homosexual marriages so that we will feel better about their adopting children, or because they have some greater right to easier legal arrangements than those who are just good friends who live together? I'm gonna say it again, we can address things like adoption or hospital visits or anything else without bringing marriage into it.
Quote
You're contradicting yourself - "I didn't say it was about children - rather, about 'family ties.' But then you want to redefine 'family ties' solely in terms of children and child-rearing.
If I redefined it, then tell me how I defined it the first time. You can't. Of course, family is about children. Marriage only came about because of children. If some couples don't or can't have children, that's just happenstance.
Post by: Barbara on September 02, 2007, 04:45:33 AM
Why is soliticing sex in a bathroom a crime?
Having sex in a bathroom I can understand, but the soliciting part I'm not clear on.
Where else is it illegal?
People do it in bars all the time.
Is that illegal?
Post by: mtnbkr on September 02, 2007, 05:45:05 AM
Ok, this is a serious question I don't understand.
Why is soliticing sex in a bathroom a crime?
Having sex in a bathroom I can understand, but the soliciting part I'm not clear on.
Where else is it illegal?
People do it in bars all the time.
Is that illegal?
Why is soliticing sex in a bathroom a crime?
Having sex in a bathroom I can understand, but the soliciting part I'm not clear on.
Where else is it illegal?
People do it in bars all the time.
Is that illegal?
Because it's not just "hey I like you, let's go back to my place", but "let's do it right here". It's pretty common for a particular store, mall, or other public restroom to become a major gay sex site. Once that happens, it takes nearly constant surveillance and supervision to return it to it's previous state. I've been to some malls where the problem was so pervasive they had to remove the doors from the stalls and put a person in the bathroom the entire time the mall was open.
A few years ago, the rest area on I66 near Manassas was a major gay sex site. The cops did a sting there one time that netted a bunch of guys having sex in and around the site. Not meeting and greeting, but doing the deed. A nearby regional park got so bad families and other folks interested in the park for "normal" purposes stopped going. It's better now, but I've seen evidence that it's still a hangout (polaroid of a deviant sex act left on the trail, guy walking the back trails with nothing but a pair of severely trimmed back jogging shorts, etc). I rarely bump into hetero couples using public spaces for sex acts (it happens, but it's not nearly as pervasive or "in your face").
Chris
Post by: Barbara on September 02, 2007, 05:58:40 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on September 02, 2007, 06:00:45 AM
A few years ago, the rest area on I66 near Manassas was a major gay sex site. The cops did a sting there one time that netted a bunch of guys having sex in and around the site. Not meeting and greeting, but doing the deed. A nearby regional park got so bad families and other folks interested in the park for "normal" purposes stopped going. It's better now, but I've seen evidence that it's still a hangout (polaroid of a deviant sex act left on the trail, guy walking the back trails with nothing but a pair of severely trimmed back jogging shorts, etc). I rarely bump into hetero couples using public spaces for sex acts (it happens, but it's not nearly as pervasive or "in your face").
Chris
Chris
Sounds like the public bathrooms along Ft. Lauderdale beach. They've been like that for a very long time...and Ft. Lauderdale's mayor, trying to make the city a more family-friendly place, just caught a whole lot of flak for suggesting a crackdown on it, got called a "bigot" and all sorts of other things... even though he simply expressed concern that it was going on even in restrooms at childrens' parks.
Quote
Mayor Naugle thrown off Broward tourism board
BY AMY SHERMAN
asherman@MiamiHerald.com
Broward County commissioners unanimously tossed Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle off a tourism board Tuesday, saying his recent comments on gays are driving away visitors.
Naugle has been talking for weeks in local and national media about his concerns about gay sex in public restrooms. His remarks have angered local and national gay leaders and, according to the county tourism agency, frightened away some straight tourists.
BY AMY SHERMAN
asherman@MiamiHerald.com
Broward County commissioners unanimously tossed Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle off a tourism board Tuesday, saying his recent comments on gays are driving away visitors.
Naugle has been talking for weeks in local and national media about his concerns about gay sex in public restrooms. His remarks have angered local and national gay leaders and, according to the county tourism agency, frightened away some straight tourists.
