Bert and Ernie agenda

[Canarr]

o yes i already stated my reasons but you feel their not rational

Well, since I'm a newcomer to this discussion, and find it a bit all over the place at times, which makes it harder to follow one line of thought: could I trouble you to just list your reasons once more for me? Pretty please?

[Sleepwalker]

"The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment."

"Above all, the prophets remind us of the moral state of a people: Few are guilty, but all are responsible."

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

My thoughts when a person claims that they are free of bigotry, they simply do not care enough about the civil rights of others to vote for them...

[Andara Bledin]

Thinking that any human rights issue is merely about the specific issue currently at hand is short-sighted and simple-minded.

All human rights issues affect all humans. We may not feel an issue's impact right away, but it will have repercussions. Not fighting for the rights of ourselves, the rights of others, is no better than turning your back while a group of bullies beat up someone smaller.

I'm not saying that you need to jump into the fray and wave the flag and cry from the rooftops, but to sit idly by and not even acknowledge that there is a problem to be addressed is acting like a sheep just munching grass and hoping that the wolves don't decide that your flock is next.

[edit to add]

Plus, civil marriage isn't necessarily about love, so not being interested in romance isn't necessarily a reason to not be interested in marriage. It's a legal contract with unique rights conferred to the participants that is unmatched in scope and unmatchable with any other legal avenue. There are likely thousands of people who marry every year for reasons completely unrelated to love. Whether it be right of succession, right of inheritance, or simply so that one partner cannot be locked out of the other partner's life by people the state has deemed to have more say due to reasons purely of blood relation and without consideration of actual interpersonal relationships.

If it was purely about love, then there would be no need to care whether the state recognizes it or not. All that would take is an ordained minister of your faith of choice being willing to officiate. But it's not about that, which is why religion is entirely irrelevant to this particular discussion.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

However, the person doing the for us/against us bollocks had deliberately avoided the third option of not really caring. My reason for this is that I consider romance as a general concept to be a spectator sport, best treated as a comedy.

Yes, but apathy is not the reason PepperElf gave. Apathy would have been a much less volatile discussion really. >.>

[Rapscallion]

I've actually got a bit of sympathy for Pepperelf on this one, though for different reasons.

See, I've occasionally been the recipient of some false dichotomy - for gay marriage or against us. Fortunately this wasn't at work, especially since I reckon about a fifth to a quarter of my colleagues are same-sex oriented.

However, the person doing the for us/against us bollocks had deliberately avoided the third option of not really caring. My reason for this is that I consider romance as a general concept to be a spectator sport, best treated as a comedy.

I don't go out specifically compaigning against gay marriage. That's the province of the religious types. I'm not an activist for it - I don't mind people getting married, but I'm not that emotionally involved.

Just seems to be that there are vocal elements on both sides who find the next most objectionable thing to an opposing view is someone who doesn't really care much.

Rapscallion

[Gravekeeper]

o yes i already stated my reasons but you feel their not rational

Well, they are not. There is no precadent and certainly no chance of it in a free country. Nevermind in the US, which would have a collective shitfit if something like that happened.

and now i'm a xenogist too. cool. yay me.

You may wish to look up the definition of xenophobia.

let's see.. i'm intolerant, hateful, harmful and a bigot all because i'm not running around waving a 'yay gay marriage' flag and voiced an opinions that don't go along with the bandwagon.

You are disagreeing with a basic human right with an unfounded reason.

yes yes yes im the one deflecting... and am "in the wrong" because other people are offended by me not waving the flag. O_o

You're certainly...twisting in the wind. >.>

[Andara Bledin]

o yes i already stated my reasons but you feel their not rational

All I can recall is that you said, "Oh, noes, if we let the gay people marry each other then the state might think about possibly forcing the churches to perform the ceremonies." Which is completely unfounded and not going to happen.

The fact that you have something against the idea of two legal adults becoming married purely based on the fact that they are the same gender is xenophobic bigotry. You can wail and moan and cry that you're being falsely accused, but that doesn't make it so.

^-.-^

[Ginger Tea]

Edit:

o yes i already stated my reasons but you feel their not rational

Care to refresh my memory as I cannot remember it at all.

yeah i know someone's going to quote that line about "when good men do nothing to stop evil"

That was said five pages ago

I've asked in my last post and maybe a few others too and all thats been responded was "If you dont support disabled vets then you must hate them."

So I ask again

If no one is trying to get married in a church, just married full stop, be it in a court house, a quickie chappel in vegas or hell seeing as Captains are or did have the power to marry people, on some cruise somewhere are you against that?

I don't care if the churches of the world don't perform ceremonies, a judge signing the certificate is just as legaly binding.

Alot of people seem to think we should force churches into performing marriages they think are ungodly, TBH I think churches should keep out of marriages of the 21st century, gone are the days when just saying "I do"* in a church made it so, now you have to sign legaly binding forms and stuff, the same forms that a court room wedding would use.
To me church weddings are just for those that want the princess / fairy tale wedding, now we can get married in a broom closet sized registry office on a beach, hell even sky diving naked.

