CXT, I've read all your threads. I've yet to come across a justification for discrimination. These are your words:
"If you feel that your relgion says gays should not be enjoy offcial government sanction as marriead then people running around trying to get such laws passed ARE "forceing their values" on YOU."
I have addressed this concern since before you raised it. You are still mistaking the religious conservative (etc)'s right to be left alone for a right to interfere with others. Follow me through the examples I've already made? With a few new ones.
1) Muslims and Jews have an absolute right to abstain from pork products. THEY DO NOT, just because pork bothers them, have a right to ban pork for all the others who do not share this concern.
2) Mormons have a right not to drink alcohol. THEY DO NOT have a right, just because alcohol bothers them, to ban it for the entire country.
3) Witnesses have a right to refuse blood products (even if their subsequent care costs the rest of us more $), but THEY DO NOT have a right to deny transfusion services to the rest of us.
4) Christians who opposed contraception some decades ago are more than welcome to refrain from using it (even if their choice costs the rest of us welfare dollars and whatnot much of the time), but THEY DO NOT have the right to deny it to other married, or even single people--ref SCOTUS, under "Griswold."
5) People opposed to mixed race marriages have a right to refuse to marry someone of another race. However, THEY DO NOT have a right to prevent the interracial marriages of other people. ref: SCOTUS, "Loving v Virginia."
6) People opposed to ABORTION, the killing of human life, in this country, have the most justification for controlling the behavior of others. Afterall, not only does it BOTHER them, it ends another human life. HOWEVER, there still remains a constitutional right, according to the SCOTUS, to have an abortion under most circumstances. This is the degree that our society values individual freedom over the interest in offended people to interfere.
7) AND people who feel that homosexuality is wrong (although most agree it is inherent, not a choice) or that homosexual activity or marriage is wrong, have an absolute right to:
--tell their kids its wrong and they'll go to hell
--disown family members
--never have homosexual sex, or a hug, if that bothers them
--never get married to someone of the same sex or attend such a service or have to perform one.
However, their offense at this matter DOES NOT give them the right to deny private intimacy or the EQUAL PROTECTION of government benefits of marriage, for others who would choose a same-sex relationship. They also MAY NOT tell me it's wrong to tell any of my kids that love is blind to gender and they should love whomever their heart tells them to love, and they can't force me to disown any gay kids or relatives or prevent me from going to a church that honors same sex relationships.
Are my precedents making sense? You have the right to be FREE from other people's control, in general; you don't have the right to control them. PREVENTING me from getting married to my guy is controlling me; ALLOWING me to marry doesn't control the conservative at all. They are only upset because someone else is enjoying the same status as they are. Too bad!! As I alluded to earlier, the days of the "colored" water fountain are OVER and should remain so.
Gay marriage doesn't force anything on conservatives; it equalizes society. It isn't parsing, it isn't my distinction; it is a fact with legal and social precedent, as above. To keep it simple (stupid), people deserve equal rights, even if that gets Pat Robertson's panties in a bind--heck, he married even though that bothered some people!
PS:
"Nope, YOU SAID that people that NEEDED--among other things "a partial birth abortion" all I asked for were the facts the matter--as whom exactly needed one and could not get it."
--Abortion (other than as an example) = other thread.
PPS:
My "gripes" as you so charmingly put it is that in order to get all kinds of benefits I HAVE TO GET MARRIED OR LEAGALLY LIST A DOMESTIC PARTNER
Why should I have to??????? Why should married folks and domestic partners get breaks I don't????
--You really ought to be able to tell this is ANOTHER issue. We are talking about whether the gov't should extend priviledges of marriage equitably, to minorities and gays, etc. YOU are adding another issue, whether they should extend those benefits at all. I haven't spoken to this, so don't get upset and ask me to explain why you should have to get married. If you want to argue that there should be no marriage benefits, fine--my point remains that any marriage benefits should be equitably distributed. But, to answer your question, the obvious answer is that the government wants to encourage the creation and preservation of marriages as a stabilizing force in our society. And re: your suggestion that a single person would have more trouble than a same sex person in getting the benefits of marriage--um, not outside of states with gay marriage or CU's. YOU are just as free to designate a DPOA, or write a will specifying inheritance, or co-own a home, as I am. States like virginia believe there is nothing happening in the home of a stable loving same sex couple; they are treated as single people. THAT is the point and the problem.
Conservative pro-traditional marriage clown visited an escor
Moderator: Available
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Once again, WOW!!!Justin wrote:
No, but I think it's interesting that you always go to the "sex in public bathrooms" argument whenever the subject of gay people comes up. I mean, it's a complete red herring, unless you're trying to argue that homosexuals are morally degenerate as a group because you had to put up with a degenerate subset of them having sex in public bathrooms. Since I'm pretty sure you're not trying to argue that, what is your point?
This is precisely my point, Justin. You can't preach tolerance if you're being intolerant of those you disagree with. You can't discuss views if you misrepresent others' points of view. You can't discuss facts if you aren't friends with the truth.
The fact that I'm calling you on your views of Christians doesn't mean I am an Evangelical. The fact that I point out behaviors which are more than an annoyance (random sex, smoking) doesn't mean I'm anti any group. In fact the funny thing here is that YOU made the jump from behavior to blanket representation of a group. I did not. Don't believe me? Re-read above.
Once again... Is tolerance supposed to be a one-way street? Are laws which govern our behaviors only appropriate for those behaviors that YOU don't like?
- Bill
Whose views am I misrepresenting? Not yours, you're just making a devil's advocate case. I'm not even gay and I've heard more than enough vitriol directed against homosexuals (note: the people, not the practices). I'm perfectly willing to believe that there are people who feel sorry for the homosexuals and want to help.Bill Glasheen wrote:This is precisely my point, Justin. You can't preach tolerance if you're being intolerant of those you disagree with. You can't discuss views if you misrepresent others' points of view. You can't discuss facts if you aren't friends with the truth.
What view of Christians? I don't think all Christians hate homosexuals. I don't even have a good guess how many. But most of the most vitriolic people who direct hate at homosexuals are, in fact, doing so from a staunch Christian position.The fact that I'm calling you on your views of Christians doesn't mean I am an Evangelical.
