Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Sex before jobs
New York State under the liberal stewardship of Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo seems poised to become the sixth and largest state in the Union to legalize same-sex marriage. Some key Repubs in the State Senate have shifted position and so it's closer to becoming a reality but I hearken back to Michael Kinsley's position of not too long ago that maybe it would be a good deal for the government to not get involved in the marriage business on any level hetero or homo. So WHY do you need the government to recognize and validate your special relationships anyway? Is this the time to push for radical social change? Aren't jobs and the economy more important and who has time to worry about this stuff in this day and age? Last time I brought up the Kinsley Proposal folks seemed to miss the point but it's a good time to revisit it. Couple gay jokes: when Liberace died they scattered his ashes in San Francisco Bay and killed all the blowfish. Bunch of gay men in a pool and some white thing comes floating by and one guy goes "ok who farted?" Not too long ago I lamented the fact that we have another Cuomo in office and it won't be long before we revisit the Social Issues annoying as that is and I just think Kinsley's idea makes alot of sense. Just take this stuff off the table:)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We Talked about this before and it Seems to me that most everyone who Commented agreed with you.
ReplyDeleteIf homosexuals had equal rights and recognition for their relationships this wouldn't be on the table.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you don't think it's an economic issue.. it is.
I am not Opposed to Equal Rights. I'm just Opposed to Calling it Marriage, rather than a Civil Union. I also Agree with Equal Rights Economically, but why is it Necessary to also have "Recognition", which is Similar to Approval? Why does it Matter? I do not Approve, nor Encourage this Life Style. If they want to do it, Fine, but I should not be Required to Sanction it and Give my Stamp of Approval and that is Basically what Calling it Marriage does.
ReplyDeletePersonally I think ALL unions homosexual or straight should be required to be done by a JOP to obtain legal status.
ReplyDelete'Marriage' is a religious institution that was given legal status, and that's where the problem starts.
If EVERYONE is required to have a LEGAL union in the courts we can relegate the 'marriage' to the church as an option for those who would like to have a religious ceremony.
And 'recognizing' something in a legal sense means not only acknowledging it exists but also giving it legal validity, Lista. Kind of how we 'recognize' embassies in other countries-or not, if the embassy is from a disputed government or if we're applying sanctions. It's more of a legal term.
By requiring EVERYONE, in order to validate and legalize their union, to have a legal court-based ceremony, we can eliminate the whole issue of people trying to impose their personal religious beliefs and definitions onto others with the force of law. Afterwards, you can feel free to go to the church of your choice and have someone say a Paternoster or sacrifice a chicken to Los Santos Muertos or do whatever kind of religious invocation or ceremony that your particular beliefs dictate. But in order for that 'marriage' to be LEGALLY RECOGNIZED (there's that word again) there should be a civil court based component. Once again religion preempts equality in legal arenas in our country, and that's just flat wrong, regardless of what anyone has to say about it.
I'm with Z. Why does anyone need to have their relationship validated with the stamp of the state.
ReplyDeleteMarriage is a union; a bond between things. Simply because a couple dudes writing a dictionary decided to apply it towards one man and one woman doesn't change that fact.
Satyavati,
ReplyDeleteYou see, this is just a Repeat of an Earlier discussion and what I Remember is that we were all basically saying the same thing, just as once again, I am Agreeing with you in that Marriage should Remain a Religious Institution and not a Legal One, though I do not Think that any Lengthy Second "Ceremony" Before the Justice of the Peace should be Necessary. The Signing of a Document is Usually all that is Necessary Legally.
Contracts are "Recognized" in the the Legal Sense, Satyavati, and that is all that a Legal Union Needs to be. If the Contract desired is Similar to that of Marriage, then so be it and if it Includes a Legal Status Similar to Marriage, then that's Ok too. Just don't call it Marriage. Marriage is Sacred and Religious.
To Force a Second "Ceremony" on those who do not Want it, though, would be Excessive. Signing a Contract before the JOP Makes more Sense on a Purely Legal Basis. This would be a Contract Between Each Other and Also Between the Couple and the State, which the State would Honor as Long as the Two Continue to be "Legally United".
Soap,
There are Certain Legal Privileges that are Given to Family Units; Tax Right Offs, Visitation at Hospitals, Legal Rights During a Devorce, etc. To not Give Legal Recognition to Marriage, there is no Recognition of Family either, yet the Family is the Main Social Institution that Gives Stability to Society.
Marriage has always been a Religious Word, Soap, and Changing that is a Way Bigger Deal than you are Acknowledging. You are Totally Side Stepping what other People Value and being Disrespectful.
Remove the tax issue from marriage by granting no special privileges to married couples!
ReplyDeleteYou value what the fuck it is you want to value and we'll value what the fuck it is we want to value.
When your values are imposed upon me then I don't think you can claim the high ground on disrespect.
When you Force the Redefinition of a Word, Soap, you are Forcing your Values on the Rest of the Public. The Original Definition, that is the Original Dictionary Definition, is what should Remain.
ReplyDeleteThose who Define Marriage as a Union between a Man and a Woman are just Trying to Preserve what they already Possess. Those who Chose to Change it are the ones who are Imposing their Values on Others. Words should not be Changed to Satisfy the Political Whims of Special Interest Groups.
The Original Definition is that which was it was at the Time in which the Constitution was Written.
soap: "You value what the fuck it is you want to value and we'll value what the fuck it is we want to value."
ReplyDeleteHe chuckles remembering an amusing story from his work days. We had a new dept. manager by the name of Juan, young guy. Anyway none too popular and so one day the head boss walks into the kitchen and says to the Croation woman "if you don't like fucking Juan there's the door." Open to interpretation: did he mean if you don't like Juan or if you don't like fucking him?
Given that hatchet job I'd go with the latter. If it was intended the other way they should have moved fucking just prior to door.
ReplyDeleteWTF ever, Lista.
ReplyDelete@Saty, WTF ever indeed.
ReplyDelete@Lista, isten and learn:
"Those who Define Marriage as a Union between a Man and a Woman are just Trying to Preserve what they already Possess."
"What they already possess" (that is their bond with their spouse) doesn't suddenly disappear the moment same sex couples begin to wed.
