Gay marriage

Posted by: yoyo52

Gay marriage - 01/13/09 10:58 AM

Gee, I guess KM has been right all along!

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5Ym7-AyQuQ[/video]
Posted by: carp

Re: Gay marriage - 01/13/09 11:21 AM

LOL thats way to funny - I like the wood shop scene
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/13/09 12:24 PM

Sure wish I had a dual screen laptop to watch it on. grin
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Gay marriage - 01/13/09 12:25 PM

Wouldn't that be a bi-screen?
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/13/09 12:30 PM

Oooooo! Can I watch?
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: Gay marriage - 01/14/09 05:09 AM

This makes me laugh - if the internet is anything to go by (!) then straight couples have been putting the screw in the wrong hole for centuries. Time to start a new thread? smile
Posted by: walzuhair

Re: Gay marriage - 01/15/09 05:48 AM

Say YES to gay marriage..
Say YES to pedophile & children marriage..
Say YES to human & animal marriage..
Say YES to swinging..
Say YES to narcotics..

Say YES to everything, it's the new "Being-Civilized" tag..
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/15/09 05:58 AM

Hole? There's a hole???? confused
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Gay marriage - 01/15/09 06:39 AM

I'm disappointed in such a hyperbolically disingenuous argument. You don't actually believe that do you?
Posted by: walzuhair

Re: Gay marriage - 01/15/09 06:55 AM

I'm starting to believe the last line of my previous post.. But were the first 5 statements shocking? You don't see them coming in our future?
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/15/09 07:23 AM

Two words, eleven syllables... Dude, bisect the feces, will ya! grin

Anyway, I just don't get all the wrist-wringing over same-sex marriage. I'm willing to bet that for the majority of couples married for more than two years, it's always the same sex anyway. blush laugh
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Gay marriage - 01/15/09 07:53 AM

I hate to tell you that you are being paranoid. The difference between the relationships you are describing is not just a legal one, but a philosophical one.

If you believe that adults can give consent, which is the very basis for why sex with anything else is a crime, then there is a huge canyon between homosexual relationships and everything else that you are talking about. Sex between an adult and a child and an animal is not just horrifying because society has set an arbitrary standard. Society (mostly) has decided that these people cannot possibly give consent, so it's rape plain and simple.

That's not the case between two consenting adults. Where is the moral hazard?
Posted by: walzuhair

Re: Gay marriage - 01/15/09 08:10 AM

A few decades ago, homosexuality was as "horrifying" as adult, child, animal sex.. Now, it's legal.. Why limit the development and progress of society?

Just like how laws were modified to accommodate gay marriages, laws will be modified to accommodate everything else.. We should all be open minded for a better and free tomorrow.
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Gay marriage - 01/15/09 08:25 AM

Why are you ignoring the distinctions just to sarcastically repeat your position? If you think that homosexuality is horrific and should be outlawed, just say it and why instead of insulting everyone that thinks otherwise with the accusation that we would approve of bestiality and pedophilia.

That's a terrible thing to infer about a person, or a society no less.
Posted by: walzuhair

Re: Gay marriage - 01/15/09 08:59 AM

Sarcasm? That wasn't sarcasm, it's a prediction.. You reap what you sow..

As for ignoring the distinction, sorry, I simply don't see any difference.. Don't be angry or upset, others have their rights and views too. Other views are not insults..
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Gay marriage - 01/15/09 09:33 AM

I'm not trying to be hyper-sensitive here, but please realize that you are inferring that I (and anyone who makes the same distinction that I am) don't know the difference between homosexuality and rape.

It's not the point you are making that I think is insulting and I'm not getting upset because I know that you are an incredibly caring person. I do think that you are making a totally obtuse connection though.

If you set up homosexuals as an "other," than it is incredibly easy to also lump in all of the other deviants and assume that they are related. That's the exact same reasoning that outlawed miscegeny in the United States until well after the civil rights movement.
Posted by: RedStudebaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/15/09 09:40 AM

So what about inter-racial marriage? Should people of different skin colour or ethnicity or religion be able to marry?

I mean that could lead to the end of civilization!

I have no problem and I am not threatened by people, who happen to be gay or purple and green getting married.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/15/09 09:42 AM

Quote:
Sex between an adult and a child and an animal is not just horrifying because society has set an arbitrary standard. Society (mostly) has decided that these people cannot possibly give consent, so it's rape plain and simple.

Yeah, I mean gay unions aren't disqualified from marriage for want of consent to some arrangement but for want of some other qualification such as the requirement that it be between one man and one woman and that it be consummated.

km
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Gay marriage - 01/15/09 09:45 AM

Originally Posted By: newkojak
Sex between an adult and a child and an animal is not just horrifying because society has set an arbitrary standard. Society (mostly) has decided that these people cannot possibly give consent, so it's rape plain and simple.


I find a kind of double standard in your statement. Mainly, that people label it horrific and criminal if I were to hump my dog, but smile and say he "doesn't know any better" when he humps me without my consent! I can assure you he knows exactly what he's doing! grin

As an interesting aside, the dog and cat that I kept when I found those kittens in the summer could be considered married, or at least in severe lust of each other. She's constantly presenting to him and recently I've caught them trying to copulate. I can't wait until they're finally fixed.
Posted by: RedStudebaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/15/09 10:21 AM

Well, there was a time when women were not defined as human. They were defined as property. And I do not doubt that this little bit of social change was fervently fought against.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/15/09 10:29 AM

Dooooood! That is is just TMI! sick laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/15/09 10:33 AM

Quote:
there was a time when women were not defined as human.

It's quite unlike you to exaggerate, RedStude, but I feel you have on this occasion... women have always been human but not necessarily bestowed with equal rights... at any rate not in Western societies?

km
Posted by: walzuhair

Re: Gay marriage - 01/15/09 10:38 AM

Gay marriage was illegal and something unacceptable by society, now it is. And how dare anybody think otherwise. It took its time to get the acceptance of society and judicial system.. I cannot see why not other illegal and socially unacceptable partnerships too.

I was watching an episode of Oprah a few months ago and she was talking about a newly founded - and legal - organization for Pedophiles and their children partners.. I forgot its name, some googling might bring the name... How soon do you think before they get the acceptance of society and judicial system to tie the knot?

Who's next?

Societies in the world are not giving much though to moral values anymore.. We are accepting now what we rejected before.. Will that advance the society or destroy it? From what I keep reading and hearing, it is the way for a better civilized society.



Personally, I'm not willing to give up my values to become civilized.. I cannot see myself going with the family to attend a Gay Parade with naked and semi-naked people walking & dancing.. I cannot consider this civilized..

As for pedophiles, well, rapists & kidnappers get executed here, yes, the death penalty.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/15/09 11:05 AM

The fact is, there are still many cultures in which same sex marriage — and homosexuality in general — are still not acceptable. By the same token, there are cultures where unions btwn adults and children are not only acceptable, but encouraged. The organization you heard about on the Oprah show may be NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association). As an organization, it may be legal, but I can assure you, what it represents isn't, at least not in the U.S. And it's been around for quite some time.

But I think the issue is sexual unions btwn adults gradually gaining acceptance and legal standing, as opposed to those btwn adults and children, or btwn humans and other species.

I don't think that accepting same sex unions grants the acceptance of the other societal aberrations you listed. Plus, social acceptance of something doesn't automatically mean mandatory personal acceptance.Your beliefs are still your beliefs. If your gov't said yes to legal same sex marriages, you're not under any obligation to personally embrace the practice.

Now, the one exception would be this steamy relationship btwn SgtBaxter and his dawg! shocked blush laugh
Posted by: macdavid

Re: Gay marriage - 01/15/09 11:22 AM

Your views, so blatantly expressed, are nothing short of thoroughly repugnant. I had thought better of you. Guess I was mistaken.

I am a gay man. I have lived faithfully in a monogamous relationship with another man for many years. We consider that relationship "holy" whether or not it is blessed by the state or any religion. It is love in the highest sense of the word. And I am deeply, deeply offended by your remarks implying that it is somehow dirty and degraded.
Posted by: RedStudebaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/15/09 11:29 AM

Perhaps I should have used the word considered rather than defined. Social changes tend to be met with resistance.
Posted by: RedStudebaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/15/09 11:54 AM

When it comes to 'civilization' I am much more concerned about guns, bombs, tanks, destruction and death than about whether or not gay people want to get married.
Posted by: walzuhair

Re: Gay marriage - 01/15/09 09:00 PM

Originally Posted By: macdavid
Your views, so blatantly expressed, are nothing short of thoroughly repugnant. I had thought better of you. Guess I was mistaken.

That's your point of view, and I respect it..


Originally Posted By: macdavid
And I am deeply, deeply offended by your remarks implying that it is somehow dirty and degraded.

I went through my earlier postings in this thread, and I couldn't see where I implied that.. Gay Parades, with naked and semi-naked people walking and dancing was the only thing I objected to.. You have the freedom to live your life, but why force it on others? Exposing private parts in public and making a parade to celebrate it is extremely uncivilized, regardless of ones sexual orientation.

As I said earlier, I highly respect all other views and opinions..
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Gay marriage - 01/15/09 09:19 PM

Originally Posted By: walzuhair
Exposing private parts in public and making a parade to celebrate it is extremely uncivilized, regardless of ones sexual orientation.
I've never heard it expressed that way. Thanks for your viewpoint, good food for thought.

I'm glad you can tolerate the somewhat personal attacks. Your point of view is always welcome here.
Posted by: soulotomy

Re: Gay marriage - 01/15/09 10:19 PM

Well, considering how abyssmally deficient much of humanity is, it wouldn't be that surprising that some would want to couple/commune/whatever outside of their species smile.

Ed

It's a thing of mind over matter, but many of the minds don't matter smile.
Posted by: walzuhair

Re: Gay marriage - 01/15/09 11:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Reboot
Originally Posted By: walzuhair
Exposing private parts in public and making a parade to celebrate it is extremely uncivilized, regardless of ones sexual orientation.
I've never heard it expressed that way. Thanks for your viewpoint, good food for thought.


A gay friend from San Francisco shared some of the photos made in some parades, and frontal nudity was very common in the photos. Having a dignified parade would make a stronger message, but I guess there are different definition of freedom.

IMHO, freedom becomes chaos when ones freedom starts crossing the borders of other people's freedom. Under chaos, values crumble.. Without values, societies crumble.
Posted by: katlpablo

Re: Gay marriage - 01/16/09 12:22 AM

Originally Posted By: soulotomy
couple/commune/whatever outside of their species smile.

… and when the extraterrestrials come out of their hiding places and their closets, and we don't know who's who and what or how many sexes and/or genders they have, we will very surely know that, —if our morals and our times permit it, and— if we ever get to "couple/commune/whatever" blush, with such foreign souls whose origins are so undoubtedly outside of our genetic pools, we will surely know —i was saying—, that it will not be a homosexual relationship… smirk thank God!

grin
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: Gay marriage - 01/16/09 03:28 AM

In my book (which is not 'a book') immoral='causes suffering', but unfortunately for a lot of people, immoral officially='says so in a book' and so many activities that are genuinely immoral are quite legal, whereas many that are in no way genuinely immoral are quite illegal, or carry the stigma of 'moral outrage'/prejudice.

As KM pointed out, the problem with 'gay marriage' lies not just in the never-ending dispute over the morality of homosexuality, but is inherent in the definition of marriage. For gay marriage to become legal, the legal definition of marriage has to be changed, and changing legal definitions is an uphill marathon, especially when there's a dead weight of conventional 'morality' pulling it back.

Why would a gay couple want to get married? I guess because they want their union accepted in the same way that a heterosexual union is. Etc. etc...
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/16/09 04:07 AM

Quote:
Why would a gay couple want to get married?
Because we are a label-driven society. The concept of "brand" — whether defined by an actual logo and tag line, or by an attitude and POV — has become the no. one criteria upon which acceptance of virtually everything is accepted (or not). Marriage has become a marketed commodity. A brand. And as such comes with a set of socially acceptable features. Mess with those features and you risk eroding the brand. So, IMHO, if a couple wants their union to be accepted by the society they live in, it must carry the accepted and familiar "logo" and feature set.

Couple to society: We drive a silver-colored Volvo.
Society to couple: Ah... you must be very responsible people. Welcome!

