Originally posted by jsobecky


My mistake with that whole MandAtory marriage thing was using hyperbole and sarcasm to try to promote discussion of an argument (procreation) used by some to deny gays the right to marry.

So that makes sense. Let's use sarcasm in an emotionless impressionless environment. You point was obviously lost on everyone, so you have to ask yourself if you even made your attempts at wit cognative at all, or if they just seemed lame brained (I'm voting for the latter).


Same as the Church of the Gay Union thing. I don't know if such a church exists. But it could exist, or someone could create it. That's way over your head, though. You obviously cannot grasp an argument at a conceptual level. That's why they use different colored jelly beans for racial sensitivity training, for cognitively challenged dimwits like you. Dumbing down, it's called.

Ah yes, I must not get the "concept". That's why you seemed to stumble over such trivial things as my early posts in this thread, contriving huge amounts of information from just a few sentances. I've understood this debate for quite a long time, and it is you who seems not to grasp the levels of debate on this matter.

And I'm not your friend, punk.

You could at least be reasonable and try to have a discussion about this as opposed to creating conjecture about me. Oh well.

________________

______________

Originally posted by jsobecky
My mistake with that whole MandAtory marriage thing was using hyperbole and sarcasm to try to promote discussion of an argument (procreation) used by some to deny gays the right to marry.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
So that makes sense. Let's use sarcasm in an emotionless impressionless environment. You point was obviously lost on everyone, so you have to ask yourself if you even made your attempts at wit cognative at all, or if they just seemed lame brained (I'm voting for the latter).

Originally posted by jsobecky
Same as the Church of the Gay Union thing. I don't know if such a church exists. But it could exist, or someone could create it. That's way over your head, though. You obviously cannot grasp an argument at a conceptual level. That's why they use different colored jelly beans for racial sensitivity training, for cognitively challenged dimwits like you. Dumbing down, it's called.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Ah yes, I must not get the "concept". That's why you seemed to stumble over such trivial things as my early posts in this thread, contriving huge amounts of information from just a few sentances. I've understood this debate for quite a long time, and it is you who seems not to grasp the levels of debate on this matter.

Originally posted by jsobecky
And I'm not your friend, punk.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
You could at least be reasonable and try to have a discussion about this as opposed to creating conjecture about me. Oh well.

I really wish you would learn how to use the quote tags. It's really not that difficult.

Who me?

Ah, I really just don't care to.

It just gets tough for others to figure out who's who, after awhile.

JSO,

You say that the examples of legal discrimination i point out are obvious.....

Why then would the pro-gay marriage people then try to say any/all discrimination is wrong to support their points?

You cant have it both ways, either all discrimination is wrong, or discrimination exists and is part of the social process.

If we as a culture have institutionalized some discriminatory regulations, then obviously we as a culture have accepted/legitimized discrimination in some form.

The answer to your question is,
I point this "discrimination is legal" argument out to negate the pro gay-marriage supposition that there is NO discrimination here and that its always wrong.

If a person says...not approving of gay marriage is discrimination..THEYRE RIGHT.....But thats just a description of the act of the majority in society saying no.
The society is using its RIGHT to determine IF to adopt this ideology. Discrimination is one tool culture has that helps it to define its adgenda, politics, laws, and most other aspects of the culture.

We have seperate rest rooms based on SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION...Everyone needs to go to the bathroom, yet we've seperated people that are all"doing the same thing", by sex.

If we as a culture have all these forms of recognized discriminations within our culture, why is it wrong to have yet another?

What happened to our rights of association?

SATYR, intellectual axe man my arse!!

How old are you? you would seem to be barely legal drinking age. As if you havent "sold out" to this society already hippocrit!!
You have a job dont you? Pay taxes? gotten to go to public schools? How about have a drivers license?
All parts of society with rules, and ill bet you have done ALL of those....SOO i can infer that you only SELECTIVLY choose which parts of this culture you need for your own ends....again with NO CONCERN FOR OTHERS.

Who said anything about not doing what you want with your body? were not talking about that, we're talking about modifying a legal definition and the implications for institutions that both created and sanction marriage. You can be gay all you want and I never implied you couldnt.

