12-12-2003 18:06									#31
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Boris

I don't see what is wrong with having one word for a legal committed relationship between two homosexuals and another word for one between two heterosexuals

I mean, they are different, there is a different make up

right now we have

gay marriage, gay union, ect

and marriage, civil union, ect

they are different, therefore they will be called different things

I mean, if we decide to call them both marriage

one will be called gay marriage and the other straight marriage

so am I missing your point?

Jon Miller

	12-12-2003 18:07									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: If we protest degrading slurs, we are OBVIOUSLY "misunderstanding" the good intentions of those people who hurl such slurs.

of course you're misunderstanding them. they're only doing this because they love you and want you to stop sinning so you don't get burned in hell. duh. i mean, after all, u r a gay tw**.

	12-12-2003 18:08									#33
	Inflate your Upload Space

in any case, fundies are bad, mmkay? they neither contribute meaningfully to political discourse, nor do they have a shred of intellectual integrity.

otherwise, it would be blindingly obvious that the people doing the most harm to the institution of marriage today are straight people.

	12-12-2003 18:12									#34
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller Boris I don't see what is wrong with having one word for a legal committed relationship between two homosexuals and another word for one between two heterosexuals

Personally, it's not a big issue for me--but the view of others is that the anything less than the "m" word signifies a lesser status. Considering that the arguments against "marriage" for gays often stem from statements that gays are lesser, I can understand the desire.

Having separate unions from marriage has become a way, to many conservatives, of just setting another line that keeps gays separate and unequal.

But another thing to consider is this--the drive for "marriage" may in fact be a very clever political move to ensure civil unions. More social conservatives favor full-benefit civil unions for gays, so long as it's not called "marriage," than I've thought possible. I think this is because by advocating marriage, gays have made the unions look not so bad by comparison.

	12-12-2003 19:39									#35
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by blackice People do...But like any other enmass social change it has to be accepted by all without harming another...

I guess we should have just held back on Civil Rights then, because the South didn't agree with it. Evil people will always stand against progress. Conservative Christians are evil people.

Anyways, as for villification, after twenty years of viperous, poisonous, slanderous, lyaing attacks by the right, when the left has finally said, "**** it all, you lying evil bastards, we aren't gonna turn the cheek anymore," NOW you want to engage in more civil discourse? **** you! You sowed the whirlwind, now reap your reward. You declared war. Now, at last, that liberals are fighting back, you've decided you don't like it. Tough ****! You started the fight, you've earned a beating.

	12-12-2003 19:41									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed in any case, *moderates* are bad, mmkay? they neither contribute meaningfully to political discourse, nor do they have a shred of intellectual integrity.

I think that's more accurate.

	12-12-2003 19:43									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

che, moderates are the only ones who are willing to compromise and bring anything to fruition.

revolutionaries on both sides run around and make a lot of noise, but when it comes down to actually putting institutions into place, moderates do a much better damn job than any ultrapartisan.

	12-12-2003 19:50									#38
	Suffering from ads?

Compromise is not always a good solution. You could compromise by only putting one wing on an airplane, but then it won't work. There are good compromises, and there are bad ones. Moderates are so enamoured of the whole idea of compromise, they can't see a bad one when it's kicking them in the teeth. But then, maybe you're just compromising by having less teeth.

	12-12-2003 20:44									#39
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Happily, someone who tends to be a moderate does not have to be a moderate on every issue.

I consider myself a moderate. That does not mean, however, that on this issue I must find the exact midpoint between the two extremes.

I come down in favor of gay marriage (or gay union, or whatever they wish to call it), and against the conservative religious folks (be they christian, muslim, jewish, or any other delusion religion).

So one an issue like this one (where I don't really see the middle ground as being available for a workable compromise), I will agree that trying to be a moderate is likely to be fruitless.

Case by case basis, Che.

-Arrian

	12-12-2003 20:50									#40
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I don't have a problem with compromise. I just don't think a fetish should be made out of it like so many yellow-stripers have done.

	12-12-2003 21:01									#41
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

obviously, che, you must think that i can't be that much of a moderate with how you're yelling me in some other threads.

therefore, one must conclude that i am either a) not a moderate, or b) moderate by virtue of having political views that cross party lines.

gay marriage? i don't see why we should ban it. i don't see why we should even make it an issue. if gay people want to get married, let them. let them have a shot at preserving an institution that straight people **** all over.

surely that's not a conservative viewpoint. particularly since i don't care much for the term "civil union" and have no problem with them using "marriage".

but i forget. you can't expect extremists to make small sub-tull differences like that.

