Vermont legalizes gay marriage

[STP]

 

1778 - 'free' [white] men get rights

1865 - blacks [in theory] get basic rights

1870 - minorities [in theory] get to vote

1920 - women get to vote

1965 to present - blacks fight for the rest of their equal rights

1967 - interracial marriage rights recognized

1969 to present - gays fight for equal rights

 

Could it be a trend? Could it be our history? Could it be bigots are just afraid of our history because bigots of one stripe or another have attempted to block every one of these milestones in U.S. history.

 

I have never had a problem with the recognition of the disenfranchised. I just find it interesting that 'you' use the same tactics that you rail against, i.e., pitting right vs wrong that you accuse Christians of doing? How can you be so legalistically rigid in framing the issue when actually the issue is much more than allowing gays to marry? Why seek to marginalize a larger number of people by calling them stupid or irrelevant?

[STP]

Opposed to this view are those who see each of us as aware of ourselves and our experience in a way that we can never be with respect to any other human being. Self enclosed, we are seen as needing to reach an understanding of the inner lives of others, somehow, on the basis of our own unique awareness of our inner lives. However, this denies us the comfort of a more direct closeness. We live forever with a gap between ourselves and others.

 

Thus, the mushroom.

[prole]

I have never had a problem with the recognition of the disenfranchised.

 

This would appear to be precisely your problem.

[ivan]

1778 - 'free' [white] men get rights

1865 - blacks [in theory] get basic rights

1870 - minorities [in theory] get to vote

1920 - women get to vote

1965 to present - blacks fight for the rest of their equal rights

1967 - interracial marriage rights recognized

1969 to present - gays fight for equal rights

 

Could it be a trend? Could it be our history? Could it be bigots are just afraid of our history because bigots of one stripe or another have attempted to block every one of these milestones in U.S. history.

"There are, in every age, new errors to be rectified and new prejudices to be opposed."

 

Samuel Johnson

[STP]

So was Samuel Johnson the first Maoist?

[olyclimber]

[prole]

 

Ur po-mo masturbations r so tired. Try em out on college freshmen.

[STP]

Is that where you go for relief?

[prole]

Hell fuckin' yeah!

[JosephH]

How can you be... ...when actually the issue is much more than allowing gays to marry?

 

How can a person be this blatantly bigoted and blind to it? There is nothing more to the issue than allowing gays to marry - nothing. All that 'much more' IS the bigotry. Following your pathetic line of logic would return us to the days when states could outlaw interracial marriage so as not to infringe on racists' 'right' to raise their kids with the correct 'upbringing' free of gov't imposed mind-control.

 

This is exactly why religious fundamentalism - anywhere and of any kind - is so dangerous to human rights and free, democratic nations.

[billcoe]

How come you're the only one that gets the gist of what I'm saying.

 

Well I attribute it to intelligence. Others attribute it to lack of the same.

 

 

 

I've long suspected many other cc.comers mostly just read the first 4-6 words of any random post and guess the rest as they start typing a furious response detailing their strong objections to what is inside of their heads based on a persons first 4 or 5 words though.

 

 

ps, ask me sometime about how Samuel L Jackson helped my family out when we got lost near where ground zero of the LA riots had just happened.

[STP]

How can you be... ...when actually the issue is much more than allowing gays to marry?

 

How can a person be this blatantly bigoted and blind to it? There is nothing more to the issue than allowing gays to marry - nothing. All that 'much more' IS the bigotry. Following your pathetic line of logic would return us to the days when states could outlaw interracial marriage so as not to infringe on racists' 'right' to raise their kids with the correct 'upbringing' free of gov't imposed mind-control.

 

This is exactly why religious fundamentalism - anywhere and of any kind - is so dangerous to human rights and free, democratic nations.

 

Whew, Joseph I'm devastated.

 

Why are you disrespecting me? Well, this IS spray. You think that my posts are who I am. So you put a label on me and that's that. The substance of who I am is that label. Well done.

