Yehoodi.com

Frim Fram Jam, NY     Yehoodi Radio - Listen 24 hours a day! Listen 24 hours a day! Weekly updated shows     Frim Fram Jam - NYC's Lindy Hop Thursdays!    

  Everyone is gay

According to cnn.com: " Massachusetts' highest court reiterated today that only full marriage rights for gay couples, not civil unions, would be constitutional. The ruling sets the stage for Massachusetts to become the first state in the nation to allow same-sex marriages. ".…

Page(s): < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 57 58 Next > (1726 items total)

 
  • Joined 7/20/99
  • 6220
  • Post #121
  • Originally posted Saturday, February 7, 2004 (9 years ago)

I love bagels. In fact, I love them so much and have so much attachment to what I define as "bagel" that I don't want someone else going around and redefining it to mean something else.

:wink:

  • Joined 5/1/00
  • 2192
  • Post #122
  • Originally posted Saturday, February 7, 2004 (9 years ago)
Quoted from "Mugsy Malone"
Let's see, Dan...there was a time when a voter was defined as a white man who owned property. I suppose we shouldn't have changed that, right?

I firmly believe that gays should have the same rights as everyone else.

I also kind of agree with one of Dan's points: that, if you look up the definition of marriage, it only says that it can take place between a man and a woman.

But to me, no matter what the original meaning of the word "marriage," things are what they are. If a gay couple has proclaimed their love and devotion to each other in some public forum, they live together and are intimate, well, they're married.

The same way the expression "I'm not married to the idea" is accepted. By Dan's definition, that's a nonsense. But that doesn't change the fact that we know what it means and what it implies.

Mugsy's retort above is perfect.

  • Joined 7/20/03
  • 4033
  • Post #123
  • Originally posted Saturday, February 7, 2004 (9 years ago)
Quoted from "Marcelo"
Well let's say for the sake of argument the government does a 180 and says "to hell with it - go ahead." Same-sex marriages are now legal throughout the country. What happens? What are the harms? In this country, in order to curtail someone's action, you have to demonstrate a tangible harm from the exercise of said action. In other words, what is the bad thing that is going to happen that is bad enough to trump the right of a homosexual to marry someone of the same sex? And furthermore, how is that bad thing uniquely the fault of allowing homosexual marriages, and not for example, allowing divorces? Only when I hear the potential impacts will I believe that there's more to this than simple anti-gay discrimination. I'd like to hear some of the responses from those who believe same-sex marriages should be banned.

I do not believe same-sex marriages should be banned. I simply think they don't exist and therefore should not be recognized as existing nor should the state force others to recognize it as existing. If two gays want to have a ceremony and tell people they are married, I have no problem with it. Nevertheless...

I think the harm is that the family is the basic structural unit of society--a balanced combination of male and female striving for harmony. Ideally, the family should be responsible for taking care of its own. When they can't help, then their local neighborhood helps. If they can't help, only then their local government helps, and so on and so on. Marriage is the most basic recognition of the striving for male and female harmony. Doing away with the institution of marriage as we know it undermines this unit. It takes individuals out of the ideal family-community-state context and makes them free to hook up with anyone they want and live however they want. As a libertarian, I have no problem with this per se. I just don't like the government giving approval to it. I generally think government should be limited, so I don't have any strong objection to the government not getting involved in marriage at all. Except that a libertarian state only works when there is order in society. Giving its endorsement to the right societal structures, including concepts about charity beginning at home and in the community, means it has less work to do.

  • Joined 7/20/03
  • 4033
  • Post #124
  • Originally posted Saturday, February 7, 2004 (9 years ago)
Quoted from "Shorty Dave"
My understanding is that on this thread, you are trying to be very clear that your argument is about the actual word "marriage". I know this is slightly off topic, but please permit me to ask a couple questions about you and your beliefs. Likewise, feel free to ask me.

Sure, thanks for being civil.

Quoted from "Shorty Dave"
-What religion are you? -Do you believe that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior? -Do you believe homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals will go to Hell? -Do you believe the Bible is the word of God? Do you try to live life in accordance with the Bible? -Do you believe people who divorce will go to Hell? -Do you believe that if I do not accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and ask him to forgive my sins then I will go to hell?
  1. Christian. I don't agree 100 with any particular denomination.
  2. Yes. 3a. I believe homosexual sex acts are sinful but that it is no sin to have a homosexual orientation. 3b. I believe that everyone will go to hell (see 6) unless they repent and make Jesus the Lord of their life. 4a. Yes. 4b. Yes. And the operative word is "try".
  3. See 3b.
  4. Yes, but it would take an entirely new thread to discuss what "hell" means.

