Profile for Stillness

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Recent posts

Pages

AuthorRecent posts
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Monday, December 10 2007 12:10 Profile #149
quote:
Originally written by Lazarus.:

Not permitting gay marriages gives the message that the government (and society in general) doesn't value homosexual relationships the same way it does heterosexual ones.
Why should it? Or better yet, should it have to if most don’t think it should? Especially if there are practical reasons.

Let’s say you want to build a home and live in an area that a city is trying to develop. To encourage you and anyone else that would do the same, they give you tax breaks and assistance. I am building a similar house in another area and want the same treatment, but the city discriminates against me and won’t give it. Should I be able to force their hand constitutionally? Or does the government have the right to show favor to a group they want to encourage, while not stopping anyone else from doing what they please?
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Monday, December 10 2007 11:24 Profile #144
Locmaar, I said I don’t know and gave a possible reason. Why are you asking me for a reason?

And when I say “I believe…in general” that doesn’t mean that it’s a fact in every single case. And I’m not buying your anecdotal “evidence.” Where is “over here?”

quote:
Originally written by Locmaar:

What you are infact talking about is discrimination.
So what? Everybody agrees the laws are discriminatory. That’s exactly the kind of loaded language that masks the truth of the matter. The question is whether or not it’s a constitutional matter (e.g. seperation of church and state or infringement of rights) in which the government should override the will of the majority to protect the minority from harm.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Monday, December 10 2007 10:46 Profile #142
quote:
Originally written by Drew:

What is the purpose of marriage at all, then?
That’s a great question. I know what the purpose of it from a Christian perspective is, but I’m not sure why the government blesses it. I always thought it was because the man-woman/man-woman-child bond is seen as healthy for society. But maybe if you can find out the answer to your question you’ll find out why all of the other possible unions are not priviledged.

I don’t think it’s religious, at least not solely. I believe there’s a practical rationale.

I’ll tell you what else I believe (I know you’re eager to hear my deep thoughts). In general, people don’t get married for the legal priviledges, nor would the absence of those priviledges prevent those wanting to marry from doing so. That’s why I’m convinced that the desire for same-sex marriage recognition is not based on government discrimination, but based on concerns of society’s views. That in and of itself doesn’t make it wrong, it just cuts through the smoke and mirrors. If you think it’s about legalities, I’d like to show you our fine selection of bridges available for your purchase.

quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

Right or wrong, though, a ban on gay marriage is certainly an inequality. If it is to be defended, it needs to be defended as an inequality.
…along with polyamorous marriage which is also discriminated against, oh and incestuous marriage (where the couples/groups don’t reproduce of course). Right?
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Monday, December 10 2007 09:57 Profile #139
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Um, simply asserting that you're right without addressing anything that I said is both unconvincing and impolite. The law doesn't treat homosexuals as it does heterosexuals. Heterosexuals can marry whomever they want. Homosexuals cannot.

While we're at it, Stillness, you sound as though you don't know what bisexuality is. It doesn't have anything to do with polygamy, as Alo has pointed out.
I didn’t just assert. I gave reasons.

A heterosexual might not want to marry a woman and so decides he’ll marry his best friend, not for sex, just because they get along well and want to pool resources and help each other out. He can’t marry him, just like a homosexual cannot. A homosexual that has a friend of the opposite sex can marry them.

And being technical on my use of bisexual doesn’t answer the question about groups or close relatives that want to marry. It just dodges it.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Monday, December 10 2007 09:19 Profile #136
quote:
Originally written by Lt. Sullust:

There is no such thing as a politically neutral religion...
OK, I'll bite. Please explain.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Monday, December 10 2007 09:13 Profile #134
quote:
Originally written by Locmaar:

Like people don't have to subscribe to a blood transfusion after a car accident (no seat-belt), if their parents say so?
Are you really serious about the seatbelts? I was making a point, not arguing against wearing them. I personally think its a good law. OK?

By the way, I had in mind freedom of speech and children not being forced to pledge allegiance aand salute the flag, but we've done things with laws for medical treatment as well.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Monday, December 10 2007 07:42 Profile #130
quote:
Originally written by Fernication:

Where is this bisexuality -> groupings thing coming from?
The argument is that same-sex pairings are discriminated against because homosexual marriages are not recognized, so this somehow infringes on their rights.