As you DONT RECCOGNISE those institutions or the laws concerning marriage, how can you ever get reccognition of your "rights" from someone you dont acknowledge to start with...

I am neither paranoid or fearfull of this issue, in fact i can forsee civil unions eventually being adopted....however DENY IGNORANCE as this website says!!!

There will always be LIMITS on behaivor within ANY society...thats why we call it CIVILIZATION!
You used a star trek analogy so i will now as well

Cpt. Spock "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." This is why his death was NOBLE AND HONORABLE...because he was willing to self sacrifice for others, for the greater good.

Your attitude is like a spoiled childs...selfish and not concerned with anything or one if it doesnt please you.

Guess what, the gays can stay, but your dumb a-s-s has to go..

If as you said "That's why I'd rather have nothing to do with you." (society) Then go!
If you dont like the rules here, get the F out. Leave. you have the right to pack your shiat and head off to someplace more to your liking.

Boo hoo, i have to be a responsible citizen...oh noo, there are rules, laws and ways of acceptable behaivior i have to follow...why wont you just leave me alone?
"Screw you and your society...."What a childish position youve taken.

I read the Satanic bible, not so i could subscribe to their religious ideology, but so that id know "where they come from" and how to attack their position...same reasons ive read the bible and the koran,along with other religious texts. Did you realize how close to being an anarchist or satanist you are politicaly? Would you approve? perhaps those cultures would be more to your liking?

Mabey if you educated yourself you could then have enough reasonable info to put up an argument at the big boys debate table.

Until then, take your whining, self-pittying, everyone is out to get me attitude, and explore anal sex with it.

Originally posted by CazMedia
SATYR, intellectual axe man my arse!!

Kindly bite my arse, you lame ass idiot.

How old are you? you would seem to be barely legal drinking age. As if you havent "sold out" to this society already hippocrit!!
You have a job dont you? Pay taxes? gotten to go to public schools? How about have a drivers license?
All parts of society with rules, and ill bet you have done ALL of those....SOO i can infer that you only SELECTIVLY choose which parts of this culture you need for your own ends....again with NO CONCERN FOR OTHERS.

I'm 35. Hypocrite, my ass! Sure, I have things. I also have a job, make money, pay bills and taxes. What choice do I have? Refuse to play the money game and go to jail, or live in the streets, then probably end up in jail. It's just not realistic to think you can totally separate yourself from society, unless you're very wealthy, or you have a talent for living in desolate areas. That doesn't mean I support them, and everything they do. I only show as much "support" as I'm required to by law. Ideally, I'd love to have absolutely nothing to do with them. It's just not possible. Try telling a judge you don't believe in his system.

Who said anything about not doing what you want with your body? were not talking about that, we're talking about modifying a legal definition and the implications for institutions that both created and sanction marriage. You can be gay all you want and I never implied you couldn't.

First, I'm not gay, nor do I even have the tendency to be gay. Second, you're discriminating against people based on what they like to do sexually...with their own bodies, in the privacy of their own homes. How is that any different, big guy? Or are you just discrimintaing because of the same sex thing? Which is it? Love has no boundaries, does it? Why shouldn't gays be able to get married if they love each other? I really don't see what that would hurt.

As you DONT RECCOGNISE those institutions or the laws concerning marriage, how can you ever get reccognition of your "rights" from someone you dont acknowledge to start with...

Do what? I think I already explained that above.

I am neither paranoid or fearfull of this issue, in fact i can forsee civil unions eventually being adopted....however DENY IGNORANCE as this website says!!!

Keep on practicing. Maybe someday you'll get it.

Your attitude is like a spoiled childs...selfish and not concerned with anything or one if it doesn't please you.

No, your attitude is that of the spoiled child, who wants everyone to play his game, whether they like it or not.

Guess what, the gays can stay, but your dumb a-s-s has to go..

Kiss my MF ass! I do hope evolution phases your kind out of existence.

If as you said "That's why I'd rather have nothing to do with you." (society) Then go!
If you dont like the rules here, get the F out. Leave. you have the right to pack your shiat and head off to someplace more to your liking.

Who's being the spoiled child here?

