Right, and nobody in their right mind would go on the warpath to create a "Defense of trucks" amendment to protect the definition of a truck. How laughably absurd would that be? Yet when it's gay people calling their union a marriage suddenly it's not absurd it's perfectly reasonable? Hmmm.Stryke wrote: If people started calling a truck a car Id find it equally absurd , even though there both forms of transport .
As the election gets near...
Moderator: Available
-
Jason Rees
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1754
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
- Location: USA
Ian, as long as you continue to ride that bandwagon, this discussion is done on my end."Blacks already had fountains? I figured that was the case. I'm flabbergasted. You got what you wanted, but you want more. And you think you have a right to drink out of OUR fountains. To hell with the white people. Why act surprised when they said, "hell with you."
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
You know... I got to thinking about this. And it almost made sense to look at it the way Macus did.Valkenar wrote:Right, and nobody in their right mind would go on the warpath to create a "Defense of trucks" amendment to protect the definition of a truck. How laughably absurd would that be? Yet when it's gay people calling their union a marriage suddenly it's not absurd it's perfectly reasonable? Hmmm.Stryke wrote:
If people started calling a truck a car Id find it equally absurd , even though there both forms of transport .
After all, the whole SUV craze came about because of a loophole in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. SUVs were technically trucks, so were exempt from the standards. Car companies could make them by the ... uh ... truckload and not have them count against their Fuel Economy average. Thus mom could drive these oversized, gas-guzzling trash cans around LIKE A CAR and not have to pay extra fines or costs because they weren't a car after all.
At some point, there got to be an argument about trucks and cars and what should apply in what situation.
So... maybe this whole analogy thing shows the absurdity of it all - particularly when Justin's strawman argument seems plausible after all.
- Bill
Blacks had separate fountains that served the same function as the fountains the whites used. It wasn't good enough for them because it was a symptom of a larger problem: being told they were second class citizens. LGBs have civil unions that served marriage functions for them but aren't dumb and recognized a "separate but (not quite) equal" situation, so they fought it. This is an analogy, not an equation, and it shouldn't be taken to mean that growing up LGB in the USA is comparable to slavery. That wasn't said, at all (should that have been the sore point).
But, Jason, if you don't like a perfectly valid analogy being used in a discussion because it is a "bandwagon," feel free to make good on your threat to stop responding. I am happy to respond to all your points, be they "bandwagon" points that I've heard a hundred times before, or not.
But, Jason, if you don't like a perfectly valid analogy being used in a discussion because it is a "bandwagon," feel free to make good on your threat to stop responding. I am happy to respond to all your points, be they "bandwagon" points that I've heard a hundred times before, or not.
--Ian
Here is what bothers me about the latest round of the "gay marriage" thing.........the protests and the legal challanges.
Hard to imagine the people that are against gay marriage taking to the streets in large numbers had they lost.
But the issue came before the people....the people had their say and the pro gay marriage lost........now of course since the will of the public does not meet the desires of the special interest group...they are going to do what special interests always do when they can't convience the public to vote their way.....they are going to use the courts to club their agenda thu.
Odd really...if things had gone their way they would no doubt be touting it as a triumph of the democratic system but since it didn't go their way....its an example of bigotry and they need the courts to "fix" it.
Such "we don't care what you think/feel we are going to get what we want regardless" is, IMO, the basic reason why it didn't pass......to much time spent in court--not enough making their case to their fellow citizens.
Its also somewhat off-putting to see all the anti-religion signs and posters......nothing says "I'm a human being and worthy of the same respect and tolerence as you" as being utterly intolerent and disrespecting others at the same time.
I sometime wonder if such people can really hear themselevs or if they have been in an ideolgocal echo-chamber so long they can't hear anything else.
Hard to imagine the people that are against gay marriage taking to the streets in large numbers had they lost.
But the issue came before the people....the people had their say and the pro gay marriage lost........now of course since the will of the public does not meet the desires of the special interest group...they are going to do what special interests always do when they can't convience the public to vote their way.....they are going to use the courts to club their agenda thu.
Odd really...if things had gone their way they would no doubt be touting it as a triumph of the democratic system but since it didn't go their way....its an example of bigotry and they need the courts to "fix" it.
Such "we don't care what you think/feel we are going to get what we want regardless" is, IMO, the basic reason why it didn't pass......to much time spent in court--not enough making their case to their fellow citizens.
Its also somewhat off-putting to see all the anti-religion signs and posters......nothing says "I'm a human being and worthy of the same respect and tolerence as you" as being utterly intolerent and disrespecting others at the same time.
