Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On the Threshold of Bigotry
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 211 of 333 (476285)
07-22-2008 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by gruber
07-22-2008 1:29 PM


Re: Let's look at message 62 together, then
gruber, that's a good post for #1.
gruber writes:
Hoot Mon, i gather from your posts that you don't mind if homosexual couples can have civil unions, you also don't mind if they get all of the rights that heterosexual people get, so essentially you want to give them the legal side that comes with a marraige but just not the name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet perhaps?
Correct, except that we don't just have a rose here, we have a rose and a sweet potato.
If it has all the exact same privilages, since denying them any legal privilages that you have for no reason other than the fact that they are gay would be bigotry, would it not just be the exact same?
Do you think and a man and man = a man and a woman. All I'm saying is that a man and a woman can get "married" in accordance to the meaning of the word, but because a man and a man can't get "married," exactly, they ought to be able to get civilly united if they choose, so as to gain all the legal rights and benefits married heterosexuals enjoy. And let them come with own name for it, too, because "marriage" is already taken.
In essence what i am trying to say is; is it not you that wants to call a "bicycle" a "tricycle"?
Nicely done, but false. That's because I'm counting the wheels.
”HM

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by gruber, posted 07-22-2008 1:29 PM gruber has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by lyx2no, posted 07-22-2008 3:47 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 225 by Rrhain, posted 07-23-2008 5:04 AM Fosdick has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 212 of 333 (476286)
07-22-2008 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by gruber
07-22-2008 1:29 PM


Welcome
gruber writes:
Hi, long time browser first time poster.
Welcome to the show.
Hopefully this isn't the only topic you have interest in. The main focus here on evolution vs. creation does get very interesting in aspects of physical evidence and personal viewpoints.
But, in any event, hope you enjoy your stay and have some fun.
gruber writes:
In essence what i am trying to say is; is it not you that wants to call a "bicycle" a "tricycle"?
A very good point. Rrhain actually attempted a very similar tactic in Message 140:
quote:
Contrary to your claim, it is not I who is "all atwitter over a single word." If you're so insistent on keeping it separate (see...you think there's a difference, which means they're not the same, which is in direct contradiction to your claim that they are), then you are the one who needs to come up with a new word for your contract. If you want to call your relationship a "special friendship," you go right ahead. It's your relationship.
..but the response to this particular point sort of got lost in the, um... mess
Hope your attempt fares better.
And keep up the contributions, all are welcome!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by gruber, posted 07-22-2008 1:29 PM gruber has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 213 of 333 (476287)
07-22-2008 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Stile
07-22-2008 2:13 PM


Re: Priorities
Stile writes:
It is akin to arguing the use of 'toMEHto' vs 'toMAHto' while holding the tomato in your hand and not allowing a starving fellow human to eat it until you get your vocabulary straight.
Not bad. I wouldn't want to quibble over naming fruits and vegetables while people are starving to death. But I wouldn't give them a carrot and call it an apple just because they're hungry. I would try to educate them, too. Vocabulary matters.
quote:
Words strain, crack, and sometimes break under the burden.
”T. S. Eliot
”HM

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Stile, posted 07-22-2008 2:13 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Stile, posted 07-22-2008 3:30 PM Fosdick has replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 214 of 333 (476288)
07-22-2008 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Grizz
07-20-2008 7:43 PM


Agreement on Pre-arranged statements
Your ideas that objectivity does not exist as an absolute (in the context of this arguement) is completely correct, and I agree.
However, when I mention objectivity, I mean to place it in context of some over-arching principles that have already been agreed upon. Principles such as the ones the country is based on (I think, anyway).
I'm not sure if it's in any precise document, but the text of "...liberty and justice for all" in the pledge of alligience indicates to me that there is some sort of "equal rights for all human beings" concept somewhere in the base of American culture.
That's the key. Once it has been agreed upon that equal rights is something that should be pursued... then it IS objective to say how this issue is for or against that agreement.
I agree that objectivity here does not exist in the absolute sense. But once something like "equal rights for all abled adults" is agreed upon, the objectivity based upon that agreement certainly does exist.
That's how I think of it, anyway.
However, I do like your example, and as an aside I'd like to discuss it a little bit:
Grizz writes:
A) "I believe all individuals should possess the same rights and privileges."
B) "I believe all individuals should not necessarily possess the same rights and privileges."
Neither of these positions are rational in that a conclusion follows from a premise.
I agree.
However... what's the next step?
Let's go with B). Now.. which individuals should possess different rights? What should those different rights be? How can we answer these questions objectively?
B) only creates more subjective aspects.
I propose that since subjectivity has it's flaws, then we should avoid it if at all possible. And if not, then we should keep it to a minimum.
A) contains the minimum amount of subjectivity. That's it, it's done. No more questions, no more additional subjectivity. Equality is a baseline.
Therefore, if our goal is to minimize subjectivity, then that is our rational method for choosing A) over B).
Now... what is our rational reason for desiring minimal subjectivity?
Well, we can have a look at history. We can look at the choices of world leaders and see how their subjective choices into concept B) have worked out. We see mass killings all over the place, for no other reason than "I don't like them". And now we have a choice. If we want to continue mass killings for no better reason than "I don't like them" (and, allowance for someone to kill us personally because they "don't like us")... then we can choose B). Or, if we'ed like to minimize subjectivity, and therefore minimize mass killings over subjective reasoning... we should choose A).
...or something.
Anyway, I just wanted to ramble a bit over your musings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Grizz, posted 07-20-2008 7:43 PM Grizz has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 215 of 333 (476289)
07-22-2008 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Fosdick
07-22-2008 3:18 PM


