quote:If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
Because race and sexual orientation are as different as Mars and a tomato.
Why? Nothing in the marriage contract is specific to race. So what in the marriage contract is specific to sexual orientation? Only a woman can transfer property to a man? Only a man can sponsor a woman for citizenship?
Be specific.
quote:You forgot to include these inequalities, too: children and sexual orientation, multiple spouses and sexual orientation, and other species and sexual orientation.
Why is it that the thought of having sex with someone of your own sex immediately makes you think of molesting multiple children and their pets? Are you trying to tell us something, Hoot Mon?
What is it about being gay that leads to pedophilia, polygamy, and bestiality that being straight does not?
Be specific.
quote:But do I also need to explain why men shouldn't use the lady's room?
What does sexual orientation have to do with using the bathroom?
quote:Do I need to explain why a man shouldn't be allowed to marry his daughter or his dog?
You need to explain why the thought of having sex with someone of the same sex immediately makes you think of molesting a child and her dog. Are you trying to tell us something?
What is it about being gay that leads to pedophilia, polygamy, and bestiality that being straight does not?
Be specific.
quote:Do I need to explain why public nudity is immoral?
What does this have to do with anything? Only straight people can be nude? Are you trying to tell us something?
quote:I demand urinals in all mens' public restrooms, and I don't need no stinkin' women squatting over them, either. Boy, am I bigot for my bigoted POV!
Huh? What on earth does this have to do with sexual orientation and marriage? Only single heterosexuals go to the bathroom?
quote:The truth is that I desire for gays exactly what I desire for myself: a heterosexual marriage
"The truth is that I desire for blakcks exactly what I desire for myself: A same-race marriage."
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
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.
I would have to know your motives to judge whether it was or was not bigoted. I do not, however, need to know your motives to know it is rude, stupid and, if I were, insulting. You need a time out, dude.
2no, I'm sorry about your perception of an insult. It obviously was wrong for me to ask. But, dudette, you have suggested, at least to me in several posts, that your sexual orientation is south of normal. Hey, did I ever say it's wrong? I'm even banging the gong for your civil liberties. You've got your panties in a bunch over this, and I had nothing to do with it.
BTW: Where I come from, calling someone a dude can get you shot, dude. The implication of this is that you have been insulted ” possibly in return. Suck it up, dude.
This is not the first time you have said I should be shot. Should I be insulted by that, or should I hire an attorney to defend me against your threats on my life?
BTW: You can go ahead and ask me if I'm a hetero. I won't be insulted.
”HM
If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.
But you never answered my question, Rrhain. It is right or wrong or bigoted to circumcise males and not females? It would seem to me to be as wrong as a pharmacist withholding Plan B from a woman who needs it, even though Plan B be has nothing whatsoever to do with circumcision.
We may disagree over what is objective and what is subjective, but how do you measure this statement for either one?
quote:We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Prosperity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United Satetes of America.
"...to form a more perfect Union"?
"...establish justice"?
"...promote the general Welfare"?
"...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves"?
How utterly subjective are those ordinations in the eyes of those who were deprived of them! And how utterly objective are they in the eyes of those who reaped the benefits!
”HM
If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.
2no, I'm sorry about your perception of an insult.
If this is your perception of an apology the wonder in your getting to divorce court three times lies in how you got to the altar three times.
But, dudette, you have suggested, at least to me in several posts, that your sexual orientation is south of normal.
I have made no such suggestions. Your propensity to read what you want into what is said by others has been a continuing struggle for us all.
I'm even banging the gong for your civil liberties.
I thank you for your kind administrations toward my civil liberties. In concession I will agree with you that one is not a bigot if one thinks dictionaries are carved in stone. That only makes one an idiot. However,
This is not the first time you have said I should be shot. Should I be insulted by that, or should I hire an attorney to defend me against your threats on my life?
you'll have to excuse me if I don't trust you slavish insistence upon the meaning of words as your reason for rejecting the idea of gay marriage when you so freely misuse the word "threats".
It seems my perception of concession needs as much work as your perception of apology.
Where I admire ad hominim as much as anyone I know, this had gotten past useful some time back. See you in another thread.
Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar
Kindly
Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.
quote:But you never answered my question, Rrhain. It is right or wrong or bigoted to circumcise males and not females?
Incorrect. I answered you directly.
Message 222, in response to your question, "Is it even moral?"
Rrhain writes:
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.
How is that not an answer? What part about "No, it isn't" is not a direct answer? What part about "just as reprehensible" fails to respond to your question?
Continuing on in the same post, in responsed to you statement, "Rrhain, this is a blatant case of sexual inequality. You need to jump on it right away."
So how is that not an answer to your question? You did read the post before responding, yes?
quote:How utterly subjective are those ordinations in the eyes of those who were deprived of them!