And this is what he'd said:
Quote
Naugle's latest battle with the gay community began a few weeks ago when he said a proposal for single-occupancy toilets at the beach would reduce gay sex in public bathrooms. Ultimately, the city abandoned the idea of buying the toilets for the beach.
Heaven forbid.
Post by: wooderson on September 02, 2007, 06:05:00 AM
Again, more leftist sophistry. Gender is real. It is not arbitrary.
But restricting rights and privileges based on gender (when whatever the issue is involves no negative consequences) is arbitrary.Duh.
Quote
But when men and women live together, there are suddenly children running about, and families happening.
You did it again - children.Should childless couples be stripped of their marriage rights after a certain time?
If they have no children, if they can have no children - how does their marriage differ from that of a same-sex couple?
Quote
So you won't dispute that Bush's victory in Iraq (in 2003) was as real as our defeat of the Japanese in 1945? I don't want to argue about Bush here, I'm just saying that victory means something. And marriage means something. It doesn't just mean two people living happily together.
Victory - and marriage - derive meaning from context.In the context of 'beating Saddam' - Iraq was clearly a victory. Guy's dead. In the context of 'pacifying Iraq' - as Japan was pacified - it was clearly not a 'victory.'
Quote
Marriage has been polygamous, it has been used as a tool of foreign policy and business. Marriages have taken place between small girls and old men, between people who've never seen each other before, and between those who did not consent to the union. Marriages have been life-long, and they are often laughably short today. But like anything else, there are qualities that are essential, and there are qualities that are accidental.
You were doing so well until that last bit: there is nothing 'essential' about marriage. As you state, it changes continually as individual societies change.Quote
How very deep of you. A concept is not less real than a physical object. And when you change it too much, you change it into a new concept. In the same way, the chair will be a stool, if you cut it down some.
(A stool is a chair...)A concept is 'less real' than a physical object because it does not exist. It has no properties that multiple individuals can see or feel or even necessarily agree upon.
Quote
Where did I discuss my desires?
Every time you state that marriage can ONLY mean heterosexual. That's a desire - you've offered no argument that gay marriage harms anyone or anything, or that it poses a threat in any way, shape or form.You want to restrict same-sex marriage for, again, arbitrary reasons.
Quote
And as far as need goes, please explain why homosexuals "need" to see their partners in the hospital more than close, non-sexual friends do.
Why do married heterosexuals "need" to see their partners, etc.Quote
Or why homosexual couples "need" to adopt children more than two non-sexual room-mates do.
Why do married heterosexuals "need" to adopt, etc..If your argument is that we should strip marriage of all legal and social privilege and render everything a series of wills and contracts - great. Make marriage an issue between individuals and their religion/family/friends.
But you're not doing that, are you?
Quote
Furthermore, I still await the legitimate argument that homosexuals are even capable of marrying one another, in any real sense
Okay - Massachusetts.Done.
Quote
And again, there is no morality involved in the state limiting its marriage licenses to heterosexual pairings.
Of course there is - you just denied the capability of same-sex couples to 'marry.' That's a moral judgement - their desire offends your sense of right and wrong.Quote
And how do we know who is incapable of procreation? Fertility tests would be costly and intrusive. In any case, the "infertile" have often had children, especially today.
Quote
And two men who want a marriage license make as much sense as a blind, vegetative quadriplegic requesting a driver's license.
As far as the state is concerned marriage only means what we choose to define it as, legally.You're going to keep sticking your fingers in your ears and doing this LALALALALALA deal, aren't you? If all else fails, fall back on the "BUT MARRIAGE CANNOT MEAN THAT, BECAUSE, UH, BECAUSE I SAY SO."
So I'm done. Have fun.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 02, 2007, 06:07:46 AM
Quote
Quote
Furthermore, I still await the legitimate argument that homosexuals are even capable of marrying one another, in any real sense
Okay - Massachusetts.
Done.
Furthermore, I still await the legitimate argument that homosexuals are even capable of marrying one another, in any real sense
Okay - Massachusetts.
Done.
You're using the most dysfunctional, socialist mess of a state as an example, the place where endless taxes are taken to build failed public works projects that come apart (Big Dig tunnel leaks now far worse than thought), where the governor now wants to give illegals drivers' licenses and free state-college education, and forbid police from arresting them? Where the gun restrictions that fly in the face of the second amendment are some of the most draconian in the country? Where you can't even carry a taser (felony) or have pepper spray without a special permit (felony) but gangstas regularly shoot at each other and get back out (misdemeanor)...?
