Cross another hypocrite off the list

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

The problem is that there are two things that you can't legislate...morality and folks opinions. When the sweeping Civil Rights legislation was passed by the federal government in the 60's, it gave us in the movement leverage but didn't give black folks equality! Women are supposedly "equal under the law" but "glass ceilings" abound...the old prejudices, the old mis-information, the old mindsets take time (generations) to overcome BUT they will always exist if reinforced by societal constructs that illuminate "differences"...that's why the words are important!

Right, but LEGALLY it did make them equal, even if it didn't change how people felt. If calling it marriage is still not going to change peoples' views (which it won't), then why delay it any further by insisting that it be called marriage? This fight becomes so much easier if people just back off of the marriage thing and ask for civil unions.

Based on this post...what does fighting for marriage accomplish? Whether it's called civil union, marriage, or "grilled cheese sandwich ", those who don't approve still won't approve. So if the rights can be granted faster by using a different word, then what's the hold up?

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Right, but LEGALLY it did make them equal, even if it didn't change how people felt. If calling it marriage is still not going to change peoples' views (which it won't), then why delay it any further by insisting that it be called marriage? This fight becomes so much easier if people just back off of the marriage thing and ask for civil unions.

Based on this post...what does fighting for marriage accomplish? Whether it's called civil union, marriage, or "grilled cheese sandwich ", those who don't approve still won't approve. So if the rights can be granted faster by using a different word, then what's the hold up?

A valid point Brian...my only answer is that once you legalize differences, they become canon. Whatever term is applied, you are correct, it won't change opinions already "set in stone" but the next generation, and the one after that will take their cues from what society has "set"...if children grow up seeing the emphasis on "differences", they will believe that people are different...if they grow up seeing that all folks are given the same rights, treated the same, they will more likely accept that all folks are the same. I respect your point of view that sometimes change is best accomplished by taking "baby steps" rather than giant leaps...I learned impatience in the 60's and have never outgrown it intellectually, pragmatically...I can deal!

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

my only answer is that once you legalize differences, they become canon. Whatever term is applied, you are correct, it won't change opinions already "set in stone" but the next generation, and the one after that will take their cues from what society has "set"...if children grow up seeing the emphasis on "differences", they will believe that people are different...

good good good point. just remember how attitudes are shifting on this though. Once my generation becomes the generation in charge, this won't even be an issue anymore. By and large, we don't give a **** about who marries who, and policy shifts will reflect that. By the time my kids come around, this whole argument will have been put to rest and everyone will be getting married anyway.

[Downthestretch55]

Somerfrost and Brian,
I just have to tell you that I've enjoyed your polite exchange.
You are both gentlemen.
You both have respected each other's opinions, and through the discussing, have demonstrated that there is agreement.
May I ask of both of you, do you not realize that the topic of "gay marriage" is yet another bogus attempt to divert attention from some other more pressing topics? Is this something that demands the best creative mental energies of those that really care? Or can you both, see the "side-track" for what it really is?
Danzig said it well.
There are some areas that the government holds no right to, including but not limited to, what occurs between consenting adults.
Equality is inclusive of ALL! It's just that simple.
Everything else is a "smoke screen", and should be seen as such.
DTS

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Somerfrost and Brian,
I just have to tell you that I've enjoyed your polite exchange.
You are both gentlemen.
You both have respected each other's opinions, and through the discussing, have demonstrated that there is agreement.
May I ask of both of you, do you not realize that the topic of "gay marriage" is yet another bogus attempt to divert attention from some other more pressing topics? Is this something that demands the best creative mental energies of those that really care? Or can you both, see the "side-track" for what it really is?
Danzig said it well.
There are some areas that the government holds no right to, including but not limited to, what occurs between consenting adults.
Equality is inclusive of ALL! It's just that simple.
Everything else is a "smoke screen", and should be seen as such.
DTS

DTS,
I agree 100%, unfortunately there are more than enough folks in this country who would rather use valuable resources to deny others equality than force the political opportunists to deal with "real" issues! We can blame Bush et al but in the end, this non-issue would wither and die if the public wasn't willing to nourish it!

