![]() |
|
Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 |
erika
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
|
9th, there is NO way at ALL in which forbidding gays to marry is not sexism and homophobia. It is discrimination, plain and simple. Seperate but equal is not going to cut it. I will settle for nothing short of full legal equality and cessation of discrimination based on gender.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Not Suspicious, Merely Canadian
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,774
|
It is the case that any adult can draw up a health care proxy document (sample forms available free on the 'net; no need for 'enough money for legal fees') and name whomever they wish as their medical decisions proxy should they be incapacitated. These documents are honored by medical personnel. Anyone can be named - your neighbor, your friend, your partner. The 'google' reference is simply wrong, unless filling in a couple of names on a form is regarded as exceptionally 'difficult'.
I question many of the other 'difficult of impossible' items on that list, too. Joint adoption? It's been happening. Name change? Anyone can change his or her name for any reason. The list has been compiled by people who have a clear bias, and it isn't entirely accurate. The other thing I question is the bizarre wholesale feeding frenzy taking place on a forum member who a) disagrees with those who happen to be frequenting the thread and b) has the temerity to say so. So he makes an argument you don't like or agree with. Isn't this a discussion forum? Or is it really just a mutual admiration society where no one is allowed to disagree? I was told this was an interesting place full of different opinions and ideas, but what I see is a single, very narrow perspective on politics, morality, ethical issues, and religion. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to the prevailing point of view is personally attacked, insulted directly and by insinuation, and driven away (proudly) by the very angry regulars. If disagreement on an ethical or political issue makes you foam at the mouth, shouldn't you question yourself? Or is forced groupthink the true agenda? Or is this just a forum for returning to the schoolyard - oh, wait - some members did that explicitly, didn't they? Some of the same members who also have imperfect spelling? I just moved back from Canada, where there was and continues to be a lot of discussion about gay marriage. There was some very good debate, and people who disagreed could agree to disagree. I thought that might be the case here. I can see that most frequent posters regard themselves as extremely broad-minded and tolerant. But if only one opinion is tolerated, that's about as provincial as it gets. Why isn't anyone here permitted to disagree with changing the definition of marriage? (Some black leaders and black groups have gone on record against gay marriage, and against the idea that it's a civil right. Why not discuss why they took that position?) Why don't we question the existence of 'diversity' and 'tolerance' programs? Aren't they an artificial imposition of someone's principles on everyone else? Does anyone here feel nervous about being 'reeducated' until our views match the prescribed politically correct one? I don't want to debate any of these topics here, because instead of logical discussion/argument there will only be ad hominem attacks and spurious accusations. From here on I think I'll just lurk on the borders of Orwell-land.
__________________
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. - Ghandi ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
Quote:
I also think it's human nature to defend your thoughts/feelings, even if someone posts a logical argument you haven't thought of, because to accept their argument would be admitting you hadn't been smart enough to think it through, hadn't prepared properly. That's a shame because it makes posting a risk in self esteem and social (online) standing, rather than casual conversation that can bring lots of views and opinions to light. That said, I know I'm as guilty as anyone in arguing points aggressively. I try to stick to the issues but....sometimes I forget my original signature, "Don't make it personal, don't take it personal". ![]() orthodoc, we haven't achieved nirvana here yet, but I haven't found any place better, have you?
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | ||
I think this line's mostly filler.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
_________________ |...............| We live in the nick of times. | Len 17, Wid 3 | |_______________| [pics] |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |||
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
You don't like it and think I am wrong, show me where and precisely how with logic and reason. Sounds to me like you just like and underdog... been waiting for this typical syndrome. No one says this of me and my stance on guns... funny that, huh? Quote:
Just like I know white kids that call each other "my nigger" now. It is not harmful. It takes the that term's ability to do harm away. It is a good thing. Only older gays dislike it, as far as I have seen. It used to drive me nuts until I realized it was not just a local thing because my wife used it... I'm old. Quote:
It is not an extra right... it is a human right & we are violating it. Last edited by rkzenrage; 11-30-2006 at 11:29 AM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | ||||
Bioengineer and aspiring lawer
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 872
|
Ibram, for the n'th time would you explain how this is sexism? Gay is not a gender. Also, you absolutely cannot remove love from the equation, that's all this is based on. A gay man wants to marry another man because of love (I'm assuming for the sake of argument), otherwise he is free to marry a woman. With love removed it disentigrates into "I wanna do this!", which isn't a valid reason for anything more important than a late night snack. I want some more arguments from Ibram that don't boil down to either "It's sexism!"(unproven) or "It's just WRONG not to!"(is that the best you can do?).
Lovely little rant about my being unAmerican there tw, so now you think you are right because you label your opponet as freedom hating and unAmerican? Readers would do well to remember how fast he was to resort to smear tactics and challenges of Americanism once responded to. His other key blunder is that his entire post is hinged on his statement that he is right. Quote:
Quote:
![]() ![]() Quote:
Quote:
All you did in that entire post was restate your unsupported opinion over and over again while challenging my worth as an American. I'll let people judge for themselves how this reflects on your ability to debate an issue. Ok, a breather, then on to the next batch of responses...
__________________
The most valuable renewable resource is stupidity. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
erika
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
|
Quote:
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | ||||
Bioengineer and aspiring lawer
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 872
|
Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I am a Libertarian at heart, I am, but I am not stupid enough to pretend I live an a libertarian society. For example, I'd love to see a world in which everyone is responsible for themselves and we don't need a welfare system, but I certainly wouldn't vote for a measure to eliminate welfare from our current system. And for the last time, love is NOT a human right.
__________________
The most valuable renewable resource is stupidity. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |
Bioengineer and aspiring lawer
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 872
|
Quote:
__________________
The most valuable renewable resource is stupidity. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
erika
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
|
So wait, we can discuss gay marriage, but if someone disagrees with us we arent allowed to discuss it with THEM? Okay, some people ARE attacking him, but as far as I can tell, the majority of posters are simply arguing and discussing the fact that his position is unacceptably discriminatory and homophobic.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
trying hard to be a better person
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 16,493
|
I haven't attacked the poster in any way, but 9th continually ignores my posts. The only ones he seems to address are the ones which he finds insulting.
__________________
Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
WTF with this permission to disagree crap? Most posters are asking 9th to defend his viewpoint, not demanding that he not state it or even that he change it. Nobody has demanded that he leave and I would expect that if polled, 100% would demand that he stay.
There are plenty of minority viewpoints here and being a long-termer means you've lived through having the minority view a couple of times. It's hard, you're actually asked to defend yourself. And if you can't defend yourself, people don't take you seriously. (While if you do, even those that disagree will respect you.) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | ||
Snowflake
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Dystopia
Posts: 13,136
|
Quote:
Quote:
If we follow, to it's logical conclusion, your proposal that no human emotions be considered in the crafting of our laws, then the world would be a very different place. That simply isn't realistic, and it doesn't stand to reason that a society of organisms with biological mechanisms that produce emotions would govern themselves in a sort of theoretical vacuum where thses emotions don't exist. That very idea simply represents a different kind of idealism. Pragmatism has to follow it's own rules, or it risks becoming a parody of itself.
__________________
****************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
erika
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
|
Now, I will say that at this point, I don't respect 9th, or at least his views on this because I find being a homophobe to be on par with being in the KKK or being a neo-nazi.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|