Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On the Threshold of Bigotry
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 256 of 333 (477315)
08-01-2008 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Fosdick
07-29-2008 11:38 AM


Hoot Mon writes:
quote:
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.
So because the current contract is called "marriage" and is referenced in literally thousands of laws, the best solution is to have every single law strike the word "marriage" and replace it with "civil union" rather than simply keep everything as it is and recognize that "marriage" applies regardless of the sex of the participants?
Because you're having a panic attack over a word, we should have to fight the same battle in every state and territory as well as at the federal level rather than simply having a single change that covers everything at once?
quote:
The First Amendment is friendly to this idea.
You can call your "special friendship" whatever you want to call it. The rest of us will use the word that already exists:
Marriage.
You're the one with the problem. You're the one who gets to absent himself from the rest of the world.

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 252 by Fosdick, posted 07-29-2008 11:38 AM Fosdick has not replied

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


Message 257 of 333 (477345)
08-01-2008 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Rrhain
08-01-2008 3:44 AM


Another giant sucking sound
Rrhain writes:
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."
No, the ad was saying: "I so dominate you I can make you make you want to buy my sneakers." I don't recall anyone saying anything about sucking dick. Maybe you have a fixation about dick sucking. Slurp, gag, slurp!
What is it about marriage that requires the participants to be of the opposite sex?
What is about marriage that makes gays feel they should qualify for it? And here's you likely response: 'What is about marriage that makes blacks feel they should qualify for it?' Rrhain, you need correction at several levels of bigotry.
Because you're looking for a justification to deny to others that which you demand for yourself. That's textbook bigotry.
WRONG! I demand EXACTLY for everyone what I demand for myself. It is you who demands for your special-interest group a contortion of the marriage institution. I have no such demands. And for you to say that I do makes you a bigot of first order. (But I stand in defense of your homophilic bigotry, just as I stand in defense of anyone's preferred sexuality, whether or not he or she got that way naturally.)
”HM

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Rrhain, posted 08-01-2008 3:44 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Rrhain, posted 08-03-2008 3:57 AM Fosdick has replied

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


Message 258 of 333 (477463)
08-03-2008 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Fosdick
08-01-2008 10:40 AM


Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote:
No, the ad was saying: "I so dominate you I can make you make you want to buy my sneakers."
So you have no compunction about having another man's crotch in your face, right? It doesn't mean a thing, eh? Come here, then, Hoot Mon. I'd like to test that theory. I know some people who wouldn't mind seeing just how far you're willing to go.
No, I'm not going to have sex with you, so don't ask.
quote:
I don't recall anyone saying anything about sucking dick.
Right, because a man shoving his crotch into another man's face has absolutely no sexual connotations.
The invitation is open, Hoot Mon. Come here and let's test your claim that when you find your face buried in another man's crotch, you don't have any thought of sex.
No, I'm not going to have sex with you, so don't ask.
quote:
What is about marriage that makes gays feel they should qualify for it?
"What is it about marriage that makes people of different races feel they should qualify for it?"
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
And here's you likely response: 'What is about marriage that makes blacks feel they should qualify for it?'
Close. And since you know what the response is, why don't you do us a favor and finally answer the question:
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
Rrhain, you need correction at several levels of bigotry.
When you come here and test your claim by having your face is buried in another man's crotch, you can then tell me about bigotry.
No, I'm not going to have sex with you, so don't ask.
quote:
quote:
Because you're looking for a justification to deny to others that which you demand for yourself. That's textbook bigotry.
WRONG! I demand EXACTLY for everyone what I demand for myself.
You want to keep marriage from gay people. And yet you have been married multiple times.
You seek to deny to others that which you demand for yourself. That's textbook bigotry.
quote:
It is you who demands for your special-interest group a contortion of the marriage institution.
"It is interracial couples who demand for their special-interest group a contortion of the marriage institution."
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
That was the argument used to deny marriage to interracial couples: To allow it would be to twist the definition of marriage into something unrecognizable. So you're saying that Loving v. Virginia was wrong to strike down miscegenation laws, right? If not, then you're going to have to explain why your argument is bogus when it comes to race but legitimate when it comes to sexual orientation.
Be specific.
quote:
I have no such demands.
"Contortion of the marriage institution." You don't want gay people to be able to get married even though you have been married multiple times.
You seek to deny to others that when you demand for yourself. That's textbook bigotry.
If you truly have no such demands, then you'll need to explain why you wish to keep marriage from gay people. You know that "civil union" won't cut it both as a constitutional matter ("separate but equal") and as a practical matter (no "civil union" has ever managed to be the equivalent of marriage). If you truly don't wish to keep gay people from having all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, then you're going to have to explain why you have said that marriage doesn't apply.
Be specific.
quote:
And for you to say that I do makes you a bigot of first order.
What am I denying to you that I am demanding for myself?
Be specific.
quote:
(But I stand in defense of your homophilic bigotry, just as I stand in defense of anyone's preferred sexuality, whether or not he or she got that way naturally.)
So come here and prove it. Again, I know many people who would be happy to help you test that claim.
No, I'm not going to have sex with you, so don't ask.

