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.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:As a US citizen, I have the freedom of the Press. But I am not a reporter, nor do I own a printing press. So the right I have is not a right that "fits" me, by definition.

... that is such a bad analogy that it just... ugh.

Freedom of the press has nothing to do with printing presses or being employed at some big name news company. It is freedom of communication and expression through various mediums (electronic, published, word of mouth, etc). A blogger is utilizing freedom of the press, and anyone with internet access can start a blog without any extra investment on their own.

As expressed in the universal declaration of human rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers"

THAT is freedom fo the press.

Melissia wrote:... that is such a bad analogy that it just... ugh.

Freedom of the press has nothing to do with printing presses or being employed at some big name news company. It is freedom of communication and expression through various mediums (electronic, published, word of mouth, etc). A blogger is utilizing freedom of the press, and anyone with internet access can start a blog without any extra investment on their own.

As expressed in the universal declaration of human rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers"

THAT is freedom fo the press.

You are right about the Freedom being more than I stated. I was trying to be brief.

But I am not a blogger. I am not one to get involved in public discourse (barring occasions such as this). But I have the right to, even if I choose not to use it.
That is the point. There is nothing about marriage that is discriminatory. It is open to all. But marriage is between a man and a woman. Every man has equal access to marriage. Not every man wants marriage. Not every man want a relationship with a woman. That does not mean marriage is discriminatory.

Melissia wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:As a US citizen, I have the freedom of the Press. But I am not a reporter, nor do I own a printing press. So the right I have is not a right that "fits" me, by definition.

... that is such a bad analogy that it just... ugh.

Freedom of the press has nothing to do with printing presses or being employed at some big name news company. It is freedom of communication and expression through various mediums (electronic, published, word of mouth, etc). A blogger is utilizing freedom of the press, and anyone with internet access can start a blog without any extra investment on their own.

That's freedom of speech.

I was just reading an excellent article on this exact subject.

So you're saying that writing marriage laws so only white people can be married isn't discriminatory towards non-whites, after all, they can just dye their skin and become white if they want to marry?

Melissia wrote:So you're saying that writing marriage laws so only white people can be married isn't discriminatory towards non-whites, after all, they can just dye their skin and become white if they want to marry?

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Adding anything more than that would be discriminatory. That is why is was wrong for people to say that blacks could not marry whites.
But saying that marriage between a man and a woman is discriminatory because "some dudes don't like chicks" is a far cry from racial discrimination and is intellectually dishonest.

It's not at all intellectually dishonest. I very firmly believe that there are marked similarities between the ban on interracial marriage and the ban on homosexual marriage.

Pretty much the same arguments used for the former are also used for the latter, yes, even religious arguments were often used.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Marriage is between a man and a woman. Adding anything more than that would be discriminatory.

Just that much is discriminatory.

Melissia wrote:It's not at all intellectually dishonest.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Marriage is between a man and a woman. Adding anything more than that would be discriminatory.

Just that much is discriminatory.

How? If every person has access to a right (though they may not like the right) where is the discrimination?

How about guns? Does the 2nd amendment discriminate against those who dislike guns? Not liking a right does not equal discrimination.
Again, if every person has access to the right- where is the discrimination?

Edit to address your edit - Marriage means something. I know that words, over time, can change. But the idea of marriage has been a constant until the last decade. I am all for Civil Unions gaining rights. But Marriage means a man and a woman. If you go back to the 1960s.. yes. Go back to 1900... yes. Go back to 1800... yes. Go back to 1700... yes. Etc.

Marriage means man and wife. There is no valid reason for that to change. Some people have found love outside the definition for marriage. Great. But it is not marriage. It is something new (and to them wonderful). Congrats! But it is not marriage.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:.

Marriage means man and wife. There is no valid reason for that to change.

I think you'll find that a lot of people don't agree with your last point.

reds8n wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:.

Marriage means man and wife. There is no valid reason for that to change.

I think you'll find that a lot of people don't agree with your last point.

And I think you'll find that the vast majority of people who ever lived on this planet would agree.

For the same reason that miscegenation was discrimination back when we practiced that.

In fact, they used your exact same argument, that the miscegenation laws were perfectly fair; after all, everyone could marry someone of their own race, they just aren't allowed to marry someone of a different race... just as you are arguing that it is perfectly fair right now, because everyone can marry someone of the opposite gender, they just aren't allowed to marry the same gender.

Same discrimination, different time period. Just because the majority of the population believe something doesn't mean it should be enacted into law. A republic does not need to be a tyranny of the majority. The republic represents the minorities as well as the majorities, and must respect the rights of both.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Marriage means man and wife. There is no valid reason for that to change.

