DescentBB

Lothar wrote:FWIW I'm completely in agreement with slick about the government and "definition of marriage". The government should have a completely generic "mutual relationship" that allows any number of adults, regardless of gender or orientation or other relationship, to gain certain benefits with respect to property, visitation, etc. And everyone should stop worrying about what everyone else thinks about their relationships. I don't need your approval and you don't need mine.

I find this to be a position compromised by the fact that it is uniquely reactionary to pressure from unhealthy lifestyles prevailing in society today. I propose that this as a governmental concept, in the proper perspective of what the purpose of society is and what our aims are as individuals, is nonsensical/without merit except as an inclusion for sexual deviation which has been emotionalized for general consumption in a time when people are not otherwise equipped to resist it.

Having attempted to express that, I will say that I agree with the idea that public pressure/ordinance should not be used to legitimize/de-legitimize a person's conscience, but if we're going to have a conscience at all there must be some mutual standards in order to have a society at all. It's not a healthy association of any sort which does not serve to reinforce or deter things which are good or bad, respectively.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Lothar wrote:FWIW I'm completely in agreement with slick about the government and "definition of marriage". The government should have a completely generic "mutual relationship" that allows any number of adults, regardless of gender or orientation or other relationship, to gain certain benefits with respect to property, visitation, etc. And everyone should stop worrying about what everyone else thinks about their relationships. I don't need your approval and you don't need mine.

I find this to be a position compromised by the fact that it is uniquely reactionary to pressure from unhealthy lifestyles prevailing in society today.

are you suggesting that being homosexual is unhealthy? Seriously? How?

To him, when he thinks about it, which must be a LOT of the time.

No, slick, I'm not suggesting it--It is my premise.

tunnelcat wrote:To him, when he thinks about it, which must be a LOT of the time.

I'm trying to have a debate without derailing the original topic. Try not to be a juvenile about it.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:No, slick, I'm not suggesting it--It is my premise.

what kind of 'debate' are we supposed to have given a flawed premise? The idea that homosexuality within a society or for individuals is somehow unhealthy is ludicrous. Homosexuality has been around since, well, forever, and society marches on. Individual homosexual people have achieved great things, the sort of success that most folks gay or straight can only imagine. Think Michaelangelo and you need go no farther.

With AIDS floating around, homosexuals are now far more careful about NOT transmitting diseases to each other than most heteros are during casual encounters these days. So why worry about what sex men have between each other anyway? Being a hetero, you shouldn't be interested in what 2 consenting homosexual adults do with each other in the bedroom anyway. It's private, or do you have some morbid fascination?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:No, slick, I'm not suggesting it--It is my premise.

premise needs a logical closure point to be a premise. Otherwise it's just an ad-hoc point.

example: "it is unhealthy because...<insert logical conclusion here>"

Tunnelcat, what you've tried to do twice now, and I've seen before on the same topic, is basically some sort of reverse-psychology. You're barking up the wrong tree.

What people do is LARGELY their own business, but it invariably effects others in ways most people won't begin to acknowledge. That argument doesn't float with me.

Slick, the answer to your first question is "none", really. This topic is aimed at people who do not agree with LGBT--gonna go out on a limb and assume that's Lothar among others. Your arguments that great achievement proves the worth of personal, private activities is, to me, blatantly false. It does however preclude the argument that all homosexuals are inhuman. It's a good thing that wasn't my argument.

Ferno wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:No, slick, I'm not suggesting it--It is my premise.

premise needs a logical closure point to be a premise. Otherwise it's just an ad-hoc point.

example: "it is unhealthy because...<insert logical conclusion here>"

In my thinking a premise doesn't have to be a delineated/express part of an equation, so to speak, but only a supporting assumption in the argument based upon pre-existing knowledge. I believe the definition of "premise" is this broad...

Thorne
If I understood your point it seems you want government to regulate marriage in a healthy-as-defined-by-you way.

That seems like a whole lot of surrender of freedom to the likes of congress. A solution you usually don't lean toward.

Why not just accept that marriage, as far as government is allowed to intervene, is ensuring the contract is not an infringement on civil rights and doesn't run afoul of the laws that the contract touches?

Leave the sanctioning and validating of the union of the people who who enter into it to those authorities those people elect to respect for that role.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Ferno wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:No, slick, I'm not suggesting it--It is my premise.

premise needs a logical closure point to be a premise. Otherwise it's just an ad-hoc point.

example: "it is unhealthy because...<insert logical conclusion here>"

In my thinking a premise doesn't have to be a delineated/express part of an equation, so to speak, but only a supporting assumption in the argument based upon pre-existing knowledge. I believe the definition of "premise" is this broad...

then it's not a premise. It's a confirmation bias.