Gay couple to society: We drive a bright orange Volvo.
Society to gay couple: Hmmm, that's a bit off-brand, Wait over there, please.

Seriously, if we could learn to get past the hype, we'd all be better off. And probably a lot less stressed.
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: Gay marriage - 01/16/09 04:19 AM

I don't think that's a very spot-on analogy, steve. It's more like

Gay couple to society: we also drive a silver-coloured Volvo
Society to gay couple: erm.... no you don't - if you're driving it it's not silver-coloured/not a Volvo/etc.
Gay couple: but it sure looks the same to us - in fact it's cleaner and probably gets way more mileage before the engine needs replacing etc.

Having been married myself, and being more gay than whatever else the options this month are, I've got no personal investment in the 'sanctity of marriage' but at the same time, I can fully understand why folk who are in same-sex relationships are tired of the playground mentality that says 'according to our rules, of course you lose'. Marriage is only 'sacred' if you believe in a religion that says it is - otherwise, in all but name it's a civil union for most people (who are at liberty to choose personally to consider their relationship sacred or not, regardless of whether they're actually married or want to be), and there's no reason to differentiate, apart from precedent and prejudice.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/16/09 05:10 AM

So, you're anti-Volvo, aren't you! I thought so. smirk

Here again, we get into the nuances of perception. Many of the gay couples we've known insist on driving "orange Volvos". Others, in fact, drive silver and don't want to be perceived as "off-brand". I think part of it is one's self-image, and how it's projected outward.

Everyone should just "go steady" grin
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: Gay marriage - 01/16/09 06:09 AM

Actually I am anti-Volvo - all of my friends over the last 20 years or so who have been knocked off their motorbikes (and some never got up again) have been knocked off by Volvos - without exception (though one was a Volvo lorry). People who think they're driving in a safe tank take less care about the people outside the tank.

Actually (part 2) you could say the same about some people in marriages - they're in their safe tank and they don't care so much about the folk outside it. And from a certain perspective, gay couples are the ones on the motorbikes.

Stretch that metaphor and win a pony... (but don't have sex with it)
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/16/09 07:09 AM

Ok, I think I have this figured out. It's a tricky equation, but I think it works:

If Joe is driving his silver Volvo east at 40mph and he left home wearing orange socks, how many motorbikes would it take to stretch Joe's orange socks over his Volvo?

Oy... sick
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Gay marriage - 01/16/09 07:54 AM

Originally Posted By: soulotomy
Well, considering how abyssmally deficient much of humanity is, it wouldn't be that surprising that some would want to couple/commune/whatever outside of their species smile.

Ed


LOL! Yep.
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Gay marriage - 01/16/09 03:00 PM

Things that were illegal and or not accepted by society that are now accepted (and vice versa for that matter) are countless. Ever read what a woman is supposed to do during her period according to the Old Testament? It was obviously seen as something very dirty, and only acceptable cuz there was no way to stop it (we have drugs for that now). In many societies, and societies within societies, a man can marry a girl that is near pre-pubescent and expect sex, and it is condoned, and her "consent" is questionable.

Again, the line for me is whether or not one is causing harm to others by his or her actions. And that's it. And if we are going to get religious (where most ambiguous morality comes from), any Book that condemns such things is because the guy (never the girl, eh?) that wrote it turned his nose up at it, and cuz His brain is divinely inspired, it must be Gospel. I say to him - yeah, whatever Dude, write a Psalm instead and stay out of other people's lives. If one chooses to believe in the ambiguous moralities forced upon us by religion, that's fine with Me, but wanting to use it to legislate other people's lives is projection, pure and simple.
Posted by: FSM

Re: Gay marriage - 01/16/09 03:11 PM

Originally Posted By: newkojak
If you believe that adults can give consent, which is the very basis for why sex with anything else is a crime, then there is a huge canyon between homosexual relationships and everything else that you are talking about. Sex between an adult and a child and an animal is not just horrifying because society has set an arbitrary standard. Society (mostly) has decided that these people cannot possibly give consent, so it's rape plain and simple.

That's not the case between two consenting adults. Where is the moral hazard?
+1
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Gay marriage - 01/16/09 03:11 PM

This one probably already made the rounds here (maybe it was even me who posted it, my memory ain't what it was). If you haven't seen it, you won't be disappointed.

Couldn't get the ubtube link to embed? Changed it to a link.

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY

Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/16/09 03:24 PM

It would be a riot if it weren't so dang close to the truth — for some, that is.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/16/09 05:17 PM

Funny how those who profess devotion spend most of their time ranting and raving about the "sins" of others.

Said it before and I'll say it again; the bible alludes to homosexuality once and speaks at great lengths about poverty at least 26 times! For the luvofgawd, why don't these people go volunteer and help the poor. I'll live with one barb about gays if they go fight poverty 26 times, one barb, 26 times, one barb 26 times.

If that is too difficult then get the f**k out of my bedroom.

Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/16/09 05:22 PM

Quote:
A gay friend from San Francisco shared some of the photos made in some parades, and frontal nudity was very common in the photos.


I have been to more gay pride parades than I can count and NEVER have I seen frontal nudity.

However, have heard about straight men doing something like this-I think it is called "flasher".
Posted by: macdavid

Re: Gay marriage - 01/16/09 05:43 PM

There are times when I utterly despair over any potential for enlightenment in many self-righteous, fundamentalist dark corners.

Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry... and often couched in the most sugar-coated manner from basically 'good' people.

"Who me?"...
"Why some of my best friends..."
"I'm only telling you what is best for you."
"Your freedom must not stand in the way of my freedom to practice discrimination."
"If God had intended..."
etc., etc. etc.

The fact that in CA Prop 8 passed... not *just* because of corrupt influence from powerful, moneyed blocks from the far right... but also because of the deep-felt feelings (that are nevertheless discrimination by any sense of the word) from people who should have known better based on their own "road"... the fact that it passed (albeit by an extremely narrow) is testament to the power of hatred of "the other." For, make no mistake, this was not really about simply gay marriage. It was another chapter in the long-standing pattern of a psychological "need" to stamp out that which is different.

Contrary to the lies about stuff like sex with animals, multiple wives, etc., the struggle for equality for those of us who are gay is a struggle for acceptance... and not "forced" acceptance either (as some would deceitfully maintain)... acceptance that would allow all of us to rejoice in the variety of humankind, its infinite differences, its infinite possibilities.

Certainly, there are outlandish extremes. To ask for equality does not mean condoning debauchery. Yes, there are limits. Funny, though, that so often the finger is pointed at the gay community without acknowledging the "log" in the eye of the self-righteous accuser. It's "OK" to have brothels, harems, child "brides," forced prostitution, even murder of a woman who has brought "shame" on her family,... all this and more... and yet... God forbid any show of homosexuality which offends one's sense of the-way-it-ought-to-be.

Well, I'm not so naive as to imagine that what I say here is going to change the mind of anyone. And, yes, I despair. But change *is* coming... probably not in my lifetime, but then I never thought I'd see this country elect a black president either. One need only look at the historical precedent, the taboos of antiquity which have been re-considered and cast aside. And to acknowledge that does *not* mean throwing in the towel to complete licentiousness. That is an argument only the rigid puritans (of whatever cultural stripe) make.

= That sign is what it's all about: equality, =.

Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Gay marriage - 01/16/09 05:43 PM

The degree to which a society tolerates/accepts nudity varies a lot. I thought I'd respond to Waleed's comments by posting links to things like nude biking and strip poker playing--all done nicely in public. But as I was looking for links I found so many that it became obvious that it was superfluous to do the linking. At the same time, I agree with Lester . . . never have I seen any nudity at gay pride parades. A lot of strutting and fretting, to be sure, but no nudity. In any case, I can't accept the idea that the reason homosexuality is to be abhorred is because some homosexuals are exhibitionism. I don't need to point out how many heterosexuals are equally or more exhibitionistic.
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Gay marriage - 01/16/09 06:28 PM

Perhaps you do, though. After all, clearly a double standard is in play.

Live and let live, man.

Anyway, I've witnessed a few pride parades, having encountered them on bike rides across town... never saw any full frontal nudity - strange, that! - no, just some frisky men and women frolicking up the street in some fairly revealing attire - but no more so than what you'd encounter at a typical beach in North America.

BTW, thanks for posting that retro gay marriage vid... hilarious.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/17/09 03:25 AM

Quote:
Perhaps you do, though. After all, clearly a double standard is in play.

Not that I've noticed.. what he said was:

"Exposing private parts in public and making a parade to celebrate it is extremely uncivilized, regardless of ones sexual orientation."

km
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: Gay marriage - 01/17/09 04:59 AM

Funny old business - nudity on a beach is somehow very different from nudity in the context of sexuality, i.e. even a pride march. The Public's response to a crowd of nude cyclists is often very different from their response to a crowd of nude homosexuals - context is everything.

Of course, in a culture where nudity in general is unacceptable, for sure it wouldn't make any difference what someone's sexual orientation was.

Personally, I'm more freaked out by overtly sexual clothing/behaviour in either men or women than I am by nudity. As I've been saying in another thread, we're dealing (even within a single culture) with a manifold standard, never mind double - music videos these days are mostly just simulated sex and very sexually explicit dress, but that's more acceptable because it's targeted at heterosexuals. Society at large has become very sexualised, and so a lot of behaviour that isn't necessarily about sex is perceived as sexual - such as marching nude in a pride march, where it's just as likely just to be an expression of 'at last, I'm allowed to be visible, what a relief'. If you don't like it, don't look. If you have to look, look more closely and look at people's faces - maybe the most significant thing going on is that they're happy, not that they're naked.
Posted by: macdavid

Re: Gay marriage - 01/17/09 06:51 AM

Quote:
If you don't like it, don't look. If you have to look, look more closely and look at people's faces - maybe the most significant thing going on is that they're happy, not that they're naked.


Never seen it myself, but I love that idea, Pad.
Posted by: macdavid

Re: Gay marriage - 01/17/09 07:30 AM

Here's an interesting take on what is "civilized behavior":

A report of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada

Saudi Arabia: Treatment of homosexuals by authorities and by society in general; recourse available to those who have been targeted because of their sexual orientation (2004 - 2007)

Homosexuality is illegal in Saudi Arabia and those found guilty are subject to the death penalty (ILGA 12 May 2006; ibid. 23 May 2005; Sodomy Laws 2 June 2006; AI LGBT July 2006), imprisonment and flogging under Sharia law (ibid.; The Guardian 18 Mar. 2005). According to a survey conducted by a student of Public Law at the Södertörn University in Stockholm for the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) regarding the legal status of homosexuality around the world, the punishment for engaging in homosexual acts in Saudi Arabia is the death penalty for married persons, while unmarried persons would be subject to 100 lashes and there must be four trustworthy male witnesses to the act in order to obtain a conviction (Nov. 2006, 15).

The following information was provided to the Research Directorate by the Executive Director of the Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia (CDHR), located in Washington, DC, in correspondence dated 23 January 2007:

Homosexuality is considered anti Islamic.... Homosexuals are beaten, incarcerated and could face the death penalty. They are called Makhaneeth which could mean many things including the scum of the earth.
The Executive Director of CDHR also stated that homosexuals have no recourse before the courts as judges are religious men who believe that homosexuals should be punished as they consider them to be "deviants."

In an International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) article, a representative of OutRage!, an organization promoting gay rights, stated that "Saudi Arabia is one of the world's most homophobic countries. Gay people are routinely arrested, jailed, tortured, flogged and sometimes executed" (17 May 2005). The Guardian reports that executions of homosexuals are not always reported in Saudi Arabia and that officials deny that the death penalty is applied for cases involving solely homosexual acts; the article also indicates that most Saudi cities have "underground gay networks" (18 Mar. 2005). According to Gay.com, a Web site providing news regarding homosexuals, "men can be arrested under suspicion of being gay, and police forces are often 'tipped' off by neighbours ... leaving the system open to personal vendettas" (18 Mar. 2005). Similarly, 365Gay.com, a gay and lesbian web portal, indicates that Saudi authorities will "routinely round up people suspected of being gay" following a complaint, which, in some cases, is lodged by a neighbour after a dispute (365Gay.com 14 Mar. 2005).

