Excellent video!

The really HOT topics of the day... be careful to not get burned! Please try to remain open minded...

Moderator: The Moderating Team

WE ARE SPARTACI
All Star
All Star
Posts: 1859
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 1:54 pm
Contact:

Post by WE ARE SPARTACI » Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:27 am

One side is constantly attempting to make this a human rights issue which it clearly is not. It is not an equal protection "back of the bus" issue either. Dave said it best. There are many other inter-personal relationships that are not considered marriage. Changing the definition of marriage to fit each one of them makes no sense. I know, I know, you just want this one type to fall under the *new* definition. So does that make you a bigot against other types that now fall outside of the new and improved definition?

The term "marriage" means something. It has a value much like an algebraic formula. Other relationships have values as well, each type possessing different characteristics (values). I am not speaking of value in the sense of worth, but simply x = x and y = y. Not x > y or vice versa. The term "man" has a value (adult male homo sapien). Likewise the term "woman" has a value that is different than the value of "man". Not greater than or less than, but different nonetheless (not getting into the generic term "man" as in short for "mankind). A woman who acts like a man, dresses like a man, etc. is still a woman; the appearance of a similar "value" notwithstanding. Even calling her a man will not change the fact or her biological or legal standing as a woman. My family has an incarcerated friend that we met through a prison visitation outreach. "Dee" is a pre-op transsexual man who identifies "herself" as a female and lives accordingly (and somewhat looks the part), yet "she" is in an all male prison. x = x

Sidebar: We met Dee after a suicide attempt last month. We found out that Dee has not had a single visitor since being incarcerated 2 years ago. Dee now has a pen pal through my wife, and hopefully future visits depending on the long term housing situation.

And Chadwick, I must respectfully disagree with your opinion of biological design. You may have no control over your desires or preferences. You may feel that this alone provides evidence that homosexuality is in order with biology. Without making any moral argument, it doesn't take an in depth familiarity with biology to see that male-female relationships are naturally symbiotic. Because you feel differently and live in a relationship that is other than male-female, does not change the truth of the natural biology of the human body. It also doesn't make you any less of a person or your relationship any less important than any of ours are. Whether the definition of marriage is changed or not, none of this is affected. What is affected is marriage itself as it no longer means what it has in the past. It is a futile battle to desire something so much, that the only way to attain it is to change the very thing you want into something else entirely.
What, it should be Spartacuses??

Music is like candy; to get to the good stuff, you have to remove the rappers...

WE ARE SPARTACI
All Star
All Star
Posts: 1859
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 1:54 pm
Contact:

Post by WE ARE SPARTACI » Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:50 am

LAMystreaux wrote:
chadwick wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HpTBF6EfxY


Thank you Mr. Olbermann.

While I know it is good to find celebs willing to speak on behalf of issues important to us, Olbermann is a disingenuous blowhard. This would be like me posting links from Sean Hannity on issues important to me.
I disagree entirely. Olbermann is a genuine blowhard... :lol:
What, it should be Spartacuses??

Music is like candy; to get to the good stuff, you have to remove the rappers...

User avatar
chadwick
All Star
All Star
Posts: 1701
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:37 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Post by chadwick » Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:40 am

WE ARE SPARTACI wrote:One side is constantly attempting to make this a human rights issue which it clearly is not. It is not an equal protection "back of the bus" issue either. Dave said it best. There are many other inter-personal relationships that are not considered marriage. Changing the definition of marriage to fit each one of them makes no sense. I know, I know, you just want this one type to fall under the *new* definition. So does that make you a bigot against other types that now fall outside of the new and improved definition?

The term "marriage" means something. It has a value much like an algebraic formula.

And Chadwick, I must respectfully disagree with your opinion of biological design. You may have no control over your desires or preferences. You may feel that this alone provides evidence that homosexuality is in order with biology. Without making any moral argument, it doesn't take an in depth familiarity with biology to see that male-female relationships are naturally symbiotic. Because you feel differently and live in a relationship that is other than male-female, does not change the truth of the natural biology of the human body. It also doesn't make you any less of a person or your relationship any less important than any of ours are. Whether the definition of marriage is changed or not, none of this is affected. What is affected is marriage itself as it no longer means what it has in the past. It is a futile battle to desire something so much, that the only way to attain it is to change the very thing you want into something else entirely.

This is very much a human rights issue. I am human, equal rights are being denied of me = HUMAN RIGHTS issue. You have rights that I don't have = HUMAN RIGHTS issue. You don't agree with my lifestyle, frankly, I don't give a damn. I should be entitled, however, to the same rights as you.

What other relationships are you refering to? I can't really answer your question until you tell me what other interpersonal relationships are at debate here.

And I know that the term marriage means something...I would like the opportunity, at least, to share in that term.