	12-12-2003 21:02									#42
	Get a bigger avatar today!

oh, and by the way, careful about how you throw out the term "yellow-stripers". i'm not white, black, or red.

	12-12-2003 21:05									#43
	Inflate your Upload Space

although i'm familiar with what it means, it's about as risky as saying 'niggardly'.

	12-12-2003 21:07									#44
	Suffering from ads?

I was gonna write "dead armadillos."

	12-12-2003 21:07									#45
	Remove this text

and i honestly don't see why here you're attacking me, unless you're letting high emotions from another thread bleed into here?

from what i can tell, on this issue we're pretty much on the same side... or are you of the persuasion that religious fundies are good?

	12-12-2003 21:09									#46
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Compromise is not always a good solution. You could compromise by only putting one wing on an airplane, but then it won't work. There are good compromises, and there are bad ones.

the problem with this analogy is that unlike aeronautics, which follows some pretty defined laws of physics, the fields of morality and politics have far fewer rigidly defined laws. you can't argue with the laws of physics; therefore, you can't compromise with them. you can argue over common morality. therefore you can compromise with them.

	12-12-2003 21:11									#47
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: I was gonna write "dead armadillos."

far more descriptive. you think i'm a conservative nut, mrfun thinks i'm liberal, ned thinks i'm a left-wing nutjob...

	12-12-2003 21:21									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

It was a cheap shot, okay. See my SNARL thread.

My real objection to compromise isn't so much actual compromises, but surrenders which are called compromises. When one side wages a take-no-prisoners approach, compromise is not possible. No matter how much the other side gives, it's not enough of a compromise.

The level of vitriol the right has poured into politics in this country has made compromise impossible. Only two options exist for those not on the right, fight or surrender. Some of us say fight. Some say "compromise," but when they say compromise, they are effectively saying, surrender, because the other side refuses to compromise.

In real terms, compromise by moderates and liberals has led to a steady rightward drift in the U.S. real moderate compromise should have kepts us in the middle.

By today's standards, Nixon's presidency is quite liberal (leaving aside the attempt to subvert justice and his crimes against humanity in South East Asia). Think about that.

If you were real moderates, you'd try and get the pendulum to swing more than one way.

	12-12-2003 21:31									#49
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: My real objection to compromise isn't so much actual compromises, but surrenders which are called compromises. When one side wages a take-no-prisoners approach, compromise is not possible. No matter how much the other side gives, it's not enough of a compromise.

agreed.

quote: The level of vitriol the right has poured into politics in this country has made compromise impossible.

also agreed.

quote: Some of us say fight. Some say "compromise," but when they say compromise, they are effectively saying, surrender, because the other side refuses to compromise. In real terms, compromise by moderates and liberals has led to a steady rightward drift in the U.S. real moderate compromise should have kepts us in the middle.

and i say to you, if you're expecting democrats to be moderate, you're looking in the wrong place. they're politicians; they have no spines.
obviously, i wouldn't be arguing with you like this if i were one of those moderates who just roll over. nor would i be arguing with ned more often than not. so i don't like race-based affirmative action. does that make me conservative? yes, if you ignore the fact that i support economic-based affirmative action. do i support abortion? no. does that make me conservative, or a pushover moderate? yes, if you ignore the fact that i do not believe that you can legislate against it, thus allowing for abortions to occur.

being a moderate does not necessarily mean you're a pushover. being a moderate means you have to stand your ground, and tell loony liberals like you that you're wrong on a lot of things, and then turning around and telling crackpot conservatives that they're wrong on a lot of things.

you liberals and conservatives have it easy. you know one supportive side is always at your back. we moderates are beset on both sides.

quote: By today's standards, Nixon's presidency is quite liberal (leaving aside the attempt to subvert justice and his crimes against humanity in South East Asia). Think about that.

of course it was. the war was started under a liberal administration. unfortunately, it also appears that it was the conservatives who kept it going while the liberals were against it. liberalism and conservatism in foreign politics therefore appears to be largely disconnected with liberalism and conservatism in domestic politics.
liberating iraq isn't a traditional conservative view.

quote: If you were real moderates, you'd try and get the pendulum to swing more than one way.

go back and read plenty of my posts. i have nothing to hide in my political views. you'll see that i am swinging both ways.

	12-12-2003 21:49									#50
	Got spare money?

First off, don't show your ignorance by comparing alcoholics with homosexuals.




Secondly, as Boris pointed out, homosexuals among themselves disagree to what extent this thread's topic is an important issue.

