KO on Prop 8

Posted by: macdavid

KO on Prop 8 - 11/12/08 09:18 PM

Whether or not you "like" KO, I hope you'll consider watching this. He has important things to say.

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY[/video]
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/13/08 11:57 AM

It took him about 17 seconds to come out with the obligatory disclaimer of those who don't want people to get the wrong idea... "I'm not gay" - what an insult.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/13/08 01:28 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
It took him about 17 seconds to come out with the obligatory disclaimer of those who don't want people to get the wrong idea... "I'm not gay" - what an insult.

km


IMO he was making a statement that he does not have a one sided view - His view was from the heart

I don't find that insulting at all
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/13/08 02:10 PM

Quote:
he was making a statement that he does not have a one sided view

Yeah well it didn't work because he does have a one-sided view. I don't see what relevance his sexuality has to anything - oh alright then... I haven't got a big hooter myself but people with big hooters should be considered just as good-looking as people with normal hooters.

km
Posted by: garyW

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/13/08 03:03 PM

Quote:
I haven't got a big hooter myself


Someone in the media is actually making Americans aware of the great injustice of Prop 8 ... and you're knocking him because he's making a point that this is a civil rights issue and not the f'ing gaysex (fear-for-your-kids) propaganda that won, sexuality was made part of the issue that consumed the campaign for its passage ... KO's making the point that the issue is all inclusive and should have all of our support because it's about love and commitment.

You need to chose your battles. KO is on the right side of this issue and I'm thankful he used his media platform to spread the word.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/13/08 03:10 PM

Yes, it is a civil rights and social justice issue. I wonder when we'll hear "separate but equal?"
Posted by: garyW

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/13/08 03:21 PM

My wife and I have attended two anti-prop 8 rallys in the last week. The last one had well over a 1000 people. At both rallys the speakers repeatedly thanked all of those straight people who have come to support the gay community and stand up in opposition to the passage of prop 8.

If activitists in the community that are mobilizing people on the street in protest can call out 'straights' in appreciation of their support, I find no reason to question the motive of Keith Olbermann for mentioning that this is not a gay or straight issue, and making the point that straight people are in support of G&L citizens and that this is not a "gay" issue.


We're attending another big protest tonight .... estimated to have over 2000 attending.


Posted by: garyW

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/13/08 10:15 PM

Attended a large rally and march tonight to protest Prop 8. The rally began with a tape of this Keith Olbermann Special Comment played on a large screen ... the crowd cheered in approval throughout. His comment at 17 seconds into it, the one that Keymaker finds such an insult, about "I don't have a person investment in this, I'm not gay ... yet to me this vote is horrible..." was met with loud applause by a crowd that was probably 90% gay and lesbian.

So the word from the street tonight, among the activists and a large slice of the gay community that marched , many who the state of California will no longer allow to marry, KO's words were heartfelt and spot on.

My wife and I have been married sixteen years, and I can't imagine if at any time the law told us we were not allowed to be married. My teenager daughter joined us, we marched along with several of our dearest friends who had planned to get married soon until this Constitutional revision changed all that ... we were proud to march along side them through the crowded downtown street tonight chanting "Gay! Straight! Black! White! Marriage is a civil right!".

It was until 1968 that blacks and whites could not marry in many states in this country, it was against the law. If at that time a white newscaster had made the comment on the airwaves that "I'm not black ... but this law is just horrible" I would, as a white American, have applauded him then too.


Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/13/08 10:42 PM

Quote:
you're knocking him because he's making a point that this is a civil rights

Well. he's expressing an opinion that's it's a civil rights issue and trying to suggest that the argument is stronger because he's straight than if he had been gay. In reality his personal viewpoint and sexualtiy are irrelevant because the argument is just as strong, or weak, when made by a gay person as a when made by a straight person - it stands, or falls, on merit. In fact; talking about his personal sexuality is a counter argument because it draws attention to the fact that his is a minority viewpoint amongst straights. That being so there must be some other reason for him saying it - like the fact that he doesn't want anyone to think he's "one of them" - that came across loud and clear - no one in his family is either.

In my opinion he's getting confused between civil rights and equality. Men don't have a civil right to compete against women in the 100 metres because equality is achieved by having separate events for men and women. A gay person doesn't have a civil right to marry because others have signed up to a specific meaning of the word but equality can be achieved by same-sex civil unions. A blind person doesn't have a cvil right to do what ever job he wants because his handicap impacts upon others but when it doesn't he has equality in the labour market... oh alright then, from now on all blind people should have equal opportunities to become air traffic controllers and those who object are optophobes.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 03:52 AM

Quote:
because he does have a one-sided view
I guess we should go with your logic because [KO Special Comment Voice]You, sir,[/KO Special Comment Voice] virtually own the "Single-Sided View".

Though not the Olbermann fanboy I used was, I've gotta say that was one of his best, most impassioned and most straight-down-the-laser-beam-to-target SC's ever. There was more logic and empathy in those few minutes than months of debate could ever muster. "WTF is it to you?" Dead on. But woooosh! Right over your head again because you can't get beyond outmoded attitudes and prejudices masquerading as law. Yeesh! crazy
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 04:22 AM

Quote:
"WTF is it to you?" Dead on.

Dead off more like... WTF is it to him that Californians want heterosexual-only marriage?

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 04:35 AM

Pay attention, consigliori. The fact is that just enough "Californians" were pressured into their decision ó for fear of hellfire and brimstone ó by a church in another state! Indeed, WTF is it to them?!

Example: I once worked at a large ad agency (both in Boston and NYC) wherein some 15% of employees and management were gay or lesbian. The three principles wrere not gay. But when it came time to review their health insurance carrier (mid '90s), they sought and chose a company that offered plans for "spousal equivalents". They also enforced a policy preventing married couples from working there by putting the same restrictions on gay couples. In other words, they had no problem putting gay and hetero couples in the same bucket. Guess what, the agency still thrives today. Didn't collapse into debauchery. Oh, and not to ruin your day, but they have a sizable office in London. Care to apply?

But like I said, on Keymaker Lane, I'm driving the wrong way up a one-way street. I pity your myopia.
Posted by: polymerase

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 04:37 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
"WTF is it to you?" Dead on.

Dead off more like... WTF is it to him that Californians want heterosexual-only marriage?
km


Change your quote to a similar civil rights equality issue:

WTF is it to him that Californians want mixed race, negro caucasian marriage?(I'm trying to use what the legal words would be if one were talking about a state law in the 60s.)

It would be a big deal to him and to all of us as humans with humanity. It would be a big deal that inequality is erased from the law books. As stated by him, even though he is heterosexual, it is a big deal.

WTF, why is it a big deal? That is like saying why is it a big deal for me that we treat prisoners in Guantanamo fairly and respectfully? I am never going to be a terrorist.

WTF, why is it a big deal? That is like saying why is it a big deal for me that we do not put to death a murderer who is 14 and retarded? I am never going to be 14 and retarded again.

It is called empathy for people who are not like you. Equality and civility for all which is a hallmark of all great civilizations.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 04:48 AM

So during the American Civil Rights Movement, it wouldn't have mattered whether whites joined their black friends? It wouldn't have mattered that Lyndon Johnson agreed with MLK that we shall overcome? It wouldn't have mattered that white freedom riders sat with their black peers and got killed alongside them?