No, it doesn't. But why are you bringing up those behaviors? What point are you trying to make with that? Please fill me in, because I would genuinely like to know.The fact that I point out behaviors which are more than an annoyance (random sex, smoking) doesn't mean I'm anti any group.
I'm calling a duck a duck. Sorry, I just don't buy the argument that most people dislike homosexual behavior but like homosexuals. Sure, that's probably true for some people, but it's not the prevailing mindset.In fact the funny thing here is that YOU made the jump from behavior to blanket representation of a group. I did not. Don't believe me? Re-read above.
Nope. I'm not suggesting we ban SUVs (though we should remove the subsidy) or that failing to recycle should be a punishable offense. There are lots of behaviors that I don't like that I don't think the law should take a side on. Similarly, I don't think the law should take a side on homosexuality. Remember, this isn't about getting a law or amendment *favoring* gay marriage, it's just about the absence of laws that prohibit it. There's a world of difference there.Once again... Is tolerance supposed to be a one-way street? Are laws which govern our behaviors only appropriate for those behaviors that YOU don't like?
CXT:
As to your point about single vs. married, well, I agree completely. I don't think there should be any legal benefits to it. I think the state should get out of interpersonal relationships altogether (except where victimization occurs). In my opinion, any number of people should be able to declare themselves a household, whether it's platonic, romantic or otherwise. Marriage-specific benefits are just as prejudicial towards, say, celibates as gay marriage bans are towards homosexuals.
That said, it's even worse to take an already prejudicial establishment, and further burden it with group-specific clauses.
Also, nobody has addressed the religious freedoms issue I mentioned. If the Unitarian Universalists (and others) think it's very important to marry gay couples, then what business does the government have stopping them?
Preoccupation with sexuality (as opposed to private sexual preoccupation, which I understand perfectly) is a mystery to me, and as a Christian particularly so in regards to the Christian faith. I love this definition of Christian Fundamentalism:Valkenar wrote: But most of the most vitriolic people who direct hate at homosexuals are, in fact, doing so from a staunch Christian position.
"The doctrine that there is an absolutely powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is deeply and personally concerned about my sex life."
Most Christians do not think sexuality deserves to be a forefront consideration in the faith, but for some it would appear to be their primary concern. These people are a nuisance to Christians and non-Christians alike. They draw upon an anti-carnal movement within the church, with its proponents like Saint Augustine, who apparently graduated from cad to prude and then turned his considerable rhetorical skill towards extolling the virtues of celibacy, not just of abstinance but really non-sexuality.
Personally, I don't see the downside to discarding gender (only) from the consideration of who can marry, and the increased opportunities for good childrearing could be a signfiicant societal plus. Not everyone agrees on this point, but I think so. The other arguments for it often leave me feeling uneasy, especially those which are based on the idea that homosexuals are being denied the same rights as heterosexuals. This presupposes acceptance of a division of humanity into heterosexual versus homosexual groups at the same level of legal significance as gender. Yet unlike gender, age, and not being a close relation, hetero- and homosexuality are self-identified traits. Also, the same homosexual male or female who is supposedly being denied this right can (and sometimes does) choose to marry the opposite sex for whatever purpose, particularly procreation and subsequent childrearing, which has historically been high on the list of purposes of marriage. I don't think it has anything to do with restrictions on homosexuals in particular. Rather, we are talking about restrictions on everyone that happen to be of particular interest to homosexuals. More to the point, it's more appropriate IMO, to leave sexuality out of the question altogether and simply take the pragmatic view that dropping gender from the consideration of who can marry will benefit society and certain individuals in it. But I guess you can't get people mobilized for change without getting them riled up about some perceived injustice.
Mike
"What view of Christians? I don't think all Christians hate homosexuals. I don't even have a good guess how many. But most of the most vitriolic people who direct hate at homosexuals are, in fact, doing so from a staunch Christian position."
Generally true here, but that's because of numbers. For those who may be interested, go to Israel, where some ultra orthodox group was planning a violent attack on a pride parade, and its a different story. The scariest places are islamic countries, where you have Afghani lesbians being stoned to death, hangings in Iran, and mass imprisonments in Egypt. Hawaii, here I come!
Mike raises some important points, one of which is that the laws applied to homosexuals are the same as everyone else. This is different than racially unjust laws. "You can only marry someone of the opposite sex" applies to all and only affects a minority," whereas "blacks can only use the other fountain" is obviously directed at the minority. However, we would never tolerate a blanket prohibition such as "you can only go to church but not temple" even if "equally" applied because we recognize the obvious intent to discriminate. The situation is no different here, and the SCOTUS has confirmed the general impression of social scientists, psychiatrists, other doctors, and nearly every LGB person in acknowledging that LGB identities are not chosen, but happen to one or another person, and that LGBs are a class of people, like other minorities, and should be treated thusly. Their ruling can be found under "Romer v Evans." If memory serves, Scalia dissented bitterly from that one, and wrote, "The court has mistaken a Kulterkamf (culturewar) for a fit of spite." He's half right, in my opinion--it is a culture war and it is a fit of spite to deny something to someone else not out of your or the public's own interest (eg, the right to drink and drive) but rather to take it away from them.
No one at no time has established that gay marriage would harm heterosexuals or gay participants, and they CERTAINLY have never shown why we ought to fuss about the marriage of Bill and James, two PhD graduates without criminal records who vote, follow all laws, volunteer at the homeless shelter and church, and raise 2.3 adopted children in their idyllic home YET bless the marriage of Sherry, an alcoholic, schizophrenic serial bankrobber mother of 14 who is currently incarcerated and engaged to Tony, a convicted rapist, child molester, who is currently receiving welfare benefits and has never worked a day in his life or graduated highschool. I jest, but that idiocy is what a federal marriage amendment would permit.
I once again offer my nondenominational, fair, church and state separate general marriage / CU solution, which goes like this:
1) Allow marriages to be performed by churches, temples, or wiccan huts, whatever, gay or straight, fertile or infertile, young or old, vietnam vet or not--without government interference on any level, aside from the protection of children and family members.
2) Grant civil unions to all currently married persons and to all consenting, adult, nonrelated couples who apply for them,* +/- state required testing for conditions such as syphilis or HIV, with a set of well defined, equal conditions and benefits to be discussed by the nation and written into federal law. CXT may speak to his distress at being a single male without tax bennies, but I imagine the country will, in general, voice support for giving married--escuse me "CU'd"--people some breaks in order to support the institution.