While I am happy to know about your beliefs, I try to take arguments as they are presented rather than trying to deduce someone's "real" arguments from their beliefs--as some people are trying to do here without even knowing my beliefs. This might be better for a different thread.

  • Joined 7/20/03
  • 4033
  • Post #125
  • Originally posted Saturday, February 7, 2004 (9 years ago)
Quoted from "Miss Behave"
Do you find my devil avatar strangely attractive?

Why yes. Yes I do.

  • Joined 7/20/03
  • 4033
  • Post #126
  • Originally posted Saturday, February 7, 2004 (9 years ago)
Quoted from "mouth"
And I'm also proud of not being someone who would ever relate homosexual relationships to beastiality. (FYI Dan, that's disrespectful and insulting. It occurred to me you maybe didn't realize that it was since you asked me how you were being disrespectful and insulting. You didn't say it was the same thing so somehow you think it's ok to do. But it's not. Comparing them, relating them, putting them in the same sentence - except to say they are not related - is not ok. There ya go. Now you know.

You are welcome to your opinion. All I said was that if you open up marriage for redefinition, homosexuals aren't the only people who might want to redefine it. I'm sorry if you feel insulted, but I can't help it if you get insulted when people point these things out.

Quoted from "mouth"
Also, dismissing other people's arguments in general - which you have done in almost every post you've made - is disrespectful and insulting. So there's another thing.)

You might have the time to respond to every person's argument. I don't. So I usually respond to only the good arguments and the arguments with obvious flaws that can be exposed with minimal effort.

Quoted from "mouth"
Basically, in the end, I want YOU and the government out of my bedroom and out of my church and out of my lovelife and out of my house.

That's fine with me.

Quoted from "mouth"
So if I decided to "marry" my girlfriend in my place of worship it's completely ok if you and your church doesn't consider it an actual "marriage". I don't go to your church so no biggie. And you can be happy because you can go on thinking I'm not "married". But when I die she can inherit my stuff and get the insurance. And she can be on my healthcare plan. And when I'm in the hostipal and they have to decide to cut of life support, she can help with that decision. And if we have a child together, we can both be recognized as legal parents of that child.

I have no problem with any of that (male or female), unless you're thinking of forcing someone to give you this health care plan.

Quoted from "mouth"
And correct me if I'm wrong Dan but that (mouth's comments about marriage not being political recognized at all) shouldn't be in disagreement with your belief system or force anyone to be in support of or recognize anything they don't agree with in any way. So technically, you should be ok with this.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, but I think this change is one of the very lowest priorities. I also think other changes in the libertarian direction would be necessary in order for this change to work. I actually tend to like the French idea that someone else mentioned.

  • Joined 1/16/01
  • 12597
  • Post #127
  • Originally posted Saturday, February 7, 2004 (9 years ago)
Quoted from "Dan2513"
I do not believe same-sex marriages should be banned. I simply think they don't exist and therefore should not be recognized as existing nor should the state force others to recognize it as existing. If two gays want to have a ceremony and tell people they are married, I have no problem with it. Nevertheless...

If you want the state to only endorse heterosexual marriages, then you are in fact banning same sex marriages. In the eyes of the law, marriage doesn't mean ANYTHING concerning a moral commitment or a promise to love. It means you share certain financial benefits and certain survivor benefits. The end. By denying it to these other people who don't want to get married in the traditional sense, you're in effect banning that.

Quote
I think the harm is that the family is the basic structural unit of society--a balanced combination of male and female striving for harmony. Ideally, the family should be responsible for taking care of its own. When they can't help, then their local neighborhood helps. If they can't help, only then their local government helps, and so on and so on. Marriage is the most basic recognition of the striving for male and female harmony. Doing away with the institution of marriage as we know it undermines this unit.

And divorce doesn't? Repeat marriages? Single moms? Heterosexuals have done PLENTY to erode the idealistic institution of marriage that you seek. And besides, by allowing homosexual couples to marry you're not "doing away" with anything - you are giving homosexual couples a benefit that was already extended to heteros. I don't see how anything is done away with.