My argument then was: Should this stop with pairings since some people are bisexual? They are also discriminated against. I gave the example of a group of 2 bisexual men and 2 bisexual women all marrying each other so that each individual has 3 spouses. I also extended this to a group of 100. Then I mentioned marriage to close relatives (without a reproductive component so as to avoid the argument regarding defects).

No one seems to want to address these cases of discrimination. Who will cry for the polysexuals? Thuryl? Is your heart big enough to include a father and his daughter that have special feelings for each other? Maybe they want to adopt a baby together or have the other privileges on Salmon’s list extended to them. Maybe when you meet a person you think is an alright guy, you could vote him into your “marital group.”

quote:
It was probably also true that some of the people arguing against segregation in Brown v. Board of Education felt that blacks should be accepted the same as whites and thought that was one step closer. That hardly makes their position any weaker.
I somehow missed this response. I agree! My point is that in the case you mentioned some people were segregated and treated as second-class citizens. Disallowing same-sex marriage is not the same kind of discrimination. Equivocating these two types of discrimination gives the argument for same-sex union a false strength because of the feelings that words like “discrimination” and “racism” stir up in the American psyche.

quote:
What faith are you? Because Christianity in general is certainly the most politically active religion in this country.
I’m one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. We’re politically neutral. We only get excited when governments interfere with our worship. Incidentally, a lot of folks are unaware that we’ve won some landmark cases that aid the cause of freedom for everyone because of our worship.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Monday, December 10 2007 06:44 Profile #127
quote:
Originally written by Hollow Face:

Of course genitalia are "designed" for male-female sexual intercourse for impregnation, but design is the wrong word. Yes, I know you'll disagree. Evolution provides plenty of reasons for sex and plenty of reasons why sex requires evolving for sex.

Anyway, since creationism/ID isn't generally accepted, arguing from design is meaningless.
I just want to creep back out to say, I didn’t mean “design” in the sense that the Almighty God made it. I have heard naturalist evolutionist use this same language. And my argument wasn’t that homosexuality is wrong since the organs are shaped as they are, but that the heterosexual union is special in that it uses them according in the way implied by the shape, whereas the other pairings (or groupings since bisexuality came up) do not. So yes, I do disagree.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Monday, December 10 2007 05:55 Profile #122
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

It's impossible to prevent someone from trying to do something, so to say that somebody shouldn't be able to try to get their personal beliefs enshrined in legislation is a patent absurdity. Of course, I'll do everything within my power to prevent people who disagree with me from succeeding in getting their beliefs enshrined in legislation, and I'd expect anybody else to do the same.
But everybody won’t do the same, Thuryl. Some people are not willing to lie and cheat the system to get their way and to stop their neighbor from getting his. For example, the Constitution forbids restricting or enforcing religion. So when some people aren’t getting their way they equivocate and say that there is a conflict of church and state when there isn’t any, so their opponent doesn’t even have the constitutional right get their beliefs enshrined in legislation. That is the sentiment of many on this issue.

quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

Denying the benefits of marriage to unmarried partnerships is, objectively, discrimination
The law discriminates between a male-female union and every other. That’s why I asked about bisexual unions, community unions, and parent-child unions, which it also discriminates against. The point was that this is not like racial discrimination though. That was the argument.

quote:
Originally written by Locmaar:

You've quite lost it now, haven't you? A seat-belt is physical restraint? What about the confinement of your car? Oh, wait: You chose to sit in that car in order to enjoy your personal freedom/confinement?

If it wasn't for the fact that your argument is just another one of those 'hey-I-looked-it-up-you-are-wrong'-statements that you seem to be so agreeing of, I might actually get upset. But, hey, go and read ET's signature. There's infinite wisdom to be found.
A law requiring wearing a seatbelt restricts freedom because it takes away my freedom to drive without one and makes it illegal and punishable.

I show people definitions when their arguments indicate ignorance of them. Unfortunately, sometimes they still don’t get it.

quote:
Originally written by Archmagus Micael:

Unfortunately it's been done in the past, and could happen again (Nazi Germany).
Yes, and we all know how the USA loves to sterilize homosexuals.