[Danzig]

altho there are larger and smaller issues....and some may be more important in the 'grand scheme of things'...but, people need to live their life, and many times it's the smaller things that you deal with on a day to day basis. it's not as tho all day today, as i dealt with various work issues, i told everyone hey, there's more important things to worry about. for most people it is the smaller issues that you deal with--that's how life is. a big part of most peoples day is dealing with all the little things that make up their lives. all those issues are a part of the bigger picture.

as for sidetracking the govt--that's where flag burning type issues come into play.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

DTS,
I agree 100%, unfortunately there are more than enough folks in this country who would rather use valuable resources to deny others equality than force the political opportunists to deal with "real" issues! We can blame Bush et al but in the end, this non-issue would wither and die if the public wasn't willing to nourish it!

I agree completely. I am saddened by the fact that as far as their political advocacy goes, the religious right has become a two-issue group. Abortion and gay marriage. For those that believe that abortion is murder, I can see what that is an important issue to rally behind. However, poverty, injustices, etc etc have gone unnoticed because these two issues rile up the base better than any other. It's sad because so many people are wasting so much time when there are so many huge, pressing issues in this country that we would be better served to address than gay marriage. I take comfort in knowing like I said in my last post, that this will be a non-issue in the next 10-15 years.

[Downthestretch55]

Thanks Somerfrost, Danzig, and Brian.
Well said.
DTS

[Rupert Pupkin]

I totally disagree with anyone that says people's rights are being violated if gay marriage is illegal. Nobody's rights are being violated. Everyone has the same rights. Every man has the right to marry a woman. The rules are the same for everyone.

I'll give you a few different analogies. I live in a condominium building. They have rules. Since most people go to bed around 11:00pm, you are not allowed to play loud music after 11:00pm. Let's say that I'm different from most people. I stay up very late. I go to bed at 3:00am. If I made the same argument as you guys, I could say that my rights are being violated. I'm a night person, so the rules should be different for me. I should be allowed to blast my music late at night. Otherwise, my rights are being violated. This argument is silly. My rights are not being violated. The rules are the same for everyone. Everyone has to stop playing their music at 11:00pm. Just because I'm different and am a night person, that doesn't mean that the rules should change for me. I can't expect everyone else to accomodate me just because I'm different.

I'll give you another analogy. Alcohol is legal in this country. Cocaine is not. Let's say that I dont like alcohol but I do like cocaine. I guess I could say that if I was a cocaine user that my rights are being violated. I could say that I'm not like most people. I don't like alcohol. I like cocaine. Therefore, the government has to make cocaine legal for me or my rights are being violated. This argument is silly. My rights are not being violated. The rules are the same for me as everyone else. We are all allowed to drink alcohol but we are not allowed to take cocaine. Just because I prefer cocaine, it does not mean that the government needs to change the laws for me.

You can't simply label yourself and then ask for special rights. You can't say, "I am gay. Therefore I should be allowed to marry a man". If it was that easy, and all you had to do was label yourself someting and then the laws would change for you, it would be ridiculous.

I have a good idea. I'm going to label myself as a high-energy, fast-paced person. Therefore, I like to drive fast so I should not have to obey the speed limits. I don't care if the speed limit is 65 mph. I am a fast-paced person and should be allowed to drive 90 mph. My rights are being violated if you don't let me drive 90 mph.

You can't simply label yourself as something and then demand special rights. You can't say, "I'm gay. Therefore I should be allowed to marry a man or otherwise my rights are being violated." It's a silly argument and that's the argument you guys are making. A couple of you have said that if someone says they are gay that they should be able to marry someone of the same sex or else their rights are being violated. I think that's a weak argument.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I totally disagree with anyone that says people's rights are being violated if gay marriage is illegal. Nobody's rights are being violated. Everyone has the same rights. Every man has the right to marry a woman. The rules are the same for everyone.

