TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- USA - West Coast / Las Vegas
-- The NO on Prop 8 thread....
Pages (20): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 »

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen give them equal rights and they will still fight for marriage.

As well "they" should "still fight for marriage" semantics (the use of words such as "marriage") shapes psychology and prejudices - both positive prejudices (stereotyping people or things as good) and negative prejudices (stereotyping people or things as bad). Same gender love should never be branded unworthy of the word "marriage", because their commitments and responsibilities to each other are one and the same.

I have a light-skin friend who is half black, half white and he could easily pass as an Pacific Islander. I had some assumptions based on my studies of human nature and the labels we ascribe to people. My training is in Sociology and Psychology. As an informal Social-Psychology experiment conducted in Louisianian, we brought in a third person, a lady friend, to take notes. My "Pacific Islander" friend and I introduced him to six of my white friends (Group A) as being from "Hawaii" and to six other friends as being "from Africa" (Group B) - In all cases, the difference in their behavior and language towards him was significantly telling. Specifically, all subjects in Group B were measurably more quiet (by a rough count of words) and standoffish when he was introduced as "African". Subjects in Group A were measurably more talkative and friendly (measured and noted in part by physical closeness and proximity) when he was introduced as "Hawaiian".

The difference? One word. This was not an experiment based solely on prejudice of "white" people, since groups of "other races" have been known to behave or react similarly in other similar experiments. This was an experiment primarily about the psychology of semantics, the perceived meaning of words such as "Africa" and "Hawaii" and how they can shape fear, hatred, prejudice - or the total opposite feelings.

Words matter, and the word "marriage" matters a lot to two consenting adults who happen to love each other but also happen to be of the same gender. It matters to heterosexuals too, but no one is trying to take that word away from them, no matter how much they lie and try to pretend other marriages diminish their marriage. The word "divorce" does that to heterosexual marriages - and they're using that word in record numbers, no matter how "Christian" they are or how often they go to church. If anything, their lies only amplifies the prejudice.

Make no mistake about it, the majority of the opponents of the word "marriage" are opponents either because of their own psychological weaknesses about the word, their hatred, their prejudices, their unfounded "beliefs" or their lack of compassion and understanding of a minority who has very little power. Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of inequality (even if it's just a matter of semantics) --or will we be extremists for the cause of justice and equality?

From my friend, Joe at Human Rights Campaign:

"The Mormon Church played a huge role in the travesty called Proposition 8. In response, there have been protests at churches. The Mormon community faced persecution in its early years. In the wake of Prop 8, I question whether members of that community have forgotten the lessons of their struggle.

Likewise, the Roman Catholic Church disregarded the history of sectarian oppression and pursued a campaign of deceit and misinformation in support of Prop 8 reminiscent of the anti-Catholic movement of the early 1800s.

It's chilling to realize that so many in the Catholic and Mormon Churches knew they were telling lies (baring false witness - an abomination) - the lie that marriage equality would require children to learn about homosexuality in school - the lie that priests would be required to solemnize marriages of same sex couples - and they lied anyway."

Such lies do not straighten one's arguments - they show how weak and arguments are and that they are clearly built on the shabby foundations of wanton ignorance and thus prejudice.

Again, same gender love should never be branded unworthy of the name marriage, because their commitments and responsibilities to each other are one and the same as all other married couples.

quote:

Originally posted by selfEvolution Again, same gender love should never be branded unworthy of the name marriage, because their commitments and responsibilities to each other are one and the same as all other married couples.

The problem is, their entire arguement is based on "equal rights" which it clearly is not, using CT as a perfect example.

Also, I am laughing at your entire arguement regarding the worthyness of a commitment or responsibities of a relationship, and the comparison you make with them and, Civil Unions, and marriage. You are suggesting that those in a "civil union" are not as committed or responsible to each other as those that are "married"? How discriminatory of you, and all those in engaged in a civil union are also saddened by your conclusions.


"civil union" and "marriage" should serve nothing more then a distinction between a homesexual couple and a heterosexual couple. Among other things, just as the two scientific terms provide an identical distinction.

Additionally, lets not disguise your arguement as one for equal rights, and allow everybody to see there is an underlying religious agenda here. Its really the gay community trying to "stick it" to the religious right wing, hardly a fight for equal rights. I site the events in CT as an example once again here.

