Members Geoff Grace Posted May 16, 2008 Members Share Posted May 16, 2008 This is becoming the forum equivalent of a hamburger drill for poor rscornutt. Sorry about that, man. I've taken on the forum before -- it's work! Best, Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members franknputer Posted May 16, 2008 Members Share Posted May 16, 2008 Conversing would be so much easier if people would address what was actually said. From this it is quite clear you disagree with something, but as of yet, I have no clue what.frankenputer, the legal system assures us that, unless we are not of sound mind, when we name beneficiaries, executors, etc., it is binding. They have have the same rights. They have always had the same rights, even if the avenue of approach was a little different. Also, what institution would you be referring to? Just curious. Hospitals & Insurance companies, to start with. No one questions me if I want to put my wife's daughter - my stepdaughter - on my health insurance. And if she were in Intensive Care, they would not try to keep me out. Or, if I name my wife as my insurance beneficiary & my family questioned it, the court would likely support her position, being my wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rscornutt Posted May 16, 2008 Members Share Posted May 16, 2008 Sure.And at one point, slavery had always been legal, and we fixed that.And at one point, women weren't allowed to vote, and we fixed that.And at one point, people believed the Earth was flat, and the church declared you a heretic for claiming otherwise, and we fixed that.The problem with saying that something was "always" one way doesn't make that thing right. We are capable of recognizing our mistakes, and making moves to correct them. This is called progress. It's seeing something as an injustice, and taking steps to rectify the problem.Nothing about the legality of gay marriage will bring harm to people who aren't gay, and may bring great joy to those who are. Happiness is something the world -- everyone in the world -- should be able to experience, and I see nothing wrong with extending that basic human right to people of every nationality, religion, sexual orientation, race, and otherwise.Let people be happy. Nice try, but trying to tie my argument into the same moral abyss as slavery is not only a logical faux pas, but it shows a little cerebral laziness. Happiness is a good thing, but it is not always the best thing. I have also found out that when people start wanting something just so they can be happy, they are generally hiding something. Excuse me for mistrusting this approach. There is also a great deal of doubt on my part as to how you define natural human rights. I am more then willing to let people be happy, I just want to be darn sure I am not the one playing the fiddle while everything is burning. If this issue were about something other than homosexuality I would be just as suspicious of it. You have a judiciary that has overturned the will of the people, in a fair and open ballot, simply because they don't like it. Geoff, no problem for me. I know what I believe and why. I have been in the minority before, and it will happen again. I do not understand, though, how people can overlook a clear misuse of power by a branch of government to give "rights" where none have been missing - all in the name of happiness and fairness. It's all well and good because people agree with it but, when the other shoe drops and the same thing is done and they don't agree with it, it will be too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rscornutt Posted May 16, 2008 Members Share Posted May 16, 2008 Hospitals & Insurance companies, to start with. No one questions me if I want to put my wife's daughter - my stepdaughter - on my health insurance. And if she were in Intensive Care, they would not try to keep me out. Or, if I name my wife as my insurance beneficiary & my family questioned it, the court would likely support her position, being my wife. You ought to know that the largest insurance companies now insure homosexual couples, and did so before this. As for the other, a quick trip to a lawyer beforehand would settle this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted May 16, 2008 Members Share Posted May 16, 2008 Sure.And at one point, slavery had always been legal, and we fixed that.And at one point, women weren't allowed to vote, and we fixed that.And at one point, people believed the Earth was flat, and the church declared you a heretic for claiming otherwise, and we fixed that.The problem with saying that something was "always" one way doesn't make that thing right. We are capable of recognizing our mistakes, and making moves to correct them. This is called progress. It's seeing something as an injustice, and taking steps to rectify the problem.Nothing about the legality of gay marriage will bring harm to people who aren't gay, and may bring great joy to those who are. Happiness is something the world -- everyone in the world -- should be able to experience, and I see nothing wrong with extending that basic human right to people of every nationality, religion, sexual orientation, race, and otherwise.Let people be happy. Very good point. I might also point out that historically, marriage has been about chattel. It's been about ownership, not equality. Since this has been the "institution of marriage" for the majority of the time, should we revert to that? Or should we progress forward and try and gain equality for people who don't enjoy the same rights and equalities? And I really must ask...WHY is this a big deal for anyone? Almost all the people that I know really don't care because it doesn't threaten them. They feel, "Well, if gay people want this, great! Let them have