Boy are you wrong, km.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 05:02 AM

Quote:
Guess what, the agency still thrives today.

Yeah well the Mafia is still thriving today... doesn't justify their practices though does it? wink

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 05:22 AM

Quote:
Change your quote to a similar civil rights equality issue: WTF is it to him that Californians want mixed race, negro caucasian marriage?

Exactly, but you're arguing my point for me that the 'WTF is it to..." line of logic doesn't help to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate causes - oh alright then... object and animal unions should now be within the definition of marriage... WTF is it to anyone who disagrees.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 05:24 AM

Weak, weak weak. Try again.

The Mob is but a vestige of what it once was (again, you're making up your own virtual world in which to try The Cases In Your Head). None-the-less, what the mob does is not only criminal, it actually hurts people. Kills people. Ruins peoples lives. So you're saying that gay marriage hurts, kills, ruins lives? That it's criminal?

Let's try a less violent metaphor: You stop at a cafe and order a cup of black coffee. You order it black because you hate cream. Maybe you're lactose intolerant (ok, so I'm half right). The person next to you is enjoying cream in her coffee. By your logic, this has just ruined your day. She has had the audacity and the moral bankruptcy to do to her coffee what you would never do to yours! By adding cream to her coffee in your presence has contaminated your coffee. Rendered it non-potable.

Wow. If you're not embarrassed by your position, your "volume cannot be repaired."
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 05:29 AM

Quote:
Boy are you wrong, km.

What wrong to expose the flaw in KO's logic? grin

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 05:32 AM

His logic is not flawed on this one. You just can't allow yourself to see it.
Posted by: polymerase

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 06:11 AM

By using animal unions as an example you not only expose the flaw in your logic you expose your own prejudiced view. How can someone make the jump from gays to animal unions needing legal protection? Only if one looks at both of those unions in the same light. Which, as I think you expect by your comparison, engenders a distasteful reaction from most.

Civil rights are an entity that changes as civilization becomes more civil. My WTFs just pointed out what was recently illegal and is now legal. It is way overdue for gay marriage to cross that line. Years from now you might make a case for you marrying the cute lamb Daisy. That is your prerogative. I have nothing to fear that you have the right to bring the issue to a judge's attention. I just don't think it has legs, even if you count Daisy's served with mint jelly. And there is just no way you are getting her on my health plan. An artificial leg would have to fall under "a preexisting condition based on future need".
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 06:51 AM

Quote:
So you're saying that gay marriage hurts, kills, ruins lives? That it's criminal?

Criminal was not the analogy - that something thrives was the analogy and the fact alone not making it right - oh alright then... ugly discrimination is doing nicely so it must be a good idea.

Quote:
The person next to you is enjoying cream in her coffee. By your logic, this has just ruined your day.

Yeah well it might have done because nature ordains that cow's milk is intended for calves, not humans.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 07:10 AM

Quote:
expect by your comparison, engenders a distasteful reaction from most.

Oh! That which people find distasteful is a problem is it? What about the majority who find the idea of same-sex marriage distasteful? You don't seem to be very worried about them. I'm not arguing for animal unions if that's what you find distasteful but for the accepted view of marriage irrespective of what falls outside of it. It's outrageous for a small minority to be trying to dictate to the vast majority what they can and cannot find acceptable of the laws of nature and the accumulated wisdom of mankind. eek

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 07:21 AM

Get of the majority/minority bus already. You're needle is stuck. You claim to want equal rights for everyone, but you contradict yourself at every turn. The question Olbermann raises (too high for your grasp, apparently) is what harm does gay marriage do to those who don't support it? You can allow things that you don't necessarily support (well, maybe not you in the literal sense), especially if they do you no harm. Conversely, by allowing your "majority" to dictate what the "minority" can and can't do does cause a harm.

Man, I hope you know a good locksmith, because if you ever lose the keys to that closed mind of yours, you're locked out for life.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 07:39 AM

Quote:
You claim to want equal rights for everyone, but you contradict yourself at every turn.

Not really - like I said before when I made the point that no-one had an answer to... the gay view of equal rights is that men should be able to compete against women in the 100 metres sprint whereas my view is that men don't qualify because it's not the "100 metres sprint" but the "women's 100 metres sprint" where the difference is all important for equality. frown

km
Posted by: garyW

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 07:51 AM

Quote:
What about the majority who find the idea of same-sex marriage distasteful?


52% voted this into law after the state was saturated by an ad campaign funded by the Mormon Church, an ad campaign of lies that told voters that the Proposition would expose children to gay sex, that schools would be forced to TEACH children about gay sex and require children to attend gay marriages as "teachable moments". The campaign said that gay child predators would decend upon our communities -- TV ads of a sweet little blond girl asking "if she has to marry a princess." They claimed that heterosexual marriages would be harmed, that all marriages would be harmed and diminished. The frickin' Mormon Church spent over $20 Million promoting these hateful lies.

Yes, if 3% of the California voters had not been swayed by this pack of lies the "distaste" would be replaced by a majority celebrating EQUALITY.

Here in California we have a lot to protest about and appreciate the national awareness that KO brought to the issue. The state Constitution is meant to provide civil rights and equality to the minority, and to let the Mormon Church influence the vote in our state to remove that equality is unjust and morally wrong.
Posted by: Lea

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 08:06 AM


Quote:
It's outrageous for a small minority to be trying to dictate to the vast majority . . .


Small minority? In your I'll Spin What Passses For My Logic and Nobody Will Notice My Homophobic Haze ~ You wish


Quote:
. . . the laws of nature and the accumulated wisdom of mankind.


That's the same ludicrous fallback ignorant fundies use. Damn, did somebody make a pass at you when you were a kid? 'Cause your obsession with this issue is weird.




Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 08:12 AM

Quote:
52% voted this into law after the state was saturated by an ad campaign funded by the Mormon Church

I take it you believe in religious freedom and freedom of speech? As it happens there's rather a lot of bigoted and dogmatic propaganda coming from those who support gay marriage and yet they still have the right to pedal it as we've seen from KO's ridiculous outburst.

km
Posted by: garyW

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 08:19 AM

Quote:
I take it you believe in religious freedom and freedom of speech?


Yes, but not outright lies about what a ballot propostion says ... and $20 million spent from outside the state to influence voters about the "sanctity of marriage" ... from a Church that historically promoted polygamy.
Posted by: steveg

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 08:20 AM

You're on a roll today, KM. You ought to to know from bigotry. You've got it down to a science. And don't tell me it ain't so, because it's like crazy people: the more they insist they're sane, the crazier they are.

You need to get out more.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 08:23 AM

Quote:
Nobody Will Notice My Homophobic Haze

Oh sorry, I forgot - 99 per cent of the world is homophobic including Britain, France and Germany which supports civil unions in preference to gay marriage. Oh! and President-elect Obama - he's homophobic as well.

Quote:
Your obsession with this issue is weird.

