*I've not equated marriage and religion; I've said arguments limiting personal choice equally but affecting individuals disparately, in either domain, are analogous, and they are.
*marriage is not anatomy and biology. Your whole concept here is based on something americans no longer believe. We now marry for love--whether old and infirm, or paralyzed without genitals, or someday, as a floating head in a reanimator tank. So this talk about the concrete nature of a penis is moot. Men can get married without one!! This is about IDEAS not penises, and ideas are as open for discussion as God is.
*If you want to take another tack, I could say that marriage is solely a matter of opinion and belief, and church iis the concrete structures and candles and cups and crosses and yamulkes.
"And no, the Democratic party did NOT represent your wishes, Ian. Kerry's position on gay marriage was the same as Bush's position."
If you believe this, we finally have not a matter of dispute, but a matter of clear factual error. Ref: any source you want. Or ask the people who voted for Bush and an antimarraige law what they think of the positions.
"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 AM over it. I'm not trying to justify keeping you from what you want; that's a Republican sport. And you want less government? Agree with me then that Bush is a jerk for trying to legislate same sexers out of the Constitution then! Support my call to take religion out of civil unions and the government out of marriage. Or lets just agree to disagree on this matter; in the meantime, if Bush ever comes after cute irish kids with smelly feet with a club and sketchy logic, you call me, and I'll back you up.
Equal rights eh?
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
I think we're still stuck on some of the same fairly simple things, Ian. The funny thing is, I support your right to find a happy life. It's not WHAT you want that bothers me and others though; it's how you're proposing to get there. This is often the case with many political arguments. It's an ends vs. means thing. The means do matter to principled people.
I still see the world you want as being like the white world that blacks were led to believe they wanted before they discovered identity and felt pride from the core. Same for women. Vive la difference! Men and women can achieve the same ends, but don't try to tell me or anyone else that they are equal and deserve equal rights no matter what. The sexes are unique and need to celebrate their differences.
I truly feel sorry for you when you think you want what I have, when what you have is something I never can understand or have.
It's these financial matters that we need to deal with. Cut to the chase and then be gay, for Christ's sake.
You, a gay male, keep trying to tell me, a heterosexual male, what marriage is. Why do you want this, but don't really want this? And then you get quite condescending when you say "There there, we'll call it something different." It ignores cultural norms and tradition, Ian. Your Modest Proposal doesn't fly with those who view marriage as they see it as sacred. And no, sacred doesn't have to mean religion.
But if you want rights...you can be given rights. There is a way. And then go find what YOU want, and not what I have. And be damned proud of it.
As for what I want? I'm kind of ambivalent, Ian. Government, religion, law, what-ever... If I didn't want to procreate, I would never have married. Without that, it's not worth it (IMHO). Life is too short, and there is too much fun to be had. But I can deal with marriage now that I have a family. The wife likes that it keeps me in the stable.
And kids are worth it.
But that's me.
- Bill
I still see the world you want as being like the white world that blacks were led to believe they wanted before they discovered identity and felt pride from the core. Same for women. Vive la difference! Men and women can achieve the same ends, but don't try to tell me or anyone else that they are equal and deserve equal rights no matter what. The sexes are unique and need to celebrate their differences.
I truly feel sorry for you when you think you want what I have, when what you have is something I never can understand or have.
It's these financial matters that we need to deal with. Cut to the chase and then be gay, for Christ's sake.
You, a gay male, keep trying to tell me, a heterosexual male, what marriage is. Why do you want this, but don't really want this? And then you get quite condescending when you say "There there, we'll call it something different." It ignores cultural norms and tradition, Ian. Your Modest Proposal doesn't fly with those who view marriage as they see it as sacred. And no, sacred doesn't have to mean religion.
But if you want rights...you can be given rights. There is a way. And then go find what YOU want, and not what I have. And be damned proud of it.
