Missouri bans Gay Marriage

[Chewbacca]

It's not a semantic issue.

It is a semantic issue. Taking a person's use of a word out of context in order to attempt to make a point is ludicris. The false analogy about my wife underscores this and is extraordinarily ludicris.

More to the point, I don't think discrimination in this case is evil- I did not use that word. I think it is simply unfair and wrong.

Just to be clear with regards to the obvious context of my use of the word Discrimination and how it relates to this issue I offer some of the text of the civil rights act of 1964:

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html

An Act To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Civil Rights Act of 1964". * *SNIP* * UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703] (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer - (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. (b) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, or to classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: When your arguments boil down to picking apart a single statement or asanine analyzations about semantics, it seems as so much angry flailing in the face of logic.

It's not a semantic issue. Blanketly labelling discrimination, intolerance or fundamentalism as being evil is ludicrous. The content or direction of those judgements is subjectively good or evil, not the processes themselves. [/QUOTE]Evil? I called nothing evil. I might have directly or indirectly called the opinions of those against gay marriage narrowminded or foolish. But have I called anyone evil?

And I have a brilliant idea. Come back with an actual opinion instead of contradicting the opinions of others. Or search past posts of mine and find a post where I called fundamentalists evil. Hell, you might even find it. Maybe direct, maybe out of context... but I don't care.
At least I've clearly expressed my opinions, supported them, and stood behind them.

[Timber Loftis]

I can't even figure out what you guys are arguing about. [img]graemlins/outtahere.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Well now they've taken a semantic issue of whether I've been taking issue with semantics. I think it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black, Timber.

[Yorick]

dis·crim·i·nate

1 a : to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of b : DISTINGUISH, DIFFERENTIATE (discriminate hundreds of colors)
2 : to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences; especially : to distinguish from another like object
intransitive senses
1 a : to make a distinction (discriminate among historical sources) b : to use good judgment
2 : to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit (discriminate in favor of your friends) (discriminate against a certain nationality)


as opposed to:

in·dis·crim·i·nate

1 a : not marked by careful distinction : deficient in discrimination and discernment b : HAPHAZARD, RANDOM
2 a : PROMISCUOUS, UNRESTRAINED b : HETEROGENEOUS, MOTLEY


I didn't invent the language, I just know how to speak it. Maybe Chewbacca is writing in American? Where words like "intolerance" and "discrimination" and "fundamental" mean different things. This is not a new gripe.

[Yorick]

So. Let's say it again.

Fundamentalism is amoral. Any morality of effectiveness of fundamentalism is relative to what those beliefs are. A fundamentalist Christian for example, would live a nonviolent life very similar to Ghandi for example. The most basic beliefs are those that are adhered to.

Discrimination is amoral. Any morality occurs in the cause and effect of discrimination. Why is the person/thing being discriminated against, and are they/it being adversely affected?

Intolerance is amoral and again, totally depends on what is being intolerated if any morality is to be applied. One can be intolerant of pain. Intolerant of infidelity in a relationship, intolerant of racism, intolerant of hatred. All examples of intolerance used in subjectively positive circumstances.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I can't even figure out what you guys are arguing about. [img]graemlins/outtahere.gif[/img]

Neither can I...

I read what I wrote and then read the response to it and then wonder if I really wrote what I read that I wrote based on the response to it!

*sticks plastic bag over head so when it explodes it doesn't cause a mess*

BTW I appreciate your take on the issue! Stubbornheadedness on both sides is the real problem. I must give special props to some of the extreme anti-gay marriage folks like Senator Rick Santorum for taking hyperbolic rhetoric to strange new heights.

*Still waiting for civilization to collapse now that gays are happily marrying here in Mass.*

[ 08-08-2004, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Oh, I can't wait for civilization to collapse. I also can't wait for incest and bestiality to become legal like Ricky dearest warned would happen.

By the way, homophobic comments from aforementioned senator have prompted columnist Dan Savage to use his name in a not-so-flattering context. I won't tell you what it is, except that society at large would deem it R-rated and not suitable for children, and if you want to Google it, it's your own choice.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: No, no. She meant that they clung to things once their loss was nigh. They began paying attention to the environment *after* the industrial revolution began, etc.

Again, it's a very narrow view of the world presented. Environmentalism is not the exclusive domain of the west, or Europe or in fact agrarian societies.

Aboriginal and Amerindian societies had what amounts to environmental policies in their SUBSISTENCE economies. Respect for the land, care for the cycle, for the balance, living in harmony with their environment rather than changing it unrecognisably.

Certainly these cultures clung to the environment long before the west began threatening it. Their cultures were built around such concepts. [/QUOTE]Yorick, I think you missed the point here. The point is that societies tend to cling to a cultural characteristic MORE if it is threatened. The fact that native american societies and aboriginal societies had good environmental practicies DOES NOT CHANGE the fact that in Europe the environment only really became important once the industrial revolution threatened to change it. I mean, you cite something true about native societies here and in Oz, but that doesn't change the truth that was stated.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: The point is that societies tend to cling to a cultural characteristic MORE if it is threatened.

Rimber, a true statement would be "particular agrarian societies have clung to certain cultural characteristics when threatened."

That way you're not making either generalisations, or statements about the future, but indicating what actually has been recorded.

The generalisation of the professor ignored preliterary societies, or most nonEuropean ones.