![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The same could be said for mixed race marriages... maybe they should
have been called "joinages", to distinguish them from normal, healthy, same race unions which will produce normal, healthy, same race children. I don't think those that engaged in "joinages" would have found that they actually had the "same rights and priviliages". A specious comparison. Mixed race couples were being judged on their *appearance*, while same sex couples are being judged by their *actions*. It is obvious to anyone (nowadays, anyway) that discriminating against someone on the basis of their appearance is morally wrong. It is not obvious to anyone (nowadays, or ever, AFAIK) that discriminating against someone on the basis of their actions is morally wrong. That is a very slippery moral slope, indeed, and the two instances are not on the same philosophical level. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
A specious comparison. Mixed race couples were being judged on their
*appearance*, while same sex couples are being judged by their *actions*. Not such a specious comparison. Mixed race couples were not being judged on their appearance, but rather, on =what= they were. It was like a man marrying a dog. They were a different =race= goddamit! Their appearance merely made it hard to hide that fact. And homosexual couples are not being discrminiated on the basis of their actions, but rather, on the basis of who they are. Sexual orientation is not a choice. You didn't choose to like girls, you just did. It's built in to you just like your race is. It is obvious to anyone (nowadays, anyway) that discriminating against someone on the basis of their appearance is morally wrong. Exactly. "Nowadays, anyway". But back then it was an abomination, a vile smear on the elegant institution of marriage. It is not obvious to anyone (nowadays, or ever, AFAIK) that... That's a pretty sweeping statement. =Anyone=? (it's obvious to me). =Ever=? (I'd like to see your time machine - I think in the future we will have accepted gay couples as loving family units just like we accept mixed race couples the same way). Care to rephrase, or do you really mean it to be as sweeping as all this? ...discriminating against someone on the basis of their actions... .... which is not what it's about (see above). Yes, in general, actions are something we may discriminate based on. And the =important= actions here are that a loving gay couple is =loving= That's a Good Thing. It's what we need more of in this world. They are committed to each other. That is also a Good Thing (and lacking in many heterosexual married couples). They have proclaimed this committment for life in front of all. That's a Good Thing (that's what marriage is about). I see Good Things. What are the Bad Things you are afraid of? Jose -- "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter). for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Recently, Jose posted:
A specious comparison. Mixed race couples were being judged on their *appearance*, while same sex couples are being judged by their *actions*. Not such a specious comparison. Mixed race couples were not being judged on their appearance, but rather, on =what= they were. It was like a man marrying a dog. They were a different =race= goddamit! Then, it's incumbent on you to explain how you could tell "what they were". One certainly can't tell by looking, but one *can* make assumptions based on how people look. I won't even go into the lack of validity of the concept of different "races" within the human species. In short, I agree with Jay on the nature of your comparison. Neil |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Then, it's incumbent on you to explain how you could tell "what they
were". One certainly can't tell by looking, but one *can* make assumptions based on how people look. I'm not even sure what this means. Mixed race couples would not be accepted even if they dyed their skin. Same race couples would be accepted, even if one of them had a deep sun tan. I won't even go into the lack of validity of the concept of different "races" within the human species. It doesn't have to be valid - it merely has to be a way to discriminate, which it is. And, btw, I am not supporting such bigotry as "They were a different =race= goddamit!" by posting it, I'm merely pointing out that at one time, not too long ago, that bigotry did exist. Jose -- "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter). for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It is not obvious to anyone (nowadays, or ever, AFAIK) that...
That's a pretty sweeping statement. =Anyone=? (it's obvious to me). =Ever=? (I'd like to see your time machine - I think in the future we will have accepted gay couples as loving family units just like we accept mixed race couples the same way). Care to rephrase, or do you really mean it to be as sweeping as all this? I wasn't referring specifically to the actions of gay couples -- I was referring to the fact that we can (as a society) "discriminate" against people's *actions* as opposed to their appearance. This "discrimination" is called the "law." Let's try a rather elaborately silly example to illustrate my point: If you decide you're going to stick your finger in your nose in a fine restaurant, and eat whatever you retrieve, you WILL be escorted from that restaurant, guaranteed. However, if you have blue eyes, you won't. One is an action, one is an appearance. They are both harmless to all concerned, but are treated quite differently. Why? Because the vast majority of society is offended by people eating their own snot, but are not offended by blue-colored eyes. Mind you, I'm not delving into the reasons WHY society finds nose-picking obnoxious. It doesn't really make much sense, when you analyze it, and, quite frankly, I don't care. That's just the way it is. Now, if you do your nose picking (and eating) in the privacy of your own home, or amongst like-minded nose-pickers who find that action to be particularly exciting, all is well. Keep things private, and consenting adults can do anything they want. But when you announce to the non-nose-picking world that snot-eaters should be given equal rights with blue-eyed restaurant patrons in the eyes of the state, or that loving nose-picking couples should be granted the same social rights and legal status as blue-eyed married couples, I suspect you're going to run into a brick wall. This is the wall of societal norms that homosexual couples face. It's an uphill battle to surmount, to say the least. Why in the world the gay community is wasting their hard-won political capital on such a losing battle is a mystery. It's an unwinnable fight that -- after last week's elections -- appears to be severely harming their long-term cause. Yes, in general, actions are something we may discriminate based on. And the =important= actions here are that a loving gay couple is =loving= That's a Good Thing. It's what we need more of in this world. They are committed to each other. That is also a Good Thing (and lacking in many heterosexual married couples). They have proclaimed this committment for life in front of all. That's a Good Thing (that's what marriage is about). I see Good Things. What are the Bad Things you are afraid of? Nothing. Where's the argument? Back to flying! -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I wasn't referring specifically to the actions of gay couples -- I was
