Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2012/01/26 19:03:59
Subject: Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
rockerbikie wrote:If it please/helps a minority what is the point of passing it?
Because minorities also have rights. Or do you oppose the thirteenth amendment because it only effects a minority of the population?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:More to the point, I'm saying that it's wrong to promote childlessness.
Why, and what does this have to do with homosexual marriage (read, it has nothing to do with homosexual marriage)?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/01/26 19:05:07
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/01/27 08:30:17
Subject: Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
biccat wrote:While you shouldn't take the Bible literally, you also shouldn't disregard it entirely.
Disregard it? No. It's played a crucial role in Western history ever since its compilation.
As it's a book compiled by committee, written by authors of dubious credibility, hundreds and hundreds of years ago, I certainly wouldn't consider it authoritative on anything, though.
2012/01/27 08:41:32
Subject: Re:Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
biccat wrote:
Which is basically the "domestic partnership" position. Which gay marriage proponents apparently hated in California. So much that they had it ruled unconstitutional.
Of course they did, why wouldn't they? They want to get married, and be easily categorized.
biccat wrote:
The problem with Obama, well, one of many, is that he doesn't really take explicit positions on things. He does the "this, but on the other hand that..." routine so well that you can really attribute almost any position you want to him. So people broadcast their own preferences onto him, and then vote for him because he represents everything they want.
That's not so much a problem, as damn good branding.
biccat wrote:
As we've found out, he really doesn't have strong positions on anything, and this doesn't really make for a good president.
See, this is a great example of why I say things like "You don't know anything about politics." No President of any merit, which is to say most Presidents (have merit), has ever expressed a strong position on anything in any sense that isn't predicated on rhetoric alone.
biccat wrote:
Which election?
2012. Just punch "Obama position gay marriage" into Google.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
The question is, does the prohibition "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind" carry the same weight (for Christians) as "Thou shalt not kill" or "neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard"?
Well, its been pretty well accepted that Leviticus is at the discretion of the reader, which is to say there isn't much of any weight to it.
Well, outside of the stones.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/01/27 08:48:59
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2012/01/27 08:58:58
Subject: Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Gay marriage used to be "legal" in this country, because it was not controlled by the Government. Gay marriage was "legal" and rather accepted on this continent before this country existed. It simple was not legislated.
That state of affairs has simply never existed. Marriage has always come with rights, even when there was no formal government marriage changed how a couple was treated in society.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Where all conservatives are evil and all liberals are loving and peaceful, as opposed to the murderous violent bastards they really are.
All liberals are murderous, violent bastards...
I think at this point you probably need some genuine help. You're getting into some weird territory.
I don't think I've ever said someone isn't a bigot (at least as their opinions pertain to homosexuality) for being "homophobic" (probably the most overused inappropriate word in modern discourse). However, I don't think that people should be labeled as bigots simply because they oppose gay marriage, which is what tends to happen.
It does happen too often, and is something of an issue, because some people get shouted down for opposition to gay marriage, when that opposition can merely be the product of being poorly informed, or out of poorly reasoned selfishness, or reflexive opposition to progressive ideals. Calling these people bigots is bad, because by dealing with their actual reasons for opposition, they might be won over.
You're apparently under the assumption that I get offended by colorful language. I don't.
No, you just worry, about people being accused of being bigots, when it's true only most of the time. You worry about this more than just about any other issue in this whole debate. It seems an odd thing to get particularly worried about, when there's people who are actually being denied the right marry the people they love.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote:Wait, are you saying minority rights should be decided by majority rules?
Lacking a truly objective means of determining the rights all people should have, there isn't a particularly good alternative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:I think the only other argument I'd make is that marriage is also a religious state.
But there are religious organisations that are willing to marry gay people. If such an organisation wants to do so, why should the state tell them they cannot?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rabtorian wrote:I believe that they should be mutually inclusive, and that stretching isn't what you should be doing, as the point of instructions isn't finding the loopholes or interpreting sections in a way that benifites you, but to follow the instructions.
You miss the point. The plain and simple fact is that the rules of your faith are very hard to fully and properly establish. I offer as evidence of this the incredibly wide variety of values within different Christian sects.
Some Christians believe that the call to 'love your neighbour' and be charitable is far more important that scarce comments made on homosexuality. They are not looking for loopholes, they are simply interpreting the text differently to yourself.
You don't get to declare your reading objectively more true than their's, and remove yourself from the issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:The President is opposed to gay marriage, but he supports "equality." The progressive movement apparently maintains that the latter requires the former.
One might think that this would discourage progressives from supporting the President.
One would then note that it has, and Obama has recieved considerable criticism from progressives, particularly in the GLBT community. And that this has led to much of his 'enthusiasm gap'.
Because if it is a biological drive, it is not a choice. If God created a person to be attracted to the same sex, it doesn't become an issue of people choosing to commit homosexual acts, but them simply acting as they were created. Which makes it much, much harder to call it a sin.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:While you shouldn't take the Bible literally, you also shouldn't disregard it entirely.
Why shouldn't a non-Christian disregard entirely?
Should a Christian be expected to consider the Talmud?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rockerbikie wrote:Honestly, is a bill that only helps 10% of the population really worth spending time over fixing more major Economic and Social Problems? No, you can pass the bill and all other problems can go away as it's being passed.