 

You don't know me. You don't know my voting record, etc. You make assumptions then you attack me even though I am just a messenger. Have you considered that I am purposely taking that position not as my base beliefs but rather from the standpoint that there are two sides to give voice to?

 

You have couched your position so that one side is wholly right while the other side is grossly wrong. You suppress legitimate concerns as meaningless or trivial. My initial standpoint is that I believe it is an injustice to force others to conform by dictate. I can’t speak to the moral equivalence of the two issues, one being the discrimination against a group, the other being the method used to change society. The latter is the issue that I’m addressing.

 

My understanding is that there is a third way that seeks to respect values on both sides, because to have otherwise, can only lead to conflict.

 

namaste

 

[ivan]

 

You don't know me. You don't know my voting record, etc. You make assumptions then you attack me even though I am just a messenger. Have you considered that I am purposely taking that position not as my base beliefs but rather from the standpoint that there are two sides to give voice to?

 

You have couched your position so that one side is wholly right while the other side is grossly wrong. You suppress legitimate concerns as meaningless or trivial. My initial standpoint is that I believe it is an injustice to force others to conform by dictate. I cant speak to the moral equivalence of the two issues, one being the discrimination against a group, the other being the method used to change society. The latter is the issue that Im addressing.

 

My understanding is that there is a third way that seeks to respect values on both sides, because to have otherwise, can only lead to conflict.

 

namaste

i don't feel i've classed you and put you in a box stp, so clarify: yes or no, should gays have the right to marry or not?

 

if you say no, then whatever the machinations of your explanation, you can't help but come across as the guy who says, "i ain't racist, i just hate niggers"

[billcoe]

Because he's the only one willing to entertain the idea that gay sex marriage is equivalent to child fucking and incest?

 

 

NO Way Prole. Not me. Because I think local control on these issues is fine with me. We haven't had gay marriage ever in this country since it's founding, if a state (or all of them) chose to allow it, I'm fine with it. Good for them.

 

Others are reading this to mean that each state should NOT be able to pick and choose if they can do this, and you and the readers and posters here appear to believe that George Bush SHOULD be able to dictate, on a national level, if this kind of thing can occur or not.

 

So when King George says NO F*ing WAY this shit will ever happen under his watch, bammm - End of discussion, the King has spoken "we're done discussing this I'm off to church now". I don't much like that set up myself.

 

You do. I don't. Simple.

[JosephH]

My understanding is that there is a third way that seeks to respect values on both sides, because to have otherwise, can only lead to conflict.

 

namaste

You're right, I have zero tolerance for racism, sexism, homophobia, and religious fundamentalism. In those cases I don't believe there is a 'third way' and I have no respect for the values associated with them or the people who hold those beliefs - I do not and will not acknowledge any legitimacy of another 'side' on such issues - quite the contrary, I consider them explicitly dangerous to our nation. You can choose to peacefully co-exist, accomodate, and entertain such bigotry and fundamentalism, I reject it out-of-hand.

[rob]

My understanding is that there is a third way that seeks to respect values on both sides, because to have otherwise, can only lead to conflict.

 

Damn dude, you're higher than I am.

 

Should we respect the values of racists and roll-back civil-rights legislation? Should we respect the values of misogynists and undo suffrage for women?

 

I'm with Ivan: Do you support the rights of gays to marry, or not. Stop beating around the bush.

[STP]

I had very liberal--"live and let live"--beliefs when I was much younger and in college. That was then. The worldview of a conscientious person should change over time given the fluid nature of life circumstances.

 

Am I right? I don't know. So you believe that the deeper eternal truths become evident in society over time, that government is the vehicle of change, and that an ideal society is approaching where human rights hold the highest value Uber Alles?

 

Somehow I feel that these changes are substitute gratifications while the system is essentially flawed, that these changes serve as a pressure release valve, that a secular religion of existentialism rooted in materialism is exalted as the cult of the future. So back to the question. I will not commit to a yes or no answer.