As it stands, your argument is "homosexuality is unhealthy because I say so".

"the subject is aimed at those that don't agree with LGBT" Like anyone gives feck-all if you 'agree' with the way THEY were born.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I find this to be a position compromised by the fact that it is uniquely reactionary to pressure from unhealthy lifestyles prevailing in society today

No, in fact, it's the opposite. It's society finally coming to grips with the fact that our relationships are not and should never have been defined by a ruling body (religious or secular). Relationships are something we have, not something the government tells us we can have. Note that, in the Bible, weddings are not performed by the Jewish priests nor by Christian apostles; weddings are performed by more local "personal" authorities and are between the couple and their families and friends. If somebody comes in from an outside area and says "this is my wife", nobody asks for a certificate of authenticity, they just assume the relationship is as presented.

There are only three reasons either I or the government should care about a relationship you choose for yourself:

(1) there is a power imbalance with the potential for abuse. Examples include relationships with children, the disabled, or anyone being coerced physically, psychologically, economically, or religiously. In such a case, we should stand up for the vulnerable.

(2) if you ask me to care about your relationship, then you make it my business. Examples include asking me to provide resources because of your relationship, asking me to be involved in your celebration, or asking me for advice.

(3) you wish to enforce some expectation implied by your relationship, such as property sharing, medical visitation, or child custody. This is the only circumstance in which the government needs to be involved.

Note that the only reasons I'd care about who you're having sex with under this framework are abuse, "you asked for advice", and any children produced. Outside of those considerations, I wouldn't care if, for example, the two old guys from "Secondhand Lions" had a mutual relationship contract with the government, or if you want to have such a contract with your elderly mother who can't care for herself any more. And I think it's silly, both for "traditional marriage" advocates and "same sex marriage" advocates, to make everything about sex. Stop asking me to care about who you're having sex with, please.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Tunnelcat, what you've tried to do twice now, and I've seen before on the same topic, is basically some sort of reverse-psychology. You're barking up the wrong tree.

What people do is LARGELY their own business, but it invariably effects others in ways most people won't begin to acknowledge. That argument doesn't float with me.

How? How does it affect you? You're not gay, you're not going to EVER have sex with a gay man I'm guessing, you don't have deal with gay people most of the time (at least that you know about) and you're not going to get involved with any gay marriages, so what's the issue with you? You've got your own life to live and they have theirs.

I'd also like to hear how gay marriage affects my life. or the life of my neighbor down the street.

Lets say a gay couple wants your boss to paint their car with gay slogans for their upcoming marriage and your boss refuses. The press gets hold of it and before you know it business drops off to the point your boss can't stay in business. You of course get fired. Now the whole issue affects you but perhaps not your neighbor. Have a nice day.

Lets say a muslim wants your boss to paint their car with islamic slogans for their upcoming Eid Al-Fitr and your boss refuses. The press gets hold of it and before you know it business drops off to the point your boss can't stay in business. You of course get fired. Now the whole issue affects you but perhaps not your neighbor. Have a nice day.

Lets say a wiccan wants your boss to paint their car with pagan slogans for their upcoming Samhain and your boss refuses. The press gets hold of it and before you know it business drops off to the point your boss can't stay in business. You of course get fired. Now the whole issue affects you but perhaps not your neighbor. Have a nice day.

Lets say a black person wants your boss to paint their car with police brutality slogans for their upcoming Ferguson/Baltimore awareness rally and your boss refuses. The press gets hold of it and before you know it business drops off to the point your boss can't stay in business. You of course get fired. Now the whole issue affects you but perhaps not your neighbor. Have a nice day.


Find a better game to play, woody, that one's rather disingenuous.

woodchip wrote:Lets say a gay couple wants your boss to paint their car with gay slogans for their upcoming marriage and your boss refuses. The press gets hold of it and before you know it business drops off to the point your boss can't stay in business. You of course get fired. Now the whole issue affects you but perhaps not your neighbor. Have a nice day.

wow, what a ludicrous stretch,and one that has nothing whatsoever with gay marriage rights at all.

woodchip wrote:Lets say a gay couple wants your boss to paint their car with gay slogans for their upcoming marriage and your boss refuses. The press gets hold of it and before you know it business drops off to the point your boss can't stay in business. You of course get fired. Now the whole issue affects you but perhaps not your neighbor. Have a nice day.

and what does that have to do with marriage? also, why would my boss turn down thousands of dollars worth of custom work, and he certainly would not fire me over that.

