Bike Shops
Coaches
Fitters
Race Calendar
Running Stores
Store
Stack & Reach
Training Log
Triathlon Clubs
We Noticed
MAIN INDEX
RULES & LEGEND
LOG IN
Slowtwitch Forums
:
Lavender Room
:
Hooray Texas!
1
...
3
4
5
6
7
...
30
View All
Tri
Classifieds
Lavender
Jobs
Womens
Notices
Print Thread
archistu
Nov 10, 05 13:08
Post #101 of 728
(2655 views)
Re: Latest news! [Casey]
[
In reply to
]
Quote
|
Reply
In Reply To:
The fact is that every couple nurtures their children in their own unique way,
The fact also remains that despite couples raising kids in their own way, they still provide a male and a female influence. A child needs both in their lives.
Here we are, back at you trying to foist your beliefs on other people through the law. First of all, we're fundamentally talking about marriage, not child-rearing. To deny otherwise deserving couples the right to marry because you disapprove of the potential child-rearing circumstances is obtuse in the extreme. Secondly, your opinion that they need both is no basis for making laws. You're familiar with the old concept of 'I may hate way you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.'? I think that same idea applies here. You may not like the idea of gay marriage, but that certainly doesn't mean we should be banning it. And until you (or anyone else) can present principled argument why it's wrong, then I'll keep thinking that your position has nothing remotely resembling an intelligient, thoughtful and rational intellectual foundation. And there's simply no way we should be either making or upholding laws that have no intellectual foundation.
vitus979
Nov 10, 05 13:13
Post #102 of 728
(2648 views)
Re: Latest news! [adamb]
[
In reply to
]
Quote
|
Reply
In the first place, I'd hardly call the homosexual lobby defenseless. It seems to have quite a few ardent defenders in here, anyway.
You realize that's silly, don't you
?
Nope. What's silly about it? Homosexuals are a minority. They aren't a defenseless minority.
Obviously they can advocate for their beliefs.
Well, gee- thanks. I think that represents a concession.
But they also shouldn't cry like children when their beliefs are challenged and when others question why they choose so selectively which beliefs are advocated.
Nobody in here crying about it, adam.
It's not "don't talk until you're perfect", it's "use your brain a little bit and don't use your Bible as an excuse to hide from your own problems and attack others.
Funny, but so far I think it's only you who's brought up the Bible as an excuse during this discussion, and used it to attack others.
Then why don't you actually try to add something to the discussion?
Quite honestly, because I do not trust either you or your brother to genuinely attempt to understand the concept. I base this on my recent observations of your mangling of the concept of moral relativism, which was so severe that I have to think it was deliberate. I'd just as soon pass on repeating the experience with respect to the concept of natural law.
I will also repeat that you are opening a box of trouble if you allow gays to marry because there is absolutely no way you can change the definition of marriage to a specific "between one man and one woman" to a general "between consenting adults" without opening up a floodgate of legal challenges.
----
Can you explain why this would happen?
Maybe because there have already been legal papers written saying exactly that. Maybe because it's the logical progression of such a policy. Maybe because there isn't anything to stop a scenario from happening.
Can you explain why it wouldn't?
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
vitus979
Nov 10, 05 13:14
Post #103 of 728
(2644 views)
Re: Latest news! [archistu]
[
In reply to
]
Quote
|
Reply
First of all, we're fundamentally talking about marriage, not child-rearing.
Amazing. You can state the problem, and still not recognize it.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
archistu
Nov 10, 05 13:23
Post #104 of 728
(2639 views)
Re: Latest news! [vitus979]
[
In reply to
]
Quote
|
Reply
In Reply To:
First of all, we're fundamentally talking about marriage, not child-rearing.
Amazing. You can state the problem, and still not recognize it.
Wow, I must really be dense because not only did I state the problem and not recognize it, but I also have no idea what the hell that even means. Could you dumb that down for me so that I can learn from you. Thanks.
vitus979
Nov 10, 05 13:29
Post #105 of 728
(2637 views)
Re: Latest news! [archistu]
[
In reply to
]
Quote
|
Reply
I must really be dense because not only did I state the problem and not recognize it, but I also have no idea what the hell that even means.
I don't think you're dense (yet), I think you're just demonstrating the mindset that's causing us marriage problems. You think you're talking about marriage while at the same time not talking about child-rearing. You don't realize that marriage is first and foremost all about child rearing. Everything else is secondary. Like I said, check out the CS Lewis essay. (I doubt anyone will, but hey, I'm gonna keep selling it.)