Boo hoo, i have to be a responsible citizen...oh noo, there are rules, laws and ways of acceptable behaivior i have to follow...why wont you just leave me alone?
"Screw you and your society...."What a childish position you've taken.

Man, you just don't get it. I'm very responsible. I just don't like all your #ing "feel good" laws that have no place in a free society.

I don't feel any need to respond to the rest of your BS rubbish. All you're doing is unsuccessfully trying to insult me. Just keep your eyes closed. I'll keep mine open, and watch your ignorant society ruin our country. I'll say this yet one more time...

Live and let live, damnit!

BTW, you might want to get a spell checker and learn how to use punctuation. Your grammar leaves much to be desired.

[Edited on 4-15-2004 by Satyr]

It just gets tough for others to figure out who's who, after awhile.

Point taken.

Although I am on the "Agaist Gay Marriage" side, I'll have to call it anyway.

Satyr - 1
Caz - 0

I will have to contest you on a few point though using the new and improved "quotation method"

Love has no boundaries, does it? Why shouldn't gays be able to get married if they love each other? I really don't see what that would hurt.

Truth be told, it would not affect anything per se, but I certainly think it would be the slow road to hoe. Religions are always going to have a problem with homosexual marriage (can't really do anything about that) and I have found no reason that they deserve "marriage" (note-I see hetrosexual unions as civil unions and should be called/treated as such). The same rights, there is no doubt that they should have them.

My proposal would be to have all state unions be civil unions (while keeping the actual rights the same as marriaged folks) and marriages done by religion.

The only problem I see with the plan (which would be best if we didn't have 5 and dime store intellectuals trying to push their way around all the rules just to see if they can) is that some people would just POOF, create a religion for the express purpose of getting around the wording of the laws.

In the end, they will win in the name of "tolerance" which we all know is the warcry of deviance.

But I am against it because I respect marriage and think that if the hetrosexuals did not belittle my and my wife's vows by being lazy and simple, then we wouldn't even have this problem.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Although I am on the "Agaist Gay Marriage" side, I'll have to call it anyway.

Satyr - 1
Caz - 0

Thanks!

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Truth be told, it would not affect anything per se, but I certainly think it would be the slow road to hoe. Religions are always going to have a problem with homosexual marriage (can't really do anything about that) and I have found no reason that they deserve "marriage" (note-I see hetrosexual unions as civil unions and should be called/treated as such). The same rights, there is no doubt that they should have them.

My proposal would be to have all state unions be civil unions (while keeping the actual rights the same as marriaged folks) and marriages done by religion.

The only problem I see with the plan (which would be best if we didn't have 5 and dime store intellectuals trying to push their way around all the rules just to see if they can) is that some people would just POOF, create a religion for the express purpose of getting around the wording of the laws.

In the end, they will win in the name of "tolerance" which we all know is the warcry of deviance.

But I am against it because I respect marriage and think that if the hetrosexuals did not belittle my and my wife's vows by being lazy and simple, then we wouldn't even have this problem.

See, I don't value marriage. It's is just a religious thing, really. Sure, you can get married by a judge, or a ship captain, or something. Churches do have the right not to marry gays in their church. I can see how, if that goes against their religion, they wouldn't want to perform the service, and that's their right. But, as far as non-religious weddings go, I see no problem with gays being married. (As long as they're not doing it for ulterior motives, like extra benefits) Although, I won't be attending any of their weddings.

[Edited on 4-15-2004 by Satyr]

But, as far as non-religious weddings go, I see no problem with gays being married. (As long as they're not doing it for ulterior motives, like extra benefits) Although, I won't be attending any of their weddings.

[Edited on 4-15-2004 by Satyr]

If and when civil unions are legal in DC, You can be my best man or maid of honor (whatever your preference) Satyr. Just joking....had to put it in here.

Originally posted by MacMerdin
But, as far as non-religious weddings go, I see no problem with gays being married. (As long as they're not doing it for ulterior motives, like extra benefits) Although, I won't be attending any of their weddings.

If and when civil unions are legal in DC, You can be my best man or maid of honor (whatever your preference) Satyr. Just joking....had to put it in here.

Haha!!!

