21 May 2007, 10:52 am
21 May 2007, 12:30 pm
21 May 2007, 12:33 pm
21 May 2007, 12:38 pm
21 May 2007, 12:42 pm
21 May 2007, 5:59 pm
21 May 2007, 9:05 pm
skafather84 wrote:
ugh...i'm calling an end to your idiocy right now....lemme see if i can do what the irish never did and solve things in a drunken state.
You need the support of politicians to change things; politicians will estimate the likely net gain in votes for backing a minority issue before making a decision. That's a flaw of our democratic system. It wouldn't be so much of a problem if politicians had integrity, but few do. I accept that allowing gay marriage isn't the end of the world, so to speak, but these kind of things are cumulative. Also, even in liberal Canada there is not overwhelming support, despite the state indoctrination that undoubtedly occurs in schools, and the oppressive discrimination laws you have that affect free speech. Do you really think it's ethically acceptable that a minority force their view on everyone else? They win by default because in cahoots with the politicians they manipulate the system to their advantage: most people know they have to accept certain party policies they don't agree with, and for example they may accept gay marriage if the party in question is going to reduce their taxes. It's all carefully calculated and has little to do with what's fair, ethical or free. Of course, in the UK it's not much better, and minorities ride roughshod over the rest of us, as politicians bend to their almost every whim. And there's more: political correctness is then used to prevent debate, and to silence dissent. So, even if people did feel strongly against gay marriage they daren't speak-out as they'd risk losing their job, or being arrested for a "hate" crime. So much for freedom and deomocracy!
you're debating the value of a minority suffering for the majority feeling good. this is idiotic. i'll cite black vs white in america but not in the sense that gay have faced the same strife but rather that it's a case of minority vs majority where the minority should have equal rights no matter what the cost. to claim otherwise is to say that no minority deserves equal rights and is a hop skip and a jump away from fascism and a dictatorship enforced by the majority. tyranny by the majority is still tyranny....it's why we grant human rights....so that no matter what the majority wants, there are still rights that CANNOT be denied.
this is BS. if you were familiar with homosexual relationships at all, you would see that in a majority of cases, the relationships do, in the end, fit into a description of feminine and masculine. white they might not have the pieces that fit the description, they do fall into butch and b***h. so you do get your male and female.....just not in as easy of a categoration as you would like. would i like to see an enforcement of male and female roles in a matrimonial relationship? hell no. that's sexist and who is to say what works and what doesn't? we don't even live in a world yet where kids could get a fair chance if their parents are gay so why even bother grading how they grow up yet? they're grow up as abnormal as everyone else. and i'm someone who grew up with both parents together and married (still today 35+ years later). so i'd hardly say that there is any forumula for success with kids and with society...as such, we shouldn't rule out something due to unscientific biases.
Not yet, though I'm sure someone could drum-up support from the Mormons and Muslims. Politicians need to maximise capital from the gay marriage thing first! But you've accepted the principle, just stated you believe that the current conditions aren't conducive to change. So, I'd like to know: where would you draw that line in the sand? Are you happy to let minority groups get what they want ad infinitum? You yourself have stated that marriage is for two people. Why do you believe that?
i don't get why we're discussing polygamy. in the end, polygamy is the best argument as to why matrimony shouldn't be an issue of government but rather an instance of those involved. once you get into the dynamics and all the possibilities of polygamy, you realize that matrimony, in general, as a government institution is garbage and is best thrown out. well, eventually thrown out. we still are at a point to where encouraging one on one relationships to raise kids and enact a positive action on the next generation is better than worse. but so long as marriage is a government institution, homosexuals should be treated as equals and encouraged to adopt so as to quell issues with couples breeding too much and people who are generally queasy with abortion.
and if you don't get what i've just said....you can mail your complaints to mickey's. but i think i've stated my points sufficiently despite my impairment.
ascan wrote:
Xenon wrote:
That's awfully cynical of you. Social change does not happen because of government action, it happens in spite of it. If enough people support an idea, or at least have no problem with it (ie, are not against the idea), then sooner or later the change will happen.