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
adamb
Nov 10, 05 13:40
Post #106 of 728
(2634 views)
Re: Latest news! [vitus979]
[
In reply to
]
Quote
|
Reply
vitus:
----
Nope. What's silly about it? Homosexuals are a minority. They aren't a defenseless minority.
----
Obviously they are not able to mount an adequate defense to defend their fundamental civil rights. If they were, we wouldn't even be talking about this subject.
76/24 was the vote breakdown in Texas. Do you honestly want to pretend that homosexuals have a strong presence in politics?
----
Funny, but so far I think it's only you who's brought up the Bible as an excuse during this discussion, and used it to attack others.
----
Only because you lot are not honest and open about your own rationale.
Answer me honestly: Do you believe the Bible is a proper source of moral authority?
----
Maybe because there have already been legal papers written saying exactly that.
----
Source?
----
Maybe because it's the logical progression of such a policy. Maybe because there isn't anything to stop a scenario from happening.
----
There is nothing to stop people from filing all the lawsuits they want right now. What is it about legalizing gay marriage that will give others new rights?
----
Can you explain why it wouldn't?
----
When someone is raising an alarm like this it is their job to prove their case. The burden of proof is on those wishing to keep people from their fundamental civil rights.
And as I already said, those of other sexual orientations are currently able to voice all the desires they want and petition for rights right now, perfectly well, without same-sex marriage.
Casey:
----
What are Christian rules? How exactly are you being "forced" to follow these so called rules?
----
Homosexuals cannot be married legally in American because Christians will not allow it. It's pretty simple.
----
Well, for starters we would have to allow polygamy back in so the fundamental Mormons can be appeased.
----
Why would this have to happen?
----
Surely, if we change the laws so that marriage is between consenting adults, and 3 women consent to marry one man, you have to admit you would have no legal grounds to deny them.
----
Why would I have to admit something that is not true?
Do you have any real, legal argument as to what specifically would change?
Xenu
Nov 10, 05 13:46
Post #107 of 728
(2629 views)
Re: Hooray Texas! [Casey]
[
In reply to
]
Quote
|
Reply
Quote:
I can't play in the NBA because I'm an average sized white guy with no skills, is that fair?
That's outrageous!
I'm writing my congressman immediately.
---
"You'll find a slight squeeze on the hooter an excellent safety precaution, Miss Scrumptious."
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong." -- Richard Feynman
jhc
Nov 10, 05 13:49
Post #108 of 728
(2628 views)
Re: Latest news! [vitus979]
[
In reply to
]
Quote
|
Reply
In Reply To:
I must really be dense because not only did I state the problem and not recognize it, but I also have no idea what the hell that even means.
I don't think you're dense (yet), I think you're just demonstrating the mindset that's causing us marriage problems. You think you're talking about marriage while at the same time not talking about child-rearing. You don't realize that marriage is first and foremost all about child rearing. Everything else is secondary. Like I said, check out the CS Lewis essay. (I doubt anyone will, but hey, I'm gonna keep selling it.)
The legal rights and benefits that come with marriage (which is exactly the issue at hand) have nothing to do with child rearing.
_______________________________________________
I love sushi, but I'd rather not have it served next to a "fish taco". - KEJ
archistu
Nov 10, 05 13:51
Post #109 of 728
(2626 views)
Re: Latest news! [vitus979]
[
In reply to
]
Quote
|
Reply
In Reply To:
I must really be dense because not only did I state the problem and not recognize it, but I also have no idea what the hell that even means.
I don't think you're dense (yet), I think you're just demonstrating the mindset that's causing us marriage problems. You think you're talking about marriage while at the same time not talking about child-rearing. You don't realize that marriage is first and foremost all about child rearing. Everything else is secondary. Like I said, check out the CS Lewis essay. (I doubt anyone will, but hey, I'm gonna keep selling it.)
I'll promise you that I'll read it, but prior to doing so I should advise you that I completely reject the premise that marriage is first and foremost about child rearing. It's first and foremost about two individuals making a commitment to each other. Marriage it not necessary to successfully rear children and children are not necessary to a healthy marriage.
vitus979
Nov 10, 05 13:52
Post #110 of 728
(2626 views)
Re: Latest news! [adamb]
[
In reply to
]
Quote
|
Reply
Obviously they are not able to mount an adequate defense to defend their fundamental civil rights.