I sometime wonder if such people can really hear themselevs or if they have been in an ideolgocal echo-chamber so long they can't hear anything else.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
I agree with you that some of the protests and signs are tacky. I think they're shooting themselves (and me) in the foot. MY sign would have said, "If you voted against my freedoms, I STILL support yours." Gotta take the high road-AND I mean it. However, I think it's a mistake to say that they are an intolerant response to claims of intolerance. Prop 8 was intolerant of same sex marriage: proponents sought to eliminate it. They would not tolerate it. These signs are merely unaccepting and rude. At no point have I ever seen anyone advocate no longer tolerating mormons or any other church, or seeking to eliminate their rights. So: tacky? Yes. Equivalently intolerant? Not close.
As for the protests and the "democracy" issue, Yeson8 people wouldn't have protested in large numbers if they lost because they wouldn't have lost anything. No resolution was even proposed against them, and nothing was taken away by the amendment or by same sex marriage. On playgrounds, children cry because their toys are taken, not because another kid gets to use the same toy in another corner of the lot, and adults are little different.
And democracy? I would have found it validating if 8 was defeated (although, in a popularity contest, 52-48 and 48-52 mean the same thing to me) but I don't think the issue ever should have been on the ballot. This isn't a pure democracy and thank goodness it's not. There are limits, imposed by Constitutions and courts, on what people can vote for, and when people have an issue with the interpretation or implementation of a law, they turn to courts, because.... that is what the courts are for.
As for the protests and the "democracy" issue, Yeson8 people wouldn't have protested in large numbers if they lost because they wouldn't have lost anything. No resolution was even proposed against them, and nothing was taken away by the amendment or by same sex marriage. On playgrounds, children cry because their toys are taken, not because another kid gets to use the same toy in another corner of the lot, and adults are little different.
And democracy? I would have found it validating if 8 was defeated (although, in a popularity contest, 52-48 and 48-52 mean the same thing to me) but I don't think the issue ever should have been on the ballot. This isn't a pure democracy and thank goodness it's not. There are limits, imposed by Constitutions and courts, on what people can vote for, and when people have an issue with the interpretation or implementation of a law, they turn to courts, because.... that is what the courts are for.
--Ian
IJ
Weirdly enough---I disagree with you.
-intolerent responces to claims of intolerence...which they most certainly were......I agree they were "tacky"...but they were also intolernet.
-what exactly the courts are "for".....well IO they are not real "for" unelected and unacountable judges to engauge in whatever social engineering projects is their whim of the day.
-Why the the yes on 8 people would not have protest----yes the probably would not rioted---nope on why.
-Democracy being "validating" if it always goes the way you wish.
Which is exactly my point----in your view the "validation" of democracy is how closely it aligns with your personal worldview...your personal attitudes and your personal opinions.......... I would suggest that a democrocy is still "valid" even if you don't get your way.
In context the problem here is that people are scared that nobody is listening to them--that nobody feels their values and tradtions and beliefs are worth paying any degree of attention to........consider this--if the No8 people had won....if they had been in the majority---would anyone be having a serious discussion of how this might effect people that hold different values? Of course not.
IMO you can't demand tolerence for your views until your willing to give others the same.
A buddy of mine in CA once quiped that in his kids HS they were trying to keep out military recruiters---claiming that "children" were to "fragile" and "easy to manipulate" and "easily led" so they could not "risk" letting them even talk to recruiters.......problem is that these were the same people that also were saying that his 13 year old daughter was "mature" enough to decide to have an abortion or not--without having to even inform him.
People are getting the distinct feeling that other groups are pushing an agenda that is disrespectful to them and their values----and screwed up or not.....and min many cases it might well be......refusing to listen and understand the "other" here is, IMO the root of the problem.
Weirdly enough---I disagree with you.
-intolerent responces to claims of intolerence...which they most certainly were......I agree they were "tacky"...but they were also intolernet.
-what exactly the courts are "for".....well IO they are not real "for" unelected and unacountable judges to engauge in whatever social engineering projects is their whim of the day.
-Why the the yes on 8 people would not have protest----yes the probably would not rioted---nope on why.
-Democracy being "validating" if it always goes the way you wish.
Which is exactly my point----in your view the "validation" of democracy is how closely it aligns with your personal worldview...your personal attitudes and your personal opinions.......... I would suggest that a democrocy is still "valid" even if you don't get your way.