Im confused as to why the mormon church has been singled out. Is it simply because they contributed most? How ironic that a movement based on descrimination, upholding the constitution, and a strive for equal rights, continues to violently attack the mormon church because they were organized the best in order to raise money for a cause vital to their belief system.

I am not a religous person myself, but I have mormon parents who have already seen instances of "No on 8" supporters vandalize personal estates of contributors to a polical propisition because of their stance. The "No on 8" supporters have purposly published records of contributors exceeding $1000 contributions so that the political fanatics can attack their homes.

Very sad days are here when your private property is vandalized by politcal fanatics for your contributions to a politcal cause that may represent your belief system. I harldy doubt should Prop 8 have failed, you would see the same mormon contributors destroying property of anybody who particpates in the process of a gay marriage, or anybody that had played a role in the defeat of Prop 8.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen The problem is, their entire arguement is based on "equal rights"

Wrong again, DJ. "Their entire argument" is NOT based just on equal rights, but the equal right in NAME to be called a "MARRIED" couple. The Human Rights Campaign represents hundreds of thousands of NONheterosexuals, and "their" statement, which I cited is not only about rights but *also* about semantics - it's about both and more. You may find that "laughable" but it just confirms what many have suspected all along about you - conservative bias and callousness. Millions of people do not think it's a "laughable" matter.

quote:

Originally posted by selfEvolution Millions of people do not think it's a "laughable" matter.

My laughing was directed at your arguement that somehow those engaged in a "marriage" are more committed and responsible to each other then those engaged in a "civil union." Especially when you site the record numbers of "divorce" that we currently see. The state should not have to consider which institution YOU seem to think represents more commitment. It should focus on other things such as ability to raise families, procreate, adopt, etc. All distinctions that should be made.

And thank you for proving my own point that this isnt just about Equal Rights, no matter what the "No on 8" commercials my say. Although the entire No on 8 campaign focused on the fact that this is a struggle for equal rights, it is true that there is an underlying agenda here, which is mainly religious. Yet they attack the "Yes on 8" side for their religious agenda.

And I have said all along this is largely an arguement of samantics, and overall meaning of words. However "No on 8" supporters have always disagreed.

And thanks for warning me that some trancaddicts may suggest that I often think conservitive LOL. I thought we all established this long ago my friend.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen You are suggesting that those in a "civil union" are not as committed or responsible to each other as those that are "married"? How discriminatory of you, and all those in engaged in a civil union are also saddened by your conclusions.

You should be laughing at your quick willingness to distort and lie about what I actually have written, especially in light of all the other lies and distortions exposed by the "YES on Prop 8" people. I *never* posted that those in a "civil union" (in general) are *not* as committed or responsible to each other as those who are "married"....that goes without saying, in general....I am simply ADDING that married gay couples in Massachusetts, Canada, South Africa, The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and until recently, California, are just as committed and responsible as heterosexual couples. In fact, it was the study and investigation of such responsible marriages that compelled the California Supreme Court to vote YES FOR NONheterosexual marriage. How many "YES on Prop 8" people do you honestly think fairly looked at that kind of evidence?

"At some point in our lifetime, gay marriage won't be an issue (as in a growing part of the rest of the world), and everyone who stood against this civil right will look as outdated as George Wallace standing on the school steps keeping James Hood from entering the University of Alabama because he was black."
- George Clooney

Ive grown tired of the racial comparisons with marriage. Especially everytime i see a mixed racial person or even Barck Obama, and I remember that a black and a white CAN have kids. Just as an Asian and a mexican or a canadian and a bohemian, but unlike a male and a male. When you find the child of two males or even better, two females, please contact me immediatly.

And spare me please the infertility rebuttle. I have never met anybody that could site infertility during an interview or a handshake. Of course it happens, but all couples should not be subject to fertility tests for a marriage license.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen And spare me please the infertility rebuttle.

In other words, spare you the tools of reason, logic and rationality. The fact is that the "infertility rebuttal" (not rebuttle) is a logical one - there are millions of married couples who either *cannot* have children or *don't want to* - so fertility or lack thereof has never been a rational reason to deny NONheterosexuals the right to have a relationship called a "marriage". Further, they should have the right to tell their adoptive children that they are "married" without having to explain the difference between "marriage" and "domestic partnership" and the sad and hateful reasons why there are differences in some states but not others.