Notwithstanding grandiose claims about "fundamental civil rights," they just lost. They are not defenseless. If they were, then we really would not be talking about this.
76/24 was the vote breakdown in Texas. Do you honestly want to pretend that homosexuals have a strong presence in politics?
I don't pretend anything, adam. I didn't say that they have a strong presence in Texas politics. I said that they're a minority, which does not make them defenseless.
Only because you lot are not honest and open about your own rationale.
No, only because it makes you feel good to say that your opponents are motivated by nothing more than religious bigotry, and any other justifications they make for their position must be lies. That's your hang up.
Answer me honestly: Do you believe the Bible is a proper source of moral authority?
Of course. And I know your going to have a hard time with the following oh-so-subtle distinction, but I'm going to say it anyhow: Just because I believe that the Bible is a source of moral authority does not mean that I wish to force it upon others, and it does not mean that every moral position I take is based on the Bible.
What is it about legalizing gay marriage that will give others new rights?
Obviously, I think, it's the fact that you've said that being married to whatever other consenting adult you want is a fundamental civil right. If you can't "deny" that right to someone who wants to marry someone of the same sex, you have precisely no legitimate grounds for denying it to someone who wants to marry two people of the same sex.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Mr. Tibbs
Nov 10, 05 13:53
Post #111 of 728
(2625 views)
Re: Latest news! [vitus979]
[
In reply to
]
Quote
|
Reply
Asking you how gay marriage affects your to the point you need to ban it is a dumb question? Asking you why a law needs to be in place is a dumb question? You say it waters down the defention of marriage when in fact the single most important thing in a marriage is that those people in the marriage comit to stay together and no outside influence on Earth can change that other than what those people choose to do and I ask how does the allowing of two gay guys change the mind of what other people do. You are blowing me off because you don't have an asnwer. You are calling my questions stupid because all you have for an answer are big huge broad sweeping nothings. You can not give me a solid straight answer.
How does what other people do with each other effect the commitment of two other people?
customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Hookem
Nov 10, 05 13:55
Post #112 of 728
(2624 views)
Re: Latest news! [vitus979]
[
In reply to
]
Quote
|
Reply
In Reply To:
First of all, we're fundamentally talking about marriage, not child-rearing.
Amazing. You can state the problem, and still not recognize it.
vitus979
Nov 10, 05 13:56
Post #113 of 728
(2623 views)
Re: Latest news! [jhc]
[
In reply to
]
Quote
|
Reply
The legal rights and benefits that come with marriage (which is exactly the issue at hand) have nothing to do with child rearing.
The legal rights and benefits that come with marriage exist precisely to help a married couple raise children effectively. There's no other reason to grant legal rights and benefits to marriage- it's necessary to give someone a tax break to someone who loves someone else?
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Mr. Tibbs
Nov 10, 05 14:09
Post #114 of 728
(2618 views)
Re: Latest news! [vitus979]
[
In reply to
]
Quote
|
Reply
"There's no other reason to grant legal rights and benefits to marriage- it's necessary to give someone a tax break to someone who loves someone else?"
Ok now I think we can have a compromise. Since there are couples who can't or choose not too have children their marriages should not be legal until they have children. Will you also vote for that?
customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Xenu
Nov 10, 05 14:13
Post #115 of 728
(2617 views)
Re: Latest news! [archistu]
[
In reply to
]
Quote
|
Reply
Quote:
I'd take two men who love each other and are committed to raising a child together any day of the week over absentee parents, abusive parents, loveless parents and a host of other problems that already exist.
You pick strange equivalences, IMO.
How do you feel about a man and a woman who love each other and are committed to raising a child together? Isn't that the best (from the POV of the welfare of the child), possible scenario?
If not, why not?
---
"You'll find a slight squeeze on the hooter an excellent safety precaution, Miss Scrumptious."
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong." -- Richard Feynman
Xenu
Nov 10, 05 14:18
Post #116 of 728
(2611 views)
Re: Latest news! [archistu]
[
In reply to
]
Quote
|
Reply
Quote:
I should advise you that I completely reject the premise that marriage is first and foremost about child rearing.
I think you'll find some disagreement with that statement. I think that that's one of the primary reasons that governments/societies have an interest in marriages, and why they promote marriage among their citizens...to try to incentivize an optimal environment in which to raise, nurture, educate, etc the children of that society.
---
"You'll find a slight squeeze on the hooter an excellent safety precaution, Miss Scrumptious."