In context the problem here is that people are scared that nobody is listening to them--that nobody feels their values and tradtions and beliefs are worth paying any degree of attention to........consider this--if the No8 people had won....if they had been in the majority---would anyone be having a serious discussion of how this might effect people that hold different values? Of course not.
IMO you can't demand tolerence for your views until your willing to give others the same.
A buddy of mine in CA once quiped that in his kids HS they were trying to keep out military recruiters---claiming that "children" were to "fragile" and "easy to manipulate" and "easily led" so they could not "risk" letting them even talk to recruiters.......problem is that these were the same people that also were saying that his 13 year old daughter was "mature" enough to decide to have an abortion or not--without having to even inform him.
People are getting the distinct feeling that other groups are pushing an agenda that is disrespectful to them and their values----and screwed up or not.....and min many cases it might well be......refusing to listen and understand the "other" here is, IMO the root of the problem.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
Me: "Equivalently intolerant? Not close."
You: "...but they were also intolernet."
Did you read my response? I said they weren't equivalently intolerant. They're not equivalent, as was clearly outlined, because LGBs weren't proposing taking any rights from their opponents. I'm not surprised some people said rude things after their rights were attacked, but they never went after the rights. Issue settled: rude AND after someone's rights is more intolerant than merely rude.
I agree that judges shouldn't just go after their issue of the day. Recognizing LGBs as a group of individuals, recognizing their right to privacy, granting DPs and CU's and then marriages in 2 states (a third to start), including them in hate crimes legislation--that's not a whim or an issue of the day. The courts have been increasingly recognizing equality for LGBs for decades now--and yeah, courts defend unpopular people, such as the KKK or Larry Flynt's right to speech or the invalidity of racial restrictions on school attendance on marriage. That's part of their job, protecting rights. Sorry it bugs you.
"Democracy being "validating" if it always goes the way you wish."
Read my post again. I didn't say that democracy would have been validated or validating if 8 was defeated. I said "it" (8's defeat) would have been marginally validating (as a sign of narrow majority support from Californians), and made it clear that the issue should not have been on the ballot, win or lose. It's perfectly clear. I never said democracy is good if it goes my way, bad if it goes against me. I said this isn't a pure democracy and I was glad because majorities do bad things sometimes because they can. It's all very clear and consistent. Moving on...
"...That nobody feels their values and tradtions and beliefs are worth paying any degree of attention to..."
What? "Nobody" is listening to the 8 people? Totally absurd. They receive tons of press and their views were well represented in court, as they should have been. They are also currently the majority, and you want to hyperbolize the situation until its so bad "nobody" is listening? We're so far from nobody your statement is baseless. And how would it affect people that hold different values? We actually HAVE been through this--they still have all their religion, association, marriage, and other rights. They went through months of having to put up with LGBs equal to them with no ill effect. But perhaps you'd like to start that discussion of all the things that would have befallen the 8 supporters had 8 failed. I'm all ears. What would they have gone through?
"IMO you can't demand tolerence for your views until your willing to give others the same."
Ok, so I shouldn't ask for claim that marriage should be equal unless I tolerate the view that my rights should be restricted? Are you saying that both legal situations (equal and unequal) should be quantum mechanically occuring at the same time, or are you just saying I should let people who oppose gay marriage speak? If the latter, well, I've made that painfully clear over and over, that not only have I never tried to limit the rights of those who opposed mine, I'm willing to fight for em. So, what is your point?
Lastly, you state that some people feel some agendas are disrespectful to them and their values. Congrats! This is not only a clearly expressed thought, it's verifiable and true! Yeah, some people believe that they're in a culture war and they have to stick up for their values. True true. And I absolutely 100% support their right to have those values, to revile gay marriage, to go to a church that condemns it, heck, they can say we'll burn in hell, that's the beauty of America. But they have the right to their values, not the right to push those values on others. I can already hear your reply: "but you're forcing gay marriage on them!" No, I'm not; they don't have to get gay marriages, they don't have to go to another church, they don't have to stop speaking their minds--just like those who opposed interracial marriage were free to keep having racially pure marriages. In America the tradition is you have the right to do what you want, not to tell others what to do, unless you've got a really good reason--and I still haven't heard ONE from anyone. I've just heard its hard for people with "traditional" values to deal with a changing world. ...Sorry?
You: "...but they were also intolernet."
Did you read my response? I said they weren't equivalently intolerant. They're not equivalent, as was clearly outlined, because LGBs weren't proposing taking any rights from their opponents. I'm not surprised some people said rude things after their rights were attacked, but they never went after the rights. Issue settled: rude AND after someone's rights is more intolerant than merely rude.