Just like marriage used to mean man and wife of the same race, right?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
And I think you'll find that the vast majority of people who ever lived on this planet would agree.

Can I have some evidence for this please ?

Melissia wrote:

Same discrimination, different time period.

Hogwash.

You assume that sexual orientation is equal to race. It is not. If it were, then pedophilia would be protected. Necrophilia as well. etc.
If we 'should' change laws for everyones sexual orientation, let's change the age of consent to 13. The is more historic support for that than gay marriage.
Heck, some people want the tax right offs of marriage but don't want a spouse. Lets re-define marriage to include marring a toaster oven.
In fact, why don't we say marriage is just a one person thing. Since we are changing the meaning of the word.

While we are at it, lets say that homosexuality from now on is actually heterosexuality. That way they won't feel different.

For reference, here's a very in depth look on the comparison I make:

http://hnn.us/articles/4708.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:You assume that sexual orientation is equal to race. It is not. If it were, then pedophilia would be protected.

No.

I have nothing more to say to you that would not get me banned.

reds8n wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
And I think you'll find that the vast majority of people who ever lived on this planet would agree.

Can I have some evidence for this please ?

Well, lets look just at Christendom. Since 400 AD I have all of Europe until about the 70s.
now lets look at Islam. Add in Judaism. Add Ancient Greece (which was fine with homosexuality, but still said marraige was man and woman).

Were you really serious about that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:You assume that sexual orientation is equal to race. It is not. If it were, then pedophilia would be protected.

No.

I have nothing more to say to you that would not get me banned.

Why not? They were born with that sexual orientation. Who are you to discriminate against what nature made them?

(for the record, I'd love to be the one to flip the switch to kill every pedo out there. I am just making a point)

Am I serious about you actually having some evidence for a statement with regards to whether or not there is a " valid reason for a change" in this situation ?

Yes. very.

Because I really don't see how you can justify that statement in way shape or form, so in future, if you can't actually back up a claim please don't make claims that are essentially unsupportable as evidence for a point that your making. The particular social conventions and attitudes of elsewhere and else when aren't really relevant to this debate in the way you're attempting to crowbar them in here as we're not talking about then, the fact that "now" is different from "then" is indeed a "valid reason" for such a definition to change.

Just as many, many definitions have changed throughout history. And will, one presumes, continue to change as time goes by.

Oh and "
Well, lets look just at Christendom. Since 400 AD I have all of Europe until about the 70s.
now lets look at Islam. Add in Judaism. Add Ancient Greece (which was fine with homosexuality, but still said marraige was man and woman). " is not, by a long shot " the vast majority of people who ever lived on this planet "

If it were, then pedophilia would be protected

No it wouldn't, as the law in this regards that is to do with the age of consent between individuals not sexual orientation. This is a very old argument that ahs been thrown out and out argued countless times. Please don't bring it up again.

This might help people, it's something we might institute on the board in the future.

reds8n wrote:No it wouldn't, as the law in this regards that is to do with the age of consent between individuals not sexual orientation. This is a very old argument that ahs been thrown out and out argued countless times. Please don't bring it up again.

Is this the official moderator position? Can we not argue that potatoes are like turnips?

If so, will you take "official moderator notice" of the fact that miscegenation is not like gay marriage, and that it is an old argument that has been thrown out and out argued countless times?

reds8n wrote: Am I serious about you actually having some evidence for a statement with regards to whether or not there is a " valid reason for a change" in this situation ?

Yes. very.

Please allow me to apologize. I thought you were asking for reference on my statement that the majority of people who ever lived through out time would agree with me.
you were asking for back up about there not being valid reason to change.

The change to a historic institution appease a small minority is wrong. That minority should be protected. They should have freedom to love who they want. But why change marriage? I support civil unions. there is no valid reason that civil unions can not fit the bill for homosexual couples. Marriage is an age old institution that is between a man and wife. Homosexual couples have found love. But it is not marriage. It is to them something wonderful and they want others to think of it like marriage. But if we are changing words to the point that they mean whatever we want, then all I can say is "Blue Snorg Flat Seven Dewlap!" (it means what i want it to mean).

AS for my example of age of consent. If it is a law that we are discussing changing for marriage, then it is just a law for age of consent. If one law is not sacred, than neither is the other.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Marriage is between a man and a woman.