Because it isn't an RTS where you can only pass one piece of law per turn. You can, in fact, do both things at once.
If it please/helps a minority what is the point of passing it? I want freedom over what I think. I have a problem with Same-Sex Marriage Activists that they force the thing down your throat. Usually it's "Vote Yes or you are a Homophobe." I have no need for it, so if a similar bill is put through referendum, I would vote no.
So you're wondering why should you bother when it's someone else who is having their rights denied?
Yeah, when I mentioned non-bigot reasons to oppose gay marriage, I mentioned what is, more or less, rockerbikie's stance. It isn't bigoted, but to be perfectly honest, it's probably worse than a bigot's reason.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rockerbikie wrote:Women aren't a minority. They have their rights.
The term minority refers not to raw numbers but the number of people in positions of power, status and privilege. While things have improved considerably for women, they are still significantly under-represented in major positions in government and the private sector.
Black have plenty of rights and in cases more than whites.
It isn't just a count of 'rights', but privilege and opportunity within society. A simple look at relative incomes (white man $31k average income, black man $22k average income) says that there still isn't a level playing field.
Except for Gay Rights, Gay seems to have alot of rights
This is the best sentence ever. Except for income, black people earn as much money as white people.
Awesome.
I have never seen a Straight Pride festival.
Because we're the majority. We don't need to have our place in society recognised, because society is geared almost entirely to recognising us already.
I have heard gay people insulting straight people because they are straight . I can't say Hetereophobic, can I?
You can, it's a real thing and it does happen. But the important thing is to understand that if one in two homosexuals is heterophobic, then a whoping 2 or 3% of the population would be hostile to your sexual preference. This is not enough to meaningfully impact your life.
But if one in two straight people is homophobic, then about 48% of the population is hostile to a gay person's sexual preference. This is enough to make being openly homosexual a genuinely terrifying experience.
This is why the actions of the majority simply matter more, because there are more of us, we have more power to impact the lives of the minority.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sourclams wrote:Although I think you do bring up a point with regards to homosexual couples without kids paying a higher tax rate than heterosexual couples (as part of the tax cut is supposed to assist with the financial burden that children represent), I think you also have to have the same caveat for heterosexual couples that choose not to have kids, for the same reason.
But this is one of those things where nonsense just compounds on top of more nonsense.
If you want to give people a tax break to encourage children, then you don't give them a tax break for getting married and just hope kids come, and then think about not extending that tax break to same sex couples (and logically also infertile couples and maybe then also to couples who want to get married but don't want kids)... you just give a tax break to people when they have kids.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:I think this is the first time ive agreed with something dakka's resident neo nazi says, but here is some food for thought. According to the press, Patrice Evra admitted starting the argument with Luis Suazrez by mocking his sister and calling her a slut. Suarez responded by referring to the color of his skin and was banned for 3 months and heavily fined, no punishment was given to Patrice Evra.
Im not one to agree with racist people generally, but I do think the fear of being labelled a bigot does allows some overly harsh punishment of the majority to occur without criticism.
Patrice Evra should be sucking on the same punishment for what is essentially nothing more than name calling surely?
I do agree that certain things have become hyper-sensitised, such as racial name calling, resulting in bizarre results like the above.
But I don't that is anywhere near the scale of advantages white people still benefit from. In fact, the odd instance like the above receiving as much attention as it does, while black people still earn about 2/3 of what white peopl do on average being almost entirely unknown, is a pretty classic example of white privilege.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote:Im telling you. No one s taking away rights of heterosexuals. No one s sayng you cant marry or adopt. All the LBGTQIA community wants...
Everytime I see that thing there's more letters in it. What are the I and A for?
This message was edited 12 times. Last update was at 2012/01/27 09:33:57
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/01/27 13:27:56
Subject: Re:Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
biccat wrote:The problem with Obama, well, one of many, is that he doesn't really take explicit positions on things. He does the "this, but on the other hand that..." routine so well that you can really attribute almost any position you want to him. So people broadcast their own preferences onto him, and then vote for him because he represents everything they want.
That's not so much a problem, as damn good branding.
Depends on what you want/expect out of a president.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:As we've found out, he really doesn't have strong positions on anything, and this doesn't really make for a good president.
See, this is a great example of why I say things like "You don't know anything about politics." No President of any merit, which is to say most Presidents (have merit), has ever expressed a strong position on anything in any sense that isn't predicated on rhetoric alone.
You're equivocating. Bush took strong positions, as did Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Nixon... I suppose you could suggest that there haven't been presidents "of any merit" for the past 30 years or so, but that's not really fair, and completely discretionary.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:Which election?
2012. Just punch "Obama position gay marriage" into Google.
He says his position "is evolving." Not sure how it has changed.
sebster wrote:
You're apparently under the assumption that I get offended by colorful language. I don't.
No, you just worry, about people being accused of being bigots, when it's true only most of the time. You worry about this more than just about any other issue in this whole debate. It seems an odd thing to get particularly worried about, when there's people who are actually being denied the right marry the people they love.
You're assuming that people have "the right to marry the people they love." This is not true now, nor has it ever been true as long as states have regulated marriage.