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong." -- Richard Feynman
jhc
Nov 10, 05 14:26
Post #117 of 728
(2608 views)
Re: Latest news! [vitus979]
[
In reply to
]
Quote
|
Reply
The legal rights and benefits that come with marriage exist precisely to help a married couple raise children effectively. There's no other reason to grant legal rights and benefits to marriage- it's necessary to give someone a tax break to someone who loves someone else?
Except that the tax breaks aren't contingent on having kids. The benefits are solely due to the marriage itself.
Not to mention gay couples that raise kids don't get the same benefits.
Your natural law arguments, and Casey's babble about needing a mother and a father are totally irrelevant - the issue isn't whether gay couples should or should not be raising kids, the issue is why their lifelong relationships are not granted the same formal recognition as heterosexual lifelong relationships.
_______________________________________________
I love sushi, but I'd rather not have it served next to a "fish taco". - KEJ
archistu
Nov 10, 05 14:27
Post #118 of 728
(2607 views)
Re: Latest news! [Xenu]
[
In reply to
]
Quote
|
Reply
In Reply To:
How do you feel about a man and a woman who love each other and are committed to raising a child together? Isn't that the best (from the POV of the welfare of the child), possible scenario?
If not, why not?
In my personal opinion, it probably is. But that certainly doesn't mean gay parents are bad, and it most definitely doesn't mean I think we should outlaw anything that falls short of that circumstance. And finally, it unequivocally doesn't mean that I think that my personal opinion as to what's best for someone else's child is an appropriate foundation to enact new laws (or fail to repeal exising bad ones). I think an appropriate basis for making laws begins with a profound respect for each individual's right to live his or her life (and ESPECIALLY his or her private life) as he or she sees fit, and only to infringe upon that right when its free exercise causes direct harm to others. To date, no one has offered anything remotely resembling evidence that allowing gays to marry causes them direct harm in any way, nor that it would harm a child. A gay couple may or may not be less then perfectly optimal from a child rearing perspective, but so what. The mere presence of a man and a woman in a household hardly guarantees that those individuals are fit parents.
vitus979
Nov 10, 05 14:42
Post #119 of 728
(2602 views)
Re: Latest news! [archistu]
[
In reply to
]
Quote
|
Reply
I should advise you that I completely reject the premise that marriage is first and foremost about child rearing. It's first and foremost about two individuals making a commitment to each other
.
Yes, I realize that you reject the premise. That's the problem- most of us reject, or are simply unaware of- that premise. That's why divorce is rampant and legal, and that's why something like gay marriage can be seriously considered.
What's the point of making a committment to each other, do you think?
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
archistu
Nov 10, 05 14:43
Post #120 of 728
(2601 views)
Re: Latest news! [vitus979]
[
In reply to
]
Quote
|
Reply
In Reply To:
I should advise you that I completely reject the premise that marriage is first and foremost about child rearing. It's first and foremost about two individuals making a commitment to each other
.
Yes, I realize that you reject the premise. That's the problem- most of us reject, or are simply unaware of- that premise. That's why divorce is rampant and legal, and that's why something like gay marriage can be seriously considered.
What's the point of making a committment to each other, do you think?
fair enough. i'll read it tonight and respond tomorrow.
Xenu
Nov 10, 05 14:43
Post #121 of 728
(2601 views)
Re: Latest news! [archistu]
[
In reply to
]
Quote
|
Reply
Quote:
In my personal opinion, it probably is.
Thank you. I agree with you.
Quote:
But that certainly doesn't mean gay parents are bad
Agreed. It does not mean that gay people cannot be good parents. It is, we agree, not the optimal environment for a child. But that doesn't mean that it's a bad environment. Just like a household run by a widow or single parent is also probably not the optimal environment for a child, but that doesn't mean it's a bad environment. Just not optimal.
Quote:
The mere presence of a man and a woman in a household hardly guarantees that those individuals are fit parents.
I agree with that too.
But, then, does it not follow then, that the mere presence of two men/women also does not guarantee that those two people are fit parents also? If you agree with this, and I assume that you will, this statement really has no value in the argument at hand.
The larger question, though, is: Doesn't it behoove society to encourage the creation of environments in which children are best raised?
---
"You'll find a slight squeeze on the hooter an excellent safety precaution, Miss Scrumptious."