"Those who Chose to Change it are the ones who are Imposing their Values on Others."
As I previously stated quite succinctly "You value what the fuck it is you want to value and we'll value what the fuck it is we want to value." This is to say that if your values; your morals dictate that same sex marriage is invalid, unacceptable, a sin, etc. then you raise your children teaching them such. You continue living in accordance to your values and your moral code of ethics. And, so long as in doing so you do not lay your hands upon another nor use force, coercion, or intimidation against another then do as ye will.
However, that isn't what it is you want to do. What you want to do and what it is you are advocating is the exact opposite. What you are seeking to do Lista is to use the force of the state (government) to see to it that the GBLT community does not have free will; that they cannot have and exercise their set of values and morals. The GBLT community isn't forcing you nor are they coercing you into accepting their lifestyle unless you believe in guilt by mere association. The president bombs civilians in Libya and abroad. I don't accept this in much the same manner that you don't have to accept that a same sex marriage is really marriage according to your values and morals.
The state, to say it even ought to exist period, is supposed to secure individual freedom and individual liberty not stifle it.
One day when you quit being such a statist you might realize it.
"Words should not be Changed to Satisfy the Political Whims of Special Interest Groups."
Oh? Ya mean sorta like evangelicals and Christian conservatives that like the government to promulgate and enforce a union between strictly heterosexuals rather than a union between individuals?
"The Original Definition is that which was it was at the Time in which the Constitution was Written."
That you'd try to draw a parallel between a definition of marriage and the Constitution (which makes no mention of marriage) shows precisely how absolutely clueless you are about the latter.
I agree with Lista here. When you legalize something like with abortion that clearly implies moral approval and gay marriage is no different. I see it another way soap, the call for gay marriage is a call for bigger government since as Kinsley would have it the government shouldn't be involved in matters of sexuality at all. What about religion and religious liberty and conscience clauses? Will churches and religious institutions be penalized (if I'm entendre-ing here I can't help it) if they refuse to perform the ceremony or some banquet hall does not want to cater the event? Also with the economy of upstate New York really ailing why is this even a priority in this state right now? It's all about politicizing sexuality and once you open the door to gay marriage you then cannot logically deny a brother and sister from marrying.
ReplyDeleteThe GBLT, hold the mayo please!!
ReplyDelete"It's all about politicizing sexuality and once you open the door to gay marriage you then cannot logically deny a brother and sister from marrying."
ReplyDeleteNor should you.
Gee, you Guys! We are Talking about the Definition of a Word here. This is NOT an Issue of Rights. Rights can be Protected through Civil Unions. I just don't Understand why Changing the Definition of a Word is so Important to Gay People. Why does it have to be Marriage and not Civil Unions? I Thought I had Satyavati Agreeing with me on this. What Happened?
ReplyDeleteThe Reason Why Changing a Definition of the Word Marriage is Forcing One's Values on the Public is because it is Forcing the Acceptance of a Life Style. The Gays do not just Want Equal Rights and Legal Recognition. They want the State's "Seal of Approval".
Equal Rights can be Giving within the Context of Civil Unions and Legal Recognition can be Given within the same Context. Calling it Marriage, though, is "a Seal of Approval" to a Controversial Life Style and such should not be Granted.
Again, I say, this has Nothing to do with Rights and Nothing to do with Legal Recognition. Both can be Granted in the Context of Civil Unions.
When a Word, such as Marriage, is Changed, Something that is Sacred is Devalued and that which is Valued by those who Value it is Taken Away from them.
Satyavati,
The Statement "WTF ever" is a Statement of Disregard for what I Value.
Soap,
"'What they already possess' (that is their bond with their spouse) doesn't suddenly disappear the moment same sex couples begin to wed."
If "What" (Homosexuals) "already Posses (that is their bond with their" Partner) was all that Matters, they would not Care rather it was Called a Civil Union or a Marriage. Why are they Allowed to Care what it is Called and we are not.
This is NOT an Issue of Free Will, Freedom or Liberty, Soap, it has to do with the Definition of a Word and what a Union between two People should be Called, not Whether or not they are Allowed to Form such a Union. If a Church Wants to Call these Unions Marriages, so be it, but the State should not.
So I guess what I am saying is that I Agree with both of you Guys that the State should Stay Out of it, especially when it is Called Marriage. Civil Unions is a much Better set of Words when it Comes to the Legal Side of things.
Calling Gay Unions Marriage is a Form of Acceptance and Endorsement and it is a Form of Acceptance and Endorsement that should not be Offered by the Government, for just as Z-man said, "that clearly implies moral approval".
ReplyDeleteThis is also a Cultural Issue, for whenever Words are Changed, this has an Effect on the Culture.
This is also NOT a Statist Issue, Soap. To say that the State should Stay Out of this and not Call it Marriage is just the Opposite.
Evangelical Christians are not the Ones Desiring to Change the Definition of a Word.
"that’s like the government to promulgate and enforce a union between strictly heterosexuals rather than a union between individuals?"
The Word we are Discussing is NOT "Union", Soap, but "Marriage". You are Exaggerating and Over Reacting to what I am Saying.
If the Word Marriage is not in the Constitution, then Perhaps they should Stay Out of it just as we have been Discussing and Allow the Legal Part of it to be something Separate.
I agree with what Z-Man said.
Soap,
"Nor should you."
What Z is saying when he speaks of Refusal to Preform a Ceremony or Cater an Event, Soap, is that People should not be FORCED to Accept, Approve and Participate in that which they do not Approve of. What you Think People Should or Shouldn’t Do is Irrelevant, unless of Course you don’t Mind Pushing your Values and Beliefs on Others.
I've Never Said it Quite this Way before, but you know, even Tolerance can not be Forced. Love and Hate can not be Legislated. We are Allowed to Accept and Reject what we choose to and that's just the way it is. When that Ceases to be True, we are no Longer Free.
When it comes to soap he has basically one take on everything.
ReplyDeleteZ,
ReplyDeleteActually what I have been Pointing Out is the Hypocrisy. Soap Talks about Imposing One's Own Values on Others and yet it is the Gays who are Imposing a Change. Straights just want things Left Alone as they already are. Gays want to Force our Acceptance and Approval.