I'll give you a few different analogies. I live in a condominium building. They have rules. Since most people go to bed around 11:00pm, you are not allowed to play loud music after 11:00pm. Let's say that I'm different from most people. I stay up very late. I go to bed at 3:00am. If I made the same argument as you guys, I could say that my rights are being violated. I'm a night person, so the rules should be different for me. I should be allowed to blast my music late at night. Otherwise, my rights are being violated. This argument is silly. My rights are not being violated. The rules are the same for everyone. Everyone has to stop playing their music at 11:00pm. Just because I'm different and am a night person, that doesn't mean that the rules should change for me. I can't expect everyone else to accomodate me just because I'm different.

I'll give you another analogy. Alcohol is legal in this country. Cocaine is not. Let's say that I dont like alcohol but I do like cocaine. I guess I could say that if I was a cocaine user that my rights are being violated. I could say that I'm not like most people. I don't like alcohol. I like cocaine. Therefore, the government has to make cocaine legal for me or my rights are being violated. This argument is silly. My rights are not being violated. The rules are the same for me as everyone else. We are all allowed to drink alcohol but we are not allowed to take cocaine. Just because I prefer cocaine, it does not mean that the government needs to change the laws for me.

You can't simply label yourself and then ask for special rights. You can't say, "I am gay. Therefore I should be allowed to marry a man". If it was that easy, and all you had to do was label yourself someting and then the laws would change for you, it would be ridiculous.

I have a good idea. I'm going to label myself as a high-energy, fast-paced person. Therefore, I like to drive fast so I should not have to obey the speed limits. I don't care if the speed limit is 65 mph. I am a fast-paced person and should be allowed to drive 90 mph. My rights are being violated if you don't let me drive 90 mph.

You can't simply label yourself as something and then demand special rights. You can't say, "I'm gay. Therefore I should be allowed to marry a man or otherwise my rights are being violated." It's a silly argument and that's the argument you guys are making. A couple of you have said that if someone says they are gay that they should be able to marry someone of the same sex or else their rights are being violated. I think that's a weak argument.

No the silly argument is your's...utter crap! Your analogies are all faulty...what you are in fact saying is akin to the following:
A black man wishes to rent an apartment and is told "whites only"...so, according to your logic, his rights aren't being violated cause the rules are the same for everybody, you're white, you can live there, if you're black you can't! Afterall, he's free to change his skin color right? Gay folks don't label themselves...they are labeled by society! Two people are in love and wish to marry...it's society that has a problem if they are of the same sex, and it's society that afixes labels!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

No the silly argument is your's...utter crap! Your analogies are all faulty...what you are in fact saying is akin to the following:
A black man wishes to rent an apartment and is told "whites only"...so, according to your logic, his rights aren't being violated cause the rules are the same for everybody, you're white, you can live there, if you're black you can't! Afterall, he's free to change his skin color right? Gay folks don't label themselves...they are labeled by society! Two people are in love and wish to marry...it's society that has a problem if they are of the same sex, and it's society that afixes labels!

I completely disagree with your analogy. I don't think it is the same at all. In your analogy, you are telling a person of color that he can't do the same exact same thing that others are doing. In the gay analogy, a gay man is allowed to do the same thing that others ae doing. He is allowed to get married to a woman. You want him to be able to do something different and be able to marry a man.

I don't know you can say that gay people don't label themselves. Of coure they label themselves. Plenty of people come out and say they that they are gay. Soceity may label them too, but that doesn't mean that they don't label themselves.

Somer, I usually find you to be reasonable and open-minded on most issues. But once in a while like with this issue, you just can't accept anyone else's view point and think that your view point is the only reasonable one. I completely understand the pro gay-mariage view point. I can see the argument. I think there is some merit to it and I think that some of it makes good sense. I still lean the other way, but I respect the pro gay-marriage view point. I think that there are reasonable people who make good sense on both sides of the argument. Brian is in favor of gay marriage but he still understans and respects the views of people who are aginst it.