Ask the people who voted for Kerry and an antimarriage law what they think, Ian. The numbers who voted for these laws are far greater than the numbers that voted for Bush. Nice try... It doesn't fly.Ian wrote:ask the people who voted for Bush and an antimarraige law what they think of the positions.
- Boston.comPresidential candidate John F. Kerry said yesterday that he supports amending the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage and provide for civil unions for gay couples.
In his most explicit remarks on the subject yet, Kerry told the Globe that he would support a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would prohibit gay marrriage so long as, while outlawing gay marriage, it also ensured that same-sex couples have access to all legal rights that married couples receive.
As for what I want? I'm kind of ambivalent, Ian. Government, religion, law, what-ever... If I didn't want to procreate, I would never have married. Without that, it's not worth it (IMHO). Life is too short, and there is too much fun to be had. But I can deal with marriage now that I have a family. The wife likes that it keeps me in the stable.
And kids are worth it.But that's me.
- Bill
*I actually don't want what you have, Bill, other than I want the right to form an equivalent civic partnership with the person I choose. I have no illusions about what I want--I don't want to marry anyone now, and I don't want a "marriage" in the future, either, although I may choose a civil partnership. Your admonition to go find what I want and not what you have almost sounds as if you think that if same sexers are able to form civic unions of their own, something is going to have to be taken from the heteros who already "have" that thing. Tain't true.
* I've proposed no "means" other than opposition of discriminatory law (generally to be expected from the target), and the creation of a law that would take government out of marriage (is this bad?), and take religious concerns out of divic relationships (church out of state--is this that bad?)
*Fighting for equality is not an indicator to ME that someone lacks "pride from the core." I'm actually quite proud of what I've acomplished, and I should point out that I generally mean a medical career, karate, arts, some people I've helped, some trash I've picked up, that sort of thing. I don't think being prone to form relationships with one gender or another is something to be "proud" of. I just think it "is," like being left handed or right, and despite many, many roadblocks I long ago came to see this aspect of me is just as good, and no better, than the same part of the heterosexuals. Who cares, except that some people try to make other's lives difficult because of it?
*Men and women ARE 100% equal, absolutely. Since when can only identical things be equal? Since when does "equal" mean treated in exactly the same way? Right now black people with hypertension and heart failure would be more likely to get certain drugs than whites with the same conditions--in a differrent, but completely equal manner. You think equality between the sexes means that they'd have to get the same rate of pap smears? No. Equality means taking into account the differences and coming up with solutions that are just as good. Women's need for yearly pap smears, in comparison for my medical need for little if anything, means they have to have more access, for that care, than I, to be EQUAL yet different. EQUAL just means we care about women's need for paps as much as we would a similar need in men.
Part of the problem, here, is I think you view my wish to be legally on the same footing as heteros is the same as me arguing that same sex couples are exactly like opposite sex couples and that sex and gender mean nothing. I'm doing nothing of the sort!
"Your Modest Proposal doesn't fly with those who view marriage as they see it as sacred."
I know it doesn't fly with them. But you see, in a free country, sometimes people have to lay the heck off. Prosetelyzing, SUV's, refried beans with lard, worshiping sports idols, taking communion, riding motorcycles--those things don't fly with me. And lo and behold, I have learned to live perfectly happily with those who differ, and I haven't initiated legislative efforts to limit the freedoms of those who live their lives differently! Panther said it best already--IF YOU DON'T WANT GAY MARRIAGE DON'T HAVE ONE.
"The numbers who voted for these laws are far greater than the numbers that voted for Bush. Nice try... It doesn't fly."
Yes, there is not a one to one correlation. Nor need there be. The Republican party advertised the fact that the democratic party was more welcoming to same sexers to voters. The democratic party pointed out the same thing. Kerry wants to establish civil unions in Mass, would leave decisions to states, and he doesn't want to proscribe gay marraige in the Constitution. Saying that's the same as Bush's plan (outlaw gay marriage across the country, not allow states to grant them, and no plan to substitute civil unions) is about as justifiable as mixing me up with a hairy, purple hippopotamus. I've said it before, I needn't say it again: Bush took the most restrictive marketable position, Kerry took the most liberal marketable position, and (nearly) everyone in the USA knows it.