it!!" Do I hang around really different people? Or is this a few people stoking the fires? Why is this a big deal? Isn't it a bigger deal that over two million people throughout the world are still slaves? Or that sex slavery is a multil-billion dollar industry that's growing by leaps and bounds, and is one of the largest trades, rivaling the drug trade? If this isn't sick {censored}, I don't know what is. With all this kind of stuff going on, it's amazing that people get their panties in a bunch over something like gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members FireWithin Posted May 16, 2008 Members Share Posted May 16, 2008 Well, I'm with him. Only difference is I know it's pointless to try and explain morals to liberals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeff da Weasel Posted May 16, 2008 Members Share Posted May 16, 2008 You have a judiciary that has overturned the will of the people, in a fair and open ballot, simply because they don't like it. Or because it was against the law, which is a job for courts to decide. Perhaps our Republican governor can explain this part for you: "I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling." There's a true conservative spirit. The government is not going to meddle in private lives, and it's going to respect the decision of the Court. Hey, there's a Republican value that I can actually get behind. So... let people be happy. Perhaps you can explain what your concerns are in allowing gays to be married so we can better understand why anyone should be opposed to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeff da Weasel Posted May 16, 2008 Members Share Posted May 16, 2008 Well, I'm with him. Only difference is I know it's pointless to try and explain morals to liberals. So, love is immoral? I don't really understand that part. If you moved to an alternate universe where you were in the minority for being attracted to the opposite sex, would the local morality cause you to feel okay about being romantically involved with a man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members FireWithin Posted May 16, 2008 Members Share Posted May 16, 2008 So, love is immoral? I don't really understand that part.If you moved to an alternate universe where you were in the minority for being attracted to the opposite sex, would the local morality cause you to feel okay about being romantically involved with a man? LOL! Exactly! You prove my point better than I ever could. lol, alternate universe - great point to make your stand on morals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted May 16, 2008 Members Share Posted May 16, 2008 Perhaps our Republican governor can explain this part for you: "I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling." There's a true conservative spirit. Where have I heard that before...??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeff da Weasel Posted May 16, 2008 Members Share Posted May 16, 2008 Despite your mirth, FireWithin, you missed the crucial word in my post: minority. I'm not here to preach to you about morals... you have yours, I have mine, it's fine. But the reason your version of morality seems valid to you is that most people are not gay. So in a place where most people were gay and you weren't, the local morality would be that being gay is right, and your heterosexuality would be condemned. So, I ask again: would that stop you from being heterosexual? If the church told you it was wrong, if the government said it was wrong: would you be romantically involved with a man? If the answer is "no", you have some thinking to do and some perspective to gain. Here's another hypothetical question: if Craig Anderton was gay, would it be morally okay for you to participate on this forum and take advice from him about audio matters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeff da Weasel Posted May 16, 2008 Members Share Posted May 16, 2008 Where have I heard that before...??? I stole it from you nearly word for word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted May 16, 2008 Members Share Posted May 16, 2008 Perhaps you can explain what your concerns are in allowing gays to be married so we can better understand why anyone should be opposed to this. No doubt the answers will be: "Because the institution of marriage is between a man and a woman." "Because this undermines the institution of marriage." "Because it's always been this way." There are two people at my work who are really upset about this. Because of course, they are debating this. It's a big deal to them. No one else cares. It doesn't affect anyone else. But for some reason, "angry white men" seem to get really upset about this (I'm joking about this, btw, based on our other thread - this ain't a swipe at angry people, white people, people who are men, or all three rolled in together). I asked the two upset people at my work this question: "Do any of you know any gay people?" They stared blankly. They said "No". "Then how does this affect you and your family?" "It undermines the institution of marriage." "How does this affect you and your family? Does this change anything in your family?" "No." And there you have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted May 16, 2008 Members Share Posted May 16, 2008 Well, I'm with him. Only difference is I know it's pointless to try and explain morals to liberals. Please stick to your points and stop the mud-slinging. I'm not who here is liberal, and quite frankly, I don't care. Please stick to the discussions at hand. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeff da Weasel Posted May 16, 2008 Members Share Posted May 16, 2008 I think that we should all grab some gay people and walk around, introducing them to people who fear them. LOOK OUT! I've got a gay guy here! Hide your children! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members amplayer Posted May 16, 2008 Members Share Posted May 16, 2008 Nice try, but trying to tie my argument into the same moral abyss as slavery is not only a logical faux pas, but it shows a little cerebral laziness.Happiness is a good thing, but it is not always the best thing. I have also found out that when people start wanting something just so they can be happy, they are generally hiding something. Excuse me for mistrusting this approach. There is also a great deal of doubt on my part as to how you define natural human rights.I am more then willing to let people be happy, I just want to be darn sure I am not the one playing the fiddle while everything is burning. If this issue were about something other than homosexuality I would be just as suspicious of it. You have a judiciary that has overturned the will of the people, in a fair and open ballot, simply because they don't like it. Geoff, no problem for me. I know what I believe and why. I have been in the minority before, and it will happen again. I do not understand, though, how people can overlook a clear misuse of power by a branch of government to give "rights" where none have been missing - all in the name of happiness and fairness. It's all well and good because people agree with it but, when the other shoe drops and the same thing is done and they don't agree with it, it will be too late. Bravo! You said exactly what I wanted to say, but you said it much better. I still can't see how the people can think that the courts MAKING laws is a good thing regardless of whether they agree with this particular decision. Laws are supposed to be made by Legislators in our system of government. Considering that laws are now being routinely made by the Judicial branch at State and Federal levels, it occurs to me that voting in the executive branch of your particular choice is all that matters since the courts have rendered the Legislative branch impotent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dreabfly Posted May 16, 2008 Members Share Posted May 16, 2008 You ought to know that the largest insurance companies now insure homosexual couples, and did so before this. As for the other, a quick trip to a lawyer beforehand would settle this. Actually - they don't. They only do that in domestic partnership states, which are few right now. Across a company, that right can also be revoked if you move into a different state that doesn't have domestic partnership rights - even if you're doing the same job for the same people. As for all the other legal rights we don't have (hospital visitation, property rights, citizenship) - a lawyer cannot grant any of those "rights." Hospital visitation, for example, is determined by the states views on familial relationship. As a domestic partner I can visit - but only in domestic partnership states. So I have to hope we don't get steamrolled by a truck on vacation in the midwest so I can choose what to do with my partner as she lays in a hospital bed away from home. I can't even move her if I decide it's not in her best interest to be there! I would agree that the argument over marriage and the whole man/woman thing is really a waste of time - I think the Fed should just make domestic partnership legal in all states - it would solve the whole debate and probably make everyone happy while we catch up to being an advanced civilization, like some of our Western neighbors. Good god - even Mexico with their network of intitutionalized corruption has gay marriage rights. What does that tell you? In states where domestic partnership has not been instituted, we can still be denied a lot of things. Only Massachusetts has a Health Care Proxy law allowing you to specifically designate your own proxy. I have been grateful to live in California where almost everyone I've worked for thought domestic partnership benefits are a no-brainer. I feel sorry for people in other states. When do the rest of us actually catch the F up???! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted May 16, 2008 Members Share Posted May 16, 2008 Quiznos or Subway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeff da Weasel Posted May 16, 2008 Members Share Posted May 16, 2008 Mac or PC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted May 16, 2008 Members Share Posted May 16, 2008 Robert Horry: Cheap Shot Bob or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members amplayer Posted May 16, 2008 Members Share Posted May 16, 2008 I think that we should all grab some gay people and walk around, introducing them to people who fear them. LOOK OUT! I've got a gay guy here! Hide your children! Sarcasm aside, it is naive to think the acceptance of homosexuality has no effect on families. Did you ever have to answer the question posed from your 5 year old child when your child asks, "Daddy, why does that man's pants have a big hole in the butt"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted May 16, 2008 Members Share Posted May 16, 2008 Is this a question that comes up a lot in your family? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted May 16, 2008 Members Share Posted May 16, 2008 And does this have *anything* to do with gay marriage being legalized? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted May 16, 2008 Members Share Posted May 16, 2008 If a woman is hanging out of her dress, does this mean that heterosexuality has a negative impact on families? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted May 16, 2008 Members Share Posted May 16, 2008 ...and therefore, maybe we should ban heterosexual marriages? Just trying to apply the same logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.