Note that no church is prevented or forced to do anything by the government and no irrational discimination is written into law.
NOTE: in my last post, I used the phrase "keep it simple (stupid)." Rereading, it sounds like that's directed at my honorable debate opponents, so I am here certifying that I'm only referring to the classic phrase and not insulting anyone.
*I realize that many people believe that once same sex CU is permitted, children, siblings, animals, furniture and groups will marry, or that we won't be able to say they shouldn't marry. The slippery slope argument has to be considered in the historical context here, which is that marriage is always undergoing redefinition (as a contract, as property, involving 12 year old girls, polygamy, whatever). I think any change that advances freedom is wise. Specifically, animals and children and furniture can't consent, and family members always face a power hierarchy which prevents full consent. Also, we have good reason to keep sibs from procreating. There is less rationale for stopping 3 people from all marrying, but realistically, where is the special interest group for this? There are millions of gay people in the USA and very few people who want to 3-way union and we can expect that to continue. I'm not sure its an issue.
Generally true here, but that's because of numbers. For those who may be interested, go to Israel, where some ultra orthodox group was planning a violent attack on a pride parade, and its a different story. The scariest places are islamic countries, where you have Afghani lesbians being stoned to death, hangings in Iran, and mass imprisonments in Egypt. Hawaii, here I come!
Mike raises some important points, one of which is that the laws applied to homosexuals are the same as everyone else. This is different than racially unjust laws. "You can only marry someone of the opposite sex" applies to all and only affects a minority," whereas "blacks can only use the other fountain" is obviously directed at the minority. However, we would never tolerate a blanket prohibition such as "you can only go to church but not temple" even if "equally" applied because we recognize the obvious intent to discriminate. The situation is no different here, and the SCOTUS has confirmed the general impression of social scientists, psychiatrists, other doctors, and nearly every LGB person in acknowledging that LGB identities are not chosen, but happen to one or another person, and that LGBs are a class of people, like other minorities, and should be treated thusly. Their ruling can be found under "Romer v Evans." If memory serves, Scalia dissented bitterly from that one, and wrote, "The court has mistaken a Kulterkamf (culturewar) for a fit of spite." He's half right, in my opinion--it is a culture war and it is a fit of spite to deny something to someone else not out of your or the public's own interest (eg, the right to drink and drive) but rather to take it away from them.
No one at no time has established that gay marriage would harm heterosexuals or gay participants, and they CERTAINLY have never shown why we ought to fuss about the marriage of Bill and James, two PhD graduates without criminal records who vote, follow all laws, volunteer at the homeless shelter and church, and raise 2.3 adopted children in their idyllic home YET bless the marriage of Sherry, an alcoholic, schizophrenic serial bankrobber mother of 14 who is currently incarcerated and engaged to Tony, a convicted rapist, child molester, who is currently receiving welfare benefits and has never worked a day in his life or graduated highschool. I jest, but that idiocy is what a federal marriage amendment would permit.
I once again offer my nondenominational, fair, church and state separate general marriage / CU solution, which goes like this:
1) Allow marriages to be performed by churches, temples, or wiccan huts, whatever, gay or straight, fertile or infertile, young or old, vietnam vet or not--without government interference on any level, aside from the protection of children and family members.
2) Grant civil unions to all currently married persons and to all consenting, adult, nonrelated couples who apply for them,* +/- state required testing for conditions such as syphilis or HIV, with a set of well defined, equal conditions and benefits to be discussed by the nation and written into federal law. CXT may speak to his distress at being a single male without tax bennies, but I imagine the country will, in general, voice support for giving married--escuse me "CU'd"--people some breaks in order to support the institution.
Note that no church is prevented or forced to do anything by the government and no irrational discimination is written into law.
NOTE: in my last post, I used the phrase "keep it simple (stupid)." Rereading, it sounds like that's directed at my honorable debate opponents, so I am here certifying that I'm only referring to the classic phrase and not insulting anyone.
*I realize that many people believe that once same sex CU is permitted, children, siblings, animals, furniture and groups will marry, or that we won't be able to say they shouldn't marry. The slippery slope argument has to be considered in the historical context here, which is that marriage is always undergoing redefinition (as a contract, as property, involving 12 year old girls, polygamy, whatever). I think any change that advances freedom is wise. Specifically, animals and children and furniture can't consent, and family members always face a power hierarchy which prevents full consent. Also, we have good reason to keep sibs from procreating. There is less rationale for stopping 3 people from all marrying, but realistically, where is the special interest group for this? There are millions of gay people in the USA and very few people who want to 3-way union and we can expect that to continue. I'm not sure its an issue.
--Ian
IJ
Nope, your NOT "making sense"--your splitting hairs.
I notice your in favor of SUPPORTING "the insitutuion" as long as it includes YOUR defination of it.
So I guess the "insitution" is worth preserving--as long as you get yours?
I'm not exactly talking about cut and dry legality--just the fundemental concept here.
Which is--in context---if you view that idiots "pro-family" stance as forceing his views on people then you must also recognize that YOUR asking for the same thing---which is forceing people, in this case the MAJORITY to accpet and write into law views THEY find objectionable.
If we want to play parseing games---then elections are open to pretty much anyone--if the current person does not share your views then vote him/her OUT.
Elect someone who DOES.
The ONLY thing your "prevented" from doing (more or less) is standing in church and haveing the State sanction your union.
You can do pretty much everything else.
Hell, as single person I'm prevented from doing MUCH more than that.
Like I said before, the State can go F itself about me and my relationships, its none of their business what I do, and I neither require nor demand its sanction.
(As bad as it maybe, and worse for the single folks--to characterize it as "descrimantion" may be a litteral truth--but in the scheme of things its pretty small potatoes.
A least you HAVE somebody---I wish you every joy BTW--but having and not being able to have a government sanctioned union is still a vast improvement over not having anyone at all. )
That being said, I see no reason why the State should be forced to recognize those relationships either.
Nope, your NOT "making sense"--your splitting hairs.
I notice your in favor of SUPPORTING "the insitutuion" as long as it includes YOUR defination of it.
So I guess the "insitution" is worth preserving--as long as you get yours?
