Obama vs. Beantown

[NAOS]

I think if this thread is going to continue we should get some background on the real person behind Beantown. Most of your comments are backed by a system of beliefs that hasn't seen the appropriate light of day. Bean, you seem like a guy that is proud of who he is and what he believes, so why don't you tell us more about who you are and what you do. You know, the classic questions (except your real name)...

Age, Occupation, Title at work, Education, Religious Affiliation, Where you grew up, The make-up of your family, Married or Single, How many kids, The functions (if any) you serve in your religious community, etc.

 

[moevillini]

for the sake of peace and harmony, and since NAOS is obviously new and not somebody from the old board, Bean has stated that he believes that civil unions should be allowed between partners of the same sex as well as partners of the opposite sex. He just believes that the term "marriage" should only apply to heterosexual unions. I don't personally have a major issue with that, as long as it's understood that the term marriage has no legal standing, but refers to the ceremony that may be performed to celebrate the civil union.

I think I've paraphrased Bean's position fairly accurately.

So in that sense he's doesn't seem to be quite the bigot that he's sometimes portrayed as being.

 

[NAOS]

for the sake of peace and harmony, and since NAOS is obviously new and not somebody from the old board, Bean has stated that he believes that civil unions should be allowed between partners of the same sex as well as partners of the opposite sex. He just believes that the term "marriage" should only apply to heterosexual unions. I don't personally have a major issue with that, as long as it's understood that the term marriage has no legal standing, but refers to the ceremony that may be performed to celebrate the civil union.

I think I've paraphrased Bean's position fairly accurately.

So in that sense he's doesn't seem to be quite the bigot that he's sometimes portrayed as being.

I think all that you are doing here is helping a wolf dress in sheep's clothing. That doesn't mean I think Bean is a particularly dangerous wolf. He certainly doesn't think he's a bigot, but most bigots don't.


(I was actually a member of the old board for almost 3 years before the crash, but I rarely got involved with the general discussion board)

 

[One Brow]

#1 you are speaking about a specific race of people, I am not talking about people, I am talking about the relation.

#2 There are no biological differences in reference to reproduction from race to race. All heterosexual relation in all races create offspring

#3 This comparison makes no sense.

There you go, being all jellied again. I replied to a post where you discussed different relationships, now you back-pedal to say you meant relations.

#1. I never mentioned a race of people. More to the point, a relation between any two people is different than that between any two other people.
#2. There are biological difference in reproduction between any couple and any other couple, and in fact even between a couple at time A and that same coupld at a later time B. Otherwise their children would all be the same.
#3. If the comparison really made no sense, you would not have been able to compose responses #1 and #2. You understood the comparison just fine, you simply disliked it.

For reasons that are strictly religious in nature, you want o cordon off a certain type of sexual activity as being so special it deserves it own special name, and everyone else can make do without it. This is a bad basis for government policy.

I don't personally have a major issue with that, as long as it's understood that the term marriage has no legal standing, but refers to the ceremony that may be performed to celebrate the civil union.

Beantown's position is that there should be a separate legal standing, at least in name. Separate but equal, perhaps.

 

[moevillini]

Beantown's position is that there should be a separate legal standing, at least in name. Separate but equal, perhaps.

actually, I think he said he's support the term being used only for the ceremony. I'll have to try to find it.

 

[Beantown]

for the sake of peace and harmony, and since NAOS is obviously new and not somebody from the old board, Bean has stated that he believes that civil unions should be allowed between partners of the same sex as well as partners of the opposite sex. He just believes that the term "marriage" should only apply to heterosexual unions. I don't personally have a major issue with that, as long as it's understood that the term marriage has no legal standing, but refers to the ceremony that may be performed to celebrate the civil union.

I think I've paraphrased Bean's position fairly accurately.

So in that sense he's doesn't seem to be quite the bigot that he's sometimes portrayed as being.

Thanks Moe, that explains my position perfectly. But let me also add that to my reasoning. I beleive recognizing heterosexuals with the term "marriage" also distinguishes them as the only relation to engage in reproduction. This to me respects that power in a country that already disrespects reproduction.

So its not a diss to homosexuals, but a respect to the natural laws of our species.

 

[moevillini]

Bean (and anyone else)

You have said that you support "civil unions" for partners of the same sex. Speaking strictly in the legal sense as far as property rights, tax laws, family laws and whatever other areas of statute may be involved, does this mean that you would support a "civil union" that is 100% the equal to what is now called "marriage" - in other words, if the word "marriage" were taken out of the equation and replaced with "civil union" would you be in favor of this type of relationship for both same and different sex partners?

I'm just trying to figure out where it is that the line in the sand is drawn on this issue for you.

Moe, let me list some things for you and maybe this will help understand me better.

-I believe homosexual relations should have 100% the same rights as heterosexuals...

-I believe the term "marriage" has always been assoctiated with as a hetorosexuality and family...

ok, well maybe I'm adding too much of my own interpretation to his response to my direct question. But my question was pretty specific, and he did say he supports 100% the same for both types of relationships. I'm not sure whether the semantics matter more or less than I think they do, I'm really not.


EDIT: As sort of a corollary to the discussion, I'd be curious to know how others feel about the term "marriage" and whether or not it should be removed as the legal definition of the relationship so that civil union could become the accepted legal term.

 

[Beantown]

actually, I think he said he's support the term being used only for the ceremony. I'll have to try to find it.

Correct, homosexuals are trying to use the term "marriage" to force other to recognize the relation equal to heterosexuals. Unfortunatly the natural laws of our world dont support that. I am more concerned with respecting reproduction.

 

[Beantown]

Moe, why do you believe homosexuals are so concerned with the term "marriage" if they recieve the exact same legal benefits through civil unions?

 

[Scat]

Moe, why do you believe homosexuals are so concerned with the term "marriage" if they recieve the exact same legal benefits through civil unions?

I can answer this. They are so desperate to be looked at as normal, and feel equal that they think forcing their way into the one phrase that has defined heterosexual bonds for years will give them what they want. Sadly, I think they are mistaken. Being able to use a word will not change what or who they are.

 

[One Brow]

I can answer this. They are so desperate to be looked at as normal, and feel equal that they think forcing their way into the one phrase that has defined heterosexual bonds for years will give them what they want. Sadly, I think they are mistaken. Being able to use a word will not change what or who they are.

Of course, the thought that have a different institution can lead to discrimination down the line never occurs to homosexuals, right? It must be all about the Marcus's of the world and the effect it will have on them.

 

[Scat]

Of course, the thought that have a different institution can lead to discrimination down the line never occurs to homosexuals, right? It must be all about the Marcus's of the world and the effect it will have on them.

Can you translate this for me?