According to whom? And from what basis could it have had that condition applied to it? Could it be... the book of unicorns, the book of leprechauns? the book of chariots of fire racing from one side of a flat sky to the other? other imaginary friends? The book that most people who have ever lived on this planet believed when the world was flat and they had no other explaination for things and no other social order than faith in the words of a guy who talked to shrubs scaring them with eternal burning if they didn't do what he the shrub allegedly said? In that case, unless it's the book of Unicorns (which is the correct one) it is a religiously based condition for the interpretation of a word. Religious interference in a matter of legal status = no (at least in theory). If you care to define the word according to its religious condition, then fine, a man and a woman can be married... if that confers any legal status at all - then it is an overlap of religion and law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Semantic definition of marriage can mean whatever you want it to. Ask the polygamists. Legal status has nothing to do with semantics though. Call it a civil union to keep the babble belt happy, but the legal status should not be defined by one group's definition of a word. Semantics change over time.

yeenoghu wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Marriage is between a man and a woman.

According to whom? And from what basis could it have had that condition applied to it? Could it be... the book of unicorns, the book of leprechauns? the book of chariots of fire racing from one side of a flat sky to the other? other imaginary friends? The book that most people who have ever lived on this planet believed when the world was flat and they had no other explaination for things and no other social order than faith in the words of a guy who talked to shrubs scaring them with eternal burning if they didn't do what he the shrub allegedly said? In that case, unless it's the book of Unicorns (which is the correct one) it is a religiously based condition for the interpretation of a word. Religious interference in a matter of legal status = no (at least in theory). If you care to define the word according to its religious condition, then fine, a man and a woman can be married... if that confers any legal status at all - then it is an overlap of religion and law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Semantic definition of marriage can mean whatever you want it to. Ask the polygamists. Legal status has nothing to do with semantics though. Call it a civil union to keep the babble belt happy, but the legal status should not be defined by one group's definition of a word. Semantics change over time.

Nice. I referenced history and you go off on an anti-religion rant. Again.. words have meaning. We should no go about changing meanings "just because". A child could look and see that a homosexual couple is different than a heterosexual couple. (Different does not mean less). Why change words to be mean something different? Why force millions of people to change their dictionary? Why alter the English language (and piss on thousands of years of tradition) just to make a small group feel better? Give them civil rights. marriage is between a man and a woman. It always has been.

But I bet you think that is only because evil and stupid religion is being evil and stupid.

We are lucky to have smart people like you at the helm these days!

biccat wrote:
Is this the official moderator position?

Yes, currently.

Can we not argue that potatoes are like turnips?

In relevant threads yes you can, but not if you're throwing them out there as "chaff" to distract from the point at hand.

If so, will you take "official moderator notice" of the fact that miscegenation is not like gay marriage, and that it is an old argument that has been thrown out and out argued countless times?

No.

Please allow me to apologize. I thought you were asking for reference on my statement that the majority of people who ever lived through out time would agree with me.
you were asking for back up about there not being valid reason to change.

No worries, we're good matey .

I agree entirely with you that ( we'll shorthand it for ease, crass as that may sound, no offence intended) to those of the common faiths would, overall, be against such a change. Cast iron rock solid agreement.

But of course the majority of those people even would take hugely different views on a lot of things -- can't see some of them being over keen on 40K or internet fora in general to be honest -- from our world or time, so i don't really see exactly how that's relevant, per se.

The change to a historic institution appease a small minority is wrong

..well is that not a moral judgement ? Absurdity aside -- yeah yeah, there'll always be the odd or few £$%£"$ crazy or extremists demanding X/Y/Z which, of course shouldn't be catered to or can be ignored. Let's leave those aside.

That minority should be protected. They should have freedom to love who they want.

Agreed.

But why change marriage?

.. why not change marriage though ?

there is no valid reason that civil unions can not fit the bill for homosexual couples

I agree in principle here but as it is -- and please feel free to correct me here ( and again I'm sure this too might well vary from state to state/similar) despite this being largely the case this still isn't quite true in all areas. I believe that some areas such as adoption, err... medical treatment with regards to one spouse and, perhaps, even a few tax and/or will purposes there's still the odd, glaring, loophole.

Now if, as I think you're saying, these should be removed so a same sex couple would have 100% the same rights as different sex partners -- I'll even agree there could be no legal forcing of a church of X creed to wed such a couple on their premises here -- then yeah, I'd have no problem with leaving the definition as is. Because then it really is nothing mroe than a label or another word which could indeed be replaced ( and no doubt will be slang wise over time).

However --and this isn't directed at you personally -- it strikes me as if some of those who protest against the allowance of same sex marriages do so specifically to keep there being some degree, no matter how slight of ( perhaps even implied) superiority in the term. That i don't agree with and think should be.. well.... "confronted" is a tad aggressive and grandiose here but it'll have to do for now.

Could it be... the book of unicorns, the book of leprechauns? the book of chariots of fire racing from one side of a flat sky to the other? other imaginary friends?