I wouldn't use MA as an example for anything except "don't do it this way".
Post by: mtnbkr on September 02, 2007, 06:08:28 AM
Where's the line?
The line is where your pursuit of sexual gratification interferes with the activities of others in a public space.
And it's not people just meeting/greeting and going to a more appropriate location, but "regulars" setting up shop and turning a public space into their own bedroom, so to speak.
Places get a reputation as a "hook up spot", they learn security patterns, blind spots, etc. If it were just a meet/greet scenario, nobody would care. That already goes on all around us. The problem is when they can't/won't go home or to a hotel and decide to do it on the spot. Even better if "straights" walk in and are "shocked".
Chris
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 02, 2007, 01:07:54 PM
Quote
Where did I discuss my desires?
Every time you state that marriage can ONLY mean heterosexual. That's a desire - you've offered no argument that gay marriage harms anyone or anything, or that it poses a threat in any way, shape or form.You want to restrict same-sex marriage for, again, arbitrary reasons.
Well, now you're just making things up. I am sorry if stating well-known definitions sounds like desire to you. You have yet to show any evidence of my motives. Nor did I say anything about restricting same-sex marriage. Let's recognize who is demanding something here. I'm not demanding restriction of those who would like to pretend to be married. Let them walk down the aisle and play house together. It is your side that demands that obvious non-marriages be recognized as marriages. There's nothing arbitrary about recognizing that marriage is heterosexual, requiring at least one of each gender. Again, not because I want it, but because of reality.
Quote
you've offered no argument that gay marriage harms anyone or anything, or that it poses a threat in any way, shape or form.
That's probably because I'm not basing my argument thereon. You would know that if you read my posts. But it's very curious to argue that the govt. must do something, just because it won't harm anybody else.
Quote
Quote
But when men and women live together, there are suddenly children running about, and families happening.
You did it again - children.Should childless couples be stripped of their marriage rights after a certain time?
If they have no children, if they can have no children - how does their marriage differ from that of a same-sex couple?
I already answered that one.
Quote
And how do we know who is incapable of procreation? Fertility tests would be costly and intrusive. In any case, the "infertile" have often had children, especially today.
While it's obvious that homosexual pairs don't produce children, there's no such certainty when it comes to heterosexuals. To use your standard, it won't hurt anyone if some childless people are married. And it won't hurt anyone if two women can't get a license for their "marriage" either. Quote
A concept is 'less real' than a physical object because it does not exist.
Your other comments on essential qualities, victory, etc, were anti-reason and self-contradictory. But this one takes the cake. If marriage did not exist, we would not be discussing it. Existence does not require physicality. Quote
Quote
And as far as need goes, please explain why homosexuals "need" to see their partners in the hospital more than close, non-sexual friends do.
Why do married heterosexuals "need" to see their partners, etc.Quote
Or why homosexual couples "need" to adopt children more than two non-sexual room-mates do.
Why do married heterosexuals "need" to adopt, etc..If your argument is that we should strip marriage of all legal and social privilege and render everything a series of wills and contracts - great. Make marriage an issue between individuals and their religion/family/friends.
But you're not doing that, are you?
Quote
Quote
Furthermore, I still await the legitimate argument that homosexuals are even capable of marrying one another, in any real sense
Okay - Massachusetts.Done.
Quote
Quote
And again, there is no morality involved in the state limiting its marriage licenses to heterosexual pairings.
Of course there is - you just denied the capability of same-sex couples to 'marry.' That's a moral judgement - their desire offends your sense of right and wrong.Quote
Quote
And two men who want a marriage license make as much sense as a blind, vegetative quadriplegic requesting a driver's license.
As far as the state is concerned marriage only means what we choose to define it as, legally.And why would we define marriage as something it clearly is not? Why? You cannot answer that.
Quote
You're going to keep sticking your fingers in your ears and doing this LALALALALALA deal, aren't you? If all else fails, fall back on the "BUT MARRIAGE CANNOT MEAN THAT, BECAUSE, UH, BECAUSE I SAY SO."
I'm sorry that I've been sticking to the facts, here. Reality hurts sometimes, doesn't it?