RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 11:52:43 PM)

.



GotSteel -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/20/2014 2:52:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
Every study of children raised by gay parents (two moms, two dads) has shown that they are no different than kids of hetero parents.

I seem to recall one that showed such nuclear families to be better than single parent households. Those around here might remember it as the one hate group focus on the family stuck their foot in their mouth misquoting: http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/07/20/u-s-senator-catches-anti-gay-testifier-misrepresenting-study/



thishereboi -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/20/2014 5:14:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

Well for one I think homosexuals should have a less prominent role in the TV media. They far outnumber the straight people these days. It's like a constant gayparade watching TV today. It's just..... awkward or queer like you love saying. I have my reasons and evidence to say we are creating masses of false queers these days that aren't even gay to begin with. So if you do that, then let's give 'em equal rights.
Agree?


I don't really watch that much TV, although I never really saw it as a "constant gayparade." How many shows are like that?

How do we create "masses of false queers"? There are people claiming to be gay when they're not gay? Why would they do that?


The female reporters on Fox News and on Fox Business, they are a drag queens idea of heaven...heavy makeup, killer heels, poofed out hair, seventh heaven



Was there a point to this or are you just feeling particularity catty today?



dcnovice -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/20/2014 8:03:35 AM)

quote:

A civil union partner would be just much a legal spouse.

In theory. As both Lauren and I noted, real life is far less tidy.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the GAO has identified more than a thousand places in the U.S. code where privileges/benefits stem from martial status. Adapting them all to apply to "civil unions" as well would take a staggering amount of retrofitting. Then there are whatever changes would need to take place in state and local laws. That's an awful lot of bureaucratic busy work simply to keep "marriage" as the exclusive property of heterosexuals.


quote:

What "homosexual marriage" seems to be all about is delaying gay rights for as long as possible

Oh my. Probably best to agree to disagree at this point.




vincentML -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/20/2014 9:06:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

The argument that words do not embed notions of superiority is some sort of magical attempt to smother history.

Did it escape your notice that that wasn't the argument, or are you in the fish business now?

K.


This was your point: "But the fact that we use different terms for different things has no bearing on the equality of their rights."

Your point is utter nonsense. Every label is loaded with historical and emotional meaning. Man, Woman, Black, White, Marriage, Civil Unions are categories that come down to us with social meaning and prejudices that cannot be so easily dismissed. The words we use underlie the actions we take. Words are not neutral. To believe they are is absurd. Worse than absurd. Believing in the historical neutrality of these categories lays the ground work for the bogus assertion of equality.

Neutering the terms allows us to say: See all are equal under the Law, so what's all the fuss about? We can talk the talk while not having to walk the walk. Discounting the meaning and impact of terms is the first step on the path to a disingenuous argument.



thishereboi -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/20/2014 11:44:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

A civil union partner would be just much a legal spouse.

In theory. As both Lauren and I noted, real life is far less tidy.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the GAO has identified more than a thousand places in the U.S. code where privileges/benefits stem from martial status. Adapting them all to apply to "civil unions" as well would take a staggering amount of retrofitting. Then there are whatever changes would need to take place in state and local laws. That's an awful lot of bureaucratic busy work simply to keep "marriage" as the exclusive property of heterosexuals.


quote:

What "homosexual marriage" seems to be all about is delaying gay rights for as long as possible

Oh my. Probably best to agree to disagree at this point.





I have also heard people use the argument that it's going to take a lot of busy work to change everything to reflect the change from man and women to man and women/man and man/women and women and cost a lot of money. If the end result is no more stories about people being cut out because they aren't officially a spouse then I really don't care which way they do it. The only difference I see is the amount of time it will take to get the majority of people to agree to do it. If it is easier to get people to wrap their heads around civil union, then that's what we should do. Bickering over possession of a word is bullshit. If the radicals on the right would stop butting heads with the radicals on the left, the rest of us might be able to get something accomplished.



Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/20/2014 12:54:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

The argument that words do not embed notions of superiority is some sort of magical attempt to smother history.

Did it escape your notice that that wasn't the argument, or are you in the fish business now?

Your point is utter nonsense. Every label is loaded with historical and emotional meaning.

Okay, so it's the fish business then. I never argued that words don't have connotations.

K.



Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/20/2014 3:13:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

That's an awful lot of bureaucratic busy work simply to keep "marriage" as the exclusive property of heterosexuals.

Well that shoe fits more than one foot. Given that a majority of the population favored civil unions for gays with the same rights as marriage a long time ago, what is the superior benefit to be obtained from pushing instead for a formal re-purposing of the word "marriage" to include same-sex unions? When you win, your rights will not be any greater than they would have been in a civil union with same rights as a marriage. Where is the gain?

All these years of drama and antagonism simply to wrench a property interest in the word "marriage" away from heterosexuals?

So, meh. Pot, kettle.