No more of this please, make your point without being rude, comments like this do nothing to foster a debate or exchange of ideas.

reds8n wrote: Am I serious about you actually having some evidence for a statement with regards to whether or not there is a " valid reason for a change" in this situation ?

Yes. very.

Because I really don't see how you can justify that statement in way shape or form, so in future, if you can't actually back up a claim please don't make claims that are essentially unsupportable as evidence for a point that your making. The particular social conventions and attitudes of elsewhere and else when aren't really relevant to this debate in the way you're attempting to crowbar them in here as we're not talking about then, the fact that "now" is different from "then" is indeed a "valid reason" for such a definition to change.

Just as many, many definitions have changed throughout history. And will, one presumes, continue to change as time goes by.

Oh and "
Well, lets look just at Christendom. Since 400 AD I have all of Europe until about the 70s.
now lets look at Islam. Add in Judaism. Add Ancient Greece (which was fine with homosexuality, but still said marraige was man and woman). " is not, by a long shot " the vast majority of people who ever lived on this planet "

If it were, then pedophilia would be protected

No it wouldn't, as the law in this regards that is to do with the age of consent between individuals not sexual orientation. This is a very old argument that ahs been thrown out and out argued countless times. Please don't bring it up again.

This might help people, it's something we might institute on the board in the future.

Actually Red I think he's proffered evidence whereas you haven't to support alternate marriage constructs.

biccat wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Just saying, if I was making the law on something like this I'd damn well make sure every little detail was discussed, and the main issue itself even moreso.

Wouldn't it be worse if legislators weren't debating this?

Yes, it would be worse. Which is why the legislators are debating this.

The Iowa Supreme Court found in '08 (IIRC) that there was a right to gay marriage in the Iowa Constitution (9-0). The legislature had no say in the matter at the time.

The current group of majority-party legislators (and the governor) ran on amending the Iowa Constitution to overturn the ruling of the Supreme Court. Three of the justices were up for "recall" (in Iowa the Governor appoints Supreme Court justices, but every 5 years 3 of them have a mandatory "confidence" vote. A majority of votes cast on the issue must support the judge for him to stay in office. Before '10, no justice had ever been voted out of office in this election). All 3 of the justices were removed from office. The campaign to remove the justices was only about the decision on gay marriage.

I think it's pretty clear that there is not majority support for gay marriage in Iowa. Say what you want about gay marriage opponents, but they're taking the proper approach in this case. This has been one area that I have a lot of respect for opponents of gay marriage. They are willing to use the legislative process to achieve their goals, rather than the courts.

I am glad biccat is taking the heroic perspective that rights are granted to people by society. I am also sure he would have heroically stood against the vile tide of integration and advocated against the Brown decision. You sir are a hero and I wish people here could see that as well.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:[
Nice. I referenced history and you go off on an anti-religion rant. Again.. words have meaning. We should no go about changing meanings "just because". A child could look and see that a homosexual couple is different than a heterosexual couple. (Different does not mean less). Why change words to be mean something different? Why force millions of people to change their dictionary? Why alter the English language (and piss on thousands of years of tradition) just to make a small group feel better? Give them civil rights. marriage is between a man and a woman. It always has been.

But I bet you think that is only because evil and stupid religion is being evil and stupid.

We are lucky to have smart people like you at the helm these days!

It "always had been" applied to a sun revolving around us too. A child can also look at a couple of midgets or a couple of different skin colors and see that they are different. The point is, legally, the status should not matter. A couple is a couple. Defining Marriage as between a man and a women IS a religious thing. Who else has a problem with it? Irrational homophobes or people who have a religious bias as to the definition (the former is usually the latter too, I don't hear about many non-religious homophobic stances).

"evil and stupid" are not one definition either. "evil" is going out of your way to cause unnecessary harm. Does allowing a gay couple to marriage threaten the well being of a straight couple? no it doesn't. So there is no defensive excuse except defending their own right to be biased against homosexuals. That doesn't cut it. Therefore, restricting others for no purpose to your own well being is evil. Stupid.. well pages and pages can be written about that by people far more eloquent than me. We could start with witch burnings, human sacrifices, cubs fans, faith healers, holy wars, and go on for hours about baseless 'belief' taken as fact causing massive problems but its really up to each to define what is stupid. Personally, I think belief in unfounded rules by which to live because someone else wrote it down to be stupid. Someone else might think that me not fearing the repercussions of living in sin with my GF and burning for eternity is stupid of me.

biccat wrote:

reds8n wrote:No it wouldn't, as the law in this regards that is to do with the age of consent between individuals not sexual orientation. This is a very old argument that ahs been thrown out and out argued countless times. Please don't bring it up again.