Well, I was getting sick of this discussion anyway. I think this is my cue to creep back into the shadows. *creeps*...
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Monday, December 10 2007 01:36 Profile #117
Thuryl, I presented multiple scenarios and asked if you should be able to try to legislate your view and if someone with the opposite view should be able to as well.

quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

What I really want is to know if you feel that the person that disagrees with you has the right to push his values just like you have the right to push yours.
Absolutely.
Thanks for your answer.

quote:
You mean you don't understand that treating someone differently is wrong, or you don't understand that sexual preference isn't a deliberate choice.
I mean I don’t think disallowing same-sex marriage is equivalent to racial discrimination. I think denying housing, classifying it as a mental illness, and military policy is.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Monday, December 10 2007 00:34 Profile #114
quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

There is no "natural" distinction, other than impregnation, which makes pairings of sexes important at all.
All three pairings are distinct by nature. Impregnation is one aspect that makes the male-female pairing naturally unique. The physical design of the sex organs also indicates they are designed for male-female pairing.

quote:
I see your argument is based on the world-view espoused by your faith
What argument? Do you still think I’m arguing against recognition of same-sex marriages? What I really want is to know if you feel that the person that disagrees with you has the right to push his values just like you have the right to push yours.

I hear the right saying the left is immoral, bent on destroying the family, corrupting our society, etc, but I don’t hear them saying the left doesn’t have the right to push their view…at least not in the same numbers or with the same passion.

The comparison to racism and claims of discrimination are just clever equivocation.

quote:
Originally written by Dikiyoba:

Society will not fall apart if same-sex marriage or civil unions are recognized. But not recognizing it causes hardship and grief for the people who want to marry a specific someone but can't solely because it would result in a male/male or female/female pair instead of a female/male pair.
Will society fall apart if same-sex marriages are not recognized? How does the government not recognizing same-sex marriage cause hardship?

I believe the simple truth is that some people feel homosexuality should be accepted by society the same as heterosexuality and they think marriage will get them closer to that goal.

quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

Then aren't you angry about the government thinking it has the right to decide what is and isn't a "marriage"? Shouldn't you be campaigning…

The purpose of marriage is whatever the people involved in the marriage want it to be.
Those of my faith are generally apolitical. I think my comments are being misread.

And thanks for dodging the meat of my question and giving a fluff, coockie-cutter answer.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Sunday, December 9 2007 22:32 Profile #109
quote:
Originally written by Drew:

the government should not have anything to do with regulating society purely for moral purposes, beyond those enshrined in the Constitution. Regulation that exists purely for moral purposes inherently infringes upon personal liberty, limited by natural law, that is protected by the Constitution.
I’m not very smart about the Constitution or the details of various political movements. Are we talking about some regulations I’m unaware of to control homosexual activity or the fact that the government only recognizes male-female marriage? The latter doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights.

quote:
Originally written by Mallorquin Slef:

laws should not be moral.
What law is not moral? Give me an example. Maybe it’s just my worldview affecting my outlook, but laws are based on protecting society and individual citizens and that’s all moral to me. We want to live in a fair and just society because justice is good. Yes, it benefits us, but that’s exactly why it’s moral.

quote:
If two consenting adults can get married, any two consenting adults should be able to get married.
If your fellow citizen disagrees with you (for whatever reason) should he have the right to vote according to his idea of what makes for a good society?

quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

Please explain what you meant by sex being an arbitrary distinction, or not, and how that applies to restrictions that are (or are not) based on arbitrary distinctions…I see you reverting to party line discourse
Male-female is a natural distinction, not a manmade one. The government recognizing male-female unions as special is not arbitrary because that pairing is naturally unique and different and from male-male/female-female groupings. If you feel the latter should be treated as the former, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it and in the US you are even entitled to try to make your opinion law.

And I don’t have a party line as I’m not for or against recognition of same-sex marriage. What interests me is secular extremism.

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

I can’t imagine the bizarro world you describe. Sorry.
Weak.
Marriage is a divine arrangement predating human government. Tax breaks and other benefits wouldn’t affect my decision to marry. So it wouldn’t matter.

Happy?

quote:
It is similar enough to Jim Crow discrimination that making finer distinctions is truly splitting hairs.
No it’s not. Black children were not treated the same as white children. Homosexuals are treated just like heterosexuals.

Some people are bisexual. Should four bisexuals be able to marry? What about ten people? 100? Two heterosexual men? A parent that lives with their adult child (marriage doesn’t have to be sexual)? If no, why? If yes, what would be the purpose of marriage in your ideal society? Do you have the right to try to get legislation to support your views? Does someone else have the right to legislate against them?
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Sunday, December 9 2007 10:50 Profile #90
quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

Stillness - Dodging my point by hypothesizing wildly is an admirable technique.
What point am I missing?

quote:
Originally written by Elastikon:

How would you feel about that? Would that be just? According to the logic you have expressed here, it would be just fine: the same sex couples are receiving something "extra", rather than the heterosexual marriages being denied any privileges.
I don’t really have a position on what the government does unless it encroaches on my worship. I didn’t marry for government benefits.