Quote
It takes individuals out of the ideal family-community-state context and makes them free to hook up with anyone they want and live however they want. As a libertarian, I have no problem with this per se. I just don't like the government giving approval to it. I generally think government should be limited, so I don't have any strong objection to the government not getting involved in marriage at all. Except that a libertarian state only works when there is order in society. Giving its endorsement to the right societal structures, including concepts about charity beginning at home and in the community, means it has less work to do.

This is where you make the least sense. If you're a libertarian, and you think the role of government should be limited, then by that rationale the government should get the hell out of the personal lives of the governed. This includes being selective about which institutions to endorse. By endorsing ONLY heterosexual marriages, you are DENYING endorsement to homosexual marriages. The government makes a distinction and a choice as to why x is better than y. In a true libertarian society, this choice is not up to the government to make. Furthermore, because the consequeces of this choice are in effect limiting the actualization potential of some of the citizens within the state, it is completely CONTRARY to libertarian ideals.

In a libertarian society, a government intrusion into the life of the citizen takes a much higher burden of harm than in our American society. You really have to show why denying someone a right that others have is uniquely detrimental to everyone else, and so much so that the government takes the extraordinary step of regulation.

However, you sir are not a libertarian.

You are like many other so-called "conservatives" - only so in the fiscal sense. Small government, low taxes. But when it comes to regulating the morality of the nation, conservatives are only too happy to allow the government to set boundaries as to whom can date whom, associate with whom, and reap the benefits thereof. Why is it that it's okay for the government to regulate the personal lives of its citizens, but not okay for the government to levy taxes in the name of social programs? How can you POSSIBLY claim that that is allowed under libertarian doctrine?

Hardly a libertarian standpoint to me. Sounds more authoritarian.

Here is the most important point to me, and you haven't answered it - how is it that homosexual couples are UNIQUELY responsible for these harms? I could EASILY make an argument that says that since many many many many more families have to deal with divorce, adultery, second marriages, single parents, and parents who never married but live together, that the harms you speak come much more strongly from FAILED HETEROSEXUAL marriages, as opposed to SUCCESSFUL HOMOSEXUAL marriages.

It's one thing to say you don't like the idea of homosexual marriage. Fine and dandy. In our hypothetical libertarian society you are entitled to that right. Hell, I'll even entitle you to sneer at homosexuals and call them dirty names and to raise your kids in the atmosphere of intolerance you were raised in.

But there is a VERY clear line between disliking something someone else does, and enabling the government to take action that deprives that person of the same benefits and rights as the people whom you think are okay.

  • Joined 7/20/03
  • 4033
  • Post #128
  • Originally posted Saturday, February 7, 2004 (9 years ago)
Quoted from "Marcelo"
If you want the state to only endorse heterosexual marriages, then you are in fact banning same sex marriages. In the eyes of the law, marriage doesn't mean ANYTHING concerning a moral commitment or a promise to love. It means you share certain financial benefits and certain survivor benefits. The end. [emphasis mine]By denying it to these other people who don't want to get married in the traditional sense, you're in effect banning that.

So you're saying that I'm banning people from getting married who don't want to get married?

Quoted from "Marcelo"
Quoted from "Dan2513"
Marriage is the most basic recognition of the striving for male and female harmony. Doing away with the institution of marriage as we know it undermines this unit.
And divorce doesn't? Repeat marriages? Single moms? Heterosexuals have done PLENTY to erode the idealistic institution of marriage that you seek.

A common red herring we hear in this discussion. If I said that cancer undermines the health of the body, you would launch a jeremiad about how I am ignoring heart disease and AIDS.

Quote
Quote
As a libertarian, I have no problem with this per se. I just don't like the government giving approval to it. I generally think government should be limited, so I don't have any strong objection to the government not getting involved in marriage at all. Except that a libertarian state only works when there is order in society. Giving its endorsement to the right societal structures, including concepts about charity beginning at home and in the community, means it has less work to do.
This is where you make the least sense. If you're a libertarian, and you think the role of government should be limited, then by that rationale the government should get the hell out of the personal lives of the governed.

Do you not understand the difference between "limited" and "eliminated"?

Quote
This includes being selective about which institutions to endorse. By endorsing ONLY heterosexual marriages, you are DENYING endorsement to homosexual marriages.

So?

Quote
The government makes a distinction and a choice as to why x is better than y. In a true libertarian society, this choice is not up to the government to make.