In August 2006, police arrested 20 men after raiding a suspected gay wedding in the town of Jizan (The Gay and Lesbian Review Worldwide 1 Nov. 2006; IOL 16 Aug. 2006; Pink News 17 Aug. 2006). Pink News, a news service dedicated to the gay community, claimed that the 20 men could face prison sentences and lashes (ibid.). Information as to the outcome of the arrests could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate.

In March 2005, over 100 men were arrested for "deviant sexual behaviour" (HRW 7 Apr. 2005) while allegedly attending a gay wedding (ibid.; ILGA 17 May 2005; The Guardian 18 Mar. 2005; AI 27 Apr. 2005). More than 30 of the men were sentenced to imprisonment for six months to one year and 200 lashes, four others received sentences of two years imprisonment and 2,000 lashes, while the rest were sentenced to a year in prison (HRW 7 Apr. 2005;Gay.com 8 Apr. 2005).

Various news sources reported that a homosexual couple was executed in March 2005 for killing another man who had discovered their relationship (Canadian Press 13 Mar. 2005; Birmingham Post 14 Mar. 2005; Gay.com 14 Mar. 2005). According to sources, the man found the couple in a "shameful situation," which is a common description used to refer to homosexual acts in Saudi Arabia (365Gay.com 14 Mar. 2005; Canadian Press 13 Mar. 2005; Birmingham Post 14 Mar. 2005). According to several news sources, the Saudi Interior Ministry issued a statement announcing that the couple killed the man because they feared that the man would expose their relationship (365Gay.com 14 Mar. 2005; Gay.com 14 Mar. 2005; Canadian Press 13 Mar. 2005).

This Response was prepared after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the Research Directorate within time constraints. This Response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim for refugee protection. Please find below the list of additional sources consulted in researching this Information Request.
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Gay marriage - 01/17/09 08:28 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Not that I've noticed.. what he said was:

"Exposing private parts in public and making a parade to celebrate it is extremely uncivilized, regardless of ones sexual orientation."

km


Wasn't going after anyone in particular, KM... talking in general about how often double standards come in to play when it comes to supposedly frank discussions about morality and sexuality.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Gay marriage - 01/17/09 08:58 AM

I disagree completely with the statement that exposing private parts in public = incivility. It depends on context, as others have said, and on culture and social expectations. There are/have been many human societies in which everyone is always naked. I suppose one could say that such societies are uncivilized. To that I can only say that it must be really tough to bear the white man's burden.
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Gay marriage - 01/17/09 09:13 AM

Agreed!

It's Social Anthropology 101, innit?
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Gay marriage - 01/17/09 09:49 AM

Just reread a book about Cook "discovering" Hawaii. The naked natives were the civil side of that encounter although Cook himself was remarkably forward thinking for his day. As all through the world it was when the missionaries arrived that the real devastation occurred that almost equaled the diseases they brought. Still going on.

Is this the thread about Gay Pride Parades? I am not ashamed to admit I will go out of my way for the entertaining spectacle of them. Haven't been to Boston's in years but I would take my children to show them that vanilla is not the only flavor of ice cream. Would it harm them? Get real. Uncivilized? Hannity is uncivilized and he gets an hour a day on TV.



Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Gay marriage - 01/17/09 10:17 AM

We had best be careful flashing our pro-gay credentials... I am reminded of the Seinfeld episode where George claims his dad is gay.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/17/09 11:33 AM

Quote:
Hannity is uncivilized and he gets an hour a day on TV.


Touché.
Posted by: walzuhair

Re: Gay marriage - 01/17/09 11:36 AM

Quote:
Here's an interesting take on what is "civilized behavior":


Regardless of the accuracy of the posted long article, is it the default that all Saudi Arabians approve of what goes on in Saudi Arabia?

Do you think all Israelis and Jewish people approve of what's being done in Gazza?

Life is the most valuable thing in existence, only cold-blooded murderers think otherwise.

That's one thing, the other thing is debating the current systems in Saudi Arabia and how much civilized they are compared to the world standard (if any). I don't think that this forum is the place for such a discussion nor am I the appropriate person to represent Saudi Arabia in such a discussion, due to my little knowledge of the political aspects in Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: walzuhair

Re: Gay marriage - 01/17/09 11:47 AM

Quote:
I disagree completely with the statement that exposing private parts in public = incivility.


With that in mind, would you accept a naked student (of legal age) in one of your classes? And, would you accept naked teacher where you work?


But honestly, I don't know why most discussions take a personal turn and emotions take over ones replies (I'm not talking about you, yoyo52). You don't like my opinions, fine.. Just express it in a way I would understand why, as this will help me look at things from your perspective. If I understand, I'll try to relay that to other people, and so on...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/17/09 01:41 PM

Quote:
Is this the thread about Gay Pride Parades? I am not ashamed to admit I will go out of my way for the entertaining spectacle of them.

I have to admit I don't really get them. There seems to be something of contradiction in the attitudes of some gays on the one hand wanting homosexuality to be treated by society in all respects the same as heterosexuality but who then go out of their way to behave in a quite overt and different way. Most people don't give a damn about a person's sexuality which is why you don't see 'heterosexual parades' - so why the homosexual parades? In Britain homosexuality was de-criminilised as long ago as 1967 so why the traffic hold-ups in Brighton every year over homosexulity? Being treated the same first and foremost means behaving the same and getting to grips with the idea that a person's sexuality is essentially a private matter and no big deal. There may be deleterious consequences from homosexuality and other human behaviour and conditions as has been pointed out in many a thread but that can be no justification for gratuitous prejudice or discrimination.

km
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Gay marriage - 01/17/09 01:57 PM

What! Being treated the same as everyone else means behaving the same as everyone else? Oh, how dreadfully dull. Dull as dirty, tepid dishwater. Thankfully not everyone subscribes to that such a notion. Talk about your deleterious consequences.

But I imagine it's really okay if you don't quite get the reasons behind such parades. I imagine many of their participants don't get the likes of you and your polite befuddlement. Sort of evens things out that way, don't you think?
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Gay marriage - 01/17/09 01:57 PM

"Most people don't give a damn about a person's sexuality which is why you don't see 'heterosexual parades' - so why the homosexual parades?"

Because they're a minority. Like, duh..
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Gay marriage - 01/17/09 02:13 PM

Hope I wasn't being uncivil in my comment, Waleed. But to answer your question, as others have said, context is what determines appropriateness. If I were teaching swimming, nakedness might indeed be appropriate--and at least in parts of the US, was fairly normal up until not all that long ago.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/17/09 02:26 PM

whoops!

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/17/09 02:36 PM

Oh goody! When's yours?
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Gay marriage - 01/17/09 02:39 PM

The plot thins...

Sociology 101, I am sure we both were subjected to such a class at some point, no?...

"A minority or subordinate group is a sociological group that does not constitute a politically dominant voting majority of the total population of a given society. A sociological minority is not necessarily a numerical minority — it may include any group that is subnormal with respect to a dominant group in terms of social status, education, employment, wealth and political power. To avoid confusion, some writers prefer the terms "subordinate group" and "dominant group" rather than "minority" and "majority", respectively. In socioeconomics, the term "minority" typically refers to a socially subordination ethnic group (understood in terms of language, nationality, religion and/or culture). Other minority groups include "economic minorities" (working poor or unemployed), "age minorities" (who are younger or older than a typical working age) and sexual minorities."
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/17/09 02:39 PM

Quote:
Quote:
"Most people don't give a damn about a person's sexuality which is why you don't see 'heterosexual parades' - so why the homosexual parades?"

Because they're a minority. Like, duh..

So what? Hemophiliacs are a minority - they don't have parades. Oh alright then - I demand that from now on every group which is not in a majority for some reason organises an annual parade.

km
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Gay marriage - 01/17/09 02:43 PM

Don't know how it happened (happened before here maybe?) but my, erm, astute reply to KM has appeared above his reply. Have no idea how or why.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/17/09 02:47 PM

Quote:
A minority or subordinate group is a sociological group that does not constitute a politically dominant voting majority of the total population of a given society....

If you've got a point, make it.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/17/09 02:55 PM

Are hemophiliacs allowed to get married and hold hands in public?
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Gay marriage - 01/17/09 03:04 PM

Even though my natural inclination is to avoid anyone with -liac on the end of his/her name, I admit now that some of my best friends are hemophiliacs. If they had a pride parade, I would go - incognito that is.
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Gay marriage - 01/17/09 03:15 PM

"If you've got a point, make it."

You would have to have made a point first, methinks.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/17/09 04:29 PM

Sure. Easy for you to say. sick
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/18/09 02:43 AM

Quote:
Are hemophiliacs allowed to get married and hold hands in public

Well yeah, depending on the circumstances they can get married or enter a civil union... the only thing that's not allowed is male frontal nudity on the highway.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/18/09 03:00 AM

Quote:
You would have to have made a point first, methinks.

Oh, sorry, I thought I'd made several... for example that being in a minority in some field does not explain the need for a parade.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/18/09 04:33 AM

There's a reason why these things are called [insert "minority"] Pride Parades: As so-called minororities (as Archie Bunker would call them), broader awareness/acceptance/understanding/empathy, etc. is at a premium. And the assumption is often that the constituency of such groups have little to be personally proud of. If ever there was a glaring example of the old Assume makes an ass out of U and me adage... sick

One way to break through such ignorance and intolerance is by public display amplified by hyperbole. Sometimes you just have to get right up in someone's face and say "I've got just as much to be proud of as you do!" Is that so difficult to grasp? Maybe you and your colleagues should have an annual Attorney Pride Day — and Archie Bunker could be your Grand Marshal! eek
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/18/09 04:35 AM

Cute. Another duck-n-dodge edit under the wire.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/18/09 05:30 AM

Quote:
Another duck-n-dodge edit under the wire

How is anyone supposed to know what you're taking about from a disconnected statement?

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/18/09 05:42 AM

Quote:
One way to break through such ignorance and intolerance...

walzuhair's point, I believe, was that lewd and offensive displays of public nudity are themselves examples of ignorance and intolerance, although I could be wrong.

km
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: Gay marriage - 01/18/09 05:50 AM

Anyway, in case you haven't noticed, every damn day is a heterosexual pride parade - go to the cinema, read magazines, watch tv, look at billboards... but The Norm gets uncomfortable when it's reminded that it's not The Only. Personally, I've stopped going on pride marches - back in the day (mid-80's) when I was on them for the first time, it really felt like we were making a statement about coming out of a closet we'd been shoved into by others - it felt celebratory for me to see grinning pairs of men and pairs of women walking arm in arm past (sometimes grinning) policemen at a time when you were odds-on likely to get thumped by a policeman if you did that when not en masse. The march through London ended with a political meeting which was also something of a street party. Over the years, it's lost its bite, and become a nice walk to get to a mad party. Count me out of that, but for guys and gals who are only just coming to terms with the possibility that it's alright to be gay/bi, it's still a celebration. Walt Whitman would approve!
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/18/09 06:01 AM

Quote:
although I could be wrong
STOP THE PRESSES!!! shocked

Depends wholly on cultural mores. And, as human nature would have it, such events will also attract those who are prone to employ too much hyperbole, which can undermine the goals of the more sincere factions.

But I can tell you from my own experiences in NYC, the Gay & Lesbian Pride parades that I saw every year in Brooklyn's Park Slope, which has a very large Lesbian community, and in Manhattan's Chelsea, which abuts The Village and has Manhattan's largest Gay population, such over-the-top exhibitions were almost non-existent. And I daresay that people tend to glom onto the extremes — even if they represent a fraction of a percent of the whole.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/18/09 07:04 AM

Never mind... out of sequence. My bad.
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: Gay marriage - 01/18/09 07:13 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
In Britain homosexuality was de-criminilised as long ago as 1967

In fact, homosexual acts between consenting adult men (i.e. aged 21 or over at the time) were partially decriminalised (lesbianism was never criminalised in the first place) in 1967 - the main motivation for the act being to curb the increase in blackmailing of posh people. The law basically stated that 'you can do whatever it is that you people do, within certain very stringent restrictions, and so long as no-one knows you're doing it.' Since that time, there has been a gradual, feet-dragging clarification of this law so that it falls less and less to the decision/whim of individual law-givers whether the law is being broken or not. The age of consent has been lowered, and it is no longer (I believe) a requirement that two men kissing must have at least 2 closed doors in between them and any minors, and so on and so on.