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong." -- Richard Feynman
vitus979
Nov 10, 05 14:48
Post #122 of 728
(2703 views)
Re: Latest news! [jhc]
[
In reply to
]
Quote
|
Reply
Except that the tax breaks aren't contingent on having kids. The benefits are solely due to the marriage itself.
Yes, but why, do you think? Simply because we find it so admirable that two people love each other enough to swear to spend their lives together, even if they don't?
issue isn't whether gay couples should or should not be raising kids
Yeah, that's not what I was saying.
issue is why their lifelong relationships are not granted the same formal recognition as heterosexual lifelong relationships.
The issue is why are lifelong relationships granted formal recognition and societal approval in the first place.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
adamb
Nov 10, 05 15:02
Post #123 of 728
(2697 views)
Re: Latest news! [vitus979]
[
In reply to
]
Quote
|
Reply
casey:
----
I can't play in the NBA because I'm an average sized white guy with no skills, is that fair?
----
Go try out for an NBA team, you will get the exact same shot that everyone else on earth gets.
vitus:
----
Notwithstanding grandiose claims about "fundamental civil rights," they just lost. They are not defenseless. If they were, then we really would not be talking about this.
----
In your mind citing the Supreme Court of the United State is grandiosity?
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."
----
I said that they're a minority, which does not make them defenseless.
----
In practical terms, it absolutely does.
----
Of course.
----
Thanks.
----
Obviously, I think, it's the fact that you've said that being married to whatever other consenting adult you want is a fundamental civil right. If you can't "deny" that right to someone who wants to marry someone of the same sex, you have precisely no legitimate grounds for denying it to someone who wants to marry two people of the same sex.
----
And your saying so makes it true?
Each case will have to be argued on its own merit. Homosexuality is not polygamy. Polygamy is not bestiality. Bestiality is not incest. Those are all separate legal questions.
Can I get that "legal paper" you say exists, now, please? (Because it doesn't exist, yet another fact you have no source for except your desire for it to be true.)
Xenu:
If marriage were about child-rearing why are immature 18-year-olds allowed to get married? Why are drug addicts allowed to get married? Why are sterile people allowed to get married? Why are people who hate kids allowed to be married? Why are felons allowed to get married?
Child-rearing is often an important part of marriage, but it is not an absolutely necessary factor.
jhc
Nov 10, 05 15:11
Post #124 of 728
(2690 views)
Re: Latest news! [vitus979]
[
In reply to
]
Quote
|
Reply
The issue is why are lifelong relationships granted formal recognition and societal approval in the first place.
That's not the issue at all. "Why" is irrelevant now. The benefits are given to married couples and denied to gay couples. That's the issue.
I'm sure you wouldn't advocate giving formal recognition to only those heterosexual couples that are willing and able to biologically reproduce, would you?
_______________________________________________
I love sushi, but I'd rather not have it served next to a "fish taco". - KEJ
vitus979
Nov 10, 05 15:11
Post #125 of 728
(2690 views)
Re: Latest news! [adamb]
[
In reply to
]
Quote
|
Reply
In your mind citing the Supreme Court of the United State is grandiosity?
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."
Marriage is, of course. The right to marry someone of the same sex is not. And as far as I'm aware, the SC has yet to weigh in on that.
I said that they're a minority, which does not make them defenseless.
In practical terms, it absolutely does.
And you have the nerve to call me silly?
And your saying so makes it true?
Each case will have to be argued on its own merit.
No, ordinary reason makes it true. Each case will have to be argued on its own merit? What's that? What's the merit that gay marriage is being argued on? Are you really saying that nobody will argue for polygamy on the same grounds? Maybe you've missed the other six hundred threads about this, but it's been discussed to death in here, and I have yet to see a single argument against polygamy that will hold up if gay marriage is allowed. Despite some pretty good attempts.
Can I get that "legal paper" you say exists, now, please? (Because it doesn't exist, yet another fact you have no source for except your desire for it to be true.)
It does exist. (I don't know if it's a legal paper in the sense that it's a court document. It's a legal argument for polygamy from a lawyer assuming that gay marriage will pass. Art linked to it. I'll do a search.)
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
1
...
3
4
5
6
7
...
30
View All
Print Thread
this forum
this category
all forums
All words
Any words
Whole Phrase
The New Specialized Wind Tunnel
Will this be a game changer for Specialized, in both sales and product design, or will it not move the sales and design needle versus those in Specialized's competitive set?
Yes, Game Changer
Minor move forward
Won't budge the needle
