Missouri bans Gay Marriage

[Chewbacca]

I have been to two gay marriages since Mass. legalized them. Lovely ceremonies, one in a church, one on the lawn of a private estate.

My wonderful opposite sex marriage certainly hasn't been weakened by them. On the contrary. After the first one in early July, my wife and I reflected on our own great fortune to have found each other's life companionship and are both very happy all our friends here in MA, same sex or opposite, can have the it exactly the same.

I hope one day laws like these are looked back upon with the same feeling of shame some folks wish gay people to feel. It is a shame that discrimination and prejudice is being written into the very documents that are supposed to protect people from discrimination.


On another note... Today a Judge in Washington state cleared the way to overturn the gay marriage ban there.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: I found that a professor of mine summed it up best... She said that people cling to things they know they are going to lose. This is why the British fought the industrial revolution to save the environment they previously cared little for, and why people now are telling us that marriage is a sacred sacred thing, and meant for only a man and a woman.

Your professor committed the cardinal sin of over generalisation. Using that incorrect assesment, you would say with certainty that:

1.Americans will lose their freedom.
2.People in love will lose each other
3.Japanese will lose rice in their meals
4.Americans will all lose their money, their jobs.
5.Americans will lose their guns.
and so on

Or you could be ridiculous and suggest that since we die we lose everything, so it's not a matter of saying we cling to what we will lose, but that we lose lose everything, so we cling to things.

So they're either stating the obvious with complete blandity, or making an overgeneralisation of zero relevence.

In other words I think it's a stupid remark of your professors. Sorry.

Furthermore, we don;t know what tomorrow has in store. We don't know we will lose or gain anything FOR CERTAIN. You do not know whether gays WILL gain marriage rights anymore than you know you will not die from a heart attack at 8am tomorrow. The only certainty about the future is that NOTHING IS CERTAIN. (paraphrased from Confucious)

People fight for things they hold dear, that are in danger of being removed, or lost, or things they may gain. People fight out of positive catalysts as well as negative ones. They also fight just for the heck of it.

Cheers

[ 08-05-2004, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: I have been to two gay marriages since Mass. legalized them. Lovely ceremonies, one in a church, one on the lawn of a private estate. My wonderful opposite sex marriage certainly hasn't been weakened by them. On the contrary. After the first one in early July, my wife and I reflected on our own great fortune to have found each other's life companionship and are both very happy all our friends here in MA, same sex or opposite, can have the it exactly the same. I hope one day laws like these are looked back upon with the same feeling of shame some folks wish gay people to feel. It is a shame that discrimination and prejudice is being written into the very documents that are supposed to protect people from discrimination. On another note... Today a Judge in Washington state cleared the way to overturn the gay marriage ban there.

Discrimination? You discriminated against people when you chose your wife. You excercised judgement and made a decision that discriminated in favour of her. How can you blanketly trumpet discrimination as evil? Like fundamentalism, it is what the CONTENTS of belief, or actions, that causes discrimination, fundamentalism, intolerance or any other judgement to be "good" or "evil".

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Yorick: blandity

Is that a word?

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: I found that a professor of mine summed it up best... She said that people cling to things they know they are going to lose. This is why the British fought the industrial revolution to save the environment they previously cared little for, and why people now are telling us that marriage is a sacred sacred thing, and meant for only a man and a woman.

Your professor committed the cardinal sin of over generalisation. Using that incorrect assesment, you would say with certainty that:

1.Americans will lose their freedom.
2.People in love will lose each other
3.Japanese will lose rice in their meals
4.Americans will all lose their money, their jobs.
5.Americans will lose their guns.
and so on

Or you could be ridiculous and suggest that since we die we lose everything, so it's not a matter of saying we cling to what we will lose, but that we lose lose everything, so we cling to things.

So they're either stating the obvious with complete blandity, or making an overgeneralisation of zero relevence.

In other words I think it's a stupid remark of your professors. Sorry.

Furthermore, we don;t know what tomorrow has in store. We don't know we will lose or gain anything FOR CERTAIN. You do not know whether gays WILL gain marriage rights anymore than you know you will not die from a heart attack at 8am tomorrow. The only certainty about the future is that NOTHING IS CERTAIN. (paraphrased from Confucious)

People fight for things they hold dear, that are in danger of being removed, or lost, or things they may gain. People fight out of positive catalysts as well as negative ones. They also fight just for the heck of it.

Cheers [/QUOTE]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. Not that you can't cling to something you have no danger of losing, merely that people tend to cling to things that they tended to ignore *more* when they might be lost. Case in point. I've watched young children of about four or five leave their toys on the floor, forgotten. The MOMENT their sibling picks it up, they'll want it back, maybe say, "Mine!"

And no, I can't say FOR CERTAIN that gays will gain marriage rights. But I would bet just about anything on it and I can say that history is on my side.

But I don't see rice going anywhere.

[ 08-06-2004, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: Illumina Drathiran'ar ]

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: I have been to two gay marriages since Mass. legalized them. Lovely ceremonies, one in a church, one on the lawn of a private estate. My wonderful opposite sex marriage certainly hasn't been weakened by them. On the contrary. After the first one in early July, my wife and I reflected on our own great fortune to have found each other's life companionship and are both very happy all our friends here in MA, same sex or opposite, can have the it exactly the same. I hope one day laws like these are looked back upon with the same feeling of shame some folks wish gay people to feel. It is a shame that discrimination and prejudice is being written into the very documents that are supposed to protect people from discrimination. On another note... Today a Judge in Washington state cleared the way to overturn the gay marriage ban there.

Discrimination? You discriminated against people when you chose your wife. You excercised judgement and made a decision that discriminated in favour of her. How can you blanketly trumpet discrimination as evil? Like fundamentalism, it is what the CONTENTS of belief, or actions, that causes discrimination, fundamentalism, intolerance or any other judgement to be "good" or "evil". [/QUOTE]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.

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: analyzations

Is that a word?

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

I'll give him "blandity" if he gives me "analyzations". "Analyzation" is a word. If I choose to pluralize it, that's my choice. And frankly, although they're not quite even, I rather like the word "blandity". I might even like to begin using it in conversations.

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: quote: Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: analyzations

Is that a word? [/QUOTE]LOL! What constructive arguments you offer Djinn! [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

I say removel ALL benefits from heterosexual marriages! Let it remain an affair of the church but nothing else. That would even things out a little and perhaps the "conservatives" can keep their marriage for heterosexual couples only.

Originally posted by Yorick: Discrimination? You discriminated against people when you chose your wife.

LOL! [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img] That you must explain to me.

[Morgeruat]

post deleted to comply with the moratorium (if you want the link pm me)

[ 08-06-2004, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]