|
||||||
 |
Recent Posts | Search by username | |
Contact Us | |
Login | |
Register |
 |
 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
24HourForums.com > The Top 10 Supported Forums > 24's Political Matters > The dangers of hyperbole and exaggeration in political discourse |
| Moderated by: 24HourNut | Page:   1 2 3   |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
shirohniichan Original500© Member  Obscurius per obscurum
|
  |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24HourNut wrote: You do realize that homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals, don't you? Heterosexuals do not have the right to marry anyone they love, and neither do homosexuals. There are restrictions on marriage, but that is different from saying gays and straights have different civil rights. Not only is that line of logic "cute", but it is also true. In all seriousness, do you believe that polygamy and marriage between siblings (or parents and children) are also acceptable?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator  Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Not only is that line of logic "cute", but it is also true. It was true but saying a truth doesn't negate or minimize other truths like you apparently hoped it would. Your truth didn't magically make gays have equality like they should. It's wrong for Government, using gay tax dollars especially, to discriminate against them. In all seriousness, do you believe that polygamy and marriage between siblings (or parents and children) are also acceptable? So now you are going to try to minimize their rights to equality by trying to lump them into the same boat as other things that you can better make a case for as "wrong." More cuteness, eh? Boy, it must really bother you that some people love others like you love and just happen to have a biochemistry that renders them attracted to people with the same sexual organs. You apparently want Government in the bed and pants of consenting adult couples pretty badly. Putting the Bible before freedom a hobby of yours or something? Me personally? I don't have a problem with polygamy if that is what a community wants to do. Siblings and with children are different to me because that involves a form of abuse or health hazard. But even if I am wrong about all of that, I was saying that it is inconsistent and unprincipled for Government to say it is wrong to discriminate against people based upon their gender or sexual orientation, and then discriminate against them through the denial of benefits and conveniences, and equal recognition. Government shouldn't discriminate against those it has already stated it was wrong to discriminate against. Is that really such a hard thing to accept?
 The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
aknow Original500© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In California, on tuesday, the proposition #8 was defeated, reversing an earlier public mandate to legalize homosexual unions. The Mormon Church raised over $65 million to defeat this, just in California, and the bombardments of felonious advertisements were aimed at religious or otherwise very ignorant people. And they were so blatantly absurd and unfair, adn they persisted constantly. And they won, because they framed this as an assault on all marriages. (And by the way if heterosexual marriages are so sanctimonious and perfect, why do more than half of them end in divorce?) But I view this as a Civil Rights issue with major ramifications. I've treated a lesbian couple for years. One is a very successful executive at ABC TV, has won Emmys for her work on documentaries and silly sit coms. Her partner is a successful musician which many of you are familiar with. The partner had paid insurance premiums on the ABC executive's policy, and my office billed both insurances for years. (The insurance form utilizes the term "spouse") Suddenly, the partner gets a diagnosis of malignant aggressive breast cancer and the insurance is cancelled although premiums have been paid and there is no history of preexisting illness or cancer........... (By the way this is going to court and will cost the insurance company millions of dollars, which all of us end up paying for) The insurance company believes it can cancel the policy and leave the partner to pay the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs (which by the way would cost the insurance company about 10% of that amount if they pay the bills) because the couple is illegally married since they are homosexual. If this is confusing, I don't care, but what is totally clear is the obvious discrimination and denial of civil rights for some moral reason which was never outlined in any contract. To me it's cases such as these, or situations like these that make this issue important..............as I don't believe that Gay Couples are actually married in the classical sense of the word. However, they definitely deserve the same rights, priviliges and access to all of the things that heterosexuals do. And it's time to stop demonizing them. Dr. Steve
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
shirohniichan Original500© Member Obscurius per obscurum