I myself argue that the different religions can be left to their own sentimentalities in regards to marriage -- straight people have long since made marriage a joke, rather than something sacred, but I am still willing to let religious leaders delude themselves into thinking marriage is still something sacred today.

So, since we need to leave marriage as it is with the different religions, I argue that secular civil unions among non-heterosexuals are entitled to legal recognition by their respective government.

	12-12-2003 22:29									#51
	Increase Your PM Length

Fun,

First off, don't show your ignorance by comparing alcoholics with homosexuals.

You've got to make an effort to adress his point instead of just reading what you want to read. Now, I don't agree that homosexuality is a sin and I don't believe genes have much to do with homosexuality or sexuality in general, but he's right on the account that even if we assume that you're born with some particular wants and needs, that doesn't necessarily mean it's moral to carry them out in practice (or, for that matter, that it's immoral).

	12-12-2003 22:50									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Monk Fun, First off, don't show your ignorance by comparing alcoholics with homosexuals. You've got to make an effort to adress his point instead of just reading what you want to read. Now, I don't agree that homosexuality is a sin and I don't believe genes have much to do with homosexuality or sexuality in general, but he's right on the account that even if we assume that you're born with some particular wants and needs, that doesn't necessarily mean it's moral to carry them out in practice (or, for that matter, that it's immoral).

It's incumbent on him to prove there is a correlation. Alcoholism has an inherent negative effect. Sans religious boogedy-boo, there hasn't been any convincing argument the same is true for homosexuality. I certainly am not "addicted" to homosexuality as an alcoholic is to alcohol. I'm simply a homosexual. Considering every medical and psychiatric association says his line of reasoning is utter crap (not withstanding conspiracy theories among righties about the APA and AMA being manipulated by a then non-existant gay rights lobby), I'd say the argument lies on shaky ground.

Gays don't have to prove their worthiness to be equal--others have to show a compelling secular interest to do the opposite.

	12-12-2003 22:54									#53
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I guess we should have just held back on Civil Rights then, because the South didn't agree with it. Evil people will always stand against progress. Conservative Christians are evil people. Anyways, as for villification, after twenty years of viperous, poisonous, slanderous, lyaing attacks by the right, when the left has finally said, "**** it all, you lying evil bastards, we aren't gonna turn the cheek anymore," NOW you want to engage in more civil discourse? **** you! You sowed the whirlwind, now reap your reward. You declared war. Now, at last, that liberals are fighting back, you've decided you don't like it. Tough ****! You started the fight, you've earned a beating.

Well, that does about some it up.

I still don't see why religious folks think they're entitled to villify gays (and yes, calling them sinners is villification), but gays can't fire back with the competing notion that these folks are bigots.

	12-12-2003 23:08									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Yeah -- Che and I both basically said the same thing.

	12-12-2003 23:09									#55
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Alcoholism has an inherent negative effect. Sans religious boogedy-boo, there hasn't been any convincing argument the same is true for homosexuality.

Yeah, I agree that if you remove Ben K's premise that God prefers we don't have sex with anybody we want to, he doesn't have much of a point. My post wasn't supposed to be a back-up of the reactionaries whose ideas I can't relate to at all. I'm all for making a society where your choice of partner is irrelevant for legal purposes. It was a matter of letting out some steam because, I was a bit annoyed that Fun seems to be seeing ghosts where they don't really exist.

	12-12-2003 23:09									#56
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Monk Fun, First off, don't show your ignorance by comparing alcoholics with homosexuals. You've got to make an effort to adress his point instead of just reading what you want to read. Now, I don't agree that homosexuality is a sin and I don't believe genes have much to do with homosexuality or sexuality in general, but he's right on the account that even if we assume that you're born with some particular wants and needs, that doesn't necessarily mean it's moral to carry them out in practice (or, for that matter, that it's immoral).

And guess what? I disagree with that point!

	12-12-2003 23:20									#57
	Increase the size of your Attachments

So I see.

	12-12-2003 23:20									#58
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Homosexuality is a sin. Nothing you say will change this, and nothing of what our government does to endorse this will change it either.

Ben, How can it be a sin if the person is born that way? If God made the person homosexual, God cannot be wrong.

	12-12-2003 23:23									#59
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi First off, there is no proof that homosexuals are born that way.

I assume from this that you would change your views if there was proof.

	12-12-2003 23:26									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed in any case, fundies are bad, mmkay? they neither contribute meaningfully to political discourse, nor do they have a shred of intellectual integrity.

Q Cubed, who are these Christian fundies? Are you including the Catholic Church?