Hi Lola! There's no "fighting" here as Scrat's post following yours makes it clear. Debra responds with apocalyptic rants on "oppression", "hate", "bias", "tyranny" and the like to factual posts on applicable law and court rulings. Since neither the courts nor the voters share her delusions there's no point in discussing the matter with her further.
Quote:"oppression", "hate", "bias", "tyranny"
The campaign against gay marriage, in those regions where it is occuring most stridently (mainly Africa and the US) makes no sense whatsoever outside of these cultural facts. It is a direct parallel with earlier notions regarding interracial marriage and other racially-based limitations or gender-based limitations upon equality.
It is parallel in its refusal to uphold the principles of your constitution as regards liberty for all.
It is parallel also in its morally repugnant use as a populist issue by politicians who - given a just universe - will one day have lightsticks shoved up their ass.
This is going to go over really big with the fire and brimstone crowd...
Quote:'Underserved' viewers get new gay channel
By Gary Levin, USA TODAY
Sure, there's Will & Grace, Queer Eye and The L Word. But starting this week, gay and lesbian viewers have two full-fledged networks of their own.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2005-06-27-gay-tv-main_x.htm
blatham wrote:This is going to go over really big with the fire and brimstone crowd...
Quote:'Underserved' viewers get new gay channel
By Gary Levin, USA TODAY
Sure, there's Will & Grace, Queer Eye and The L Word. But starting this week, gay and lesbian viewers have two full-fledged networks of their own.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2005-06-27-gay-tv-main_x.htm
I would hope the "fire and brimstone crowd" take advantage of their remote controls and simply choose to skip over these channels.
McGentrix wrote:blatham wrote:This is going to go over really big with the fire and brimstone crowd...
Quote:'Underserved' viewers get new gay channel
By Gary Levin, USA TODAY
Sure, there's Will & Grace, Queer Eye and The L Word. But starting this week, gay and lesbian viewers have two full-fledged networks of their own.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2005-06-27-gay-tv-main_x.htm
I would hope the "fire and brimstone crowd" take advantage of their remote controls and simply choose to skip over these channels.
We make an odd pair, do we not.
That's the way I handle things, McG. Gay channels, sex channels, doesn't matter to me. They all get the same treatment. I flip right by them or have them blocked.
But Blatham's view goes right back to the belief by many here that objecting morally to some behavior (sin, if you will, in my belief) somehow means a person hates an individual or a group of individuals (homophobia, in this case). He believes (wrongly) that just because a person is a Christian and opposes gay marriage that it means there is a hatred of homosexuals. Any intelligent person should see the ridiculousness of that. But pointing out the silliness of that view will not change their minds, which is why I have avoided (until now) posting in this thread again.
CR
You are entirely welcome to your religious notions. However, when they spill over into affecting the lives of others who do not agree, then you reach too far.
You might hold, as a matter of religious belief, that a Wiccan symbol displayed publicly was immoral or sinful. You might then press for legislation disallowing that symbol on baseball hats worn on the city streets. Such legislation, if passed, would infringe on the liberty of others to act as they choose according to their own consciences.
You might further argue, as some such as georgeob have argued, that disallowing you to push for such legislation is an instance of oppression of religion. Of course it is not. It is a matter of placing the values of the constitution above the fickle or arbitrary preferences of some group within the larger community. Oppression would be arguable IF the hat-wearers tried to enforce YOUR wearing of a similar hat.
That you object on religious grounds to homosexuality is, constitutionally speaking, quite irrelevant to anything. That you would push for legislation which places homosexual behavior, including marriage, into a less-than-equal category is bigotry, as it was when interracial marriage was likewise legislated against (legislation withdrawn in California only two or three decades ago, if memory has that right).
"Hatred" is not a necessary component of the term 'homophobia' as 'hatred' for blacks isn't a necessary component of beliefs and notions of proper laws regarding racism.