Re: Priorities
Hoot Mon writes:
I would try to educate them, too. Vocabulary matters.
No one cares about what you want to do "too". It only matters what you want to do "first". So what is it? What is your priority? Do you put equal rights for equal humans above the definition of terms? Or not?
...your quote above would suggest "not". Or at least begs the question why you are avoiding a direct answer. It certainly doesn't suggest a positive. That's why people are concluding that you are a bigot, because you seem unable to prioritize equal rights above definitions.
Do you squabble over what to call your tomato?
Or do you give it to the starving man and talk to him about what to call the thing tomorrow?
Do you squabble over how to define 'marriage'?
Or do you grant equal rights to those who are being refused them and talk to them about how to define terms tomorrow?
What's more important to you? Equal rights for living, breathing people or definitions of terms?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Fosdick, posted 07-22-2008 3:18 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Fosdick, posted 07-22-2008 7:51 PM Stile has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 216 of 333 (476293)
07-22-2008 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Fosdick
07-22-2008 2:54 PM


More Often Then Not
Do you think and a man and man = a man and a woman.
When I ask for two volunteers to help fold up the chairs after a council meeting, then yes, man + man = man + woman = woman + woman. The distinction is completely irrelevant so any grouping of two is equal. Under the law, and it is under the law that we are talking about, there is no distinction between the parties in a marriage contract; therefore, under the law, man + man = man + woman = woman + woman.
As for the rest of us, I suggest we all agree never to use the word marriage while at Hoot Mon's house so we can get on to fixing NJ.
Sound good to you, Hoot Mon?

Kindly
Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.
‘—

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Fosdick, posted 07-22-2008 2:54 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Fosdick, posted 07-22-2008 7:16 PM lyx2no has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 217 of 333 (476304)
07-22-2008 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by FliesOnly
07-22-2008 11:34 AM


Re: Fighting bigtory with bigotry
That's right NJ...he is not a bigot (at least in regards to homosexuals and gay marriage). He may be a lot of things, but in this instance he is not behaving as a bigot. He is denying homosexuals nothing. He may hate them, he may be homophobic, but unless he actually does something that shows intolerance (which is not the same as disliking or disagreeing) then why would you call him a bigot?
You know you don't believe that in your heart of hearts, Flies. Give me a break. You are only saying that to save face since you've backed yourself in to a corner through a series of ad hoc qualifiers. I don't believe it for a second.
If, after having this all explained to him, he persisted with wanting to treat homosexuals differently than heterosexuals, then, NJ, as per the definition of bigotry that you keep supplying to us, the person in the above example would be a bigot.
Did you see utter intolerance in the second man? Certainly not. He is just being honest. Riding the fence about a subject would not in any way insinuate utter intolerance. If anything, it is the exact opposite. It is evidence of an openness and a willingness to hear both arguments. He wants the truth about it, whatever it may be. He has no allegiances in either direction, so, no, he is most certainly would not be a bigot.
And to add, it isn't my definition, it is the English language's definition. My personal beliefs on the word bear no reflection on that. Consequently for you, you made up your own definition. That's not how it works.
if we go by your standard, then everyone on the entire planet is bigoted towards everyone else on the entire planet, because all of us disagree with some else about something (i.e.,are intolerant of their position). And it's because you keep applying "intolerance" as if it means that same thing as "disagreement".
No, Flies, for the simple fact that most people don't have an utter intolerance to things. Yes, we all have our beliefs. Of the firm ones, sure we all are biased towards them. That doesn't mean that every single one of our beliefs are staunch, nor does it mean that we are incapable of believing otherwise through sound argument. Therefore, no, we are not all bigoted in every respect.

