Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The future of marriage
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 212 of 308 (380453)
01-27-2007 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by jar
01-27-2007 11:39 AM


Re: Consent?”A Test
Hoot asked:
Speaking of CONSENT, here's a yes/no question to test the righteous resolution of all you homophiles: Would you consent to a blood transfusion from a gay man who you knew was sexually active with other gay men? This is where consent must factor more than social opinionation; well-established medical facts about HIV must also be considered.
jar replied:
Not only are you trying the good old Gish Gallop but it is just yet another stupid comment.
The answer is of course, "Hell yes I would accept such a transfusion."
Only an idiot would not.
Here's a case where opinionation can kill you. I'd vastly prefer to be a live idiot than a self-righteous and sickly fool withering away with AIDS. But go ahead, be foolish, ignore the statistics about blood transfusions.
”Hoot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by jar, posted 01-27-2007 11:39 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by jar, posted 01-27-2007 12:14 PM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 216 of 308 (380469)
01-27-2007 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by jar
01-27-2007 12:14 PM


Re: As I said, not only stupid but off topic.
Hoot asked:
Speaking of CONSENT, here's a yes/no question to test the righteous resolution of all you homophiles: Would you consent to a blood transfusion from a gay man who you knew was sexually active with other gay men? This is where consent must factor more than social opinionation; well-established medical facts about HIV must also be considered.
jar replies:
Your example was simply stupid. Sorry, no other way to describe it. Once again, as usual, you were simply trying to misdirect the audience attention so they didn't see you palm the pea, change the subject.
I disagree with you, jar. All along this thread, you and others have claimed over and over again that EQUALITY is the main issue here, concerning gays and the future of marriage. You say gays should be treated equally and be allowed to get married in America, just like the straights. But when I point out to you that gay men are not entirely equal to straight men, regarding the relevant and scientific category of blood analysis, you say I'm off topic.
Do you deny the FACT that gay men, on average, have a much higher probability of carrying HIV in their bloodstreams than straights? How is THIS equal?
I'm showing you here one credible differentiation between gay men and straight men. Gays clearly are NOT equal to straights to those scientists who keep statistics on blood-borne diseases.
”Hoot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by jar, posted 01-27-2007 12:14 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by crashfrog, posted 01-27-2007 12:54 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 218 by jar, posted 01-27-2007 12:56 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 219 by ringo, posted 01-27-2007 1:06 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 252 by Jaderis, posted 01-28-2007 4:23 AM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 220 of 308 (380485)
01-27-2007 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by ringo
01-27-2007 1:06 PM


Re: As I said, not only stupid but off topic.
Ringo says:
Did you go to school?
Were you out smoking behind the gym the day they talked about equality?
Equality has nothing to do with how tall they are or what their favourite movie is or what diseases they might be susceptible to. Equality is about equal protection under the law.
The whole principle of equality is meaningless if you make people "unequal" because they are different.
You're right, we shouldn't discriminate againsts gay men on the the basis of their blood-borne diseases. That's wrong, and it is no good reason to prevent them from marrying each other if they want to. I'm afraid however you missed the point: Perhaps if gay men were NOT more likely to carry HIV than straight men there would be greater acceptability in the U.S. for expanding the meaning of marriage to include gays, or for even granting them their civil-union rights and benefits. It's not ALL a matter of bigotry, you know; the gays hold some of the blame, too, for their own perceived repression.
btw: I was in biology class the day the teacher talked about epidemics and the need to for clean lifestyles. She didn't say exactly what that was, but I gathered that sanitary bathroom habits had a lot to do with it.
”Hoot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by ringo, posted 01-27-2007 1:06 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by ringo, posted 01-27-2007 1:43 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 224 by jar, posted 01-27-2007 2:04 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 225 of 308 (380499)
01-27-2007 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by NosyNed
01-27-2007 1:33 PM


NosyNed's plan for the future of marriage
I think NoseyNed has framed the best propsoal yet. So why do you suppose the gay-marriage supporters are not lining up behind NosyNed in doves? Is it because they would rather flap their arms around and cry bigotry again and again?
”Hoot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by NosyNed, posted 01-27-2007 1:33 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by crashfrog, posted 01-27-2007 2:38 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 227 by NosyNed, posted 01-27-2007 2:39 PM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 228 of 308 (380507)
01-27-2007 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by NosyNed
01-27-2007 2:39 PM