[olyclimber]

I believe I can fly

I believe I can touch the sky

[prole]

Regardless of whether you hold to a vision of an "ideal society" or not, it's evident that if we want to live in a free and open society that inclusion is better than discrimination, the extension of equal rights under the law is better than disenfranchisment, and freedom is better than the lack of it. That this country is still grappling with the logic and nature of liberal democracy after 200 years is a testament to its political retardation. The right for gay people to enter into a legal contractual agreement and to enjoy the rights and privileges already afforded to other members of this society is a civil rights issue. That you've turned it into social engineering plot (hypothetically or otherwise) misses the point of, not to mention the history of, the gay marriage/civil union struggle.

Edited April 8, 2009 by prole

[G-spotter]

I had very liberal--"live and let live"--beliefs when I was much younger and in college. That was then. The worldview of a conscientious person should change over time given the fluid nature of life circumstances.

 

Am I right? I don't know. So you believe that the deeper eternal truths become evident in society over time, that government is the vehicle of change, and that an ideal society is approaching where human rights hold the highest value Uber Alles?

 

Somehow I feel that these changes are substitute gratifications while the system is essentially flawed, that these changes serve as a pressure release valve, that a secular religion of existentialism rooted in materialism is exalted as the cult of the future. So back to the question. I will not commit to a yes or no answer.

 

Damn, that's approaching the ideal of the Sokal text generator. So many words with so little content! You missed some popular favourites like "syzygy", "hermeneutics" and "ideology" though.

Have you ever tried writing in Simple English? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_English_Wikipedia

[billcoe]

Afraid of being yelled at by 30 intolerant liberals eh>?

 

Sounds like a don't ask don't tell policy, probably not a bad idea. Myself, I don't equate gay marriage with not allowing political freedom based on skin color: and don't know how others can....but based on a quick read here it appears they often do. We all see the world through our own little lenses, and it seems to be magnified on religion, social issues, and ...hmmmm forgot, but there was something else I'll bet.

 

POLITICS! I remembered.

 

ps, love reading your posts and also JH debating posts as well STP. I find I have to slow down and read slowly as you both have deep, interesting and valid points which often appear to directly conflict.

[JosephH]

...(a) secular religion of (b) existentialism © rooted in materialism is exalted...

 

A) More rovian tactics of redefinition - complete bullshit on every level

 

B) There are both atheistic and theistic existentialist

 

C) Is a cultural and societal choice I and few I know subscribe to, but which afflicts religious people as badly as any other

 

All in all a pretty jumbled and twisted grab bag of ideas you've got strung together there.

[prole]

I don't equate gay marriage with not allowing political freedom based on skin color: and don't know how others can....

 

Educate thyself.

[JosephH]

Bill, the lack of distinction between gay, hetero, or interracial marriage is rooted in what I would call 'constitutional equality' where the operative phrase - updated from 1700's - would be "all people" (as opposed to "all men"); that constitutional and legal guarantees should not be apportioned to only some people based on some basic attribute of their existence someone else doesn't care for - being a woman, being black, or being gay in this case. If government is going to recognize a legal joining of two individuals, then no restrictions should be placed on such a joining. From my perspective all such restrictions are bigotry of one form or another - we either have equal rights in this country or we don't and last I checked, gays were people too. All the male/female business is strictly religious - gays don't procreate and if religious folks don't want gay people in their families then they should quit having them.

 

EDIT: Don't ask, don't tell was a terrible idea - simply forced both gays and the military into a ridiculously untenable position - better to deal with it one way or the other out in the open. States rights in gay marriage is a lot like don't ask don't tell and this is another area where the gay vs. racial thing join - if you're going to let majorities in states apportion constitutional or legal guarantees of this order then you might just as well roll back to the days when states could sanction interracial marriage bans or outlaw being black as a 'free person' for that matter.

[DirtyHarry]

 

ps, ask me sometime about how Samuel L Jackson helped my family out when we got lost near where ground zero of the LA riots had just happened.

 

Did he offer you some Samuel Jackson lager?

 

That's some good MOTHERFUCKIN' beer!!