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by FliesOnly, posted 07-22-2008 11:34 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by FliesOnly, posted 07-23-2008 7:40 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 218 of 333 (476306)
07-22-2008 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by lyx2no
07-22-2008 3:47 PM


Re: More Often Then Not
lyx2no writes:
As for the rest of us, I suggest we all agree never to use the word marriage while at Hoot Mon's house so we can get on to fixing NJ.
Sound good to you, Hoot Mon?
Perfect! I know even less about marriage than I know about woman. Three marriages were enough for me to learn never to try it again. I would have been better off being a homosexual, but I would have preferred to be a lesbian over the other kind. It surely would beat having sex with a man. And some of those lesbians are hot little numbers.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by lyx2no, posted 07-22-2008 3:47 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by lyx2no, posted 07-23-2008 8:45 AM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 219 of 333 (476309)
07-22-2008 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Stile
07-22-2008 3:30 PM


Re: Priorities
Stile writes:
What's more important to you? Equal rights for living, breathing people or definitions of terms?
But I'm for equal rights for gays. I'm for legalizing their domestic partnerships. I don't want to see gays deprived of anything. And I don't want to see those who believe "marriage" is between only a man and a woman deprived of their traditional values they happen to believe in. So, how do you solve the problem and dispel all the bigotry? By getting the government out of the business of marriage. The government's business is about civil unions; the churches' business is about marriages. That's where the rub is.
Thus, to solve the matter fairly, I side with those who say let the government do its business and let the churches theirs. And all those who are bothered by the government marrying homosexuals will no longer have a case against it; they'll have to storm the churches, and I won't have to care twit about it.
I did not originate this brilliant concept. Someone else on these boards came up with the idea, and I saw as a way to drive a wooden stake through the heart of bigotry. (Funny thing, though, many homosexuals are bigoted against it.)
”HM

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Stile, posted 07-22-2008 3:30 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Stile, posted 07-23-2008 8:51 AM Fosdick has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 220 of 333 (476339)
07-23-2008 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by New Cat's Eye
07-21-2008 3:02 AM


Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Where did I even hint at such a thing?
By suggesting that a pharmacist is "stepping in between" the patient and the doctor.
And what part of "I'm not going to fill this prescription for you" is suggestive of not having the drug to dispense? Most drugs have multiple uses. There are reasons for men to take mifiprestone, for example. I sincerely doubt that these pharmacists who are claiming "conscience" for their refusal to fill prescriptions are going to refuse when it's a man asking for the drug.
That's what we're talking about. Please try to pay attention. We know you don't like actually reading posts, but it helps all of us keep the conversation flowing when you do.
quote:
quote:
But let's not play dumb. This isn't about carrying the drug. This is about dispensing it. Carrying the drugs is a different question.
Why? They can simply not carry the drug, then they don't have to dispense it.
I asked you nicely not to play dumb. We're not talking about carrying it. We're talking about dispensing it.
quote:
quote:
And if you could show that that was the reason why, you'd have a point, but let's not play dumb. The refusal to stock certain drugs has nothing to do with demand. It has to do with what the drugs are used for. The pharmacist is simply assuming that the drugs will be used for certain treatments and is deciding that no, certain treatments will become unavailable.
You always accuse of "playing dumb" when your refuted.
(*chuckle*)
So said the person who doesn't read posts.
quote:
quote:
quote:
How much experience do you actually have with pharmacists?
How much do I need?
Enough to realize that saying that a pharmacist must provide a drug is wrong.
When the drug is there, yes, that is wrong. When there are many uses of a drug, yes, that is wrong.
If a pharmacist wants to play doctor, then he can go become a doctor. Until then, he's a pharmacist and is in no position to tell the doctor and patient what treatments are allowed.
quote:
Now, if a pharmacist works for, say Walgreens, that stocks a drug that they don't want to dispence, and Walgreens employee policy states that the pharmacist must provide every drug on the shelf, then they'd be violating their employment policy.
And they'd also be violating the ethical duty that comes with being a pharmacist.
Or is there no such thing as ethics? I must agree with Miss Manners that it is sad that we have to resort to the law in order to enforce what is really a matter of etiquette. Of course a pharmacist doesn't decide not to fill prescriptions and claim "conscience." If you are uncomfortable with the uses of certain drugs for certain treatments, then the position of pharmacist is not for you.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-21-2008 3:02 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-23-2008 12:11 PM Rrhain has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 221 of 333 (476340)
07-23-2008 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by lyx2no
07-21-2008 9:59 AM