Oh great! Somebody else starts a thread and all of a sudden it's not their obsession but my obsession for answering it?

km
Posted by: polymerase

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 08:44 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
expect by your comparison, engenders a distasteful reaction from most.
What about the majority who find the idea of same-sex marriage distasteful? You don't seem to be very worried about them.
km


I can only go by my own personal experience and the rule of law in my land, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Same sex marriage is legal here. The majority of people have found nothing scary about it. Rabid talk radio does not even bring it up anymore. I have attended same sex ceremonies of homosexual couples who have gone on to adopt children, and one to even divorce. All the joys and pains enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

I do worry about the majority in California who found same sex marriage so distasteful that they voted against giving gays and lesbians the same rights enjoyed by citizens of my state. Anything I can do to overturn that ruling in a legal way I will do. California is on the other side of the country so sending a few dollars to the right organization is probably all I can do. I'll also send email and even respond on the internet as to why I think that the removal of those rights by the vote in California is a form of ignorance I thought had vanished in California.

I am overjoyed you are not arguing for animal unions as the mutual consent bar might be very difficult to clear even with a very smart lamb. Why did you bring up animal unions then? A slippery slope? Homosexual marriage is one step away from bestiality? Were you reading too much of the Mormon four color glossy mailers?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 10:16 AM

Quote:
I am overjoyed you are not arguing for animal unions as the mutual consent bar might be very difficult to clear...
By your argument existing requirements like consent are irrelevant because they can be got rid of by legislation.

Quote:
Why did you bring up animal unions then? A slippery slope?

No... simply because like same-sex unions they're not marriages. smirk

km
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 10:24 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Yeah well it might have done because nature ordains that cow's milk is intended for calves, not humans.


Nature also ordains that corn is a grass in Mexico, and was never intended for humans to eat. But those godless indian heathens took that grass and modified it into something it wasn't. Now it feeds the entire planet and is the most nutrient dense crop ever, and yields continue to rise as we continue to modify the plant.

Likewise we've modified marriage to include same sex. Well, actually we didn't modify it. The catholic church recognized same sex unions long ago, we've just brought it back.
Posted by: steveg

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 10:31 AM

How do you know? Did you ever propose to a lemur?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 10:58 AM

Quote:
Nature also ordains that corn is a grass in Mexico, and was never intended for humans to eat.

Absolute rubbish - how do you know what it was intended for?

Quote:
yields continue to rise as we continue to modify the plant.

No they don't they continue to fall as food production is taken away from individuals to feed the greed of corporate conglomerates who have fkXdc! up the crop by interfering with it.

Quote:
Likewise we've modified marriage to include same sex

What Massachusetts? Phhhh - yeah like they're supreme masters of the entire universe.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 11:00 AM

Quote:
How do you know?

How do I know what?

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 11:39 AM

Quote:
What Massachusetts? Phhhh - yeah like they're supreme masters of the entire universe.
Right, on consigliori! Everyone knows that be YOU! Silly colonists. smirk

BTW, how's that flashlight working out?
Posted by: steveg

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 11:41 AM

Ok, bubbelah, stay with me if you can. Hint:
Quote:
No... simply because like same-sex unions they're not marriages


Hey, just call if you need any more help. K?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 12:04 PM

You mean how do I know that same-sex unions are not marriages? What a stupid question - how is anyone supposed to imagine you meant that? Because marriage is the consummated union of one man and one woman that's why - you love asking for everything that's already been posted several times to be repeated right? grin

km
Posted by: H. Habilis

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 12:21 PM

Quote:
Because marriage is the consummated union of one man and one woman


No, that's just YOUR definition of marriage.
Posted by: H. Habilis

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 12:25 PM

Quote:
BBy your argument existing requirements like consent are irrelevant because they can be got rid of by legislation


Wow, you really didn't get that at all, did you?

Could we maybe not talk about marrying animals? It has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 12:41 PM

Quote:
No, that's just YOUR definition of marriage.

Oh I get it - I've got one definition, you've got another but yours is right and mine is wrong... even though the majority disagree with you?

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 12:52 PM

Quote:
Wow, you really didn't get that at all, did you?

Get what? That was Poly's point not mine.

Quote:
Could we maybe not talk about marrying animals? It has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

I'll talk about whatever I like - since when have you been the arbiter of what's relevant? If it wasn't relevant I wouldn't have mentioned it.

km
Posted by: H. Habilis

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 01:00 PM

How does anyone know what Nature intended? Nature doesn't have intent. Nature just IS. Using "nature's intent" as your justification for the status quo hasn't worked since Social Darwinism got laid to rest.

But if you want to talk about nature, let's talk about the natural fact that somewhere between 3-5% of the world's human population is homosexual, and that's a conservative estimate. And none of them have any more choice in the matter than you do about your skin color. And if you want to call THAT fact into question, just know that outside of a few loud adherents to certain popular monotheistic religions, no intelligent human being believes that being gay is a choice. No major scientific organization (or minor one) gives any credence to that idea. No major association of psychiatric or medical professionals will accredit or endorse so-called "reparative therapy" wherein gay people are psychiatrically treated to become straight. The DSM does not recognize homosexuality as a form of mental illness to be treated. It does, however, recognize the traumatic effect that discrimination and hate can have on anyone subjected to it because of their sexual orientation. On that note, way to go, fellow Californians! (That's sarcasm, Keymaker, in case you were wondering.)

So, OK, I'm going to say it's a given that gay people can't decide to be gay or not. Therefore, you can't legislate their behavior out of existence without eliminating the people themselves.
This is why the issues of gay rights have become Identity politics issues, because America has treated gays as if they were a particularly undesirable ethnic minority. They are discriminated against on the basis of something uneradicable in their physical makeup. Anti-Gay Rights activists are essentially doing the same thing as of they tried to pass laws saying all black people should be white.

So when you deny gays the right to marry for whatever reason, you are doing no more than discriminating. You are NOT correcting aberrant behavior, you are not protecting your own marriage, you are merely forcing your personal distaste onto the lives of others who neither can nor should change themselves to suit your religious-esthetic preferences.
Posted by: H. Habilis

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 01:10 PM

Quote:
I'll talk about whatever I like


Well, sure, I'm not trying to stop you. My point is that there is absolutely no comparison between gay marriage and bestiality. And it seems that when someone uses a metaphor or an analogy in this thread you tend to take it literally, as in the "Cream in the coffee" analogy, and the "modified corn genes" analogy. I'm just trying to avoid any more confusion and clouding of the issue.
Posted by: H. Habilis

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 01:12 PM

Quote:
Oh I get it - I've got one definition, you've got another but yours is right and mine is wrong


Exactly. I'm glad you've figured that out.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 01:21 PM

Quote:
...you are merely forcing your personal distaste onto the lives of others

Not at all - although that's what the proponents of change are doing by demanding that marriage be re-defined. It's a rather absurd suggestion that European gays who campaigned for civil unions were discriminating against themselves by not pressing for the terminology of marriage.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 01:21 PM

HH, welcome to the Soapbox. And welcome to the HMS Keymaker's Voyage to the Myopian Islands. Aspirin will be served on the salon deck at 6PM. Casual drag is encouraged.


Oy vey...
Posted by: steveg

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 01:25 PM

What's absurd is that marriage should be defined at all. That's the domain of the anally compulsive, IMO.


