That would be giving them “special rights” and you said you’d leave the thread if you had asked for special rights.
I understand why you don’t want to leave though, you’re having so much fun, you just can’t go.
It wouldnt be a special right.
A same sex marriage would not carry any extra perks that a heterosexual marriage would not.
Heterosexuals would also have the choice to get a same sex marriage (the issue of if they would or not is irrelevant).
So where is the “special right”?
What right or option or benefit would homosexuals get that heterosexuals would not?
The fact that you are instituting a change in the traditional marriage contract in order to accommodate homosexuals IS in fact a special right as there is no need for heterosexuals to have such a right.
But hey…you don’t have to leave the thread. When you said you would you were probably drinking or something.
We all understand.
[/quote]
hahaha. 60 years ago, you’d be saying:
“The fact that you are instituting a change in the traditional marriage contract in order to accomodate race mixers IS in fact a special right as there is no need for race mixers to have such a right.”
or maybe
“The fact that you are instituting a change in the traditional voting system in order to accomodate women IS in fact a special right as there is no need for women to have such a right.”
First off, the marriage contract would be no different. So, again, you’re wrong. The only thing different would be the fact that both members entering into the (unchanged) contract would be of the same sex.
Really, quite pathetic that you cant back up what you say.
Again, what right, benefit, or option would homosexuals get that heterosexuals would not?
Okay, no new clothes to cheer me today and my run is going to suck because it’s hot and muggy out, so I’m feeling nicely grim and ready to think about the discrimination some more.
Capped, the most valuable thing you could learn from lucasa would be the art of reasoned discourse. Look back and see how he states his case, and then provides points to support it (using reasoning, not emotion).
Whether you agree with those points is moot, and nor does it particularly matter that you don’t agree with his conclusions. You seem to call those things which you don’t like “stupid,” which is ironic given your central argument, which I believe is that dislike [in this case of homosexuality] should have no bearing on right action.
Lucasa, in bothering to explain to you his reasoning, gives you the opportunity to strengthen your own. Next time you find yourself debating gay rights, you could say something like “many people believe that the significantly higher rates of disease found in the homosexual population should be used as justification for denying them the right to marry, but I believe that legitimizing their partnerships would increase the likelihood of safe practice because they would have a greater investment in the community.” Or whatever.
I won’t debate the legitimacy of his individual points with you because I wouldn’t presume to speak for him. Wait. Maybe just one. I can’t resist! You quoted him as saying:
Which I take to mean that we already have in place laws that protect the rights of both gays and Jews. He seems to suggest that short of employing thought police, what can reasonably be done has been done already. But you didn’t like it. You respond with emotion:
[quote]First, we have the baseless accusation that I want to stamp out free speech if I think its morally wrong people to be homophobic. This is laughable and juvenile. Hardly intelligent.
I shouldnt have to explain that, on the issue of “morally wrong” or “legally wrong”, things can be either, both, or neither.
Lucasa, like a child, draws the false reasoning that “YOU MEAN YOU WANT TO FORCE PEOPLE TO THINK A CERTAIN WAY”. In an actual, intelligent, adult conversation, people dont do things like this. [/quote]
I don’t think lucasa speculated as to your wants or thoughts. He simply stated his case. At least, that’s what I saw. You responded with derision and rant-y sounding childishness.
But again, I’m uncomfortable discussing another poster - a stranger to me - in this way. The last thing I want to do is to speak for another. And lucasa certainly doesn’t need me to interpret or defend him.
Okay, I guess if I’m going to slog out five miles so people won’t call me a fat ass when I point out that sometimes dislike and fear go hand-in-hand, I’d better throw on some shoes and go do it.
That would be giving them “special rights” and you said you’d leave the thread if you had asked for special rights.
I understand why you don’t want to leave though, you’re having so much fun, you just can’t go.
It wouldnt be a special right.
A same sex marriage would not carry any extra perks that a heterosexual marriage would not.
Heterosexuals would also have the choice to get a same sex marriage (the issue of if they would or not is irrelevant).
So where is the “special right”?
What right or option or benefit would homosexuals get that heterosexuals would not?
The fact that you are instituting a change in the traditional marriage contract in order to accommodate homosexuals IS in fact a special right as there is no need for heterosexuals to have such a right.
