Equal rights eh?

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:48 pm

Ian

I will respond later. Your posts generally require a thoughtful response, and Santa has work to do...

- Bill

IJ · Post by IJ » Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:24 pm

"Despite the impression I may have left, I DO know that... And as Bill has pointed out many times, don't count out those on your side just because sometimes we have debates and play the "devil's advocate.""

I know where you stand on this matter and I appreciate it too... there's something to be said for being exposed to examples of both genders, especially if you can get good ones... and I would be impressed if a same sex couple (or a single parent) made an effort to have some figure in their kid's life like a family friend, uncle/aunt, or in these modern times maybe a gamete donor, from another gender. Something to be said for making sure your kid meets poor people or foreigners too.

Gene DeMambro · Post by **Gene DeMambro** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:39 pm

But don't air you dirty laundry in public, get money-hungry lawyers involved, trash someone's life/reputation, or otherwise engage in "un-Christian" acts all while f***ing up the lives of your kids.

And who is doing this? Certainly not John Kerry nor Ted Kennedy.

And notice that you didn't give granny her props at the time....'

Gene

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 2:02 am

Gene wrote:And notice that you didn't give granny her props at the time....'

Gene, I don't appreciate being misrepresented. TWICE. You lose all credibility when you flat out lie.

My statements are on the record. Go ahead, make my day. Give us the link.

Why are you asking me about Teddy Kennedy? Teddy Kennedy??? Hmmm... God, but you tempt me so...

Also...here is the ENTIRE quote.

Bill wrote:If a (wo)man wants to get away from a spouse, by all means do. But don't air you dirty laundry in public, get money-hungry lawyers involved, trash someone's life/reputation, or otherwise engage in "un-Christian" acts all while f***ing up the lives of your kids. And then don't go back and try to put a pretty wrapper on it all. Divorce and marital disharmony ******. There's no need to make it any worse, or pretend that it's something that it is not.

- Bill

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 3:39 am

I did your work for you, Gene. See The trend just keeps changing.... It starts with Amanda (a.k.a. chickharley).

Amanda wrote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote: {from Panther}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, Kerry can now go back to skipping going to weekly services (Mass) for the cameras and again be the agnostic that he is... Just as the mainstream media found out and were completely surprised about, moral values was a big issue to the majority of Americans. The fact that the liberal Northeast and left coasts can't understand the importance of that is not really surprising at all. And I disagree that every President has been religious. What I do agree with is that every President has put on a show of being religious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just because one does not go to church doesn't lessen the fact that they believe in something. My grandmother is a strong Catholic, yet has not gone to church for years. It is not because she is unable to get there; just that she has found that it is not useful to her to go anymore. This does not change the fact that she is very religious. Every morning she kneels beside her bed with her rosary beads and prays. She has cards with the Virgin Mary and St. Michael and holds them in her hands and reads the prayers on them. She is part of a prayer group that prays for those hurt, in need, or going through a tough time in life. She believes in the Bible and the Catholic religion, yet she does not attend mass.

Now this is not to say that I necessarily believe that Kerry is as devote as my grandmother, but it is an example that shows church attendance does not necessarily correlate with religious beliefs.

And this is my reply to Amanda.

Bill wrote:Excellent points, Amanda.

A few quick comments.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because one does not go to church doesn't lessen the fact that they believe in something.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good point. As Jethro Tull says, "He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sunday."

However, Panther knows his stuff. You subsequently wrote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My grandmother is a strong Catholic, yet has not gone to church for years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...and I reply that your grandmother may be a strong Christian, but not a strong Catholic. One of the rules the Catholic church clearly states is that you MUST attend Mass every Sunday and on every Holy Day.

If your grandmother has health issues, that's fine. But if she isn't going because she feels she doesn't need to, then by definition she cannot call herself a strong Catholic.

This was the point that Panther made, I caught, and others missed.

This has nothing to do with someone's belief systems per se, Gene. But it has everything to do with someone representing himself as a Catholic - several times - in debates. Just as Kerry saluted and said he was "reporting for duty," calling attention to one's "qualifications" or representing oneself as something puts one in jeopardy of having those assertions questioned.

- Bill

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:28 pm

By the way, will someone please wish Amanda's grandmother a Merry XMAS from me? PM an address to me and I'll send a card.