A libertarian state is concerned with maximizing liberty, not equality. (If I said "libertarian society" first, that was an error. "Libertarian" is a label that is attached to states, not societies.) This business of never making distinctions is a concern of equality, not of liberty. The only issue of liberty is whether or not the state should be engaged in this area, whether by making a distinction or anything else.

Quote
However, you sir are not a libertarian. You are like many other so-called "conservatives" - only so in the fiscal sense. Small government, low taxes. But when it comes to regulating the morality of the nation, conservatives are only too happy to allow the government to set boundaries as to whom can date whom, associate with whom, and reap the benefits thereof. Why is it that it's okay for the government to regulate the personal lives of its citizens, but not okay for the government to levy taxes in the name of social programs? How can you POSSIBLY claim that that is allowed under libertarian doctrine? Hardly a libertarian standpoint to me. Sounds more authoritarian.

I'm confused. Did you want me to defend my position or the position that you have invented and falsely attributed to me because you don't have an intelligent response to my position?

Quote
Here is the most important point to me, and you haven't answered it - how is it that homosexual couples are UNIQUELY responsible for these harms?

See above. I've never suggested that. How much easier this discussion would be for you if only everyone with whom you disagree took exactly the same position that you have been told they will take!

Quote
Hell, I'll even entitle you to sneer at homosexuals and call them dirty names and to raise your kids in the atmosphere of intolerance you were raised in.

Gee, thanks. But I'm afraid you'll be disappointed when I don't sneer and call them dirty names.

And for all this you missed it when I said, "I don't have any strong objection to the government not getting involved in marriage at all."

  • Joined 1/16/01
  • 12597
  • Post #129
  • Originally posted Sunday, February 8, 2004 (9 years ago)

Let's be clear. When people get married in the eyes of the government, all they're doing is linking up financial interests. The government lets this happen even when people don't go through the traditional rite of marriage. After they've lived together long enough, they have the ability to file joint tax returns, etc, all without being technically married. My question is, why is it in the government's best interest to deny this joining of financial interests to same sex partnerships? By denying the ability of same sex partnerships to do what hetero partnerships can do, the government is making a choice based on moral belief.

THIS is what is contrary to the libertarian argument - the idea that the government can make moral decisions for the individual, especially when such a moral decision trumps the autonomy of said individual.

Quote
A common red herring we hear in this discussion. If I said that cancer undermines the health of the body, you would launch a jeremiad about how I am ignoring heart disease and AIDS.

Not really, because I don't think homosexual relationships undermine the family. And you still haven't answered why divorces, under your ideal state, would be allowed but homosexual union recognition by the state would not, especially considering divorce does much more to destroy the ideal family unit than homosexuality.

Quote
A libertarian state is concerned with maximizing liberty, not equality. (If I said "libertarian society" first, that was an error. "Libertarian" is a label that is attached to states, not societies.) This business of never making distinctions is a concern of equality, not of liberty. The only issue of liberty is whether or not the state should be engaged in this area, whether by making a distinction or anything else.

It is my contention that the state should NOT be engaged in this area by making the distinction you are asking it to make, specifically because such a distinction decreases the liberty of a group of people (namely, homosexuals), or, at the very least, denies certain liberties that are afforded to others. So if you're telling me that your value is liberty (fair enough), then you still haven't explained how such a policy, in a libertarian state, would promote liberty and allow people to self-actualize. On the contrary, I am showing you how the endorsement of heterosexual marriages only does the opposite.

You say that libertarians are only concerned about liberty and not equality, but the values go hand in hand. Only when people are considered equal under the law does the law allow for the pursuit of liberty for the most number of citizens. The government cannot allow for the liberty of people without first securing equailty.

This wouldn't be such a big deal for me if you hadn't come out and claimed to be a libertarian at heart. It's one thing to say you're a moral conservative, or a fiscal conservative, or a communist. But man, at least be consistent. The LAST thing you can say as a libertarian is that it's okay for the government to legislate social policy.

  • Joined 2/25/00
  • 13231
  • Post #130
  • Originally posted Sunday, February 8, 2004 (9 years ago)
Quoted from "BluesForCP"
Quoted from "Mugsy Malone"
Let's see, Dan...there was a time when a voter was defined as a white man who owned property. I suppose we shouldn't have changed that, right?
Mugsy's retort above is perfect.

You notice he ignored it.

