posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 05:20 AM
This responce is mostly to Jezebels critique of my statements, although i hope it helps clarify things for enomus and james the lesser too..(ill try
to hit some of thier concerns too possibly in another post)
You avoided discussing my examples of where USA law does "discriminate" based on age, associations, income, immigration.ect....what about the fact
that at 18yrs old, one can join the millitary to train to fight and die, you can vote, and are able to be prosecuted as an adult.... but you cant buy
beer or ciggarettes...age based discrimination in the law? discrimination is in existance, whether its to make distinctions between things, or as an
act of willful denial of rights/privilages is the only question....also how should a culture be defined enomus? how do we distinguish (discriminate)
between us and them? yes we have a lot of diversity, and too much of it will be our undooing....what will unite us as a nation, not further divide?
how much water can you pour into a bucket of soda till its so diluted its not soda anymore? At what point can you say its soda or its not...its
America or its not (just dont call us France) of course we have to differentiate (discriminate) between what it is to bu the USA, and what it is to be
say Japan. Otherwise how do we know the difference?
As far as the judges go....they are in violation of the defence of marriage act (federal) as well as CA state laws (according to what i heard the
new govenator Arnold say on a talk show) The judges were not reviewing any case on the books, but took it upon themselves to throw their
"impartial" status as judges out the window and helped (with the san fran mayors help) create this situation...effectivly trying to pre-emptivley
have the executive and judicial branches of local gov to bypass the legislative process, and the rights of the voters to hear and vote on proposed
legislation...it doesnt matter that they are trying to right a percieved injustice or not...the ends do not justify the means...
I appreciate the research you provided in support of your position...Hmm what can i infer from this....It took how many hundred years for your
given example to evolve and change? Is the pro-gay marriage camp ready to acknowledge that this may take some time to resolve, perhaps not even in
their lifetime? or IF AT ALL?
According to your supplied info, the court said marriage is a PERSONAL right.....ITS NOT A STATE SPONSORED RIGHT....it is a persons choice IF to
marry or NOT...no one forces anyone (these days, in western cultures)to marry....Plenty of people manage to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of
happyness without ever being married. In fact some dont want to marry or marry again. Marriage is not a nessisity for life here, it is a choice, not
MARRIAGE FOR LOVE/GAIN
Your responce illustrates perfectly my point actually...so the arguments that say "why cant 2 people in love have the same thing as others in love"
are invalid. marriage is not solely about love. In fact it has been more about power and tangible gain to many (more so in the past) as youve pointed
out.) so now i have to accept the fact that if gay marriage were institutionalised, 2 non gay men could become married as a tax shelter, or to
transfer property/title/inheritance ect to the other by cheating the tax laws? (just one example of abuse) this means that in just this one type of
marriage misuse, it would be 3x more likley that we'd have this go on...(now just hetero scamming possible, but then m4m, and w4w added to it really
increases the chance of just this one type of misuse occuring) On a simpler line, we have this boat called marriage...but it has some leaks (marriage
not for love put power/gain...high failure rate...ect) So now you want to put more people into a broken boat, before you work to fix it first? Isnt
that asking for MORE trouble, not less?
Everyone ive read on this thread has missed compleatly the point of the slippery slope concept.....we are not saying gay marriage is equivalent to, or
comparable to NAMBLA acts, or on the extreme, man/animal stuff....indeed they are not, what we ARE saying is that we are talking about redifining the
definition of mariage as it pertains to our society. Take any issue...issue X.
Our culture has issue x in its laws, now a minority group preasures the culture to modify the idea, so the society does...now its idea x1.....whats to
stop the next minority group from doing the same...now its x2....ect....ect...ect untill x5 is now the rule....well x5 does not equal x now does it?
They are not the same...thats what were talking about...if the door to alter the idea of marriage is opened, when does it close again? why wouldnt
other groups, say poligamists, or NAMBLAS do the same thing the gay community is doing now? (forget the animal extreme case) again, how much water
can you pour into a bucket of soda till its so diluted it doesnt count as being soda anymore? At what point can you say its soda or its not...its
America or its not, or its marriage or its god knows what? that is the slick slope, and it applies to many discussions, not just this issue....i dont
know how else to explain it...its not that the behaivors are =, its that the erosion of the idea has begun, and at what point does it end or result in
the idea being altered to the point that it irrelavent.
