Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2008 - 07:26am PT
|
"there is no other way to characterize Prop 8 except as pro-hate."
ok, dirtbag, i've asked this question before but still haven't gotten an answer...if it's ok for two men to marry, why not three men? why not allow one man to marry two, three, eight women? why not allow a brother to marry his sister or a father to marry his daughter?
if they're all mentally competent and of consenting age, what justification can you offer for denying them their "civil right" to marry? and whatever justification you might offer, doesn't it simply boil down to "hate"?
|
|
Domingo
Trad climber
El Portal, CA
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2008 - 11:53am PT
|
"ok, dirtbag, i've asked this question before but still haven't gotten an answer...if it's ok for two men to marry, why not three men? why not allow one man to marry two, three, eight women?"
Our current marriage laws prevent the last part. Can you explain how it is caused by giving a man or woman the right to marry the person they want to marry, regardless of gender?
You can't, because your argument is based on your own discomfort and bigotry.
"why not allow a brother to marry his sister or a father to marry his daughter?"
Again, this is completely unrelated to gay marriage. In this case, I would argue that the genetic product of such a marriage could POTENTIALLY (not necessarily) have consequences. That said, this is prevented by our current laws that pertain to marrying family, so changing the laws on gay marriage could not allow this to happen.
Explain to me how allowing gay marriage will cause and allow a man to marry his daughter. You can't. That's why no one can really answer YOUR questions.
"A beer for the first person who finds evidence of minds actually being changed by any of 'em. "
OHOHOH I WIN! Lois: universal health care for Americans.
edit for Fatty:
"I'm voting no on 8, I want gay couples to have the same rights. Just wish we could find another word besides marriage to describe the union..............why insult millions of religious people?"
Hmmmm, like union, perhaps? I agree... it's up to a religious institutition who can get "married" there. Unions and partnerships are a state thing only. If changing the semantics gives people rights, I'm all for it.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2008 - 12:01pm PT
|
Because millions of religious people are a large part of why the world is in such a crap situation, and they need to be poked into some real thinking instead of being allowed to go right on living (mentally at least) in the year 50 AD or so.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 25, 2008 - 12:03pm PT
|
Bookworm, to answer your question on the two, three or eight person marriage, I don't know (although the incest issue definitely has problems). I have not given it much thought.
But this one...this one I've thought about a lot. Let's focus on this one thing, just for today. That's the issue we are facing today and that's enough for now.
|
|
hoipolloi
climber
A friends backyard with the neighbors wifi
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2008 - 12:50pm PT
|
Bookworm-
First off, you CAN NOT even begin to compare homosexuality and Gay/Lesbian marriage to an incestuous relationship. That comparison voids all credibility of the argument, and I think that most people, either side, would agree to that. Now, if by making that comparison you are saying that you think, or are implying, that homosexuality is a "deviant" behavior, then I can't argue with you regardless, because there is no changing the mind, despite ration conversation and debate, of such an irrational and off-based, out of touch point of view. (I want to say ignorant view as well, but Ill leave that out, I wouldn't want to call names here).
There is a comparison between a polygamous relationship and a Marriage between two consenting adults. Marriage (either between man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman) is a union between two people based around an innate, inherent love whereas polygamous relationships are often based around social constructions (most always related to a religious view point).
Now, you might argue "well, three woman and a man could all love each other," but if we look at the overwhelming majority of polygamous relationships (I want to say all or most, but want to leave room for the small exception) there are deep-seated, social issues surrounding the formation of a polygamous relationship. There is an environment and/or belief system that supports this relationship style. It does not come from an innate characteristic or need to have more than one spouse.
In addition, polygamous relationships are (almost) always between one man and several women and are less about an equal love between all members. It seems (to me) that within a polygamy there are power struggles which tend to become more about ownership and less about a loving union.
Proposition 8 will eliminate the rights of same-sex couples to engage in marriage. A right that they currently have within the state, that means it will take this right away. Taking away rights, whether you morally agree with this or not, is unacceptable. Same-Sex couples currently are able to get married in California right now, and I have to ask, have you been affected? Has your quality of life declined?
I can tell you that their lives have been affected and their quality of life has improved. In fact they are the only people this has affected, not you, not me, not my parents marriage or my relationship with my girlfriend. So why would I want to negatively affect someone when it has no affect on me?