Re: NosyNed's plan for the future of marriage
NosyNed wrote:
Why aren't anti-gay-marriage putting forward this idea in droves? Do you really think more than a tiny fraction of anti-same-sex-marriage people would support this for a second?
Probably not. But what's in it for anti-same-sex-marriage people? All they get out of deal is a dilution of their idea of marriage, and maybe the statisfaction that gays get to to feel good about themselves and all.
My own proposal posted somewhere upthread has a value-added principle for same-sex marriage: adoption. Gay married couples would agree to adopt children to help society out a little instead of complaining about it all the time. Maybe that would help to improve the acceptability of same-sex "marriage" (disregarding the consummation problem, of course).
”Hoot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by NosyNed, posted 01-27-2007 2:39 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by crashfrog, posted 01-27-2007 3:37 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 230 by subbie, posted 01-27-2007 4:52 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 233 of 308 (380535)
01-27-2007 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by crashfrog
01-27-2007 3:37 PM


Re: NosyNed's plan for the future of marriage
Please let me demonstrate how annoying pedantry can be:
crashfrog wrote:
Same-sex marriage's opponents are trying to prevent gay adoption. How could it possibly be a draw for them?
What's with this "Same-sex marriage's opponents..."? Do you mean "Same-sex-marriage opponents..."? Why do you make a possessive out of an adjective? You clearly don't know what you're talking about, do you?
Demonstration concluded, frog, and I hope you learned your lesson.
Now, please tell us how and why you disagree with NoseyNed's proposal. And don't refer me to Dan's proposal either, because it ain't one.
”Hootin' for you

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by crashfrog, posted 01-27-2007 3:37 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by nator, posted 01-27-2007 7:23 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 235 by subbie, posted 01-27-2007 7:31 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 244 by crashfrog, posted 01-27-2007 10:29 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 236 of 308 (380544)
01-27-2007 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by nator
01-27-2007 7:09 PM


Re: CONSENT?”A Test
quote:
Speaking of CONSENT, here's a yes/no question to test the righteous resolution of all you homophiles: Would you consent to a blood transfusion from a gay man who you knew was sexually active with other gay men?
nator replied:
Sure, if the blood is tested the same way mine would be.
You have more faith in clinical blood testing than I do. I certain would NOT accept blood from a gay man if I new he was sexually active with other gay men. I don't care if I'm dying, I'd rather die straight away than have to worry about HIV coursing through my bloodstream.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by nator, posted 01-27-2007 7:09 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Nighttrain, posted 01-27-2007 8:07 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 241 of 308 (380557)
01-27-2007 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by jar
01-27-2007 8:16 PM


Re: Gimme that Straight HIV, not that thar Queer HIV
jar wrote:
These are all the same old stupid arguments we went through about 50 years ago. It is the same ignorant folk that fought integration, didn't want that darkie blood or darkie organs.
THAT is an insult to black people! How can you draw a paralle between race and sexual orietation? "Equality" has relative measurements. Think about it, this is not at all consistent with MLK's interpretation of the plight of all the little babies of color. The gays have introduced a new element into the standard equation for "marriage." It changes the meaning of marriage. You don't have to be a conservative Christian to see that.
I think it is important to ask all the questions, no matter how stupid they may seem to certain people. As Wittgenstein said: "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence."
”Hoot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by jar, posted 01-27-2007 8:16 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by nator, posted 01-27-2007 9:14 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 243 by jar, posted 01-27-2007 9:20 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 245 by crashfrog, posted 01-27-2007 10:31 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 246 by NosyNed, posted 01-28-2007 12:47 AM Fosdick has replied
 Message 248 by ReverendDG, posted 01-28-2007 1:47 AM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 254 by Jaderis, posted 01-28-2007 5:28 AM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 256 of 308 (380682)
01-28-2007 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by NosyNed
01-28-2007 12:47 AM


Re: Meaning of Marriage
Hoot wrote:
It changes the meaning of marriage.
NosyNed responded:
I thought you liked my proposal which would utterly change the meaning of marriage and, while doing that, also strip it of any content that laws give it now?????
I do like your proposal, but I don't get your point here. Yes, it does indeed "utterly change the meaning of marriage."
”Hoot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by NosyNed, posted 01-28-2007 12:47 AM NosyNed has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 257 of 308 (380683)
01-28-2007 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by nator
01-27-2007 9:14 PM


Re: Gimme that Straight HIV, not that thar Queer HIV
Hoot wrote:
It changes the meaning of marriage.
nator replied:
Which is what, according to you?
Well, for starters, it would mean that same-sexes can get "married." That's of a change, don't you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by nator, posted 01-27-2007 9:14 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by NosyNed, posted 01-28-2007 12:26 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 259 by Chiroptera, posted 01-28-2007 12:34 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 274 by nator, posted 01-28-2007 7:41 PM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 260 of 308 (380689)
01-28-2007 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by jar
01-27-2007 9:20 PM