Meanwhile, decriminalisation (beit full or partial) has no affect on prejudice, any more than illegalising the caste system in India has stopped 'high-caste' people from killing Dalits for crossing their shadow or whatever. The reason that people still want to parade is partly because 42 years after that act was passed, folk are still being beaten and/or killed in the UK just for being gay or bisexual, and folk are fed up with being afraid and don't want to have to hide. A pride march is one situation where you know everyone around you doesn't automatically hate you for your sexual orientation. Believe me, it makes a palpable difference.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/18/09 09:35 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
Are hemophiliacs allowed to get married and hold hands in public

Well yeah
km


That is why they don't have to have a parade!
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: Gay marriage - 01/18/09 09:39 AM

Plus they're afraid of all the broken glass...
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/18/09 09:42 AM

Bad, but funny!
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: Gay marriage - 01/18/09 09:46 AM

I hope I didn't offend anyone - I'm not a haemophobe...
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Gay marriage - 01/18/09 09:58 AM

So you're saying you're a vampire? wink
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/18/09 10:01 AM

Quote:
That is why they don't have to have a parade!

Nor do gays because they can also get married or enter into a civil partnership.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/18/09 10:03 AM

Quote:
Nor do gays because they can also get married or enter into a civil partnership.


Not true.

Belgium
Canada
Netherlands
Norway
South Africa
Spain

These are the only countries-to date-with equal marriage laws.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/18/09 10:44 AM

Quote:
Belgium
Canada
Netherlands
Norway
South Africa
Spain

These are the only countries-to date-with equal marriage laws.

Well no, these all have equal marriage laws....

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

... although where marriage isn't possible as between same-sex partners I would accept that only some of them allow for formal same-sex civil partnerships.

km
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: Gay marriage - 01/18/09 11:04 AM

The parade thing isn't just about whether or not someone's allowed to have the same civil rights as a married couple - official permission from the State to be seen as in some way similar to Normal is kind of a side issue compared to whether there are still stacks of people in the country you live in who'd rather see you dead because of your sexual orientation.

Since I don't buy into marriage as something worth wanting, I see the value of civil partnership as purely that - civil, in that it should give one the same rights in terms of tax relief and all the other laws that support committed relationships when it's called marriage. Meanwhile we can parade to celebrate not having drugs tested on us in death camps, not having been beaten to death with cricket bats, not facing the death penalty for being in love, and... well let's face it, a parade's a pretty cool thing just for it's own sake.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/18/09 11:48 AM

Quote:
although where marriage isn't possible as between same-sex partners


It isn't possible in any of the places on your long alphabetical list except; only the 6 countries I mentioned allow same-sex marriage.

Quote:
Nor do gays because they can also get married


No they cannnot, that is why there are gay parades-and of course, for all the other reasons mentioned.

Posted by: macdavid

Re: Gay marriage - 01/18/09 12:32 PM

The day when lawyers are prone to getting beaten within an inch of their life... and sometimes even at the cost of their life..., and when they know it is not safe to walk hand-in-hand in public with the one they love, but *is* OK in a "specialized" parade... is the day when you can start criticizing those who feel the need for a parade of their own.
Posted by: Lea

Re: Gay marriage - 01/18/09 12:48 PM



AF'nmen. Sir, I salute you.

LL




Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/18/09 12:59 PM

Quote:
AF'nmen. Sir, I salute you.


Ditto
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/18/09 02:31 PM

Quote:
It isn't possible in any of the places on your long alphabetical list except; only the 6 countries I mentioned allow same-sex marriage.

Oh, I can see where you're going wrong... "same-sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms... if same-sex partners want to solemnise their relationship with each other that's not marriage but a civil partnership.

Quote:
No they cannnot, that is why there are gay parades-and of course, for all the other reasons mentioned.

Yes, they can. In England for example marriage is the absolute right of every person of full capacity. Not only does the right prevail at common law but it has been declared in clear terms by the Human Rights Act 1998 s1(3) which sets out the European Convention of Human Rights, Schedule I Art 12 whereof provides:

"Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry...

Their sexuality doesn't come into it and the right to marry is clear and unambiguous. Of course, the term 'marriage' doesn't mean whatever anyone wants it to mean but the consummated union of one man and one woman - I made that clear in the aardvark thread some time ago.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: Gay marriage - 01/18/09 06:14 PM

Quote:
Human Rights Act 1998 s1(3)


Quote:
the term 'marriage' doesn't mean whatever anyone wants it to mean but the consummated union of one man and one woman


Contradicts it self does it not ? After all gays are human too , so to leave them out is a contradiction
Posted by: macdavid

Re: Gay marriage - 01/18/09 07:33 PM

THANK YOU!!!
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 12:29 AM

Quote:
Contradicts it self does it not ?

Noope - whereabouts?

Quote:
After all gays are human too , so to leave them out is a contradiction

Yeah, that's why they're not left out.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 08:52 AM

Quote:
Oh, I can see where you're going wrong... "same-sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms


I am not going wrong anywhere and it is not a contradiction in terms. In the 6 countries I mentioned same-sex marriage is legal.
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 09:35 AM

I assume that what KM means is that in UK/US law (i.e. the two main English-speaking countries) the term 'marriage' is defined the way he says, 'man-woman'.

But of course this doesn't preclude other countries (in English or otherwise) defining the term (or its equivalent in their language) as simply the union of two individuals regardless of gender. So 'same-sex marriage' isn't a contradiction in terms, it's just a phrase that isn't applicable in UK/US law due to their specific definition of the word 'marriage'.

As far as common sense goes, everyone knows what 'same-sex marriage' means, it's just that some people's religions preclude the phrase making sense due to their religion's specific definiton of the word 'marriage'.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 09:36 AM

Quote:
In the 6 countries I mentioned same-sex marriage is legal.

Oh, sorry, I thought your position was based upon some independent standard of merit rather than what was strictly legal or otherwise. On a strictly legal basis same sex unions are outlawed as marriage almost everywhere - including the USA. Of course, a lot of things can be passed into law that lack any objective merit so it's not really a very good foundation for a philosphical proposition.

Insofar that a few nations have gone out on a limb and tried to distort the meaning of the word their decisions have no legal effect in England so what they think of as marriage is not recognised as such unless it fulfills the correct criteria - although we would acknowledge a supposed same sex 'marriage' as a civil partnership. Nope, I'm afraid that the general worldwide consensus is what ought to prevail on this one.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 09:40 AM

Quote:
On a strictly legal basis same sex unions are outlawed as marriage almost everywhere - including the USA.


Correct, as in every place on your list. Again, that is why there are gay pride parades.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 09:47 AM

Well... The parades have been around since before same-sex marriage became the political football it is today. The older, more venerable Gay Pride parades were instituted mainly as an expression of just pride, period, and a way to express it to the community. Now, of course, other current issues have become part of the message.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 10:33 AM

Quote:
Correct, as in every place on your list. Again, that is why there are gay pride parades.

Yeah but, like I said, a parade can't be justified simply on the basis that the law prohibits something - there has to be some objective merit behind it. In England we've already decided that same sex unions don't qualify as marriage so a parade simply to bellyache about the decision is a waste of time and causes a lot of traffic hold-ups.

km
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 11:06 AM

Well, if one of its purposes is to annoy you and cause you to bellyache on the internet, I think one small but not insignificant purpose is being served!
Posted by: macdavid

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 11:13 AM

Quote:
I'm afraid that the general worldwide consensus is what ought to prevail on this one.


Right out of the mouths of those Englishmen who opposed the abolition of slavery and who fought William Wilberforce tooth and nail. In the end, as we all know, common decency and justice overcame such bigotry.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 11:16 AM

Quote:
Yeah but, like I said, a parade can't be justified simply on the basis that the law prohibits something - there has to be some objective merit behind it.


OK, back to square one - because gays are a minority fighting for dignity and respect.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 11:17 AM

Of course Steve.
The parade issue came up when Waleed called them uncivilized.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 11:54 AM

Quote:
OK, back to square one - because gays are a minority fighting for dignity and respect.

I can't see that a person is entitled to dignity and respect just for being gay... an individual gay person may or may not command respect - like Sir Elton John for example is generally respected for his music whereas George Michael is generally disrespected for his stance on public flashing. It's exactly the same with heteros - some are respected and some aren't which is why they don't go around on parades demanding respect as a class.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 12:15 PM

Oh c'mon on now KM. If what you say were to apply across all social practices, then there would have been no marches in the US to stop the war in Vietnam or to end segregation or to ban the bomb. Exactly the same formula obtains: in American we had already decided that people not of European descent did not qualify as full citizens, so a parade simply to bellyache about the decision is a waste of time and causes a lot of traffic hold ups. From that perspective the only recourse you have is to "objective merit." But in the way you phrase your comment, "objective merit" means "something not yet decided." It does not allow recourse to some ethical or moral proposition, such as the idea that discrimination is morally repugnant. So in your formulation, there could be no social change at all, and you folks over in England (not the UK, such a late and revolutionary invention) would still be bound to the Bishop of Rome rather than to the monarch. All significant social change requires the unfortunate bollixing up of traffic, I'm afraid.
Posted by: macdavid

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 12:22 PM

Quote:
I can't see that a person is entitled to dignity and respect just for being gay... an individual gay person may or may not command respect - like Sir Elton John for example is generally respected for his music whereas George Michael is generally disrespected for his stance on public flashing.


First sensible, non-judgmental thing you've said on this whole topic.

Every human being is entitled to dignity and respect... until such time or occasion they abuse it. Then, gay or straight, they leave themselves open to the judgment of others.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 12:36 PM

Quote:
First sensible, non-judgmental thing you've said on this whole topic.

I'm always arguing for equality and respect for human rights and have done so in this thread and many others... so I'd be interested to know where you think I've been less than sensible, or judgmental?

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 12:57 PM

Quote:
Oh c'mon on now KM. If what you say were to apply across all social practices, then there would have been no marches in the US to stop the war in Vietnam or to end segregation or to ban the bomb.

I'd say those actions had objective merit for reasons I'm prepared to explain if you don't think they're obvious.

Quote:
in the way you phrase your comment, "objective merit" means "something not yet decided." It does not allow recourse to some ethical or moral proposition, such as the idea that discrimination is morally repugnant. So in your formulation, there could be no social change at all...

No, I'm not saying objective merit necessarily implies something undecided.

Quote:
you folks over in England (not the UK, such a late and revolutionary invention) would still be bound to the Bishop of Rome rather than to the monarch. All significant social change requires the unfortunate bollixing up of traffic, I'm afraid.

I don't think the break from Rome involved traffic hold ups but irrespective of that being pushed around by the Pope never had any future in this country so getting rid of the link for reasons of national sovereignty was objectively meritorious.

km

Quote:
All significant social change requires the unfortunate bollixing up of traffic, I'm afraid.

Personally I wouldn't object to bollixing up of traffic for a genuine protest against the State to remove some form of prejudice or discrimination but in England we don't have any of that sort of thing left apart from ugly and visually challenged discrimination which thus far hasn't led to any parades.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 01:01 PM

Quote:
in England we don't have any of that sort of thing.


Well, if you're not going to be serious, no point in continuing the discussion.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 01:17 PM

Quote:
if you're not going to be serious, no point in continuing the discussion.

Why do you think I'm not serious? <---

Equal Pay Act 1970

Race Relations Act 1976

Sex Discrimination Act 1975

Sex Discrimination Act 1986

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Human Rights Act 1998

Sexual Offences Act 2003

Civil Partnership Act 2004

The only necessary Bill we haven't yet seen in Parliament is the Ugly Discrimination Bill.

km

Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 01:19 PM

Quote:
It's exactly the same with heteros - some are respected and some aren't which is why they don't go around on parades demanding respect as a class.


Heterosexuals as a group are born into a world that willing bestows them respect, so of course they do not have to have a parade.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 01:21 PM

Quote:
Civil Partnership Act 2004


Nice Act because it lets you ride the bus, but you still have to sit in the back.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 01:38 PM

Quote:
Nice Act because it lets you ride the bus, but you still have to sit in the back.