And my problem with the "bigotry" card is that it's an attempt to frame the debate in a manner favorable to those in support of gay marriage. If opponents of gay marriage are bigots (or if marriage is a fundamental right), then the only rational conclusion is in favor of gay marriage. I think that a good debate might be had on the issue if gay marriage proponents would yield to civility.
I don't see this happening.
sebster wrote:Because if it is a biological drive, it is not a choice. If God created a person to be attracted to the same sex, it doesn't become an issue of people choosing to commit homosexual acts, but them simply acting as they were created. Which makes it much, much harder to call it a sin.
No it isn't. Christians believe that everyone is a sinner. We all (apparently) are created to sin. A gay man acting on his urges is little different than a straight man seeking a mistress.
sebster wrote:Why shouldn't a non-Christian disregard entirely?
Should a Christian be expected to consider the Talmud?
You shouldn't disregard certain rules simply because they're also present in the Bible. There can be overlap between "Christian" teachings and secular teachings.
And yes, a Christian should be expected to consider the Talmud, insofar as the two intersect.
sebster wrote:Yeah, when I mentioned non-bigot reasons to oppose gay marriage, I mentioned what is, more or less, rockerbikie's stance. It isn't bigoted, but to be perfectly honest, it's probably worse than a bigot's reason.
That's classy right there.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Im telling you. No one s taking away rights of heterosexuals. No one s sayng you cant marry or adopt. All the LBGTQIA community wants...
Everytime I see that thing there's more letters in it. What are the I and A for?
Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, Transgendered, Queer, Intersex, and Allies (allies is usually the last A).
I prefer "Gilberts" (GLBT), it's close enough to the line to be offensive.
text removed by Moderation team.
2012/01/27 13:54:01
Subject: Re:Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
biccat wrote:You're assuming that people have "the right to marry the people they love."
So do most straight people.
biccat wrote:And my problem with the "bigotry" card is that it's an attempt to frame the debate in a manner favorable to those in support of gay marriage.
The debate has always been morally favorable to the pro gay marriage stance. Be that as it may, it's not merely an "attempt to frame the debate", but a discussion of the underlying prejudices which were/are present in some way or form in the majority of the populace.
Prejudices which many people have but are in denial of. It might anger them when it is pointed out, but it's still there. There's the "big scary black man" stereotype for example-- he might be the gentlest type in the world but to everyone else, with the stereotypes and prejudices the majority of the population has in the modern world, he's pretty intimidating. It's a very subtle form of racism that is still present in our society, and in many ways perpetuated by our society's media (he makes a popular character in movies for example, though rarely is he the main character).
But pointing this out often makes people angry because they believe they have no prejudices and are perfectly good non-prejudiced law abiding citizens. Few people like it when it's pointed out that they aren't perfect, especially when they realize that it's true.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/01/27 13:57:13
Subject: Re:Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
biccat wrote:You're assuming that people have "the right to marry the people they love."
So do most straight people.
Actually, they don't. However, given that you've classified any opposition to gay marriage as bigotry, I'm less inclined to accept your arguments at face value.
Melissia wrote:But pointing this out often makes people angry because they believe they have no prejudices and are perfectly good non-prejudiced law abiding citizens. Few people like it when it's pointed out that they aren't perfect, especially when they realize that it's true.
Indeed.
text removed by Moderation team.
2012/01/27 14:22:55
Subject: Re:Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
biccat wrote:Actually, they don't. However, given that you've classified any opposition to gay marriage as bigotry, I'm less inclined to accept your arguments at face value.
You never did anyway, so what's the difference here?
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/01/27 15:01:19
Subject: Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Gay marriage used to be "legal" in this country, because it was not controlled by the Government. Gay marriage was "legal" and rather accepted on this continent before this country existed. It simple was not legislated.
That state of affairs has simply never existed. Marriage has always come with rights, even when there was no formal government marriage changed how a couple was treated in society.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Where all conservatives are evil and all liberals are loving and peaceful, as opposed to the murderous violent bastards they really are.
All liberals are murderous, violent bastards...
I think at this point you probably need some genuine help. You're getting into some weird territory.
I don't think I've ever said someone isn't a bigot (at least as their opinions pertain to homosexuality) for being "homophobic" (probably the most overused inappropriate word in modern discourse). However, I don't think that people should be labeled as bigots simply because they oppose gay marriage, which is what tends to happen.
It does happen too often, and is something of an issue, because some people get shouted down for opposition to gay marriage, when that opposition can merely be the product of being poorly informed, or out of poorly reasoned selfishness, or reflexive opposition to progressive ideals. Calling these people bigots is bad, because by dealing with their actual reasons for opposition, they might be won over.
You're apparently under the assumption that I get offended by colorful language. I don't.
No, you just worry, about people being accused of being bigots, when it's true only most of the time. You worry about this more than just about any other issue in this whole debate. It seems an odd thing to get particularly worried about, when there's people who are actually being denied the right marry the people they love.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote:Wait, are you saying minority rights should be decided by majority rules?
Lacking a truly objective means of determining the rights all people should have, there isn't a particularly good alternative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:I think the only other argument I'd make is that marriage is also a religious state.