Another Hypocrisy is that Gays are Allowed to Care about the Definition of a Word, but Straights are not.
A Third Example of Hypocrisy is the Accusation of Statism, when, In Fact, the One who is Imposing a Change in a Definition of a Word is the Statist. This Action Adds to the Government, not lessens it.
And Those who Support Gay "Marriage", are Continually Changing the Subject from the Definition of Words to a Discussion of Rights and Freedoms, yet that is an Entirely Different Issue that Can be Dealt with through the Means of Civil Unions.
Actually, it doesn't add to the government if you advocate just as I do to get the government out of the marriage debate altogether.
ReplyDeleteStatists, of which you are one in this regard Lista, endeavor to use government as a tool in imposing morality rather than a tool in securing freedom and liberty for individuals to dictate their own morality.
Lista: "Gays want to Force our Acceptance and Approval."
ReplyDeleteI do believe this to be the case. If it weren't you wouldn't hear the word "homophobia" so much.
"This Action Adds to the Government, not lessens it."
Especially when you consider the churches and religious institutions who would refuse to perform the ceremony. If it's that hardcore of a right wouldn't they have to be punished? You know soap the issue ain't as clear cut as gays would have it.
soap: "Actually it doesn't add to the government if you advocate just as I do to get the government out of the marriage debate altogether."
ReplyDeleteWhich is exactly what Michael Kinsley has proposed but he seems to be the only one proposing it. Think about it, if the government never recognized and validated hetero marriage in the first place it would be virtually impossible to have a gay marriage debate. It'd be off the table and we could concentrate on jobs and the economy and other mundane stuff.
Your Solution is Acceptable to me, Soap, yet for those who do Desire Legal Recognition, the Civil Union is a Good Way to go About it. I just Wanted to Add, though, that this does not have to Involve a Long Ceremony. Those who have Already had, or Plan to have, such a Ceremony in a Church should not be Required to do it Twice.
ReplyDeleteI guess the Part of it that is Legal is the "Marriage License" and I would not be Opposed to Changing the Name of this Legal Document to "a License of Civil Union", if such would Satisfy Folks Like you and Satyavati.
Soap,
ReplyDeleteAll I'm Talking About, Soap, is the Definition of a Word. You are Trying to Make this about Government and yet it is Actually about Language.
Liberals Keep Changing the Meaning of Words in Order to Push their Agenda and this is Highly Annoying.
As to Statism, you Consider anything Short of the Total and Complete Absence of Regulation Statism and if that is how you want to Define the Term, then I Guess I'm Guilty.
Z,
Yes, Isn't it just Like the Liberals to Accuse of Phobia and Fear when ever they Want to Force an Issue.
And Once Again, we all Appear to be Agreeing with Michael Kinsley, just as the Last Time that you Posted on this Subject.
Hey let's put this thing in reverse. Have the straights get civil unions instead of marriages and so everybody's happy.
ReplyDeleteHe's not the only one advocating getting the government out of marriage. Ron Paul has been saying it for 30+ years.
ReplyDeleteOk. Perhaps I Agree with Ron Paul of Something, yet there is Lot more that I do not Agree with him on.
ReplyDeleteThat Comment was for Soap. This one is for...
ReplyDeleteZ-Man,
The Marriage is a Sacred Religious Ceremony that those who Believe in should not be Deprived of, yet it is the Church that should have the Right to Call it Marriage, not the Government.
The Marriage License is the Part that is Legal. This is the Only Part of it that the Government should be Involved in and if it were to be Called a Civil Union License, so be it. I'm Ok with that, yet I also want the Right to get Married in a Church if the Pastor Agrees, of his Own Free Will, that the Union that I Seek is In Fact a Marriage.
I'm a Little Surprised I'm Saying that, yet it is the Best that I can Come Up with that is Fair to Everyone and yet does not Give a Governmental Stamp of Approval to Gay Marriage.
End the Wars and bring the troops home, End the Federal Reserve and worthless fiat currency that's lost over 90% of its purchasing power since 1913...
ReplyDeleteSeems pretty sensible to me.
Nobody's trying to deprive people from a church wedding. It's only the church wedding people who are somehow threatened by gay folks getting married. Because you see, when gay people get married, somehow, through some obscure osmotic process that only the church people recognize and understand, the entire structure of American Family Values is threatened. If gay people get married, straight folks' marriages are threatened and all of civilization is on the brink of utter collapse.
ReplyDeleteNow, I'm not exactly sure how two guys or two girls getting married could cause the downfall of American Civilization (which in many instances would be a damn good development), but those church folk have proven it (to themselves) without a shadow of a doubt.
For me personally I think my marriage is strong enough to withstand the onslaught of Bobby and Alex getting married in a joint double ceremony with Cindy and Jeannie, even if they moved in next door. I don't find a threat there that might affect me.
But like I said, the church folks have it down to a science and are positively sure that if two gay people get married the earth will split open and cause the ruin of everything we know as we know it.
Hale Bopp is coming back, too.
Satyavati,
ReplyDelete"Nobody's trying to deprive people from a church wedding."
I said that Only in Response to Z's Comment that seemed to be Implying that.
You Still don't seem to Get that this is about the Definition of a Word and the Increasing Acceptance of the Gay Life Style. As this Life Style becomes more and more Accepted, more People will be Experimenting with it, even though the Life Style is Less Healthy, in that there is a Higher Level of AIDs and the Average Life Span is Lower among Gay People, than the Rest of the Public.
Also, there is Evidence that when Sexual Sin of all Sorts, Including Homosexuality, Increases in a Society, this does Lead to Eventual Collapse. One Example is the Roman Empire. It's not Even Necessary to Understand the Reason Why, Only that a Correlation has been Observed.
When Traditional Family Values are Stressed, though, and the Family Unit is Strong, this Makes Entire Nations Stronger because the Family is the Foundation of all other Institutions. When Families are Strong, the People are Strong and when the People are Strong, so is the Nation.