I'm not exactly talking about cut and dry legality--just the fundemental concept here.
Which is--in context---if you view that idiots "pro-family" stance as forceing his views on people then you must also recognize that YOUR asking for the same thing---which is forceing people, in this case the MAJORITY to accpet and write into law views THEY find objectionable.
If we want to play parseing games---then elections are open to pretty much anyone--if the current person does not share your views then vote him/her OUT.
Elect someone who DOES.
The ONLY thing your "prevented" from doing (more or less) is standing in church and haveing the State sanction your union.
You can do pretty much everything else.
Hell, as single person I'm prevented from doing MUCH more than that.
Like I said before, the State can go F itself about me and my relationships, its none of their business what I do, and I neither require nor demand its sanction.
(As bad as it maybe, and worse for the single folks--to characterize it as "descrimantion" may be a litteral truth--but in the scheme of things its pretty small potatoes.
A least you HAVE somebody---I wish you every joy BTW--but having and not being able to have a government sanctioned union is still a vast improvement over not having anyone at all. )
That being said, I see no reason why the State should be forced to recognize those relationships either.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
"I'm not exactly talking about cut and dry legality--just the fundemental concept here."
--well, I think we ought to consider legality when discussing matters of law.
"So I guess the "insitution" is worth preserving--as long as you get yours?"
--Hey, I'm in favor of supporting it even if I don't get mine. But yeah, I'd rather I wasn't discriminated against. Is that so wrong, or odd to you? I'd also stand up for freedom of speech for others, and myself. So?
"The ONLY thing your "prevented" from doing (more or less) is standing in church and haveing the State sanction your union."
--First, I'm prevented from having the full benefits of marriage. That fact has been made perfectly clear in multiple threads and posts. Please read them. State laws seek to prevent me from approximating marriage thru other routes, AND my spouse could get, say, health benefits from my work, whereas a domestic partner may not. You have to know the facts to participate adequately in the discussion. Second, I shouldn't HAVE to go through all that extra effort; it's not fair, its not equal. Attempts to create two tier school systems were struck down because separate is not equal even if students in both schools "can" learn. Attempts to make exercising ones rights more difficult with a simple poll tax were struck down because their purpose was discriminatory. You may not be a fan of legal precedent, but you really ought to know what it is to debate gay marriage.... laws.
"Like I said before, the State can go F itself about me and my relationships, its none of their business what I do, and I neither require nor demand its sanction."
--Great. Don't fight for your rights. This has nothing to do with anyone else.
"As bad as it maybe, and worse for the single folks--to characterize it as "descrimantion" may be a litteral truth--but in the scheme of things its pretty small potatoes."
--And you would know this.... how? Have you considered that gay couples, one of whom gets really sick, might see their children, posessions, and healthcare decisions lost to disapproving families rather than life partners because of the lack of marriage rights? That's "small potatoes" to you, but not to gay families. Besides, your willingness to write off what you agree is discrimination because you find its no big deal is rather disturbing. You might change your mind when it's your place in society we're discussing.
"A least you HAVE somebody---I wish you every joy BTW--but having and not being able to have a government sanctioned union is still a vast improvement over not having anyone at all."
--Are you serious? The fact that a black man and a white woman "have each other" was supposed to console them when the state said their union was immoral and they couldn't get married? Well, the SCOTUS and the rest of the country disagrees with you. And whether or not you have someone, you have the freedom to find someone and marry them if you want. You're guaranteed the ability to pursue happiness, not happiness itself.
CXT, the only point you've been able to make so far is that conservatives don't want a gay-marriage allowing law in place, while the gays do, so you view this as a simple clash of opinions.
If you are unable to distinguish the right to be left alone with the desire to block others from pursuing their version of the american dream, and you are unable to understand my analogies to a half dozen other situations, then there is no point in continuing this conversation.
Let's reduce this to two simple questions:
1) Do you or do you not understand that it would be wrong for a non-jehovah's witness majority to force everyone to use blood products, and it would also be wrong for a JW majority, if one existed, to prevent the nonJW minority from receiving blood products if they wanted, even if that offended the sensibilities of the majority JW's? I imagine you would be peeved if you lived in the US of JW and because of a "moral outcry" you were prevented from receiving a life sustaining transfusion? Please say yes. Hopefully you'd also agree that if you wanted to marry someone of another race, you'd be irritated if the state intervened?
2) Do you not see that there is not any difference between a majority denying you access to blood products or interracial marriage, and denying you access to same sex marriage? If you believe these are different, explain WHY.
I'm asking you to either endorse the idea of laws banning transfusion and interracial marriage, because some religious person is offended by others being involved in those practices, or explain why gay marriage is different. Please don't just reply that conservatives don't want gays to get married. We know that. It's irrelevant because we're asking what's right and constitutional, not what's most important to conservatives.
--well, I think we ought to consider legality when discussing matters of law.
"So I guess the "insitution" is worth preserving--as long as you get yours?"
--Hey, I'm in favor of supporting it even if I don't get mine. But yeah, I'd rather I wasn't discriminated against. Is that so wrong, or odd to you? I'd also stand up for freedom of speech for others, and myself. So?
"The ONLY thing your "prevented" from doing (more or less) is standing in church and haveing the State sanction your union."
--First, I'm prevented from having the full benefits of marriage. That fact has been made perfectly clear in multiple threads and posts. Please read them. State laws seek to prevent me from approximating marriage thru other routes, AND my spouse could get, say, health benefits from my work, whereas a domestic partner may not. You have to know the facts to participate adequately in the discussion. Second, I shouldn't HAVE to go through all that extra effort; it's not fair, its not equal. Attempts to create two tier school systems were struck down because separate is not equal even if students in both schools "can" learn. Attempts to make exercising ones rights more difficult with a simple poll tax were struck down because their purpose was discriminatory. You may not be a fan of legal precedent, but you really ought to know what it is to debate gay marriage.... laws.
"Like I said before, the State can go F itself about me and my relationships, its none of their business what I do, and I neither require nor demand its sanction."
--Great. Don't fight for your rights. This has nothing to do with anyone else.
"As bad as it maybe, and worse for the single folks--to characterize it as "descrimantion" may be a litteral truth--but in the scheme of things its pretty small potatoes."