We are the keepers of Funny, the Judges, the Whisperers. We are Superior Naysayers And Rebukers of Knavery. We are SNARK. - Boosh!

  • Joined 8/25/02
  • 4633
  • Post #131
  • Originally posted Sunday, February 8, 2004 (9 years ago)

/me pretends he's as articulate and intelligent as Marcelo.

I totally need to learn to argue that well.

-- M

  • Joined 7/25/99
  • 8824
  • Post #132
  • Originally posted Sunday, February 8, 2004 (9 years ago)

Dan seems to only respond to straight people so I hereby declare him an alias!

  • Joined 9/23/99
  • 22694
  • Post #133
  • Originally posted Sunday, February 8, 2004 (9 years ago)
Quoted from "Dan2513"
Quoted from "Miss Behave"
Do you find my devil avatar strangely attractive?
Why yes. Yes I do.

Dan, it's a sin to lie!

-Eff

  • Joined 9/23/99
  • 22694
  • Post #134
  • Originally posted Sunday, February 8, 2004 (9 years ago)

Oh snap, on Miss Behave!

-Eff

  • Joined 2/7/01
  • 13635
  • Post #135
  • Originally posted Sunday, February 8, 2004 (9 years ago)
Quoted from "Dan2513"
A common red herring we hear in this discussion. If I said that cancer undermines the health of the body, you would launch a jeremiad about how I am ignoring heart disease and AIDS.

Nice straw man agruement there, Ray Bolger.

The velocity of Spanish is that many tables do not have sadness...

  • Joined 2/25/00
  • 13231
  • Post #136
  • Originally posted Sunday, February 8, 2004 (9 years ago)
Quoted from "c1950sboy"
Dan seems to only respond to straight people so I hereby declare him an alias!

Of course he ignores gay people, dude.

We are the keepers of Funny, the Judges, the Whisperers. We are Superior Naysayers And Rebukers of Knavery. We are SNARK. - Boosh!

  • Joined 7/20/03
  • 4033
  • Post #137
  • Originally posted Sunday, February 8, 2004 (9 years ago)
Quoted from "Marcelo"
Let's be clear. When people get married in the eyes of the government, all they're doing is linking up financial interests. The government lets this happen even when people don't go through the traditional rite of marriage. After they've lived together long enough, they have the ability to file joint tax returns, etc, all without being technically married. My question is, why is it in the government's best interest to deny this joining of financial interests to same sex partnerships?

I have no opposition to people linking up financial interests as you describe. So it sounds to me like we have no disagreement.

Quote
Quote
A common red herring we hear in this discussion. If I said that cancer undermines the health of the body, you would launch a jeremiad about how I am ignoring heart disease and AIDS.
Not really, because I don't think homosexual relationships undermine the family.

Yes, really. Let's put this in context. I wrote: "Marriage is the most basic recognition of the striving for male and female harmony. Doing away with the institution of marriage as we know it undermines this unit." Then you wrote: "And divorce doesn't?" the implication being that my arguing that x undermines y entails that I don't believe z undermines y.

Quote
And you still haven't answered why divorces, under your ideal state, would be allowed but homosexual union recognition by the state would not,

Possibly because I do not believe no-fault divorce would be allowed under the ideal state. When are you going to stop making unwarranted assumptions about what I believe?

Quote
It is my contention that the state should NOT be engaged in this area by making the distinction you are asking it to make, specifically because such a distinction decreases the liberty of a group of people (namely, homosexuals), or, at the very least, denies certain liberties that are afforded to others. So if you're telling me that your value is liberty (fair enough), then you still haven't explained how such a policy, in a libertarian state, would promote liberty and allow people to self-actualize.

I have no interest in doing so. This is the third time now I've had to tell you that this isn't a very important issue from my point of view.

Quote
You say that libertarians are only concerned about liberty and not equality, but the values go hand in hand. Only when people are considered equal under the law does the law allow for the pursuit of liberty for the most number of citizens. The government cannot allow for the liberty of people without first securing equailty.

But this is a question of metaphysics, not of law. For example, you can't say that men are not equal to women because the law has provisions for women giving birth but not for men.

Quote
This wouldn't be such a big deal for me if you hadn't come out and claimed to be a libertarian at heart.

You really need to go study more about libertarianism. The first book you should read is "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat. The second should be "Reflections on the Revolution in France" by Edmund Burke. While Burke is more of a conservative, his criticisms of the contradictory French aims of "liberty, equality and fraternity" are often libertarian.

