4
   

Gay marriage debate centers on history vs. change

 
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 09:27 am
Re: JB
mesquite wrote:
Sturgis wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
JB, what is sad is that political parties use the gay marriage as a hot-button political wedge issue to inflame their conservative political base to help them win elections.

How refreshing it would be to do the right thing to benefit the Common Good in ending discrimination against a class of people.BBB


The use of class in this instance is only in the context of a discriminated class. I for instance am a Viet Nam era veteran which put me in a protected class under federal guidlines. mesquite


Mesquite, you are right. I used the term class to recognize a legal "class of people" toward whom a long history of discrimination and violence exists. "Class" as in "class action suit."

I'm surprised that Sturgis misunderstood and took offence at my choice of words. As some of you know, I lived all but the last three years of my life in the San Francisco Bay Area. I've witnessed discrimination against homosexuals for decades and supported their campaigns until they built up enough political power to put an end to it. One of my heros was Harvey Milk, who was murdered by a heterosexual for political as well as homophobia reasons.

Lash, thanks for understanding my meaning. We are reminded that some people (who shall remain nameless) always turn every posted issue into one about them to get attention.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 09:55 am
Good grief. I feel like I am in kindergarden. There is no need for the "remain nameless" crap, BBB. I don't think anyone in this thread is stupid. I'm quite sure that everyone knows who and what you are talking about, don't you?

I defended you to Sturgis because I really believed you did not mean that statement in any derogatory manner whatsoever. I do feel I know that much about you.

I don't like you anymore than you like me and that is just fine with me. I don't have to like everyone and neither do you. I am more than happy to just go on about my life and ignore you and you can ignore me.

I won't mention you, you don't mention me, you know, indifference. I may not like you but I didn't harbor any hard feelings toward you. Right now, I'm a bit ticked, yes, but that will go away and there won't be any hard feelings. There won't be any feelings one way or the other.

So, what do you say BBB? Can we just ignore each other and not do the tit for tat bite for bite thing? I'm really not interested in engaging in a battle with you or anyone else.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 10:06 am
BBB-- You're welcome.

I just can't stand to see how smoothly some people lie and slither up to people, and as soon as their heads are turned, they get it in the jugular.....or at other sites, where "Christians" gather to judge others' souls...
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 10:16 am
BBB
Once again, an attempt has been made to change the focus of this thread. A reminder that it is about homosexual discrimination.

BBB
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 10:23 am
Re: Gay marriage debate centers on history vs. change
Stephen Henderson wrote:
Opponents say same-sex marriage is - among other things - a historical contradiction. Marriage, they say, has always been between a man and a woman and the laws are written to reflect that.

That argument echoes reasoning that has been proffered time and again to defend such outmoded laws as those that defined wives as the property of their husbands, or that prohibited divorce, or even prevented epileptics and other disabled people from marrying.

"It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 11:20 am
Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition

Quote:
Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


X is old or traditional
Therefore X is correct or better.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.

...

0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 11:22 am
I still don't see what all the hubbub about same-sex marriage is. I get that knee-jerk religious whackos are against it, but their "arguments" make little sense to me.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 04:35 pm
DrewDad,

I'm not sure who you would consider a knee-jerk religious whacko to be, so I can only tell you how I see this issue if I look at it from the perspective of my religious beliefs.

God is the ultimate authority. God says man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman. If you keep in mind God being the ultimate authority, then it might make more sense. I am not saying you have to believe that. But, that is the premise that I, as a person of religious beliefs, am coming from. I don't know if that helps or not.

And, to be completely honest with you DrewDad, I'm afraid that those for same sex marriage arguments make little sense to me. But, that's because we are starting off with a completely different premise and I really have no clue as to how to totally reconcile it all.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 04:59 pm
Momma Angel wrote:

I'm not sure who you would consider a knee-jerk religious whacko to be, so I can only tell you how I see this issue if I look at it from the perspective of my religious beliefs.

Thank you for playing. Please explain how same-sex marriage harms an individual, a group, or curtails someone's rights. Then we may have a basis for discussion.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 05:02 pm
DrewDad,

I didn't realize we were playing anything. Shocked I was merely trying to point out that there might be some difficulty in understanding the arguments of all sides in this issue.

So, I am afraid I am going to have to pass on your request for an explanation, DrewDad. I hope you understand.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 05:11 pm
individual attitudes amass to create a social ethic, and yours MA amounts to a heinous regard for your fellow human beans.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 05:22 pm
dys,

What? I am afraid you will need to explain that to me, if you wouldn't mind, because I don't want to assume I know what you mean.

So, if you wouldn't mind, dys, could you explain what you mean by heinous regard for my fellow human beings (I don't any human beans :wink: )
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 05:24 pm
pissing in the wind is gernerally regarded as futile.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 05:32 pm
And, smelly.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 05:43 pm
dyslexia Wrote:

[quote]pissing in the wind is gernerally regarded as futile. [/quote]

Dys, you made a statement regarding me that I didn't understand. So, I asked you to explain to me what you meant because I didn't want to assume anything. Now, the above response is pretty cryptic and I am afraid I am still not understanding what you are trying to tell me.