--And you would know this.... how? Have you considered that gay couples, one of whom gets really sick, might see their children, posessions, and healthcare decisions lost to disapproving families rather than life partners because of the lack of marriage rights? That's "small potatoes" to you, but not to gay families. Besides, your willingness to write off what you agree is discrimination because you find its no big deal is rather disturbing. You might change your mind when it's your place in society we're discussing.
"A least you HAVE somebody---I wish you every joy BTW--but having and not being able to have a government sanctioned union is still a vast improvement over not having anyone at all."
--Are you serious? The fact that a black man and a white woman "have each other" was supposed to console them when the state said their union was immoral and they couldn't get married? Well, the SCOTUS and the rest of the country disagrees with you. And whether or not you have someone, you have the freedom to find someone and marry them if you want. You're guaranteed the ability to pursue happiness, not happiness itself.
CXT, the only point you've been able to make so far is that conservatives don't want a gay-marriage allowing law in place, while the gays do, so you view this as a simple clash of opinions.
If you are unable to distinguish the right to be left alone with the desire to block others from pursuing their version of the american dream, and you are unable to understand my analogies to a half dozen other situations, then there is no point in continuing this conversation.
Let's reduce this to two simple questions:
1) Do you or do you not understand that it would be wrong for a non-jehovah's witness majority to force everyone to use blood products, and it would also be wrong for a JW majority, if one existed, to prevent the nonJW minority from receiving blood products if they wanted, even if that offended the sensibilities of the majority JW's? I imagine you would be peeved if you lived in the US of JW and because of a "moral outcry" you were prevented from receiving a life sustaining transfusion? Please say yes. Hopefully you'd also agree that if you wanted to marry someone of another race, you'd be irritated if the state intervened?
2) Do you not see that there is not any difference between a majority denying you access to blood products or interracial marriage, and denying you access to same sex marriage? If you believe these are different, explain WHY.
I'm asking you to either endorse the idea of laws banning transfusion and interracial marriage, because some religious person is offended by others being involved in those practices, or explain why gay marriage is different. Please don't just reply that conservatives don't want gays to get married. We know that. It's irrelevant because we're asking what's right and constitutional, not what's most important to conservatives.
--Ian
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
My personal view on this is complicated.Ian wrote:
Do you not see that there is not any difference between a majority denying you access to blood products or interracial marriage, and denying you access to same sex marriage? If you believe these are different, explain WHY.
I think like-minded people have a right to teach and believe in their own traditions and morals. This means that if group A thinks certain sexual practices are right and group B thinks that they are wrong, each has a right to live their lives by their own standards without government intervening or one group discriminating against the other.
There are always exceptions. We set an age limit for sex and marriage so that kids have a chance to be kids. We don't need babies and the complications that come with intimacy before it's time. Both are literally matters of life and death these days. We also address public health issues - as we should. Close down bath houses in San Francisco? Absolutely.
I for one don't care how the Taliban treat each other so long as they don't send whackos over here to kill people for the sport of it. Start messing with my people, and the gloves are off.
As for "gay marriage", well I've held all along that religion and the state should have separate processes to recognize unions. Let marriage be something you do with your church, and civil union something you do to keep your records straight with the IRS and other entities (like insurance companies, legal matters regarding death and health, etc.).
I for one WANT gays to have some kind of recognized union. There's kind of a balloon thing going on there. If you don't allow legal recognition, you encourage underground activity. And gays don't have a good track record in terms of responsible sex practices when government discourages monogomy and personal responsibility. We shouldn't be surprised; that's happened with other sectors of our society in the past.
- Bill
"As for "gay marriage", well I've held all along that religion and the state should have separate processes to recognize unions."
So are you endorsing my solution from a few posts prior?
"There's kind of a balloon thing going on there. If you don't allow legal recognition, you encourage underground activity. And gays don't have a good track record in terms of responsible sex practices when government discourages monogomy and personal responsibility. We shouldn't be surprised; that's happened with other sectors of our society in the past."
Two thoughts:
First, while I appreciate the endorsement, this sounds a bit like getting off on a technicality. I'd like to be a full an equal citizen of the country because the country agrees my rights are worthwhile, not (just) because I am felt to need help controlling my behavior.
And second, earlier someone thought one of your comments about sex in public restrooms reflected your feelings about gays, and you responded that they were totally off base... but that's a bit of a generalization there in your last post. Gays are not a homogenous group with a poor track record of responsibility. Some of us happen to be safer and more responsible than many or most of our heterosexual peers (in fact, some of us have racked up 12 years in LTRs by age 32 and tour local college campuses giving safe sex seminars).
And whenever we talk about LGB's there's always some references about how the gay sex is (for those who want it that way) risky and immediately available--somehow overlooking the fact that the safest sex out there occurs between lesbians, who are notorious nesters and about whom the phrase "lesbian bed death" was invented. It's a (albeit similarly stereotyped) mirror image that somehow gets left out of the discussion, probably because it doesn't justify any misgivings about same sex marriage.
My point is, that's a stereotype. They usually come with some truth in them, and this one is no exception. But this matters because after the majority holds forth on what will be our rights (that is, after 9 wolves and a sheep sit down to vote on what to have for dinner, if I may borrow a line from other threads on this forum) the decision will have been made on what generalities are believed, but will affect a bunch of individuals, some to most of whom are "innocent of all charges."
So are you endorsing my solution from a few posts prior?
"There's kind of a balloon thing going on there. If you don't allow legal recognition, you encourage underground activity. And gays don't have a good track record in terms of responsible sex practices when government discourages monogomy and personal responsibility. We shouldn't be surprised; that's happened with other sectors of our society in the past."
Two thoughts:
First, while I appreciate the endorsement, this sounds a bit like getting off on a technicality. I'd like to be a full an equal citizen of the country because the country agrees my rights are worthwhile, not (just) because I am felt to need help controlling my behavior.
And second, earlier someone thought one of your comments about sex in public restrooms reflected your feelings about gays, and you responded that they were totally off base... but that's a bit of a generalization there in your last post. Gays are not a homogenous group with a poor track record of responsibility. Some of us happen to be safer and more responsible than many or most of our heterosexual peers (in fact, some of us have racked up 12 years in LTRs by age 32 and tour local college campuses giving safe sex seminars).