As for Mugsy Malone and the character with the skinny dog in his messages, I don't know who here is gay or not. So how am I supposed to know who not to respond to on that basis? I don't ignore gays, but I do try to ignore the peanut gallery.

  • Joined 8/25/02
  • 4633
  • Post #138
  • Originally posted Sunday, February 8, 2004 (9 years ago)
Quoted from "Dan2513"
I have no opposition to people linking up financial interests as you describe. So it sounds to me like we have no disagreement.

So the argument is purely on the grounds of language. That is, calling the union between a same sex couple a "marriage". So as I said before and Mouth elaborated on, why not call it something else? Is there still a problem with the concept if we change the name of what the law calls the type of union that we're discussing?

-- M

  • Joined 2/25/00
  • 13231
  • Post #139
  • Originally posted Sunday, February 8, 2004 (9 years ago)

"Peanut gallery" = "people Dan doesn't have a glib response to"

We are the keepers of Funny, the Judges, the Whisperers. We are Superior Naysayers And Rebukers of Knavery. We are SNARK. - Boosh!

  • Joined 7/20/03
  • 4033
  • Post #140
  • Originally posted Sunday, February 8, 2004 (9 years ago)
Quoted from "FoolsRun"
Quoted from "Dan2513"
I have no opposition to people linking up financial interests as you describe. So it sounds to me like we have no disagreement.
So the argument is purely on the grounds of language. That is, calling the union between a same sex couple a "marriage". So as I said before and Mouth elaborated on, why not call it something else? Is there still a problem with the concept if we change the name of what the law calls the type of union that we're discussing?

Just as long as we're not forcing local governments and employers to give these unions special benefits, I have no problem with it. I think people should be able to give their inheritance, hospital visitation and things like that to whomever they want.

  • Joined 8/25/02
  • 4633
  • Post #141
  • Originally posted Sunday, February 8, 2004 (9 years ago)

Well then we'd also have to repeal those forced benefits from "married" heterosexual couples, otherwise we don't have equality and we've made no progress at all.

Though I'd argue that what you're suggesting isn't progress but regress, however I'm going to stick to one point at a time.

-- M

  • Joined 1/16/01
  • 12597
  • Post #142
  • Originally posted Sunday, February 8, 2004 (9 years ago)
Quoted from "Dan2513"
You really need to go study more about libertarianism. The first book you should read is "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat. The second should be "Reflections on the Revolution in France" by Edmund Burke. While Burke is more of a conservative, his criticisms of the contradictory French aims of "liberty, equality and fraternity" are often libertarian.

I've already read both. My father was president of the Libertarian party in Arizona for a short time. He's also a professor specializing in philosophy of law so I got plenty of that education instilled in me.

If you think that a linking up of financial interests for convenience's sake is okay for homosexual couples, then congratulations - you support gay marriage, at least in the eyes of the government.

Marriage is sacred because the church makes it so. I have no problem with the church telling a homosexual couple that they can't get married there. The church is a private institution and may do as is its wont. The government is a different matter entirely.

  • Joined 8/25/02
  • 4633
  • Post #143
  • Originally posted Sunday, February 8, 2004 (9 years ago)
Quoted from "Dan2513"
Just as long as we're not forcing local governments and employers to give these unions special benefits, I have no problem with it. I think people should be able to give their inheritance, hospital visitation and things like that to whomever they want.

Actually I have more to write about on this, but please read my above post as well.

I understand the concept of small federal government and strong state and local government, but I think that without a strong sovereign state making sure everyone's playing fair, inequality is going to run rampant. If you state that gays are equal to straight people, but leave it to local government to decide how to deal with recognizing that equality, you end up with things like anti-sodomy laws and the like. We're just now working on repealing those laws that discriminate against gays as a group.

I've read alot about leaving the issue of homosexuality to local mores and customs, but if it is left to that, there would be nobody to prosecute the people responsible for the death of Matthew Shepard, since they were acting on those local mores and customs.

There are parts of the country where the KKK still has a strong influence. Without a strong federal government to protect the rights of minorities in these areas where the prevailing public opinion is against them, who will?

-- M

  • Joined 7/20/03
  • 4033
  • Post #144
  • Originally posted Sunday, February 8, 2004 (9 years ago)
Quoted from "FoolsRun"
Well then we'd also have to repeal those forced benefits from "married" heterosexual couples, otherwise we don't have equality and we've made no progress at all.