But hey…you don’t have to leave the thread. When you said you would you were probably drinking or something.
We all understand.
hahaha. 60 years ago, you’d be saying:
"The fact that you are instituting a change in the traditional marriage contract in order to accomodate race mixers IS in fact a special right as there is no need for race mixers to have such a right."or maybe
“The fact that you are instituting a change in the traditional voting system in order to accomodate women IS in fact a special right as there is no need for women to have such a right.”
No, I wouldn’t have said that, I would have been for interracial marriage. You forgot, my cousin married a black woman.
[/quote]
No, I didn’t forget that you supported interracial marriage AFTER the civil rights movement, etc, etc.
I’m saying that, had you been talking back when it was “acceptable” to be racist, the same way it is, today, “acceptable” to be homophobic, you’d be making the same points, hiding behind the same “85% of people think like me!” logic, etc.
Polygamy, incest, marrying a turtle…
I’ve repeatedly addressed these topics, but you’re too ignorant to understand that.
I already said Polygamy would make legal matters tricky for either sexuality. I already explained that, though I agree incestual relations should be illegal (being as it poses a risk of objective harm to a nonconsenting other), there should be nothing stopping family members from getting the benefits (such as control of the others estate) that married people have with each other.
And marrying his turtle.
Yes, Emily, this is why I call people stupid.
How many times have the words
TWO
CONSENTING
ADULTS
come out, here?
How many times, Emily?
Now, once again, I have to deal with the childish IDIOCY of another rightwing nutcase. I shouldnt have to.
Its like you, Emily, saying “I think people should be allowed to eat steak.” And some vegetarian saying “YOU THINK PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO EAT WHATEVER THEY WANT, INCLUDING CHILDREN! AND DRUGS!”
Now, wouldnt that frustrate you, just a little bit?
As to you, Mick, both of us realize that “marrying a turtle” is just a way for you to piss me off. How about you stop it so we can actually have a debate on the matter without me having to explain AGAINANDAGAINANDAGAINANDAGAINANDAGAINANDAGAINANDAGAIN the point about “Two consenting adults who are not forced into the decision”?
No, there is no change to the actual contract. What you’re saying is akin to “Hiring a black man is a CHANGE to the work contract”. Its not, because for a person of any race, the work contract supplied by that employer is the same.
Again, with marriage, gay marriage would be the same as straight marriage.
hahhaa I love it! Same tired excuses! “IT DOESNT EXIST NOW THEREFORE IT SHOULDNT!”. I’ve given a few examples of "rights’ that “didnt exist” before a certain time… was it ok that blacks couldnt marry whites or women couldnt vote? Do you think the people who were against those things said “THEY NEVER HAD THE RIGHT BEFORE!!!”?
Actually, Mick, right now, marriage is a special right granted to heterosexual couples. This is bigotry, and should be changed.
YOU are advocating keeping the right “special” to heterosexuals. You, again, are a bigot and an idiot.
I’m not wiggling my way around anything.
You’re incorrectly claiming that adovcating that gays should be able to do what heterosexuals have been able to do–
-I’ll clarify for that FUCKING GENIUS LACASA-
You’re incorrectly claiming that advocating that gays should be able to do what heterosexuals have been able to do - THAT IS, MARRY THE OTHER CONSENTING ADULT OF THEIR CHOICE - is a “special right” for gays.
It is not a special right for gays. If anything, it is making marriage NOT a special right for straights.
I’m just about equality. If a straight couple can get married and enjoy tax benefits, why shouldnt a gay couple? If a straight couple can share an estate, why shouldnt a gay couple? If a straight couple can say to each other “If I get sick I want you to make my health decisions for me, and I want you to be able to visit me in the hospital”… why not a gay couple?
Now what if they called them “Domestic partnerships”, Mick? What if gays could get all the LEGAL rights of marriage, but we wouldnt call it marriage because it would offend your precious sensibilities?
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Okay, no new clothes to cheer me today and my run is going to suck because it’s hot and muggy out, so I’m feeling nicely grim and ready to think about the discrimination some more.
[/quote]
I’m fairly certain making the obvious point that you lack the understanding and appreciation to realize the luxury of being able to decide when and if you’ll consider the topic of discrimination would be a waste of time.