I agree that judges shouldn't just go after their issue of the day. Recognizing LGBs as a group of individuals, recognizing their right to privacy, granting DPs and CU's and then marriages in 2 states (a third to start), including them in hate crimes legislation--that's not a whim or an issue of the day. The courts have been increasingly recognizing equality for LGBs for decades now--and yeah, courts defend unpopular people, such as the KKK or Larry Flynt's right to speech or the invalidity of racial restrictions on school attendance on marriage. That's part of their job, protecting rights. Sorry it bugs you.
"Democracy being "validating" if it always goes the way you wish."
Read my post again. I didn't say that democracy would have been validated or validating if 8 was defeated. I said "it" (8's defeat) would have been marginally validating (as a sign of narrow majority support from Californians), and made it clear that the issue should not have been on the ballot, win or lose. It's perfectly clear. I never said democracy is good if it goes my way, bad if it goes against me. I said this isn't a pure democracy and I was glad because majorities do bad things sometimes because they can. It's all very clear and consistent. Moving on...
"...That nobody feels their values and tradtions and beliefs are worth paying any degree of attention to..."
What? "Nobody" is listening to the 8 people? Totally absurd. They receive tons of press and their views were well represented in court, as they should have been. They are also currently the majority, and you want to hyperbolize the situation until its so bad "nobody" is listening? We're so far from nobody your statement is baseless. And how would it affect people that hold different values? We actually HAVE been through this--they still have all their religion, association, marriage, and other rights. They went through months of having to put up with LGBs equal to them with no ill effect. But perhaps you'd like to start that discussion of all the things that would have befallen the 8 supporters had 8 failed. I'm all ears. What would they have gone through?
"IMO you can't demand tolerence for your views until your willing to give others the same."
Ok, so I shouldn't ask for claim that marriage should be equal unless I tolerate the view that my rights should be restricted? Are you saying that both legal situations (equal and unequal) should be quantum mechanically occuring at the same time, or are you just saying I should let people who oppose gay marriage speak? If the latter, well, I've made that painfully clear over and over, that not only have I never tried to limit the rights of those who opposed mine, I'm willing to fight for em. So, what is your point?
Lastly, you state that some people feel some agendas are disrespectful to them and their values. Congrats! This is not only a clearly expressed thought, it's verifiable and true! Yeah, some people believe that they're in a culture war and they have to stick up for their values. True true. And I absolutely 100% support their right to have those values, to revile gay marriage, to go to a church that condemns it, heck, they can say we'll burn in hell, that's the beauty of America. But they have the right to their values, not the right to push those values on others. I can already hear your reply: "but you're forcing gay marriage on them!" No, I'm not; they don't have to get gay marriages, they don't have to go to another church, they don't have to stop speaking their minds--just like those who opposed interracial marriage were free to keep having racially pure marriages. In America the tradition is you have the right to do what you want, not to tell others what to do, unless you've got a really good reason--and I still haven't heard ONE from anyone. I've just heard its hard for people with "traditional" values to deal with a changing world. ...Sorry?
--Ian
-
Stryke
Ok call me stupid , but why is there insistance on the same word anyway ? , is it really about being the same ? , or is it really about protest and getting it .
Is the getting more important than the having semantically ?
hope thats not insensitive , just trying to understand the POV
is equal but different acceptable or not ?
Is the getting more important than the having semantically ?
hope thats not insensitive , just trying to understand the POV
is equal but different acceptable or not ?
This whole marriage thing is a stupid issue. The concept of marriage is what should be important, not the word. Nobody owns the word marriage and nobody should even care what anyone else does with it. Yes, marriage is a sacred institution to some people, fine. But the word is just a sequence of sounds. Not something it's reasonable to get worked up over. The meaning of words is constantly changing. That's how language works. Ugh. If you want a special magic word to refer to your union then great, make one up.Stryke wrote:Ok call me stupid , but why is there insistance on the same word anyway ? , is it really about being the same ? , or is it really about protest and getting it .
The thing about it is, prop8 is basically just an official "f-you" to gay couples. I don't know that the lgbt community really cares specifically about the word marriage. I'm sure some do some don't. I'm guessing that the whole legislative slap in the face is a lot of it, at least in places like CA that have strong civil union laws. On the other hand, the same proposition passing in a state without those laws is a real limitation of rights.
What bothers me as a random straight guy is two things. One, I think it's unconscionable for one group to take a governmental swipe at another just to be petty and obnoxious. Take your swipes in the private sector using your free speech. Put up a billboard, whatever. But the government shouldn't be in the business of putting people down for no reason.