referring to the fact that we can (as a society) "discriminate" against people's *actions* as opposed to their appearance. This "discrimination" is called the "law." .... and there once were laws against the =action= of blacks sitting in the front of the bus. Laws are made by people. They are mutable. Many laws are Bad Laws, and should be changed. Anyway, just what "actions of gay couples" are you referring to? Now, if you do your nose picking (and eating) in the privacy of your own home... So far I'm with you, but you are about to use faith based reasoning again. Having blue eyes and picking your nose in public are not mutually exclusive. Suppose.... blue eyed people pick their nose too but with their left hand. Should they be denied entrance to the restaurant? Only if they do it in public. Suppose brown eyed people pick their nose in private, but with their right hand, should they be allowed into the restaurant? Of course they should. What is happening however is that people realized that blue eyed people pick their nose with the left hand (that's ok) and brown eyed people pick their nose with their right hand. So it is against the law for brown eyed people to go to the restaurant. But when you announce to the non-nose-picking world that snot-eaters should be given equal rights with blue-eyed restaurant patrons... This is the wall of societal norms that homosexual couples face. Actually, the wall that they face is the presumption in people's minds that gays are trying to legalize public gay fornication. Your "silly example" shows that this is your perception, but that just isn't the way it is. They just want the same legal rights (and no more) as straight people. What are the Bad Things you are afraid of? Nothing. Where's the argument? Back to flying! Then why do you so =strenuously= object to letting gay people get married? If there is no harm, why not let them and move on? Jose -- "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter). for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2006-11-14, Jay Honeck wrote:
If you decide you're going to stick your finger in your nose in a fine restaurant, and eat whatever you retrieve, you WILL be escorted from that restaurant, guaranteed. However, if you have blue eyes, you won't. One is an action, one is an appearance. They are both harmless to all concerned, but are treated quite differently. How is the action of a straight couple loving each other any different from a gay couple loving each other? Gayness or straightness is just an attribute of who you are, just like, say, having blue eyes or being left handed. Denying gay marriage makes as much sense as denying left handed marriage. -- Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid. Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
How is the action of a straight couple loving each other any different
from a gay couple loving each other? They aren't. That's the point I'm trying to make to Jay, who seems to think that if we allow gays to marry, there will be gay couples having sex in public on some airliner. (Fortunately, we have the Patriot Act we can use on them). Jose -- "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter). for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Jay Honeck" wrote in news:1163539109.157714.99560
@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: Let's try a rather elaborately silly example to illustrate my point: snip Your example doesn't work. I don't think gay couples are asking to have the right to have sex in public. A better example might be if people who don't wash their hands after they pee were to ask for the same right to eat in the Fancy Restaurant as those who do wash their hands after they pee. I have been to plenty of fancy restaurants and observed people who didn't wash their hands after they peed, and yet they were not asked to leave the restaurant for their actions, even when there was a valet in the bathroom as a witness. Personally, I prefer not to eat food with pee-covered hands, but I certainly don't believe it's my responsibility to try to prevent other people from eating their own pee if they so choose. My wife, on the other hand, is more conservative, and finds such action EXTREMELY disgusting. She would probably look to have someone who didn't wash his or her hands after peeing ejected from the restaurant. Nonetheless, the non-hand-washing-after-peeing members of society have not been refused service for their actions, because those actions are performed in private. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:53:29 +0000, Judah wrote:
Personally, I prefer not to eat food with pee-covered hands, but I certainly don't believe it's my responsibility to try to prevent other people from eating their own pee if they so choose. My wife, on the other hand, is more conservative, and finds such action EXTREMELY disgusting. She would probably look to have someone who didn't wash his or her hands after peeing ejected from the restaurant. Sounds like your wife needs to understand that it is actually possible to go to the bathroom without peeing all over your own hands... Oh well, it's probably just a guy thing... Women wouldn't understand that it is possible since they can't write their name in the snow... -- "Is it possible for the voices in my head to use email from now on?" |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I think old planes should be thrown away !!! | Tristan Beeline | Restoration | 6 | January 20th 06 04:05 AM |
Rocks Thrown at Border Patrol Chopper | [email protected] | Piloting | 101 | September 1st 05 12:10 PM |