(This sentence was added to alleviate the "no one line response" rule.)

Hmm,
I know I've mentioned the same idea that KJ and Satyr both just expressed.

KJ: The only problem I see with the plan is that some people would just POOF, create a religion for the express purpose of getting around the wording of the laws.

Satyr: I see no problem with gays being married. (As long as they're not doing it for ulterior motives, like extra benefits)

The idea that gay marriage COULD be open for abuse.
One of my biggest points in making this a sociatal issue instead of an emotional or religious issue is this point.

It seems that the line of people demmanding gay marriage, have provided NO examination of the rammifications of say, just re-vamping the legal system...

How many laws affected, what kinds of changes, where are the loopholes...where are the new conflicts within the laws...ect...this is just one aspect culturally that would need to be adressed....How about manners and civil interactions....How would i know that steve is adams husband, their both wearing wedding bands? What is the formal way to adress them, or introduce them at a formal function? Theres just so many things to get a grip on before just stepping blindly into this idea. It's all well and good to feel whats the right thing to do, but its implimentation raises many questions.

OK SATYR,
Perhaps i ranted a little on you,and i should have behaved better than to let my emotions get to me.

The reason i went off on you is because you seemed to imply that you cared NOTHING for rules or society. That you were going to do as you pleased with NO RESPECT for those that choose to adhear to those conventions. Your statment about being "made"a criminal by the stupid laws (which you skipped over in responce) tried to pass BLAME to others than yourself for your actions.
These are all things ive heard from my 16 yr old nephew....they sound exactly like teenage angst....and this idea comming from an adult.

Being reckless with yourself is one thing, but what makes me think that that attitude stops there and doesnt translate over into other behaiviors? Reckless driving, talking in a movie theater during the show, theft...it leaves the door open for your behaiviors to be called into question.
I.E. a credibillity issue.

Also, if you dont recognise religion, thats fine, but it seems that your attitude twords those that do is also affected...Because you dont believe, they are idiots for believing. This shows no respect twords them, what makes you think theyll give any in return.

This lack of respect comming from the pro gay marriage folks (many not all) and is a contradiction.
How can you get respect (acceptance/accomodations) from someone that your showing none twords? (by calling them bigots and not realizing thier rights to cultural determinations too?)

Im not trying to convince you, but can you see where someone looking at those statements might draw those conclusions? Many anti-social attitudes like these are precursors to anti-social (psychotic) behaivior. Not that you ARE or Will do something psychotic.

lets hit some specifics....
Satyr;
"you're discriminating against people based on what they like to do sexually...with their own bodies, in the privacy of their own homes."

That privacy you speak of stops at your homes doorstep doesnt it? When you get to the county courthouse to get your civil union certificate and register with the government...THATS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD...at that point it becomes a societal issue!
Hence my argument on "cultural identity".

A really basic example of the potential abuse mentioned with out specifics is; Now we have a m/f potential for this, if this plan is adopted, we will then have a m/f, m/m, and f/f potential combinations for this....thats a 2/3 INCREASE in this abuse potential. (this compleatly leaves out trans-gendered...which would only really confuse things)

I know what your thinking...."But since marriage is already open to this kind of abuse (people marry for reasons other than love) then its really no different."
(weather a marriage is successful is not relavent)

Why aggrevate an already susceptable system is my responce...the boat leaks already, lets put 2/3 more people into it doesnt sound like a wise decision.

Yes i know saytr cannot agree with me...
he cant because he has already stated his contempt for any society and the rules/laws/mores that guide it.
(only select rules he doesnt approve of)

I understand your feelings of dont shove your rules down my throat, and it is certantly your right as a citizen to peacably work to change them...

BUT, If a majority of citizens feel differently, right or wrong, they have the right to have set up the boundaries for their culture. You calling them bad names and dissagreeing does not negate their rights for an overal social identity.

I fear for the USA because there isnt enough socila identity thats common between our citizens to make them UNITED as STATES, and as a people.

Originally posted by CazMedia
I fear for the USA because there isnt enough socila identity that's common between our citizens to make them UNITED as STATES, and as a people.

