sorry for drifting off topic :huh:
my main point was nowadays marriage is just a title. you dont even need to be commited anymore cos divorce is just a signature away :(
Printable View
sorry for drifting off topic :huh:
my main point was nowadays marriage is just a title. you dont even need to be commited anymore cos divorce is just a signature away :(
I believe that every human has these rights, whether they happen to be an American or not.Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes@5 August 2004 - 22:26
Americans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as they see fit.
Indeed in Europe we have a convention which lays the rights out. ECHR
That aside, your post is full of goods points, well presented. You are to be congratulated on it.
Unfortunately these days, the only time this forum shows any life at all is when a disagreement ensues.
I sometimes wonder if the folks most stidently against gay marriage aren't just a tad worried that perhaps gays might show themselves to be more adept at the institution than they.
After all, an openly gay person has already exposed themself to the slings and arrows of the bigotted, for a pair of them to aggressively seek a recognized union would seem to require a desire far in excess of that demanded of a "normal" couple.
For a tradition pair, a pulse and an birth certificate are all that is needed to enter into holy matrimony.
A gay couple must suffer the scorn and dismay of the masses to do the same thing.
As an aside...
Here in Colorado, home of Marilyn Musgrave, author of the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, we have the rather humorous affair of Gov. Bill Owens...a Republican, eagerly pandering to his conservative constituancy by trumpeting "family values" whilst divorcing his wife.
Only in America...
no it isnt. :PQuote:
Originally posted by hobbes@5 August 2004 - 21:53
Unfortunately these days, the only time this forum shows any life at all is when a disagreement ensues.
sorry this aint the lounge :rolleyes:
this is idealistic crap thoughQuote:
How does marriage effect children at all, the support of the children comes from the love of the parents not from a legal document.
and this makes no sense to me :blink:Quote:
The argument that gay marriages should not be allowed because their children may get bullied a bit Big Brotherian if you ask me.
Quote:
sorry this aint the lounge :rolleyes:
this is idealistic crap thoughQuote:
How does marriage effect children at all, the support of the children comes from the love of the parents not from a legal document.
It means that the "support" that comes from the parents is both financial and emotional.
A marriage license in no way ensures that the parents will be supportive of the children. It does not require this.
If the parents, love the children financial and emotional support will naturally flow from this. This support can continue after mom and dad no longer want to be together.
So you see, a legal document really plays no role in "supporting" the children.
If you want to bring up "child support", do you really think this responsibility ever was the hinge that kept a divorce from taking place?
Idealistic crap, I think not!
BTW, as an aside, if you are going to make a statement, please attempt to support it.
"That is idealistic crap because.....".
After all, this is NOT the lounge.
As for you second point, change "big brotherian" to "paternalistic", does it make sense now?
Perhaps his wife had poor family values and he was necessarily distancing himself from her?http://www.rikk-cowsys.com/html//emoticons/confused.gifQuote:
Originally posted by clocker@5 August 2004 - 19:58
we have the rather humorous affair of Gov. Bill Owens...a Republican, eagerly pandering to his conservative constituancy by trumpeting "family values" whilst divorcing his wife.
Only in America...
Hobbes, I'm sure you have just earned a position in his campaign staff.
I beg to differ.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@5 August 2004 - 22:58
holy matrimony.
I have, as previously stated no problem whatsoever with gay couples making a lifelong commitment to one and other, to do this in front of a registrar and witnesses.
I fully support their right to equal legal status to any other couple and to have the same tax breaks, pension rights etc.
I have no problem with them describing themselves as being married and thinking of themselves as such.
However I do not consider their status to be that of holy matrimony.
marriage <s>is</s> was like an extra bond to keep parents together for the sake of the children, so yeah a legal document does help support.
i looked up paternalistic and now i understand the arguement. its stupid.
i think theres a time for people mind their own business and a time for people to intervene. society cant allow kids to be bullied for a few peoples' selfish wishes. maybe in a few years, but not yet.
So status quo it is then.Quote:
Originally posted by MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 23:30
marriage <s>is</s> was like an extra bond to keep parents together for the sake of the children, so yeah a legal document does help support.
i looked up paternalistic and now i understand the arguement. its stupid.
i think theres a time for people mind their own business and a time for people to intervene. society cant allow kids to be bullied for a few peoples' selfish wishes. maybe in a few years, but not yet.