But there are religious organisations that are willing to marry gay people. If such an organisation wants to do so, why should the state tell them they cannot?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rabtorian wrote:I believe that they should be mutually inclusive, and that stretching isn't what you should be doing, as the point of instructions isn't finding the loopholes or interpreting sections in a way that benifites you, but to follow the instructions.
You miss the point. The plain and simple fact is that the rules of your faith are very hard to fully and properly establish. I offer as evidence of this the incredibly wide variety of values within different Christian sects.
Some Christians believe that the call to 'love your neighbour' and be charitable is far more important that scarce comments made on homosexuality. They are not looking for loopholes, they are simply interpreting the text differently to yourself.
You don't get to declare your reading objectively more true than their's, and remove yourself from the issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:The President is opposed to gay marriage, but he supports "equality." The progressive movement apparently maintains that the latter requires the former.
One might think that this would discourage progressives from supporting the President.
One would then note that it has, and Obama has recieved considerable criticism from progressives, particularly in the GLBT community. And that this has led to much of his 'enthusiasm gap'.
Because if it is a biological drive, it is not a choice. If God created a person to be attracted to the same sex, it doesn't become an issue of people choosing to commit homosexual acts, but them simply acting as they were created. Which makes it much, much harder to call it a sin.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:While you shouldn't take the Bible literally, you also shouldn't disregard it entirely.
Why shouldn't a non-Christian disregard entirely?
Should a Christian be expected to consider the Talmud?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rockerbikie wrote:Honestly, is a bill that only helps 10% of the population really worth spending time over fixing more major Economic and Social Problems? No, you can pass the bill and all other problems can go away as it's being passed.
Because it isn't an RTS where you can only pass one piece of law per turn. You can, in fact, do both things at once.
If it please/helps a minority what is the point of passing it? I want freedom over what I think. I have a problem with Same-Sex Marriage Activists that they force the thing down your throat. Usually it's "Vote Yes or you are a Homophobe." I have no need for it, so if a similar bill is put through referendum, I would vote no.
So you're wondering why should you bother when it's someone else who is having their rights denied?
Yeah, when I mentioned non-bigot reasons to oppose gay marriage, I mentioned what is, more or less, rockerbikie's stance. It isn't bigoted, but to be perfectly honest, it's probably worse than a bigot's reason.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rockerbikie wrote:Women aren't a minority. They have their rights.
The term minority refers not to raw numbers but the number of people in positions of power, status and privilege. While things have improved considerably for women, they are still significantly under-represented in major positions in government and the private sector.
Black have plenty of rights and in cases more than whites.
It isn't just a count of 'rights', but privilege and opportunity within society. A simple look at relative incomes (white man $31k average income, black man $22k average income) says that there still isn't a level playing field.
Except for Gay Rights, Gay seems to have alot of rights
This is the best sentence ever. Except for income, black people earn as much money as white people.
Awesome.
I have never seen a Straight Pride festival.
Because we're the majority. We don't need to have our place in society recognised, because society is geared almost entirely to recognising us already.
I have heard gay people insulting straight people because they are straight . I can't say Hetereophobic, can I?
You can, it's a real thing and it does happen. But the important thing is to understand that if one in two homosexuals is heterophobic, then a whoping 2 or 3% of the population would be hostile to your sexual preference. This is not enough to meaningfully impact your life.
But if one in two straight people is homophobic, then about 48% of the population is hostile to a gay person's sexual preference. This is enough to make being openly homosexual a genuinely terrifying experience.
This is why the actions of the majority simply matter more, because there are more of us, we have more power to impact the lives of the minority.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sourclams wrote:Although I think you do bring up a point with regards to homosexual couples without kids paying a higher tax rate than heterosexual couples (as part of the tax cut is supposed to assist with the financial burden that children represent), I think you also have to have the same caveat for heterosexual couples that choose not to have kids, for the same reason.
But this is one of those things where nonsense just compounds on top of more nonsense.
If you want to give people a tax break to encourage children, then you don't give them a tax break for getting married and just hope kids come, and then think about not extending that tax break to same sex couples (and logically also infertile couples and maybe then also to couples who want to get married but don't want kids)... you just give a tax break to people when they have kids.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:I think this is the first time ive agreed with something dakka's resident neo nazi says, but here is some food for thought. According to the press, Patrice Evra admitted starting the argument with Luis Suazrez by mocking his sister and calling her a slut. Suarez responded by referring to the color of his skin and was banned for 3 months and heavily fined, no punishment was given to Patrice Evra.
Im not one to agree with racist people generally, but I do think the fear of being labelled a bigot does allows some overly harsh punishment of the majority to occur without criticism.
Patrice Evra should be sucking on the same punishment for what is essentially nothing more than name calling surely?
I do agree that certain things have become hyper-sensitised, such as racial name calling, resulting in bizarre results like the above.
But I don't that is anywhere near the scale of advantages white people still benefit from. In fact, the odd instance like the above receiving as much attention as it does, while black people still earn about 2/3 of what white peopl do on average being almost entirely unknown, is a pretty classic example of white privilege.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote:Im telling you. No one s taking away rights of heterosexuals. No one s sayng you cant marry or adopt. All the LBGTQIA community wants...
Everytime I see that thing there's more letters in it. What are the I and A for?