And whenever we talk about LGB's there's always some references about how the gay sex is (for those who want it that way) risky and immediately available--somehow overlooking the fact that the safest sex out there occurs between lesbians, who are notorious nesters and about whom the phrase "lesbian bed death" was invented. It's a (albeit similarly stereotyped) mirror image that somehow gets left out of the discussion, probably because it doesn't justify any misgivings about same sex marriage.
My point is, that's a stereotype. They usually come with some truth in them, and this one is no exception. But this matters because after the majority holds forth on what will be our rights (that is, after 9 wolves and a sheep sit down to vote on what to have for dinner, if I may borrow a line from other threads on this forum) the decision will have been made on what generalities are believed, but will affect a bunch of individuals, some to most of whom are "innocent of all charges."
--Ian
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Our views have been the same all along. I'm not a late arrival on this matter.Ian wrote:
So are you endorsing my solution from a few posts prior?
I have a lot of personal experience with people in these matters, often being an advocate where one didn't exist. In my view, actions speak MUCH louder than words.
Most people from my generation arrive at their views on the matter via the vicissitudes of life.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you.Ian wrote:
My point is, that's a stereotype. They usually come with some truth in them, and this one is no exception.
I understand your perspective.Ian wrote:
I'd like to be a full an equal citizen of the country because the country agrees my rights are worthwhile, not (just) because I am felt to need help controlling my behavior.
My perspective is a different one, Ian. I have G/L friends and devout Christian friends. I also look at society at times from the eyes of cultures (conservative Muslim groups) which view our own as decadent.
I abhor politically correct thinking. From my perspective, such a mindset is just as tyrannical as people who are intolerant of you and your orientation.
In my view, we do best when we find ways to get people of differing points of view to get along. We do best when we allow people to say what they feel, and not what they are supposed to say. So that's why I have libertarian tendencies.
YOU are equal in my eyes, Ian. 'Nuff said. But I'm not going to sweat over Christian groups preaching their own lifestyles. And I get very irked when people preach that they should change their dogma.
I also vacillate between being principled and pragmatic. I think going either extreme can lock you into a jam when trying to get myriad groups to get along. More importantly, I will call BEHAVIOR I don't like - even if it happens to be more prevalent in a particular group. This is where the PC Police try to undermine you by crying "Racist!" or "Bigot!" I get a perverse joy out of sparring people who employ this tactic.
If you don't live in a glass house, there's no reason to fear the stones.
- Bill
IJ
Nope AGAIN, I don't agree with the way your frameing the issue.
Its not about relgion--per-se, its about people being asked to accept and legitimize things they don't agree with.
(blood transfusions, seperate but equal education etc BTW are perfect examples of just how far you are willing to go to grossly inflate this issue.)
Its about what levels of "discrimantion" your OK with--in this case, discrimation against gays is wrong---but MORE discrimnatory practices against single folks--gay and stright is "OK" with you.
If your against "discrimnation" then you should NOT be willing to discriminate against myself and other singles.
AGAIN, it may be, as you put it, "extra effort" but there is HUGE difference between "I can't get the full benefits of marriage" and "it takes extra effort" to get the SAME benefits.
WHat exact benefits CAN'T you get??
And why do you think being able to take care of the people you love SHOULD NOT take "extra effort?"
Marriage takes work--period. And if not willing to put out that "extra effort" to make sure that the people you love are taken care of properly--maybe you should not be married at all---that is not a gay or stright issue--its a relationship issue.
See that's the problem IJ, my "rights" and your "rights" are not really at stake.
Your seeming NEED to have the State sanction your union is.
As if without the States imprint/say-so its somehow not whole or real.
And to me that gives the State far more control and power over my individual choices and relationships than I want or need.
And as far as I'm concerned my relationships are about me and whom I'm with, what we want and how we want to live out lives---what and how the State feels about it is so far down the list of things I find important that its almost not on the list at all.
Its clear that you feel quite differently--in your world how OTHER people, groups, entities, organizatrions etc feel and think about your relations is the overidding concern--and I think that is shame.
Oh, and MANY "conservatives" are prefectly ok with gay marriage--I'm pretty conservative and not only don't I have a problem with it--I'd vote for it.
Nope AGAIN, I don't agree with the way your frameing the issue.
Its not about relgion--per-se, its about people being asked to accept and legitimize things they don't agree with.
(blood transfusions, seperate but equal education etc BTW are perfect examples of just how far you are willing to go to grossly inflate this issue.)
Its about what levels of "discrimantion" your OK with--in this case, discrimation against gays is wrong---but MORE discrimnatory practices against single folks--gay and stright is "OK" with you.
If your against "discrimnation" then you should NOT be willing to discriminate against myself and other singles.
AGAIN, it may be, as you put it, "extra effort" but there is HUGE difference between "I can't get the full benefits of marriage" and "it takes extra effort" to get the SAME benefits.
WHat exact benefits CAN'T you get??
And why do you think being able to take care of the people you love SHOULD NOT take "extra effort?"
Marriage takes work--period. And if not willing to put out that "extra effort" to make sure that the people you love are taken care of properly--maybe you should not be married at all---that is not a gay or stright issue--its a relationship issue.
See that's the problem IJ, my "rights" and your "rights" are not really at stake.
Your seeming NEED to have the State sanction your union is.
As if without the States imprint/say-so its somehow not whole or real.
And to me that gives the State far more control and power over my individual choices and relationships than I want or need.
And as far as I'm concerned my relationships are about me and whom I'm with, what we want and how we want to live out lives---what and how the State feels about it is so far down the list of things I find important that its almost not on the list at all.
Its clear that you feel quite differently--in your world how OTHER people, groups, entities, organizatrions etc feel and think about your relations is the overidding concern--and I think that is shame.
Oh, and MANY "conservatives" are prefectly ok with gay marriage--I'm pretty conservative and not only don't I have a problem with it--I'd vote for it.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
cxt
If gays or lesbians are thinking about family - and some of my friends indeed have taken this step - then they deserve whatever tax and legal benefits that "traditional" married couples are entitled to.
I'm not sure I agree that Ian should be asked to love more and put up with more if he's a tax-paying professional, generally a good guy, and might want to make some little Ians down the road. (It can be done...)
