I like GWB but...

Once again, I never asserted that gays are a race of their own. I was just challenging your ideas of what race is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a difference between discussion and dialogue.

Discussion has similar roots as the word percussion, or concussion. It is a kind of verbal sparring match, describing what we have done for a few pages here.

Dialogue is made of "dia", which means "across", and "logos", which means "wisdom, or knowledge". It refers to the cross-sharing of wisdom between people.

I am more interested in engaging in dialogue with people from whom I can learn. You have proven yourself to be a close-minded, opinionated, insulting person incapable of basic reading comprehension.

For that, I thank you. Because now that you have made the example so obvious, I can work on removing those qualities from myself.

Peace to you, brother. I'm going to go home and fuck my wife and go attend some gay weddings.

 

No, it's an accurate assessment of your position. You don't have the "right" to dictate "societal norm" so thats a bogus position. If you believe it's a valid position, please commence litigation to ban interracial marriages, in defense of a "societal norm" and see how far you get.

So far, you've conceded that marriage is nothing more than a collection of otherwise available legal contracts, just wrapped up in a neat and tidy package.

Child rearing has nothing, I repeat, nothing to do with it. Zero. You don't have to be married to have a child. Legal child support requirements do not consider marriage at all, only paternity. Clearly, marriage has nothing to do with raising children.

Given that, your whole point degrades to "I don't want those people using the term 'marriage' to represent their relationship." You've conceded everything else in the debate. They're entitled to live as a gay couple, enter into some civil union (whatever the hell that is), and create all the legal paperwork giving them full rights as married people. The only thing they'll be denied is the actual use of the word "marriage" and also legal access to any spousal benefits. They'll just have to do a lot more legwork than the rest of us, but that's just one of the added benefits of being a gay citizen: extra familiarity with the legal system. Straight folks don't have to bother with all that extra legal wrangling since the state was nice enough to do it for them, gratis.

Best of all, the only reason you can give for why the state has this power is that it's not explicitly prohibited in the constitution so they can do it. Funny, but my versions of the the various constitutions have explicit provisions retaining power by the people, not a blanket granting of said power to the state. But be that as it may, the state has no legitimate reason to deny the benefits of marriage to anyone. You not liking gay couples not withstanding. Furthermore, I don't see any record of the people giving that power to the state (to decide who gets married) so I still say that marriage is a basic civil right that ALL people have, regardless of who they wish to marry. You also can't get past the logical problem of admitting that the state has no authority to prohibit interracial marriage but does have the authority to prohibit same-sex marriage. Oh, that's right, gay is a choice, black is not, because you said so.

And as for your original point, yes, I am totally pro-freedom. No, I don't think zoning laws are constitutional, and no, I don't give a shit what my neighbor does on his property. As long as his activities don't damage me, he's free to do as he pleases. For the record, not every locale has zoning laws and those areas do just fine without them. Freedom means letting others do what you dispise. Maybe you should try it sometime.

And once more, please show me where this "compelling interest" theory actually has the force of law. Yes, I know the state uses it all the time. I still don't think it's valid. I see nothing in the constitution that acknowledges anything of the sort on behalf of the state. There is no "trump card" for the state, yet that doctrine is used as exactly that. I don't see that as a feature, in this situation or any other, I see it as yet another abuse of power by an already too powerful state.

But whatever. I don't care. You can continue to "defend" your marriage from the Assault of the Gay People and think yourself correct, regardless of the total lack of any type of threat to your actual legal relationship. You think you're defending some societal norm. I think you're discriminating against gays, and I'm not alone in that regard. I won't use the term "homophobe," mainly because it's a bullshit term and I've yet to meet anyone with an irrational fear of gays, but the bigoted mindset it's come to represent seems to fit your world outlook pretty well. Keep up the good work, defending the world from married fags.

 

Rules change all the time in the context of things. Racial segragation, women voting, legality of alcohol, just to name a few.

 

After re-reading your posts, I'm confused as to what wisdom or knowledge you thought you were sharing. Your proclamations are closer to stream-of-consciousness than logical argument. I've had similar discussions with people that wandered from point to point and juxtaposed irrelevant facts, but they were really stoned at the time.