I'm glad you had all the life options to chose from without government interference and that the one you chose worked out well. Enjoy your Christmas with them; I've barely met your wife, but your kids are delightful.
* I've proposed no "means" other than opposition of discriminatory law (generally to be expected from the target), and the creation of a law that would take government out of marriage (is this bad?), and take religious concerns out of divic relationships (church out of state--is this that bad?)
*Fighting for equality is not an indicator to ME that someone lacks "pride from the core." I'm actually quite proud of what I've acomplished, and I should point out that I generally mean a medical career, karate, arts, some people I've helped, some trash I've picked up, that sort of thing. I don't think being prone to form relationships with one gender or another is something to be "proud" of. I just think it "is," like being left handed or right, and despite many, many roadblocks I long ago came to see this aspect of me is just as good, and no better, than the same part of the heterosexuals. Who cares, except that some people try to make other's lives difficult because of it?
*Men and women ARE 100% equal, absolutely. Since when can only identical things be equal? Since when does "equal" mean treated in exactly the same way? Right now black people with hypertension and heart failure would be more likely to get certain drugs than whites with the same conditions--in a differrent, but completely equal manner. You think equality between the sexes means that they'd have to get the same rate of pap smears? No. Equality means taking into account the differences and coming up with solutions that are just as good. Women's need for yearly pap smears, in comparison for my medical need for little if anything, means they have to have more access, for that care, than I, to be EQUAL yet different. EQUAL just means we care about women's need for paps as much as we would a similar need in men.
Part of the problem, here, is I think you view my wish to be legally on the same footing as heteros is the same as me arguing that same sex couples are exactly like opposite sex couples and that sex and gender mean nothing. I'm doing nothing of the sort!
"Your Modest Proposal doesn't fly with those who view marriage as they see it as sacred."
I know it doesn't fly with them. But you see, in a free country, sometimes people have to lay the heck off. Prosetelyzing, SUV's, refried beans with lard, worshiping sports idols, taking communion, riding motorcycles--those things don't fly with me. And lo and behold, I have learned to live perfectly happily with those who differ, and I haven't initiated legislative efforts to limit the freedoms of those who live their lives differently! Panther said it best already--IF YOU DON'T WANT GAY MARRIAGE DON'T HAVE ONE.
"The numbers who voted for these laws are far greater than the numbers that voted for Bush. Nice try... It doesn't fly."
Yes, there is not a one to one correlation. Nor need there be. The Republican party advertised the fact that the democratic party was more welcoming to same sexers to voters. The democratic party pointed out the same thing. Kerry wants to establish civil unions in Mass, would leave decisions to states, and he doesn't want to proscribe gay marraige in the Constitution. Saying that's the same as Bush's plan (outlaw gay marriage across the country, not allow states to grant them, and no plan to substitute civil unions) is about as justifiable as mixing me up with a hairy, purple hippopotamus. I've said it before, I needn't say it again: Bush took the most restrictive marketable position, Kerry took the most liberal marketable position, and (nearly) everyone in the USA knows it.
I'm glad you had all the life options to chose from without government interference and that the one you chose worked out well. Enjoy your Christmas with them; I've barely met your wife, but your kids are delightful.
--Ian
http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2004/12/23/1
Here's something we can all agree on I bet. A law that prohibits sexist or homophobic "speech," to me, seems absurd. If a society isn't mature enough to discuss its differences openly, it's in big trouble.
Note to francophobes: note the country of origin.
Here's something we can all agree on I bet. A law that prohibits sexist or homophobic "speech," to me, seems absurd. If a society isn't mature enough to discuss its differences openly, it's in big trouble.
Note to francophobes: note the country of origin.
--Ian