My father's mother was my favorite relative. She was old, old school Irish Catholic. As a kid whenever she visited us, she'd sit like a hawk at the table, waiting for the first kid to pick up a spoon w/o saying grace. Then she'd slap your hand, and give you a big Irish laugh. Even in her 80s, she'd walk to church in over a foot of snow in New Rochelle, NY where she lived. There were days when policemen would stop, gently scold her, and tell her to go home. She'd hear nothing of it. Whenever we'd speak of friends, the first question was "Is (s)he Catholic?" God forbid they be a WASP. We're talking County Cork, Ireland, mind you. She was born in Providence, but daddy was the immigrant who came over and fought in the Civil War at age 14. And the Irish Catholic heritage stayed strong in the family for several generations. Heck, I came from a family of 8, where 4 of the 8 had bright red hair. 'Nuff said.

So when Amanda talks about her grandmother...

Waiting for the PM.

- Bill

Gene DeMambro · Post by **Gene DeMambro** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:17 am

You lose all credibility when you flat out lie.

I've never lied on this forum, Bill, so don't accuse me of doing so pal. You loose all credibility.

Thanks for the link, Bill. Saved me the time of finding it myself. Hadlots of other work to do.

Show me again where you said "way to go granny" in the original post? But you did strongly infer that she is not a strong Catholic:

But if she isn't going because she feels she doesn't need to, then by definition she cannot call herself a strong Catholic.

And again I ask you, straight out, Bill: What gives you the authority to determine what a "Good" or "Strong" Catholic is? Who made you the final arbiter of what Catholic and what isn't? Who made you Defender of the Faith?

calling attention to one's "qualifications" or representing oneself as something puts one in jeopardy of having those assertions questioned.

...You mean the lies the Swift Boat jerks threw around? Just goes to show any idiot with a mircophone can have an influence on someone somewhere. How sad.

Gene

RACastanet · Post by **RACastanet** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:40 am

"...You mean the lies the Swift Boat jerks threw around?"

Please document these lies for me Gene. Two retired admirals were among these 'jerks'. By what authority and experience are you judging Navy flag officers?

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Rich

IJ · Post by IJ » Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:21 am

People, people!

This is the gay marriage thread... talk about gay catholics... or gay soldiers... tie it in somehow

Happy preholidays.

Gene DeMambro · Post by **Gene DeMambro** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:02 pm

Rebuttal information on the Swift Boat claims have been posted elsewhere on these forums and on other places. Feel free to research to your content.

Gene

RACastanet · Post by **RACastanet** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:10 pm

Gene: That is the easy way out for you. Please, if you make such claims please be prepared to document them, as well as your credentials for defaming high ranking military officers.

Rich

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:12 pm

Indeed, back to the topic.

Ian wrote:The discussion after all is not about what gender is, but whether you can make a union out of two males, two females, or just a male and a female. If you somehow think THAT is somehow a black and white, definitional and obvious thing, while religion is an individual belief, well, its time to expand horizons. There may be no interpretation going into what a breast or a penis is, but there sure as heck is a lot of interpretation going into whether biology and reproduction are the foundation of marriage, and whether people can complement each other in more important ways than with a yin yang set of reproductive organs. To say there's no interpretation in there.... because... why? Just because? THAT fails the sniff test.

You are missing my point, Ian.

Definitions of marriage are concrete and irrefutable - no matter what definitions you choose to sanction. Joe Smith says marriage is the union of a man and a woman. John Jones says it is any two people of the age of consent getting together. Jeff Taylor says it's any man and as many women as he can find to support. All three definitions have been argued for in history. Not all survive cultural norms, religious approval, government support, etc.

Religion on the other hand is a different animal, because it involves faith. By definition, much of religion is based on unprovable entities.

So back to GL unions... What do you want?

* Societal approval? That's not something you can demand. And societal norms are never constant.

* Governmental support via binding contracts, rights, and tax breaks? That has to follow judicial and legislative processes.

* Religious sanction? I'm sure you can find a church that will do so. The church of your choice? That's asking a lot. One generally does not approach a faith with a full cup.

All I am saying, Ian (respectfully) is that your analogies ******. But I'll attend your wedding if you invite me.

Ian wrote:My unwavering support of equal rights in his arena should not suggest that I am unaware of the election results, unaware that choosing a candidate involves a lot of complicated factors, unaware that not understanding those who differ from you means you risk getting voted down by them again.

But what I think you misunderstand from the article, Ian, is that there is no consensus opinion on GLBT issues in the majority who voted for the Republican candidate. So....why make it out like you've "lost"?