Further, you've long established that you have no apprehension of the racist verses homophobic debate - they both encompass "civil rights" as George Clooney clearly gave context to - and correctly so - racism and homophobia stem from the same psychological dynamics - hatred, fear of the unknown, misunderstanding and/or justification on religious grounds (their god approves of owning slaves and stoning certain minorities). Even today, thousands of churches are segregated based on "black and white". Some people are kept out of church based on minority sexual orientations. For example, at a New Orleans church, where a lesbian was told she not only could not join their church, but the pastor turned down her offer to donate to their Katrina disaster relief.
Source: HBO Films: "When The Levees Broke".

Im not concerned with the racist or homophobic dynamics of the arguement because I am neither. The fact that some heterosexual couples are infertile, or choose not to have children, does not distort the intentions of the institution of marriage itself.

Unlike you, I dont feel that either a "marriage" or a "civil union" constitute levels of commitment, compassion, or responsibilty regarding relationships. At this point you are argueing the subjective meaning of words with me which i dont care to engage in such a senseless, endless debate.

But if CA, like CT, would afford EQUAL RIGHTS to a civil union (which i strongly support) then it can serve solely as a distintion between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple, and not as a measurement of the compassion or commitment of a couple.

quote:

Originally posted by selfEvolution LOL - it'll make for good reading in my own blogs and upcoming book - well, at least to my Mom.

Does this mean I make your book? Im loving your contribution to tranceaddict in search of material for your new best seller LOL.

I will be at Nikita on the 22nd, as I saw in an earlier post you may as well. For sake of not beating a dead horse, perhaps we can elaborate on our differences over a Taco and some trance, as I find your well educated opinions well grounded and compelling

quote:

Originally posted by selfEvolution In other words, spare you the tools of reason, logic and rationality. The fact is that the "infertility rebuttal" (not rebuttle) is a logical one - there are millions of married couples who either *cannot* have children or *don't want to*

BTW, this is not really a logical "rebuttal" because science regarding infertility is inconclusive. My parents for example spent years trying to have kids, adopted two kids along the way. So people like you under this arguement would have concluded that they were infertile and deny them a marriage license. But then my little brother came along 13 years into their marriage that would render your conclusion incorrect. There is no way to draw the line here with this arguement, so it fails.

And for those that "dont want to marry" well, lets just assume that a couple or two may lie regarding this in order to gain a marriage license. And god for bid they may change their mind along the way. Making this arguement FAIL as well.

Conclusions can be drawn immediatly in same sex marriage, procreation just is not an option. The tools of rationality, reason, logic and Science have concluded this.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen Does this mean I make your book? Im loving your contribution to tranceaddict in search of material for your new best seller LOL. I will be at Nikita on the 22nd, as I saw in an earlier post you may as well. For sake of not beating a dead horse, perhaps we can elaborate on our differences over a Taco and some trance, as I find your well educated opinions well grounded and compelling

Thank you for the compliments. I don't think that we're "beating a dead horse" as I'm just getting alternative views than my own, and some perspectives I agree on which add to my own. As you well know, we do not grow or learn in a vaccum, and certainly not with a "traditional" philosophy I've often heard from others. "Conservative" is literally defined in Mariam-Websters as:

"Tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions."

Of course, few "conservatives" are that self-limiting, and there are as many different kinds of "conservatives" as there are "liberals", which is why I address statements on their own merits and not an individual in total, let alone an entire group. We either subscribe to conservative or liberal values and most of us subscribe to some of both. They're not "who" we are, they are simply what we cling to, because people can change their subscription any time and many people often do. Even the KKK dragons I've cited.

But I do know many self-proclaimed "conservatives" who live by the aforementioned definition, which unfortunately boils down to:

"I'm conservative, my mind is made up - don't bother me with new facts."

The above reason is why I subscribe to *many* (not all) liberal values. Unlike the lies and stereotypes we often see from the "far-right" many so-called "libtards" do not advocate open marijuana use, drugs, polygamy, marrying animals, public sex, abortion-for-any-reason and all the other nonsense that the Bill O'Reilly's of the world stereotype "libtards" with.

Mariam-Webster defines "Liberal" as

"One who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways."

I am proud to subscribe to the above values and more, and if the above makes some people who believe in labels want to label me "libtard", then I'm proud to be labeled one.