By the way, if they legalized gay marriage tomorrow, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. I am against it, but I don't think it's a huge deal.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I totally disagree with anyone that says people's rights are being violated if gay marriage is illegal. Nobody's rights are being violated. Everyone has the same rights. Every man has the right to marry a woman. The rules are the same for everyone.

I'll give you a few different analogies. I live in a condominium building. They have rules. Since most people go to bed around 11:00pm, you are not allowed to play loud music after 11:00pm. Let's say that I'm different from most people. I stay up very late. I go to bed at 3:00am. If I made the same argument as you guys, I could say that my rights are being violated. I'm a night person, so the rules should be different for me. I should be allowed to blast my music late at night. Otherwise, my rights are being violated. This argument is silly. My rights are not being violated. The rules are the same for everyone. Everyone has to stop playing their music at 11:00pm. Just because I'm different and am a night person, that doesn't mean that the rules should change for me. I can't expect everyone else to accomodate me just because I'm different.

I'll give you another analogy. Alcohol is legal in this country. Cocaine is not. Let's say that I dont like alcohol but I do like cocaine. I guess I could say that if I was a cocaine user that my rights are being violated. I could say that I'm not like most people. I don't like alcohol. I like cocaine. Therefore, the government has to make cocaine legal for me or my rights are being violated. This argument is silly. My rights are not being violated. The rules are the same for me as everyone else. We are all allowed to drink alcohol but we are not allowed to take cocaine. Just because I prefer cocaine, it does not mean that the government needs to change the laws for me.

You can't simply label yourself and then ask for special rights. You can't say, "I am gay. Therefore I should be allowed to marry a man". If it was that easy, and all you had to do was label yourself someting and then the laws would change for you, it would be ridiculous.

I have a good idea. I'm going to label myself as a high-energy, fast-paced person. Therefore, I like to drive fast so I should not have to obey the speed limits. I don't care if the speed limit is 65 mph. I am a fast-paced person and should be allowed to drive 90 mph. My rights are being violated if you don't let me drive 90 mph.

You can't simply label yourself as something and then demand special rights. You can't say, "I'm gay. Therefore I should be allowed to marry a man or otherwise my rights are being violated." It's a silly argument and that's the argument you guys are making. A couple of you have said that if someone says they are gay that they should be able to marry someone of the same sex or else their rights are being violated. I think that's a weak argument.

Rupert,
I wasn't going to respond, because it doesn't seem that any amount of reason will change your views.
In answer to your first example, if you want to hear loud music late at night, put on headphones and blast away. Your actions will not interfere with others' sleep.
The "alcohol/cocaine" premise doesn't deserve comment.
Regarding driving over the speed limit, gosh, does it seem that doing so would jeopardize the safety of others?
So, again the questions...What do the actions of consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedrooms have to do with either compromising your safety, or causing you threat? What right do you have for denying them their rights (civil), or in human terms, the possibility of their expressing their love. Finally, why, other than for taxation purposes, shoud the government even be involved in citizens' private lives?
I just don't get it.
DTS

[Danzig]

loud music infringes on the right of others, as does dwi...but how does a gay getting married infringe on anothers rights? it DOESN'T. it does allow him the SAME rights as others.
driving is a privilege, not a right. the analogy is a poor one.

[Rupert Pupkin]

By the way, the definition of mariage for the longest time has been "The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law."

That is what the definition is. Maybe we should change it to accomodate all kinds of other relationships. I don't know. I don't think we should but that is just my opinion. If we do change it, should there only be one change? Should it just be changed to include same-sex one-on-one relationships? Or are there even other alternative lifestyles that could be included? I think that is a legitimate question. If you're going to change the definition of something, how far do you go?