Adam D:
I hope this comes across with a neutral tone, I want to provide some information that may, in fact, have an effect on someone debating whether they should vote yes or no on prop 8.
|
|
seamus mcshane
climber
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2008 - 12:59pm PT
|
A hole is a hole is a hole.
Although personally I want only one sausage at my party, mine...
Hehehe.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2008 - 01:41pm PT
|
"It does not come from an innate characteristic or need to have more than one spouse."
there is NO innate characteristic or NEED to have ANY spouse...it's a CHOICE we make because it's something we WANT ...and having only one spouse does, in fact, run contrary to a man's biologically programmed urge and engineered ability to spread his seed to as many females as possible...you evolutionists would call this "survival of the fittest"...so, biologically speaking, polygamy makes far more sense than monogamy
"power struggles which tend to become more about ownership and less about a loving union"
ummm...the issue began as an "ownership" issue...homosexuals in "committed relationships" wanted the same rights of inheritance, etc. that married couples have...but if you want to talk about "a loving union" then you actually support my case...who are YOU to determine whether or not three men can have a "loving union"? or one man and five women? or a brother and sister? it seems your argument against my definition of marriage is that it doesn't match your definition even though your definition would still discriminate against people who seek "a loving union" on their own terms
"There is an environment and/or belief system that supports this relationship style"
exactly! i'll vote for legal civil unions, but i want the definition of marriage to remain "between one man and one woman"...so, you'll say, 'the environment and/or belief system' has changed...well, see previous paragraph...either marriage means something unique or it doesn't, in which case, let's just open it up to each individual's interpretation...to try to limit the definition in ANY way, makes you a hypocrite (and, according to dirtbag, a hater)
here's a thought...if men wrote the bible (which i and, i presume, most of you believe), then why did these men create marriage as a monogamous concept (man and woman become "one flesh"; genesis 2:24) in complete contradiction to their own sex drives? because the ancients were far wiser than we are--probably because they were far more in tune with themselves and the construct of society--and they recognized that women needed to be protected from men's sex drive (i'm not talking about female frailty but reality...sex means children and, without marriage, men could easily plant and move on, leaving women to rear the children alone--what would they think about our "progress"?)
i don't know how the issue will affect me, but i am concerned about how it will affect society...you want everyone to be "happy"? then let everyone who wants marry whomever they want...then, by your anecdotal evidence, we'll all be happy...but first, let's consider the consequences of some other progressive ideas intended to keep us all happy...
roe v wade? 50 million dead and counting
no fault divorce? a mockery of the entire marriage concept and disastrous to the family
sexual revolution? see both of the above and let's add the increase in sexually transmitted diseases, some of which are deadly...a culture that teaches the young that women are bitches and hos...an entire generation of kids that believe sex has nothing to do with love...the increased chance that your daughter will end up in a video, which could haunt her life in so many ways...
there's no way of foreseeing where this latest bit of "progress" might take us, so i promote patience...such significant shifts in traditional morality should be made slowly and, despite what dirtbag prefers, with lots of thinking
and consider this...i think the vast majority of people who oppose gay marriage have acknowledged that homosexuals will always be around; i think they've accepted that most homosexuals (like most heterosexuals) are good and productive citizens; but i think most are not yet ready to grant their approval of the homosexual lifestyle...so why not procede first with civil unions and then see where that leads? why do you insist on "marriage", which many people see, rightly or wrongly, as the issue being shoved in their faces?
as far as the current marriages, well, they exist by judicial fiat, not by the democratic process...if you believe in the separation of powers, you should want the current marriages revoked
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2008 - 01:51pm PT
|
Give it up, worm, you're embarrassing yourself
|
|
seamus mcshane
climber
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2008 - 01:51pm PT
|
I love to watch conservatives squirm...even if it's only their writing.
Hehehe.
|
|
evenkeel
climber
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2008 - 02:52pm PT
|
bookworm ever date two woman at a time? Three?