The ammount of time debating Gay Marriage can be used in bennifiting other people. So, I am unallowed to say Straight Pride because I'm not an oppressed Minority. To be proud to be the Majoirty would be a good reason to be proud infact. Black People get privilages in the court of Law, also in politcal correctness. I am unable to emphasize with Homosexual because I am not one, so I can not make a mention wether it is scary or not being a homosexual. Women usually take jobs of less pay then males. That's why the income is less. I have no problem if people were for it before it became "cool" but people just jump on the "For" band wagon just to seem cool these days. In the 90s, it was unheard of, if it was a subtle movement instead of this flayboyant mess which it was became, I might support it. I have seen scenes of Gay Parades on the News, they are a mess. If they done it more subtle than in your face I might be for it.(I am being too harsh mods?)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
rockerbikie wrote:If it please/helps a minority what is the point of passing it?
Because minorities also have rights. Or do you oppose the thirteenth amendment because it only effects a minority of the population?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:More to the point, I'm saying that it's wrong to promote childlessness.
Why, and what does this have to do with homosexual marriage (read, it has nothing to do with homosexual marriage)?
I am Australian. Some kid derailed the topic. The minorities seem to be getting more rights than majorities these days.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/27 15:02:28
2012/01/27 15:10:29
Subject: Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
rockerbikie wrote:The ammount of time debating Gay Marriage can be used in bennifiting other people.
You again act as if it's mutually exclusive.
You also act as if it is "straight or gay, nothing in between"...
rockerbikie wrote:So, I am unallowed to say Straight Pride because I'm not an oppressed Minority.
You practice "straight pride" every day. Heterosexual couples people go around kissing, holding hands, fondling, and so on in public without any fear of retribution or violating social norms. Heterosexual couples brag about their relationships (or "conquests" for single heterosexual-leaning people who aren't interested in relationships) all the time. The majority of the media emphasizes heterosexuality and glorifies it. The hero gets the girl in action flicks. The good girl gets the best guy in chick flicks. At the end of the story, the husband and wife live happily ever after, with babies and such.
So it's not that you aren't "allowed" to say "straight pride" so much as, in practice, the majority population puts the idea of "straight pride" in practice without labeling it as such.
rockerbikie wrote:I am unable to emphasize with Homosexual because I am not one
... that doesn't mean that you can't empathize* with them. I empathize with the plight of the homeless despite not being homeless myself.
*I assume empathize is the word you meant.
rockerbikie wrote:Women usually take jobs of less pay then males.
Bullgak. When taking the same job as men, women tend to be paid less than men. Women get offered promotion to higher levels less than men, as well. And in some countries they aren't allowed to work at all in such an environment.
I should note that women have been graduating from college more than men recently. So it's not a matter of effort-- women certainly are on average putting forth more effort than men when it comes to education-- but rather prejudices left over from centuries of business practices and biases which are very hard to throw off considering the bias towards older white men in society which is still to this day being shaken off (I mean, just look at social security, ageism in government vastly favors the old as opposed to the young even in these days-- any attempt to change social security brews a veritable gakstorm, but how DARE we suggest that the government should help insure children!).
rockerbikie wrote:The minorities seem to be getting more rights than majorities these days.
That's a cute lie there that you tell yourself to make yourself feel like a victim.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2012/01/27 15:20:46
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/01/27 15:36:32
Subject: Re:Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
If we could avoid quoting huge previous posts if there's no need it'd be appreciated.
Thanks.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2012/01/27 16:32:02
Subject: Re:Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
reds8n wrote: If we could avoid quoting huge previous posts if there's no need it'd be appreciated.
Thanks.
My recommendation.... quote the person, remove the quoted text, and type [snip] in it so they know you're talking to them.
Like this:
reds8n wrote:[snip]
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/01/27 16:34:51
Subject: Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
rockerbikie wrote:The ammount of time debating Gay Marriage can be used in bennifiting other people.
You again act as if it's mutually exclusive.
You also act as if it is "straight or gay, nothing in between"...
rockerbikie wrote:So, I am unallowed to say Straight Pride because I'm not an oppressed Minority.
You practice "straight pride" every day. Heterosexual couples people go around kissing, holding hands, fondling, and so on in public without any fear of retribution or violating social norms. Heterosexual couples brag about their relationships (or "conquests" for single heterosexual-leaning people who aren't interested in relationships) all the time. The majority of the media emphasizes heterosexuality and glorifies it. The hero gets the girl in action flicks. The good girl gets the best guy in chick flicks. At the end of the story, the husband and wife live happily ever after, with babies and such.
So it's not that you aren't "allowed" to say "straight pride" so much as, in practice, the majority population puts the idea of "straight pride" in practice without labeling it as such.
rockerbikie wrote:I am unable to emphasize with Homosexual because I am not one
... that doesn't mean that you can't empathize* with them. I empathize with the plight of the homeless despite not being homeless myself.
*I assume empathize is the word you meant.
rockerbikie wrote:Women usually take jobs of less pay then males.
Bullgak. When taking the same job as men, women tend to be paid less than men. Women get offered promotion to higher levels less than men, as well. And in some countries they aren't allowed to work at all in such an environment.
