|
The NO on Prop 8 thread.... (pg. 39)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| selfEvolution |
| 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". |
|
|
| djjoshuaallen |
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. |
|
|
| djjoshuaallen |
| 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:D |
|
|
| djjoshuaallen |
| 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. |
|
|
| selfEvolution |
| 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:D |
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. |
|
|
| selfEvolution |
| 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. |
|
|
| in2muzikk |
| 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. |
|
|
| in2muzikk |
| 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. :nervous: |
|
|
| selfEvolution |
| 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. :nervous: |
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. :eyespop: |
|
|
| in2muzikk |
| 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. :eyespop: |
Ironically, my European friends thought it was a great name and very easy to remember. Their "music" is spelled "muziek" though! :D |
|
|
| selfEvolution |
| quote: | Originally posted by in2muzikk
Their "music" is spelled "muziek" though! :D |
Therein lies the risk - and the reward. :gsmile: |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| 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! :D |
In German it is muzik. |
|
|
|
|