None of you have yet to answer my question....how is marriage, your marriage, affected by allowing a same-sex couple to marry?

User avatar
LAMystreaux
All Star
All Star
Posts: 4374
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:00 pm
Location: Leesville, LA

Post by LAMystreaux » Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:04 pm

chadwick wrote:
WE ARE SPARTACI wrote:One side is constantly attempting to make this a human rights issue which it clearly is not. It is not an equal protection "back of the bus" issue either. Dave said it best. There are many other inter-personal relationships that are not considered marriage. Changing the definition of marriage to fit each one of them makes no sense. I know, I know, you just want this one type to fall under the *new* definition. So does that make you a bigot against other types that now fall outside of the new and improved definition?

The term "marriage" means something. It has a value much like an algebraic formula.

And Chadwick, I must respectfully disagree with your opinion of biological design. You may have no control over your desires or preferences. You may feel that this alone provides evidence that homosexuality is in order with biology. Without making any moral argument, it doesn't take an in depth familiarity with biology to see that male-female relationships are naturally symbiotic. Because you feel differently and live in a relationship that is other than male-female, does not change the truth of the natural biology of the human body. It also doesn't make you any less of a person or your relationship any less important than any of ours are. Whether the definition of marriage is changed or not, none of this is affected. What is affected is marriage itself as it no longer means what it has in the past. It is a futile battle to desire something so much, that the only way to attain it is to change the very thing you want into something else entirely.

This is very much a human rights issue. I am human, equal rights are being denied of me = HUMAN RIGHTS issue. You have rights that I don't have = HUMAN RIGHTS issue. You don't agree with my lifestyle, frankly, I don't give a damn. I should be entitled, however, to the same rights as you.

What other relationships are you refering to? I can't really answer your question until you tell me what other interpersonal relationships are at debate here.

And I know that the term marriage means something...I would like the opportunity, at least, to share in that term.

None of you have yet to answer my question....how is marriage, your marriage, affected by allowing a same-sex couple to marry?

You are entitled to the same rights I am. You are entitled to marry, as marriage is defined by law, just as I am.
Just because your hate is masked by "free thinking" or being "open-minded" does not make it right.

User avatar
chadwick
All Star
All Star
Posts: 1701
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:37 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Post by chadwick » Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:42 pm

LAMystreaux wrote: You are entitled to the same rights I am. You are entitled to marry, as marriage is defined by law, just as I am.
If I were heterosexual, which I am not.

Blurae1
All Star
All Star
Posts: 951
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: North Louisiana

Post by Blurae1 » Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:04 pm

Again, whether you get married or not has no bearing on my 28 year marriage. I can't even see how it affects anyone elses either...................Bill

User avatar
Hostrauser
All Star
All Star
Posts: 3791
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 11:19 pm
Location: Poway, CA
Contact:

Post by Hostrauser » Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:11 pm

LAMystreaux wrote:You are entitled to the same rights I am. You are entitled to marry, as marriage is defined by law, just as I am.
And laws are not absolute: times change, societies evolve, laws are revised.

Fifty years ago, the 2,000-year-old definition of marriage was "one man and one woman of the same race."

Now it's "one man, one woman."

Tomorrow it will be "two loving adults."

The definition of a word does not trump the rights of a human being.
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am."
-- Joseph Baretti

User avatar
LAMystreaux
All Star
All Star
Posts: 4374
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:00 pm
Location: Leesville, LA

Post by LAMystreaux » Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:15 pm

Hostrauser wrote:The definition of a word does not trump the rights of a human being.
But for some of us, God's word does.
Just because your hate is masked by "free thinking" or being "open-minded" does not make it right.

WE ARE SPARTACI
All Star
All Star
Posts: 1859
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 1:54 pm
Contact:

Post by WE ARE SPARTACI » Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:29 pm

chadwick wrote:This is very much a human rights issue. I am human, equal rights are being denied of me = HUMAN RIGHTS issue. You have rights that I don't have = HUMAN RIGHTS issue. You don't agree with my lifestyle, frankly, I don't give a damn. I should be entitled, however, to the same rights as you.
Perhaps you could tell us what rights you are being denied? If you lived in California the list would be zero.
chadwick wrote:What other relationships are you refering to? I can't really answer your question until you tell me what other interpersonal relationships are at debate here.
Any other relationship. This list could be limitless...

Brother-sister - not eligible for marriage
Multiple spouses (polygamy) - not eligible
Group relationships (commune with multiple partners of both sexes) - not eligible
Adult / minor - not eligible (a prime example of societal values superseding personal desires)

Of course there are some people who will say that anything and everything is ok. I actually respect that opinion (although I most certainly disagree) as at least they are consistent. Most everyone has a limit though. Once you get past the traditional, historical definition though, any other line of definition would seem to be arbitrary at best.

chadwick wrote:And I know that the term marriage means something...I would like the opportunity, at least, to share in that term.

