Some things to chew on, and get off my chest

[John Reynolds]

In all seriousness, I meant what I said in my deleted posts. If you would apologize (because I felt I was genuinely insulted, otherwise I would not have returned favor), then I will do the same.

Mutual Apology?

Joe, I honestly do not think I owe you an apology. You've repeatedly called me stupid and a hypocrite (and a liberal. . .egads) in multiple threads, so if me insinuating you were being naive somehow counter-balances all that in your mind, I don't know what to tell you. I mean, you ask for an apology and then include another rolls emoticon with arrows pointing to it just to inflame the situation more.

 

[John Reynolds]

Laws are being applied equally.

Nobody can marry a person of the same sex.

So when the Supreme Court ruled that it was the right of all Americans to enjoy marriage while striking down anti-miscegenation laws in the '60s, what did they mean?

 

[Natoma]

What they're fighting for is the fair and equal application of existing, Constitutional laws. You know, all men are created equal

Laws are being applied equally.

Nobody can marry a person of the same sex.

Where the equal protection clause comes in is in regard to civil unions and marriage. That is where equal protection is not being applied. Civil Unions have been used to approximate marriage, but it certainly isn't it from a federal standpoint at all, hence, violation of the equal protection clause. Of course, this is in a vacuum where we're not addressing the anti-miscegenation rulings that is.

 

[Natoma]

Laws are being applied equally.

Nobody can marry a person of the same sex.

So when the Supreme Court ruled that it was the right of all Americans to enjoy marriage while striking down anti-miscegenation laws in the '60s, what did they mean?

Meant nothing. They were just being "activist judges" defying the will of the people. If Bush was president back then I'm sure he would have called for a constitutional amendment to please the racists of the day. Oops, I already said that in my original post didn't I?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Joe, I honestly do not think I owe you an apology. You've repeatedly called me stupid and a hypocrite (and a liberal. . .egads)

And you haven't also insulted me n times over? (I also don't recall calling you stupid repeatedly, have I? And there's a difference between simply calling you a hypocrite, and exposing your hypocritical actions.)

... so if me insinuating you were being naive somehow counter-balances all that in your mind, I don't know what to tell you.

I never asked for an apology until you deleted my posts. Your deletion of my post was "your way" of saying you were offended. I don't have that luxury power, John. I was offended by your post, whether you claim it was intentional or not. So if you're going to delete my posts, it's only fair to apologize.

Or do you think selectivey and in a biased manner deleting posts is an appropriate "counter balance?" God save us all...and to think of the irony that you're worried about Bush being too intrusive and Orwellian.

Cripes...I offer up a mutual apology to put a stop to this nonsense....and you're really going to oppose such an absurd idea?

Either allow me to make that post without fear of deletion, or we can both apologize. I would think that the latter is the best route.

 

[RussSchultz]

Sigh. I'm not joining in on your little game to paint anybody who disagrees with you as a racist. There's a reason I won't engage in political discussion with you, Natoma.

My standpoint is marriage is a religious thing. The law should keep out of it entirely.

For property and inheritance rights, civil registration is fine for all.

But apparently, that isn't good enough for you, you want acceptance.

Here's a small clue for you: you cannot force people to accept you. If you try, you'll end up further from where you want to be when you started.

 

[John Reynolds]

Sigh. I'm not joining in on your little game to paint anybody who disagrees with you as a racist. There's a reason I won't engage in political discussion with you, Natoma.

I'm certainly not trying to suggest anyone's a rascist, but the civil rights movement of the '60s is extremely relevent in the corrolations that can be drawn. At least IMO.

My standpoint is marriage is a religious thing. The law should keep out of it entirely.

For property and inheritance rights, civil registration is fine for all.

Agree completely.

But apparently, that isn't good enough for you, you want acceptance.

If the law should stay out of all religious issues, why does fighting a gay marriage ban amendment = fighting for acceptance acceptance?