Pointing out that gays (and blacks, and fat people, and others who face such discrimination) dont get to “not worry about it today” or decide “I got nice clothes, I’m not gonna let it bring me down” would just be more “wallowing in it” and “not wanting to fix things” and other nonsense.
So I’ll just let that one sail gently over your head.
Reasoned discourse? I’m sorry, but saying “Its ok because I cant marry a man and neither can a gay man” is not a point, its a fallacy. Its the same as saying “I cant marry a nigger and a nigger cant marry me”.
Would I have to explain why it would be a fallacy, and wrong, to say “I cant marry a n***** and a n***** cant marry me, so its ok”?
Now why do I have to explain to you why him making the same statement (only along the lines of sexual orientation instead of race) is equally ridiculous?
…are you kidding me? How is “bigotry is bad” and “That is a stupid argument” mutually exclusive?
That my “dislike” for stupidity has bearing on my actions?
I dont observe stupidity in good, rational, grown-up-talk points. I observe stupidity in “a man marrying a turtle” and “if a gay man wants to get married he can just marry a woman!!”. They are stupid points and any adult conversation should not be filled with them.
Remind me not to thank him for the favor anytime soon
No, that would be a dumb thing to say, for reasons I dont feel like getting into. All of those points made, in that hypothetical sentence, both for and against gay marriage, have nothing to do with the right of gays to enter into a specific contact that happens to be titles “marriage”.
Continuing dening homosexuals the legal rights that heterosexuals enjoy isnt “doing everything that can be done”, is it?
You also ignore the context that, before that, he was asking me “Do you think they should be forced to change their signs?” and “Do you think people should be forced to stop using gay as a negative? What about people who use “faggot” for cigarette?”
Mind you, the “faggot = cigarette” point is as stupid as “some people call racoons “coons” so its ok to use that word…”
Anyway, given the context of (a)dealing with posters on this thread repeatedly accusing me of “trampling free speech” (look back, was that Lacasa or someone else?) and (b)his direct questions ASKING me if I was saying it, it wasnt out of line for me to interpret it the way I did.
Idiots always like to invoke the “You’re a bigot against bigots!” line.
Yeah, he makes great points, like gays can get married to members of the opposite sex and some people use “faggot” for cigarette, AND SINCE HE’S ALREADY MARRIED AND CANT GET MARRIED TWICE, gay men have just as much a right to marriage (MORE THAN HIM SINCE HE CANT GET MARRIED AGAIN), and “faggot” is an acceptable term.
Okay, you’re right, homophobia exists at pretty much the same levels as anti-semitism (according to the UCR). Pretty much the only way homosexuals will be able to live without fear of any persecution is if the government were to somehow wrest control of peoples’ minds and stamp out free speech.
But you see, in Capped’s mind, and pretty much in the minds of all whacked out liberals, the government is the answer to all things.
He doesn’t get it and never will.
You really have to just have fun with Capped. Read his rants, print them out show them to your husband. You know what I mean?
He’s never going to show the insight and thoughtfulness that you have, stop expecting it.
Hatefilled liberals are a breed apart.[/quote]
blah blah blah liberal blah blah blah
Ya know, Mick, I think you’re just jealous that I’m a level 3 and you’re a level 0.
Very interesting back and forth. I have a general question that popped into my head with all the back in forth mentioning of gays and incest. (Not being argumentitive here either cap, just interested in hearing an answer and I was hoping someone else would mention it but so far nothing).
If the only reason against incest and/or brothers and sisters getting married is the fact that the resulting offspring have a higher risk of problems (aka there is a consequence of the 2 consenting adults actions.), would you be allright with 2 brothers getting married/having sex because there would be no offspring that could be hurt?
Anyways, if the OP is still around, I want to hear how the story ends for his friend and how things played out.
You’re incorrectly claiming that advocating that gays should be able to do what heterosexuals have been able to do - THAT IS, MARRY THE OTHER CONSENTING ADULT OF THEIR CHOICE - is a “special right” for gays. [/quote]
Whoa, CappedAndPlanIt…what are you doing? Why are you addressing lucasa, sounding completely unhinged, when he isn’t here and isn’t currently engaged in discussion with you?