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 257 by Fosdick, posted 08-01-2008 10:40 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Fosdick, posted 08-05-2008 10:35 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 259 of 333 (477615)
08-05-2008 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Rrhain
08-03-2008 3:57 AM


Re: The bigotry of Sneaker Ads
Rrhain writes:
So you have no compunction about having another man's crotch in your face, right? It doesn't mean a thing, eh? Come here, then, Hoot Mon. I'd like to test that theory. I know some people who wouldn't mind seeing just how far you're willing to go.
No, I'm not going to have sex with you, so don't ask.
I was a high-school wrestler who made it to the state finals. Stuck my head and hands into many young men's crotches, grabbed them by their balls, threw them down and tried to pressed them into submission. Won some and lost some. And all the while I NEVER thought about having sex with them.
But if it had been a pretty boy like you, Rrhain, I might asked you for a date instead of crushing your nuts in a crotch lock.
The invitation is open, Hoot Mon. Come here and let's test your claim that when you find your face buried in another man's crotch, you don't have any thought of sex.
Are you sure about this, pretty boy? I've got a slick move for you called the Lorena Bobbit tooth lock.
When you come here and test your claim by having your face is buried in another man's crotch, you can then tell me about bigotry.
No, I'm not going to have sex with you, so don't ask.
Cruelty knows no bounds, you manly masher. Oh, well, tomorrow is another day.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Rrhain, posted 08-03-2008 3:57 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Rrhain, posted 08-05-2008 9:50 PM Fosdick has replied

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


Message 260 of 333 (477659)
08-05-2008 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Fosdick
08-05-2008 10:35 AM


Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote:
I was a high-school wrestler who made it to the state finals. Stuck my head and hands into many young men's crotches, grabbed them by their balls, threw them down and tried to pressed them into submission. Won some and lost some. And all the while I NEVER thought about having sex with them.
Then put your money where your mouth is. I know some people who would be happy to see just how far you're willing to go.
Hint: Does the word "context" mean anything to you? Of course when you've got people jumping up and down on top of each other, you're going to find your face in someone else's crotch at some point. In and of itself, one cannot ascribe any particular meaning to it at all. But when the phrase, "That ain't right," is attached to it, the context becomes quite clear.
Note your assumption of context in your response. You keep assuming that I'm trying to have sex with you despite my explicit denial of same.
But if it had been a pretty boy like you, Rrhain, I might asked you for a date instead of crushing your nuts in a crotch lock.
quote:
Are you sure about this, pretty boy? I've got a slick move for you called the Lorena Bobbit tooth lock.
(*chuckle*)
Once again, you assume that I am going to be involved despite my repeated explicit statements to the contrary. And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot. Despite repeated indications that I will not have sex with you, you keep asking me to do so.
Why are so obsessed about my genitalia, Hoot Mon? I keep telling you that you're never going to see and you keep on making requests to be shown.
And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

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 259 by Fosdick, posted 08-05-2008 10:35 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Fosdick, posted 08-06-2008 11:13 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 261 of 333 (477674)
08-06-2008 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Rrhain
08-05-2008 9:50 PM