Oh wait... *smacks self on forehead* DOH!
Posted by: garyW

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 01:26 PM

Originally Posted By: steveg
And welcome to the HMS Keymaker's Voyage to the Myopian Islands. Aspirin will be served on the salon deck at 6PM. Casual drag is encouraged.

No pets allowed.

Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 01:31 PM

Quote:
Exactly. I'm glad you've figured that out.

Oh very funny... I figured it out alright and I figured out what a lot of rubbish it all is. smirk

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 01:32 PM

I will remind you again, same-sex marriages are marriages in these countries.

Belgium
Canada
Netherlands
Norway
South Africa
Spain
Posted by: steveg

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 01:32 PM

B-b-b-but my fiancť! cry
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 01:49 PM

Quote:
I will remind you again, same-sex marriages are marriages in these countries.

Oh big deal... here's where they're not:

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Andorra
Angola
Antigua
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belize
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burma
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Comoros
Congo
Costa Rica
Cote d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Holy See
Honduras
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kiribati
Korea, North
Korea, South
Kosovo
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macau
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Micronesia
Moldova
Monaco
Mongolia
Montenegro
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nauru
Nepal
Netherlands Antilles
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Oman
Pakistan
Palau
Palestinian Territories
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
San Marino
Sao Tome and Principe
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Timor-Leste
Togo
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States of America
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

km

Posted by: Lea

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 01:52 PM








Posted by: Lea

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 02:00 PM


The best way to avoid confusing and clouding of this issue is to understand that when it comes to gay marriage, KM is Mr. Cranky Pants at best, and seriously homophobic at worst. I kinda lean with the latter, but that's just me.




Posted by: steveg

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 02:01 PM

So a planetful of stupid makes it right?

Did you have to look all that up, or are they already on your email broadcast list.
Posted by: garyW

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 02:02 PM

Yep, homosexuality in Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Nigeria, is punished by death. Oh, big deal.

Here's a wiki page where many countries on the list consider it a crime with severe punishment.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 02:08 PM

Quote:
KM is... seriously homophobic...

And you make that accusation because...?

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 02:13 PM

Kiss me hard and I'll tell you! blush
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 02:14 PM

Quote:
punished by death... crime with severe punishment.

So your point is it should be de-criminalised, right? I agree.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 02:17 PM

Ah yes, but they were ALL on the not list a few years ago.
You prove my point, thank you. The times they are a changin'.
Posted by: Lea

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 02:20 PM


I actually read your posts.




Posted by: polymerase

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 02:25 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
...you are merely forcing your personal distaste onto the lives of others

Not at all - although that's what the proponents of change are doing by demanding that marriage be re-defined. It's a rather absurd suggestion that European gays who campaigned for civil unions were discriminating against themselves by not pressing for the terminology of marriage.
km


Not sure but I think comparing the terminology between the United States and a lot of Europe is comparing apples to oranges. In Europe they may have done this correctly over the centuries. Marriage was always a very religious ceremony which had nothing to do with the state. We screwed up here in the USA. The religious ceremony and the civil laws are intertwined so the meaning of "marriage" is a bit different. If we could rewind time and not allow religious doctrine of marriage to become a civil and state issued edict we could get out of this but we're stuck. In the US, marriage is not a religious process separate from civil. So we are a tad screwed. To insure that gays are treated equally they cannot be only be given access to a civil ceremony without the marriage. It would mean something far different than a civil ceremony in Germany. The only way to make it equal in the US is to grant a marriage.

I am not religious. (A slight understatement.) I believe that gays, even atheist gays need the sanctity of marriage as described in the civil laws of the United States in order to gain equality with heterosexual married couples.

The laws concerning homosexuality and marriage are different throughout the world. Capital punishment for homosexuality in a few of the countries you listed is only the tip of the iceberg to the differences.

Although we may have screwed up a tad combining religious and civil laws in the past I am proud that the United States is leading the way for these changes. I am proud as punch that my own Commonwealth of Massachusetts is at the tip of the spear.

If anyone cared to look it up, the City on the Hill which Reagan always brought up as the shining light of civilization, is Beacon Hill, Boston, Massachusetts. (It used to be much bigger but they needed the dirt to fill in Back Bay.)


Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 02:26 PM

Quote:
I actually read your posts.

Well then you shouldn't have any trouble directing us to one that proves your point?

km
Posted by: H. Habilis

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 02:27 PM

I haven't been on these forums long enough to say if KM is homophobic or not. That's not my point.

My point is that marriage is a civil union that affords certain rights and privileges, such as inheritance, sharing of job benefits, greater ability to adopt children (and some hassle, as well) to the united and thus to deny it to a section of the populace based on who it is that's getting married is to deny a civil right.

Aha, you may say, then what's wrong with civil unions? The answer is that besides whatever legal differences there are between the two states, there is a perceived illegitimacy or second-class status which in this world of perception amounts to REAL discrimination.
I might be OK with civil unions if the word "marriage" was stricken from the law books and the only time you heard it used was in religious ceremonies.

Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 02:36 PM

Quote:
You prove my point, thank you.]

No, I prove my point because I'm talking about the world as it is rather than the way you want it to be. frown

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 02:41 PM

Quite the contrary. THAT is the way the world is; it is changing. Has nothing to do with me.
Posted by: garyW

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 02:48 PM

Quote:
So your point is it should be de-criminalised, right? I agree.


Yes, but I'm immediately concerned and giving my support to what is happening in my state in my country. You listed those countries that do not permit same sex marriage, and I pointed out that there's a pretty severe reason why they do not.

But America is a democracy, and our Declaration of Independence states :"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." We have a Constitution that determines that a citizen's rights are protected and the process of judicial review shall be the law of the land. Proposition 8 rewrites the State of California's Constitution to remove citizen's rights without judicial review.

And I agree this is a much better way to govern whether to permit same sex marriage rather than imprisonment or a death sentence ... and so, in time, we'll change the law in the correct procedure.

Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 02:49 PM

Quote:
Aha, you may say, then what's wrong with civil unions? The answer is that besides whatever legal differences there are between the two states, there is a perceived illegitimacy or second-class status which in this world of perception amounts to REAL discrimination.

I've already dealt with that argument by pointing out that you're contradicted by the European experience where gay groups campaigned for civil unions and achieved them. Discrimination is something that is FELT not some abstract concept that can be assigned to intelligent people who know what they want and are perfectly at ease with what they have.

km
Posted by: polymerase

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 02:57 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker

I've already dealt with that argument by pointing out that you're contradicted by the European experience where gay groups campaigned for civil unions and achieved them. Discrimination is something that is FELT not some abstract concept that can be assigned to intelligent people who know what they want and are perfectly at ease with what they have.
km

Ah, but there is the difference pointed out a couple of times above. In the United States there would be a much different perceived difference between a civil union in the US and in Europe. In the US the perception and the reality is that a civil union alone without the word marriage would be very unequal.

Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 02:58 PM

Quote:
Quite the contrary. THAT is the way the world is; it is changing. Has nothing to do with me.

No, the way the world IS is shown in your list of countries compared to mine. You're assumption that there's a trend that will inevitably continue into the future is pure guesswork.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 03:01 PM

Quote:
In the US the perception and the reality is that a civil union alone without the word marriage would be very unequal.

That's not what they thought in California.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 03:06 PM

Quote:
You're assumption that there's a trend that will inevitably continue into the future is pure guesswork.