You all are really missing my point. If you feel that the government should allow same-sex marriage the same benefits as man-woman marriage that’s your right. But it’s NOT discrimination if they don’t, at least not in the same way as Jim Crow laws discriminate. That argument is used to cloak what is a moral position. You feel it’s immoral to deny same-sex marriage just like right-wing-evangelicals feel it’s immoral to allow it.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Sunday, December 9 2007 08:48 Profile #85
quote:
Originally written by Locmaar:

when you get injured and someone calls an ambulance, this very ambulance may not be able to save somebody else's life, because of your odd definition of freedom.

If you think this sounds a wee bit constructed you should probably take a deep breath and contemplate the difference between forbidding people to marry one another and wearing a seatbelt for your own protection. You might as well decide not to wear your seatbelt at all - it's just a matter of paying the fine.
Dictionary.com
freedom
1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint

Laws requiring seatbelt usage restrict freedom by definition. Everyone has the same restrictions in this state.

quote:
Originally written by Drew:

Unlike the seatbelt law, which has a health and safety rationale, the same sex marriage prohibition has only a moral rationale for its justification.

A similar basis was used for laws banning sodomy, and this was struck down by Justice Kennedy in Lawrence v. Texas.
Health and safety is a moral issue. So is fairness. You’re interested in homosexuals out of a sense of fairness. That’s moral.

You see keeping people from sodomizing each other as the same thing as defining marriage as between a man and woman? The former interferes in private matters. The latter extends priviledges to anyone who would like to fit in a category. If you want to you can; if you don’t, you aren’t forced. This interferes with no one’s privacy. What you’re talking about is broadening definitions. That’s a horse of an entirely different color.

quote:
You seem to be saying: where is the harm?
I’m really not. Discussion of homosexuality took over, but my initial question was regarding the claim that this government is controlled by religion. I’m curious as to the mindset of those that lean towards extreme secularism, as I think much of the West does. That’s why I asked. They hold what seems to me to be a double standard. I’m wondering about the justification of it.

I think the religious right wing type view themselves as in a battle against secularism. But I don’t seem to hear them speaking with quite the same extremism as some in the secular camp who not only view themselves as in a battle, but don’t even feel that the other side should be given weapons – the right to vote based on their values.

quote:
what Constitutionally-based business does the government have regulating this behavior? I believe none at all.
I’m convinced that you and those holding those beliefs will win out here as with our neighbor to the north – time permitting. It’s actually the religious whose rights are infringed upon regarding these issues there.

quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

This restriction is based on an arbitrary judgment that is traditionally viewed as coming from religion.
Let’s say sex is an arbitrary distinction (which it most certainly is not), what does it matter what the origins of a judgment are? As long as no one is trying to force you to worship as they see fit, their views are as valid as yours in this nation.

quote:
Originally written by Dikiyoba:

It discriminates based on sexuality rather than race…if you were a heterosexual in a predominately homosexual society in which only same-sex marriage is legal
It doesn’t discriminate. Whoever, whatever, or however many you like to have sex with, you have the exact same rights as everyone else.

I can’t imagine the bizarro world you describe. Sorry.

quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

Besides, why does the government have an interest in interfering in the right of consenting individuals to make contracts with each other on terms of their choosing?
It doesn’t. You can make a contract for whatever you want and the government won’t interfere.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Saturday, December 8 2007 12:42 Profile #57
quote:
Originally written by Dikiyoba:

A white-only water fountain applies to everyone too.
It’s application is dependant on race. It therefore discriminates. Limiting marriage to opposite sexes does not discriminate in the same way. And you still may not get the partner you want, but you are free to marry whoever will have you.