I should note that women have been graduating from college more than men recently. So it's not a matter of effort-- women certainly are on average putting forth more effort than men when it comes to education-- but rather prejudices left over from centuries of business practices and biases which are very hard to throw off considering the bias towards older white men in society which is still to this day being shaken off (I mean, just look at social security, ageism in government vastly favors the old as opposed to the young even in these days-- any attempt to change social security brews a veritable gakstorm, but how DARE we suggest that the government should help insure children!).
rockerbikie wrote:The minorities seem to be getting more rights than majorities these days.
That's a cute lie there that you tell yourself to make yourself feel like a victim.
Yeah. Bi-sexuals, the one inbetween which gets hated by alot of the LG community. Melissia, it is not a lie, a white person can't sue a person for racial taunts can they? Look, at what jobs men and women do, labour jobs such as Boilmaker and Engineer is not typically a female job, they pay highly. Also, the pay differance is only a 5% difference, at most for those job you have mentioned. If straight people don't lable straight pride, why on earth should gays do foolisj act in the name of "Gay Pride". These parades are not needed, they could do it subtley and intelligently but no, they have to stick in your face, just like the liberal feminist movement, which I am quite indeead sure you are in. Insuring a child in a ridiculous idea, what will b next do we want to insure goldfish? Also, that is a lie that women put more effort into College than Men. Isn't it funny that thing that will help a minority that will be passed by Majority rules? We will be better of with Absolute Monarchy(not trolling.)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/27 16:37:19
2012/01/27 16:35:56
Subject: Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
Joey wrote:So this is what Washington State will look like now?
Awesome
Not exactly but that will probably occur every frickin month. Mardi Gras is one of the worse events I heard of. If you are trying to be funny I am unimpressed.
2012/01/27 16:53:04
Subject: Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
rockerbikie wrote:Yeah. Bi-sexuals, the one inbetween which gets hated by alot of the LG community.
Yes, some people (both heterosexual and homosexual) say "pick a side!" but they're in the minority as far as the LGBT community goes.
rockerbikie wrote: Melissia, it is not a lie, a white person can't sue a person for racial taunts can they?
Yes they can. Someone at a prior workplace got fired for calling me racist epithets, and I'm as white as can be.
rockerbikie wrote:Also, the pay differance is only a 5% difference
... "ONLY" a 5% difference. When you're making ~50k a year, losing out on 2,500 a year is a fairly sizable difference. You really need to get a grasp on your perspective, it's still inferior no matter how much you try to justify it.
rockerbikie wrote:If straight people don't lable straight pride
Why do they need to? Every day is straight pride day.
rockerbikie wrote:why on earth should gays do foolisj act in the name of "Gay Pride".
Why not? Is that one of those things that you claim only the majority is allowed to do or something?
rockerbikie wrote:These parades are not needed
Yes they are. It is as much a celebration of the community as it is an opportunity for the community to draw in new members who, due to the fact that the community is smaller, don't know about it or don't know how to get involved. It's also an opportunity to educate the majority population. It's not always done very well, don't get me wrong, but it's still an important part of the civil rights movement.
rockerbikie wrote:they could do it subtley
What makes you think that the LGBT community doesn't do this also? You probably know LGBT members and don't even know it.
rockerbikie wrote: but no, they have to stick in your face
Right, just like heterosexuals do to homo/bisexuals.
rockerbikie wrote:just like the liberal feminist movement
You realize that feminism also argues for men's rights, too, right? Feminism as a philosophy argues for equal rights between the genders-- and equal rights means equal for both parties. That the media focuses on extremists just means the media is flawed.
rockerbikie wrote:Insuring a child in a ridiculous idea, what will b next do we want to insure goldfish?
I'm not touching this crap.
rockerbikie wrote:Also, that is a lie that women put more effort into College than Men.
Statistics proves otherwise. Women as a group graduate from college at a higher percent than men.
rockerbikie wrote:We will be better of with Absolute Monarchy(not trolling.)
An absolute monarchy is the equivalent of a very small minority dictating the rules for all other minorities and the majority populace.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:
Spoiler:
You gotta admit... those men are more manly than you.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/01/27 16:54:26
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/01/27 17:08:15
Subject: Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
rockerbikie wrote:Yeah. Bi-sexuals, the one inbetween which gets hated by alot of the LG community.
Yes, some people (both heterosexual and homosexual) say "pick a side!" but they're in the minority as far as the LGBT community goes.
rockerbikie wrote: Melissia, it is not a lie, a white person can't sue a person for racial taunts can they?
Yes they can. Someone at a prior workplace got fired for calling me racist epithets, and I'm as white as can be.
rockerbikie wrote:Also, the pay differance is only a 5% difference
... "ONLY" a 5% difference. When you're making ~50k a year, losing out on 2,500 a year is a fairly sizable difference. You really need to get a grasp on your perspective, it's still inferior no matter how much you try to justify it.
rockerbikie wrote:If straight people don't lable straight pride
Why do they need to? Every day is straight pride day.
rockerbikie wrote:why on earth should gays do foolisj act in the name of "Gay Pride".