Try again.

it doesn't, as I pointed out, have the least bit to do with marriage. But, let's give props to Woody, who no doubt stayed up all night coming up with that laughable scenario.

Let's give props to everyone for going along with the thread derail. Addressing the dumbest comments instead of the most worthwhile ones is a guaranteed path to boringville.

This thread went plaid at the start, Lothar.

agreed. Lothar, I pointed out that the entire debate was based on a seriously flawed premise.

callmeslick wrote:it doesn't, as I pointed out, have the least bit to do with marriage. But, let's give props to Woody, who no doubt stayed up all night coming up with that laughable scenario.

tell that to the pizza store or the cake store that were forced out of business for exactly the same type scenario. Of course if all you want to ridicule then you fall right in with all those who did the same to the cake and pizza stores. No doubt you and ferno didn't take any time coming up with your replies.

Lothar wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I find this to be a position compromised by the fact that it is uniquely reactionary to pressure from unhealthy lifestyles prevailing in society today

No, in fact, it's the opposite. It's society finally coming to grips with the fact that our relationships are not and should never have been defined by a ruling body (religious or secular). Relationships are something we have, not something the government tells us we can have. Note that, in the Bible, weddings are not performed by the Jewish priests nor by Christian apostles; weddings are performed by more local "personal" authorities and are between the couple and their families and friends. If somebody comes in from an outside area and says "this is my wife", nobody asks for a certificate of authenticity, they just assume the relationship is as presented.

There are only three reasons either I or the government should care about a relationship you choose for yourself:

(1) there is a power imbalance with the potential for abuse. Examples include relationships with children, the disabled, or anyone being coerced physically, psychologically, economically, or religiously. In such a case, we should stand up for the vulnerable.

(2) if you ask me to care about your relationship, then you make it my business. Examples include asking me to provide resources because of your relationship, asking me to be involved in your celebration, or asking me for advice.

(3) you wish to enforce some expectation implied by your relationship, such as property sharing, medical visitation, or child custody. This is the only circumstance in which the government needs to be involved.

Note that the only reasons I'd care about who you're having sex with under this framework are abuse, "you asked for advice", and any children produced. Outside of those considerations, I wouldn't care if, for example, the two old guys from "Secondhand Lions" had a mutual relationship contract with the government, or if you want to have such a contract with your elderly mother who can't care for herself any more. And I think it's silly, both for "traditional marriage" advocates and "same sex marriage" advocates, to make everything about sex. Stop asking me to care about who you're having sex with, please.

That's an interesting answer. As much sense as that makes, I have to ask myself if I'd ever hear it coming from anyone else... I learned a hard lesson through experience, and that is it profits little to be guided by the right answer while being carried along with a crowd disposed toward choosing the wrong one. Your efforts wasted and you suffer set-back, as the final outcome is ****ed up by people who basically don't know how to do anything else...

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:it doesn't, as I pointed out, have the least bit to do with marriage. But, let's give props to Woody, who no doubt stayed up all night coming up with that laughable scenario.

tell that to the pizza store or the cake store that were forced out of business for exactly the same type scenario. Of course if all you want to ridicule then you fall right in with all those who did the same to the cake and pizza stores. No doubt you and ferno didn't take any time coming up with your replies.

but those places and examples had NOTHING to do with gay marriage or marriage definitions at all. That was all about discrimination by a business, which is actually illegal already.

woodchip wrote:tell that to the pizza store or the cake store that were forced out of business for exactly the same type scenario. Of course if all you want to ridicule then you fall right in with all those who did the same to the cake and pizza stores. No doubt you and ferno didn't take any time coming up with your replies.

Yeah, I'll tell that business they should not have discriminated against people. We went through all this stuff before and it was called civil rights

Took me about fifteen seconds to come up with this one. How long did it take you to come up with yours? two hours?

[not cool stuff removed]

I'd love it if a business owner had the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I think It would be a sign of a healthy culture if that was the way it was and no one ever felt a need for a law to mandate otherwise.

There really can't be liberty with equality until then.