I have no assumption at all. I am stating a fact. The world IS different now, with regard to same-sex marriage than a few years ago. No matter how you try, that cannot be dismissed. A trend- we shall see
Posted by: garyW

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 03:08 PM

Quote:
That's not what they thought in California.


The State Court had ruled that same-sex marriage was permitted.
Proposition 8 struck that ruling and rewrote the State Constitution. That is not Judicial Review and is the reason it is already being challenged in the courts.

The Constitution protects citizen's civil rights so that the rights of a minority cannot be removed by a majority. The state courts, and maybe the US Supreme Court will need to rule to change the Constitution to remove civil rights.

Posted by: polymerase

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 03:16 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
In the US the perception and the reality is that a civil union alone without the word marriage would be very unequal.

That's not what they thought in California.
km

I get to yell out BINGO!! That is why this thread exists. We are disconcerted that the people of California reversed their decision and made same sex marriages illegal again. We think the Mormon Church and possibly a small percentage of people in California took stupid pills on election day.

California leads the way normally in the United States. They may be a tad whacky but they push the envelope. Sadly, in this case they seemed to have goofed.


Posted by: H. Habilis

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 03:17 PM

First of all, there are vast legal differences between Civil Unions and marriage. Property rights, tax benefits, inheritance rights, benefit sharing, shared citizenship for immigrant partners, you name it. Most importantly, Civil Unions are not recognized on a consistent level nationally. So the states are in no way separate but equal, which makes it discrimination.

As far as discrimination being just a feeling, that's just not true. Nor is it an abstract concept. It's something that actually happens to people and has concrete results. And if it happens to a gay couple (for example, a contested will or denial of medical benefits) and they have no legal recourse because their civil union isn't recognized, then they're back to being second-class citizens.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 03:18 PM

Quote:
You listed those countries that do not permit same sex marriage, and I pointed out that there's a pretty severe reason why they do not.

All you did was pick out an unrepresentative minority of states from a very long list... the 'severe reason' why in Britain we don't allow same-sex marriage is that we dealt with discrimination by way of all party agreed solutions.

Quote:
But America is a democracy,

Yeah sure - most of the nations on my list are democracies except they have some clue about what the term means.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 03:23 PM


Quote:
No, the way the world IS is shown in your list of countries compared to mine.


You have your own country?

Seriously, the world is not broken up into paradigms.
We are an entity.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 03:29 PM

Quote:
As far as discrimination being just a feeling, that's just not true. Nor is it an abstract concept. It's something that actually happens to people and has concrete results.

Okay, who's gonna phone up Sir Elton John and tell him he's mistaken... he THINKS he's not the victim of discrimination but really he is. smirk

km
Posted by: garyW

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 03:29 PM

Quote:
Yeah sure - most of the nations on my list are democracies except they have some clue about what the term means.


... and on the Wiki link I gave you there are 51 countries that have penalties ranging from life in prison, labor camps and flogging. I didn't cross-check lists, but every one of the countries that have death sentences are on your list.

Posted by: H. Habilis

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 03:43 PM

Quote:
Okay, who's gonna phone up Sir Elton John and tell him he's mistaken... he THINKS he's not the victim of discrimination but really he is.


Huh?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 03:47 PM

Quote:
... and on the Wiki link I gave you there are 51 countries that have penalties ranging from life in prison, labor camps and flogging

Yeah I'm opposed to that - those types of camps and punishments are completely unacceptable.

km
Posted by: H. Habilis

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 03:48 PM

Ok, I read that very illuminating Elton John article, and the fundamental issue is that he's in England and we're talking about California and by extension the US.
Quote:
You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."


You do NOT get the same equal rights with a civil union in the US that you do with a marriage. That's the WHOLE POINT.

Maybe it's different in Britain, if so, GG, UK! At least it's a step in the right direction.

Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 03:49 PM

Quote:
Huh?

Who's gonna phone Elton John?

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/14/08 04:09 PM

Quote:
he's in England and we're talking about California

He was talking about California as well.

Quote:
You do NOT get the same equal rights with a civil union in the US that you do with a marriage.

No reason why you shouldn't - I'd be quite happy to send you the blueprint which you could forward to President-elect Obama?

km


Posted by: H. Habilis

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 01:22 AM

Quote:
He was talking about California as well.


Well, then, he was wrong. And even if I'm wrong and he's right about California, if he and his partner move to Nebraska then their civil union will legally blow out like a candle in the wind. And let me just point out that using Elton John as an example of how normal everyday people (gay or straight) should live is really not a great idea. I mean, it's not like he and his partner are worried over whether or not his job at Wal-Mart is going to allow them to share health insurance. His life is so completely removed from normal experience that any advice he might offer other than maybe the best way to get wine stains out of white-tiger-fur rugs or where to buy rhinestones by the metric ton is pretty suspect.

Quote:
I'd be quite happy to send you the blueprint which you could forward to President-elect Obama?


Oh, if only it were that simple.
But it isn't. Rules governing marriage are decided on a state-by-state basis here, in case that wasn't obvious from the recent election.

I don't honestly know if you are bigoted, or homophobic, or whatever. I haven't been on these forums long enough to get a sense of that. Nor does it really matter in this argument.

I'd like to go back to your original argument that civil unions are "separate [from] but equal [to]" marriage, which I think is probably the only argument that can be debated here sensibly. First of all, in making that argument, you've made it a given that gays should be treated equally. I don't think I'm putting words in your mouth here. That's actually a big step forward because unfortunately there are many people who don't think even that should be the case. Those are the people who created, campaigned for and voted for Prop 8.

But let's just say for the sake or argument that we all agree that gays should be treated equally. (By the way, if anyone's offended by the way I'm using the word "gays" I apologize. I'm just trying to be brief--really!)

Here's the analogy that you used to illustrate the legitimacy of the "separate but equal" case:
Quote:
Men don't have a civil right to compete against women in the 100 metres because equality is achieved by having separate events for men and women. A gay person doesn't have a civil right to marry because others have signed up to a specific meaning of the word but equality can be achieved by same-sex civil unions.


And then later...

Quote:
the gay view of equal rights is that men should be able to compete against women in the 100 metres sprint whereas my view is that men don't qualify because it's not the "100 metres sprint" but the "women's 100 metres sprint" where the difference is all important for equality.


If I can extend your analogy here, suppose that in the larger picture, the only way for men and women to make a living was by running in the 100-meter sprint event for their gender. Let's just say that was the only job in the whole United States of America. Suppose when men ran in THEIR 100-meter event--not won it, just RAN it, it was the LAW that they were awarded a gold medal, a college scholarship, the job of their choice, and a house, and everyone in the whole country had to acknowledge their claim on the medal, etc.

And when women ran in THEIR version of the event, it was the law that they were awarded a certificate saying they ran it, which not only had no value other than the paper it was printed on, but was also not recognized in 46 of 50 states. That's separate but not equal.

And that's how civil unions (and domestic partnerships, more or less) work here in the US. They are the only game in town when it comes to establishing a public/legal/etc. acknowledgement of a committed life partnership between 2 people of the same sex, and all that acknowledgement brings with it. And when you compare them to the legal protections and so on given to married heterosexual couples, the two games aren't even in the same league with each other.