Is this the official moderator position? Can we not argue that potatoes are like turnips?

If so, will you take "official moderator notice" of the fact that miscegenation is not like gay marriage, and that it is an old argument that has been thrown out and out argued countless times?

1. no. Strangely enough Dakka doesn't have amoderator policy on this.
2. Misceganation should only be typed while speaking with a bad Southern drawl ala O Brother Where Art Thou
3. Any further attempt to link the Greatness that is potatoes with the horror show of turnips may result in Frazzled getting a shovel, pair of pliers, and bozo the clown and finding whoever posts this heresy...

you people are making me post in OT. Stop it!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is the put the thread on notice that attacking people of religion because of your personal beliefs will result in warnings and termporary or permanent suspensions opf your account as needed. I warned everyone about this topic.

I think you are too sensitive to these attacks on people of religion.

I'm very religious and go to services regularly and participate in charity through my place of worship. My religious view and my democratic view on such matters sometimes differ. In such situations I try to be a human being and be righteous to my brothers and sisters in this world instead of imposing my religious beliefs on them.

People aren't "attacking religious people" here. People are attacking bigots who hide behind their religion as an excuse for their bigotry. My Jewish friends don't get angry at me for not keeping Kosher. Not because they aren't good Jews but because they're not jerks.

Thank you TheHammer. The attack isn't on people of religion, its about the institutionalition of religion in law, which obviously, is only something that certain people of religion would have a problem with. Many religious people are content to practice their religion without wanting to legislate it such that a group of people are restricted by another's religious beliefs. Holding back homosexual's right to be legally considered married the same as any other partnership is such a case of legislation overlap. That is the attack. Appologies if it was harsh and seemed directed at the religious people, it isn't people who practice a religion, it is the institutionalization of it. I'm just saddened that nobody takes my Unicorns as seriously. They only allow marriage between a woman and a frog prince in my faith.

yeenoghu wrote:Thank you TheHammer. The attack isn't on people of religion, its about the institutionalition of religion in law, which obviously, is only something that certain people of religion would have a problem with. Many religious people are content to practice their religion without wanting to legislate it such that a group of people are restricted by another's religious beliefs. Holding back homosexual's right to be legally considered married the same as any other partnership is such a case of legislation overlap. That is the attack. Appologies if it was harsh and seemed directed at the religious people, it isn't people who practice a religion, it is the institutionalization of it. I'm just saddened that nobody takes my Unicorns as seriously. They only allow marriage between a woman and a frog prince in my faith.

Marriage between woman and frog prince is sacred!

I think we know where this thread is going. Some people will hold an opposed view in either reserved or outspoken (and inherently flamebaiting, even if unintended) fashion while most of the forum members would be fine if it went through. There will be outrage, grr. I'm all for the gays getting marriaged, obviously

So it's okay for me to speak of miscegenation then? I'm southern

TheHammer wrote:I think you are too sensitive to these attacks on people of religion.

I'm very religious and go to services regularly and participate in charity through my place of worship. My religious view and my democratic view on such matters sometimes differ. In such situations I try to be a human being and be righteous to my brothers and sisters in this world instead of imposing my religious beliefs on them.

People aren't "attacking religious people" here. People are attacking bigots who hide behind their religion as an excuse for their bigotry. My Jewish friends don't get angry at me for not keeping Kosher. Not because they aren't good Jews but because they're not jerks.

Thank you for your opinion. We'll take your words under advisement and give them the full weight they deserve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yeenoghu wrote:Thank you TheHammer. The attack isn't on people of religion, its about the institutionalition of religion in law, which obviously, is only something that certain people of religion would have a problem with. Many religious people are content to practice their religion without wanting to legislate it such that a group of people are restricted by another's religious beliefs. Holding back homosexual's right to be legally considered married the same as any other partnership is such a case of legislation overlap. That is the attack. Appologies if it was harsh and seemed directed at the religious people, it isn't people who practice a religion, it is the institutionalization of it. I'm just saddened that nobody takes my Unicorns as seriously. They only allow marriage between a woman and a frog prince in my faith.

Evidently the warning didn't take. I'm sure eventually they will, or you will be gone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:So it's okay for me to speak of miscegenation then? I'm southern

Only if you look and speak like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3eTSbC3neA

Ancient Greeks and Romans found the basis for democracies and republics. They both also are a-okay with homosexuality. Both did define marriage as between a man and a woman. So the idea that if you oppose changing marriage you must be a bible-thumping tyrant is wrong. Nor must you hate homosexuals to want to preserve marriage. It is not one or the other.