From personal experince I can tell ya its not fun.
|
|
WoodySt
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2008 - 03:03pm PT
|
This wasn't going to be much of an issue until the CA State Supreme Court decided to jump the gun, really stupid.
|
|
Jingy
Social climber
Flatland, Ca
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2008 - 04:09pm PT
|
Wow... A conservative, possibly religious person using some questionable evolutionary male characteristics as an argument against gay marriage... That just rich!
This is a common tactic I've heard many times since the question of gay marriage was ever posed. This idea that without the good book everyone would just run around killing, raping, and keeping multiple partners, and generally we'd all be descending into a world without law, where it really is the survival of the fittest....
I heard that before.....
Look, if you are going to say that if "we" (the rest of us who should have no say in the matter)(or "the Voter") grant a gay man or lesbian women the right to marry... Do you really think that this will lead to people all over gathering as many partners as possible and descend into a godless population......
Sorry, I don't see that happening any time soon....
Oh, and just so you know, the world is already a pretty depraved place. You can open the paper any day of the week and be told of some strange happenings... Utah for example... But these stories are not pointing out the direction we as a society are headed. I think that these anecdotal stories and extreme thought exorcises just go to show how "you" might behave if given the opportunity to marry a person of the same sex as you, or else you are just repeating something your pastor has told you and he's depraved and he's been thinking along those lines.
No, I'd like to think that our society is not headed in that direction.
Post Perusal Edit:50 Million and counting... Nice, so you think that overturning Roe V Wade will make everything alright... Don't you see, this is the rule book you have created for yourself, for your own comfort. And your comfort is not my comfort.
|
|
S.Powers
Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2008 - 04:16pm PT
|
Book worm, your argument is hollow; its passive aggressive nature only contradicts itself.
I can’t believe in this day and age, this is even an issue. If someone even thinks this will be a part of the downfall of our society, our society is at an all time low. To even ponder the idea based on religious ideals is absurd and "un-american", our country was founded based on the fact that we should not be subject to tyranny imposed by religion. The idiocy of even claiming the word "marriage" is holy or even defined is appalling, the word has nothing to do with the relationships people have, If you love someone, you should be able have a marriage, be in wedlock, have an alliance, an association, a link, a match, a civil union (whatever you want to call it, it’s all semantics) with anyone of your choosing. To have that decision made by a court or a religion impedes our growth as a society and goes against what America was built on.
Come on guys it’s time to grow up and get over it, yes your entitled to an opinion, but you’re not entitled to have your opinion affect the civil rights of another.
Edit: Nobody said your personal defitition of marriage has to change, Keep whats holy and important to yourself, and let the rest of the world decide for itself.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 25, 2008 - 04:24pm PT
|
"there's no way of foreseeing where this latest bit of "progress" might take us, so i promote patience...such significant shifts in traditional morality should be made slowly and, despite what dirtbag prefers, with lots of thinking "
Lame. Gays have been working for decades for acceptance. That's long enough.
"exactly! i'll vote for legal civil unions, but i want the definition of marriage to remain "between one man and one woman"...so, you'll say, 'the environment and/or belief system' has changed...well, see previous paragraph...either marriage means something unique or it doesn't, in which case, let's just open it up to each individual's interpretation...to try to limit the definition in ANY way, makes you a hypocrite (and, according to dirtbag, a hater) "
Of course, that's not what I said.
I said if you are against gay marriage you are a hater. There's no legitimate argument I've seen to oppose it.
You don't think gay people should have the same rights as other people.
Why?
Because you don't like them. All that other stuff you said just tries to cover up that fact.
And I don't care what your interpretation of "God's word" means.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2008 - 04:52pm PT
|
in other words, you all agree that anyone should be allowed to marry anyone(s)...if not, you must give me an answer as to why some people should not be allowed to marry whomever they please...why are you avoiding the question? why is it the best you can do is mock my beliefs? please note, that i NEVER mentioned religion...i formulated my argument on pure reason...you don't like my definition of marriage even though i can offer reasons why my definition should be preserved...you want to redefine marriage because, as you claim, my definition denies some people their "civil rights" and yet you won't grant the "civil right" of marriage to some people...see, you've found yourself on the proverbial slippery slope; let me explain...