Thanks also for the offer to discuss this at Nikita, but there is a time and place for everything, and Circus is neither the time or place to talk seriously. Forums like this, in my view are perfect for serious debate, because it either keeps us honest or exposes our distortions or refusal to understand. Circus is the place for mindless fun and care-free expressions of love and joy, and it would take too much of my strength to switch gears to serious mode when I am habitually disinclined to inhibit my youthful exuberance within such party-harty-I'm-half-retarty environmental conditioning...hehe.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen And for those that "dont want to marry" well, lets just assume that a couple or two may lie regarding this in order to gain a marriage license. And god for bid they may change their mind along the way. Making this arguement FAIL as well.

Given that there are millions of married couples, such as my brother and his wife, my cousin and his wife, my father and his new wife, my friend and her husband who all have no desire to populate an already over-populated world - and - if the above twisted assumptions are your idea of "logic", while distorting what is "*not* logical" - - then we have nothing to logically bebate about. Your biases are showing, not "logic". Millions of married heterosexual couples have lived and died without ever having a single child, and given current population and economic constraints, millions more will continue to.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen But if CA, like CT, would afford EQUAL RIGHTS to a civil union (which i strongly support) then it can serve solely as a distintion between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple, and not as a measurement of the compassion or commitment of a couple.

But here's the catch: Even if every single one of our United States legalized same sex marriage tomorrow, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)passed in 1996 by then President Clinton defines over 1,000 rights based on the word "marriage." DOMA defines marriage as between a man and a woman, so while equal at the state level, domestic partnerships and marriages are anything but equal at the federal level.

If that's not very clear, assume for the next 3 minutes that you are gay or lesbian (only 3 minutes, I promise, and I have to do this because otherwise I believe people think that it's someone else's problem, something they don't need to deal with):

ok, so you've been with your partner for the last 10 years, and 5 of those years you were insured through their company's domestic partner benefits. You paid $7,500 in extra taxes alone for those benefits over that period. A married couple would have paid no additional taxes for the same coverage.

During year 6, you lost your job and started working for a smaller company that does not offer benefits to domestic partners. Your significant other had to get a private policy instead and had to complete a lengthy medical questionnaire about pre-existing conditions (not required under company group coverage afforded to married couples).

In year 8, your significant other started experiencing severe back pain that may have been associated with an auto accident several years earlier. Medical bills for treatment were $15,000, and you just got a letter that you have been denied coverage since this was considered a pre-existing condition.

In year 10, your significant other gets hit by the proverbial bus and you are denied their social security benefits of $30,000 a year for the rest of your life. Instead, the government writes a big fat check to itself.

So, you're out $7,500 in taxes for medical insurance, $15,000 in medical bills for denial of benefits due to not having group health insurance, and assuming you lived 20 more years, you're out $600,000 in social security benefits. You had to sell your house and moved to a converted garage in Pacoima shared by 4 other people.

There's also a married couple you happen to know who went through the same exact set of circumstances (tough luck, I know), and it turns out that they have $622,500 more than you solely because they are married instead of being domestic partners. The surviving spouse just sold their house and moved to an estate in Bel Air.

It's great that your state legalized same sex marriage 10 years ago, but none of that means jack sh*t because these benefits are assigned at the federal level, and you are not married.

So, are domestic partnerships equal to marriages? The above situation includes just 3 examples of over 1,000 rights that are afforded only to married couples under DOMA. To see more, refer back to page 35 of this thread for the BIG list.

If you are straight, 3 minutes are up and you are "back on the other side," what a relief. If you are not straight, carry on.


Thank you and good night.

Re: Your words contradict your "pro-gay marriage" assertion.

quote:

Originally posted by selfEvolution As In2Musik (an accountant) pointed out several times in this forum and others, domestic Partners do not have the same tax benefits as married couples, and visitation rights from the biological family trumps the rights of any domestic partner.

I'd like to meet him some day. In2Muzikk is an aspiring musician, DJ and songwriter who just happens to need a paycheck.

Re: Re: Your words contradict your "pro-gay marriage" assertion.

quote:

Originally posted by in2muzikk I'd like to meet him some day. In2Muzikk is an aspiring musician, DJ and songwriter who just happens to need a paycheck.