There are a lot of folks in the Democratic party that I did not agree with, and never will agree with. However I've voted for Democratic candidates probably about as often as I've voted Republican. Choosing a candidate does not mean I support the party platform. That's the beauty of being an independent.

Meanwhile... There were a lot of state-by-state referenda on gay marriage at the last election. And the results (not necessarily in your favor) don't suggest that it was one party or the other voting for the ultimte outcome.

IMNSHO, you're making a big mistake throwing your hat towards any party and depending on them to advance your view of the world. No party seems to own "social issues." And the norm of the party in power isn't the Evangelical platform that you are vilifying. That's not my opinion; that's what the polling results say.

- Bill

Gene DeMambro · Post by **Gene DeMambro** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:15 am

My credentials are the same as yours Rich when you campaigned against Sen. Kerry for President. They are same as our friend Bill's when he called some high ranking military officers who were critical of the President's Iraq policy "whinny ex-generals". We can do so because we are Americans and it is our birthright. And if you have a problem with that, then perhaps you would prefer our God-given rights be void where prohibited by law?

As for the Swift Boat prevarications, they have been documented and discussed on these forums and elsewhere. If you weren't swayed then, then you will not be swayed with me now. Since I am taking Ian's advice from now on....

* Governmental support via binding contracts, rights, and tax breaks? That has to follow judicial and legislative processes.

The gay marriage brew-ha-ha started with the judicial process. Does this mean that you support the decisons in both Hawaii several years and in Massachusetts last year? Do you also support the judicial process in general as well?

* Religious sanction? I'm sure you can find a church that will do so. The church of your choice? That's asking a lot. One generally does not approach a faith with a full cup.

The Unitarian Universalist Church up here willing accept gay men and women and perform gay marriages. I'm sure if we look, we can find other religious denominations who do the same. While it ***** that ones chosen Church won't allow gay marriages, but then we probably ought to see why we choose that one in the first place.

Choosing a candidate does not mean I support the party platform

No, Bill. But as you rightly pointed out, there were referendum on the issue...a single issue and not a party platform with multiple facets to be considered.

And the norm of the party in power isn't the Evangelical platform that you are vilifying. That's not my opinion; that's what the polling results say

Do you seriously believe this, Bill?

Gene

IJ · Post by IJ » Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:35 am

Bill, I'm not missing your point. I just think you haven't made your case. These two statements:

1) I cannot have a marriage that I would want, but I can have a marriage someone else would want, so I'm equal

2) Bush couldn't go to a place of worship he would want, but he can go to a place of worship someone else would want, so he's equal

...employ EXACTLY the same reasoning. EXACTLY. There are several options possible, but choices are limited by force of law, and that's fine with the individuals who are happy with the limitations imposed and not fine with those for whom the option to have a marriage to someone they could never be interested or those who may only go pray to a God they have zero faith in.

So the reasoning is the same, and the analogy does not ******; if you want to go a step further and explain why it should not APPLY in one circumstance, that's another thing. This effort seems largely limited to pointing out that religion is a matter of faith and definitions of marriage are a matter of opinion.

"Definitions of marriage are concrete and irrefutable - no matter what definitions you choose to sanction."

Well, if the definitions vary according to the opinion of many different people, I simply fail to see how that is "concrete and irrefutable." Quite the opposite, and I should point out that "definitions of religious terms and theories are concrete and irrefutable" to individuals yet widely disputed in and between societies. Just like definitions of marriage.

As a matter of fact, isn't Catholic ideology pretty much what it was long ago while marriage (distinct from catholic marriage) has changed in many ways including the introduction of divorce, the idea of sex for pleasure (that is, contraception), changing ages of marriage (oh, 13 and 14 year old girls used to be prime dating material for men), the idea of marriage for love and not as a business relationship, one of property, or an arrangement for political or status purposes, and living together before marriage among others. One could easily say that the religious doctrine has a lot more staying power than the supposedly irrefutable and definitional nature of marriage.

You may feel that religion is somehow a protected concept while it's open season on the concept of marriage; I don't. If you would allow the government to take aim at one and not the other, I see no good reason except that you believe it. And believing it seems to be all the logic people need these days to push ahead with everything from their constitutional amendments to their conviction that Saddam was linked to 9/11. Doesn't cut it for me. Before I author a bill to limit someone's freedom, I'm going to try to come up with a good reason. I'm still waiting for one, BTW.

"Not all survive cultural norms, religious approval, government support, etc."