I don't have time to reply to this entire post, right now, but I wanted to comment on this. You're 100% correct! There is no "United" anything anymore. It's more like one social majority forcing their ideas upon all of the smaller groups, right or wrong. I don't feel anything for my country anymore. If there was another continent available, I'd secede, along with many others, I'm sure. This ship is sinking, and nothing in hell is going to fix it now, IMO. There are too many people on this leaky ship, and they're not interested in repairing it. Sometimes it's better to just let it sink and get a new ship and crew. After all, the people who are willing to go down with it, are those who punched the holes in it in the first place.

Agreed, how can anything be united when we have exclusive rather than inclusive cultures, however that doesn't mean that gay marriage is a step towards inclusiveness per se. The argument that you can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink is a valid point and when people are forced to accept redefined social mores resentement can set in and solidify into antagonism and fracture where it never previously existed. But as well thought out and presented as Caz Media's points are my fundemental problem with this line is that at heart the majority will is informed by predjudice, whether that be misguided or wilful. However you can't pretend it doesn't exist so I take a moderate veiw and support the idea of civil union because I believe it will be both a way of showing the validity and potential that same sex partnerships can attain to as well as being a stepping stone towards greater acceptence and hopefully understanding that not all gay relationships are about easy lays and quantity over quality. I think this may also be a wake up call to the gay community as well moving away from the more superficial, hedonistic bias that has held sway for too long and giving gay people who don't want that a chance to bring their partnerships into a more formalised, traditional framework that is supported and recognised by society.

Uber,
YOU; "how can anything be united when we have exclusive rather than inclusive cultures?"

We should be united in the fact that we have the right to be left alone (as well as be included), and to gather into groups of our choice (freedom of assembly) without being forced to include those that dont support our core beliefs. (Boy Scouts). Inclusivness is just as hard to BALANCE vrs other rights as free speech is. (mabey harder)


UBER again,
"But as well thought out and presented as Caz Media's points are my fundemental problem with this line is that at heart the majority will is informed by predjudice, whether that be misguided or wilfull"

Lets swap predjudice for bias in your statment. I say this because as you can see from this thread, not everyone agrees for the same reasons....im not agreeing with the religious ideologues reasons against gay marriage, but i agree with the overall assesment.

Of course people will act based on their own experiances, education , beliefs and emotions....they could not function if they didnt use all this...
But i cannot assume everyones motives here...which is why i stated that a culture RIGHT OR WRONG has the right to determine its identity....cultures like people (as they are made up of people) do choose wrong from time to time, but THAT is their right. (you have the right to be wrong...LOL i know how that sounds)

I often plays devils advocate with issues, because i love to debate AND because i like to expose both sides of an argument to new ideas.....Hopefully the gay community will learn something about their approach to this idea....(as if the gay community is reading us as we discuss things...LOL)

I feel the gay adgenda has been downright vile at points....equating no gay marriage to slavery, citing discrimination when its a matter of not having this idea come to this asking point until now,
the attack on the Boy Scouts is a great example....

they have basically ruined support for a group that has been dedicated to helping others and educating boys for over a hundred years, and is very American....many Norman Rockwell portraits from earlier times bear wittness to how involved in community the Scouts were.
And how the society viewed them.

But in order to get something (which they didnt get) they tried to destroy the scouts. and in fact have crippled them $$$ wise as many former supporters, (schools, cities) that let scouts use meeting places have cut them off....the united way dropped funding for them as discriminatory, even after the supreme courts upheld their RIGHTS to gather as they choose. (whos discriminating now?) Guess what, the united way has plenty of "us only" groups they still support..(age based, sex based ect)..whats the difference?
(see my discrimination legal arguments previously in thread) Now the gay rights people are trying to vilify religious beliefs too...(see mutual respect between parties)

This whole thing made my sympathy for their (gay rights) cause fade as i saw them for their true colors....spoiled special intrests that would attack and defile any institution in order to further their cause. (no respect argument) As a gay scout, why did he have to attempt to dishonor his former friends in the scouts? Did he realize the hurt he was causing then? Did he understand THEIR rights of assembly? It sure doesnt seem so. It was petty and selfish. He should have left the scouts and carried on with his other adgenda, rather than force the scouts hand in defense)

The dammage is done now, even tho the scouts have their rights,they have been tarnished for exercising them.