The Effects on the Strength of a Nation, Satyavait, does not have to do with the Effects Specifically on People Like you, but on the Effects on the Over all Statistics within the Nation. You have to Think Broader than just yourself, Satyavati, if you want to Understand the Issue.
In Spite the Warning of Noah in relation to the Coming of a Great Flood, no one listened.
Lista,
ReplyDeleteWhat this boils down to are people who want to deny other people the freedoms that they themselves have, and who will concoct all kinds of arguments on all kinds of bases, like religion, health, American Family Values, statistics and everything else in order to justify denying other people those freedoms.
You want people to respect you and your disapproval of the lifestyle, and so you feel that the lifestyle doesn't deserve the same freedoms yours does.
That's the bottom line. Freedom is okay, as long as it's in line with what you think deserves that freedom. If you don't approve, then it should be pushed in a corner, hidden and basically for all intents and purposes made illegal.
I mean, that's what I'm seeing here. If someone agrees with you, then sure, we can defend their freedoms til the cows come home. But if someone doesn't agree with you, then it's perfectly okay to deny them the same freedoms you enjoy.
Love that last commentary Saty. Spot on.
ReplyDeleteNope, Not Spot on at all.
ReplyDeleteWhat this Boils Down to, Salyavati, is that this is about the Definition of a Word, not Freedom. Freedom can be Found within Civil Unions and not Only that, but in my Previous Comment, I even Stated that if a Minister Wants to Call it Marriage, Fine, but the Government shouldn't. This Statement is not One of Making Gay Marriage Illegal, Only of Depriving of Governmental Approval.
This is not about Freedom or what's Legal or not, Satyavati. This is about Legislating the Acceptance and Approval of a Behavior. The Approval of Gay Marriage is a Religious Matter and the Government has no Business being Involved in that.
There is nothing Wrong with my Argument. You just have Chosen to not Hear it. You can Call it Justification, rather an a Reason if you Like to, yet that is Based more on your Own Bias, than on Reality.
I'd Prefer not to get into another Circular Argument with you, Satyavati. We've both Said our Piece and there is no Need to Repeat any of the Same Arguments Over and Over Again.
I'm a Little Surprised at you, Soap, for not Seeing that I am Talking a lot Like a Libertarian on this Issue. Do you Honestly Believe that the Liberals should get their way in Legislating Acceptance and Approval and Forcing People to Participate in that which they do not Believe in.
ReplyDeleteShould the Government Actually Give the Seal of Approval to Gay Marriage by Calling it Marriage? Is that Really the Government's Role. If you Believe so, then you are more of a Liberal on this Issue, than a Libertarian.
Satyavati,
Another Thing, your Last Comment is just Full of Assumptions of Motives and there is No Way for you to Prove what you Assume to be True about People's Motives. I, for One, am in No Way Motivated by what you have Suggested and that will Remain True even if you Chose to Judge me and Believe Otherwise.
Holy shit you're funny Lista in your attempts to tell me about Libertarian philosophy.
ReplyDeleteSeriously...that's rich.....
Libertarian Philosophy is about not Pushing One's Believes on Others, nor Telling Others what they should or shouldn't Believe. How is Forcing someone to Accept Something that they do not Believe in in Line with Libertarian Thought? If I've Misrepresented Libertarianism, then you Better Explain to me how I have done so.
ReplyDeleteI must say it's difficult (nearly impossible really) to not get crass when speaking with you as you honestly you drive me fucking nuts.
ReplyDeleteLibertarian philosophy holds that to the extent that the state is to even exist at all, its primary obligation is to secure the blessings of liberty and individual freedom. The key word there is individual. When you believe in liberty and individual freedom, you believe in the concept wholeheartedly and accept with it that individuals have a right to their own set of morals and values.
Your constant protestations that somehow the GLBT community is "forcing" you into accepting them are without merit just as were the similar protestations that smokers "force" non-smokers to inhale their smoke.
If you don't approve of gay marriage or homosexuals or whatever then don't. The GLBT community has no claim; no control over your thought process.
Soap,
ReplyDelete"individuals have a right to their own set of morals and values."
Ok, then Christians have the Right to Believe that Homosexuality is Wrong and also to Refuse to Endorse it or Participate in it, therefore, no Minister should be Forced to Preform such a Marriage Ceremony, or Rent out a Hall to them Based on Anti-Discrimination Laws.
The Government also should not Endorse and Give Approval to something that is Religiously Controversial and this is what Calling Homosexual Civil Unions Marriage is. Once again, I say, if such is to be Done, it should be done by a Church, of the Churches Own Free Will, not by the Government.
Sorry that I Aggravate you so, Soap. That was not my Intent. It's just that since Marriage is a Religious Idea, the Government should not be Involved. I Thought we Agreed on that much.
" It's just that since Marriage is a Religious Idea, the Government should not be Involved. I Thought we Agreed on that much."
ReplyDeleteIndeed we do. The government shouldn't be involved in a whole bunch of stuff one of which is dictating that private churches and religious institutions have to accept and/or perform homosexual unions.
I believe in private property.
I see some freedom-of-association stuff here. Libertarians will often say discrimination against blacks should not be prohibited based on freedom-of-association and yet when it ocmes to gay marriage the argument seems to go the other way. In short in libertarian thought you can discriminate against African-Americans regarding employment but not with gays and gay marriage. You might forgive Lista and me for being confused.
ReplyDeleteAs a libertarian, I don't care who you discriminate against. It's your prerogative.
ReplyDeleteYou have to remember, government holds a legal monopoly on services and for this reason government cannot discriminate.
If you need a driver's license or a fishing license, there's only one government to get that at. As such you have no alternative option.
Simmilarly, government should not discriminate for marriage licenses and the distribution thereof based on race, gender or sexual preference. Lest it be forgotten, government again holds a monopoly on marriage licenses and the distribution thereof.
If we left this to private instutions (churches and the like) some churches and religious institutions maybe wouldn't perform services for gays or blacks or hispanics (a small percentage to be sure) a minority or a homosexual has a plethora of options to choose from.
There's only one government.
I mean seriously, Lista, you keep going on about the definition of a word and you somehow think that this isn't an attack on freedom. How can you call it 'equal rights' if you insist that it's not 'marriage'? You want YOUR definition of the word to stand according to YOUR beliefs, and you refuse to allow those you disagree with to have the same access to that word.
