|
Post by OldHippieDude on Feb 7, 2007 0:28:26 GMT -5
I knew that was coming. Didn't you? Peace, OHD
|
|
|
Post by OldHippieDude on Feb 7, 2007 0:35:01 GMT -5
Someone didn't pay attention! Here, let me help you out, Roshie. Howzat? Easier to read? That was what my post responded to. Was that loud enough? Do you get it? I heard that! Peace, OHD
|
|
|
Post by heathenesque on Feb 7, 2007 1:52:42 GMT -5
Someone didn't pay attention! Here, let me help you out, Roshie. Howzat? Easier to read? That was what my post responded to. Was that loud enough? Do you get it? Try taking the entire artcle in context, Rosh... The part I pointed out to you establishes the actual reasoning behind the proposal. Really, it's not THAT difficult a concept, yanno. Of course, it might be ... for YOU... but the rest of us with workable greymatter don't seem to have any problems.
|
|
|
Post by Chevy on Feb 7, 2007 3:13:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Affirmative Action Jackson on Feb 7, 2007 3:15:56 GMT -5
That was what my post responded to. Was that loud enough? Do you get it? Try taking the entire artcle in context, Rosh... The part I pointed out to you establishes the actual reasoning behind the proposal. Really, it's not THAT difficult a concept, yanno. Of course, it might be ... for YOU... but the rest of us with workable greymatter don't seem to have any problems. I understand perfectly the thread, the proposal and the politics behind the angles. You need a better grasp of my response. It's all about a backhanded attempt at wedging homo marriage into a status quo.
|
|
|
Post by Chevy on Feb 7, 2007 3:31:04 GMT -5
I understand perfectly the thread, the proposal and the politics behind the angles. You need a better grasp of my response. It's all about a backhanded attempt at wedging homo marriage into a status quo. Well, that is your opinion. I find it deeply amusing that it's never that your response is insufficient to the subject; it's always that others 'don't understand' you. Yeah, because you are on such a high plane that the rest of us poor mopes can't aspire... Oh please. Nothing backhanded about this at all. It's quite straightforward, as Heathen pointed out. What *you* don't like is that their move here invalidates one of the signal arguments against homosexual marriage. Let's first understand that 'marriage' is a RELIGIOUS institution that has been accommodated by our legal system, but it is an unholy marriage (if you will excuse the pun.) Our legal system has NO business infiltrating itself into a religious rite. And, since we do have freedom of religion here, disallowing homosexual marriage is a way of disenfranchising those who feel that this religious rite is legitimate as pertains to any couple who loves each other. Fact is, marriage as *we* know it is fairly recent, so far as social conventions go. It was not so long ago that trial marriages were commonplace, and a man could divorce his wife for failing to give him children within the first year. I can just imagine how well that would go down in our current social clime. Bottom line is this: if we are a nation of laws, then those laws should apply *equally* to all. And that means even people you don't like. Truth be told, the institution of marriage has been quietly providing legal perks for decades, and now a segment of our society that was disenfranchised from those perks wants in. We have no *legal* right to deny them this special arrangement while providing it to anyone else. As proudarmymom said, be careful what you wish for. Because the only rational answer to this argument is to CEASE offering those perks to straights who marry. It is a warning that has been given before, while being rejected out of hand by those who want to have their cake and eat it too. And in a nation where we are all supposed to be equal, we do not have the right to decide that *some* people (heterosexuals) are more equal than others. I think Orwell pointed this hypocrisy out quite some time ago. Oh, and by the way: Try telling me again about how HUMOROUS this "February" thing is. Dead to rights, your little 'game' is nothing more than your way of being $hi++y while claiming pious motives. BS. As usual.