Sorry, you don't impress me with your wisdom or knowledge. The opinionated part I'll own, it's not a bad thing. We are both opinionated, it's just that your opinion is different than mine. As for the close-minded part, see my sig line. Moral relativism is not an asset.

By the way, if you are going to pull quotes from the writings of others, you should credit them, not present them as your own original thoughts. Since you neglected to do that, I'll fulfill your responsibility as the owners have requested.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 1991 by David Bohm, Donald Factor and Peter Garrett

The copyright holders hereby give permission to copy this material and to distribute it to others for non-commercial purposes including discussion, inquiry, criticism and as an aid to setting up Dialogue groups so long as the material is not altered and this notice is included. All other rights are reserved.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you will read the copyright notice on Dialogue - A Proposal (reproduced above) you will see that we are keen to get its message as widely distributed as possible. So if there are any listservers or FTP or WWW sites that it would be useful on, please put it out. We would like to know where it ends up if that's possible. We do want to keep the copyright notice intact because it makes the point that it not to be used without express permission for any commercial purposes.

If anyone is interested, they can read the material here.

One last piece of advice, try making love to your wife instead, you'll both find it more fulfilling.

 

Just what, in your eyes, is "the state". As I understand it, the state is comprised of the people who live there, the laws they pass to govern themselves are an expression of the people exercising the power they retain.

And with no laws or rules to govern your neighbor's actions, such as I described before, what is your recourse? When the actions of someone else do damage you, without laws, what do you do?

Say there is no law to address the issue when your neighbor's kid has his garage band cranking all night with the amps set on 11 and you can't sleep. You can't call the cops because he is just exercising his freedom. You call over there and ask him to be nice and get a big FU. What do you do?

 

Actually, I pulled those definitions from memory. I learned that distinction in an organizational behavior class for my MBA a few years ago, and it made sense so it stuck in memory.

Once again, your assumptions are without merit.

Dude, you really can't stop being an ass, can you? Thanks again.


P.S. An extra special thanks for the advice on how to have sexual relations with my wife. Would you like to put that one in the Constitution too? I'll try to remember your advice, but it may be hard wth all the canines and dwarves hanging around my bedroom, all competing for attention.

 

Are they not isnt what this discussion is about? Besides the the Amendment prohibiting homosexual marriages? So you are saying homosexuals can be married to one another?

No, what I said was "Gays are not asking to be treated the same as regards marriage laws, since they are not proscribed from marrying as long as they do it within current rules." Any person, including a gay person, may marry in accordance with the current rules, so no, they may not marry each other unless it is a gay man marrying a gay woman. It is not the fact that they are gay which is stopping them from getting married, it is that they do not wish to get married according to the laws regarding marriage.

In line with your examples, it would be more accurate to ask if it would be discrimination to not hire me if, even though reading is a job requirement, I couldn't read because I was dyslexic. Since my inability to read is not my fault, why should you be allowed to discriminate against me? Obviously, the requirement of reading should be removed to avoid discrimination.

What you are saying are stated in job requirements. If you were applying for a job as an egg donor at a fertility clinic you would be denied because you dont meet the requirements for the job not that you were discrimiated against.

Which is exactly why gays are being denied a marriage license, they don't meet the requirements of marriage.

 

Oh, why didn't you tell me right off I was dealing with someone with an MBA? I'd have just skulked away, I'm certainly no match for someone of your intellectual prowess. I'll just have to stop voicing my opinion now that I know how educated you are.

 

What can I say to that? It's true, I learned those things in my MBA program. Mock away.

Buh bye ass

 

Which is exactly why the requirements should change. Despite all the talk about 'sanctity', institution for raising children, 'natural law', etc. , the government clearly allows people to get married even if they are atheists, have no intention of raising children, and perhaps may engage in exclusively non-procreative sex. So what purpose is served by the government in limiting marriage to opposite sex couples? It is to perpetuate disapproval of homosexuality. The basis of the disapproval remains rooted in emotion, cultural mores and religious codemnation, with no clear evidence of any harm to society of long term same sex relationships. Those reasons alone are not enough in a society that values personal liberty. Those reasons alone were the basis of prohibitive miscegenation laws and we should have learned our lesson then.