Bus? Train, coach, car, bike, whatever.... I know, why don't we call them all the same thing - how about "carriage" for the whole lot of 'em? That'll help.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 01:45 PM

Pardon?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 01:53 PM

Call different things by the same name?

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 02:18 PM

As I said, if you're not going to be serious, there's no point in discussing anything. There are laws here too. For instance, it's illegal to beat or kill someone because he or she is homosexual. But it happens. I'm sure it's illegal in the UK to use derogatory language, but your own Prince Harry called a "friend" by such a term. I just read on the BBC that two Poles were attacked in Northern Ireland, apparently for "racist" reasons. I know it's hard to understand, but law and social practice are two very different things.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 02:28 PM

Quote:
As I said, if you're not going to be serious, there's no point in discussing anything.

A duff point gains no credence through repetition.

Parades have can have an effect on governments but they will clearly have no effect on the prejudice of individuals so if that's their purpose they're pointless. Here's a suggestion for you... if your law needs changing to remove discrimination against gays - change it. Ours doesn't so we're going to leave it as it is.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 02:35 PM

Quote:
Parades have can have an effect on governments but they will clearly have no effect on the prejudice of individuals so if that's their purpose they're pointless.


Wrong.

There are many MLK Day Parades all over America today and they are far from pointless.

BTW, the government is dictated to by individual citizens. I know it is sometimes easy to forget, but they do work for us.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 02:36 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Call different things by the same name?

km


Are you asking me a question, and if so, what is it?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 02:45 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Parades have can have an effect on governments but they will clearly have no effect on the prejudice of individuals so if that's their purpose they're pointless.

Wrong.

Okay so you're saying that a person who's prejudiced against gays can be expected to change his mind because of a gay parade? I haven't been able to uncover any evidence to support that but no doubt you have?

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 03:00 PM

Quote:
Are you asking me a question, and if so, what is it?

I'm asking whether you think it's generally a good idea to call different things by the same name? And if so, why?

The reason for the question is that in England pretty much the whole nation sees a distinction between marriage and same sex civil partnerships and we have gays who have entered into the latter without wanting it to be in any way associated with the former. Despite this some people seem to be arguing that both of these institutions should have the same name?

In my opinion the distinction needs to be preserved because it's what the people want.


km
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 03:15 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
[quote]The reason for the question is that in England pretty much the whole nation sees a distinction between marriage and same sex civil partnerships and we have gays who have entered into the latter without wanting it to be in any way associated with the former. Despite this some people seem to be arguing that both of these institutions should have the same name?


Yet presumably you have gay citizens who have entered into a civil partnership who also wish it to be seen as a marriage. Despite your languid contention that "pretty much the whole nation" sees the distinction, why are you prepared to ignore your own countrymen who wish to be married and to be able to call it as such?
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 03:36 PM

Let me repeat the point, duff or not. You're not addressing the central issue: what the law says and what people do are worlds apart. You assert that the UK is perfect. I point out that, even if one grants that your laws are perfect--and I'll do so for the sake of argument, although the fact that homosexuals in the UK do not have the same access to the protection of the law as do non-homosexuals indicates that I do so only for the sake of argument--even if one grants that your laws are perfect, the behavior of your monarch's subjects, indeed of your monarch's family, suggests that you are not the omphalos of perfection.

Let me predict the nature of your next post. You'll point out that homosexuals in the UK do have the same access to the protection of the law as do non-homosexuals. They seem not to agree with you, certainly not the ones who have sought marriage and been denied the opportunity. You will then advert to the possibility of civil partnership, and then seek to have it both ways: civil partnership is as good as marriage (your version of what used to be "separate but equal" here in the US), but marriage is somehow or other different enough to make it inaccessible to homosexuals. You'll then become an absolutist and assert that marriage has "always" meant something in particular, even though that assertion is a cultural and historical lie.

Duff.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 03:39 PM

Incidentally, I have no idea what "duff" means in your lingo. Here, duff means "a person's buttocks."
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 03:41 PM

Quote:
Yet presumably you have gay citizens who have entered into a civil partnership who also wish it to be seen as a marriage.

None that I know of although I'd be prepared to assume that there may be some.

Quote:
Despite your languid contention that "pretty much the whole nation" sees the distinction, why are you prepared to ignore your own countrymen who wish to be married and to be able to call it as such?

I haven't ignored them but taken their opinions into account - and rejected them. Their's is a minority viewpoint. More importantly the legislature took their opinions into account and rejected them. Yes, the whole nation was consulted and the issues were fully debated in both Houses of Parliament.

km
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 03:42 PM

"Of course, the term 'marriage' doesn't mean whatever ANYONE wants it to mean"

Right, anyone, including you.

"but the consummated union of one man and one woman"

So what do you think of polygamy then km? If indeed polygamy is the correct term, with that pesky "-gamy" in there.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 03:54 PM

Just for your information, KM:

in Scotland
in England

They want, they can't get. And now you'll retreat to the point on which we agree, that desire does not legitimize the thing wanted. True enough. What does legitimize the thing wanted is a change in the law.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 03:54 PM

*sigh* Welcome to the merry-go-round. This is why I no longer ride.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 03:57 PM

There's a character in The Reader, a law professor, who argues exactly the point that KM does, that social practices depend on law, not morality, and that only law current at the point that an act is performed can be applied in judgment of that act. The problems with such perspective are so very many!
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 03:59 PM

Strange that their minority status permits you, in your own mind, to dismiss them so flippantly. But no matter. I think the question will return to England in time... it ain't settled by any means, much as you wish to pretend otherwise. "The whole nation," as you call it, is in fact a slippery, utterly plastic thing. Constant regurgitation of lives guarantees it; new voters come along with new inclinations, ready to challenge the hoary old status quo... and occasionally up-end it.

Your nation's inability to remain static for any length of time inevitably translates to a constant re-examination of societal values. Thankfully! The scales of justice slide forward through the primeval mud. The gay marriage question has hardly been put to bed (pun intended)... it's merely, for the moment, on ice.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 04:00 PM

Quote:
Quote:
"Of course, the term 'marriage' doesn't mean whatever ANYONE wants it to mean"

Right, anyone, including you.

That's right... let's say I wanted to marry the Eiffel Tower for example... I wouldn't be able to because, you guessed - it's not a woman. Also because Mrs Keymaker might start getting a bit jealous.

Quote:
So what do you think of polygamy then km?

In my opinion it wouldn't work in England so I'm opposed to it for here although if it works in other cultures there are no anthropological reasons why they shouldn't allow it.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 04:05 PM

And here we go around another familiar circus: remember the issue of consent?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 04:14 PM

Quote:
And here we go around another familiar circus: remember the issue of consent?

What the Eiffel Tower you mean? Well, I mean the consent requirement is mainly to prevent marriage against a person's will so that wouldn't really be a problem... no, the Eiffel Tower fails down as a party to marriage because under existing laws the union has to be between one man and one woman.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 04:16 PM

I always thought that because laws are meant to guide/protect/enrich society, that laws somehow should have an element of empathy and fluidity — some malleable connective tissue to the people that constitute society. I gotta stop this foolish daydreaming, eh?
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 04:23 PM

Steve, I'm telling ya... in England they awwwready got it sorted.

KM: the Eiffel wouldn't have you in the first place! It would be a case of marrying beneath her station. Come back to earth, man.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 04:27 PM

I suspect that British law would allow a civil union between Steve and the Eiffel Tower. Marriage, though . . . not a chance.
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 04:29 PM

LOL
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 04:31 PM

The tall ones always go for us gravitationally challenged types. grin
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 04:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Lester
Quote:
It's exactly the same with heteros - some are respected and some aren't which is why they don't go around on parades demanding respect as a class.


Heterosexuals as a group are born into a world that willing bestows them respect, so of course they do not have to have a parade.


km, I missed your reply to this or did you not have one?
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 04:35 PM

The sooner you can embrace the reality that this:
Quote:
pretty much the whole nation
is in fact km, the sooner you will see the light. grin
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 04:37 PM

I suspect that as long as there exists fellows like KM who are inclined to be peeved by the mere thought of gay pride parades, there will be an equal and opposite reaction on the part of those individuals whose resolve only doubles when they encounter such intolerance... ergo, more parades.

If KM could only bring himself to chillax there'd be one less reason for a parade.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 04:40 PM

Bingo!
And naturally, he is the reason there still are parades.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 04:42 PM

But just think Steve, if we can sway km even a little we sway a nation! Gawd, the guy is handing us power right, left and center!
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 04:43 PM

A km Pride Parade? Now that would be a thing to behold! eek
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 04:45 PM

Count me in!
Who gets to carry the pole?
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 04:46 PM

Emmmm.... Pass! sick
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 04:49 PM

You're off the hook.
km gets the honour, to be sure. After all, it is his parade.
Hope Mrs.km can make it.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 04:55 PM

Can I bring the Eiffel Tower? We're engaged, you know.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 05:03 PM


laugh

Yes, of course, bring the little missus.




Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 09:05 PM

Engaged in what, sir?! blush
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: Gay marriage - 01/19/09 09:10 PM

Any Frenchman will tell you the Eiffel Tower is a woman - knock yourself out... But she has expensive tastes (the electricity bills alone) and you'd have to put up with a constant stream of admirers.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 03:38 AM

Tut tut... privacy, you know. smirk
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 05:39 AM

Quote:
I missed your reply to this or did you not have one?

Well I've always got one but macdavid said that that particular post was sensible and non-judgmental so I thought you might not need one... anyway, heterosexuals aren't born into a world - babies are... and in England all babies are guaranteed equality for life before the law.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 06:40 AM

Quote:
There's a character in The Reader, a law professor, who argues exactly the point that KM does, that social practices depend on law, not morality, and that only law current at the point that an act is performed can be applied in judgment of that act.

That's not entirely accurate... my position is that the law should be observed and upheld where it coincides with natural law but should be challenged where it doesn't.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 07:11 AM

Quote:
Just for your information, KM:... in Scotland... in England

Yeah, I mean the Scots have their own Parliament but even if they legislated in the way suggested such gay unions wouldn't be recognised as marriages in England no matter what they wanted to call them.

As regards the women who entered into a civil partnership in Canada thinking it was marriage - what did they expect? That society would agree to remove the established requirements of marriage such as consummation just to give them entitlement to a word?

Quote:
They want, they can't get. And now you'll retreat to the point on which we agree, that desire does not legitimize the thing wanted. True enough. What does legitimize the thing wanted is a change in the law.

Well a change in the law needs to be justified objectively - but after all this time I'm still waiting to hear, without too much dancing, ducking or diving, what the objective basis would be for abolishing marriage as it is currently understood - I don't call legislating to change the meaning of a word for reasons of pure personal ego a very good reason.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 07:13 AM

Your point was that you knew no one in the UK who was interested in homosexuals being able to marry each other. I provide two examples--and you change the terms of the discussion.

As to natural law . . . oh dear . . . been reading Richard Hooker lately?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 07:28 AM

Quote:
Your point was that you knew no one in the UK who was interested in homosexuals being able to marry each other. I provide two examples--and you change the terms of the discussion.

That was unintentional because you didn't quote which of my posts you were replying to.

km


Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 10:15 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
I missed your reply to this or did you not have one?

Well I've always got one but macdavid said that that particular post was sensible and non-judgmental so I thought you might not need one... anyway, heterosexuals aren't born into a world - babies are... and in England all babies are guaranteed equality for life before the law.

km



Lame, lamer and lamest!
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 10:21 AM

Quote:
Lame, lamer and lamest!

In what way?

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 11:13 AM

White, heterosexuals as a group, are born with privilege.
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 11:17 AM

Ho hum. What does any of this have to do with the inauguration? Yeah, I know, I overdo it sometimes. Forgive me. Back to gay marriage and the misnomer that it is or isn't.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 11:30 AM

Quote:
What does any of this have to do with the inauguration?


Well, perhaps it has everything and nothing to do with the inauguration. It is a new generation in the White House. The President has progressive ideas and claims "change is coming". Who knows to what this may apply-hopefully equality for all.


Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 11:54 AM

Quote:
White, heterosexuals as a group, are born with privilege.

Not in England they're not.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 11:55 AM

Quote:
What does any of this have to do with the inauguration?

How about President Obama is opposed to gay marriage?