you want to redefine marriage to allow a certain group of people a "civil right"...so, i assume your definition will be one man and one woman or one man and one man or one woman and one woman...that's still a very narrow definition...and if marriage is indeed a "civil right" then you cannot--by the very definition of a civil right--deny it to ANYONE
so why are you reluctant to allow multiple partners to marry? are you suggesting that if we allow men to marry more than one woman (as long as all the women agree) that our society will suddenly collapse? oooooo, sounds like hate-induced paranoia to me...or why shouldn't a woman be allowed to marry three men and guarantee her children financial security? and why can't a brother marry his sister? potential for children with birth defects? well, isn't that their reproductive CHOICE? or maybe you just think that kind of sex is gross--hater!
and, in case you think opposition to homosexuality can only be based on religion, go read some plato...the symposium, to be exact
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
primordial soup
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2008 - 04:54pm PT
|
"bookworm" has clearly only been worming one book
{or at least it's a bunch of similar books, all suggested by rush/hannity/coulter?)
i'm w/ jaybro (see above)
i really cannot grasp the arguments so-called conservatives make when they claim these "traditional values" of theirs are sacrosanct in some way.
the proper analogy in terms of our ongoing social evolution is not polygomy or incest, or even the sexual revolution:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [inalienable] Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/hrintro/declare.htm
full and equal rights to all americans, regardless of __ , that's what we are discussing here.
bookworm-
you sir, are a bigot, and one in a long and distinguished line of bigots in our nation's history.
"know thyself"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_thyself
emancipation
women's sufferage
civil rights movement
homosexual rights
...
people like you have long objected to the progression of equality in america-
but as your now forever tarnished icon used to like to say:
"freedom is on the march".
and as far as the thread's topic, here's another truism/cliche that fits:
if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
EDIT
bookworm-
how is your argument any different than a slave owner saying, "my definition of a black man is that he is my property, so if you give rights and freedom to my black slaves, you then have to free my horses and my chickens too, as they are also my property; slavery of blacks is an accepted traditional value in our culture and it has been so for generations!"
|
|
S.Powers
Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2008 - 05:02pm PT
|
read this next line carefully:
I DO NOT GIVE A SH#T WHO MARRIES WHO!
We are not talking about polygamy, incest or any other disturbing topic that you keep reverting to, why do you want to talk about these things so badly?????
We are talking about gay rights. Stay on subject, if you want to talk about those other things fine, but start a new hate thread and hate it there.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2008 - 05:13pm PT
|
no, we're talking about marriage, what it means, and who should be allowed this "civil right"...
and still no answers to my valid questions...with all the hatred spewing my way, you'd think i'd be the one keeping silent, but i'm trying to have a rational discussion on something that is obviously very important to our society
come on, let's have the conversation...you ask me questions about my beliefs, and i'll do my best to give you clear answers...all i ask is you do the same for me
see...this is why we can never really have a "conversation about race" either
i need to go but that will give you all some time to think about my questions
|
|
Grant Meisenholder
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2008 - 05:15pm PT
|
What I find strange is that the vast majority of the people behind this madness are strongly conservative religious types whose churches already don't recognize marriage outside of their definition. So what's the problem? Do you think you'll be compelled to perform these ceremonies?
Also, I just heard today that one of the main financial backers is the Mormon church. Interesting in that the wording of the proposition is "between ONE man and ONE woman." Kinda like they're trying to put the stake in the perception that Mormons are polygamists...
I think if the people who are being swayed by the huge distortions being put forth by the pro-8 groups would take a minute to educate themselves on the real impact of this legislation, they'd drop it like a hot potato. No one who prizes their freedom wants government or some other authoritarian group to dictate what we can do in the privacy of our own homes if it doesn't involve taking away the civil and human rights of another. I mean, isn't that what the Taliban and other ultra-conservative groups are doing elsewhere on the planet?
Aside from it not being "condoned by god" or your own personal hang ups, what is wrong with letting 2 people commit their lives to each other? When did love become a bad thing? Your sexuality is about as easy to change as your eye color. All these people want is to be treated with some dignity and live normal lives.
|
|
Berkeley Phil
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2008 - 05:19pm PT
|
How about everyone who is against 8 making a few phone calls to family and friends, instead of posting to the board. What does it have to do with climbing? Well, we climbers are a tolerant bunch, and aren't interested in being divided in the many ways that some people want to divide us.
Cheers
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!