Change nothing, no matter how heinous. Let's not rock the boat.
i mean society isnt ready, i dont know how you can make everybody accept homosexuality, but sending in the first wave to get fucked up so the next generation will seem a normal part of society is not the way.
Like I said earlier ask the Black people of America, or the Indians who wished freedom from the British. Or perhaps ask the Suffragettes.Quote:
Originally posted by MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 23:39
i mean society isnt ready, i dont know how you can make everybody accept homosexuality, but sending in the first wave to get fucked up so the next generation will seem a normal part of society is not the way.
These people decided to stand up for what was right and to oppose what was wrong. They accepted that they themselves would suffer, however those that came after them would benefit from their courage.
Given that you consider homosexuality to be un-natural I am sure they are willing to make their altruistic decision without reference to your good self.
If you chose to take the path of least resistance that is a matter entirely for you. However some people choose to stand up for what they believe in, irrespective of the consequences.
Actually Big Brotherian has more resonance as it refers to George Orwell's book "1984". Big Brother was the friendly name given to the ever-snooping government officials who were only looking out for the citizens' best interests - depressing and scary book.Quote:
Originally posted by MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 22:30
marriage <s>is</s> was like an extra bond to keep parents together for the sake of the children, so yeah a legal document does help support.
i looked up paternalistic and now i understand the arguement. its stupid.
i think theres a time for people mind their own business and a time for people to intervene. society cant allow kids to be bullied for a few peoples' selfish wishes. maybe in a few years, but not yet.
Like I said earlier ask the Black people of America, or the Indians who wished freedom from the British. Or perhaps ask the Suffragettes.Quote:
Originally posted by J'Pol+5 August 2004 - 22:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J'Pol @ 5 August 2004 - 22:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 23:39
i mean society isnt ready, i dont know how you can make everybody accept homosexuality, but sending in the first wave to get fucked up so the next generation will seem a normal part of society is not the way.
These people decided to stand up for what was right and to oppose what was wrong. They accepted that they themselves would suffer, however those that came after them would benefit from their courage.
Given that you consider homosexuality to be un-natural I am sure they are willing to make their altruistic decision without reference to your good self.
If you chose to take the path of least resistance that is a matter entirely for you. However some people choose to stand up for what they believe in, irrespective of the consequences. [/b][/quote]
its just not the same. your examples are oppressed people that decided they want freedom irrespective of the consequences and accepted they may suffer.
i'm talking about people who want to do something irrespective of how they will make someone else suffer.
What is exactly the same is the mentality of those who would abuse others for what they are or who they are related to. The people J'Pol refers to were oppressed and ill treated simply by dint of who they were. If the children of a Gay couple are attacked because of their parents then those who have abused them are as low and vile as those who abused the Blacks and Indians. It is solely the responsibility of the abusers.
its no justification to let it happen thoughQuote:
Originally posted by Biggles@5 August 2004 - 23:02
What is exactly the same is the mentality of those who would abuse others for what they are or who they are related to. The people J'Pol refers to were oppressed and ill treated simply by dint of who they were. If the children of a Gay couple are attacked because of their parents then those who have abused them are as low and vile as those who abused the Blacks and Indians. It is solely the responsibility of the abusers.
Clocker,Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@5 August 2004 - 20:21
Hobbes, I'm sure you have just earned a position in his campaign staff.
Please do not make light of the subject.
In a personal correspondance, Bill offered me a peek into his soul.
He wrote,
"When the news was brought to me that my wife was married to an adulterer, my mind was thrown into a detached and gray world of disbelief. After many days, nay weeks, of soul searching and introspection, I realized that I must divorce my wife of 15 years. It was a tough choice, but the right thing to do. I owe as much to the fine people of Colorado. They deserve a man, willing to make the tough decisions."
If a picture of Dave Chappelle pops into your head after reading the above, then you are definitely tuned to the right frequency.
its no justification to let it happen though [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by MicroScreen2+5 August 2004 - 23:05--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MicroScreen2 @ 5 August 2004 - 23:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@5 August 2004 - 23:02
What is exactly the same is the mentality of those who would abuse others for what they are or who they are related to. The people J'Pol refers to were oppressed and ill treated simply by dint of who they were. If the children of a Gay couple are attacked because of their parents then those who have abused them are as low and vile as those who abused the Blacks and Indians. It is solely the responsibility of the abusers.