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 11:58 AM

Quote:
Not in England they're not.


England is no exception. This is a world phenomenon.
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 12:00 PM

"How about President Obama is opposed to GAY MARRIAGE?"

There is no such thing, no? Wonder if we'll ever have an openly gay president? Who is/was the most prominent gay politician in the world?
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 12:17 PM

Quote:
Who is/was the most prominent gay politician in the world?


Whoever it is, chances are good it is not general knowledge.
Posted by: macdavid

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 12:19 PM

as for "was"... Alexander the Great comes to mind.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 12:19 PM

Quote:
England is no exception. This is a world phenomenon.

Not really - I listed all the legislation higher up the thread.

km
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 12:20 PM

Looked for prominent openly gay politicians. Sorry, maybe everyone knew, but I did not know Barney Frank was gay. Hmm. Sure there are some more prominent gay politicians in other countries.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 12:21 PM

Quote:
Wonder if we'll ever have an openly gay president?
If we ever do elect one, guess who will be the first to demand his immediate prosecution for crimes against something-or-other. grin
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 12:24 PM

Ah, I have never derailed so many threads in one sitting. I feel like a cigarette.
Posted by: starmillway

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 12:33 PM


Dang me! I usually get some Tiparillo's for special events/occasion and just puff on them with a gin and tonic! [ no inhale ]

I forgot!!

smile

Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 12:34 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
England is no exception. This is a world phenomenon.

Not really - I listed all the legislation higher up the thread.

km




Nope, I'm afraid that the general worldwide consensus is what prevails on this one.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 12:35 PM

What a fantastic idea.
Let's make a date for four years from now!
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 12:40 PM

Quote:
Nope, I'm afraid that the general worldwide consensus is what prevails on this one.

Oh very funny... what that's doing is taking what was a true statement in another context and applying it to a situation where it's untrue. whistle

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 12:43 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
White, heterosexuals as a group, are born with privilege.

Not in England they're not.

km


laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 12:44 PM

What is untrue?
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 12:45 PM

Thanks yoyo. I'm still laughing about that one myself.
I'm beginning to think lawyer come comedian!
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 12:47 PM

Couldn't help myself, Lester. I've rarely heard a funnier straight line!
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 12:50 PM

It really is a testament to his delusional world.
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 12:54 PM

Well, you know they don't in the strict, legal definition, which is the only one that means anything. smile

Well, I can tell you, Japan is one place a white guy can experience discrimination, both negative and positive (if there is positive discrimination).
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 12:57 PM

Of course they don't in the strict legal definition. It is the unwritten law of the land. And of course, white guys experience discrimination. However, I am speaking about a group of people in general.
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 01:02 PM

My first line was being facetious (at km's expense, bless his tenacity).

And I know you know white guys experience discrimination; I was just stream of consciousness-ing. I am not really doing well staying on topic. It is probably a sign I should go to bed. Peace.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 01:04 PM

Oops-missed your smiley!
Pleasant dreams.
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 01:05 PM

zzzzzzzzzzzzz...............
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 01:08 PM

If we only based our reality on the law of the land then in the United States all men were created equal quite a very long time ago. Reality meant that "men" only meant white males who owned some property but we have come a long way. In Britain they even had a woman as a prime minister but the rest they are still working on.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 01:12 PM

Quote:
If we only based our reality on the law of the land then in the United States all men were created equal quite a very long time ago.


Ah, if only that were true.
It is the unwritten law of privilege that I was talking about.

Agreed, we have come a long way and we will continue to go further.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 01:18 PM

Quote:
What is untrue?

That the law enacted by Parliament is subject to a worldwide consensus - real or, in your example, imaginery. laugh

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 01:28 PM

Quote:
In Britain they even had a woman as a prime minister but the rest they are still working on.

No, we've virtually done it now. You may have missed my post earlier in the thread listing our equality legislation:

Equal Pay Act 1970

Race Relations Act 1976

Sex Discrimination Act 1975

Sex Discrimination Act 1986

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Human Rights Act 1998

Sexual Offences Act 2003

Civil Partnership Act 2004

The only thing left out now is ugly discrimination... although it hasn't appeared in any of the manifestos yet.

km

Posted by: polymerase

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 01:32 PM

Those are laws. They do not mirror reality. You cannot legislate away misogyny, racism, and homophobia. It's a start but equality is not turned on like a light switch or the signing into law of some nice words.



Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 01:52 PM

Quote:
Those are laws. They do not mirror reality. You cannot legislate away misogyny, racism, and homophobia.

Well there are always a few unrepresentative nutters about but they're not going to go away because of a public rally and they're not concentrated against the gay community. This discussion is in the context of parades but what's noticeable is that because the law outlaws sexual and racial discrimnation we no longer see women's parades or black parades. The law also outlaws discrimination based on a person's sexuality but for some reason we still have apparently pointless gay parades the utility or objectives of which have thus far escaped explanation.

km
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 01:58 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
...for some reason we still have apparently pointless gay parades the utility or objectives of which have thus far escaped explanation.

You mean the utility or objective of which has thus far failed to penetrate the terrific wall of resolve you've built up - the resolve to misunderstand and stonewall.

I'm with Poly. Your fancy list of paperwork, however impressive its existence, given man's oft-demonstrated inhumanity to man, nevertheless fails to provide an effective bulwark against the real-world conditions in which hatreds and intolerance breeds.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 02:07 PM

Quote:
I'm with Poly

So am I... because he hasn't contradicted my point that whilst parades might influence governments there's no evidence that they have any effect on a person's prejudice.

km
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 02:16 PM

That is one amazing country you live in. A law is passed making an activity illegal and that activity is extinguished except for a few unrepresentative nutters.

I wish we had done that. It would have made so much turmoil we lived through in the 60s totally unnecessary. Those cops with fire hoses should have had better aim and we would not have had to put up with all those parades by Martin Luther King and those other nutters.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 02:35 PM

Oh well. We still have apparently pointless lawyers, the utility or objectives of whom have thus far escaped explanation, too. Go figure.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 02:40 PM

Quote:
Oh well. We still have apparently pointless lawyers, the utility or objectives of whom have thus far escaped explanation, too. Go figure.

Yeah, w... Barack you mean? Give him a chance - he hasn't got his feet under the desk yet.

km
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 02:43 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
...there's no evidence that they have any effect on a person's prejudice.

But there is. Your persnickety disdain for the parades speakes volumes on their ability to work away at a given individual's prejudices - in this case, sadly, to excite your very own prejudices.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 02:59 PM

Quote:
Your persnickety disdain for the parades speakes volumes on their ability to work away at a given individual's prejudices - in this case, sadly, to excite your very own prejudices.

If that were true of course it would suggest that the parades are counter-productive which is only to make my point that they serve no useful purpose. Thanks for the support but since my position on the matter is philosophical patrons will have to make do with the reasons I've already put forward. grin

km
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 03:17 PM

To be fair it was Waleed who expressed something closer to disdain for the parades, km just wondered aloud at their necessity, if memory serves (IMS ?)
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 03:25 PM

Oh no, believe me - KM is also pained by their very existence. You need merely read between the lines to detect his thin-lipped, indignant exasperation. It's an affront to him. Which is the reason it's so much fun to read this thread. For me, anyway.

KM: the fact that these parades have an antagonistic effect on you does not preclude the possibility of them having a positive effect on others. I'm quite shocked to have to remind you of that, of course - I should have thought you would have taken it into consideration already.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 03:58 PM

And to question their "necessity" is to demonstrate a lack of empathy and acceptance for the personal and political views of those that see the parades as a form of self-expression. Smells like disdain to me — with a note of arrogance.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 04:03 PM

Ah, no, consigliori. I don't mean Obama. At least if he continues to oppose same-sex marriage, I know I can expect an honest, cogent, and laser straight rationale from him — even if I don't agree with it. Not one of those spilled bowlfuls of rigatoni you call an argument.
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 04:05 PM

"And to question their "necessity" is to demonstrate a lack of empathy"

True.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 07:34 PM

Quote:
To be fair it was Waleed who expressed something closer to disdain for the parades, km just wondered aloud at their necessity, if memory serves (IMS ?)

True. His point as I recall was that sexually explicit behaviour in public is uncivilised.

My point was that if homosexuality is no more than an alternative sexuality to heterosexuality it calls for similar behaviour - and heteros aren't staging parades. Some patrons suggested that the parades were justified because, even if gays were treated equally before the law, they are not necessarily treated equally by every person.

The problem with that explanation is that there is lingering small scale hostility to all minority groups but the others, like women and blacks, stopped parading when they achieved their legal objectives. They understood that parades could be effective against governments but would be ineffective in dealing with an individual's prejudice.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 07:57 PM

Quote:
Oh no, believe me - KM is also pained by their very existence.

Am I? I didn't know I had an unofficial spokesperson.

Quote:
You need merely read between the lines to detect his thin-lipped, indignant exasperation. It's an affront to him.

Well I don't know about that... how about just reading the lines?

Quote:
KM: the fact that these parades have an antagonistic effect on you does not preclude the possibility of them having a positive effect on others. I'm quite shocked to have to remind you of that, of course - I should have thought you would have taken it into consideration already.

Your premise is flawed of course because I'm not antagonised by the parades - that's just your imagination running wild.

km
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 08:03 PM

"True. His point as I recall was that sexually explicit behaviour in public is uncivilised."

I think he said he actually refused to be "civilized" if it meant condoning such behaviour that he had seen proof of at Gay Pride parades. But I am too lazy to look it up.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 08:11 PM

Quote:
And to question their "necessity" is to demonstrate a lack of empathy and acceptance for the personal and political views of those that see the parades as a form of self-expression.

That's pretty idiotic Steve to be honest - parades don't reveal the disparate personal or political views of those attending them and those views are as varied amongst gays as they are in any other group.

Quote:
Smells like disdain to me — with a note of arrogance.

Not around here it doesn't - the arrogance is all yours.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 08:20 PM

Quote:
Quote:
"And to question their "necessity" is to demonstrate a lack of empathy"

True.

No that's untrue because there are various reasons why a person may question their necessity. Mine was to suggest that they are counter-productive which is actually empathetic.

km
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 08:22 PM

"Mine was to suggest that they are counter-productive which is actually empathetic."

Yeah, "they" really needn't to bother getting "married" either should they? Where's your empathy there?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 08:33 PM

Quote:
Yeah, "they" really needn't to bother getting "married" either should they? Where's your empathy there?

Well we all know that gays are divided on that issue as well. I empathise most with those who want civil partnerships rather than 'marriage' because the latter implies a needless rejection of the values and beliefs of others.

km
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 08:46 PM

"because the latter implies a needless rejection of the values and beliefs of others."

As your very same statement implies a needless rejection of the values and needs of others, and who would those "others" be? I would state it plainly but it always seems to take you a few posts to state what your mean, so I will do the same.
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 09:03 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Your premise is flawed of course because I'm not antagonised by the parades - that's just your imagination running wild.

Au contraire, my friend. Talk about flaws - methinks you are desperate not to be cornered by your own words. You are indeed clearly bugged by the idea of a gay parade. Are you now going to proclaim to one and all that the notion delights you? Come on now, my good heffalump.

Remember, you are your own spokesman! - and you are quite adept enough to hoist yourself on your own petard. You might try reading your own lines... it could perchance assist you in unraveling the twisted codes you speak in... you silver-tongued serpent, you.

If only you'd come out of the closet and openly admit your wide-eyed fears, you might find things infinitely more bearable.
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 09:13 PM

Originally Posted By: lanovami
would state it plainly but it always seems to take you a few posts to state what your mean, so I will do the same.


I'm sure it's hardly necessary at this point to explain this to you, Ianovami, but the way I see things from here, it is patently necessary for the Maker of Keys to take his own lumpen stew of logic, reheat it until it's plastic again, and then bend it anew to his will... this is of course a most serious business and as such routinely requires many posts in order for the fellow to successfully backtrack, feint and dodge in his many attempts, however clumsily, to cover over his traces, thereby (the maker of keys hopes, at any rate) establishing plausible deniability.

It's a great game.

That said, I believe you are on the right track. The fellow is to be taken with a grain of salt. A grain, for example, that might comfortably sit in the saucer-sized eye of a giant squid.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 11:41 PM

Quote:
As your very same statement implies a needless rejection of the values and needs of others, and who would those "others" be?

