Bonam Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 I for one don't really care either way. However, I don't understand why they can't just make up a new word, say, gayrriage, give it the exact same status under the law as marriage, and satisfy everyone. Traditionalists can keep their word defined in their oldschool way that they so cling to, while gays can enjoy all the same rights and privileges as married couples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 I for one don't really care either way. However, I don't understand why they can't just make up a new word, say, gayrriage, give it the exact same status under the law as marriage, and satisfy everyone. Traditionalists can keep their word defined in their oldschool way that they so cling to, while gays can enjoy all the same rights and privileges as married couples. That makes sense - but there seems to be a culture where men mimic females and expect the same rights - privledges, protection and the same status as a woman. Couple of if you wish and I wish them the best - but don't start alterning the language...leave it alone - The world is a confusing place as it is and more twisting of human communication will not help. Gays are gaining as much status and privledge as the breeders - In my old farmer like brain - the breeding stock is of more value - I am coldly pragmatic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Yes, because it is far more useful to engage in critiques of other cultures and societies, which takes zero moral courage and has zero effect, then to speak about issues of domestic rights and justice, in our own democratic societies where the dialogue can help produce concrete results. Any coward can say "Stop criticizing us, and start focussing on the sins of Official Enemies." And in fact, every coward does exactly that. Hmm, I should think it depends on where you live. Here in Canada, for instance, where speech is free and gay marriage is the law of the land, it actually doesn't take any courage to speak out for gay marriage or other such issues. China, India or countries with Sharia Law, on the other hand, people get prison and worse for speaking out. This talk of courage in Canada is getting embarrassing. And Moonlight wasn't speaking out, he was name calling and taunting, which is more like the behaviour of a coward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 I am no more for gay marriage than I am straight marriage. I am very pro wedding reception, I go to everyone I get invited to... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Gays are gaining as much status and privledge as the breeders - In my old farmer like brain - the breeding stock is of more value - I am coldly pragmatic. Take an old bull and a prime finished steer to the auction mart and compare what you get for each of them. On this overcrowded planet, breeders aren't doing anyone any favors. They need to be drastically curtailed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Take an old bull and a prime finished steer to the auction mart and compare what you get for each of them. On this overcrowded planet, breeders aren't doing anyone any favors. They need to be drastically curtailed. Yes hence the radical gay agenda. Once all the old bulls are gone - we can raise our kids out of test tubes while having useless debached simulated gay sex...that eventually will lose it's luster and thrill - Brave New World on it's way...where we will be an it - and children will be a thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 I for one don't really care either way. However, I don't understand why they can't just make up a new word, say, gayrriage, give it the exact same status under the law as marriage, and satisfy everyone. Traditionalists can keep their word defined in their oldschool way that they so cling to, while gays can enjoy all the same rights and privileges as married couples. Would gayrriage include all of the rights guaranteed by marriage and recognized in civil law? I think this is the crux of the issue why gays have generally rejected these little sub-marriage categories like civil unions. A civil union doesn't guarantee that all levels of government will recognize the partnership as a marriage, and entitled to the same privileges. The problem with creating some new category of same sex marriage, instead of just recognizing the relationship as a marriage is brought home by incidents such as one that my aunt described over 25 years ago while working as a nurse at the hospital. In brief, an elderly gay man, who was about 70 to 75 years old, as I recall - had terminal cancer, and was being visited every day by his gay partner of many decades. Well, that was until the vultures...I mean the family of the dying man arrived on the scene and banned his partner from seeing him. And, at the time, they were well within their legal rights as the man's domestic partner had no legal rights in the situation, while one of the dying man's sisters was able to claim power of attorney over the dying man's affairs and most of his estate. My aunt learned that the gay partner, who legally owned half of the house he shared with the man, was forced to put the house up for sale because the vultures claimed half of the house as part of estate after the dying man passed on....now does that sound fair or righteous to anyone? Yet that is how these situations were handled back in the good days when all of the homos were in the closet and no one breathed a word about gay rights, let alone gay marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) AGMT (Another Gay Marriage Thread)! I know that I have responded above