As I alluded to above, government can really screw things up. LBJ's Great Society programs destroyed the black family as we know it. The intentions were all good. But as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The welfare system meant to pull them out of poverty ended up discouraging dads from marrying and sticking around to see their boys grow through puberty. You have to be totally color blind not to notice the overrrepresentation of blacks in prisons today. And I don't believe blacks are inherently bad, nor do I think the criminal justice system is biased. I think kids need two strong parents at home. I happen to believe they need a mom and a dad role model, but I'm willing to see if gays and lesbians can match the traditional structure. In any case, two cooperating parents are definitely better than one.
If I get a few breaks here and there on health insurance, taxes, the ability to set up wills, the ability to direct care for kids in case of an emergency, etc., etc., then I think any monogomous G/L couple should get the same. And why should these breaks exist? Well society needs kids, and society needs them to grow up happy, healthy, and productive.
As for you... Many of the things I wrote about above don't apply to you if you aren't now interested in having a family.
The short of what I'm saying is that your wrath should just as easily be directed at me as it should be to Ian. I understand where you're coming from. I lived poor for the first 30-something years of my life so I could get the education I got. And I was single. Imagine what it was like trying to get a car and afford the auto insurance on a $400/month stipend. If you are male, single, and under 30, forgetaboutit.
It took me years to get out of the debt I created when single and trying to finish my education. But I managed... Now I'm getting sucked dry via taxes. And I don't at all feel guilty about getting bennies that I never got when younger. I friggin EARNED them.
But that's me.
- Bill
If gays or lesbians are thinking about family - and some of my friends indeed have taken this step - then they deserve whatever tax and legal benefits that "traditional" married couples are entitled to.
I'm not sure I agree that Ian should be asked to love more and put up with more if he's a tax-paying professional, generally a good guy, and might want to make some little Ians down the road. (It can be done...)
As I alluded to above, government can really screw things up. LBJ's Great Society programs destroyed the black family as we know it. The intentions were all good. But as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The welfare system meant to pull them out of poverty ended up discouraging dads from marrying and sticking around to see their boys grow through puberty. You have to be totally color blind not to notice the overrrepresentation of blacks in prisons today. And I don't believe blacks are inherently bad, nor do I think the criminal justice system is biased. I think kids need two strong parents at home. I happen to believe they need a mom and a dad role model, but I'm willing to see if gays and lesbians can match the traditional structure. In any case, two cooperating parents are definitely better than one.
If I get a few breaks here and there on health insurance, taxes, the ability to set up wills, the ability to direct care for kids in case of an emergency, etc., etc., then I think any monogomous G/L couple should get the same. And why should these breaks exist? Well society needs kids, and society needs them to grow up happy, healthy, and productive.
As for you... Many of the things I wrote about above don't apply to you if you aren't now interested in having a family.
The short of what I'm saying is that your wrath should just as easily be directed at me as it should be to Ian. I understand where you're coming from. I lived poor for the first 30-something years of my life so I could get the education I got. And I was single. Imagine what it was like trying to get a car and afford the auto insurance on a $400/month stipend. If you are male, single, and under 30, forgetaboutit.
It took me years to get out of the debt I created when single and trying to finish my education. But I managed... Now I'm getting sucked dry via taxes. And I don't at all feel guilty about getting bennies that I never got when younger. I friggin EARNED them.
But that's me.
- Bill
Bill
I'm not "wrathful" at all.
I'm just trying to point out that the same rights and responsibities enjoyed by married people are available for gay/lesbian/common law couples as well.
Little harder to get--but there all the same.
Rights and responsibites NOT extended to tax paying single folks of ANY sort.
I don't see it as much as a problem as I do something that is generally ignored and overlooked in the discussion.
I'm not "wrathful" at all.
I'm just trying to point out that the same rights and responsibities enjoyed by married people are available for gay/lesbian/common law couples as well.
Little harder to get--but there all the same.
Rights and responsibites NOT extended to tax paying single folks of ANY sort.
I don't see it as much as a problem as I do something that is generally ignored and overlooked in the discussion.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
"I abhor politically correct thinking. From my perspective, such a mindset is just as tyrannical as people who are intolerant of you and your orientation."
I agree with you that PC for the sake of being PC is silly. Go ahead and mock 'em, in fact, we know you enjoy baiting them. All in good fun. However, Anti-PC for the sake of being Anti-PC isn't merely an antidote. It can be insulting as well. If I were to use a bunch of stereotypes about black people and crime, drug use, and unwed mothers to support an opinion that the government should guide them because of their poor track record, I could upset a lot of people--and not just because they're raised on PC junkfood. People aren't dumb and we can pick up on subtexts (intended or not) even if no facts are incorrect. Something like this would capture the whole picture without relishing in being offensive to some:
"Supporting equal marriage or partner rights for LGBs is the right thing to do because it redresses a discriminatory legal history and allows everyone an equal chance to pursue their happiness and their version of the american dream; it also might encourage healthier and more stable unions for a subset of the LGB population that so far has practiced a reckless lifestyle."
See how that's true, but doesn't cast any aspersions; on the other hand,
"And gays don't have a good track record in terms of responsible sex practices when government discourages monogomy and personal responsibility..."
... reduces everyone in that group to one identifier and links all of them to the bad behavior of the few. You may see only the partial truth that underlies the stereotype; forgive those on the receiving end who are innocent of the charges to focus on the partial untruth.
Not a huge issue. The huge issue, is, as usual... posts from Mars. More later.
I agree with you that PC for the sake of being PC is silly. Go ahead and mock 'em, in fact, we know you enjoy baiting them. All in good fun. However, Anti-PC for the sake of being Anti-PC isn't merely an antidote. It can be insulting as well. If I were to use a bunch of stereotypes about black people and crime, drug use, and unwed mothers to support an opinion that the government should guide them because of their poor track record, I could upset a lot of people--and not just because they're raised on PC junkfood. People aren't dumb and we can pick up on subtexts (intended or not) even if no facts are incorrect. Something like this would capture the whole picture without relishing in being offensive to some:
"Supporting equal marriage or partner rights for LGBs is the right thing to do because it redresses a discriminatory legal history and allows everyone an equal chance to pursue their happiness and their version of the american dream; it also might encourage healthier and more stable unions for a subset of the LGB population that so far has practiced a reckless lifestyle."