True! LET'S talk about merits of particular ideas then instead of making specious claims that tossing some valueless option to a gay guy or a lesbian makes them equal! Not all religions survive either--should we go limiting the right to practice them, too?? If this becomes the logical standard for the country, we're just working on whim, and we might as well claim that the kids in wheelchairs are being treated in gym class equally when everyone is only given the option to do hurdles this semester.

Jeezy peezy, if you lived in an alternate universe where YOU were allowed only to have a marriage to a guy, how would you feel? I REALLY doubt you'd be on the alternate forum explaining how you were satisfied with your equality, and your fellow heterosexuals' complaints weren't valid, and can't we all get along with the prevailing religious based ideology that's thrown a wrench into the most important relationship in your life. I still can't for the life of me figure out why you are legitimizing this most unequal logic--it's backing up discriminatory laws in this country.

"So....why make it out like you've "lost"? "

That has something to do with the platform of the winning party, how it conflicts with my civil rights, and the eager President who views his win as a "mandate" to extinguish marriage equality, plus the passing of 11/11 discriminatory ballot options this election cycle. That's not enough? Choosing a candidate does not mean you support the platform, but it does mean that when there are enough people that got voted in for whatever reason who want to write discriminatory laws, they're going to do it, for goodness sake!

"You're making a big mistake throwing your hat towards any party and depending on them to advance your view of the world."

What am I supposed to do Bill, vote for the party that made it a major campaign promise to discriminate against me? This doesn't make any friggin sense. I'm supporting the party that most supported me on this issue, just like every other single voter in the United States who voted for candidates who supported them. Do you expect people who wanted Bush's exact foreign policy to up and vote for the opponent just so Bush would know he couldn't count on their vote? This makes no sense, and that's probably why I've never heard another person ever espouse this idea. We actually do have gay people working on this issue in the republican party, and we don't deserve any insulting impressions we think nothing is wrong with democrats and everything is wrong with republicans.

"And the norm of the party in power isn't the Evangelical platform that you are vilifying. That's not my opinion; that's what the polling results say."

Actually, the norm of the party is determined by the elected officials' opinions, not by those who voted for them. And if a diverse group of people vote in a bunch of people who oppose gay marriage, that's what they're stuck with, no matter the reason for their vote.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 5:26 am

Part of the problem is that I think pieces (but not) of your logic are wrong, Ian. And the rest of the problem I see is that you are attributing opinions to me that I do not hold.

Sorry, you would likely miss a few IQ analogy questions by equating mating rituals with religion. No matter how hard you protest, you cannot equate biology (which at least anatomically from an external and reproductive standpoint is irrefutable and concrete) with God (which for the most part is based on faith and consensus).

Neuroanatomy, neruophysiology, and psychology are other interesting dimensions of this which frankly have yet to be adequately investigated. All we have today is a black box system response: Bill likes chicks, and Ian likes dudes. Maybe in another generation we'll understand this better. God, on the other hand will never be proveable or concrete.

But you think you are right and I am wrong so... Vive la difference!

You may feel that religion is somehow a protected concept while it's open season on the concept of marriage; I don't. If you would allow the government to take aim at one and not the other, I see no good reason except that you believe it.

Actually government doesn't allow me to sacrifice virgins to appease the gods. Maybe there aren't enough to go around...

Government doesn't allow polygamy, and there are practical reasons for that.

Marriage very much is a legal contract that creates binding obligations on the parties. So laws become involved...

Religions are allowed tax-exempt status - up to a point. There are limitations on what a church can do to retain this status. Government says so.

Government and society intervene w.r.t. "the age of consent", and for good reason.

Look...we can go on and on with this. The truth of the matter is that you want something DIFFERENT from what I want, Ian. It is NOT the same. So F-ing what! Let's get over it. I'm not terribly fond of the judicial activism approach to get your way. (The discrimination bit...) Let's just figure out if we can make everyone happy. And that best path is likely not by more government, but by less.

That's MY point of view.

And no, the Democratic party did NOT represent your wishes, Ian. Kerry's position on gay marriage was the same as Bush's position. You just happen not to like some of the folks in the Republican tent. (Their not my favorite people either.) That's your prerogative. With a different set of candidates, I'd vote Democrat and then feel queasy about another cohort.

You're barking up the wrong tree looking for a home in either platform. Go libertarian, and then try to sway one major party or the next to do things your way.

Give it time, Ian. These types of changes don't come easy. But public opinion seems to be evolving.

- Bill