:)
True - the abusers need to be dealt with.
:)Quote:
Originally posted by Biggles+5 August 2004 - 23:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles @ 5 August 2004 - 23:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 23:05
<!--QuoteBegin-Biggles
Quote:
@5 August 2004 - 23:02
What is exactly the same is the mentality of those who would abuse others for what they are or who they are related to. The people J'Pol refers to were oppressed and ill treated simply by dint of who they were. If the children of a Gay couple are attacked because of their parents then those who have abused them are as low and vile as those who abused the Blacks and Indians. It is solely the responsibility of the abusers.
its no justification to let it happen though
True - the abusers need to be dealt with. [/b][/quote]
i dont know howit can be done. all i say is it should be sorted before it starts :blink:
Quote:
Originally posted by MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 20:30
i looked up paternalistic and now i understand the arguement. its stupid.
i think theres a time for people mind their own business and a time for people to intervene. society cant allow kids to be bullied for a few peoples' selfish wishes. maybe in a few years, but not yet.
Oh well, since you have been uniquely blessed with this type of insight, please keep us posted when the right time arrives, Big Brother.
Look up "irony", now.
Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes+5 August 2004 - 23:12--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 5 August 2004 - 23:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 20:30
i looked up paternalistic and now i understand the arguement. its stupid.
i think theres a time for people mind their own business and a time for people to intervene. society cant allow kids to be bullied for a few peoples' selfish wishes. maybe in a few years, but not yet.
Oh well, since you have been uniquely blessed with this type of insight, please keep us posted when the right time arrives, Big Brother.
Look up "irony", now. [/b][/quote]
wow. you missed the point <_<
Actually Big Brotherian has more resonance as it refers to George Orwell's book "1984". Big Brother was the friendly name given to the ever-snooping government officials who were only looking out for the citizens' best interests - depressing and scary book. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Biggles+5 August 2004 - 20:48--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles @ 5 August 2004 - 20:48)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 22:30
marriage <s>is</s> was like an extra bond to keep parents together for the sake of the children, so yeah a legal document does help support.
i looked up paternalistic and now i understand the arguement. its stupid.
i think theres a time for people mind their own business and a time for people to intervene. society cant allow kids to be bullied for a few peoples' selfish wishes. maybe in a few years, but not yet.
Biggles,
Did you get the jist of what I was saying? I know the source of "Big Brother" and I was using a little artist license for the art of my post.
Please don't make me throw my smock at you!
wow. you missed the point <_< [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by MicroScreen2+5 August 2004 - 21:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MicroScreen2 @ 5 August 2004 - 21:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes@5 August 2004 - 23:12
<!--QuoteBegin-MicroScreen2
Quote:
@5 August 2004 - 20:30
i looked up paternalistic and now i understand the arguement. its stupid.
i think theres a time for people mind their own business and a time for people to intervene. society cant allow kids to be bullied for a few peoples' selfish wishes. maybe in a few years, but not yet.
Oh well, since you have been uniquely blessed with this type of insight, please keep us posted when the right time arrives, Big Brother.
Look up "irony", now.
No, I did not.
The point is that there is no right time.
Just ask any couple having a baby, particularly if they both are working. There is no right time to have a baby, you just have the baby and make adjustments.
No, I did not.Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes+5 August 2004 - 23:16--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 5 August 2004 - 23:16)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 21:15
Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes@5 August 2004 - 23:12
<!--QuoteBegin-MicroScreen2
Quote:
Quote:
@5 August 2004 - 20:30
i looked up paternalistic and now i understand the arguement. its stupid.
i think theres a time for people mind their own business and a time for people to intervene. society cant allow kids to be bullied for a few peoples' selfish wishes. maybe in a few years, but not yet.
Oh well, since you have been uniquely blessed with this type of insight, please keep us posted when the right time arrives, Big Brother.
Look up "irony", now.
wow. you missed the point <_<
The point is that there is no right time. [/b][/quote]
well you dont know what irony is then
after edit: :blink: wtf?