If you need to rant an unhinged-sounding rant, direct it toward me. I’m the one who brought him up and said he’s intelligent. He never claimed that.
You’re incorrectly claiming that advocating that gays should be able to do what heterosexuals have been able to do - THAT IS, MARRY THE OTHER CONSENTING ADULT OF THEIR CHOICE - is a “special right” for gays.
Whoa, CappedAndPlanIt…what are you doing? Why are you addressing lucasa, sounding completely unhinged, when he isn’t here and isn’t currently engaged in discussion with you?
If you need to rant an unhinged-sounding rant, direct it toward me. I’m the one who brought him up and said he’s intelligent. He never claimed that.
[/quote]
I needlessly clarified the point (as I’ve endlessly needlessly had to clarify points) for him and anyone else who would say “But a gay man can marry a woman! Gays can get married, its fair!”
Now, again, please, Emily, respond to my question.
If someone, before interracial marriage were made legal, were to say “Its fair cause nobody can marry outside their race, if a white man wants to get married he can marry a white woman”…
would you agree with that point?
Simple yes or no.
Now, if the answer is “yes”… I hope the answer isn’t yes.
Now, if the answer is “no, I would not agree”, why would you not agree?
Also, if you would not agree to “Its fair cause nobody can marry outside their race, if a white man wants to get married he can marry a white woman”, do you agree that “Its fair cause nobody can get a same sex marriage, if a gay man wants to get married he can marry a woman”?
[quote]TBoZ1244 wrote:
Very interesting back and forth. I have a general question that popped into my head with all the back in forth mentioning of gays and incest. (Not being argumentitive here either cap, just interested in hearing an answer and I was hoping someone else would mention it but so far nothing).
If the only reason against incest and/or brothers and sisters getting married is the fact that the resulting offspring have a higher risk of problems (aka there is a consequence of the 2 consenting adults actions.), would you be allright with 2 brothers getting married/having sex because there would be no offspring that could be hurt?
Anyways, if the OP is still around, I want to hear how the story ends for his friend and how things played out.[/quote]
Hm. I’m for protecting the rights of individuals. I dont see how the two guys in the hypothetical situation would be infringing on the rights of (or otherwise endangering) anyone else, so I dont see any objective moral problem with it.
If you said “I believe people should be able to eat steak/chicken/beef/pork/turkey”
And someone replied with:
“You think people should be able to eat anything they want, including human babies and drugs!”
Would you (a)become frustrated (especially if it happened every time the topic came up)?
Would you (b)consider them stupid, childish points, whereas the person firing the accusations (that you support cannibalism/controlled substance abuse) knew fully that you DONT?
Okay, you’re right, homophobia exists at pretty much the same levels as anti-semitism (according to the UCR). Pretty much the only way homosexuals will be able to live without fear of any persecution is if the government were to somehow wrest control of peoples’ minds and stamp out free speech.
But you see, in Capped’s mind, and pretty much in the minds of all whacked out liberals, the government is the answer to all things.
He doesn’t get it and never will.
You really have to just have fun with Capped. Read his rants, print them out show them to your husband. You know what I mean?
He’s never going to show the insight and thoughtfulness that you have, stop expecting it.
Hatefilled liberals are a breed apart.
blah blah blah liberal blah blah blah
Ya know, Mick, I think you’re just jealous that I’m a level 3.
Level 3 turd perhaps.
[/quote]
I refuse to believe that was the best you could come up with, Mick.
I refuse to believe that was the best you could come up with, Mick.
What makes you think you’re worthy of my best?[/quote]
Because I’m fun to argue with.
Because I get actively upset over these issues. Its fun to poke me a little and watch me fly around the room like a deflating balloon.
Because you can say things like “a man marrying his turtle”, and others wont actually call you out on the idiocy of the point, because they largely understand your reason for saying it: to antagonize me, to get me riled up. So they just sort of smirk with a “Oh boy, you’re just teasing, thats not nice” sort of attitude. The same reason no one seriously replied when I said you were jealous of my level on here.
Because, as you pointed out on another thread, we’ve got a whole list of topics we can go head to head on. If I start getting disappointed with your ability to foster a visceral reaction from me, I may well decide not to disagree with you on abortion or global warming or what ice cream flavor is best.