There is no rational reason to oppose same-sex marriage. Opposition is fueled by homophobia. Nothing more, nothing less. Although there might be an individuals who oppose gay marriages out of ignorance, those are few and far between. Just as most people are in denial about their own sexual proclivities, they also deny their homophobia.
123 pages and not one individual has yet to admit to homophobia. Just who do you think you are kidding? You may be kidding yourself, you ain't kidding me.
And it is the idiotic comments from Chrissee that continue to keep people of faith from moving in the direction of pushing for some type of same sex union rights.
Blatham: What I am against, strictly speaking, is changing the definition of marriage from what it has always been (a legal contract between one man and one woman). What I am against is the attempt by a minority to push their agenda upon the majority of people in this country. When, and if, the majority of people decide that they want to legalize same sex marriages, then I will have no problem.
They have attempted to subvert the laws and judicially force their views of what they believe society should accept upon the rest of society without allowing society as a whole to decide what is proper.
I for one firmly believe that gays should have some of the protections granted to married couples. But not by changing what marriage is and has always been.
Contrary to what Chrissee believes, this does not make me, or anyone else, necessarily homophobic. I do not argue that ALL who oppose gay marriage are not homophobic. That would be stupid of me, just as it is stupid to argue that ALL who oppose are homophobic.
Now, apart from my religious belief that gay marriage is wrong, I believe the argument that they are discriminated against by not being allowed to marry is wrong. The law in this case applies to all people equally. Those who say otherwise are, in my opinion, wrong. Now, there might come a time when the Supreme Court rules that current marriage laws are not applied to all people equally, at which time I will admit I was wrong and again, accept the laws that are put in place. Most of the people I know feel this way, both Christian and non-Christian.
But anyone who takes a group of people and characterizes them as homophobic or anything else, is just being a bigot.
CR
Earlier, I clarified the difference between my claim that the movement is homophobic and any claim (which I do not make) that any and all individuals opposed are homophobic. I won't repeat that differentiation here.
As regards the 'definition of marriage', your memory goes back not terribly far nor does it range across much geography. How marriage is and has been defined allows much greater latitude than you suggest. But quite aside from that, if we look at how other such terms have been defined, eg 'citizen', we see that such definitions are not writ in stone, they demonstrate an increasing inclusiveness given that principles such as your constitution forwards are at work in society. Blacks once were not citizens, nor were women. Redefinition of the term was not a bad thing, it was a good thing.
It was once a minority of citizens who thought blacks ought to be given the same rights as others. Were those who pushed for equality for blacks wrong to push their 'minority opinion' even while the majority felt otherwise? Did they attempt to 'subvert the law'?
Blatham, I will concede that you for one differentiate between the movement being homophobic in nature and individuals within the movement are not all homophobic. But, that is a distinction very few on this thread have argued.
As regards the definition of marriage, it matters little to me what a marriage is defined as being within any one particular society throughout the history of the world. Maybe I was not clear. So let me clarify. Marriage, in our society, and from the historical background of our society, has always been the union of a man and a woman. Yes, I will agree there have been societies which have had a different definition, including some societary groups in the US (early Mormon society comes to mind). But historically, this country and the societies that make up this country, have defined marriage as one man and one woman.
Society can change that definition. I don't have a problem if laws change the definition of marriage, so long as it is society AS A WHOLE, that changes the law. What is happening, in my opinion, is that a small group is insisting that the law and the definition change while ignoring the will of the majority.
As for your comparison to changing the definition of who is/was a citizen, I would add that the laws did not change UNTIL a majority of people were persuaded that the laws as written were unfair and prejudicial to a class of people. My demand on the gay community is simply this. Convince me (or a majority of people, if you will) that the laws are prejudicial to you.
I have no problem with gays campaigning for the changing of the laws. It is their right, just as women had the right years ago to campaign for the right to vote and so on. Convince society to change the law, but unless and until it is changed, stop pointing fingers and claiming that everyone who opposes you are homophobic, gay-hating, or closet homosexuals (which seems to be Chrissee's favorite). It is hurting their cause, not helping it.
