The existence of governmental programs is completely different from having different rights. In general, governmental programs such as these are designed to secure more equal rights, not create a different set of rights.
Last edited:
LDS Church fined for contributions to Prop 8!! HA!
- Thread starter KatieMCR
- Start date
The existence of governmental programs is completely different from having different rights. In general, governmental programs such as these are designed to secure more equal rights, not create a different set of rights.
I'm not going to respond with the thoroughness your post deserves at this time. Perhaps in a future blog installment.
I don't know. I've never actually read Beckett.
Of course pure mathematics is arbitrary. Even the logic that mathematics is based upon is arbitrary. We set up a two-valued functional determination of logical values because we find that sufficient and convenient. We then choose the axioms to accept that give us the mathematical system we desire to have, one that models the reality we perceive. Likewise, our inherent belief that our livges and actions have meaning is arbitrary, even if it is central to who we are. As you said, we accept principles like the Golen Rule are in everyone self-interest, but even valuing our self-interest is a choice we make and a preference we have, not a conclusion from some inescapable facet of existence.
I concur. The other 5% is where the fun is.
I will see if I can find a copy to read. Your recommendation is sufficient for that.
I don't know. I've never actually read Beckett.
Of course pure mathematics is arbitrary. Even the logic that mathematics is based upon is arbitrary. We set up a two-valued functional determination of logical values because we find that sufficient and convenient. We then choose the axioms to accept that give us the mathematical system we desire to have, one that models the reality we perceive. Likewise, our inherent belief that our livges and actions have meaning is arbitrary, even if it is central to who we are. As you said, we accept principles like the Golen Rule are in everyone self-interest, but even valuing our self-interest is a choice we make and a preference we have, not a conclusion from some inescapable facet of existence.
I concur. The other 5% is where the fun is.
I will see if I can find a copy to read. Your recommendation is sufficient for that.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
I'm anticipating a response from Katie on this. Waiting.... Waiting.... Waiting....
Duck Rodgers
Well-Known Member
Exactly. And not only are the people that usually attend the Sundance Film Fesitval typically the pro-gay crowd, but for that movie specifically, you would have to push that number a bit higher. That's why I just expected to read a few reviews from the festival that were proclaiming it as the next step in the gay rights fight..... the downfall of the Mormon Church....or whatever the movie is trying to accomplish. Not necessarily what I was seeing though. They at the very least seemed a bit more balanced than the poster formerly known as Jack.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
Here I will re post what I wrote because you seem to have trouble reading this part:
The term marriage has been synonymous with heterosexual union for thousands of years. It is a term that has been used with family formation by the process of creating new life and passing on genetics and heredity of offspring.
Homosexual relations are exact opposite of heterosexual relations......that's why there is A DIFFERENT NAME DESCRIBING TO DISTINGUISH THE TWO! So Kicky what is wrong with embracing our differences? Do you just have some desire for everyone to be and viewed the same? Do you just want a bunch of short little lawyers roaming the earth that are Jazz fans?
No, I don't have any problems reading that part. I'm less interested in your conclusion than how you got there. Your process relies upon the idea that different types of relationships need different types of legal protections. My question, and your answer, reveal that even if the sections of the law that you identify as justifying differential treatment were altered you still wouldn't support the use of the term "marriage." Thus, because you would not support the term "marriage" being applied even if the rationale you supplied behind giving them a different legal status was satisfied through alternative legal means, it's obvious that your real issue is with the term marriage rather than with any practical effects. The discussion of practical effects is merely a smokescreen.
It's possibly the most basic logical-takeout of your argument imaginable. That you can't see it leads me to question whether or not you have manufactured the smoke-screen as a means of self-delusion.
I have little sympathy for arguments that rely upon the sanctity of the definition of a word. The word "gay" didn't mean homosexual until relatively recently. Marriage has also been synonymous with customs such as bride prices and enforced sexual exclusivity through punishment of death for thousands of years. Things change as society changes. Get over it.
You've admitted previously that you would support the use of the term marriage for a heterosexual couple that was unable to reproduce either as a result of age or infertility. Obviously, the ability to create life through procreation isn't your real litmus test.
Besides the bizarreness of trying to assign a word like heterosexual an "exact opposite," this could only be true if you conceive of sex and gender as a binary enterprise where you're either entirely straight, gay, masculine, or feminine. Obvious biological examples and the last century of the history of sexuality have thoroughly destroyed that binary. This argument, consequently, is absurd on face.
Nothing is wrong with embracing our differences. What is wrong is creating artificial and arbitrary exclusions of others that are designed to do nothing less than deny a status to others. That is the very definition of a lack of equal protection under the law.