Biggles,Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes+5 August 2004 - 23:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 5 August 2004 - 23:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by Biggles@5 August 2004 - 20:48
<!--QuoteBegin-MicroScreen2
Quote:
@5 August 2004 - 22:30
marriage <s>is</s> was like an extra bond to keep parents together for the sake of the children, so yeah a legal document does help support.
i looked up paternalistic and now i understand the arguement. its stupid.
i think theres a time for people mind their own business and a time for people to intervene. society cant allow kids to be bullied for a few peoples' selfish wishes. maybe in a few years, but not yet.
Actually Big Brotherian has more resonance as it refers to George Orwell's book "1984". Big Brother was the friendly name given to the ever-snooping government officials who were only looking out for the citizens' best interests - depressing and scary book.
Did you get the jist of what I was saying? I know the source of "Big Brother" and I was using a little artist license for the art of my post.
Please don't make me throw my smock at you! [/b][/quote]
:lol:
Apologies my good Hobbes. I merely took the liberty of elucidating for MS2.
I would not contemplate teaching a rabbit to suck eggs. :blink:
oh i think i understand now. the selfish is selfish because its putting other peope in tthe firing line. if theres no firing line the selfishness isnt there so much, or at least the suffering isn't. when kids with gay parents can accepted the same as any other kid. then is the right time
Make up your mind, either be good with expresing yourself in English or not.Quote:
Originally posted by MicroScreen2@6 August 2004 - 00:21
oh i think i understand now. the selfish is selfish because its putting other peope in tthe firing line. if theres no firing line the selfishness isnt there so much, or at least the suffering isn't. when kids with gay parents can accepted the same as any other kid. then is the right time
It's cool either way, but just try to be consistent, it's more fun that way.
The following is not really consistent with someone who finds English difficult.
Like I said, one way or the other old bean.Quote:
its just not the same. your examples are oppressed people that decided they want freedom irrespective of the consequences and accepted they may suffer.
i'm talking about people who want to do something irrespective of how they will make someone else suffer.
its just not the same. your examples are oppressed people that decided they want freedom irrespective of the consequences and accepted they may suffer.Quote:
Originally posted by MicroScreen2+5 August 2004 - 23:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MicroScreen2 @ 5 August 2004 - 23:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by J'Pol@5 August 2004 - 22:47
<!--QuoteBegin-MicroScreen2
Quote:
@5 August 2004 - 23:39
i mean society isnt ready, i dont know how you can make everybody accept homosexuality, but sending in the first wave to get fucked up so the next generation will seem a normal part of society is not the way.
Like I said earlier ask the Black people of America, or the Indians who wished freedom from the British. Or perhaps ask the Suffragettes.
These people decided to stand up for what was right and to oppose what was wrong. They accepted that they themselves would suffer, however those that came after them would benefit from their courage.
Given that you consider homosexuality to be un-natural I am sure they are willing to make their altruistic decision without reference to your good self.
If you chose to take the path of least resistance that is a matter entirely for you. However some people choose to stand up for what they believe in, irrespective of the consequences.
i'm talking about people who want to do something irrespective of how they will make someone else suffer. [/b][/quote]
Or is it just me.
Let me clarify the "irony"
You stated that gays should not be allowed to marry because their children would bear the burden of punishment (bullied).
I stated that you were being Paternalistic, meaning that you were making a decision for them, not because it was right, but because you thought someone could get hurt. You didn't think that they would be able to handle the situation themselves, so you intervened.
Your response was "that's stupid" (my saying that you were being paternalistic) and then you stated that there is a "time to mind your own business and a time to intervene" and "now is not the right time".
That is my exact point, you are being paternalistic, you want to make decisions for someone else.
There is the irony. You thought you weren't being paternalistic and that my calling you paternalistic was "stupid". In truth, you were being exactly that, and not even realizing it.
Make up your mind, either be good with expresing yourself in English or not.Quote:
Originally posted by J'Pol+5 August 2004 - 23:34--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J'Pol @ 5 August 2004 - 23:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MicroScreen2@6 August 2004 - 00:21
oh i think i understand now. the selfish is selfish because its putting other peope in tthe firing line. if theres no firing line the selfishness isnt there so much, or at least the suffering isn't. when kids with gay parents can accepted the same as any other kid. then is the right time
It's cool either way, but just try to be consistent, it's more fun that way.
The following is not really consistent with someone who finds English difficult.