Those who would like to retain the traditional meaning of marriage.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/20/09 11:51 PM

Quote:
Au contraire, my friend. Talk about flaws - methinks you are desperate not to be cornered by your own words.

No, my own words are what I mean to say. Trying to find some inconsistency in them your problem. Instead of typing up these wild, unsubstantiated accusations, why don't you tell us what the flaws are?

Quote:
You are indeed clearly bugged by the idea of a gay parade. Are you now going to proclaim to one and all that the notion delights you?

I don't really take any notice of 'em.

Quote:
Come on now, my good heffalump.

km... my handle's km.

Quote:
Remember, you are your own spokesman! - and you are quite adept enough to hoist yourself on your own petard. You might try reading your own lines...

Make your mind up - I thought you were only offended by something you saw in between the lines?

Quote:
it could perchance assist you in unraveling the twisted codes you speak in... you silver-tongued serpent, you.

Serpent? Are you feeling alright?

Quote:
If only you'd come out of the closet and openly admit your wide-eyed fears, you might find things infinitely more bearable.

Closet? Wide-eyed fears? You've lost it! sleep

km
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 01:12 AM

To me, the irrelevent thing here is questioning whether a gay march (which everyone seems to insist on calling a 'parade') is 'justified', and considering that somehow only in terms of the impact the marchers want it to have on others.

This really misses the point, to my mind. For one thing, to whom does a march or parade require justification? But my main point is that the march is for the people marching. The main purpose of a gay pride march for most people on it is to help the individuals in the march feel less isolated and oppressed.

Certainly there is somewhat less violence and homophobic prejudice in Britain than there was, say, 40 years ago (some of which could be attributed to the changes in law, and some to changes in culture or the dotage of institutional christianity), but it's still rife in certain parts of most cities, and in a lot of rural Britain - Cornwall is documented as the most homophobic county in England, for example, and there is a high rate of attempted and actual suicide particularly among young gay men, particularly in rural areas.

When you stand in a street in Brighton or wherever and watch a gay march, you're not watching a bunch of folk from Brighton - you're seeing men and women from all over the country, particularly from rural areas, for whom this is the one day of the year they get to feel fully accepted by the people surrounding them. I'm neither gay nor straight, I'm somewhere peregrinating between the two; and I haven't told my landlords next door in rural Somerset, because they are (as it turns out) pretty anti-gay, and because (having had a difficult year and not feeling very strong) I'm too afraid of being on the receiving end of the ill-will I hear them spouting at others to stand up to them. So I will be going on a gay pride march this summer, because it helps me.

I have no idea why other minority groups such as km mentioned don't march these days, but that's completely irrelevent to the reason why gay folks do. They do it because they choose to, because it makes them feel better, and to me that's all the 'justification' required.

Of course, another reason why gay men and women parade is because they like a good party as much as the next man/woman, and they've overcome the protestant broomstick up their arse that prevents most people in Britain from going mardi gras when they feel like it. I think some of the griping about gay parades is just party envy smile .
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 01:17 AM

"and who would those "others" be?"

"Those who would like to retain the traditional meaning of marriage."

Nope. The "others" are the gay couples that want a legally recognized "marriage", something that you want to continue to legislate against because you think you know what's better for them than they do.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 03:56 AM

Quote:
parades don't reveal the disparate personal or political views of those attending them
Really? You know this for a fact? Or is that remark born of yet more arrogance and an even more resolute belief that only your position — no matter how frequently altered by assault — is The One Truth.

I'll throw the term "idiotic" right back at you, because "honestly" I don't think you know what the hell you're talking about. It's just another one of The Cases In Your Head in which you can can continually distort the realities because it is all unfolding in your head. There's being out of touch. And there's refusing to be in touch. The latter is pathetic.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 06:24 AM

Quote:
to whom does a march or parade require justification?

I believe the way in which that term came up in the thread was in the sense of an inquiry as to why the parades are held at all. If the reason is not that they're intended to achieve some objective but simply that it makes gays feel better I would regard that as an antii-gay explanation i.e. that normally gays feel bad but when they go on a parade they don't - they feel good. The corollory is that, in contrast, women and blacks feel good all the time because they don't go on parades. In fact, the idea that gays feel more bad about their lot than women or blacks but feel good when on a parade is only speculation rather than an established truth but it's confounded by the fact that there are many gays in Britain who don't feel the need to go on a parade to make themselves feel good. In my opinion those guys who just get on with their lives without parades are the most convincing advertisement for their sexuality in that they relegate it to an irrelevance which is how is should be viewed.

km
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 06:38 AM

Of course the same slender ribbon of logic could be applied to all parades, their organizers and attendees... by your sights then, parades are for those simply too insecure to go on about their daily business in silence?

Hmmmm.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 06:45 AM

Quote:
Nope. The "others" are the gay couples that want a legally recognized "marriage", something that you want to continue to legislate against because you think you know what's better for them than they do.

Gay 'marriage' implies a needless rejection of the values and beliefs of gay couples that want a legally recognized "marriage"? Doesn't make sense - you've got your knickers in a twist on this if you check back... the 'others' referred to in my post clearly meant those who want to retain the traditional meaning of marriage.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 06:47 AM

You know, you remind me of George W. Bush. Who cares if you've actually convinced anyone, as long as you've convinced yourself.
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 06:51 AM

I believe that's about right, Steve. When in doubt, move the goalposts!
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 06:52 AM

Quote:
Of course the same slender ribbon of logic could be applied to all parades, their organizers and attendees... by your sights then, parades are for those simply too insecure to go on about their daily business in silence?

All I'm doing is asking questions... so the logic is not mine but an interpretation of what the pro-parade lobby have suggested in answer to those questions.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 07:07 AM

Quote:
Quote:
parades don't reveal the disparate personal or political views of those attending them

Really? You know this for a fact?

Doh, yes, I know for a fact that if you've got 500 punters on a parade and no opportunity to interview them personally you can't know their individual personal or political views.

Quote:
Or is that remark born of yet more arrogance

Not really... it's borne of being pretty damn obvious. smirk

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 07:09 AM

Quote:
I believe that's about right, Steve. When in doubt, move the goalposts!

He's always doing that - I'm glad somebody else has noticed it.

km
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 07:23 AM

See, case in point.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 07:30 AM

Quote:
See, case in point.

What is?

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 08:17 AM

I love the red herring approach to argumentation. The central question: should homosexuals be able to have all the rights and privileges of any citizen? The answer: parades are often counterproductive.

Impeccable logic!
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 08:32 AM

LOL. I think this time you didn't move them enough, old bean, because you just ran into them headfirst. KA-BOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG!!!

Can I get you an ice pack for the egg. It looks really painful.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 08:51 AM

Quote:
The central question: should homosexuals be able to have all the rights and privileges of any citizen?

Is that the central question? I'm not sure it is but either way the answer is 'yes' they should have all the same rights, mutatis mutandis, as heterosexuals.

Quote:
I love the red herring approach to argumentation... parades are often counterproductive.

It's not a red herring because it's a conclusion arrived at from the posts of certain patrons trying to explain gay parades. Maybe you mean that the posts interpreted are red herrings?

km

Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 09:00 AM

Well now, mutatis mutandis does a job on the "yes," doesn't it.

It's a red herring because it's not responsive to the central question and has the effect (whether intended or not I'll leave up to the depositors of the fish) of distracting from that question.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 09:01 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
See, case in point.

What is?

km


What isn't?
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 10:00 AM

I'll have two, please.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 10:37 AM

I just heard a part of an NPR story on the way that the Obama presidency has been received by blacks in the UK. I know this has nothing to do with gay marriage, but it does address some of KM's rather myopic representation of life in Britain. What do the blacks say? They say that given the realities of life in the UK, it's highly unlikely that Her Majesty's subjects will elect a black to the prime ministership. They say that they perceive themselves as tolerated, just barely, and in part tolerated because questions of religious conflicts, particularly in regards to Muslims, has replaced straightforward racial conflicts among the people of Britain.

Laws are great to define what a society considers correct. Reality is often quite different.

edit: Oh, and I forgot to say that of course the perceptions of the blacks interviewed for the NPR story denote their subjective experience, not reality. I'll postulate that point. But I will add that when it comes to the reality of social experience all one has to go on is . . . the reality of social experience.
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 10:41 AM

Agreed, Yoyo. I sometimes see a nation's laws as a template pointing more to its own past than to a mindfulness of the present. It can also serve as a template of how a nation thinks of itself, as opposed to how it presents itself in everyday life - both to its own citizenry and to those outside of its boundaries.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 11:10 AM

Quote:
What isn't?

Everything on my side isn't because I'm just about the only one sticking to the point... whereas everything on your side is.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 11:30 AM

Quote:
I'm just about the only one sticking to the point


It's been so long I forget what your point is. Will you please give the Reader's Digest version?
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 11:32 AM

KM: Sounds like a cop-out to me. Another fortuitous vision you've conjured up whist bathed in the warm lambent glow of self-interest.

I prefer to think of you jetting about in the inky dark, say two miles down, with those giant dinner plate eyeballs, casting furtively about for signs of dinner... your beak snicking open and closed in an ancient rhythm. Proper watery gent that you are, with a fancy old-timey barrister's vest on, natch. Maybe toss in one or two nictating membranes for effect.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 11:37 AM

Quote:
nictating membranes


I like it!
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 11:38 AM

Quote:
I know this has nothing to do with gay marriage, but it does address some of KM's rather myopic representation of life in Britain.

I don't think that's a fair characterisiation of my comments because they were made in the context of legal changes I cited designed to ensure racial equality. It was not my point that equality is practised by everybody only that the legal changes brought rallies and demonstrations to an end.

Quote:
What do the blacks say? They say that given the realities of life in the UK, it's highly unlikely that Her Majesty's subjects will elect a black to the prime ministership.

At the moment that's an unattributed account of course so we don't know how authoritative or representative it is. However, even taking it at face value, the political system here is quite different from that in the US in that a candidate does not 'stand for PM' as one might 'stand for President'. Whoever stands for leadership of the main parties first has to want to be an MP and once elected as such must then command the respect of party colleagues and the electorate generally to be thought of as a candidate for high office. The real reason why no one can see a black prime minister is not about racism but that there are no obvious candidates in the frame for party leadership. Whether a woman, a black or Asian assumes high office I'm sure is always interesting but those of us who are genuinely indifferent to racial or other labels tend to judge people according to their personal merit. One might say for example that Mandela is a hero but Mugabe is deranged where neither comment is based on race.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 11:47 AM

Quote:
It's a red herring because it's not responsive to the central question and has the effect (whether intended or not I'll leave up to the depositors of the fish) of distracting from that question.

Typically a red herring is an irrelevancy introduced into a discussion to distract attention from that which is germaine. So if a conclusion I derive from certain posts is a red herring it's because the posts themselves are red herrings. The only reason why that wouldn't be true is if the conclusion is wrong - but that hasn't been established... and it won't be established either because it happens to be manifestly true.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 11:47 AM

That's funny. I guess Rosa Parks is a heroine only because she did not move to the back of the bus not because she was black! Good grief.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 11:57 AM

Quote:
I guess Rosa Parks is a heroine only because she did not move to the back of the bus not because she was black!

False analogy... Mandela can be described as a hero for a variety of different reasons not all of which are related to his race.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 12:01 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
I guess Rosa Parks is a heroine only because she did not move to the back of the bus not because she was black!

False analogy... Mandela can be described as a hero for a variety of different reasons not all of which are related to his race.

km


Nope. Great analogy. Rosa Parks can be described as a heroine for a variety of different reasons also, all related to her race.
Posted by: six_of_one

Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 12:01 PM

... as to which will last longer: this thread or Obama's first term ...

Right now, Obama's not looking very good ;-)
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 12:02 PM

Quote:
all related to her race.

That's where the analogy breaks down.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 12:21 PM

Quote:
.. as to which will last longer: this thread or Obama's first term ...