"Context"
Rrhain writes:
Does the word "context" mean anything to you? Of course when you've got people jumping up and down on top of each other, you're going to find your face in someone else's crotch at some point. In and of itself, one cannot ascribe any particular meaning to it at all. But when the phrase, "That ain't right," is attached to it, the context becomes quite clear.
Rrhain, my frilly friend, my diagnosis for your embarrassing condition is retrohomophilaphobia. Your latest symptom is your self-serving misinterpretation of a sneaker ad. You wear your nerves on the outside of your skin. So, I suggest you stay away from sports altogether. (But I should think you would embrace the "context" of two men having sex with each other in the middle of a basketball game.)
Why are so obsessed about my genitalia, Hoot Mon?
I'm not obsessed, just curious if you have any. Could you post a picture?
”HM
Edited by Hoot Mon, : Just trying to help Rrhain reach his fullest potential.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Rrhain, posted 08-05-2008 9:50 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Modulous, posted 08-06-2008 11:36 AM Fosdick has replied
 Message 269 by Rrhain, posted 08-07-2008 4:30 AM Fosdick has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 262 of 333 (477675)
08-06-2008 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Fosdick
08-06-2008 11:13 AM


anti-miscegenation laws
Hi Hoot,
I would like to see the reasoning you use that separates your argument from the arguments used to maintain anti-miscegenation laws. I couldn't find it. Since the topic is about bigotry and I assume we both agree anti-miscegenation laws were bigoted...what criteria exactly pushes your argument over the threshold of bigotry?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Fosdick, posted 08-06-2008 11:13 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Fosdick, posted 08-06-2008 12:59 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 263 of 333 (477685)
08-06-2008 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Modulous
08-06-2008 11:36 AM


Re: anti-miscegenation laws
Good question, Mod.
Since the topic is about bigotry and I assume we both agree anti-miscegenation laws were bigoted...what criteria exactly pushes your argument over the threshold of bigotry?
Yes, we agree that anti-miscegenation laws are bigoted. We agree that the intermarriage of races should not be prohibited. But why? Why should a black man be allowed to marry a white woman? Who decides what should and shouldn't be? The "criteria" you ask for are liable to be loaded with subjectivity.
Why shouldn't the man next door be allowed to raise Labrador Retriever puppies for barbecuing purposes? Why do we allow cage fighting between humans, but prohibit it for dogs and chickens? Anyone who might oppose those actions could be labeled a bigot, depending entirely upon people's attitudes and opinions of the times.
So, what criterion differentiates a prohibition of interracial marriage from a prohibition of gay marriage? It is the criterion of subjective judgement, applied on a temporal landscape with shifting thresholds of bigotry. In all honesty, I have no trouble whatsoever with a black man marrying a white woman. But it is apparently to my highly bigoted discredit that I cannot see how a black man, or one of any other race, can marry another man. Someone needs to drop a 2x4 on my head and wake me up”I must be slumbering in Bigotland.
Personally, I don't believe I've crossed the threshold of bigotry because of this. But others do. Do you suppose that every threshold of bigotry has the same operative criteria? Could it be anything other than the subjective attitudes and opinions of the times?
”HM

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Modulous, posted 08-06-2008 11:36 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Modulous, posted 08-06-2008 1:52 PM Fosdick has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 264 of 333 (477689)
08-06-2008 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Fosdick
08-06-2008 12:59 PM