So, really, the "Gay View (as if there was just one gay view)" is that the rewards should be the same for participants in either versions of the event (most important), and the event should have the same name, regardless of who's running(not quite as important, but still pretty important).

Quote:
but equality can be achieved by same-sex civil unions.


It's possible it COULD be, but that is certainly never going to be the case until EVERY SINGLE legal right, privilege, protection and responsibility that is afforded to married people all over the US is given to civil unions. And even then, most people would still consider them not marriages. Which is too bad, but I acknowledge there's nothing we can legally do to change people's bigoted ignorant minds.

Except...As I and other people have said here, probably the most common sense thing to do is to take the word "marriage" out of civil ceremonies. If I had had my way entirely my wedding would have been conducted by a strictly municipal authority (as opposed to a Unitarian minister, which was fine but a little too close to Christian for my liking, but it made my wife's family happy). And if at some point when i was filling out my tax forms every year the little box that I check that says "married" starting saying "civil union" or "civilly united" or whatever, I really wouldn't care, as long as my legal status remained the same.

The rest of the arguments you make in this thread don't really have any bearing on this question, as far as I can tell.
Let's see. "The WTF is it to him?" argument got shot down. And in case you still think it's alive, just bear in mind that as far as I know Olbermann is broadcasting to the entire US and beyond, including California.

The Mafia argument: Essentially you were saying that just because something is thriving doesn't make it worthwhile or morally superior or good or whatever word you want. But "things that thrive are good" was not the point of the post you were replying to. I think the point was that recognition of the rights of same-sex couples in one instance hasn't brought the world to an end. Which is true so far.

Then there was the post where I think you were saying that there's no difference between arguing for the rights of two people of the same sex to be able to marry and arguing for the rights of someone to marry a chair or a goldfish. There is a difference. Goldfish and chairs aren't people. It's still more or less OK to believe that chairs don't have rights, and the rights of goldfish are generally limited as well. Determining the rights of non-people or even deciding what legally constitutes a person is an entirely different legal/moral question. But when you deny the rights of one person to marry, you're denying the right of the other person, too. And in case you need another reminder, we're talking people here, as in adults in their right minds.

Then there was the whole "nature says milk is just for cows" thing. Again, using what nature thinks is not a legitimate argument. First of all, nature doesn't think. Second, if it did, how would anyone know? The only way they could know is if nature told them. And I think if you look a couple of steps ahead with that idea, you're getting into religion. And once you get into religion, well you can forget logic, so why argue at all?

The there was the "people find gay marriage distasteful" argument, but if you're using that argument you're essentially saying that it's OK to deny equal treatment based on taste. Not in the US it's not, or at least not how I understand the law, which is why we are forced to deal with other people's bad taste all the time (and they are forced to deal with ours). And I wouldn't have it any other way. I find the marriage of the incomparable Catherine Zeta-Jones to the wizened and pouchy Michael Douglas distasteful, but sadly she is OK with it, so it has all the legal weight it will ever need (...sigh...).

In that same post was a line about "the laws of nature and the accumulated wisdom of mankind." Well, I think I've dealt with the laws of nature already, and I have one thing to say about the accumulated wisdom of mankind: It's STILL ACCUMULATING. It's not done, the final draft will never be done. Conventional wisdom is always evolving, and just because some idea has been around for a while (like, say, nuclear war or child labor) doesn't make it good. Oh, wait, you said that already.

Then there was the religious tolerance and freedom of speech post, which was irrelevant and read like an attempt to switch playing fields in the middle of a match.

Then there was the "look at all these countries that are homophobic" post. Are you saying that makes it OK? WTF is it to me that Chad is anti-gay marriage? They suck, forget 'em. We're talking about the US, specifically California, because that's where I live and I would like it not to suck as bad as Chad. (Sorry Chad, just being honest...you make Sudan look like Club Med) And then the Obama thing. You're basically saying, "hey all you liberals love this guy so much, and he claims to be against gay marriage, so why are you so FOR it?" All I can say to that is that nobody's perfect. I was sad to see Obama knuckle under to bigotry that way. What he chooses to believe or profess belief in doesn't affect my beliefs.

And then there was a bunch of stuff about how European gays were happy enough with civil unions. Because I am a woefully geocentric Yankee bastard I will shamefully admit that I do not know if the rights that a civil union confers on a same-sex couple in any given European country are the EXACT same as the rights a marriage confers on a heterosexual couple. If NOT, then they aren't happy, no matter what you say,or at least they won't be happy for long. If they are the same, then great, but they shoulda held out for being called "married" or the better idea, NOBODY being called "married."

And then we got into your definition of marriage, which is irrelevant, because your definition of marriage isn't what we're discussing here.
And then we got into the Elton John thing...

...which brings us back to the top of this post. Like I said, your best point was the separate but equal thing. I hope you can see that it's not the case.











Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 04:36 AM

Thanks for the re-interpretation of my posts but unfortunately it's not a very accurate one...

Quote:
Well, then, he was wrong.

Too arrogant - wrong in your opinion but right in the opinion of the majority.

I posted the link to Elton John's opinions to illustrate the point that when a gay man says "I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership" you can't say, as you did, that he's the victim of discrimination. Since his civil partnership gives him all the rights of a married person there is no discrimination. Why are you so insistent that he has to accept the word 'marriage' when you know it will offend millions of people and deliver nothing to him that he even wants?

Quote:
Rules governing marriage are decided on a state-by-state

So what? I'm offering a blueprint that would be transferable to all of 'em and would deliver equality to everyone irrespective of their sexual orientation. Anyone with an open mind who wasn't adopting a rigid and entrenched ideology would at least consider the text that has managed to bring happiness to millions of gay people without upsetting anyone.

Quote:
If I can extend your analogy...

That wasn't an extension but an alteration. My analogy wasnít dealing with some way off base hypothetical impossibility but the real-world truth that Usain Bolt is not allowed into the women's 100 metres on grounds of equality because he doesn't qualify for the event. He can go and do some similar event for which he does quality. By the same token a man can be a civil partner of another man but he can't be the bride in a marriage because he doesn't quality as a woman.

Quote:
civil unions... when you compare them to the legal protections and so on given to married heterosexual couples, the two games aren't even in the same league with each other.

They could be - that's just a matter of getting the legislation right, which is why I offered you the UK blueprint to promote in the US a workable solution and compromise between conflicting viewpoints.

Quote:
the most common sense thing to do is to take the word "marriage" out of civil ceremonies

But that would take the romance and fantasy of an event away from millions of people who regard their marriage ceremony with the meaning behind it as the most important day of their life. No, Iím afraid that common sense does not always demand the lowest common denominator - what youíre talking about is the lunatic fringe trying to impose their minority values on everyone else.

Quote:
Let's see. "The WTF is it to him?" argument got shot down.

I know it did - I'm the one who shot it down when it was cited as justification for KO's opinion that the majority should back down.

Quote:
The Mafia argument: Essentially you were saying that just because something is thriving doesn't make it worthwhile or morally superior or good or whatever word you want. But "things that thrive are good" was not the point...

That's just it - it was the point, you check out what he said.

Quote:
Goldfish and chairs aren't people.