I hope your right,
Hopefully the gay community will see that they need to be as sensative to the majority, as the sensitivity they ask from the majority.

Certantly my arguments against gay marriage should also wake up the right wing religious people to a tactic that could give them a ton more ammo than the crap they use now.

I think my approach is not only well laid out as UBER stated, but clears away the crud so that both sidescan see a new clearer picture for the basis of what this is about.

Originally posted by CazMedia
Uber,
YOU; "how can anything be united when we have exclusive rather than inclusive cultures?"

We should be united in the fact that we have the right to be left alone (as well as be included), and to gather into groups of our choice (freedom of assembly) without being forced to include those that dont support our core beliefs. (Boy Scouts). Inclusivness is just as hard to BALANCE vrs other rights as free speech is. (mabey harder)

Originally posted by CazMedia

You are right in this matter CAZ. But, I recently saw a post about a GAY hotel in Key West refusing straight couples. And what did everyone on that post say? "Oh, how can they do that when they want to be included?" It's funny how as long as you (not meaning you CAZ..but in general) are not being left out, it's fine. But when the coin is flipped, it's not right. Well, BOO HOO to you straight people who thought that was not right to include "those that don't support our core beliefs". I do agree with you though CAZ...there are plenty of things out there that do not and should not include people that have different agendas than the group. But, make it equal, if a gay hotel doesn't want straight couples then so be it.....just like if the boyscouts don't want gay people ...so be it.

Cazmedia I'm not familiar with this issue about Boy Scouts but I will say that this seems suspiciously like a symptom of the US legal system and probably has as much to do with the 'compensation/litigation culture' as any gay agenda but I'm not familiar with it so can't comment.
I have to say that you seem to be painting your pallette with a pretty broad brush, this one issue has made you lose ALL sympathy with the gay cause. I keep harping on about the fact that for every ranting, radical activist, there are twenty more that just want to get on with their lives and/or put forward their points in a moderate respectful way. Some protests are valid and people shouldn't be made fearful of bring up their objections without accusations of knee jerk radicalsim being levelled at them just as you say that not all objections to gay issues are based on bigotry and homophobia.

Bias or predjudice, well one seems a lot more polite than the other but in effect it amounts to the same thing.

And despite disagreeing strongly with that bloke in Key West MacMerdin brings up a good point.

I agree with Mcmerdin as well Uber,
The "lack of respect" issue is not exclusive to just one group. and its no more appropriatecomming from the gays, the str8, or the martians.

I agree with Uber as well,
the 'compensation/litigation culture' has also influenced this gay debate and the boy scouts case specifically.

There were pro gay silent protests in a local h.s. today, and people were calling the news station to express concerns (fear) of the anti gay protesters outside the school with signs...(we're certain that some of these "concerned callers" were actually involved with the pro side and were trying to manipulate the cops and the media into demonizing or disrupting the anti's march)..who were mearly expressing themselves legally and peacefully...but the polarization on this issue is very devicive, which is why ive tried to get this debate onto the issues, and off the adrenalin.

If you feel my issues have some validity, please mention them to both the pro and anti people you know...SEE WHAT TYPE OR REACTION YOU GET?

I also notice that many of those on this thread and other related ones (bush vs gay rights, gay adgenda) that are pro gay have vanished in the face of my withering arguments...gee i wonder why? (no defense)

If you feel my issues have some validity, please mention them to both the pro and anti people you know...SEE WHAT TYPE OR REACTION YOU GET?

I don't really need to as I can tell you the reaction right now. If I express comments on gay forums there's always a certain clique that see any self criticism or constructive challenges about an issue as the words of a self loathing homo, if I go on a board such as this there's a certain percentage that hate fags no matter how reasonable they try to frame their points who you suspect that if the thread 'should homosexuality be recriminalised' was posted would be on it like a dog on a rabbit with their 'hate to say it but/I have nothing against gays but...' kind of arguments. Of course there's a wealth of people of both persuasions with a far more flexible, moderate attitude but they don't make good news stories.