ReplyDeleteThis is basically a situation in which the Christian Right feels entitled to have their viewpoints and opinions sanctioned by government. This is why you keep going on that the 'government shouldn't call it marriage'. Why not? Because it doesn't agree with your personal viewpoints on the situation?
It's the equivalent of attempting to get the government to somehow validate your views by 'defining' a word according to 'your' definition.
And don't try to tell me that this has been the definition of marriage from time immemorial. Language is a living, evolving thing, and words change meaning over time, to the point that much of Shakespeare's language means something other that it does today, that Chaucer's English is even further removed, and why the KJV gets grossly misinterpreted when people don't understand that the words they used had different meanings at that time.
So like I said before, in the end this boils down to denying equality to a group that you disagree with. Oh, yeah, you can get together, but you can't call it marriage, because that would make you equal to me, and we can't have that. We can't legitimize your relationship by making it the same as mine or calling it the same as mine. As long as we force you to use a different term we can subtly emphasize the point that you're different, and not equal to us.
That's basically what you've got going on here, Lista, no matter how you try to rationalize, digress, or otherwise cover it up with lots of words.
@Saty:
ReplyDeleteOn that note, can you spare a fag?
;-)
That clear-cut Saty? Why do we have debates then?
ReplyDeletePeople will always have debates. Some people have them for fun (in like actual debate team debate type things I have been known to argue BOTH sides).. and then there's always going to be people who are just going to believe what they want to believe regardless.
ReplyDeleteBut words are powerful things, and by denying gay couples the word 'marriage' you are definitely putting out a message that they're NOT equal. It's a very subtle passive-aggressive way to put their relationships down.
Either you're equal or you're not. The law says equality. Then make it equal.
Homosexuality is not the Same as the Color of One's Skin. People can not Do anything about the Color of their Skin and the Scriptures do not say that to have Black Skin is a Sin. Racism is not a Judgment based on Sin or any Type of Behavior, but Simply on Skin Color. Even if there was at One Time a Bad Behavior, Racism is a Generalization the Assigns to the Rest of the Group the Sins of a Few that have Misbehaved in some Way.
ReplyDeleteI have No Problem with the Government Offering some Sort of a Union License to Everyone. I just don't Like that it is Called a "Marriage License" because Marriage is a Religious Word and the Government has no Business being involved in that which is Religious.
Satyavati,
"You keep going on that the 'government shouldn't call it marriage'. Why not?"
Because the Word has Religious Connotations and the Government is Supposed to Stay Out of Things that have to do with Religion.
The Word Marriage, Satyavati, is a Religious Word and Implies the Blessings Given by a Church. Churches should be the Ones that Give such a Blessing, not the Government. If there are Churches that will Extend that Blessing to Gays, then so be it, but the Government has no Business doing it.
"You refuse to allow those you disagree with to have the same access to that word."
If there Are Churches that will Extend that Blessing, then the Gays will have Equal Access to that Word, but you do not Want Equal Access to it, you Want it According to YOUR Beliefs and you want YOUR Viewpoint and Opinion Sanctioned by the Government and you want the Government to Validate YOUR Views by Defining a Words According to YOUR Definition, rather than Mine.
So you see, your Entire Comment is a Hypocrisy because you are Guilty of Absolutely Everything that you have Said. You are also Continually Assuming my Motives, yet you couldn't be more Off on your Assumptions.
ReplyDelete"And why the KJV gets grossly misinterpreted when people don't understand that the words they used had different meanings at that time."
Yes, and that is Why I Use the New American Standard when I Study. I'll Start Using it More on Line now too, now that I Realize that you do not have the same Irrational Preference for the KJV as many others do.
Whenever you Call Reasons, Excuses and Arguments, Rationalizations, Satyavati, you are doing nothing more than Saying that I Don't Agree, while Subtly Accusing the Person of Something Less than an Argument just because you do not Agree with the Argument, or Put Another way this is a "subtle, passive-aggressive way to put" (an Argument) "down.". This Proves Nothing, though, other then the Fact that you Disagree.
The Mention of Digression and Cover Ups are Assumptions and Accusations of Motive which is your Absolute Favorite Thing to do when you "Argue".
"by denying gay couples the word 'marriage' you are definitely putting out a message that they're NOT equal. It's a very subtle passive-aggressive way to put their relationships down."
The Bible Calls Homosexuality a Sin, Satyavati, so your Issue is with God, not with His People, and to Assign any Motive to Christians Other than a Desire to Follow what the Bible Says is an Accusation and Judgment, not an Argument and anyway if the Constitution Says that the Government should Stay Out of Religious Affairs then any Argument Based on that is Simply that. Arguments are either Rational or they are not and Emotions and Motives are Irrelevant.
To Make it Equal, I am Willing to Change the Words on my Own Marriage License to "License of Civil Union". Let My Marriage be a Marriage to those in the Church and to God and a Civil Union to those within the Government. That doesn't bother me none. Nor should it bother you.
As to that KJV Issue, the Original Language was Actually Hebrew and Greek and that is where the Authority Lies when Interpreting Scripture.
ReplyDeleteIt is perfectly fine, Lista, for you to disagree or agree with anything you like.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the fact that you disagree with homosexuality for any reason, religious or otherwise, is not grounds for the United States of America to refuse to call a homosexual marriage a marriage.
Calling it marriage doesn't invalidate the fact that you and God and your peers at church feel it's a sin. It's simply recognizing that there is equality across the board.
It's a matter of verbage, as you have pointed out. By refusing to allow gay couples the same language as yours, it denies full equality.
If there is to be equality, there should be equality, not one type of language for one group and another type of language for another group. A group of people who disapprove of another group often tend to attempt to define a group with particular words that deny equality.
For example, many people have referred to my religion, Gaudiya Vaisnavism, as a 'cult'. The word 'cult', in their definition, has negative connotations and implies that Gaudiya Vaisnavism is not a legitimate religion or does not deserve the same recognition as a religion as other groups do. The denial of the word 'religion' to describe my belief system is a tacit indication that this belief system is not on an equal level with the belief systems of the people who use that word.