lyx2no writes:
quote:
Yes, I know the law currently coerces people by withholding business licenses so that they will accommodate the social will; how tedious. The law also currently doesn't allow Gay marriage. Should I stop arguing for that too?
Huh? How on earth is the justification for business regulation related to marriage rights?
If I didn't know better, I'd say you were wandering off into libertarian land.
quote:
No person is the tool of another person. I am not willing to force people into doing things my way by violating their right to self-determination.
So when you are robbed, it is wrong to force the person who robbed you to return what was stolen or pay restitution or be imprisoned. That would be "violating their right to self-determination," right.
Tell me you're not about to wander into libertarian land.
quote:
I'll assume you meant "ones private desire"; otherwise, you'd be calling me a prick.
"You" generically, not specifically. I don't know you from Adam.
quote:
A right to another man's services is called slavery.
So there is no justification for a hotel to be prevented from denying renting a room to someone on the basis of race? A restaurant is justified in refusing you a table based on your sex?
quote:
quote:
So legal regulation of public services that prevent discrimination are all bogus? A bank does have the right to refuse to give a loan to someone based on race, sex, religion, disability, etc.?
They are bogus.
Well, then there's nothing left to talk about. We have such profound differences of opinion regarding the obligations of society and the ethics that go with being in society that I doubt there is any common ground.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by lyx2no, posted 07-21-2008 9:59 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by lyx2no, posted 07-23-2008 8:40 AM Rrhain has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 222 of 333 (476342)
07-23-2008 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Fosdick
07-21-2008 10:47 AM


Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Since you are seeking to deny others that which you demand for yourself, what is it you are having trouble with?
Rrhain, have you been circumcised? I have, although they never asked for my permission, since I was a newborn when they did it. But, if I followed your logic to the T, all females should be circumcised at birth, too.
Huh? You do realize that you are reversing your implications and claiming they are identical, yes? One involves acting upon a person without their consent and the other is not acting upon a person without their consent.
Are you saying you agree that I should be allowed to perform surgery on you without your consent? Why don't you come here and let me exercise my rights, then.
quote:
Is it even moral?
No, it isn't. Male genital mutilation is just as reprehensible as female genital mutilation and it is bigotry to say that she has a right to her sexual organs while he does not have a right to his.
quote:
Rrhain, this is a blatant case of sexual inequality. You need to jump on it right away.
Indeed, it is. What makes you think I haven't?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Fosdick, posted 07-21-2008 10:47 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Fosdick, posted 07-23-2008 10:42 AM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 223 of 333 (476344)
07-23-2008 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Hyroglyphx
07-21-2008 4:04 PM


Nemesis Juggernat responds to me:
quote:
If you are utterly intolerant of the people who are utterly intolerant of homosexuals, would you be proud or ashamed of it?
Huh? We're back to the silly claim that you are somehow being called a bigot due to your "opinion."
Nobody here has ever claimed that you don't have a right to your opinion. Again, if you think same-sex marriage is wrong, then nobody is going to force you to marry someone of the same sex. Go ahead and live your life the way you see fit.
Having an opinion doesn't make you a bigot. It's seeking to deny others that which you demand for yourself that does it.
quote:
quote:
You seek to deny others that which you demand for yourself. What part of that are you having trouble with?
Show me, somewhere other than your mind, where this qualifier can be found anywhere in the English language next to the word "bigot," and then maybe we can talk.
Um, you just read it. Therefore, you have found it in the English language. Surely you're not about to say that dictionaries are proscriptive, are you?
quote:
What part of "due process" has anything to do with bigotry?
When due process applies to some but not to others, that's textbook bigotry: The denying to others of that which you demand for yourself.
Let's try to remember the conversation:
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
Those of us who are bigoted towards rapists are quite happy being utterly intolerant to it -- I know I am.
in response, Rrhain writes:
Why? What part of "due process" are you having trouble with?
"Bigotry" toward rapists would be to deny them that which you demand for yourself. I demand due process for me with regard to my actions, and I demand the same to others accused of heinous crimes.
Perhaps you could help us out and tell us what you mean by "bigoted towards rapists."
quote:
How is it then that even the Klansman is afforded due process, even though you might argue that he would restrict from someone else?
Because I demand due process for myself. To deny to others that which I demand for myself is bigotry. It doesn't matter that the people I'm denying it to are bigoted.
In the classic, and real, example, the Klan has every right to have a parade. If we're going to allow other groups to have a parade, then it is bigotry to deny it to others simply because of who they are.
quote:
You are using a legal term to try and define an opinion.
The law can be bigoted. That's what the Fourteenth Amendment is all about: "Equal treatment under the law."
You don't have to like something in order to treat it equally, even with regard to non-legal issues.
quote:
Like it or not, bigotry is nothing more than an extreme aversion to someone else's beliefs or opinions.
No, it's the desire to deny to others that which you demand for yourself. It manifests as "extreme aversion to somone else's beliefs or opinions," but the underlying action is one of imposing a double standard.
I have an "extreme aversion" to eating lutefisk. I have an "extreme aversion" to the "opinion" that it is anything other than revolting. But what makes me not a bigot about it is that I don't wish to stop other people from eating it and I simply chalk it up to "no accounting for taste" with regard to those who claim it to be delicious.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-21-2008 4:04 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 224 of 333 (476346)
07-23-2008 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Fosdick
07-22-2008 11:56 AM