Your opinion of NosyNed's proposal?
jar wrote:
You're just trying once again to misdirect folk so you can palm the pea, change the subject, without them noticing.
So once again you want to play dancing goal posts. Now we have made the GREAT CIRCLE and we are back to changing the meaning of marriage.
The tactic you are now using is that every time the fallacy of your position is demonstrated you move to another one. Eventually you arrive back at the beginning and hope that we won't remember how your argument went down in flames last time.
That is exactly what someone would say if he is loosing ground in an open discussion. No, sir, it is you who is palming the pea. My criticism of same-sex "marriage" is my OPINION, just as your criticism of my position is your OPINION. Why do you get so bent out of shape when someone else's opinion opposes yours? The fallacy of my position has NOT been demonstrated, and it is you who is tactically avoiding the issue. I have agreed to NosyNed's proposal for legitimizing same-sex marriage. OK. So what is wrong with my questioning a few of the circumstantial issues arrising from same-sex unions? When was it decided that only the chosen people can ask the questions around here? And, please, what is YOUR opinion of NosyNed's proposal?
”Hoot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by jar, posted 01-27-2007 9:20 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by jar, posted 01-28-2007 12:58 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 261 of 308 (380690)
01-28-2007 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by NosyNed
01-28-2007 12:26 PM


Re: Agreed or not?
NoseyNed wrote:
But I thought you'd already agreed to change the meaning of marriage? And allow same-sexes to get "married" in the bargin.
Could you explain your position again?
Disconnect here. All I am saying is that same-sex "marriage" changes the meaning of "marriage." If you agree, then what's the problem? I'm ready to sign off on your proposal.
”Hoot
Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by NosyNed, posted 01-28-2007 12:26 PM NosyNed has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 263 of 308 (380700)
01-28-2007 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by crashfrog
01-27-2007 10:31 PM


Re: Gimme that Straight HIV, not that thar Queer HIV
crashfrog wrote:
No, actually, you basically do. Or a fundamentalist Muslim. (I guess you could call them your allies on this.)
That's why the objections to same-sex marriage stem almost completely from religious conservatism. I guess you didn't notice that - you were too busy fantasizing about ways to keep OMG TEH H0M0Z!!!11! out of your bloodstream.
I can tell you this much about myself: I am definitely NOT a conservative Christian or Muslim or Toxic Amphibian or anything religious like that. In fact, I can’t stand to be around them. I’m a leftist by most measures, probably much more liberal than you. I decide for myself what is proper and is not. “Proper” can be defined as almost anything done by consenting adults, so long as nobody gets hurt, especially the children. What straights and gays do behind closed doors is no business of mine . so long as nobody gets hurt.
This was entirely good for me, right up until the HIV pandemic when people started to get hurt, often children. I learned about the different ways HIV can be transmitted; sex between gay men certainly is not the only way. Nevertheless, this caused me to start worrying anxiously about what goes on behind close doors between gay men (setting aside lesbians for the moment), which I deeply understand to be none of my business. Yes! I do! But, damn it, I still worry about it. (It is best that I say nothing about gay women, since I understand them even less than gay men. But I do understand that gay people are gay more by way of nature than by way of choice.)
In you mind it is bigotry to disagree with your point of view. Your biases toward tabloid political correctness are not serving to open your mind on revelant issues. For example, my point about blood transfusions from gay men is not at all trivial from a clinical point of view. Why do you suppose there has been a ban preventing gay men from donating their blood? Bigotry? I think the ban has been lifted now; but, for the love of Boy George, why was it even necessary in the first place? Honestly, I don’t understand how the same-sex-marriage crowd can let their self-righteous indignation run away with them. Tame down, and look at the facts.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by crashfrog, posted 01-27-2007 10:31 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by crashfrog, posted 01-28-2007 1:34 PM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 264 of 308 (380706)
01-28-2007 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Chiroptera
01-28-2007 12:34 PM


Re: Definition of marriage?
Chiroptera wrote:
Anyway, I think you will agree that the definition of marriage has already changed at least once, namely from a formal contractual agreement between two families or clans to cement their alliance.
True. So you agree that "marriage" has tribal roots. The question here is about how far we should depart from our traditional roots. Nosy's proposal lets the churches decide what should be preserved for the sake of tradition. Let the churches "marry" people in any way they like. Let the people calll themselve "married" if they want to. In legal terms, however, there is no need to even mention "marriage" if CIVIL UNIONS are adequate for protecting the rights of all people, gay or otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Chiroptera, posted 01-28-2007 12:34 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Chiroptera, posted 01-28-2007 2:05 PM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 266 of 308 (380711)
01-28-2007 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by crashfrog
01-28-2007 1:34 PM


Homo Cooties
crashfrog wrote:
No shit, HM! We can all see you're scared to fucking death of the idea that you'll get some OMG TEH HOMO cooties in your bloodstream.
This doesn't help to make me feel any better. How am I ever going to be able to rest now that I know the homo cooties are out to get me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by crashfrog, posted 01-28-2007 1:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by crashfrog, posted 01-28-2007 1:53 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