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Well, if your concepts of freedom and equality are your only criteria for fighting discrimination, I have a new battle for you. Should my wife die and I want equal tax advantages as married couples receive, you can fight for me when I want to marry my daughters. Don't worry-- it will be a completely asexual relationship. Once they're old enough to be working I won't be able to claim them as dependents, and all of us would benefit from tax breaks and insurance benefits. Now if some bigoted person with archaic views says we shouldn't get those benefits others get and wants to treat us as second-class citizens by denying our rights, I can trust you to stand up for us. Don't let your outdated prejudices cause you to pause, jump in immediately. Let's go one step further. Current laws prohibit discrimination based on marital status. Why should only married couples get tax benefits? This is de jure discrimination, pure and simple. Making different laws based on familial relationships or marital staus is discrimination, like the Soviet gulag system.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Millennium Original500© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Should my wife die and I want equal tax advantages as married couples receive, you can fight for me when I want to marry my daughters. Don't worry-- it will be a completely asexual relationship. Once they're old enough to be working I won't be able to claim them as dependents, and all of us would benefit from tax breaks and insurance benefits. As disturbing as that sounds...this is a great analogy...I mean, why make the laws just for the gays...why not extend it all the way out to the extreme. If they can breathe..let them marry.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Well, if your concepts of freedom and equality are your only criteria for fighting discrimination I think this is the second time you've exaggerated or made something up in this thread. I stated that those are my only criteria? I have a new battle for you. Should my wife die and I want equal tax advantages as married couples receive, you can fight for me when I want to marry my daughters. Don't worry-- it will be a completely asexual relationship. Once they're old enough to be working I won't be able to claim them as dependents, and all of us would benefit from tax breaks and insurance benefits. Now if some bigoted person with archaic views says we shouldn't get those benefits others get and wants to treat us as second-class citizens by denying our rights, I can trust you to stand up for us. Don't let your outdated prejudices cause you to pause, jump in immediately. I've already addressed this - I don't put marrying children in the same boat as gender-based sexual relations. One reason is due to the abuse factor, the other is the Government has already condoned homosexuality and has already supported the concept that it is wrong to discriminate on that basis. The reason those anti-discrimination policies exist is because they rest upon the principles of freedom and equality. I'm sorry that you don't get that but that is a basis of my position. Let's go one step further. Current laws prohibit discrimination based on marital status. Why should only married couples get tax benefits? This is de jure discrimination, pure and simple. Making different laws based on familial relationships or marital staus is discrimination, like the Soviet gulag system. I never said I agree that Government should be in the marriage business, or should be applying tax money toward them. I find it cruel to deny a life partner the type of benefits and conveniences (visitation, inheritance, social security spousal, the list goes on to a thousand things) because they happen to have a vagina. I'm sorry that you are still cemented in archaic concepts of freedom and equality that no longer apply to modern, enlightened, clear-thinking adults that understand being homosexual isn't a reason to be treated second class in effect, but that's your hangup, not mine.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Millennium wrote: Should my wife die and I want equal tax advantages as married couples receive, you can fight for me when I want to marry my daughters. Don't worry-- it will be a completely asexual relationship. Once they're old enough to be working I won't be able to claim them as dependents, and all of us would benefit from tax breaks and insurance benefits. Because being gay isn't the same as those other things, for many reasons. Gender isn't a valid reason to punish people or deny them, in effect. It USED to be deemed that, like when women were denied the vote, which is also tied to Shiro's archaic absurdity, but that has changed. Archaic absurdity and standards has caused and fueled enough inequality and lack of freedom and fairness. Let's stop pretending modern people shouldn't adapt and move on.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UsedToRide Original500© Member  ^^^That is LOVE!!^^^
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24HourNut wrote: Gender isn't a valid reason to punish people or deny them, in effect. You're over-simplifying, IMO. It isn't gender, it is being gay. I don't like it, and I have no reason that would matter to anyone here why I think gays shouldn't marry. I just don't think being gay is normal. I have personal reasons for that which I won't get into here, I just don't agree with it.
Respect some, trust one, fear none ~~Bullet http://www.freeholbrook.com The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons. ~~Dostoyevsky |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
UsedToRide wrote: 24HourNut wrote:Gender isn't a valid reason to punish people or deny them, in effect. I understand it goes beyond just simple gender, but I disagree that you even need to for the principle to apply. But, back to gender .. When the only reason you deny someone those benefits and conveniences, Government recognition, and first-class "valid relationships or love" status is because of the body parts of one - you are discriminating and punishing on the basis of gender. A gay person feels the same as you or I feel when in a committed relationship or in love. If you punish someone because they have a vagina but wouldn't have made them second class if they had a penis, you are doing the same thing to women who were denied the vote. Regardless, if the Government deems discrimination on the basis of being gay as wrong and against the law in its various policies, the consistent and principled, or moral thing to do, would be to not discriminate and punish on the basis it already say was wrong to discriminate on (being gay).