Why not go big and say a sign of a healthy culture is no laws, and nobody ever felt the need for laws. It's about as realistic.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:it doesn't, as I pointed out, have the least bit to do with marriage. But, let's give props to Woody, who no doubt stayed up all night coming up with that laughable scenario.

tell that to the pizza store or the cake store that were forced out of business for exactly the same type scenario. Of course if all you want to ridicule then you fall right in with all those who did the same to the cake and pizza stores. No doubt you and ferno didn't take any time coming up with your replies.

but those places and examples had NOTHING to do with gay marriage or marriage definitions at all. That was all about discrimination by a business, which is actually illegal already.

If it was illegal why weren't the business owners charged? And making a cake for a gay wedding had nothing to to do with gay weddings? What kool aid are you drinking.

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:tell that to the pizza store or the cake store that were forced out of business for exactly the same type scenario. Of course if all you want to ridicule then you fall right in with all those who did the same to the cake and pizza stores. No doubt you and ferno didn't take any time coming up with your replies.

Yeah, I'll tell that business they should not have discriminated against people. We went through all this stuff before and it was called civil rights

Took me about fifteen seconds to come up with this one. How long did it take you to come up with yours? two hours?

[not cool stuff removed]

Aww fernie, you don't understand a analogy and better yet you got all flustered over it.

Will Robinson wrote:I'd love it if a business owner had the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I think It would be a sign of a healthy culture if that was the way it was and no one ever felt a need for a law to mandate otherwise.

There really can't be liberty with equality until then.

no culture would exist, though, with that level of common intolerance allowed to persist, let alone be encouraged.

woodchip wrote:
If it was illegal why weren't the business owners charged? And making a cake for a gay wedding had nothing to to do with gay weddings? What kool aid are you drinking.

as for the legality, no one bothered because of the prevailing local political climate. And weddings have nothing to do with the legalities around marriage. No Kool Aid here, just the clarity of thought to figure out the subtleties involved. I prefer coffee for such clarity.

Vander wrote:Why not go big and say a sign of a healthy culture is no laws, and nobody ever felt the need for laws. It's about as realistic.

Is it unrealistic, or just not practical given the state of human nature today.

As long as government is the authority on, and solution to, 'what is offensive' the roles of offender and offended will be popular. The players will keep lining up because the casting authority has distilled the parts down to the two types. The script demands it. The play they are putting on sells lots of tickets.

So if you consider my vision of a healthy culture, one that isn't easily affected by a bigot, you might realize it won't be the government that brings us to that state.

Here is a little thought exercise for you all if you like:

What will it take for white people to stop being thought of as 'former slavers/still the oppressors' and all the associated blame that goes with that role? How does that character get written out of the story?
The perfect mix of legislation? A proper amount of restitution? A better apology on behalf of the white ancestors?

Or is there some other entity that solely holds that power?

Mutual respect and a breakdown of tribalism.

Vander wrote:Mutual respect and a breakdown of tribalism.

That is the description of the human nature *after* the event I'm pointing you towards.

Will Robinson wrote:

Vander wrote:Why not go big and say a sign of a healthy culture is no laws, and nobody ever felt the need for laws. It's about as realistic.

Is it unrealistic, or just not practical given the state of human nature today.

I think it is unrealistic given human nature forever.

As long as government is the authority on, and solution to, 'what is offensive' the roles of offender and offended will be popular. The players will keep lining up because the casting authority has distilled the parts down to the two types. The script demands it. The play they are putting on sells lots of tickets.

nonsense, people have been making such distinctions, once again, forever.

What will it take for white people to stop being thought of as 'former slavers/still the oppressors' and all the associated blame that goes with that role? How does that character get written out of the story?

how do you write characters out of the story which is called HISTORY? You can't.

The perfect mix of legislation? A proper amount of restitution? A better apology on behalf of the white ancestors?

with time comes enlightenment. As I've said before, I'm old enough to remember the segregated bathrooms, water fountains, schools, etc of my youth, and to have seen the GRADUAL changes. We are getting there, with fits and starts. I see younger generations who are far more color-blind than my own. Such is progress.

Or is there some other entity that solely holds that power?

well, entities, as in all of us.

Will Robinson wrote:That is the description of the human nature *after* the event I'm pointing you towards.

The identification of a common enemy is the quickest way to form a coalition. I nominate global capitalists.

woodchip wrote:Aww fernie, you don't understand a analogy and better yet you got all flustered over it.

Sorry, I thought an analogy was a comparisom between two things that are like each other and based in reality; not something that belongs in the world of hollywood. Looks like you got me.