See how that's true, but doesn't cast any aspersions; on the other hand,
"And gays don't have a good track record in terms of responsible sex practices when government discourages monogomy and personal responsibility..."
... reduces everyone in that group to one identifier and links all of them to the bad behavior of the few. You may see only the partial truth that underlies the stereotype; forgive those on the receiving end who are innocent of the charges to focus on the partial untruth.
Not a huge issue. The huge issue, is, as usual... posts from Mars. More later.
--Ian
"Its about what levels of "discrimantion" your OK with--in this case, discrimation against gays is wrong---but MORE discrimnatory practices against single folks--gay and stright is "OK" with you."
1) there is a legitimate reason (beside spite) to support marriage as an institution (if you disagree, maybe... state a reason?) although I am not saying I am deeply invested in it. Just explaining the situation. See Bill's post for details.
2) this is a separate issue. LGBs are a class of people. We don't choose our attractions any more than you do, but either you or I may choose to couple or not. "Discriminating" against singles is different than discriminating against LGBs because YOU CAN GET MARRIED AND I CAN'T. You may not want to, but life isn't always fair. Case in point--I wouldn't expect my partner of 4 years to get benefits from my work if he didn't work BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO BE MARRIED OR REGISTERED OR ANYTHING at this point. I don't want special privileges, I actually want equality, which would be to get him health benefits from my work TO THE SAME EXTENT HE WOULD IF HE WERE FEMALE AND ONLY IF WE WERE AS MARRIED AS WE COULD MAKE OURSELVES (say, in Mass). Living together doesn't cut it.
"AGAIN, it may be, as you put it, "extra effort" but there is HUGE difference between "I can't get the full benefits of marriage" and "it takes extra effort" to get the SAME benefits."
Are you daft? I can't get married. To the state, except in Mass, or the states where we can CU, then every single thing I CAN do to approximate marriage is a step any heterosexual people could take. It's exactly the same, despite your indignation that you have it worse. Furthermore (gosh!!) stop saying its only a little discrimination... ANY is wrong. A small poll tax is illegal. Any extra step for a black to marry a white is illegal. ANYTHING. Why should this be any different?
"And why do you think being able to take care of the people you love SHOULD NOT take "extra effort?""
Har har. Because discimination is wrong. Because anytime you make it harder to care for someone, less care occurs (for example, if it were harder to belt in safety seats, parents would use them less--that is undesirable, obviously). Basically, this is a joke to you, to say that if I only cared about my loved ones I'd do the extra work the state imposes and deal with burdens and threats we shouldn't have to. But I'm not laughing.
"Marriage takes work--period. And if not willing to put out that "extra effort" to make sure that the people you love are taken care of properly--maybe you should not be married at all---that is not a gay or stright issue--its a relationship issue."
Here you're not even trying to make sense. Apply your logic FAIRLY, and EQUALLY. Make the work involved the same for LGBs and straights. Or justify discrimination. I happen to think marriage is too easy to create and dissolve (eg, Britney Spears'). But whatever it is, it should be equal.
"WHat exact benefits CAN'T you get??"
"See that's the problem IJ, my "rights" and your "rights" are not really at stake."
"Little harder to get--but there all the same."
Go. Read. My. Earlier. Posts. Thanks in advance. Contrary to your opinion, which appears to have been developed without reading this thread or being exposed to any news stories recently, there are rights at stake and consequences to not being able to marry. Whether you dismiss them as negligible or not, they're there. And even if they WERE negligible, they merit redress because discrimination is wrong.
1) there is a legitimate reason (beside spite) to support marriage as an institution (if you disagree, maybe... state a reason?) although I am not saying I am deeply invested in it. Just explaining the situation. See Bill's post for details.
2) this is a separate issue. LGBs are a class of people. We don't choose our attractions any more than you do, but either you or I may choose to couple or not. "Discriminating" against singles is different than discriminating against LGBs because YOU CAN GET MARRIED AND I CAN'T. You may not want to, but life isn't always fair. Case in point--I wouldn't expect my partner of 4 years to get benefits from my work if he didn't work BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO BE MARRIED OR REGISTERED OR ANYTHING at this point. I don't want special privileges, I actually want equality, which would be to get him health benefits from my work TO THE SAME EXTENT HE WOULD IF HE WERE FEMALE AND ONLY IF WE WERE AS MARRIED AS WE COULD MAKE OURSELVES (say, in Mass). Living together doesn't cut it.
"AGAIN, it may be, as you put it, "extra effort" but there is HUGE difference between "I can't get the full benefits of marriage" and "it takes extra effort" to get the SAME benefits."
Are you daft? I can't get married. To the state, except in Mass, or the states where we can CU, then every single thing I CAN do to approximate marriage is a step any heterosexual people could take. It's exactly the same, despite your indignation that you have it worse. Furthermore (gosh!!) stop saying its only a little discrimination... ANY is wrong. A small poll tax is illegal. Any extra step for a black to marry a white is illegal. ANYTHING. Why should this be any different?
"And why do you think being able to take care of the people you love SHOULD NOT take "extra effort?""
Har har. Because discimination is wrong. Because anytime you make it harder to care for someone, less care occurs (for example, if it were harder to belt in safety seats, parents would use them less--that is undesirable, obviously). Basically, this is a joke to you, to say that if I only cared about my loved ones I'd do the extra work the state imposes and deal with burdens and threats we shouldn't have to. But I'm not laughing.
"Marriage takes work--period. And if not willing to put out that "extra effort" to make sure that the people you love are taken care of properly--maybe you should not be married at all---that is not a gay or stright issue--its a relationship issue."
Here you're not even trying to make sense. Apply your logic FAIRLY, and EQUALLY. Make the work involved the same for LGBs and straights. Or justify discrimination. I happen to think marriage is too easy to create and dissolve (eg, Britney Spears'). But whatever it is, it should be equal.
"WHat exact benefits CAN'T you get??"
"See that's the problem IJ, my "rights" and your "rights" are not really at stake."
"Little harder to get--but there all the same."
Go. Read. My. Earlier. Posts. Thanks in advance. Contrary to your opinion, which appears to have been developed without reading this thread or being exposed to any news stories recently, there are rights at stake and consequences to not being able to marry. Whether you dismiss them as negligible or not, they're there. And even if they WERE negligible, they merit redress because discrimination is wrong.
--Ian