but I couldn't stop myself. I would just like to say to those like the sheltered & ignorant homophobe Rob Ford, and to those clinging to a few words in the Bible that were written/edited/re-edited/translated/re-translated by some unknown half-literate men...you may win a few battles along the way, but you will lose the war. In thirty or fifty or a hundred years, however long it takes, gay marriage with be legal in virtually all western liberal democratic countries, and in all 50 states of the American union.Because, just like in the struggle for equal rights for blacks and women, you can slow it down but you can't stop progress. The ignorant sheltered bigots will lose, and love will win the day. (This post goes out to my sister. She is gay, and thanks to living in the great country of Canada, is afforded the legal right marry the one she loves.) Black Dog, on this forum, convinced me to support gay marriage (as opposed to civil unions). Here was my argument to him at the time: If it doesn't have whole eggs, it's not mayonnaise. Edited July 7, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 On this overcrowded planet, breeders aren't doing anyone any favors. They need to be drastically curtailed. Ugh, not with that crap again. Few things annoy me quite so much as the "we should all stop having children and die out as a species" argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 Gays are gaining as much status and privledge as the breeders - In my old farmer like brain - the breeding stock is of more value - I am coldly pragmatic. Looking at "breeding" pragmatically i see two opposing arguments. One can disagree with you and say more gay people or same-sex couples would be better because it would slow global population growth (as many argue the earth is already overpopulated, which i would also argue). On the other hand, more same-sex couples in a country like Canada is a negative in that it's argued we need more young people to replace & support the aging babyboomers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 I for one don't really care either way. However, I don't understand why they can't just make up a new word, say, gayrriage, give it the exact same status under the law as marriage, and satisfy everyone. Traditionalists can keep their word defined in their oldschool way that they so cling to, while gays can enjoy all the same rights and privileges as married couples. Who cares about the word? No matter whats written at the top of the government document given to two married gay people, traditionalists are STILL going to define that word the way they want to, and same goes for gays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 Who cares about the word? No matter whats written at the top of the government document given to two married gay people, traditionalists are STILL going to define that word the way they want to, and same goes for gays. Why not - I call my arm a leg...........got a problem with that? If so I will file a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal....It is a human right for me to name what ever I want what ever I want....so I sit on my wall - and type away on this brick - waiting for my x wife to call and invite me to lunch where I will eat a fine meal of steel and boiled bolts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 Ugh, not with that crap again. Few things annoy me quite so much as the "we should all stop having children and die out as a species" argument. Isn't 7 billion enough? Let's see what happens in India over the next few years, and then tell me if you think populations can just keep growing without any consequences! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 Ugh, not with that crap again. Few things annoy me quite so much as the "we should all stop having children and die out as a species" argument. Save your annoyance for someone who would make such an argument, and I'll reserve mine for those who propose that indiscriminate, unrestricted human breeding is a net benefit to man or beast. Oleg, even a poor farmer knows enough to practice strict eugenics with a herd, avoid overcrowding pastures and overextending feedstocks, and to refuse to waste any resources on an underperformer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 Save your annoyance for someone who would make such an argument, and I'll reserve mine for those who propose that indiscriminate, unrestricted human breeding is a net benefit to man or beast. Oleg, even a poor farmer knows enough to practice strict eugenics with a herd, avoid overcrowding pastures and overextending feedstocks, and to refuse to waste any resources on an underperformer. There is a theory of mine - that earth is living as we all know and probably has a few thoughts on occassion - The planet will never generate more life of any form that it can not sustain - nature kicks in ...natural disasters - auto-cannibalism of the collective via large scale wars - Disease - not to mention starvation caused by drought --to bad that those that die are not the ones who create the damage and hurt to Mother earth - Mother earth will be patient - but if you insult her to long she will bloody the nose of all humanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 There is a theory of mine - that earth is living as we all know and probably has a few thoughts on occassion - The planet will never generate more life of any form that it can not sustain - nature kicks in ...natural disasters - auto-cannibalism of the collective via large scale wars - Disease - not to mention starvation caused by drought --to bad that those that die are not the ones who create the damage and hurt to Mother earth - Mother earth will be patient - but if you insult her to long she will bloody the nose of all humanity. But you fail to recognize that Ma Nature is 'kicking in' to overcome that horrific infestation of humans? Wars, disease, starvation... gender diversion.... destruction of habitat by overcrowding... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 But you fail to recognize that Ma Nature is 'kicking in' to overcome that horrific infestation of humans? Wars, disease, starvation... gender diversion.... destruction of habitat by overcrowding... It doesn't matter whether it is just a consequence of overshooting of available resources, or if there is some type of "Gaia"/"Mother Earth" in charge of managing the planet - the evidence is that extinctions and mass extinctions occur periodically. The difference between past extinctions and the Sixth Extinction...that the Earth is currently undergoing, is that this one has been caused by a mass infestation of one species that has forced too many other plant and animal species into extinction...and this species has also become the first in the planet's history to tip the carbon cycle into a positive feedback releasing an overabundance of greenhouse gases. Previously in Earth history, it took volcanic activity to create periods where Earth turns into a hothouse...and we've figured out how to do it all by ourselves! I guess some people consider this something to be proud of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 I guess some people consider this something to be proud of. And worse, place special value on procreative excess. Rats and flies are particularly efficient at expanding their populations. Some company to keep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 And worse, place special value on procreative excess. Rats and flies are particularly efficient at expanding their populations. Some company to keep. So you excess humans hater types have no children...right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 10, 2011 Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 But you fail to recognize that Ma Nature is 'kicking in' to overcome that horrific infestation of humans? Wars, disease, starvation... gender diversion.... destruction of habitat by overcrowding... YOU understand more that I give the average person credit for. Getting back to the gay phenomena or as you put it...the encouragement of "gender diversion" - for the most part it is not a sinister plot..but at the premium high end of the more radical gay elite - whom I debated on line for six solid months - a few out of San Francisco.....They believe that this should be the last generation of humans on earth...that no one should breed and humanity does not deserve to survive..These folks looked like half straved arch angels...most were from wealthy families and their drug of choice was heroine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 10, 2011 Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 So you excess humans hater types have no children...right? "Procreative excess" ??? Hate to be on the losing end of that dictatorship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 10, 2011 Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 I for one don't really care either way. However, I don't understand why they can't just make up a new word, say, gayrriage, give it the exact same status under the law as marriage, and satisfy everyone. Traditionalists can keep their word defined in their oldschool way that they so cling to, while gays can enjoy all the same rights and privileges as married couples. I tend to agree. But it seems as though attaining equal rights isn't the root goal of some on the pro-gay marriage side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 Ugh, not with that crap again. Few things annoy me quite so much as the "we should all stop having children and die out as a species" argument. Few things annoy me like the declining population = extinction argument. I'm pretty sure any species that has been on this planet for the last tens of thousands years has declined in numbers at some point, then increased, then declined again, then... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 The difference between past extinctions and the Sixth Extinction...that the Earth is currently undergoing, is that this one has been caused by a mass infestation of one species that has forced too many other plant and animal species into extinction...and this species has also become the first in the planet's history to tip the carbon cycle into a positive feedback releasing an overabundance of greenhouse gases. That you would refer to human beings as an infestation really says all we need to know about you. After all, pests that cause a "mass infestation" should be exterminated, right? Previously in Earth history, it took volcanic activity to create periods where Earth turns into a hothouse...and we've figured out how to do it all by ourselves! I guess some people consider this something to be proud of. Of course. If we have altered one planetary climate, we can alter others. I look forward to this "infestation" spreading to other planets and terraforming them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 That you would refer to human beings as an infestation really says all we need to know about you. After all, pests that cause a "mass infestation" should be exterminated, right? How very simpleminded to insist that the only options are unrestricted, unlimited, unsustainable overpopulation and extinction. Ad absurdum. No such dichotomy exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.