Indeed, they are subjective. So what? What is it about subjectivity that makes you so nervous? We, as a society, need to come to a decision about what it is that we accept and what it is that we do not accept. It will always be subjective.
But so what? One of the things we have decided we will not tolerate is bigotry. Denying to others that which you demand for yourself is textbook bigotry. Why is this so hard?
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.
And what about a man's crotch in another man's face "ain't right"?
Oh, I certainly agree that Nike was coming at it from the point of view of basketball, so completely dominating another player, but the way they went about it was to do it through homophobia: That it is not only basketball domination, but sexual domination as well.
There are ways to show physical domination in basketball without resorting to homophobia to do it. Compare this to another ad in the line:
Same point, no homophobia.
quote:Will somebody please close that closet door.
You're the one who doesn't want to see what's happening outside of it. You close it.
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.
Oh, I certainly agree that Nike was coming at it from the point of view of basketball, so completely dominating another player, but the way they went about it was to do it through homophobia: That it is not only basketball domination, but sexual domination as well.
Rrhain, do you really believe that Nike was using calculated homophobia to sell its sneakers? Jesus, you guys have everyone walking on egg shells! Why, the next time I see an NFL linebacker stick his head in the groin of the other team's halfback I'm going to shout: "Hey, all you bigoted hetero dudes, better what out for homophobia!"
And when the quarterback puts his hands under the center's crotch I'm going yell: Don't fumble around in there too long, Bart, or some homophobic bigot will say you're a queer!
Rrhain, don't you see just how ridiculous this "homophobia" business has gotten to be? You're so jacked up on homophobia you can't see the world objectively. Objectively, the world didn't give a hoot about homophobia until you gays ran it up the flag pole. Now we're all homophobes just for for asking: How can two men marry each other? Doesn't that contradict the meaning of marriage? And why am I a bigot for bringing it up? For the love of Chuck and Larry, has the world gone mad?
”HM
If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.
Whether or not they were using homophobia to target consumers was not on anyone's mind here hoot, it would be foolish to think that was their plan. The fact still stands that the advert could be construed as homophobic, and obviously was, so they decided to go for something that would not. If someone was offended and there is a simple way to prevent offending people then "just do it". (apologies for the bad joke)
Perhaps the world did not give a hoot about homophobia until gay people brought it to the forefront, but the fact that they felt the need to do so obviously showed that they were feeling persecuted. If they were making something from nothing it would have died long ago but it hasn't. From what you said i can summarise it as "things would have been a lot better if gays had just kept quiet, there wouldn't be all this needless fuss". well i think I'll take a leaf out of Rrhain's book and say "things would have been a lot better if blacks had just kept quiet, there wouldn't be all this needless fuss".
Personally i don't find you to be a bigot for believing marraige is between a man and a woman only. I don't think you are a bigot for believing two men cannot marry in the conventional sense of the word. That is all fine and good. It seems foolish to me that your only reasoning for this is "that's just the way it is" and "It's just what i believe" but like i said, you are entitled to your opinion and nobody is going to take it away from you.
Personally i don't find you to be a bigot for believing marraige is between a man and a woman only. I don't think you are a bigot for believing two men cannot marry in the conventional sense of the word. That is all fine and good. It seems foolish to me that your only reasoning for this is "that's just the way it is" and "It's just what i believe" but like i said, you are entitled to your opinion and nobody is going to take it away from you.
And that's all it is, gruber”just an opinion. Do the gays have any more than that to bring to the table? Is calling "homophobia" on everything they find objectionable anything other than reverse bigotry? I think they are entitled to their opinions, of course. At some point, though, we're going to be hearing from other special groups of people who also want to come out of closet: polygamists, pedophiles and the rest. And they'll all want to get married, too. Why are their opinions and desires any less important than those of gays?
I think in all these threads about gays and bigotry I've proven an important point: the gays are out after a titular prize”"marriage"”and they intend to steal it from the heterosexuals. For my proof I offer the repeated observation (from these threads) that the gays would not be completely satisfied with all the rights and privileges of legalized civil unions, they also want to mutate the meaning of marriage for their vain purposes. What is the dollar value in loss of liberties for a gay couple to be civilly united by the law but denied the title of marriage under the law? Why can't "marriage" be something only heteros do when they get civilly united, and "_______" be something only gays do when they get civilly united? Even Steven”equal rights all around. Honestly, I just don't see how anybody is harmed by this. I just cannot ignore the very basic difference between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual whatever. It's the biggest old elephant in the room I've ever seen.
”HM
Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.
If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.
Well what makes their opinion of "needless persecution of gay people is bad" invalid any more than the black people's opinion that "slavery of black people is bad".
Both are forms of persecution for no reason other than what the people are, so why not?
You and i both know the reason black people were released from slavery, it was unjust.