Here's a small clue for you: you cannot force people to accept you. If you try, you'll end up further from where you want to be when you started.

Agreed.

 

[Natoma]

Sigh. I'm not joining in on your little game to paint anybody who disagrees with you as a racist. There's a reason I won't engage in political discussion with you, Natoma.

Uhm, I said that if Bush were president in the 60s, that's what we'd be talking about, i.e. racism. Today it's homophobia. You are aware of the literary technique known as allusion?

My standpoint is marriage is a religious thing. The law should keep out of it entirely.

For property and inheritance rights, civil registration is fine for all.

But apparently, that isn't good enough for you, you want acceptance.

Here's a small clue for you: you cannot force people to accept you. If you try, you'll end up further from where you want to be when you started.

I don't want religious marriage. I want civil marriage. I couldn't care less if you "like" my civil marriage with my boyfriend Russ. I care that the federal government and any state we move to recognize that under the law. You can believe whatever it is you wish to believe when it comes to your own religious beliefs. It has nothing to do with the government.

As I alluded to earlier, there were people 40 years ago, and hell people today, that believe those of different races shouldn't get married. Either for personal beliefs or religious beliefs or whatever. But that has nothing to do with what the government recognizes.

That is what is important to us. Getting your approval of my relationship doesn't really mean a hill of beans to me since I don't even know you. But we want the legal rights and protections that come with marriage. Legal, Civil. Not religious. See the difference in what we're fighting for?

 

[RussSchultz]

The vast majority of people in the world see marriage as a man and a woman.

Whether its because of religious reasons, or whatever, thats the way it is. As Americans, we'll tolerate quite a lot, even though we disagree with it.

After sitting through months, or even years of listening to you whine and pontificate about your rights, it's apparent you don't want equal rights, you want people to accept you for what you are. No, I'll go even further that you want approval, regardless of what you stated above.

And thats something you're not going to get, particularly by forcing the fight over the word "marriage" instead of civil unions.

 

[Natoma]

The vast majority of people in the world see marriage as a man and a woman.

Whether its because of religious reasons, or whatever, thats the way it is. As Americans, we'll tolerate quite a lot, even though we disagree with it.

I'm concerned with the legalities of this country. The vast majority of the people in the world believe women should be subservient. You really want to go there? Are we really reduced to the will of the majority when it comes to rights? How far would we have gone as a nation had it taken that to enact change?

After sitting through months, or even years of listening to you whine and pontificate about your rights, it's apparent you don't want equal rights, you want people to accept you for what you are. No, I'll go even further that you want approval, regardless of what you stated above.

And thats something you're not going to get, particularly by forcing the fight over the word "marriage" instead of civil unions.

I would love to have approval and acceptance, but you know what, that's not going to be the case everywhere. I'll settle for complete rights and privileges under the law for now. I remember a news special in NYC in 1990 regarding the fact that many interracial couples felt they couldn't hold hands walking down the street, because they felt uncomfortable with the stares and reactions they received. Today it's not even an issue to "most" people is it? They certainly had their rights then as they do now, but it wasn't necessarily accepted or approved of by the populace. That had nothing to do with whether or not they got their right to get married.

Civil Unions are nothing compared to Civil Marriage. Civil Unions work on a state by state basis. They do not have the 1,000+ federal rights and privileges attached to them in the manner Civil Marriage does. If they come up with Civil Unions that are identical in the divvying of rights to gay couples as Marriages are for heterosexual couples, you will still have a fight from people on the right because they will simply call it a semantics game, that Civil Unions are a sham marriage, and that gay men and women got what we want, just by a different name. Hell, they say that already, even with Civil Unions in the legal state that they are now.

You call it whining. You're free to your opinion. But that means squat when it comes to the legalities of the situation.

The problem Russ is that you're not separating "Marriage" in its civil form from "Marriage" in its religious form. "Marriage" has already been separated by the government into those two forms. You get married in a church and it means nothing until you go to city hall and have your papers completed. You get married in city hall and it counts in the eyes of the government, even without setting foot in a church. There is already a clear separation. For whatever reason, you just don't want to see it.