Bizarrely, you seem to have this facet of the argument exactly backwards. You want to enforce a rigid set of standards onto homosexuals where they are not allowed to get married. Those in favor of gay marriage want to give homosexuals the option to CHOOSE to become married. Homosexuals would not be forced to get married anymore than heterosexuals are presently forced to become married.
Where did the idea that I'm short come from? This is completely bizarre to me.
Nothing is wrong, as long as they sit in the back of the bus, don't drink from the heterosexual fountain, use the heterosexual restroom, or stay at the heterosexual hotels. They are different and they should be treated differently.
Now, let's go burn some books and hit some women with clubs!
Possibly the best idea you've ever had. I'm in.
The previous holder of the short jokes on this board was Viny. I'm like 6 inches taller than Viny. This is truly baffling to me.
I checked around for average height statistics in the country and, depending on whose measurements you believe, I'm either an inch taller than average or right at the average.
Are you guys basing this on photos of me at stadiums? You realize that stadium seating is at a slope so people behind me will always appear taller right? Maybe I'm shorter than the average basketball fan or something?
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Or maybe the people you are sitting by in the photos are just big and make you looks small. How tall are you? I'd say, I would think you're something like 5'9". Either way, height doesn't matter, right?
My last physical measured me at 5'11." That seemed a little high to me. My drivers license says I'm 5'10." I really don't care, but he's said it enough times now that I'm more confused than anything.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
I actually don't consider 5'10" to be short. Just average.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Then stop buying nice seats and buy the highest seats you can in the building with no one sitting behind you. Then we'll all recognize you as the tallest fan in the arena
I don't know dude -- the two times I've met you in person, I was taken by how short and wimpy you were. I'm not saying I wasn't 'turned on, but you are far from being big, or even average for that matter.
Now, if we're talking about brain size, you totally win.
Now, if we're talking about brain size, you totally win.
I'll totally admit to wimpy. My dad was a water polo player and an auto-mechanic that used to lift two car batteries with one hand. I take after my mother.
I find the concept that we embrace differences by creating a separate set of laws and standards based on extraordinarily minor differences (for example, the differences between a heterosexual and homosexual relationship) very amusing.
The internal dynamics of a heterosexual relationship versus a homosexual relationship might be great. The technical differences that would describe what one partner's obligations and responsibilities to the other would be are insignificant. So insignificant, I would suggest, that there is no need for a separate law in order to "protect" and/or "embrace" our differences.
It bothers me a great deal to hear people, Beantown mostly, imply that:
1- Our rights are given to us by society.
2- The rights we receive are based on our overall value to society.
3- Society is free to set arbitrary standards (I'm with Atheist preacher in that we can define morals based on concrete principles, but that's not what's being done here) and then deny basic rights and privileges to individuals based on these standards.
1- We, as individuals, have rights independent of society or government.
2- The preservation of society cannot come from the destruction of the individual. Society exists to benefit the individual, not the other way around.
3- In a constitutional republic such as ours all people are viewed (theoretically) as equal under the law.
To justify denial of a full franchise in our society/culture based on the lack of value one is deemed to have to society is beyond horrifying. It's the kind of thinking that leads otherwise normal people to feel like they're doing their duty as they shove living people into poisonous showers and crematory furnaces because they are undesirable and do not add value to society.
The internal dynamics of a heterosexual relationship versus a homosexual relationship might be great. The technical differences that would describe what one partner's obligations and responsibilities to the other would be are insignificant. So insignificant, I would suggest, that there is no need for a separate law in order to "protect" and/or "embrace" our differences.
It bothers me a great deal to hear people, Beantown mostly, imply that:
1- Our rights are given to us by society.
2- The rights we receive are based on our overall value to society.
3- Society is free to set arbitrary standards (I'm with Atheist preacher in that we can define morals based on concrete principles, but that's not what's being done here) and then deny basic rights and privileges to individuals based on these standards.
1- We, as individuals, have rights independent of society or government.
2- The preservation of society cannot come from the destruction of the individual. Society exists to benefit the individual, not the other way around.
3- In a constitutional republic such as ours all people are viewed (theoretically) as equal under the law.
To justify denial of a full franchise in our society/culture based on the lack of value one is deemed to have to society is beyond horrifying. It's the kind of thinking that leads otherwise normal people to feel like they're doing their duty as they shove living people into poisonous showers and crematory furnaces because they are undesirable and do not add value to society.
Good god, imagine how big of a prick you would be if you also lifted weights and was a jock. You would be the black hole of prickdom.
Stickler
Well-Known Member
Oh dear God, Gameface. You know, I sat here reading you post, thinking: this is a good post. This is such a good post, that after I'm done reading it, I'm going to quote it and simply say, "Good post." But you just had to go and ruin things for me there at the end, didn't you....
I'm completely positive I would have been one of those soccer players who are constantly showing off on the campus quad and tries his luck with every girl that walks by.