So, please let me ask you again what you meant by I have a heinous regard for my fellow human beings. To me, that's a pretty harsh statement and I think you can understand how anyone wouldn't want to be thought of as having a heinous regard for anyone.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 06:03 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:

I'm not sure who you would consider a knee-jerk religious whacko to be, so I can only tell you how I see this issue if I look at it from the perspective of my religious beliefs.

Thank you for playing. Please explain how same-sex marriage harms an individual, a group, or curtails someone's rights. Then we may have a basis for discussion.


Good luck, DrewDad. I had this very same conversation with MA and it goes nowhere. Pissing in the wind is right, Dys.


Momma, let's say you know someone who, for religious reasons, thinks women should be subservient to their husbands. Women are not equal to men because that's what his religious tradition holds. Let's imagine a situation such as what is considered tradition in many parts of the Arab world. Women have always been subservient to men there. If given the opportunity to vote on a law to give women equal standing to their husbands, should an individual abstain from voting because of their traditions or should an individual vote to give women an opportunity to express themselves as equal partners under the law?

You asked me how abstaining is an affront. Refusing to undo a wrong does not make it right. Is it right to watch a kid being bullied and not stepping in to do something about it ? Was it right for segregation laws to exist even after slavery was banned. Inaction does not excuse duplicity whether it's a child being bullied, a woman without rights, a race being discriminated against, or a citizen being denied civil liberties based on their sexual preference.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 09:38 pm
Lash wrote:
And, smelly.

Only if one has recently eaten asparagus....
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 10:48 pm
J_B Wrote:

Quote:
Good luck, DrewDad. I had this very same conversation with MA and it goes nowhere. Pissing in the wind is right, Dys.

First of all, I am sorry it seems like I took so long to answer this but actually I answered it earlier. I think I hit the wrong button and made it a thread or something but it somehow got erased. The moderators told me it was accidentally erased or something. I'm still confused. But, thought I'd try to reconstruct what I had answered earlier.

J_B, the statement you made to DrewDad starting off this post is one of the reasons I am rather hesistant to have this conversation with anyone else. It seems you have already decided that I am completely in error here and why waste your time or something? Hey, that's ok. We just see things a bit differently.


Momma, let's say you know someone who, for religious reasons, thinks women should be subservient to their husbands. Women are not equal to men because that's what his religious tradition holds. Let's imagine a situation such as what is considered tradition in many parts of the Arab world. Women have always been subservient to men there. If given the opportunity to vote on a law to give women equal standing to their husbands, should an individual abstain from voting because of their traditions or should an individual vote to give women an opportunity to express themselves as equal partners under the law?

I really don't see how you can quite equate these the way you do because in my case, I don't believe slavery was right and I do not believe bashing women because they are women is right either. So, of course, I would be right there in the front lines to try to rectify this. However, I do feel that homosexuality is wrong. Now, that's what I believe. You and others don't agree, I understand that. But, I have to live with my choices in this life. I choose the things I advocate actively for or not or against or not. That's everyone's right.

I have stated many times my view on this had changed to one that I could live with to where I would not be trying to deny someone's rights if I abstain from voting (supposing I got to vote.) Well, it seems that is not good enough for you or some others. Well, I am sorry. That's the way it is. I am not giving you a hard time because you feel the way you do about this issue and that's because it is your right to believe what you believe. I find it so ironic that those that would champion someone's rights will come so very close to not allowing someone else their right to exercise their decision as they see fit, which is exactly what you do when you make your choices.


You asked me how abstaining is an affront. Refusing to undo a wrong does not make it right. Is it right to watch a kid being bullied and not stepping in to do something about it ? Was it right for segregation laws to exist even after slavery was banned. Inaction does not excuse duplicity whether it's a child being bullied, a woman without rights, a race being discriminated against, or a citizen being denied civil liberties based on their sexual preference.

Well, if it is an affront to you or anyone else because I would not physically go down and vote yes for this issue if I had the opportunity to do so but would abstain instead, don't know what to tell you. Now, if I were to walk around carrying signs that say "God hates fags" or I signed up for that God Hates Fags website or anything, yeah, I could see being giving a hard time for it and quite frankly, I would deserve it. However, I don't hate people because they are homosexual. I don't believe God hates them either, J_B.

Now, if you or anybody else doesn't like that, I'm sorry. But that's how I feel. That's the truth about the situation for me. I do not harbor any harsh feelings about anyone disagreeing with me because of it. And quite frankly, I am getting a little tired of being told (either directly or implied) at how wrong I am for my views and in order for me to be right and thereby ok, I must change my view to that of yours and others.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 11:34 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
And quite frankly, I am getting a little tired of being told (either directly or implied) at how wrong I am for my views and in order for me to be right and thereby ok, I must change my view to that of yours and others.


If you can't tolerate criticism of your views then I suggest you quit posting them in forums such as this one where they act as a lightning rod.

If I see an opinion that I think stinks to high heaven, I am going to say that I think it stinks to high heaven and I am going to say why.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 11:37 pm
No problem with that, Mesquite. None whatsoever. But honestly, I get it the first time. So everytime I have this discussion with a different person I don't feel it's necessary for you or others to constantly remind me of how you feel I am wrong or my opinion stinks to high heaven. If you think it stinks, put a clothespin on your nose and ignore it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/19/2021 at 12:27:02