 

[nelg]

The problem is the word marriage. The government itself uses it to describe civil unions hence “marriage licenceâ€￾ I would have no problem with the government removing the term marriage from all legislation concerning civil unions and reserving its use for religious civil unions only.

 

[Natoma]

The problem is the word marriage. The government itself uses it to describe civil unions hence “marriage licenceâ€￾ I would have no problem with the government removing the term marriage from all legislation concerning civil unions and reserving its use for religious civil unions only.

I wouldn't have a problem with that either. Of course, you realize that will never occur.

Ok, let me not say never. I'll say, it won't happen anytime soon. Maybe not even within my lifetime.

 

[Vince]

Ok, so if that's true, then let's roll back abortion rights to the 20th week. However, where do you go from there if consciousness and self-awareness as one definition of "humanity" no longer apply pre-20th week? That's why I think technology is the key to this answer when it comes to overturning roe v wade. Legion said that the judges during that time didn't have enough scientific data to make a good judgment on the matter, which is precisely what I said when I stated that they made the judgment with the level of technology they had at the time. If we revisit Roe v Wade today in a court, abortion rights may well be pushed back until the 20th week as you say, but it may be decades before we can definitively go further back.

Natoma, it was just an example since many here believe "consciousness" is distinctly human, I've already made my argument against this and showed how it's a hollow definition (eg. Me killing Tag while she's in SWS because she's not showing outward signs of self-awareness).

Furthermore, I've made the point concerning "Humans" being defined by genetics. It works, it's binding, it's acceptable and fits within every biological bound of life I've heard of.

For the life of me, I don't understand how you can bitch about how African Slaves or Women were treated and then not utterly decry this contemporary practice. Hell, you're basically turning a blind eye to the largest form of descrimination and genocide this country has sanctioned - period. 30 Million humans are dead and you're going with the partisan political line.

But, instead of arguing against this form of blatent discrimination resulting in dead Americans - you're arguing with Joe because American's are "discriminating" against your ability to be married to another man. It's a fucking word, nothing more, nothing tangible when it comes to your love, yet you'll spend all day seeking it for yourself.

Natoma, there comes a point where you need to see the light, stop being selfish, and grow-up. If you really are sincere in your desire for a free society and the protection of rights as you so often claim - then how about you defend somones life for them since they can't themselves.

Because, right now, you are supporting tomorrow's 'Slave Owner'.

 

[Natoma]

First off, the "nothing tangible" comment is obviously wrong since there are thousands of rights associated with marriage that are not associated with civil unions in their current form, and there is absolutely no proposal on the table that would close those holes in the rights gap.

Second, as I said before, you find a way to conclusively determine when an unborn baby is self aware or self conscious or "alive" or whatever, and you'll have a way to completely shut down abortion and overturn roe v wade.

In many states, people have the right to terminate someone's life if they're in a vegetative state. Obviously on a genetic/biological level wrt the definition of what "life" is, they are certainly alive. But that certainly doesn't fit the self aware portion of it, or that practice wouldn't be legal.

I've long said there are serious issues and questions with this that need to be dealt with that not only will affect pre-natal rights, but "death rights" as well. It's a question that's being asked on both sides of the spectrum. We allow people to kill the unborn, but won't allow a husband in Florida to let his wife go because we deem her to be alive even though she's completely vegetative and shows absolutely no signs of consciousness. It works for one, but not the other? Obviously there are problems that need to be addressed, and that is what I've stated all along.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Second, as I said before, you find a way to conclusively determine when an unborn baby is self aware or self conscious or "alive" or whatever, and you'll have a way to completely shut down abortion and overturn roe v wade.