You always like to accuse me of assuming your motives, Lista, but in reality I don't particularly care what your motives are. This argument doesn't have to go that deep. As you have insisted, this is about the word marriage and its definition.
Your personal religious beliefs regarding the word marriage are, in a legal context, irrelevant. The government has no duty to support a particular religious group's definition of the word marriage and actually has no business attempting to do so. The root of the matter becomes establishing equality across the board, and what that means is that words, titles and definitions are standardized, not legislated according to the beliefs of one particular group (regardless of how passionate they are about it or how insistently they invoke the Bible, which is in no way, shape or form recognized as an authority by all people). In legal terms, being equal has to be equal, and that means in all ways.
And Lista: the Hebrew and Greek of the first century are just as different from modern Hebrew and Greek as English is today compared to the Middle Ages. The point is that language is continually evolving, and words in many cases become obsolete or replaced with differing definitions. That was the point that was being made: that language is living, and definitions and usages are continually changing.
Saty what if suddenly tomorrow there was an incest lobby (there already is but it's small) and then the years go by and this growing and politically influential incest lobby says a brother and sister should be able to marry each other and they use all your arguments as stated above as applied to gay marriage, where do you come down on this?
ReplyDeleteYou should use the powers of persuasion to enlighten them as to why this is disgusting but assuming they are of sound mind (questionable I know given they wanna shack up w/ each other but you get my drift) then let them marry. What the hell skin is it off anyone's ass?
ReplyDeleteI think from a legal standpoint I have to go with soap. It's not about anyone's personal feelings on the matter, it's about legalities. This is an idea that we come back to again and again; that the law is the law and it's not about how I feel personally or how any person feels personally about it. Just because I don't approve of something on a personal level does not mean that it necessarily has to be illegal or legislated against.
ReplyDeletePoligamy too. If the individuals in agreement are keen on it then have at it.
ReplyDeletePeople cannot marry animals or robots and the like for the simple fact that an animal cannot consent to having a relationship with you on that sort of level. If you want to marry someone or live in a domestic sort of partnership with someone then ya gotta find a human being. If you wanna run with the wolves then go run with the wolves.
This is known as the Quirk, that point in every argument or stance or position if logically stretched and then stretched some more gets into Icky Territory where the person is logically compelled to defend the Weird. In this case it's incest and I say beware the Quirk, it exists and be aware of it before you run with and celebrate a position. It's like if someone likes to eat a fetus how can you outlaw it if abortion is legal and the fetus has the legal and moral status of Hamburger Helper? A bizarre example to be sure but anytime you enter into debate with Me I'ma gonna quirk you.
ReplyDeleteQuirk me all you want. Whereas your positions will move in whichever direction the wind blows, mine move in a single direction. It's called intellectual consistency.
ReplyDeleteSatyavati,
ReplyDelete"The fact that you disagree with homosexuality for any reason, religious or otherwise, is not grounds for the United States of America to refuse to call a homosexual marriage a marriage."
You are Still not Hearing me, Satyavati, I did not just say don't call Homosexual Marriage a Marriage. I Said that the Government should not Call ANY Marriage a Marriage. Why? Because Marriage is a Religious Word. To not Call ANY Marriage a Marriage, in no way Singles Out Homosexuals Apart from everyone else.
The Government should not Take Sides, Satyavati. When they Acknowledge Heterosexuals and not Gays, they are Taking Sides with the Christians in Agreeing that Homosexual Unions are not Marriage and when they Acknowledge Both, they are Taking Sides with the Homosexuals and saying that Homosexual Unions are Marriages. If they ACKNOWLEDGE NO ONE, then they are not Involved and that is the Appropriate Solution.
"By refusing to allow gay couples the same language as yours, it denies full equality."
As Long as there are Churches Out there that are Willing to Call these Unions Marriage, you are not Denied the Same Language.
Not all Behaviors are Equal, Satyavati. This Reality can be Shown Rather Easily by the Fact that Some Behaviors Actually Result in Imprisonment. Equality of People is One Thing, but what you Seek is Equal Treatment of Behavior. That's not the Same Thing.
I too have Heard your Religion Called a Cult. The Question is rather or not your Religion Contains the Elements that are Implied by that Word. I've Never Personally Looked into it, so I do not Know the Answer to that, yet Every Word has a Definition and if a Group does of does not Fit that Definition is the Real Issue, not the Motives of those who Use a Word.
You are Far too Focused on Motives, Satyavati, and not on rather or not Definitions Match Realities. If they do, they do, and if they don't, they don't, but I am no Longer Impressed with your Continuous Focus on Motives and not on a Quest for what Constitutes Actual Real Reality.
"The government has no duty to support a particular religious group's definition of the word marriage and actually has no business attempting to do so."
Yes, and that is why they should not Support, nor show Preference to, the Definition of Marriage of the Religious Groups that Support Gay Marriage, for they have no Duty to Support your Idea Either.
They Should Stay Out of it. Stay Out of it. Stay Out of it. Staying Out of it is what my Argument Suggests, not yours. Your Argument Suggests that they should Accept YOUR Definition of Marriage. Your Argument Suggests that the Government should "Legislate According to the Beliefs of One Particular Group", that is Your Group, not Mine.
ReplyDeleteI am the One who has Presented the "Stay Out of it" Point of View. Yours does not. It's Crazy that you can not see that. It's Crazy that you Think that your Point of View is about Equality of Religious Points of View and that you do not see that Instead it Sanctions the Point of View of those who Support Gay Marriage.
When People Study the Bible, Satyavati, they Study Ancient Hebrew and Greek as well as Ancient Jewish Culture in Order to Best Understand what was Originally Meant by those who Wrote the Scriptures.
The Continual Changing of Language, Satyavati, Creates Confusion. It is a Negative, not a Positive, and should be Treated as such. Those who do not Care about this, do not Care rather or not Clarity and Truth rule over Confusion. In short, they do not Care about Truth.
Interesting Question, Z.
Soap,
There is Evidence that the Acceptance of Homosexuality, as well as other Forms of Sexual Sins, is Destructive to Societies. That is Skin off of Everyone's...Well you Know.