Personal freedoms have always been subordinate to the common good....you cant yell fire in a crowd...your religion might ask you sacrifice
animals (santaria) but you'll get charges with animal cruelty if you do....theres a religion that uses marijuanna for spiritual enlightenment, but go
try and buy some for your church...Think you can say anything you want under the first ammendmant? Ask howard Stern about that now.
this is a conspiracy website isnt it? If so, then do you think that the people have ever had more freedom than those in positions of power ever
wanted you to have?
Ive seen the word oppression used when discussion this issue...I do not see gays being oppressed, instead i see that a minority group is asking for
special considerations from a pre-existing social structure....Society in large is not going around (nor should be) keeping gays from working,
housing, serving the country, or even loving and living happily together (see happy not married from earlier.) It is an inslut to try and compare
this issue to slavery....think youve got it tough being gay? try forced living in a shack and picking cotton, being chained, bought and sold as
property....not being able to get married truely pales in comparrison.....yes this may be about civil rights, but the 2 situatuions are not equal. I
do understand that no-one should be harrassed, phisically abused, or denied basic rights as a human....however, a social conviction choice(to
marry/not to), that has some legal rammifications, that PREEXISTED all of us in this culture, is not the same oppression as being chased thru a field
by dogs being shot at because your owned by someone else.
I know this is an emotional issue, but together this nation needs to come up with a working plan as to how this could work if and when this culture is
ready, its rammifications and consequences...BEFORE we just try it. peraps then this will become less of a contentious issue about somantics, and
more about substance.
Im trying to keep an open mind, on this issue, but change for changes sake, whenever the winds blows is not a long term strategy for a culture to
adopt. New is not always better (ever hear of new coke?)
PS while i am a republican, bush is p-ving me off, im a christian, but havnt been to church for more than a wedding in 10 yrs (in fact was expeled
from catholic school for pointing out hypocritical church doctrine)
JAMES...please stop using inflamitory rhetoric like "invisible people that live in the clouds" when discussing peoples religion...its not
showing them any respect, yet your demmanding it from them? Also, while i dont carry a bible and pray daily, im sorry that this world has left your
being feeling so vacant that your unable/willing to consider spiritual matters..isnt love a "spiritual" bond?..at least for christiasns, its not
about weather you can prove god, its about having faith and hope...if god showed himself, why would we need faith?
ENOUMUS, a few quickies for you. Trying to be brief
much of what i just wrote hopefully clarifies, but a few of your points i wanted to hit.
#2...what facts are you looking for? logic theorams? debate rules, im at work now, but if you want the names of the college textx ive used ill
get them....r u talking about legitimate discrimination? look around, aside from the given examples(that you all skipped over)...the private sector
is rife with, womans only, blacks only, x gropus only entitlements/assistance...example, can i get A.A.R.P. bennifits, not until im 55....ect
American negro college fund for me a whit guy? hell, only democrats could vote in the democratic primaries...
#5 you mentioned that the lack of womens rights in certain countries doesnt make it right....Does it make it wrong? It is arrogant of us to
pass judgment on their culture because ours doenst have the same values. Thats partly (PARTLY) why theyve decided to attack us....was it right that
we destroyed the american indian culture because we thought ours was right/better? This is the height of huberis!!! i agree that women in afganistan
should have rights, but are we so sure of ourselves that we can condem them for their beliefs? thats not tolerance or inclusion, its not a diverse
opinion, its a do it our way or else mentality....sort of like gay marriage, is it ok for society to continue to "exclude" this from them? Is it
ok for them to expect that we will give up our beliefs for theirs? the right and wrong can often be vauge.
#6 Youve given great examples of mankinds negitive traits, however, we'd have never made it this far if thats all there was to us....man has
done great things too dont forget, and can show greatness as well...(self sacrifice the ultimate expression)
Is man inherintly good or evil in his nature is a centuries old debate....depending on your starting referance is how your theories on man will
#7, im not worried about the effort this will take, im worried at the lack of effort ive seen from the gay rights camp...theve been like spoiled
kids...give me give me...but have not provided much more than a list of demmands, nothing of substance or on the actual nuts and bolts of how this
could be worked out in the full ramifications of what/how this change will affect.
#9 I repeated for clarity, this was only a PART of why we were attacked (see also #5 on arrogance for another PART) This idea is about
perceptions....Yes we should rule ourselves according to our sovergin wishes, but we need to be aware that we are not alone, and that other people
will not always agree with us. We must be aware that there are CONSEQUENCES FOR ACTIONS!!!! Have we thought them out on this issue or are we just
saying give me give me, without thinking things thru. This also reflects in how we view ourselves as a whole nation/people, again, the less "united
we stand" the more we risk "divided we fall"
Ill answer youe very last question in a seperate post as this one was a bear already.