The Drum Corps Discussion Group
Presented by The Sound Machine Drum Corps Scores Archive

Links to Other Sites: 

* FAQ   * Search   * Login   * Register 
It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:34 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:27 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 1:54 pm
Posts: 1859
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...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:50 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 1:54 pm
Posts: 1859
LAMystreaux wrote:
chadwick 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:

_________________
What, it should be Spartacuses??

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:40 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:37 am
Posts: 1701
Location: Atlanta, GA
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:04 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:00 pm
Posts: 4374
Location: Leesville, LA
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.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:42 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:37 am
Posts: 1701
Location: Atlanta, GA
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:04 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:11 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 11:19 pm
Posts: 3791
Location: Poway, CA
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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:15 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:00 pm
Posts: 4374
Location: Leesville, LA
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.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:29 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 1:54 pm
Posts: 1859
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...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:15 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 1:54 pm
Posts: 1076
Location: North Beach MD
WE ARE SPARTACI wrote:
LAMystreaux wrote:
chadwick 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.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:59 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 1:54 pm
Posts: 1859
cwbjr67 wrote:
WE ARE SPARTACI wrote:
LAMystreaux wrote:
chadwick 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...

_________________
What, it should be Spartacuses??

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 5:13 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 1:54 pm
Posts: 1076
Location: North Beach MD
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?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 5:26 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 1:54 pm
Posts: 1076
Location: North Beach MD
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.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:37 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:37 am
Posts: 1701
Location: Atlanta, GA
WE ARE SPARTACI wrote:
cwbjr67 wrote:
WE ARE SPARTACI wrote:
LAMystreaux wrote:
chadwick 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:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:38 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:37 am
Posts: 1701
Location: Atlanta, GA
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group