|
|
|
Post by Affirmative Action Jackson on Feb 7, 2007 4:24:53 GMT -5
I understand perfectly the thread, the proposal and the politics behind the angles. You need a better grasp of my response. It's all about a backhanded attempt at wedging homo marriage into a status quo. Well, that is your opinion. I find it deeply amusing that it's never that your response is insufficient to the subject; it's always that others 'don't understand' you. Yeah, because you are on such a high plane that the rest of us poor mopes can't aspire... Oh please. Nothing backhanded about this at all. It's quite straightforward, as Heathen pointed out. What *you* don't like is that their move here invalidates one of the signal arguments against homosexual marriage. Let's first understand that 'marriage' is a RELIGIOUS institution that has been accommodated by our legal system, but it is an unholy marriage (if you will excuse the pun.) Our legal system has NO business infiltrating itself into a religious rite. And, since we do have freedom of religion here, disallowing homosexual marriage is a way of disenfranchising those who feel that this religious rite is legitimate as pertains to any couple who loves each other. Fact is, marriage as *we* know it is fairly recent, so far as social conventions go. It was not so long ago that trial marriages were commonplace, and a man could divorce his wife for failing to give him children within the first year. I can just imagine how well that would go down in our current social clime. Bottom line is this: if we are a nation of laws, then those laws should apply *equally* to all. And that means even people you don't like. Truth be told, the institution of marriage has been quietly providing legal perks for decades, and now a segment of our society that was disenfranchised from those perks wants in. We have no *legal* right to deny them this special arrangement while providing it to anyone else. As proudarmymom said, be careful what you wish for. Because the only rational answer to this argument is to CEASE offering those perks to straights who marry. It is a warning that has been given before, while being rejected out of hand by those who want to have their cake and eat it too. And in a nation where we are all supposed to be equal, we do not have the right to decide that *some* people (heterosexuals) are more equal than others. I think Orwell pointed this hypocrisy out quite some time ago. Oh, and by the way: Try telling me again about how HUMOROUS this "February" thing is. Dead to rights, your little 'game' is nothing more than your way of being $hi++y while claiming pious motives. BS. As usual. That's a lotta words. Read her post, read my post, read her post, read my post, read the thread's initial post. Consider that homos can't make babies together but heteros can. That's not a lotta words and there's nothing pious about it. My argument has never had anything to do with religion or marriage in general. It's about the coercion of irrelevant legal marriage. It's an analytical thing.
|
|
|
Post by Chevy on Feb 7, 2007 4:40:53 GMT -5
By the time I read (read that rhyming with RED) your post, her post, your post and her post I had already read more than what I posted above.
Babies are NOT the sole reason for marriage. They may be in your book, but not in others... and that is precisely what the POINT of this move is. To make that argument transparent to those who have failed to 'get' it. It's an analytical thing.
|
|
|
Post by Affirmative Action Jackson on Feb 7, 2007 5:08:32 GMT -5
By the time I read (read that rhyming with RED) your post, her post, your post and her post I had already read more than what I posted above. Babies are NOT the sole reason for marriage. They may be in your book, but not in others... and that is precisely what the POINT of this move is. To make that argument transparent to those who have failed to 'get' it. It's an analytical thing. But babies are the only reason legal marriage should be an issue. Babies and the potential for babies are a coercion and a concrete reason for legal protections. All other forms of marriage are irrelevant vis a vis anyone beyond the immediate scope of the marriage. That makes legal marriage in those cases moot.
|
|
|
Post by Chevy on Feb 7, 2007 5:12:15 GMT -5
Not to those who are reaping the benefits our legal system automatically bestows on married couples, childless or not. THAT is the 500 lb gorilla being conveniently ignored here.
|
|
|
Post by diplomat on Feb 7, 2007 5:53:15 GMT -5
if two people are willing to commit themselves to a relationship in the same manner as heterosexual couples, why not allow that union to have some sort of legal recognition? Would that include identical twin brothers?
|
|
|
Post by vox on Feb 7, 2007 6:04:41 GMT -5
if two people are willing to commit themselves to a relationship in the same manner as heterosexual couples, why not allow that union to have some sort of legal recognition? Would that include identical twin brothers? Don't think so. Probably not a woman and her German Shepherd either.
|
|
|
Post by diplomat on Feb 7, 2007 6:05:50 GMT -5
Consider that homos can't make babies together but heteros can. Nature dictates the definition of marriage. Marriage is not an evolving paradigm. For thousands of years, on the basis of experience, tradition, and legal precedent, every society and every major religious faith have upheld marriage as a unique relationship by which a man and a woman are joined together for the primary purpose of forming and maintaining a family. This overwhelming consensus results from the fact that the union of man and woman is apparent and manifest in the most basic and evident truths of human nature.
|
|
|
Post by diplomat on Feb 7, 2007 6:11:02 GMT -5
It's all about a backhanded attempt at wedging homo marriage into a status quo. The back-door push for the USA to be totally SECULAR (& atheist) aids the gay agenda in reshaping our societal laws, customs and ideology.
|
|
|
Post by diplomat on Feb 7, 2007 6:13:28 GMT -5
Would that include identical twin brothers? Don't think so. Probably not a woman and her German Shepherd either. We're not talking about mixing species(es). Why would identical twin brothers be excluded from marrying each other?
|
|