 

Cultural mores and values are a legitimate reason. Many of our rules and laws and customs are based on those values. You assume that we must all approve of homosexual activity. There is a huge difference between tolerance and approval. You may not like it or approve of this fact, but many people do not care to give their approval to it and are under no obligation to.

You have clearly stated exactly the issue here, except from the other side of the fence. Marriage was not designed to perpetuate disapproval of homosexuals, but the drive to redefine marriage to include homosexuals is a campaign to force not only acceptance of, but approval of homosexuality. Society is expected to not only accept it but to proclaim it a good thing.

If society were ready to do that, it would be easily legislated. As far as a society that values personal liberty, many laws infringe on your personal liberties. If that were not the case, there would be no such thing as illegal drugs, as just one example.

 

Society can feel anyway it wishes. The government must decide whether is should codify the disapproval or not. Allowing homosexuals to marry does not force anyone to approve of homosexuality, it only recognizes that the state has no compelling interest in denying the right for same sex couples to marry. For example, society overwhelmingly disapproves of atheists yet they are not denied any rights granted by the state (ignoring the few ridiculous and seldom enforced state laws against atheists holding office).

 

You tried to pass yourself off as an intellectual heavyweight, quoting other's words as your own and informing us as to how highly educated you are.

People like you don't impress me at all. Brag about your MBA to your young friends, maybe they'll worship your intellect.

I know lots of people with degrees higher than yours, it doesn't make them a dime's worth more intelligent.

 

But the laws are not made by the government, they are made by the citizens who make up the society. Therefore it is society which is codifying the disapproval. And allowing homosexuals to marry does very much so place society's imprimatur on homosexuality.
I think you see more to the religious issue than exists, I'm not aware of any overwhelming disapproval of atheists, and I am one.
My feelings about marriage or any part of this issue are not rooted in any religious belief.

 

Perhaps I do make too much of the religious element but the last poll I saw about this showed that atheists were less likely to be acceptable political candidates than gay people so I think atheists are disliked even more than homosexuals in the U.S. I'm an agnostic by the way so I'm sure I'm lumped in with atheists to most Americans. Also I understand that your objections to homosexual marriage are not based in religion, I just meant that religious objection is one of the more powerful anti gay marriage forces. Social mores change and often times the courts and even legislators can have the prescience to know that it is better to do what is fair and just than to follow opinion polls. I only hope this will happen in the case of same sex marriage.

 

I would rather see the issue decided by the voters than the courts. The abortion issue was decided by the courts, and I think that has made the whole issue more volatile. If legislated, compromises could have been struck making the solution more acceptable to all. It would also be a work in progress. As it stands, one side feels powerless and the other feels constantly under attack.

A constitutional amendment would be a mistake if it ever passed, which it wouldn't. Far too lengthy a process. The voters of each state need to decide this issue for themselves. I have no trouble accepting the popular vote, whatever it is.

 

You take them to civil court, exactly as the system was intended to operate. Then you let a judge or jury decide if you've been damaged by their actions and what recourse is necessary.

You don't run to the nanny state, looking for Prior Restraint laws to be enacted. At least I don't.

 

So rather than the cops showing up and shutting them down in short order, you spend days in court and money for lawyers to solve a simple dispute. We would need a court system of incredible size and at immense expense to operate in this fashion.

 

That's fine with me, mainly because it's clearly a non-issue.

For living proof, you'll notice that large chunks of this country operate exactly in this manner right now and it works just fine. No problems with the court system or anything else.

Any more bogus arguements to offer up?

 

Sorry, this statement is nonsense. Our local court systems are incredibly back-logged and it is impossible to adequately fund them. And this is under conditions that don't result in a fraction of the cases that would result from having no mechanism to quickly resolve public nuisance issues. This might work to some degree in very sparsely populated areas, but there are downsides also. In an urban area it would be totally unworkable.

Idealism is fine, but it has to mesh with reality somewhere.
Utopia is a fantasy.