You need the support of politicians to change things; politicians will estimate the likely net gain in votes for backing a minority issue before making a decision. That's a flaw of our democratic system. It wouldn't be so much of a problem if politicians had integrity, but few do. I accept that allowing gay marriage isn't the end of the world, so to speak, but these kind of things are cumulative. Also, even in liberal Canada there is not overwhelming support, despite the state indoctrination that undoubtedly occurs in schools, and the oppressive discrimination laws you have that affect free speech. Do you really think it's ethically acceptable that a minority force their view on everyone else? They win by default because in cahoots with the politicians they manipulate the system to their advantage: most people know they have to accept certain party policies they don't agree with, and for example they may accept gay marriage if the party in question is going to reduce their taxes. It's all carefully calculated and has little to do with what's fair, ethical or free. Of course, in the UK it's not much better, and minorities ride roughshod over the rest of us, as politicians bend to their almost every whim. And there's more: political correctness is then used to prevent debate, and to silence dissent. So, even if people did feel strongly against gay marriage they daren't speak-out as they'd risk losing their job, or being arrested for a "hate" crime. So much for freedom and deomocracy!
you're debating the value of a minority suffering for the majority feeling good. this is idiotic. i'll cite black vs white in america but not in the sense that gay have faced the same strife but rather that it's a case of minority vs majority where the minority should have equal rights no matter what the cost. to claim otherwise is to say that no minority deserves equal rights and is a hop skip and a jump away from fascism and a dictatorship enforced by the majority. tyranny by the majority is still tyranny....it's why we grant human rights....so that no matter what the majority wants, there are still rights that CANNOT be denied.
ascan wrote:
Xenon wrote:
And your comment about changing the definition of marriage as being something central to our society for "hundreds of years" is invalid. The definition of marriage 50 years ago is different than it is now. The definition 100 years ago was different than it was 50 years ago.
Like I said, I accept things change, but some things are central to a definition. Marriage, historically, is within a context of a man and woman raising kids as a family. You can change the laws regarding how that partnership works with regard divorce etc., but you're still left with what is obviously marriage. To use an example: you can develop an aircraft from a biplane to a swept-wing jet, yet it's still basically an aircraft. If you cut the wings off and make it float it's no longer an aircraft; it's a boat. That's what you're doing with marriage. Call it a civil partnership if you want; but not marriage. It's very clearly not.this is BS. if you were familiar with homosexual relationships at all, you would see that in a majority of cases, the relationships do, in the end, fit into a description of feminine and masculine. white they might not have the pieces that fit the description, they do fall into butch and b***h. so you do get your male and female.....just not in as easy of a categoration as you would like. would i like to see an enforcement of male and female roles in a matrimonial relationship? hell no. that's sexist and who is to say what works and what doesn't? we don't even live in a world yet where kids could get a fair chance if their parents are gay so why even bother grading how they grow up yet? they're grow up as abnormal as everyone else. and i'm someone who grew up with both parents together and married (still today 35+ years later). so i'd hardly say that there is any forumula for success with kids and with society...as such, we shouldn't rule out something due to unscientific biases.
ascan wrote:
Xenon wrote:
The problem with that line of reasoning is that there is effectively no public support for the idea of allowing multiple-partner marriages.
Not yet, though I'm sure someone could drum-up support from the Mormons and Muslims. Politicians need to maximise capital from the gay marriage thing first! But you've accepted the principle, just stated you believe that the current conditions aren't conducive to change. So, I'd like to know: where would you draw that line in the sand? Are you happy to let minority groups get what they want ad infinitum? You yourself have stated that marriage is for two people. Why do you believe that?
i don't get why we're discussing polygamy. in the end, polygamy is the best argument as to why matrimony shouldn't be an issue of government but rather an instance of those involved. once you get into the dynamics and all the possibilities of polygamy, you realize that matrimony, in general, as a government institution is garbage and is best thrown out. well, eventually thrown out. we still are at a point to where encouraging one on one relationships to raise kids and enact a positive action on the next generation is better than worse. but so long as marriage is a government institution, homosexuals should be treated as equals and encouraged to adopt so as to quell issues with couples breeding too much and people who are generally queasy with abortion.
and if you don't get what i've just said....you can mail your complaints to mickey's. but i think i've stated my points sufficiently despite my impairment.
wow...i'm a rather well-spoken drunk, if i do say so myself. *stroking my own ego*
22 May 2007, 11:13 am
22 May 2007, 11:15 am
skafather84 wrote:
....wow...i'm a rather well-spoken drunk, if i do say so myself. *stroking my own ego*
Pride comes before a fall, old chap.
22 May 2007, 11:20 am
22 May 2007, 1:22 pm
22 May 2007, 1:52 pm
22 May 2007, 1:58 pm
22 May 2007, 2:02 pm
22 May 2007, 2:04 pm
22 May 2007, 2:16 pm