I don't recall supporting forcing employers to give married heterosexual couples benefits either.

  • Joined 8/25/02
  • 4633
  • Post #145
  • Originally posted Sunday, February 8, 2004 (9 years ago)

No, but you didn't renounce them either, so I wanted to be clear. You do renounce them?

-- M

  • Joined 7/20/03
  • 4033
  • Post #146
  • Originally posted Sunday, February 8, 2004 (9 years ago)
Quoted from "FoolsRun"
No, but you didn't renounce them either, so I wanted to be clear. You do renounce them?

"Renounce"? Why do I have to "renounce" something? I think I can disagree with them without "renouncing" them. I just find them bad policy, not outrageously offensive. It's obvious I'm saying I don't like the idea. When I say I don't recall supporting something, I'm not talking about having bad memory. Rather I'm wondering why people are assuming I hold a position that I do not hold.

  • Joined 2/25/00
  • 13231
  • Post #147
  • Originally posted Sunday, February 8, 2004 (9 years ago)

I find it interesting that Dan has not replied to the point about changing definitions with changing times.

A knee-jerk reaction would say that he does thing a voter is a white male who owns property. The same logic applies. Everyone gets it but you.

Ignore me if you will, but picking and choosing who you reply to...and only replying to the ones you have a quick, glib answer for, convince no one of your rhetorical ability.

You continue to make yourself look intolerant and quite frankly, one of the more amusing characters on Yehoodi in a long while. Good for you!

We are the keepers of Funny, the Judges, the Whisperers. We are Superior Naysayers And Rebukers of Knavery. We are SNARK. - Boosh!

  • Joined 2/25/00
  • 13231
  • Post #148
  • Originally posted Sunday, February 8, 2004 (9 years ago)
Quoted from "Dan2513"
"Renounce"? Why do I have to "renounce" something? I think I can disagree with them without "renouncing" them. I just find them bad policy, not outrageously offensive. It's obvious I'm saying I don't like the idea. When I say I don't recall supporting something, I'm not talking about having bad memory. Rather I'm wondering why people are assuming I hold a position that I do not hold.

Let me make sure we understand your points (correct me where I'm wrong).

You don't oppose homosexuality. You think it's fine for homosexuals to make a civil union or longterm committment to each other, provided they don't call it "marriage".

You don't believe that the government should provide any kind of benefit for a homosexual union, or a heterosexual union.

Correct so far?

I think the point Foolsrun was making is that if you don't think that government mandated benefits for ANY couple (regardless of orientation) is appropriate, why are you so adament against them being ADDED for homosexuals, but content to let the status quo stay for heterosexuals?

We are the keepers of Funny, the Judges, the Whisperers. We are Superior Naysayers And Rebukers of Knavery. We are SNARK. - Boosh!

  • Joined 1/16/01
  • 12597
  • Post #149
  • Originally posted Sunday, February 8, 2004 (9 years ago)
Quoted from "Dan2513"
Quoted from "FoolsRun"
No, but you didn't renounce them either, so I wanted to be clear. You do renounce them?
"Renounce"? Why do I have to "renounce" something? I think I can disagree with them without "renouncing" them. I just find them bad policy, not outrageously offensive. It's obvious I'm saying I don't like the idea. When I say I don't recall supporting something, I'm not talking about having bad memory. Rather I'm wondering why people are assuming I hold a position that I do not hold.

You're missing the point. FoolsRun understands that you feel you're being misinterpreted. He was asking you what your ideas actually ARE so the confusion ends. Rather than say "that's not what I'm talking about" and leaving it there, why don't you tell us what positions you actually DO hold?

  • Joined 2/25/00
  • 13231
  • Post #150
  • Originally posted Sunday, February 8, 2004 (9 years ago)
Quoted from "Dan2513"
I believe homosexual sex acts are sinful but that it is no sin to have a homosexual orientation.

Gotcha. So it's okay to be a guy who digs on other guys, but you'd best not do anything about it!

So all you poor wretches born as homosexuals...Dan thinks you're fine, as long as you live a solitary, loveless life with no pleasure.

What a kindhearted man you are, Dan! Kudos!

We are the keepers of Funny, the Judges, the Whisperers. We are Superior Naysayers And Rebukers of Knavery. We are SNARK. - Boosh!

Page(s): < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 57 58 Next > (1726 items total)