Re: anti-miscegenation laws
Personally, I don't believe I've crossed the threshold of bigotry because of this. But others do. Do you suppose that every threshold of bigotry has the same operative criteria? Could it be anything other than the subjective attitudes and opinions of the times?
I don't think bigotry changes through time. What is commonly called bigotry may change as awareness changes. You are a bigot if you are intolerant of lifestyles/opinions that are different from your own regardless of when in history you were intolerant of them.
The Victorians were on the whole bigoted simply because they generally were intolerant of lifestyles that are different from their own.
Is being opposed to gay marriage an intolerance of a lifestyle not your own? Could be. Could be that you are just unfair. However, if we simplify and say that the unfairness of blocking mixed marriages is bigoted, then there is no reason you can defend the gay issue as not being bigoted.
I have yet to see a reason beyond "subjectivity" which can be used to support preventing gay people from marrying. There are reasons why we shouldn't allow amateur farming of Labradors. There are reasons we shouldn't prevent mixed-race marriages. Allowing gay people to marry one another won't effect current or future heterosexual marriages and will provide security to gay people and children. Sounds like an actual reason to allow it, with no reason beyond 'subjectivity' against it - shouldn't we allow it? Otherwise, using our understanding that anti-miscegenation laws are bigoted we should likewise call anti-homosexual marriage laws are bigoted.
Or have I missed something?
Would you be happy if your desired marriage was blocked for no reason but the 'subjective judgements applied on a temporal landscape'...and when you ask about how the judgement was arrived at you get a shrug of the shoulder and 'just subjectivity'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Fosdick, posted 08-06-2008 12:59 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Fosdick, posted 08-06-2008 3:35 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 265 of 333 (477698)
08-06-2008 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Modulous
08-06-2008 1:52 PM


Re: anti-miscegenation laws
Mod writes:
Or have I missed something?
Perhaps you missed the test I performed on this and other threads to expose the real sentiments behind "gay marriage." I went on record to support legalizing civil unions for gays”domestic partnerships that are as comprehensive for them as they are for heteros”with the only difference being titular: straights get married under the law, gays get domestic partnerships. But, wait, there was a problem with that: some gays wanted to get titularly married, too, and some straights said that's not what marriage was intended to mean.
Test result: The gays are out to steal a titular prize from the straights, even after they are hypothetically granted full-on domestic partnerships that are equal those of straights.
Subsequently, to accommodate both sides, I proposed that we get the law out of the business of marriage: let the churches decide who gets married and let the law decide who gets civilly united. And I, who opposes legalizing the titularity of "gay marriage" because I regard it as an oxymoron, would not be affected by whatever the churches decide to do. As it is right now, they worship statues of a dead man hanging grimly from a cross, and I wouldn't want any part of that. So, I don't have to be party to that if I don't want to, but I have be party to the law whether I like it or not.
And for my efforts to find equanimity on this issue I get called a bigot. This is why I proposed, in Message 44, the Threshold of Bigotry Rule #1: You can measure bigotry in the noise made by those who accuse others of it.
”HM

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Modulous, posted 08-06-2008 1:52 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Modulous, posted 08-06-2008 4:18 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 270 by Rrhain, posted 08-07-2008 4:49 AM Fosdick has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 266 of 333 (477701)
08-06-2008 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Fosdick
08-06-2008 3:35 PM


Re: anti-miscegenation laws
Perhaps you missed the test I performed on this and other threads to expose the real sentiments behind "gay marriage."
I didn't miss it.
Subsequently, to accommodate both sides, I proposed that we get the law out of the business of marriage: let the churches decide who gets married and let the law decide who gets civilly united.
But its just a semantic argument. I have no problem with the arrangement: the name is irrelevant. Gays could open their own churches and those churches could 'marry' them making them just as married as 'straight' people. Indeed, people could marry animals, children, 20 different people, their nation, the concept of happiness, purple etc etc. Either that or people wouldn't bother with 'civil union' as a phrase and would just use 'marriage' as a shortcut since everyone would see the two as meaning exactly the same thing.
And if marriage is only a matter for the churches, what about the atheists, muslims, jews, hindus, wiccans, sikhs, buddhists, confucianists, jainists, shintoists, taoists, those of the multitude of pagan religions, animists etc etc? Are you saying that these cannot get married? Or is it only religious people in general who are allowed to get married under your idea? Can philosophical positions institute marriage, humanist marriage for example?
You also have to deal with the 'same but different' problem: I see no forthcoming solutions from you.
The gays are out to steal a titular prize from the straights
Theft implies that someone is being deprived of something. How would the straights be being deprived of something?
even after they are hypothetically granted full-on domestic partnerships that are equal those of straights.
Would you be equally willing to say that black people should not marry but they could get a civil union which is the same? And who polices this language anyway? I fail to see how you could find that problematic.
Or how about marriage only being what gay people are allowed to have, and straight people are only allowed to have a civil union which imparts the same rights as a marriage? If you think this is problematic maybe the conclusion should be that straights are only after clinging on to a titular prize to lord it over the gays?
You haven't at any point during your explanation told me what possible reason you can have for wanting to deny gays the right to marriage other than by implying they are merely after stealing some titular prize. Your misdirection has failed: it was after the sneaker ad misdirection that I originally asked you to clarify the bigotry issue.
So let's be clear: You cannot explain the subjectivity judgement that makes anti-miscegenation laws bigotry and anti-gay marriage laws perfectly fine. You seem unwilling to discuss how you would feel if your chosen marriage to your loved one should be blocked with only a shrug of the shoulders and vague murmurs of 'subjectivity' and 'opinions' with eventual attempts at misdirection when you start trying to point out the inconsistencies/unfairness/immorality/bigotry of their positions.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Fosdick, posted 08-06-2008 3:35 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Fosdick, posted 08-06-2008 8:06 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 267 of 333 (477711)
08-06-2008 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Modulous
08-06-2008 4:18 PM