Two, I think it's just foolish to legislate language, and it's bizarre to do so based on one group essentially claiming ownership rights to a particular word. There is just no basis for anyone to claim that the word "marriage" is theirs and therefore the government should define it the way they want.
It's not. Separate but equal was struck down during the civil rights movement. The gist of it is that separate but equal really isn't equal.is equal but different acceptable or not ?
Specifically in this context, "marriage" is the prize word everybody wants to use. Sticking one group with an inferior word while the other group gets the preferred one is not equal. It's a small issue, at least compared to the ability to exercise the rights associated with marriage, but it is an inequality.
When will someone give any good reason (other than "because we feel like it") for defining marriage as not including them?
-
Stryke
I don't think you can give a good reason in light of what marriage means today, especially with many heterosexual couples choosing neither to procreate nor adopt, not to mention the relatively high incidence of serial monogamy as people marry "for love" then get divorced and do it again. As far as the state is concerned, marriage is a legal pair-bond that confers some particular rights. That's about all it is anymore. However, the word "marriage" is steeped in centuries of connotations that can still move people at a subconscious and emotive level. It was the way of establishing kinship of different blood lines, and a child born out of wedlock was called a "bastard" and may still be called "illegitimate". Adoption is supposed to be an edge case--this is about making babies and determining "who they are" once they're made. The point is that the word is connected to some deep-seated cultural ideas, not actually religious in nature, rather historically condoned and reinforced by religions.Valkenar wrote: When will someone give any good reason (other than "because we feel like it") for defining marriage as not including them?
From what I understand, support for anti-gay marriage proposals is higher among older people. I think it just goes to show that many individuals never change their point of view, yet culture does change around them.
Mike
Well then what do you mean by different but equal? Specifically, how does different but equal differ from separate but equal? In both, there's one "thing" for one group and one "thing" for another group, and neither group uses the others' "thing".Stryke wrote: No one brought up seperate .
Yes, the government should not take sides in a silly debate about word definitions. The government's stance should always be "do whatever you want" unless there's a solid reason for making a law about anything. Because there is no such good reason, it would be unfair for the government to take sides.you contradict yourself constantly , inferior superior words ?
The word itself isn't superior, but the right to use the word you want is superior to not having the right to use the word you want. That's what's unequal.
Stryke, your question isn't insensitive. Since this is about the naming of same sex unions and not about whether they're there, or what they provide, the whole debate is a bit silly on one level. The reason why I think the response to 8 occurred and why people are upset it passed are largely not about that level (the silly word one). If powerful aliens showed up and said no one could use the word, I don't think LGB's would lose any sleep about it.
Instead, they're upset about a mean, misleading campaign to use not just a law but the state Constitution to declare the superiority of heterosexuals and to declare them a danger to children, values, and marriages everywhere. As I mentoned earlier, the large majority of the Yeson8 comments on local forums were not about the purported Yeson8 issues and were just a string of "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," jabs and comments that next we're going to want to marry a chicken to an underage toaster (hmm, that's never an issue for CU or DP somehow). I don't communicate with a lot of my neighbors, but it was upsetting to see people who would go to the trouble to put up Yeson8 signs in their yard rather than just doing the "I got mine, don't worry about his" thing and going about their lives. This was the first sign I'd ever seen in their yards--no signs for sports teams, or candidates or propositions that affect our taxes and civil projects--things that might actually affect them. Just the one sign that said they wanted to take that silly word from me and mine--and I was more worried about them basically giving me the finger than about the word itself--one that I think the state should abandon anyway.
Instead, they're upset about a mean, misleading campaign to use not just a law but the state Constitution to declare the superiority of heterosexuals and to declare them a danger to children, values, and marriages everywhere. As I mentoned earlier, the large majority of the Yeson8 comments on local forums were not about the purported Yeson8 issues and were just a string of "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," jabs and comments that next we're going to want to marry a chicken to an underage toaster (hmm, that's never an issue for CU or DP somehow). I don't communicate with a lot of my neighbors, but it was upsetting to see people who would go to the trouble to put up Yeson8 signs in their yard rather than just doing the "I got mine, don't worry about his" thing and going about their lives. This was the first sign I'd ever seen in their yards--no signs for sports teams, or candidates or propositions that affect our taxes and civil projects--things that might actually affect them. Just the one sign that said they wanted to take that silly word from me and mine--and I was more worried about them basically giving me the finger than about the word itself--one that I think the state should abandon anyway.
--Ian