In natural born killers, Micky and Mallory got 'Married' on a bridge, they said their vows to each other, but as it was not performed in the eyes of the law, all they did was commit to each other, legaly speaking she was still unwed and not permitted to sharing anything anything guarantied by law and the relevant tax breaks.

...

Another option.
Say gay and lesbian weddings in the states could only be performed by a drunk Elvis impersonator at one specific Vegas quickie chappel, that only looks like a church and has never had a sermon performed there in its life, is that OK?

I'm not religious and don't really give a flying about some guy with a giant splinter problem, I do know that you do not have to be religious to get married, so two athiests getting married (in or out of a church) doesn't offend anyone, so gays getting married at the "I'll have a cheeseburger chappel of lurv." doesn't offend me, although I would rather they had more options of when and where to get married.

If it's not in a church then so be it, no loss in my book.

And in time, if it isn't quite legal at the moment, I can forsee a flubberesque video confrence type wedding, for those serving overseas or on oil rigs or similar long term out of state jobs.
A church might not accomodate such a scheme, nor would I expect it to, two court rooms or one and an appointed employee of oil rig at one end sign the forms and fax copies over bobs your uncle man in Alaska marries woman in Tokyo.

[PepperElf]

o yes i already stated my reasons but you feel their not rational

and now I'm "deflecting" by pointing out that many of the opinions i've seen here are hypocritical.. that it's all about "tolerance" ... but if you don't support MY view you're intolerant and harmful bla bla blah

and now i'm a xenogist too. cool. yay me.
let's see.. i'm intolerant, hateful, harmful and a bigot all because i'm not running around waving a 'yay gay marriage' flag and voiced an opinions that don't go along with the bandwagon.

yes yes yes im the one deflecting... and am "in the wrong" because other people are offended by me not waving the flag. O_o

[Andara Bledin]

Well, why don't you put forth a reason and we can discuss from there.

Or you can keep deflecting and let us continue to think that your only reason for your lack of support is xenophobic bigotry.

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

ah. now there's the rub. ... no matter what reasons someone brings up... who is to decide what is a "rational" reason.

which is also why i really disbelieve this "harmful" bullshit too.

yeah i know someone's going to quote that line about "when good men do nothing to stop evil"... but there you go assuming what is good and evil for you is good end evil for everyone else and that their own beliefs and faiths should come secondary to what you feel is the truth.


why should you decide for me what is good and bad?
who made you the ruler of what is right and wrong?


i mean hell... i've seen discussions here where people get pissed the fuck off at any faith that declares "this is the right way". people want them instead to say "well we believe this but... you may also be right"


ironic how that theme changes from "we think this may be right and the truth ... but you can also be right" to "my way is the right way".... at least when it's something you personally believe in.

but other people and their beliefs... nope they can't dare say that. it might offend someone.

[Evandril]

PepperElf, if there was a magical way we could insure churches would not be forced to preform marriages they find objectionable, would you then support gay marriage?

That seems to be the main sticking point...and seeing how many rights the government has trampled as of late, I *can't* say for certain they wouldn't decide this is another one they want to play fast and loose with the rules...though I do find it *highly* unlikely.

As far as someone being called a 'hater'...hate is an emotion, and trying to say how someone feels seems even more farfetched, if they disagree with your statement. Harmful is another story, and I do agree that quite a few people who are against gay marriage are taking actions directly harmful to society. Society, as a whole, tends to try and destroy that which it conciders 'bad', and quite a bit of the retoric against gay marriage paints gays as 'bad'...And is having the expected results.

I do happen to support the DAV, being in the military, but how would you feel if I was actively *against* the DAV? Not just not supporting it, but saying it's a bad idea, because it will take money from other services for the disabled, and waste money by spreading it out through multiple agencies? If we were actively against the DAV, I'm sure you'd not be pleased with us...Doubly so if our reasons, to you, were without merit.

[AdminAssistant]

You're conflating financially contributing to an organization (the DAV) with morally supporting their cause. You can morally support/agree with causes while not financially contributing to them. I support both PFLAG and the DAV and think both organizations are terrific. I don't contribute to them because I'm freakin' broke. There's a difference.

[Andara Bledin]

If you can come up with a single, rational reason to not support the right for any two consenting adults to enter into a civil contract of marriage, I'd like to hear it.

So far it's just been a lot of lies, misinformation, FUD, hyperbole, and straw men out of everyone who wants to deny their fellow humans the same rights they, themselves enjoy.

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

So that means I really can say you're against human rights because you're not supporting the DAV.

Gotcha.



cos apparently what i suspect is true... individuals decide "my choice is the right choice! Anyone who doesn't jump on my bandwagon is against everything good... and they hate puppies too! and you support evil!"



that's the problem i guess.
just because YOU think one way does not mean everyone else is wrong.

cos otherwise i could do that too. you'd disagree with me but ... "my way is right your's isn't!"
but you don't like that do you? you probably don't like me telling you stuff like that or even suggesting it.
which is why it's fine for you to do it to me, right? because you are "right". because your reasoning is right and mine... who says my reasoning isn't right? You? so what.


so i guess it comes down to that... can we bash people for disagreeing with our choices?
but what if we're "right"?

cos hey claiming "i'm RIGHT" excuses everything of course.