What you’re calling discrimination would apply to gender designated restrooms and interspecies marriage as well. Why shouldn’t I be able to walk in on naked girls at the community center or marry a plant?

quote:
Originally written by Locmaar:

It's about people wanting to live their lifes vs. other people telling them what to do. There's the difference.
I have to wear a seatbelt in my state. That restricts my freedom even though I don’t risk hurting anyone but myself. Why should the government be able to tell me what to do?

quote:
Originally written by Pseudocrat:

[QUOTE]What's arbitrary about race?
The lines can be drawn any way you please. I could say that everyone taller than me is a different race just as easily as you could say everyone with different hair or skin color is. The census department has been having increasing difficulty as people from the same so-called race often view themselves as differently. For example, some Latinos don’t view themselves as Hispanic and vice versa. And if my great-great grandfather had a drop of African blood, does that make me African-American/Black? If my great grandmother was white, but I’m as black as midnight, why can’t I say my race is white? I recently heard of a case of an adopted “African-American” that found out that he was really of Indian descent. You’ll never get an adopted girl who grows up to find out she was really a boy all along (barring some rare defect).

quote:
The problem with voting by your beliefs is the fine line between that and forcing your beliefs on others. It would make sense to vote to make Christianity required by law. There's no reason other than religion to vote in such a way, though. Same-sex marriage is a similar problem: except for religious beliefs, there's really not any good reason to ban it.
No, evangelical Christians believe each individual has to make a decision and that this can’t be forced.

Your point on same-sex marriage is also not received. That’s why I was making a point of saying that some non-religious people feel it’s wrong, just like some religious people feel it’s ok. Either way, no one’s beliefs are forced on anyone else.

Out of curiosity, how do you view polygamy? Are laws against it discriminatory?
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Saturday, December 8 2007 08:33 Profile #53
quote:
Originally written by Elastikon:

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Marriage is treated differently. Everyone is equally free to marry.
And again, that isn't the issue.
For me it is. My initial question to Aran was concerning why she (or he, sorry, I don’t know) said the US governement was endorsed religion. While I think the population is religious, the government is not.

quote:
Originally written by Elastikon:

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

race is based on arbitrary manmade distinction. Gender is not.
Does that mean we can discriminate against women?
My point is that saying same sex marriage is not allowed is not the same as having white-only water fountains. The former is not discriminatory as it applies to everyone.

quote:
It may not be unique to Protestantism, but isn't it pretty classically Protestant?
Yes, but it’s also Chinese, Muslim, Catholic, Jewish, African, etc. What does the fact that a view is held by some religious people have to do with whether or not a government holds that position as well? Viewing murder as wrong is classically Protestant too.

Here’s what I’m really saying: If you have a secular view of the world, you are entitled to your opinion. But it seems hypocritical for you to then say that another person is not just as entitled to their opinion because they are religious or that they can’t vote for what they think is right and best for society because their views appear in a holy book. If someone’s trying to legislate you into their church, that’s one thing, but other than that I don’t see how one person’s views on morality are any less valid than another’s.

If you think same-sex marriage should be allowed but your right-wing-Bible-thumping neighbor disagrees, does he have less of a right to vote his beliefs than you? I’m apolitical, so I don’t have an opinion either way. It’s just that I’ve been seeing what I view as a trend towards Secular Extremism and I’m very curious about it.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Saturday, December 8 2007 02:26 Profile #51
quote:
Originally written by Elastikon:

[QUOTE]Originally written by Stillness:
[qb] heterosexual relationships are treated differently from homosexual relationships even if they are otherwise similar
Marriage is treated differently. Everyone is equally free to marry.

By the way, race is based on arbitrary manmade distinction. Gender is not.

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

We're only a few decades removed from a racial caste system; I don't see why this is at all hard to believe.
Indeed. It’s not very hard to believe. I was just unaware.

quote:
You're treating them all the same, but are you being fair?
It depends on what you’re trying to evaluate. Are you testing for knowledge of math? If so your test is bad. Are you testing for how well they can do math in an environment where English is spoken? You have a good test. I would not hire someone that did not speak English.

quote:
the notion that sentiment against homosexuality is universal among human cultures would be hilarious to me if it weren't so offensive.
I clarified my position. It was not meant to be offensive. I was just stating the fact that it’s not a protestant thing or even necessarily a religious one.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Friday, December 7 2007 11:38 Profile #35
quote:
Originally written by For Love of Skribbane:

the government shakes wags a stern, moralistic finger at them.
I would agree if homosexuality was still illegal, but it is not. Some Americans may feel it’s wrong, but the government doesn’t enforce that feeling.

quote:
Originally written by Elastikon:

Legal recognition with regard to, for example, hospital visitation and medical decision-making.
You can give rights to anyone with things like a durable power of attorney. I don’t see how this is discriminatory.

quote:
The Department of Defense still classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder
Is that enforced though? It might be illegal for me to kiss my wife on a Sunday after eating garlic, but the police aren’t exactly knocking down my door.