Satyavati,
Even to say that this is just an Issue about Feelings is an Accusation and Assumption of Motive. My Argument does not Make Gay Marriage Illegal. This is not About your Feelings in Relation to my Take on it Either, for if the Majority Believes the Way I do, that will be the Law and your Feelings on the Matter will be Irrelevant.
Lista
ReplyDeleteI've reached the WTFEver stage again.
This has reached absurdity. The point at which it reached it is here:
The Continual Changing of Language, Satyavati, Creates Confusion. It is a Negative, not a Positive, and should be Treated as such. Those who do not Care about this, do not Care rather or not Clarity and Truth rule over Confusion. In short, they do not Care about Truth.
The continual changing of language, Lista, is the essence of it. Only dead languages don't change. Please refer to your friendly neighbourhood philologist for more clarification.
And with that statement of yours there I respectfully bow out of this conversation.
I Liked your most Recent Comment, Z.
ReplyDeleteSoap,
Even Excessive Consistency has it's Negatives. People will sometimes Refuse to Admit Error in the Name of "Consistency" because to Realize an Error and Change One's Mind About Something is "Inconsistent", yet to not Ever do so is Arrogant and Stubborn. In this Context, this is a Negative, not a Positive.
I have much more Respect for those who Admit Faults and Change their Positions when they Learn Additional Information that Warrants it. I Prefer it when a Person Consistently Pursues the Truth, rather than just Pursuing "Consistency" at all Costs.
Not Only that, but Also there is Need for Compromise Once in Awhile in Order to get something Worth While Passed, yet just Because a Person Makes a Compromise does not Mean than their Core Values are any Different than they were before.
I've Met People who are so Consistent with their Stupidity that you can Totally Count on their Foolishness to Continue Forever and Ever. So much for Stubborn "Consistency". You can have it.
Satyavati,
ReplyDeleteSince the Changing of Language Causes Confusion, those who do not care about Confusion, do not Care about the Changing of Language. Those who Care About Truth, do care about Avoiding Confusion and therefore, are Concerned about the Changing of Language. Truth is Life, Satyavati, not Language.
The Meaning of the Language is where the Life is. The Life is not in the Mere Words of the Language.
This Reminds me again of One of my Favorite Verses.
"Who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (2 Corinthians 3:6, NRSV)
So you see, the Life does not Come from Words or Language, but from the Spirit of God. There is no Actual Life in Words, Satyavati. The Life is in God, as well as in People, Language is just what we use in Order to Communicate with Each Other.
For someone so hellbent on words and meanings and the like you still haven't managed to figure out that whole capitalization thing have you?
ReplyDeleteGetting back to quirks here's another one, a conservative one. Many here say they're staunch federalists but let's say one day a few states want to reinstate miscegenation laws they'd be compelled through the force of their own logic to go along with this. All I'm saying is think through your positions first very very carefully before shouting them from the rooftops. I don't waver with the wind soap just stop short at quirks.
ReplyDeleteLista: "My Argument does not Make Gay Marriage Illegal."
ReplyDeleteThat's right. Now if the government stepped in and said a church cannot perform a gay marriage ceremony then I can see the chap on soap and Saty's ass but until that day......
Stop lookin at my ass :P
ReplyDeleteShe just Smiles. The Capitalization thing is just Habit, Soap. It's just too much effort to stop.
ReplyDeleteZ-Man,
I am in Full Agreement with you. This it the Basic Principle of Moderation and the Avoidance of Extremes. The Only Reason for Accepting the Quirky Extremes is because of an Aversion to the Word Moderation.
The Only Reason for Accepting the Quirky Extremes is because of an Aversion to the Word Moderation.
ReplyDeleteGee, that sounds an awful lot like assigning a motive to someone, Lista.
WTFever. I am so over this.
Has O.J. confessed to Oprah yet?
ReplyDeleteSatyavati,
ReplyDelete"Gee, that sounds an awful lot like assigning a motive to someone, Lista."
Well, Soap and Several Others have Admitted their Aversion to the Idea of Compromise and Political Moderates. It's not Like it's a Big Secret and no other reason for excepting Quirky Extremes makes any sense to me.
Can you Think of any Possible Reason besides that, Satyavati, for Making Sex with Animals Legally Acceptable. I Once Met a Dog that had been Sexually Abused and the Emotional Issues that she had were Obvious. She was Scared to Death of all Men. There Obviously had not Been Mutual Consent there and I Seriously Doubt that there ever would be.
Sex with animals? Let me go ahead and quote soapie here, since he and I share the same view on this topic:
ReplyDeletePeople cannot marry animals or robots and the like for the simple fact that an animal cannot consent to having a relationship with you on that sort of level. If you want to marry someone or live in a domestic sort of partnership with someone then ya gotta find a human being. If you wanna run with the wolves then go run with the wolves.
When we talk about these issues we have to bring in the idea of mutual consent, which includes in itself adulthood, since a child does not have the understanding to consent and actually already in place are laws defining the age of consent. And you cannot have consent from a different species. So your whole argument is basically moot in this context. No one is advocating anything that the persons involved are unable, incompetent or otherwise incapable of making a mutually agreeable, informed consent.
Now regardless of whether things 'make sense' to you, you're doing in this argument the same thing you love to accuse me of: assigning motives. You might want to consider that both soap and myself are working according to a principle here, not some kind of blow with the wind thing.
The Only Part of Soap's Words that are Relevant to what I said is the Last Sentence...
ReplyDelete"If you wanna run with the wolves, then go run with the wolves."
The Only Thing that he Expressed can not, or should not, be done was Marriage, His Last Sentence, though, Implies that Sex with Animals is Ok and that is what I was Responding to.
"You might want to consider that both soap and myself are working according to a principle here, not some kind of blow with the wind thing."
That Sentence Contains an Accusation that is not Accurate. My Ideas have been Very Consistent, from the Very Beginning. Since I am a Human Being, Sometimes I have to Restate Things that were not Said in Quite the Right Way.
When you Accuse of Motive and the Accused Denies the Accusation, there is no Way to Prove the Suspected Motive.