I've noticed this tendency on the part of some patrons before... that when they run out of arguments they start posting endless amounts of rubbish to disguise it. The fact remains that we're still waiting for an explanation of why we have gay parades but not women's parades or black parades. Now look out for the diversions. laugh

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 12:29 PM

Are you trying to frighten us, Max?
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 12:33 PM

I've noticed this tendency on the part of KM before... when he runs out of arguments he recycles dusty old ones, patching them up with dainty licks of spittle whenever necessary. The fact remains we're still waiting for an explanation of why gay parades drive him into deep disgruntlement. Now look for the evasions.

[Insert little round emotiblob of joy here]
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 12:34 PM

Steve, I'm just running with the vibe here. I'm thinking it's all down to the squidly goodness of KM. In any case, it's catching!
Posted by: steveg

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 12:44 PM

There's this.
And this.
And this.
And this.

Now granted, this is just a quick Google sampling, and some are parades, some are block parties, some are festivals. But please don't be so foolish as to say "well, they're not all parades." They are, just as Gay Pride parades are, celebrations of their own choices of lifestyle or circumstances, expressions of their pride and conviction in same. And if you call that without purpose, you're lost.

Ok, now let's see your diversion.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gay marriage - 01/21/09 12:46 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
all related to her race.

That's where the analogy breaks down.

km



Nope. Great analogy. Rosa Parks can be described as a heroine for a variety of different reasons also, NOT all related to her race.

Missed putting the not in there. For example, she was a woman.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 12:46 PM

Quote:
Quote:
I've noticed this tendency on the part of some patrons before... that when they run out of arguments they start posting endless amounts of rubbish to disguise it. The fact remains that we're still waiting for an explanation of why we have gay parades but not women's parades or black parades. Now look out for the diversions.

Now look for the evasions.

[Insert little round emotiblob of joy here]

The fact remains that we're still waiting for an explanation of why we have gay parades but not women's parades or black parades. whistle

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 12:47 PM

Good examples.
Thanks for taking the time Steve.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 12:48 PM

Will you hold a parade in my honor? grin
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 12:54 PM

Organizing as we speak errrr type. Just tell me the raison détat for km sake.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 12:57 PM

Quote:
the squidly goodness
Thank you. That's the kind of image that will help me get over being land-locked here. sick
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 12:59 PM

Quote:
There's this... And this.

They're all US. Check the thread and you'll see that we've been talking about the situation in England.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 01:04 PM

There is no reason. It shall serve no purpose, for that is The Law of the Land.*






*Above-mentioned land being bounded by the left and right ears, forehead, and nape of one Mr. Keymaker, Duke of Earl.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 01:06 PM

No, you've been stuck in England. We've been discussing this as an issue without boundaries. You need to get out more. Maybe the Recluse Pride Parade next weekend?

But if you insist... Pretty useless, eh?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 01:17 PM

Quote:
But if you insist... Pretty useless, eh?

Yeah we all know that there are gay parades in England that's we've been talking about for the last three-quarters of a mile. What we don't know is why - when there aren't any black or women's parades?

km

Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 01:28 PM

Searching for reasons for non-existence of certain events... oh my, this is starting to read like a Samuel Beckett play.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 01:34 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
But if you insist... Pretty useless, eh?

Yeah we all know that there are gay parades in England that's we've been talking about for the last three-quarters of a mile. What we don't know is why - when there aren't any black or women's parades?

km




Did you miss Steve's list of 4?

Sit in the corner for 5 minutes for not doing all your homework!
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 01:35 PM

Oh, and don't forget your hat.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 01:37 PM

Quote:
Searching for reasons for non-existence of certain events

Noope - searching for reasons for the existence of certain events - as before... what I said was "we all know that there are gay parades in England... What we don't know is why..."

km
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 01:39 PM

I think it best that he proceed to wave his tentacles furiously about as he searches his databanks for other ruses/excuses with which to derail this and other threads.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 01:40 PM

Quote:
Did you miss Steve's list of 4?

I've already dealt with that - you need to read the thread.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 01:41 PM

Black parade returns to city

By William Allen
Saturday, 30 August 2008


Thousands of members of the Royal Black Institution were today marching in Londonderry’s city centre for the first time in seven years.

The Royal Black Institution last held its main county parade in Derry in 2001, when talks with the Bogside Residents Group were held through a groundbreaking model pioneered in the city.


km, Steve is right. You really have to get out more.
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 01:42 PM

Or at least surface from the pitiless depths once in awhile, if for no other reason than to try and take down a passing boat.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 01:45 PM

Quote:
I've already dealt with that

Posted by: lanovami

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 01:47 PM

Please leave my knickers out of it.

I realize you are "debating" with about 4 people but:

Gays who don't want full legal recognition for their marriage are the "others" in your original sentence. I get it. This sounds like a very dubious sub-group/minority, but I got it.

I took your "others" usage and implied that your logic still leaves out the other "others", those who do want legal recognition, a much less dubious group.


Posted by: Leslie

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 01:47 PM

I'm with ya Steve. km makes house cleaning so much more fun. I get to have a good belly laugh after every load of laundry.
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 01:50 PM

"You really have to get out more."

If/When this thread finally runs it's course maybe km will (and me too for that matter)
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 01:53 PM

It's all yoyo's fault. He started the damn thing with that video.
Let's parade him outside and make a spectacle of him. laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 01:53 PM

Quote:
Black parade returns to city

I believe you're getting a bit confused <---.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 01:55 PM

What? They are not having a parade?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 01:56 PM

Quote:
Gays who don't want full legal recognition for their marriage are the "others" in your original sentence.

Noope - it's everybody who wants to preserve the traditional meaning of marriage.

km
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 02:03 PM

"Noope - it's everybody who wants to preserve the traditional meaning of marriage."

An all inclusive non-answer? This is the best I get? Come back when you have less on your plate.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 02:08 PM

Can I be a spectacle if I wear spectacles? I'm going to sponsor a spectacle parade.

And I posted the video cause I thought (still do) that it's funny. Not my fault that KM took the video as an opportunity to parade his quiddities.
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 02:11 PM

I think you mean squiddities, Yoyo. Persnickitacious ones that they are.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 02:15 PM

I think we all thought it was funny, and still do.

Ahh, you know that km, give him a crack and he makes a chasm!
Gotta love him (I think).
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 02:16 PM

Give him crack? Why that's against the law, sir!
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 02:21 PM



To protect the innocent. wink
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 02:22 PM

Is that UK law or the rest of the world?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 02:24 PM

Quote:
An all inclusive non-answer?

What I said was

Well we all know that gays are divided on that issue as well. I empathise most with those who want civil partnerships rather than 'marriage' because the latter implies a needless rejection of the values and beliefs of others.

'Others' does not mean 'the former'... it means everyone who wishes to preserve the traditional view of marriage. It's not only gramatically clear from what I said but self-evident that those whose values are being rejected by the gay 'marriage' lobby are all those who wish to preserve the traditional meaning of marriage.

Quote:
Come back when you have less on your plate.

You're quite right to imagine that I'm not going to be wasting any more time correcting basic errors just because you can't or won't take the time to read what I've said with sufficient care.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 02:31 PM




Don't give up yet km.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 02:32 PM

Quote:
Not my fault that KM took the video as an opportunity to parade his quiddities.

Actually I haven't even played the video smirk I only entered the debate to explain something to newkojak.

km
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 02:39 PM

I thought originally that your "others" were people who don't want the legal definition of marriage changed, and I was arguing about the "others" who DO want it changed. Then you told me I had my knickers twisted so I went back and tried to see what else you could have meant, and that was all I could come up with.

You also did not read my comments with enough care or you would have understood (or at least acknowledged) who I meant originally by others, not just who you meant.

Sadly, life calls, and I have to go participate in society now, so feel free to take your time formulating your response.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 02:42 PM

Quote:
Sadly, life calls

That goes for us both!

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 03:27 PM

You mean squiddities. Don't wanna dilute the imagery Max has introduced to this Parade of Petulance. grin
Posted by: steveg

Re: Now taking bets ... - 01/21/09 03:38 PM

LOL. I recall Poly recently lauding km for "taking it on the chin." But this thread reminds me of a line — and I can't remember if it was Peter Sellers or Victor Borge — who told of being in a boxing match, and expertly blocking every one of his opponent's blows with the point of his chin! laugh
Posted by: keymaker

He didn't, actually... - 01/21/09 10:20 PM

Quote:
I recall Poly recently lauding km for "taking it on the chin."

As usual, your recollection is wrong, what he said was:

"What is it with SteveG and others... Keymaker has a tough skin and threads like this just make his attackers look infantile."

Think about it.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: He didn't, actually... - 01/22/09 03:59 AM

Quote:
That fact that KM never reverts to personal attack while taking it on the chin day after day in the soapbox and then he even gets smacked around out here and still does not break stride is admirable.
Um... my memory is quite in tact, thank you. But, "as usual", you've cherry picked the words from elsewhere in that post that better suit whatever point you want to make.

I look at that post from Poly and I think, Ok, there's some truth there. Maybe a bit reactionary, but not the least accurate observation I've ever seen. Then I look at this thread and think, Well if "infantile" is true, then the whole nursery can't be wrong!

Honestly km, for once admit you stepped in a bit of poo and move on.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: He didn't, actually... - 01/22/09 06:19 AM

Quote:
you've cherry picked the words from elsewhere in that post that better suit whatever point you want to make.

Actually I didn't cherry pick anything... I just didn't have time to read the entire post because I was trying to get out through the door to get to work - so I apologise for the mistake... although I still think he was right to call you on 'infantile'.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: He didn't, actually... - 01/22/09 06:26 AM

Whoa! The world really is round and km apologized. It is going to be a good day.
Posted by: steveg

Re: He didn't, actually... - 01/22/09 06:54 AM

In the spirit of civility, I will accept your apology, and will therefore not throw my bottled of formula* at your head. grin





*See that? Never breast-fed and yet able to interact well in society!.
shocked
Posted by: lanovami

Re: He didn't, actually... - 01/22/09 12:54 PM

Oh yes, through it all, I have always respected km's attempt to avoid getting personal and keeping it civil - though I still don't know what my knickers had to do with it. wink
Posted by: keymaker

Re: He didn't, actually... - 01/22/09 01:11 PM

Quote:
I still don't know what my knickers had to do with it.

That was civil... that was using an idiom, of course, to suggest confusion on your part.

km
Posted by: lanovami

Re: He didn't, actually... - 01/22/09 01:16 PM

I'm joking km, chillax. I only speak to 3 native speakers of English on a daily basis and two of them are from England. I do things "on" the weekend, they do things "at" the weekend, etc. and it all works out tickityboo (or however you spell it).
Posted by: keymaker

Re: He didn't, actually... - 01/22/09 01:26 PM

Quote:
I'm joking km, chillax.

Yeah, you're right, sorry... the trouble is, and I'm dead serious about this, I don't always know whether I'm talking to a man or a woman - which doesn't usually matter... until you get to idioms involving knickers!

km
Posted by: lanovami

Re: He didn't, actually... - 01/22/09 01:31 PM

Oh, I see. Yeah, that could look bad. I think about that one when I hear my English friends asking others (okay, especially when asking females) if something doesn't just "get on their tits?" though I know it is harmless banter.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: He didn't, actually... - 01/22/09 01:57 PM

Boys have tits too, ya know. wink
Posted by: Leslie

Re: He didn't, actually... - 01/22/09 02:02 PM

Originally Posted By: yoyo52
Boys have tits too, ya know. wink


Yes, but not mammalian ones! smile
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: He didn't, actually... - 01/22/09 02:03 PM

laugh laugh laugh
Posted by: polymerase

Re: He didn't, actually... - 01/22/09 02:06 PM

Only if they are fat. Males do have nipples and vaginas but they are all about as useless as an NBA halftime score or taking advice from Poly about how to not act infantile.
Posted by: steveg

Re: He didn't, actually... - 01/22/09 02:08 PM

Hey lano, he just called you an idiom. You gonna take that?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: He didn't, actually... - 01/22/09 02:11 PM

Quote:
Hey lano, he just called you an idiom. You gonna take that?

Oh! Sorry, that was a typo... grin

km
Posted by: lanovami

Re: He didn't, actually... - 01/22/09 03:47 PM

That was no typo, it was an insult to us all. I know for a fact that the English still use the now archaic (in North America) plural of idiot*. winkity smiley and even more winks.

*"life is a tale told by idiom, full of......"