None of you have yet to answer my question....how is marriage, your marriage, affected by allowing a same-sex couple to marry?
Perhaps because you are not asking the pertinent question. You are asking for a new definition; a changing of the "value" of what constitutes a marriage. It is then, by definition, something different.
What, it should be Spartacuses??

Music is like candy; to get to the good stuff, you have to remove the rappers...

User avatar
cwbjr67
All Star
All Star
Posts: 1076
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 1:54 pm
Location: North Beach MD

Post by cwbjr67 » Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:15 pm

WE ARE SPARTACI wrote:
LAMystreaux wrote:
chadwick wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HpTBF6EfxY


Thank you Mr. Olbermann.

While I know it is good to find celebs willing to speak on behalf of issues important to us, Olbermann is a disingenuous blowhard. This would be like me posting links from Sean Hannity on issues important to me.
I disagree entirely. Olbermann is a genuine blowhard... :lol:
I thought Michael's reply was hilarious until I read this one....Funny, funny :lol:

I remember watching one of his diatribes that was directed at President Bush where spittle was bouncing frenetically from his upper and lower lips. He looked like a rabid dog.

WE ARE SPARTACI
All Star
All Star
Posts: 1859
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 1:54 pm
Contact:

Post by WE ARE SPARTACI » Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:59 pm

cwbjr67 wrote:
WE ARE SPARTACI wrote:
LAMystreaux wrote:
chadwick wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HpTBF6EfxY


Thank you Mr. Olbermann.

While I know it is good to find celebs willing to speak on behalf of issues important to us, Olbermann is a disingenuous blowhard. This would be like me posting links from Sean Hannity on issues important to me.
I disagree entirely. Olbermann is a genuine blowhard... :lol:
I thought Michael's reply was hilarious until I read this one....Funny, funny :lol:

I remember watching one of his diatribes that was directed at President Bush where spittle was bouncing frenetically from his upper and lower lips. He looked like a rabid dog.
Rabies would explain an awful lot about him...
What, it should be Spartacuses??

Music is like candy; to get to the good stuff, you have to remove the rappers...

User avatar
cwbjr67
All Star
All Star
Posts: 1076
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 1:54 pm
Location: North Beach MD

Post by cwbjr67 » Fri Nov 14, 2008 5:13 pm

chadwick wrote:
cwbjr67 wrote:Today's new tolerance requires the acceptance of a person's views or behaviors as being true or legitimate. Essentially, if one claims that someone is wrong, then that person is accused of bigotry, arrogance, and judgmentalism.
There was nothing courageous about those who voted for Prop 8. There is nothing courageous about denying equal civil rights to other people. It is discrimination, it is prejudice.
Emphasis added above.

You have inadvertently proven my point.

Let me go one step further. It is not prejudicial to base a decision on a reality that is independent of the mind. Should all natural appetites be legitimized?

User avatar
cwbjr67
All Star
All Star
Posts: 1076
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 1:54 pm
Location: North Beach MD

Post by cwbjr67 » Fri Nov 14, 2008 5:26 pm

Hostrauser wrote:
LAMystreaux wrote:You are entitled to the same rights I am. You are entitled to marry, as marriage is defined by law, just as I am.
And laws are not absolute: times change, societies evolve, laws are revised.

Fifty years ago, the 2,000-year-old definition of marriage was "one man and one woman of the same race."

Now it's "one man, one woman."

Tomorrow it will be "two loving adults."

The definition of a word does not trump the rights of a human being.
Emphasis added above.

Respectfully, rights are defined every day, and your definition is too vague.

User avatar
chadwick
All Star
All Star
Posts: 1701
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:37 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Post by chadwick » Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:37 pm

WE ARE SPARTACI wrote:
cwbjr67 wrote:
WE ARE SPARTACI wrote:
LAMystreaux wrote:
While I know it is good to find celebs willing to speak on behalf of issues important to us, Olbermann is a disingenuous blowhard. This would be like me posting links from Sean Hannity on issues important to me.
I disagree entirely. Olbermann is a genuine blowhard... :lol:
I thought Michael's reply was hilarious until I read this one....Funny, funny :lol:

I remember watching one of his diatribes that was directed at President Bush where spittle was bouncing frenetically from his upper and lower lips. He looked like a rabid dog.
Rabies would explain an awful lot about him...
Regardless of the immature insults you guys spew about him, and what he said....his message is deep, and it is real. I appreciate the mature response to his message :roll:

User avatar
chadwick
All Star
All Star
Posts: 1701
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:37 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Post by chadwick » Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:38 pm

LAMystreaux wrote:
Hostrauser wrote:The definition of a word does not trump the rights of a human being.
But for some of us, God's word does.
The God that you believe in, correct?

Locked