That, Mick, is why I deserve much better than “Level three turd”. And deep down, you know it.
Now quit being a bastard and come up with something good.
[quote]TBoZ1244 wrote:
Very interesting back and forth. I have a general question that popped into my head with all the back in forth mentioning of gays and incest. (Not being argumentitive here either cap, just interested in hearing an answer and I was hoping someone else would mention it but so far nothing).
If the only reason against incest and/or brothers and sisters getting married is the fact that the resulting offspring have a higher risk of problems (aka there is a consequence of the 2 consenting adults actions.), would you be allright with 2 brothers getting married/having sex because there would be no offspring that could be hurt?
Anyways, if the OP is still around, I want to hear how the story ends for his friend and how things played out.[/quote]
I’ve been digging through my books. I would swear that I’d read that genetic consequences stemming from incest are not any longer a concern, but rather that the taboo is in place because it helps prevent chaos within the family. But I’m not finding it in the texts I’d expect it to be in (deviant behavior, human sexuality, abnormal psych). Huh.
Anyway, it does a job on the family, confusing roles and causing upset. Further, power differentials within the family (older brother vs. younger sister/brother) make it highly undesirable. Rarely does incest not come wrapped up in power differences.
So taboo pretty much all around the world for a reason.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Okay, no new clothes to cheer me today and my run is going to suck because it’s hot and muggy out, so I’m feeling nicely grim and ready to think about the discrimination some more.
I’m fairly certain making the obvious point that you lack the understanding and appreciation to realize the luxury of being able to decide when and if you’ll consider the topic of discrimination would be a waste of time.
Pointing out that gays (and blacks, and fat people, and others who face such discrimination) dont get to “not worry about it today” or decide “I got nice clothes, I’m not gonna let it bring me down” would just be more “wallowing in it” and “not wanting to fix things” and other nonsense.
So I’ll just let that one sail gently over your head.[/quote]
Oh my goodness. I don’t mind admitting, you took my breath away with that one, Capped. Finally an insult that might be appropriate to me! I especially like the bit about sailing gently over my head, because as you know I don’t like for stuff to get in my hair. Well done!
Speaking of nice clothes, I need to order another pair of my ridiculously expensive running shoes. I don’t want to risk the current pair getting “flat,” as they say. It’s much nicer if I can feel as if I’m running on delightful little pillows. It makes the entire experience immeasurably more agreeable!
Anyway, I sort of feel like I have the “luxury of being able to decide when and if I’ll consider the topic of discrimination” because school’s out. Prior to its close at the end of May I not only faced the topic of discrimination, but the victims and the perpetrators as well. I consider myself part of the solution, Capped. Every day I went in and listened to people – white, black, Mexican, Native American, and Asian, fat, skinny, short, tall, players, outcasts, straight, gay, couldn’t-get-a-date, abused, and abusive – talk about their hurts and shames and terrors.
I helped them problem-solve and confront their issues, and I occasionally joined them in talking to their parents and teachers. Sometimes I held their hands while we called CPS. Other times I gave them food or tried to find medical care for them. So I just don’t feel guilt. I know I’m not a moral coward, and I know that although I can be (and I enjoy being) frivolous, that isn’t what defines me.
Beyond that in this post you’ve gone back to lucasa. I’m not going to debate his points with you. For what purpose? I merely pointed out that you could learn from his debate style. Do or do not, it’s entirely up to you.
[quote]Capped, the most valuable thing you could learn from lucasa would be the art of reasoned discourse. Look back and see how he states his case, and then provides points to support it (using reasoning, not emotion).
Reasoned discourse? I’m sorry, but saying “Its ok because I cant marry a man and neither can a gay man” is not a point, its a fallacy. Its the same as saying “I cant marry a n***** and a n***** cant marry me”.
Would I have to explain why it would be a fallacy, and wrong, to say “I cant marry a nigger and a nigger cant marry me, so its ok”?
Now why do I have to explain to you why him making the same statement (only along the lines of sexual orientation instead of race) is equally ridiculous?
Whether you agree with those points is moot, and nor does it particularly matter that you don’t agree with his conclusions. You seem to call those things which you don’t like “stupid,” which is ironic given your central argument, which I believe is that dislike [in this case of homosexuality] should have no bearing on right action.