quote:
in 3/5 of the country, such discrimination is legal.
So you mean to tell me that if I tell a homosexual I won’t rent to them or they can’t come into my store because they’re gay in those 30 states it’s legal? I have a hard time seeing that. I’m not big on law, so I freely admit I could be wrong.

quote:
It isn't ubiquitous. It's certainly common to many different peoples and groups
The latter portion of your comment is really what I was getting at.

quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

Publicly decided measures on the equality of homosexuals (when deciding on their right to suffer a publicly condoned marriage) were almost all defeated in the last round of elections. Since the government bases a lot of rights (survivorship,etc) on the relationship of marriage
What does marriage have to do with equality? Inequality is when someone is treated differently. A homosexual man or woman has the same legal rights, restrictions, and protections that heterosexual ones do (unless Slarty is correct and they can be denied rights with inpunity). What you’re talking about are additional rights for everyone – namely same sex marriage. That wouldn’t effect equality anymore than provisions for marrying trees would.

And you can will your stuff to whomever you please.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Friday, December 7 2007 06:20 Profile #24
quote:
Originally written by Elastikon:

homosexuals and other queer people aren't given all the rights and privileges of straights.
I think they are. The only thing I can think of is military restrictions on sharing your sexuality, but not on practicing it. But in general, discrimination based on sexuality is illegal here.

By the way, a sentiment of anti-homosexuality is far from being the sole property of conservative Protestants. I think it's safe to say it's ubiquitous the world over.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Thursday, December 6 2007 23:39 Profile #20
I know this is a little off the issue, but I’m curious about what you mean by this:

quote:
Originally written by Arancaytar:

for a country whose constitution expressly forbids its laws to endorse any religion (but apparently that doesn't extend to abortions and homosexuals…
I think there are religious people in the US who fall on either side of these issues. Abortion is legal and I’m pretty sure homosexuality laws are off the books or at least unenforced in all 50 states. If the US has laws that endorse religion I’m unaware of them. I think the government is pretty secular. What are you saying?
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
The Sky Is Falling...? in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Saturday, November 3 2007 09:58 Profile #291
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

You responded to his response.
No I didn't. I never saw his response. I do have to be honest and say that I saw a white screen after I posted and the thread started behaving oddly which made me think I was the culprit. But now one has to wonder if seals aren't all he's after. Hide your threads!

EDIT: I'll leave you all with the proof Salmon didn't want you to see that humans are behind global warming:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EDIP71Lviys

[ Saturday, November 03, 2007 10:03: Message edited by: Stillness ]
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
The Sky Is Falling...? in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Saturday, November 3 2007 03:10 Profile #288
Wait a minute...If the order of events is 1 I showed up and 2 you responded, how is it that my response killed the thread?

Edit: Lemme guess. You are killing seals to balance for the loss in polar bears?

[ Saturday, November 03, 2007 03:12: Message edited by: Stillness ]
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Sputnik in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Friday, October 5 2007 21:33 Profile #32
If you're going to compare apples-to-apples then go with what did happen during the cold war, not what could have happened...unless you're comparing stress levels. I think it's at least as high now - probably higher. I think this world is more uneasy.

quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

A one world government economy, where how much everyone everywhere in every position is paid, how much it costs every company to manufacture a product, and how much they sell it for...would be a good start to eliminating a load of evils.
If you're going extreme, go all the way and just eliminate money. We could just trade or do stuff for others out of love. That's what I'd like to see.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Sputnik in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Friday, October 5 2007 04:16 Profile #10
quote:
Originally written by root:

Meh. Frying-pan/fire comparisons don't apply to this. Firstly, the end of the cold war didn't cause the beginning of the war on terrorism
That's very much debatable. I've heard very good arguments that show how they are connected. That aside we've still gone from bad to bad.

And if the war on terror was just posturing and rhetoric, I'd say you have a point about sock puppets, but it's costing a lot in life and money.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Sputnik in General
Stillness
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
 written Thursday, October 4 2007 19:14 Profile #6
Good topic.

quote:
Originally written by Safey:

cold war is over and I have to say thats an improvement
About as much improvement as going from the frying pan to the fire. Is the "war on terror" preferable? What's up with the US and Iran? I hate to sound negative, but I can't see large scale improvement, nor do I see us pointing in that direction. At the most some pockets of the world are better in certain aspects.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00

Pages