And as I've said before...you find a way to do the same with a NEWBORN. (When is a new-born self-aware or conscious?) What "self-aware" test does a new-born pass that an unborn baby doesn't? By your logic snapping a new-borns neck in half because the woman "chooses to" is A.O.K. in your book?

 

[Vince]

First off, the "nothing tangible" comment is obviously wrong since there are thousands of rights associated with marriage that are not associated with civil unions in their current form, and there is absolutely no proposal on the table that would close those holes in the rights gap.

Ahh, right. You're right to marriage is soo much more worthy than the right to life.

Second, as I said before, you find a way to conclusively determine when an unborn baby is self aware or self conscious or "alive" or whatever, and you'll have a way to completely shut down abortion and overturn roe v wade.

I've already mentioned several studies which have definitvely shown this. And, if you still haven't understood - reread my post to Tag, consciousness is a horrible, horrible metric. Only someone with no clue of the field would propose it as such.

In many states, people have the right to terminate someone's life if they're in a vegetative state. Obviously on a genetic/biological level wrt the definition of what "life" is, they are certainly alive. But that certainly doesn't fit the self aware portion of it, or that practice wouldn't be legal.

Totally irrelevent. Nobody is debating if they are human and hold a right to life. The debate centers around mercy-killing and is totally unrelated. Lets attempt not to confuse these.

So, how does it feel to be the modern equivalent of the White Slave Owner who didn't know any better, didn't know the science/genetics behind the field, but went along with society and had Slaves?

 

[Natoma]

Obviously not because once a baby is born it's automatically deemed "human" and "alive," thus it is immediately self aware.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Obviously not because once a baby is born it's automatically deemed "human" and "alive," thus it is immediately self aware.

Huh? By what biological magic does exiting the womb suddenly flip the "self-aware" switch?

 

[Vince]

Obviously not because once a baby is born it's automatically deemed "human" and "alive," thus it is immediately self aware.

Natoma, this is embarrasing. How about this: we'll stop the argument and you spend a day doing some research into a fetus's neural development and/or classical conditioning trials.

 

[Natoma]

First off, the "nothing tangible" comment is obviously wrong since there are thousands of rights associated with marriage that are not associated with civil unions in their current form, and there is absolutely no proposal on the table that would close those holes in the rights gap.

Ahh, right. You're right to marriage is soo much more worthy than the right to life.

You made a comment that there was "nothing tangible" to be had wrt marital rights, and I pointed out that that was obviously incorrect.

Second, as I said before, you find a way to conclusively determine when an unborn baby is self aware or self conscious or "alive" or whatever, and you'll have a way to completely shut down abortion and overturn roe v wade.

I've already mentioned several studies which have shown this. And, if you still haven't understood - reread my post to Tag, consciosness is a horrible, horrible metric. Only someone with no clue of the field would propose it as such.

Yes, you have. And what did I say in each of those cases? I don't disagree in the slightest, but I'm not the one that has the power to overturn Roe v Wade do I? Also, consciousness is in fact the metric that is being used in "deaths rights" cases in this country, so whether or not it's valid doesn't mean that it's not being used.

In many states, people have the right to terminate someone's life if they're in a vegetative state. Obviously on a genetic/biological level wrt the definition of what "life" is, they are certainly alive. But that certainly doesn't fit the self aware portion of it, or that practice wouldn't be legal.

Totally irrelevent. Nobody is debating if they are human and hold a right to life. The debate centers around mercy-killing and is totally unrelated. Lets attempt not to confuse these.

Mercy-Killing for what purpose? Because they aren't deemed "alive" anymore. Why? Because they are in a vegetative state. It's completely related. We allow one, and don't allow the other. There are some serious issues that need to be fleshed out in order to understand this better.

So, how does it feel to be the modern equivalent of the White Slave Owner who didn't know any better, didn't know the science/genetics behind the field, but went along with society and had Slaves?

It feels about as good as being an american who wears clothes made by 10 year olds working 20 hours a day making less than a penny a day. We can take this as far as you want to go.