Like I said, one way or the other old bean. [/b][/quote]Quote:
its just not the same. your examples are oppressed people that decided they want freedom irrespective of the consequences and accepted they may suffer.
i'm talking about people who want to do something irrespective of how they will make someone else suffer.
to me they say the same thing :(
i meant as in it would be stupid not to intervene as you said it as critisismQuote:
Originally posted by hobbes@5 August 2004 - 23:36
Let me clarify the "irony"
You stated that gays should not be allowed to marry because their children would bear the burden of punishment (bullied).
I stated that you were being Paternalistic, meaning that you were making a decision for them, not because it was right, but because you thought someone could get hurt. You didn't think that they would be able to handle the situation themselves, so you intervened.
Your response was "that's stupid" (my saying that you were being paternalistic) and then you stated that there is a "time to mind your own business and a time to intervene" and "now is not the right time".
That is my exact point, you are being paternalistic, you want to make decisions for someone else.
There is the irony. You thought you weren't being paternalistic and that my calling you paternalistic was "stupid". In truth, you were being exactly that, and not even realizing it.
to me they say the same thing :( [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by MicroScreen2+6 August 2004 - 00:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MicroScreen2 @ 6 August 2004 - 00:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by J'Pol@5 August 2004 - 23:34
<!--QuoteBegin-MicroScreen2
Quote:
@6 August 2004 - 00:21
oh i think i understand now. the selfish is selfish because its putting other peope in tthe firing line. if theres no firing line the selfishness isnt there so much, or at least the suffering isn't. when kids with gay parents can accepted the same as any other kid. then is the right time
Make up your mind, either be good with expresing yourself in English or not.
It's cool either way, but just try to be consistent, it's more fun that way.
The following is not really consistent with someone who finds English difficult.
Like I said, one way or the other old bean.Quote:
its just not the same. your examples are oppressed people that decided they want freedom irrespective of the consequences and accepted they may suffer.
i'm talking about people who want to do something irrespective of how they will make someone else suffer.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Is that really the best you can do.
You disappoint me.
:lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by J'Pol+5 August 2004 - 23:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J'Pol @ 5 August 2004 - 23:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by MicroScreen2@6 August 2004 - 00:37
Quote:
Originally posted by J'Pol@5 August 2004 - 23:34
<!--QuoteBegin-MicroScreen2
Quote:
Quote:
@6 August 2004 - 00:21
oh i think i understand now. the selfish is selfish because its putting other peope in tthe firing line. if theres no firing line the selfishness isnt there so much, or at least the suffering isn't. when kids with gay parents can accepted the same as any other kid. then is the right time
Make up your mind, either be good with expresing yourself in English or not.
It's cool either way, but just try to be consistent, it's more fun that way.
The following is not really consistent with someone who finds English difficult.
Like I said, one way or the other old bean.Quote:
its just not the same. your examples are oppressed people that decided they want freedom irrespective of the consequences and accepted they may suffer.
i'm talking about people who want to do something irrespective of how they will make someone else suffer.
to me they say the same thing :(
Is that really the best you can do.
You disappoint me. [/b][/quote]
first quote means its not fair for gay parents to have kids when they will suffer
second quote says its not fair to do something that makes someone else suffer.
ok, not exactly the same but not contradictory
The contradiction is the style, not the content. I think that is self-evident.
ttfn.
so what if i dont break out the thesaurus every post. <_<
Ok micro lets see if we can get a yes or no answer to see just where you really stand.
Gay people because of their sexual habits don't have children and so your arguement for banning gay marriage is a completely different issue to gay marriage itself.
So the question is in 2 parts.
Should gays be given the right to marry ?
Yes or no
but not the right to adopt ?
Yes or no
I am skipping the examples where gay people have children from hetrosexual relationships to spare you any confusion as that will be a whole new debate and one which even with a vote you will never be able to change.
You guys were touting this thread (last page) as "idealistic crap".
In truth, it does not quite rise to that level.
Please keep trying-
Sincerely,
j2
yesQuote:
Should gays be given the right to marry ?
not yetQuote:
but not the right to adopt ?
HUH ?Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@5 August 2004 - 18:09
You guys were touting this thread (last page) as "idealistic crap".
In truth, it does not quite rise to that level.
Please keep trying-
Sincerely,
j2