Hoot Mon writes:
quote:
I'm saying that changing the legal definition of "marriage" for the convenience of a minority group of homosexuals is subjective.
"I'm saying that changing the legal definition of 'marriage' for the convenience of a minority group of races is subjective."
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
I'm saying that preserving the meaning of "marriage" for the vast majority of heterosexuals is objective
"I'm saying that preserving the meaning of 'marriage' for the vast majority of whites is objective."
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
In all objectivity, "marriage" means a civil union between a man and a woman.
Says who? Other than the demand that the participants be of mixed sex, what part of the application of marriage requires the participants to be of mixed sex? Only a woman can transfer property to a man? Only a man can sponsor a woman for citizenship?
You keep saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman, but you keep on forgetting to explain why.
"In all objectivity, 'marriage' means a civil union between people of the same race."
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
How much more objective can that be?
Because if a same-sex couple were to say that they were "married," nobody would be confused as to what was meant. Therefore, where is the "objectivity" that "marriage" only means mixed-sex?
quote:
But do they need to call it a "marriage" to do that?
Since "separate but equal" is unconstitutional and since "marriage" is the contract that currently exists and is referenced in literally thousands of laws and regulations across dozens of states as well as the federal level, the only legitimate solution is to call it "marriage."
When Loving v. Virginia declared that the word "marriage" was to be applied to mixed-race couples, was that the wrong decision? After all, it was "objective" that "marriage" was only between couples of the same race.
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
The real issue is about which one of us deserves to be call a "bigot."
You wish to deny to gays that which you demand for yourself. You demand "marriage" for yourself yet only want "domestic partnership" for gays. Since no domestic partnership has ever been equal to marriage and since the entire concept of "separate but equal" is unconstitutional, there is no other way around it.
quote:
Can't people have differing POVs without being called bigots?
It isn't a question of "differing POVs." It's that you want to deny others that which you demand for yourself.
A "differing POV" is whether or not you want to marry someone of a particuar characteristic. Nobody cares about your personal POV.
"Bigotry" is when you demand that you be allowed to marry someone you want but deny others the right to marry someone they want.
quote:
You can measure bigotry in the noise made by those who accuse others of it.
And if someone was simply disagreeing with your opinion, then you might have a point. Instead, all responses have been regarding the effect you are trying to achieve: The denial to gays of that which you demand for yourself.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Fosdick, posted 07-22-2008 11:56 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Fosdick, posted 07-23-2008 11:14 AM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 225 of 333 (476347)
07-23-2008 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Fosdick
07-22-2008 2:54 PM


Hoot Mon writes:
quote:
Do you think and a man and man = a man and a woman.
When it comes to marriage, how are they not? What about marriage requires the participants to be of mixed sex? Only a woman can transfer property to a man? Only a man can sponsor a woman for citizenship?
quote:
All I'm saying is that a man and a woman can get "married" in accordance to the meaning of the word, but because a man and a man can't get "married,"
Why not? If two men were to say they were "married," nobody would be confused as to what was meant.
"All I'm saying is that two white people can get 'married' in accordance to the meaning of the word, but because a white person and a black person can't get 'married,'"
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
they ought to be able to get civilly united if they choose, so as to gain all the legal rights and benefits married heterosexuals enjoy.
But "civil unions" don't provide all the legal rights and benefits of marriage.
How are you going to provide the same contract and yet call it something different? Do you truly believe there is such a thing as "separate but equal"?
quote:
That's because I'm counting the wheels.
So explain why a mixed-sex couple is different from a same-sex couple when it comes to marriage. Only a woman can transfer property to a man? Only a man can sponsor a woman for citizenship?
Be specific.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Fosdick, posted 07-22-2008 2:54 PM Fosdick has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024