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UsedToRide Original500© Member ^^^That is LOVE!!^^^
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24HourNut wrote: A gay person feels the same as you or I feel when in a committed relationship or in love. How do you know? Have you ever been gay? I can't argue this point without revealing personal information about someone close to me, and I have my opinion about homosexuality because of that. So I just need to back away from this conversation and tell you that my reasons for disliking homosexuality may not be rational to all of you, but they are to me, and that is all that matters. To me. I should just avoid conversations about this completely, because there is no way I would ever publicly discuss the situation that made me hate homosexuality.
Respect some, trust one, fear none ~~Bullet http://www.freeholbrook.com The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons. ~~Dostoyevsky |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
UsedToRide wrote: 24HourNut wrote:A gay person feels the same as you or I feel when in a committed relationship or in love. I have every reason to believe it. Just like I have every reason to believe a Spanish person has the same capacity for love as I do. None of my gay or Spanish friends, family, co-workers, etc. ever made some startling revelation to me that their type just fakes intimate relationships or something. All second hand info supports Spanish and gay people having relationships akin to my own, so ...
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Millennium Original500© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I know a lot of gays that don't want to change the marriage laws...They are perfectly content to live with each other like most hetero couples that aren't married... There are millions of estimated gays in America.....the actions of a few, aren't indicative of the majority.. That's one reason this law isn't get passed...Every gay isn't voting for it, and on the other hand,and every hetero isn't voting against it... It's just not time for it yet...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
shirohniichan Original500© Member Obscurius per obscurum
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24HourNut wrote: Well, if your concepts of freedom and equality are your only criteria for fighting discrimination It seems like your main beef with keeping marraige between a man and a woman is that it is "archaic". You say you oppose marraige between a man and a child because of the possiblity of abuse and because the Government hasn't condoned childhood (or something to that effect). Could it be that your biases are keeping you from seeing that parents marrying their own children isn't necessarily a bad thing? Why treat children as second-class citizens? Why must you discriminate against them and deny them freedom and equality? Saying that those who want to keep the defintion of marriage between a man and a woman means discrimination against others simply because they have vaginas is absurd. That's like saying children can't marry adults is discrimination because they were born in the wrong year. I find it cruel to deny children benefits and conveniences simply because they were born in the wrong year. To paraphrase you, "I'm sorry that you are still cemented in post-modern concepts of freedom and equality that no do not apply to modern, enlightened, clear-thinking adults that understand being young isn't a reason to be treated second class in effect, but that's your hangup, not mine."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
shirohniichan Original500© Member Obscurius per obscurum
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Getting back to the original point, I was again troubled seeing marriage redefiners holding up posters with swastikas on them in front of a local church. The 70th anniversary of Kristalnacht was only a few days ago, and it chutzpadic in the extreme to compare the "suffering" of marriage redefiners with that of those beaten and arrested back then (let alone those who were gassed and shot). Hyperbole and exaggeration do nothing to further political discourse. They only result in opposite sides yelling at each other.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It seems like your main beef with keeping marraige between a man and a woman is that it is "archaic". I don't necessarily have a beef with keeping marriage between a man and a woman - like I said earlier, as long as the same recognition, benefits, and conveniences are bestowed by Government. Although, I can see the argument of "separate is not equal" similar to the one made for segregated schools. You say you oppose marraige between a man and a child because of the possiblity of abuse and because the Government hasn't condoned childhood (or something to that effect). Could it be that your biases are keeping you from seeing that parents marrying their own children isn't necessarily a bad thing? Why treat children as second-class citizens? Why must you discriminate against them and deny them freedom and equality? Like you, I think there is an abuse inherent in that ... I put consenting adults in a different category than minors. Saying that those who want to keep the defintion of marriage between a man and a woman means discrimination against others simply because they have vaginas is absurd. That's like saying children can't marry adults is discrimination because they were born in the wrong year. Like I said in a previous post - change the word for gays, it doesn't necessarily have to be "marriage." I find it cruel to deny children benefits and conveniences simply because they were born in the wrong year. To paraphrase you, "I'm sorry that you are still cemented in post-modern concepts of freedom and equality that no do not apply to modern, enlightened, clear-thinking adults that understand being young isn't a reason to be treated second class in effect, but that's your hangup, not mine." If that's the best you have to defeat the principles of freedom and equality, especially in regard to tax-funded benefits, then I think you should really reconsider your position that people should be treated second class because of gender (because they are gay).
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