I'm all for ridiculing gay people who shout homophobia at everything and anything just as much as i am for ridiculing black people about shouting racism at everything, because it is ridiculous. But I think we can agree that we should not ar all gay people with the one brush, not all gay people are like that. Most are content to live their lives quietly with their partners and not kick up a fuss.
Here's the kicker though, they see an injustice. They are afforded all the legal benefits of heterosexual people in all areas of the law except one. Marraige. Is it wrong for them to assume that they should be awarded the rights to marry the one they love?
Now i know what you are going to say, "change civil partnerships so they afford gay people the legal rights as marraige". That's good, in principle, but if put into effect a civil partnership is becoming a marraige. If a bike has two wheels and we can all see it has two wheels but the makers call it a tricycle then that's all well and good, most people will still call it a bike though. The same thing will happen to civil partnerships, if it affords all the legal benefits of a marraige, even if it is called something different, i forsee society would end up just calling it a marraige, even if it "isn't" one.
This is a compromise situation to keep you happy, legally i assume if two contracts are the same they cannot be given two different names, they ARE the same contract, the only way to give them two different names would be to change marraige into the joining of two people of different sex and a civil partnership to be the joining of two people of the same sex. The key word there being "change" as, what has been pointed out to you before, there is nothing in the marraige contract today to say it is only between a man and a woman.
"Then the law should stay out of marraiges, leave it to the churches!" i hear you cry? Fair enough, let's seperate them. The law no longer recognises a marraige of church. There is no contract and no legal benefits. Good enough for you? I mean, your holy union is between you and the one you love in the eyes of God and you do not need the legal side to make it a marraige am I right? You could then just go get a civil partnership to get the legal side of it and all would be well. Would this be a good compromise for all people with a heterosexual marraige?
"Then the law should stay out of marraiges, leave it to the churches!" i hear you cry? Fair enough, let's seperate them. The law no longer recognises a marraige of church. There is no contract and no legal benefits. Good enough for you? I mean, your holy union is between you and the one you love in the eyes of God and you do not need the legal side to make it a marraige am I right? You could then just go get a civil partnership to get the legal side of it and all would be well. Would this be a good compromise for all people with a heterosexual marriage?
Probably. But I think it would be more fair this way than to have the government dabbling in the business of marriage when its true mission should be only to issue legalized civil unions. The First Amendment is friendly to this idea. And churches benefit, too. The Mormon Church is already doing the equivalent of this for polygamy. Best of all, the government gets completely shut out of our bedrooms. It's a win-win all around. And Mr. and Mr. Chuck and Larry can be just as married as Mr. and Mrs. John and Jane. Talk about a Progressive concept! (And I didn't author it, either, but I can't remember who did.)
”HM
Edited by Hoot Mon, : Mr. for Mrs.
If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.
quote:Rrhain, do you really believe that Nike was using calculated homophobia to sell its sneakers?
The fact that something is ubiquitous doesn't make it any less calculated. You seem to be falling into the "doesn't kick puppies" mode of thinking: That so long as we can prove that they weren't sitting around a conference table, rubbing their hands, and cackling, "Let's call 'em faggots!" then somehow there wasn't any bigotry going on.
They decided to use a common homophobic image of a man's crotch in another man's face to show humiliation: "I so dominate you, I can make you suck my dick."
quote:Objectively, the world didn't give a hoot about homophobia until you gays ran it up the flag pole.
"You gays." Right...because nobody can ever think homophobia is a bad thing unless they happen to be gay, themselves.
I know I haven't mentioned my sexual orientation. It is for precisely this reason: I want you to respond to what I say, not what you imagine I ought to have said based upon a characteristic I happen to have.
That said, you're quite right that the world didn't give a hoot about homophobia until gay people brought it up. The world never cares about the crappy treatment it doles out on those not in power until those pissed upon decide to fight back.
Guess we should go back to enslaving people, treating women as chattel, and making sure them uppity Protestants just keep their mouths shut.
quote:Now we're all homophobes just for for asking: How can two men marry each other?
If you don't like it when your bigotry is pointed out, then you have a couple of options: Stop showing it or stop being it.
You still haven't explained just what it is about marriage that requires the participants to be of the opposite sex. Only women can transfer property to men? Only men can sponsor women for citizenship?
Be specific.
quote:Doesn't that contradict the meaning of marriage?
No. Why would it? What is it about marriage that requires the participants to be of the opposite sex? Only women can transfer property to men? Only men can sponsor women for citizenship?
Be specific.
quote:And why am I a bigot for bringing it up?
Because you're looking for a justification to deny to others that which you demand for yourself. That's textbook bigotry.
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.
quote:And that's all it is, gruber”just an opinion.
So when you step into the ballot box, you're going to actually vote for equality in marriage since it's "just an opinion" that you think gays can't get married?
quote:Do the gays have any more than that to bring to the table?