Have I crossed your threshold of bigotry?
Mod writes:
But its just a semantic argument. I have no problem with the arrangement: the name is irrelevant. Gays could open their own churches and those churches could 'marry' them making them just as married as 'straight' people. Indeed, people could marry animals, children, 20 different people, their nation, the concept of happiness, purple etc etc. Either that or people wouldn't bother with 'civil union' as a phrase and would just use 'marriage' as a shortcut since everyone would see the two as meaning exactly the same thing.
But I don't care what they want to call it; I only care what the law calls it”simply because I won't have to be part of it if it's a church or whatever. Do you care about who gets to be a 32nd degree Mason? I don't, because I don't belong to the Masons. I only care about the laws that affect me.
And if marriage is only a matter for the churches, what about the atheists, muslims, jews, hindus, wiccans, sikhs, buddhists, confucianists, jainists, shintoists, taoists, those of the multitude of pagan religions, animists etc etc? Are you saying that these cannot get married? Or is it only religious people in general who are allowed to get married under your idea? Can philosophical positions institute marriage, humanist marriage for example?
But I wouldn't care if pet hospitals, tattoo parlors, and expresso stands got into the business of "marriage." All I would care about is the legality of any civil union, which is precisely the government's business.
You also have to deal with the 'same but different' problem: I see no forthcoming solutions from you.
How? Everybody is absolutely equal in my preferred arrangement. Where would the "same but different" problem have any legs. If Chuck and Larry, under my preferred arrangement, told me they got married in a Las Vega casino right after they got their DP status certified by the government, I wouldn't have any problem with that. And, by the same token, if John and Mary told me they got married in a Universalist Church, right after they got their DP status certified by the law, I would not be bothered either. It would be the same law, under my preferred arrangement, and it wouldn't include the word "marriage," only the words "civil union."
So let's be clear: You cannot explain the subjectivity judgement that makes anti-miscegenation laws bigotry and anti-gay marriage laws perfectly fine. You seem unwilling to discuss how you would feel if your chosen marriage to your loved one should be blocked with only a shrug of the shoulders and vague murmurs of 'subjectivity' and 'opinions' with eventual attempts at misdirection when you start trying to point out the inconsistencies/unfairness/immorality/bigotry of their positions.
In view of what I have said above, I don't see how you can make that claim. And it's OT anyway.
This thread is about the threshold of bigotry. Let me ask you if you think I qualify as a bigot for my opinion of what "marriage" really means, and for my preferred arrangement”i.e., getting the law out of it.
”HM

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Modulous, posted 08-06-2008 4:18 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Modulous, posted 08-06-2008 8:51 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 271 by Rrhain, posted 08-07-2008 5:20 AM Fosdick has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 268 of 333 (477712)
08-06-2008 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Fosdick
08-06-2008 8:06 PM