As Soon as I Hear Soap Deny that his Ideas are Influenced by an Aversion to Compromise and Moderation, I'll Withdraw my Accusation.
Running with the wolves is not screwing the wolves, Lista. What appears to have happened here is that in your eagerness or whatever to come up with some kind of animal sex thing, you disregarded the statement immediately previous:
ReplyDeleteIf you want to marry someone or live in a domestic sort of partnership with someone then ya gotta find a human being.
You also, apparently, missed this:
...the simple fact that an animal cannot consent to having a relationship with you on that sort of level.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this:
That Sentence Contains an Accusation that is not Accurate. My Ideas have been Very Consistent,
..since no one accused you of anything, merely stated that both soap and myself are working off a principle of being consistent as opposed to working off something that changes situationally or dependently. No one was in any way accusing you of anything; if you read that into it, that's your issue and not mine. Once again you bring the motive thing into it and I wasn't even talking about you!! This motive thing is beginning to appear to be rather obsessive or perhaps I could say irritatingly and inappropriately persistent. If I want to 'accuse' you of something, Lista, I will come out and do it in a way that can in no way be misunderstood. All right?
Meanwhile, on a personal level I have no problems or difficulties with compromise or anything else. But if I hold a principle, a personal framework within which I make my own judgements on things, I work according to that principle consistently, and my opinions and judgements will be in accord with that principle. 'Compromise' comes after that, not before.
Gee, how many motives will you say I accused you of this time? We've got a pool going here at the house.
"If I want to 'accuse' you of something, Lista, I will come out and do it in a way that can in no way be misunderstood. All right?"
ReplyDeleteIndeed. Sorta like when I accuse you have having piss poor sentence structure, and issues with capitalization.
Additionally, I don't seem to recall a beastiality scene in Kevin Costner's Dances with the wolves unless there's a directors cut I'm not privy to.
ReplyDeleteYou should bump this post Z. Look at that comment count!
We discuss everything here but I didn't know we'd get to a little farmer-in-the-dell action.
ReplyDeleteSatyavati,
ReplyDelete"in your eagerness, or whatever, to come up with some kind of animal sex thing"
That's an Incorrect Assumption of Motive. Why would I be Eager to Come Up with something Disgusting Like that. If that is not what he Meant, then I have no Clue at all what he Meant and Once Again all he said was that "People cannot Marry Animals." His Entire Paragraph, with the Exception of his Last Sentence, was about Marriage.
When you Quoted, "the simple fact that an animal cannot consent to having a relationship with you on that sort of level.", you Very Conveniently Left Out the First Part of the Sentence, "People cannot marry animals or robots and the like for the simple fact that..." Etc., so the Subject of the Sentence was also Marriage and you are the One who "Missed" and "Disregarded" the First Part of that Sentence.
You Appeared to be Accusing me of "Some Kind of Blow with the Wind Thing", so that was the Accusation that I was Referring to. If I Understood that Wrong, then I Apologize.
"This motive thing is beginning to appear to be rather obsessive or perhaps I could say irritatingly and inappropriately persistent."
That's because you do Accuse of Motives Often in an Equally "Inappropriately Persistent" way and this Tires me.
"Gee, how many motives will you say I accused you of this time? We've got a pool going here at the house."
What a Clever Way to Get the Focus onto me and Off of yourself. You Poor Thing, Satyavati! I Accuse you of Assuming Motives and am so very Mean to you in the Midst of your Total Innocence. The Answer to your Question, though, is either One or Zero, Depending on Perspective.
It could be Stated that you Almost Accused me of Motive in your Second Sentence and then Caught yourself by Adding the Words, "or whatever", though the Tone of your Words in this Comment is Quite Accusatory in that you are Implying that you do not do this and that I do not Know what I'm Talking about, yet in Truth, you do it and you do it Often.
Perhaps in that Second Sentence, you were Bating me, to see if you could get me to Accuse you. Perhaps that is also an Assumption of Motive on my Part, yet I’m not going to Use that as the Basis of an Argument, cause I Know that such Things can not be Proved, nor am I Going to State this Authoritatively, as if I am an Authority on anyone else’s Motives.
My Accusation Issue was with Satyavati, Soap, not You, and Frankly, I could Care Less what your Opinion is of my Sentence Structure and Capitalization Issues.
ReplyDeleteYour Second Comment is Totally Off Subject. If that is what you Meant by Running with the Wolfs, you should have been more Clear, yet it just seems Off Subject to me. What does Running or Dancing with the Wolfs have to do with the Subject of Gay Marriage or Marriage to Animals? Absolutely Nothing and that is why it is so Easily Misunderstood.
And anyway, Z-Man's Response to you on 6/29/2011, at 12:52 PM made it Seem that he Understood your Comment the same way that I did, cause he called your Comment a "Quirk".
Not that difficult to comprehend unless you don't know what a fucking metaphor is.
ReplyDeleteYou know what, Soap? If your only interest is to insult me, then we are not going to be able to Communicate, cause this is not what I consider Communication.
ReplyDeleteThe mighty metaphor wins again!
ReplyDeleteIf you consider Putting someone else Down, in Order to Raise yourself Up, Satyavati, Winning, then I guess that is Correct. Personally, I think that that Only shows Immaturity and Lack of Self Confidence.
ReplyDeleteThe Way I have Usually Heard that Particular Metaphor, though, is Running with the Horses. That is Running as a Free Stallion.
A Similar Word that is sometimes used is "Stag", which of Course is a Male Deer. I can't Think of anything that Relates to Wolves, though. This One is New to me. Maybe it is an Eastern Metaphor. In the East, they Actually Call the Beach, the Shore, and don't Realize that the Westerners Call it the Beach.
Whatever. I Guess Children will be Children.
I took running with the lobos the same way Lista did. Actually soap said you can't logically marry an animal, he didn't say anything like you could or could not have sex with one. Lots of people have sex but don't have relationships if I may draw a parallel so I'd say the whole thing is weird. BTW soap stop the fucking cursing!
ReplyDeleteSpeech police?
ReplyDeleteYou've got to be fucking kidding me.
I'm not fucking around.
ReplyDelete