Debra_Law: Having seen you criticized in this and other threads by people whose only claim to legal knowledge is based on an unshakable faith in their own self-righteousness and an immovable belief in their obscurantist convictions, I just want to say that I think you're doing a fine job. Your posts are informative, well-researched, and compellingly argued. Keep up the good work.
joefromchicago wrote:Debra_Law: Having seen you criticized in this and other threads by people whose only claim to legal knowledge is based on an unshakable faith in their own self-righteousness and an immovable belief in their obscurantist convictions, I just want to say that I think you're doing a fine job. Your posts are informative, well-researched, and compellingly argued. Keep up the good work.
If you are referring to me, please note (if you can) that I applauded her for her legal knowledge, but castigated her for attacking me personally and accusing me of being anti-gay when I am nothing of the kind.
Scrat wrote:If you are referring to me...
What makes you think that I am?
HofT wrote:Thomas - I will see your #3 and raise your bet (how much, btw?) giving you 10:1 odds the ruling (if any) by the US Supreme Court will be unanimous. On your #1 only a blind mouse would disagree, and on #2, depends on whether the mouse in question hires Debra to appeal on its behalf.
I swear I was trying hard to let this pass, but the lure of easy money just proved irresistable. I must exploit your refusal to read the court decisions Debra has posted here. Therefore, if you are
still offering 10:1 odds that the US Supreme Court will vote
unanimously to hold the proscription of gay marriage in a state constitution as consistent with the federal constitution -- I am willing to bet $100. (I expect them to rule it constitutional, but there's no way it's going to be unanimous.) Please specify a neutral bank account whose owner we both trust so that I can wire my $100, and you can wire your $1000.
As I initiated this thread, 25% of any and all transactions negotiated here shall be forwarded to me prior to any other monies being paid out.
joefromchicago wrote:Scrat wrote:If you are referring to me...
What makes you think that I am?
The proximity of your comment to mine. (If you weren't directing your comments to me, that's fine, though it would have been pretty easy to just state as much, yes?)
It would have been equally as easy just to ignore your customary ill-temper, which you have just displayed very glaringly.
CoastalRat wrote:Blatham, I will concede that you for one differentiate between the movement being homophobic in nature and individuals within the movement are not all homophobic. But, that is a distinction very few on this thread have argued.
As regards the definition of marriage, it matters little to me what a marriage is defined as being within any one particular society throughout the history of the world. Maybe I was not clear. So let me clarify. Marriage, in our society, and from the historical background of our society, has always been the union of a man and a woman. Yes, I will agree there have been societies which have had a different definition, including some societary groups in the US (early Mormon society comes to mind). But historically, this country and the societies that make up this country, have defined marriage as one man and one woman.
Society can change that definition. I don't have a problem if laws change the definition of marriage, so long as it is society AS A WHOLE, that changes the law. What is happening, in my opinion, is that a small group is insisting that the law and the definition change while ignoring the will of the majority.
As for your comparison to changing the definition of who is/was a citizen, I would add that the laws did not change UNTIL a majority of people were persuaded that the laws as written were unfair and prejudicial to a class of people. My demand on the gay community is simply this. Convince me (or a majority of people, if you will) that the laws are prejudicial to you.
I have no problem with gays campaigning for the changing of the laws. It is their right, just as women had the right years ago to campaign for the right to vote and so on. Convince society to change the law, but unless and until it is changed, stop pointing fingers and claiming that everyone who opposes you are homophobic, gay-hating, or closet homosexuals (which seems to be Chrissee's favorite). It is hurting their cause, not helping it.
Oh I am glad you don't have a problem with we second class citizens demanding equal rights. I know the truth hurts but truth never hurt anyone's cause in the long run. Truth conquers lies. Love conquers hate.
Quote:It is hurting their cause
The same things were said about uppity niggers hurting the Civil Rights cause.
We shall overcome...some day!