The test for marriage is not whether participants are people but whether they are man and woman. Just like the womens' 100 metres you can't qualify just by being a person.

Quote:
Then there was the whole "nature says milk is just for cows" thing. Again, using what nature thinks is not a legitimate argument. First of all, nature doesn't think. Second, if it did, how would anyone know?

By observation of the evidence around us - how else? Oh alright then - nature intended cow's milk to be for humans and human milk to be for calves.

Quote:
Then there was the "people find gay marriage distasteful" argument, but if you're using that argument you're essentially saying that it's OK to deny equal treatment based on taste.

You're going 'round in circles now... we've already established objectively that denying gay marriage is not denying equal treatment. That's like saying that ballroom dancing competitions that require couples to be one man and one woman should now be open to same sex partners since denying the right is denying equal treatment. I don't think you'd get much support for that amongst the people I know.

Quote:
Well, I think I've dealt with the laws of nature already...

Not really... consummation requires the use of specific human organs that nature has evolved for reproduction.

Quote:
wisdom of mankind: It's STILL ACCUMULATING.

Maybe so but it hasn't yet given itself over to minority viewpoints that stand to wreck the quality of life for millions of people.

Quote:
Then there was the religious tolerance and freedom of speech post, which was irrelevant and read like an attempt to switch playing fields in the middle of a match.

Not by me it wasn't - I was asking a question which was relevant to an argument that the views of Mormons were somehow of less value than those of others - not in a democracy they're not.

Quote:
Then there was the "look at all these countries that are homophobic" post. Are you saying that makes it OK?

Doh, no... I'm saying that being on the list did not make those nations homophobic. I happen to know this for a fact because the UK is on the list and we are not homophobic.

Quote:
They suck, forget 'em.

Oh thanks - what all of Ďem? Youíre really going out of your way to charm Europeans into thinking that they might be mistaken then?

Quote:
And then the Obama thing. You're basically saying, "hey all you liberals love this guy so much, and he claims to be against gay marriage, so why are you so FOR it?"

No thatís not what Iím saying - Iím saying that just because someone objects to gay marriage does not make them homophobic. He might be but as far as I can tell heís not... in fact to be honest i canít think of anyone who is and if you happen to dig one up from somewhere it wouldnít de-legitimise the perfectly reasonable objections to gay marriage raised by a cross-section of ordinary decent people.

Quote:
If NOT, then they aren't happy, no matter what you say,or at least they won't be happy for long.

Utterly and completely arrogant - how do you know how long people are going to be happy for? For your own credibility you need to stop this line of argument - that you know who is and who is isnít happy more thatn the people themselves.

Let's be honest - Elton John has blown your arguments right out of the water and it happens to be another false trail that he's wealthy and successful because millions in the gay community without his wealth or position happen to agree with him.

km
Posted by: FSM

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 05:05 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
the most common sense thing to do is to take the word "marriage" out of civil ceremonies

But that would take the romance and fantasy of an event away from millions of people who regard their marriage ceremony with the meaning behind it as the most important day of their life. No, Iím afraid that common sense does not always demand the lowest common denominator - what youíre talking about is the lunatic fringe trying to impose their minority values on everyone else.
have the state recognize civil unions only. if a couple wants to also get married in a church then the state could easily recognize the marriage ceremony as a civil union as well. the couple gets their marriage and the legal benefits as well. if the church wants to marry gay couples, fine. if not, they still get the exact same certificate from the gov't. in the eyes of the gov't, they're equal. can't make churches recognize the same equality, but it won't matter.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 07:00 AM

Quote:
have the state recognize civil unions only. if a couple wants to also get married in a church then the state could easily recognize the marriage ceremony as a civil union as well.

That might even work if the Church leadership were given legal powers to determine which ceremonies bestowed civil union status by marriage and which one's didn't.

Otherwise it prolly might not work because what would happen is you'd have minority religio-militants going against the Church leadership and conducting same-sex marriage ceremonies without permission but with impunity at law thereby upsetting by association the great majority wanting the traditional marriage ceremony to be the holy sanctification of their union. It would be a bit like the International Olympic Committee (ICC) saying "sure - you can go and have single gender 100m races if you want but the only ones we're going to recognise are mixed gender ones".

Nope - there's no way round it - either the Church is given the power of veto or the balance of convenience and common sense requires us all to just hang in there with the status quo.

km
Posted by: FSM

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 07:37 AM

that's a problem for the churches, but not a problem for the state.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 07:52 AM

The problem for the State is that the measure won't be supported by the people unless their concerns are met. Meddling with the meaning of marriage requires a popular mandate and if it's not achieved the State will have to stay with status quo - as we saw in California.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 09:02 AM

Religious institutions are making a very compelling argument that "marriage" is a religious phenomenon. If that's the case, then H. Habilis is correct to suggest that the state has absolutely no business in certifying marriages, period. The state is not in the business of sacramentalizing anything--maybe in England, where her majesty is a pretty nice girl and heads the C of E that might be possible, but not in the US. My marriage was celebrated in Cambridge, MA, city hall, by some government flunky, and had no imprint of any church official at all. So if marriage is a sacramental union, then I guess my wife and I aren't married.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 09:20 AM

Quote:
Maybe so but it hasn't yet given itself over to minority viewpoints that stand to wreck the quality of life for millions of people.


Bingo! That is your fear. It could not be more obvious.

However, it is unfounded. The quality of life in the countries that have legalized same-sex marriage have not wrecked the quality of life for anybody. Day-to-day events carry on as usual and it has been over 5 years in some countries.
Posted by: steveg

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 09:44 AM

Ever feel like you're shoveling sand against the tide? smirk
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 09:49 AM

Anyway, back to Olberman's plea... the delivery was a bit over the top maybe, but entirely in keeping with the man's modus operandi. And I agree that it was authentic in its impassioned message. Good on him. Shame he had to throw in that sad qualifier about I'm not gay and don't know anyone within my extended family and a radius of ten million miles, as those kinds of mixed messages can have a rather disconcerting effect on the ostensible main thrust of his commentary.

I agree with him, in any case. The spirit of it is sound. That said, I agree with Yoyo's contention that the state has no business in sacramentalizing anything by and in the name of the public. Let it be civil unions (ignoring gender and orientation) and the churches can tie themselves up in knots trying to decide what's a marriage and what's blasphemy; the kind of absurd posturing involved with that activity should keep them busy for a few centuries anyway.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 10:02 AM

Quote:
Ever feel like you're shoveling sand against the tide?



I live by the ocean so that is a very apropos analogy.

Will get back to you with an answer as soon as I wend my way through all the hysterical straight people whose quality of life has been wrecked by the tens of thousands of gay marriages in my country. wink
Posted by: Lea

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 10:07 AM


LOL!! See ya in about five minutes.




Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 10:07 AM

Good luck with that! Over in my neck of the woods, the sky has fallen several times now and people are still digging their way out of all those crashed clouds.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 10:56 AM


Why is everyone shouting 'Bingo!' when they haven't even got a full house?

Quote:
The quality of life in the countries that have legalized same-sex marriage have not wrecked the quality of life for anybody.

That's just where you're wrong. Were it true that the meaning of 'marriage' made no difference to the quality of life then there's no reason why the gay fraternity should feel bad about being denied it. My argument is not that they don't feel bad but that since the majority would also feel bad a compromise has to be reached.