LOL - okay, okay, it's In2Muzikk. Too bad IntoMusic is rarely available - it would be so much easier to remember, at least in terms of spelling, syntax and grammar.

Re: Re: Re: Your words contradict your "pro-gay marriage" assertion.

quote:

Originally posted by selfEvolution LOL - okay, okay, it's In2Muzikk. Too bad IntoMusic is rarely available - it would be so much easier to remember, at least in terms of spelling, syntax and grammar.

Ironically, my European friends thought it was a great name and very easy to remember. Their "music" is spelled "muziek" though!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Your words contradict your "pro-gay marriage" assertion.

quote:

Originally posted by in2muzikk Their "music" is spelled "muziek" though!

Therein lies the risk - and the reward.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Your words contradict your "pro-gay marriage" assertion.

quote:

Originally posted by in2muzikk Ironically, my European friends thought it was a great name and very easy to remember. Their "music" is spelled "muziek" though!

In German it is muzik.

Talk about the thread that wouldn't die! I am personally irritated by people doing No On 8 events for profit and not for any sort organization just for profit.


How's everybody doing in any case? No body ever asks that question.

quote:

Originally posted by selfEvolution Thanks also for the offer to discuss this at Nikita, but there is a time and place for everything, and Circus is neither the time or place to talk seriously. Forums like this, in my view are perfect for serious debate, because it either keeps us honest or exposes our distortions or refusal to understand. Circus is the place for mindless fun and care-free expressions of love and joy, and it would take too much of my strength to switch gears to serious mode when I am habitually disinclined to inhibit my youthful exuberance within such party-harty-I'm-half-retarty environmental conditioning...hehe.

I would disagree, I have had great conversations with friends and strangers at circus in regards to political or social issues, and still managed a great time. While I consider myself capable of expression through writing, much is lost that can be better explained through personal conversation. Not to mention the frequency of statements getting taken out of context without proper clarification.

As for the liberal-conservitive idea, you are completly right in your description of the narrow minded, no new facts conservitives. However i consider myself conservitive mainly at a fiscal level. There are very few social issues i would consider myself conservitive towards although you may call this one of them. But there are plenty more that i would claim to take a very liberal stance.

And I have seen great growth in my opinions due to trancaddict. There are very informitive threads, and informitive people that post here regularly. So its all in seek of new information and discovery of ones own ideas which is always benificial.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen I would disagree, I have had great conversations with friends and strangers at circus in regards to political or social issues, and still managed a great time. While I consider myself capable of expression through writing, much is lost that can be better explained through personal conversation. Not to mention the frequency of statements getting taken out of context without proper clarification.

haha I am with Josh on this one. I know him and I and a TON of others we all know have had quite engaging conversations and debates on the patio. It is not unusual for the lot of us.

quote:

Originally posted by JCIZZLE! How's everybody doing in any case? No body ever asks that question.

Im well LOL

need to get to the open vodka bar soon though

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen Im well LOL need to get to the open vodka bar soon though

Lets argue about politics and get shitty at the same time, drinks are on me of course from 2-4pm.LOL Lord knows I get into it with people every Sunday, all friendly of course.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen I would disagree, I have had great conversations with friends and strangers at circus in regards to political or social issues.

Great for you, but we all don't have the same motivations and desires by a long shot - and it's all good. My desire and motivation at the dance clubs is to enjoy as much music as much as I can. I can't sit still for a minute if the music is good and between the three dance areas, I usually always hear something good. I'm into trance, break beats, techno, progressive house, drum and base, funkybreaks, etc. For me, 10pm to 4am is not nearly enough. At Monster Massive, friends and I danced almost non-stop for 8 hours from 8pm to 4am. I still wanted more because I never over heat nor get sweaty, and I don't do drugs nor get into drunken stoopers - but again that's a matter of motivation/desire, not so much "disagreement". I think people should do whatever they like at the clubs - I like dancing *almost* nonstop with a drink or bottle of water. On the few brief breaks I take, I enjoy joking with Tom, Josh, Monica and Justin while they're getting the drinks. Then there are the great hellos and hugs with Malia, Trinity, Don, Mitchell, Masaki, Sean, Charles, etc. - they're usually busy dancing too. If you want to have a serious chat sometime at a more quiet place where I can be both serious and friendly, email me at [email protected]

well, surprised we havent met yet, we have many mutual friends. Soon enough i guess

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.