Personally, I would prefer that the law just subsume all life partnerships under the term of art "civil unions," without distinction. Then everybody could call theirs whatever they want and it would be a complete non-issue. I'm sorry that wasn't the road decided upon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Probably best to agree to disagree at this point.

Obviously we're already doing that. [:)]

K.



vincentML -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/20/2014 3:50:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

The argument that words do not embed notions of superiority is some sort of magical attempt to smother history.

Did it escape your notice that that wasn't the argument, or are you in the fish business now?

Your point is utter nonsense. Every label is loaded with historical and emotional meaning.

Okay, so it's the fish business then. I never argued that words don't have connotations.

K.


But you claimed that it doesn't matter. Such a claim is either disingenuous or naïve.

quote:

"But the fact that we use different terms for different things has no bearing on the equality of their rights."




Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/20/2014 4:21:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

But you claimed that it doesn't matter. Such a claim is either disingenuous or naïve.

Except that you can't show why. Because if civil unions were established with the same rights as marriage, then gay unions would enjoy the same rights as hetero unions -- as a matter of law -- and any "connotations" it might please someone to attach to those terms would have no bearing on the matter.

K.




dcnovice -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/20/2014 6:35:03 PM)

quote:

Where is the gain?

Equality. Dignity. Respect.

That's how I and many others--both gay and straight--see it.

You, I realize, don't.

And I honestly can't think of anything to say that will change that.



kdsub -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/20/2014 7:08:15 PM)

Equality is all that is needed... dignity is assigned oneself...and respect is a perception of others you can't demand.

Butch



JeffBC -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/20/2014 7:34:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
Equality is all that is needed... dignity is assigned oneself...and respect is a perception of others you can't demand.

So long as that equality really is equality. I'd not be in favor of creating two marriages... one for gays and one for straights. Such things never work out well. Even if they did, in fact, start out completely equal you can bet that that status would erode quickly.

IMO the law needs to recognize one and only one "life contract" and it needs to be available to everyone. Churches may do whatever they want but it has no merit or meaning in the eyes of the law. In the end though, that really is a whole lot of hoop jumping to go nowhere because as I noted, gays will still be able to be married under my proposal as long as they can find a church to do it and I doubt that'd be a problem. So the word "marriage" is not protected at all... nor would I ever allow it to be.



dcnovice -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/20/2014 7:59:32 PM)

quote:

IMO the law needs to recognize one and only one "life contract"

The law does. It's called marriage.


quote:

and it needs to be available to everyone.

Agreed.



Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/20/2014 8:13:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

And I honestly can't think of anything to say that will change that.

Well, there's no need to change it. I'm not against gay marriage. As I said before, I am indifferent to it. I only took up the issue because I don't like the insistence that social justice allows only one solution, and that any disagreement with this holy truth seals one's indictment as an oppressor of gays.

K.





Owner59 -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/20/2014 8:35:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

.





Now you`re talk`n K......



My two cents....in many ways,the more extreme parts have already become unacceptable......in polite company.


Namely, those who attempt to cloak their bigotry against gays with their faith.



Owner59 -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/20/2014 8:53:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

And I honestly can't think of anything to say that will change that.

Well, there's no need to change it. I'm not against gay marriage. As I said before, I am indifferent to it. I only took up the issue because I don't like the insistence that social justice allows only one solution, and that any disagreement with this holy truth seals one's indictment as an oppressor of gays.

K.






You`ll live.....[8|]



vincentML -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/21/2014 8:17:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

But you claimed that it doesn't matter. Such a claim is either disingenuous or naïve.

Except that you can't show why. Because if civil unions were established with the same rights as marriage, then gay unions would enjoy the same rights as hetero unions -- as a matter of law -- and any "connotations" it might please someone to attach to those terms would have no bearing on the matter.

K.


Very well, then: Naïve. Your position ignores the power of language and categories. Even if civil unions conveyed the same rights as marriage there would be an implicit inequality. Otherwise, why have two separate categories? Why does the gay couple have a license titled Civil Union but the hetero couple has a license that says Marriage?

You ignore the fact that we are talking about state laws here. Marriage licenses are a function of the individual states. As long as the two classes exist there will be inequalities in law from state to state.




Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/21/2014 3:08:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Even if civil unions conveyed the same rights as marriage there would be an implicit inequality. Otherwise, why have two separate categories?

Reciting your creed as if it was holy writ and raising questions already met does not advance your case.

But it's good for mine, so please keep trying.

K.




vincentML -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/21/2014 3:24:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Even if civil unions conveyed the same rights as marriage there would be an implicit inequality. Otherwise, why have two separate categories?

Reciting your creed as if it was holy writ and raising questions already met does not advance your case.

But it's good for mine, so please keep trying.

K.



What don't you get? There is no single law. There are fifty state marriage laws. So, language matters.



Page: <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625