Gays don't have the right to get married. Gays don't have the right to be secure in their households and not be evicted for being gay. Gays don't have the right to be secure in their jobs and not be fired for being gay. Gays don't have the right to be secure in their parenthood and not have their children taken away because the parents are gay. Gays don't have the right to serve in the military. Gays don't have the right not to be tortured because they are gay.
What more do you need?
quote:Is calling "homophobia" on everything they find objectionable anything other than reverse bigotry?
If you don't like having your bigotry called out, you have a couple options: You can stop showing it or stop being it.
quote:At some point, though, we're going to be hearing from other special groups of people who also want to come out of closet: polygamists, pedophiles and the rest. And they'll all want to get married, too. Why are their opinions and desires any less important than those of gays?
Huh? Why is it the thought of having sex with someone of your own sex immediately makes you think about raping your children? What is it about being gay that leads to polygamist pedophiles that being straight does not?
Be specific.
Here's a few things to think about to help you: How does the sex of the participants in a marriage change the number, age, species, or familial relationship of the participants? If they don't, then why does same-sex marriage lead to such conceptions while mixed-sex marriage does not?
There may or may not be justifications for other recognitions of marraige, but you're not going to find the justification in same-sex marriage.
quote:I think in all these threads about gays and bigotry I've proven an important point: the gays are out after a titular prize”"marriage"”and they intend to steal it from the heterosexuals.
"Steal it"? Just what is stolen from mixed-sex couples when same-sex couples get married?
How does the neighbor's marriage affect you? Do you need to give them an easement? You're no longer allowed to own a pet? You'll be deported?
Be specific.
quote:For my proof I offer the repeated observation (from these threads) that the gays would not be completely satisfied with all the rights and privileges of legalized civil unions
"For my proof, I offer the repeated observation (from these threads) that the blacks would not be completely satisfied with all the rights and privileges of legalized civil unions."
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
That said, "civil union" does not provide all the rights and privileges of marriage. In every case it has been attempted, a civil union falls short...even when the judiciary ordered the legislature to make them equivalent.
By calling the same relationship two different things based upon certain characteristics of the participants, you necessarily make the legal claim that the two relationships are not the same. Since they are not legally the same, they can legally be treated differently.
And thus, you show that you really don't want equality...you want to discriminate. That you are so upset over the use of a single word for a single contract shows you really don't think they're the same and don't want them to be the same.
The only way to guarantee equality at all levels is to have a single contract.
quote:they also want to mutate the meaning of marriage for their vain purposes.
Huh? What is "mutated"? Only women can transfer property to men? Only men can sponsor women for citizenship? What is it about marriage that requires the participants to be of mixed sex?
Be specific.
quote:What is the dollar value in loss of liberties for a gay couple to be civilly united by the law but denied the title of marriage under the law?
Since no civil union is the legal equivalent of a marriage, quite a lot. Cross the border, and suddenly you are no longer joint owners of anything.
quote:Why can't "marriage" be something only heteros do when they get civilly united, and "_______" be something only gays do when they get civilly united?
"Why can't 'marriage' be something only whites do when they get civilly united and '_____' be something only interracial couples do when they get civilly united?"
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
The reason why, of course, is that "separate but equal" doesn't exist anywhere. It never has. It never will. By using two names, you necessarily indicate that they are not the same. If they're not the same, then you can treat them differently. This gives the lie to your claim that they're equal.
quote:Even Steven”equal rights all around. Honestly, I just don't see how anybody is harmed by this.
Since a "civil union" is not the legal equivalent of a marriage, one wonders how you conclude "equal rights all around." When you are suddenly legal strangers to each other simply because you've crossed a border, how is that not harm?
quote:I just cannot ignore the very basic difference between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual whatever.
And what, precisely, is it? You've been asked to describe this difference for months and so far, you have done everything you can to avoid doing so. Only women can transfer property to men? Only men can sponsor women for citizenship? What is it about marriage that requires the participants to be of mixed sex?
Be specific.
quote:It's the biggest old elephant in the room I've ever seen.
Then it should be easy for you to tell us what it is. Only women can transfer property to men? Only men can sponsor women for citizenship? What is it about marriage that requires the participants to be of mixed sex?
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.
quote:They are afforded all the legal benefits of heterosexual people in all areas of the law except one. Marraige.
Incorrect. Gay people are discriminated against in most all aspects of life:
Gays don't have the right to get married. Gays don't have the right to be secure in their households and not be evicted for being gay. Gays don't have the right to be secure in their jobs and not be fired for being gay. Gays don't have the right to be secure in their parenthood and not have their children taken away because the parents are gay. Gays don't have the right to serve in the military. Gays don't have the right not to be tortured because they are gay.
Marriage is just one aspect of many.
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.
™ Version 4.2