Why not? Is that one of those things that you claim only the majority is allowed to do or something?
rockerbikie wrote:These parades are not needed
Yes they are. It is as much a celebration of the community as it is an opportunity for the community to draw in new members who, due to the fact that the community is smaller, don't know about it or don't know how to get involved. It's also an opportunity to educate the majority population. It's not always done very well, don't get me wrong, but it's still an important part of the civil rights movement.
rockerbikie wrote:they could do it subtley
What makes you think that the LGBT community doesn't do this also? You probably know LGBT members and don't even know it.
rockerbikie wrote: but no, they have to stick in your face
Right, just like heterosexuals do to homo/bisexuals.
rockerbikie wrote:just like the liberal feminist movement
You realize that feminism also argues for men's rights, too, right? Feminism as a philosophy argues for equal rights between the genders-- and equal rights means equal for both parties. That the media focuses on extremists just means the media is flawed.
rockerbikie wrote:Insuring a child in a ridiculous idea, what will b next do we want to insure goldfish?
I'm not touching this crap.
rockerbikie wrote:Also, that is a lie that women put more effort into College than Men.
Statistics proves otherwise. Women as a group graduate from college at a higher percent than men.
rockerbikie wrote:We will be better of with Absolute Monarchy(not trolling.)
An absolute monarchy is the equivalent of a very small minority dictating the rules for all other minorities and the majority populace.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:
Spoiler:
You gotta admit... those men are more manly than you.
The pick a side argument is really stupid. Let's put it this way, if a small Group let's say Asexuals have a huge parades trying to recruit people, would people allow it? Hell no. This special treatment of this group is completely absurd. I am well aware of people who I know and their sexual attraction. Actually all the Feminists I know, promote a Matriachial society. Maybe if done the education in the High School Syllabus of why people are homosexual, maybe we would not this disorganised mess. Also, about that photo, how manly you are does not determine how much muscle and how big you are. The problem is that you are generalising Women and Men, many men are successful, it is unfortunate that alot of my colleagues don't care about education. You could argue that too many females settle down to have kids and quit their jobs once the kid is born to care about it.
2012/01/27 17:17:53
Subject: Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
rockerbikie wrote:This special treatment of this group is completely absurd.
The LGBT movement agrees, that's why they're pushing for equal treatment.
Oh wait, you're probably using "special" as "favorable". In that case you're wrong. Homosexuals are not treated as "special" by society unless you define "special" as "second class citizen".
rockerbikie wrote:I am well aware of people who I know and their sexual attraction.
lol... keep telling yourself that.
rockerbikie wrote:The problem is that you are generalising Women and Men
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/01/27 17:25:45
Subject: Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
rockerbikie wrote:This special treatment of this group is completely absurd.
The LGBT movement agrees, that's why they're pushing for equal treatment.
Oh wait, you're probably using "special" as "favorable". In that case you're wrong. Homosexuals are not treated as "special" by society unless you define "special" as "second class citizen".
rockerbikie wrote:I am well aware of people who I know and their sexual attraction.
lol... keep telling yourself that.
rockerbikie wrote:The problem is that you are generalising Women and Men
So I was born to fail. Seriously, what is dragging down the ammount of college degrees for males is the annoying males who spend no time on study and all the time on video games and worthless things. It's no that females are naturally smarter which you are trying to lean towards, it is that there is a high ammount of pathetic Males who need to get a grip of reality. Gays are treated favourable comapred to a-sexuals. If a-sexuals came down the street full down blazing there choice, no-one would really be happy. They get to do things like this, when other minorities which are more oppressed can not do so, when is the last time you saw a Pagan Pride parades with people dressing up as Gods and Heros hailing different religons. People who I know, know me as a White Nationalist and therefore the LBG community does not even communicate with me most of the time except to throw an occasional insult.
2012/01/27 17:33:57
Subject: Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
rockerbikie wrote:It's no that females are naturally smarter
I never said that. I said they put more effort in to college on average.
In fact, your statement here:
rockerbikie wrote:Seriously, what is dragging down the ammount of college degrees for males is the annoying males who spend no time on study and all the time on video games and worthless things.
Agrees with my assertion that women on average put in more effort than men.
rockerbikie wrote:Gays are treated favourable comapred to a-sexuals.
No they aren't.
rockerbikie wrote:If a-sexuals came down the street full down blazing there choice, no-one would really be happy.
More likely than not nobody would care, nevermind be offended. Someone who is non-sexual, IE not interested in sex in any form (asexual indicates that they reproduce through non-sexual means, so non-sexual is more accurate) is a very much accepted form of sexuality in comparison to homosexuality.
Indeed, it is actually a required trait for monks and nuns, for example, for religions across the world.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/01/27 17:39:16
Subject: Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
After "advice" and "counsel" from Genghis Connie and She Who Must Be Obeyed I'm certain women are better than men.
I'll just leave this here.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2012/01/27 17:42:36
Subject: Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
biccat wrote:I see we've moved into the "women are better than men" part of the dialogue.
You really hate paying attention, don't you?
Rockerbikie asserted that women don't earn as much because they don't work as hard, and I pointed out (with sources I should note) that women tend to put forth more effort in education than men.
I'm not saying women are better than men, merely stating a fact which contradicts the argument made by Rockerbikie that men are better than women
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/27 17:43:17
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/01/27 17:43:55
Subject: Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
rockerbikie wrote:This special treatment of this group is completely absurd.
The LGBT movement agrees, that's why they're pushing for equal treatment.