The quality of life clearly includes feelings of self-esteem and pride in your society and if voters were not to feel bad about the change in California they wouldn't have voted against the measure would they?

Where such a change has already occurred there's no evidence whatsoever that everyone is unaffected by it but your argument would be demolished if there were evidence to the contrary. So here is someone <--- who's on record as objecting to such a change in Spain.

km

Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 11:07 AM

Quote:
If that's the case, then H. Habilis is correct to suggest that the state has absolutely no business in certifying marriages, period.

Well, I've conceded to FSM that as long as the Church leadership is given the legal power of veto over what is celebrated as marriage in a religious ceremony then his model of universal civil unions that include marriage could be viable.

km
Posted by: Lea

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 11:27 AM

Quote:
if voters were not to feel bad about the change in California they wouldn't have voted against the measure would they



If the Mormon Church had kept its nose up its own ass and not poured $$$ fuled FUD into Prop 8, the outcome would have been different. You can dance your veiled homophobic attitudes all around the ballroom, but the topic is Prop 8.

Why don't you just start another thread: Gay* marriage is wrong and KM has all the definitive answers as to why this is the case, end of debate.




Edit: I changed it to Gay marriage, instead of Gary* marriage. Duh, sorry Gary.




Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 11:41 AM

Quote:
your veiled homophobic attitudes...

Homophobic?

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 11:48 AM

Quote:
So here is someone <--- who's on record as objecting to such a change in Spain.


There is no law in any land that has 100% support. Finding examples on both sides is easy. There are lots of other "queens" in Spain who love the change!
Posted by: garyW

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 11:49 AM

Quote:
Duh, sorry Gary.


Well, if I had begun my first post in this thread and within 17 seconds stated "I have no person investment in this issue, I am not gay ..." , I certainly would have offended somebody.

Posted by: steveg

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 11:53 AM

Psssssssst. It means gay people make you nervous. S'ok. I don't believe it for a minute.

















Oops. Time's up!
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 12:07 PM

Nervous? What about the President-elect? Elton? Are they nervous as well?

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 12:11 PM

Quote:
There is no law in any land that has 100% support.

That's my only point - whatever you do, you can't win.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 12:18 PM

I doubt they suffer from the same wedgie you do. Obama may have his POV, but methinks he has an open mind and the ability adapt. In fact, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see a shift in his stance just based on reciprocity.

Careful with your answer now. I just waxed the floor.

*tappity tappity tap tap tappity*
Posted by: Leslie

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 01:03 PM

Quote:
That's my only point - whatever you do, you can't win.


Ipso facto neither can you. Ridiculous statement.

You must be getting dizzy from all the circles you've been running lately. Take a break.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 01:19 PM

Quote:
Ipso facto neither can you.

D'na... you were a bit too quick off the mark with that because in the context of the previous posts my statement obviously meant "one can't win" - it's clearly you who needs the break not me. smirk

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 01:23 PM

Quote:
my statement obviously meant "one can't win"


D'na....then you should say what you mean.
Posted by: Lea

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 01:37 PM


*snicker*




Posted by: macdavid

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 01:41 PM

Actually, I would make a case for the flip side (just the opposite) of that: marriage is a civil institution, a legal contract to be governed by the state. Churches should get out of the "business" of performing this legal contract. Now, The Blessing of a Marriage is indeed the church's business. Seems best to me (and I'm by no means the only or first to come to this conclusion) that marriages, with all that the legal contract entails, be performed by a civil authority, and then, if the couple desires, have a ceremony in the church which blesses the union. The service would be virtually identical to what it is now. Only "by the authority of the State of ..., I pronounce you..." would not be present because the "authority of the state" would not (indeed, should not) be granted to any religion to enable a legal contract. I know of many clergy who are uncomfortable with being given this legal, governmental, responsibility and would like to see it ended. Perhaps the current "crisis" will speed such a movement on its way.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 01:59 PM

Quote:
D'na....then you should say what you mean.

D'na I did say what I meant but you misunderstood it... funnily enough as I was reading your reply I was watching Stephen Fry, master of the English language, in his programme 'Stephen Fry in America' inteviewing someone from Seattle with the words "you have McDonalds and you have Starbucks" when the meaning was clearly that "one has" those outlets... and if you don't believe me if you wait about 17 seconds you can see him doing the same thing here <--- discussing the internet with the words "when you're a teenager especially if you've grown up in the city like I did..." when funnily enough the interviewer wasn't ever going to be a teenager because she was already over 20 years... smirk

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 02:27 PM

Quote:
that marriages, with all that the legal contract entails, be performed by a civil authority, and then, if the couple desires, have a ceremony in the church which blesses the union.

What you mean impose that by law even if people don't want it? Two ceremonies? I don't see that being very popular. Considering that people can already do that voluntarily but only one person ever has - Prince Charles - I'd say the idea would be pretty unwelcome.

Quote:
The service would be virtually identical to what it is now.

The service would be completely different because they'd already be married. You're overlooking the magic of the moment that makes them man and wife.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 02:30 PM

Quote:
blah blah blah







Hope you are enjoying this dance as much as I am.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 05:37 PM

Oh, I agree macdavid--my marriage to my wife is a marriage even though we religiously wink excluded any religious framework. I'm just harassing KM. I should know better cause he's so unflappable. Must be the lime in the coconut.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 05:51 PM

Quote:
You're overlooking the magic of the moment that makes them man and wife.


Now your sexism is showing.
Husband and wife is used almost exclusively these days.
Posted by: macdavid

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 06:36 PM

The service would be completely different because they'd already be married. You're overlooking the magic of the moment that makes them man and wife.

Not overlooking it all all. It's called "The Blessing of a Civil Marriage", and believe me, it can have all the trappings! Been there. Done that!

(And KM: Although I have promised myself not to respond to your foolishness, I just have to say that I think you delight it arguing simply for the sake of arguing. Whatever intelligent remark is made here, you simply must refute it... it your own bizarre fashion.)
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KO on Prop 8 - 11/16/08 11:22 PM

Quote:
Not overlooking it all all. It's called "The Blessing of a Civil Marriage", and believe me, it can have all the trappings! Been there. Done that!

Okay so some people would like it but the majority wouldn't - a reasonable inference from the fact that there's practically no take up. Presumably you'd be in favour of your double ceremony model being put to the voters and accepting the outcome whatever it may be? Although I've got my doubts about democracy being the best political system as long it prevails one has to run with the results?

As to your embargo on my posts I'm pleased you've broken it. It wasn't justified in the first place and gave the impression that you were quitting because you couldn't counter the arguments I was putting forward. Contrary to loose and unsubstantiated accusations of homophobia my posts have presented only moderate mainstream arguments of the majority. And whereas I'm trying to answer everybody's points even though I disagree with them what I've noticed is that when I put forward even an invincible point instead of acknowledging it people think it will just go away if they say nothing in response.

What about ballroom dancing competitions? Should the rules be changed by law to open up competition to same-sex couples and remove discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation or should they continue to be regulated by the National Dance Council of America (NDCA) and similar bodies according to what they deem to be the appropriate requirements for entry?

km