Re: Have I crossed your threshold of bigotry?
But I don't care what they want to call it; I only care what the law calls it”simply because I won't have to be part of it if it's a church or whatever. Do you care about who gets to be a 32nd degree Mason? I don't, because I don't belong to the Masons. I only care about the laws that affect me.
But here's the thing. The law uses language as it is commonly used. We can arbitrarily start calling legally based marriages 'civil unions', but within a few generations they'll probably all be called marriages anyway because people will just call them marriages and sneer and smirk at the overt political correctness the US legal system has been forced into in order to stop wetting themselves over gay marriage issues. After all, the rest of the world (that's a lot of people), will still call them marriages (or a suitable translation thereof) - will still have gay marriages or anti-gay marriage laws. The whole thing seems pointless.
But what difference does it make what US law chooses to call it and why would people be obligated to pay any attention to that wording and not change it back when the laws are revised?
Can you honestly imagine the people accepting this compromise? "The happily civilly united couple.", "We've been civilly united for 5 years.", "Happy Civil Union Ceremony anniversary sweetheart!". No, it'll never happen.
Let me ask you if you think I qualify as a bigot for my opinion of what "marriage" really means,
Depends on why you want to change the name of legally binding marital contracts. If it is because, in your view, "Marriage is a civil union between a man and a woman.", then yes it might be bigotry since you might be being motivated by an intolerance of lifestyles not of your own. If it is because you hate the idea of marriage so much you want to make it seem like a meaningless phrase by letting anybody get married to anything they like ("We're married", "Yeah, but by whom?"), then you might be a bigot. If you are doing it because you feel like it is the best political move to seek middle ground on a debate and get gay people the legal protections they need, whilst attempting to placate the religious anti-gay people with regards to the sanctity of marriage - then I don't think you are a bigot.
As it stands, I can only say that which I said before: it's an argument of semantics.
The threshold of bigotry is where one stops being tolerant of others ideas/opinions/lifestyles and starts becoming intolerant towards them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Fosdick, posted 08-06-2008 8:06 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Fosdick, posted 08-07-2008 1:13 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 269 of 333 (477737)
08-07-2008 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Fosdick
08-06-2008 11:13 AM


Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Why are so obsessed about my genitalia, Hoot Mon?
I'm not obsessed
And yet you keep inquiring about my sex life. I don't know how else to put it to you: I'm not going to have sex with you so stop asking.
Now, are you finally going to get around to answering the questions put to you?
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
What about the contract of marriage requires the participants to be of opposite sex? 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 261 by Fosdick, posted 08-06-2008 11:13 AM Fosdick has not replied

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


Message 270 of 333 (477741)
08-07-2008 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Fosdick
08-06-2008 3:35 PM


Hoot Mon writes:
quote:
Perhaps you missed the test I performed on this and other threads to expose the real sentiments behind "gay marriage."
You never did. All you ever said was that gay people can't. You never explained why.
Be specific.
quote:
I went on record to support legalizing civil unions for gays”domestic partnerships that are as comprehensive for them as they are for heteros
And you were shown that such a thing is a legal impossibility. Not only is it unconstitutional ("separate but equal"), but also every single time it has been attempted, the "domestic partnership" has always fallen short despite direct orders from the court to make them identical.
The only way to ensure "comprehensive" equality is to have a single contract for all.
So in direct contradiction to your claim, you don't want equality. You want there to be a separate and unequal contract.
quote:
some straights said that's not what marriage was intended to mean.
Since when is the law only beholden to straight people? There's this thing called the Fourteenth Amendment which demands equal treatment under the law.
quote:
Subsequently, to accommodate both sides, I proposed that we get the law out of the business of marriage: let the churches decide who gets married and let the law decide who gets civilly united. And I, who opposes legalizing the titularity of "gay marriage" because I regard it as an oxymoron, would not be affected by whatever the churches decide to do.
But you don't really believe that or you wouldn't call your previous relationships "marriages." If you truly want your religious ceremony separate from the law, then you would come up with a new phrase for your "special friendship" and leave the law, which uses the term "marriage," alone.
quote:
And for my efforts to find equanimity on this issue I get called a bigot.
That's because you don't have the courage of your convictions. You don't actually believe what you claim. You have yet to explain why it is that marriage requires the people to be of opposite sex. You want to deny others that which you demand for yourself.
So help us out. Explain why it is that "marriage" requires the participants to be of opposite sex. If it was a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimatcy when applied to sexual orientation? Only women can transfer property to men? Only men can sponsor women 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 265 by Fosdick, posted 08-06-2008 3:35 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