Oh wait, you're probably using "special" as "favorable". In that case you're wrong. Homosexuals are not treated as "special" by society unless you define "special" as "second class citizen".
rockerbikie wrote:I am well aware of people who I know and their sexual attraction.
lol... keep telling yourself that.
rockerbikie wrote:The problem is that you are generalising Women and Men
So I was born to fail. Seriously, what is dragging down the ammount of college degrees for males is the annoying males who spend no time on study and all the time on video games and worthless things. It's no that females are naturally smarter which you are trying to lean towards, it is that there is a high ammount of pathetic Males who need to get a grip of reality. Gays are treated favourable comapred to a-sexuals. If a-sexuals came down the street full down blazing there choice, no-one would really be happy. They get to do things like this, when other minorities which are more oppressed can not do so, when is the last time you saw a Pagan Pride parades with people dressing up as Gods and Heros hailing different religons. People who I know, know me as a White Nationalist and therefore the LBG community does not even communicate with me most of the time except to throw an occasional insult.
So, Rather take a fact and go with it you make excuses to make sense and not give them due credit.
5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
2012/01/27 17:47:56
Subject: Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
Melissia wrote:I'm not saying women are better than men, merely stating a fact which contradicts the argument made by Rockerbikie that men are better than women
Hey you know, men and women are both as mentally capable, but men are far more powerful physically... so we kinda are better arent we?!
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
2012/01/27 17:58:56
Subject: Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
2012/01/27 18:03:04
Subject: Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
mattyrm wrote: Hey you know, men and women are both as mentally capable, but men are far more powerful physically... so we kinda are better arent we?!
That's why Colt is actually a feminist.
God made humans. Colt made them equal!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/27 18:03:15
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/01/27 18:16:39
Subject: Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
One thing you have to keep in mind in any socioeconomic impact of gender studies over the last ~5-10 years is how the real estate development / construction industries were booming, creating a fairly large amount of relatively high wage blue collar physical jobs.
Those physical labor jobs favor men, and often offered similar starting salaries to something that would have required a 4 year degree, but required less duration of training.
So you have a structural shift within the socioeconomic 'offerings' for 18 year old men that incentivized them to opt for short-term profits over deferred earning potential (degrees). As a result the college-ready pool shrinks, and gender spreads move accordingly.
It will be interesting to see if this is an enduring trend, and if that affects top-earner gender makeup in the long run.
2012/01/27 18:43:26
Subject: Re:Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
biccat wrote:
You're equivocating. Bush took strong positions, as did Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Nixon...
For the purposes of rhetoric.
Reagan, for example, loved calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire", then negotiated with them. He also liked low government spending an awful lot, then started the present deficit spending trend.
I'm not equivocating (I'm not entirely sure you know what that word means.) so much as saying something you apparently dislike sufficiently to have not registered a key element of the statement. But sure, "strong position", a phrase you brought into this discussion, is exceptionally precise, and not at all something one would say in order to avoid committing to a statement.
biccat wrote:
He says his position "is evolving." Not sure how it has changed.
And I said that there was some noise about his position evolving prior to the election, not that there was some noise about his position having changed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
No it isn't. Christians believe that everyone is a sinner. We all (apparently) are created to sin.
That's not how original sin works.
biccat wrote:
You shouldn't disregard certain rules simply because they're also present in the Bible. There can be overlap between "Christian" teachings and secular teachings.
Indeed there can be, the determination of whether or not a particular source, or rule, is valid, useful, or compelling is not based on it source but rather its quality.
The prohibition of homosexual behavior contained within the Bible is shoddily written, and relatively insignificant compared to not only other prohibitions contained within the Bible, but other prohibitions contained within any other text. It isn't a prohibition based on argument or reason, but on statement alone. Citing it is like citing Jim from down the street who lots of people respect.
biccat wrote:
And yes, a Christian should be expected to consider the Talmud, insofar as the two intersect.
Why?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/27 18:52:25
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2012/01/27 18:53:41
Subject: Re:Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)
dogma wrote:I'm not equivocating (I'm not entirely sure you know what that word means.) so much as saying something you apparently dislike sufficiently to have not registered a key element of the statement.
You're using ambiguous language ("strong position," "on rhetoric alone," "of any merit") to avoid committing yourself. The fact is, most presidents take "strong positions."
I'm not going to put words in your mouth, but it sure looks like you're equivocating to avoid labelling the current president as weak or really anything negative.
dogma wrote:And I said that there was some noise about his position evolving prior to the election, not that there was some noise about his position having changed.
You raised this to respond to my comment that his position hasn't changed. There's no indication that it has changed, other than the sufficiently politically vague term "evolving."
Seriously, what is dragging down the ammount of college degrees for males is the annoying males who spend no time on study and all the time on video games and worthless things. It's no that females are naturally smarter which you are trying to lean towards, it is that there is a high ammount of pathetic Males who need to get a grip of reality. Gays are treated favourable comapred to a-sexuals. If a-sexuals came down the street full down blazing there choice, no-one would really be happy. They get to do things like this, when other minorities which are more oppressed can not do so, when is the last time you saw a Pagan Pride parades with people dressing up as Gods and Heros hailing different religons. People who I know, know me as a White Nationalist and therefore the LBG community does not even communicate with me most of the time except to throw an occasional insult.
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
