Omaha Mall Shooting

Pages

AuthorTopic: Omaha Mall Shooting
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #256
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

They do differ in very basic, natural ways.
I'm not sure that you've ever substantiated this. I'd like you to explain, without an appeal to prejudice or to an ill-defined concept such as "society's views," how same-sex relationships differ from opposite-sex ones in ways that are directly relevant to marriage.

[ Thursday, December 13, 2007 14:29: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #257
To repeat what I've already said so you don't: men are not women. Marriages between men or marriages between women are not the same as marriages between women because anatomically they're not. What bearing does this have on the institution of marriage as a legal entity?

—Alorael, who also must point out that the government does not encourage, support, maintain, or inhibit the termination of marriage in any way except for the benefits of marriage itself. THe government doesn't seem to have any vested interested in having people get and stay married.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Warrior
Member # 6934
Profile #258
quote:
Originally written by Locmaar:

Stillness, your tiresome quoting out of context, turning and twisting other people's thoughts around, and then claiming that everybody agreed on your discourse is really annoying.
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

This is not what I did, but if I’m doing something you’re tired of then don’t address me. I’ll reciprocate.
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Really it’s not my practice to ignore posts directed to me. If I think your point is unrefutable, I’ll concede or say, “good point” or something along those lines. In this case, I admit I didn’t give it much thought after seeing the first part of your post, just like I’m doing with Locmaar’s nonsense from now on.
Could you possibly explain to me what exactly you mean by 'nonsense'? Or is it - by your own standards - enough to just declare something as nonsense in order not to deal with it?

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

The question about sexual classification is one I’ve thought a lot about since I do agree with the anti-gay marriage camp that practicing homosexuality is bad.
Why? This might shed some light on what you've been saying.

[ Thursday, December 13, 2007 14:53: Message edited by: Locmaar ]

--------------------
Always be true to yourself - unless you suck
Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00
Agent
Member # 8030
Profile Homepage #259
quote:
Is Alec=Najosz Thjsza Kjras?
Yes
Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #260
quote:
Originally written by Locmaar:

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

The question about sexual classification is one I’ve thought a lot about since I do agree with the anti-gay marriage camp that practicing homosexuality is bad.
Why? This might shed some light on what you've been saying.

Because if you still need to practice, then obviously you're not very good at it yet.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #261
That was the pun I was looking for. Thanks, Thuryl.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #262
I know a guy who offers lessons at reasonable rates.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #263
I've noticed something. These discussions where Stillness (or anyone) represents pretty much one entire side of an argument, and everyone else represents divergent points of view, makes for highly unsatisfying discourse. There is no satisfactory dialog with anyone who bases their belief about the nature and quality of all things on the Bible or a religious text. The answers are already perceived to have been given and set in stone. There is about a zero percent likelihood of alternate possibilities or even just interpretations being entertained. To do so is to destroy one's whole foundation of belief, being, and perception of safety in their world.

So, what did you expect? If the laws of some ancient Semites claimed God said homosexuality is an abomination, and someone 4000 years later sees that relic as God's pronouncement for all humankind and all time, well, how are you going to argue with that kind of devotion to the enlightened and non-discriminatory beliefs of ancient people who spent a lot of time killing or being killed by their Caananite neighbors?

Why not be a categorical discriminator if you follow the Bible lock and stock? You have God as your model, the greatest Discriminator of all: He apparently only spoke his truth and offered his graces for millennia to some wayward, bloody tribes in Mesopotamia, and ignored the rest of humankind. God is the Great Discriminator of ancient Palestine. Why should the modern day devotees of this ancient "enlightened" religion be anything other?

-S-

[ Thursday, December 13, 2007 19:46: Message edited by: Synergy ]

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator N:R Items The Lonely Celt A5 Items A5 Map
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #264
Speaking for the peanut gallery, it would be because it is politically correct to wave the flag (single color) of non-discrimination.

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted"
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #265
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

There is no satisfactory dialog with anyone who bases their belief about the nature and quality of all things on the Bible or a religious text.
About morality, sure. About constitutionality, I'm less inclined to agree. It seems likely that people could say, "This is morally wrong, but it's constitutional." Slavery was constitutional for about a century after the founding of the U.S., and I can acknowledge that while still believing that slavery is wrong.

Fortunately, this discussion is not about whether gay marriage is right or wrong, but about whether disallowing same-sex marriage is prejudicial discrimination in the same way that Jim Crow racism was.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Warrior
Member # 6934
Profile #266
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

quote:
Originally written by Locmaar:

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

The question about sexual classification is one I’ve thought a lot about since I do agree with the anti-gay marriage camp that practicing homosexuality is bad.
Why? This might shed some light on what you've been saying.

Because if you still need to practice, then obviously you're not very good at it yet.

:D

@ Synergy: Yes, well. But we other people had some sort of discourse, too. And maybe it's about leeting people like Stillness know that their propaganda doesn't grow well in certain places. Keeping up the resistance is important (holding fist to his head).

[ Thursday, December 13, 2007 20:58: Message edited by: Locmaar ]

--------------------
Always be true to yourself - unless you suck
Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #267
I think that where a lot of the confusion comes up is that you want to argue with someone that is anti legal recognition of gay marriage and you don’t understand that this is not my position. In short, my position is this: Your stance on gay marriage is not a more logical one than the fundamentalist-evangelical, nor more Constitutional. (In the latter portion I’m much more humble because of my great lack, but I’ve asked questions and raised scenarios that the legal minds don’t seem to be addressing, which gives me a feeling that it’s not completely baseless). This issue is a matter of opinion and morality, on both sides.

I didn’t argue that a male-female union was more natural to say it was better (which I think is a conclusion you could come to; which is probably why you assumed it without me taking you there), but to say it was unequal by nature to other unions. That is not something that could be said for a “black-white” opposite sex pairing when compared to one of the same “race.” So an argument equating other unions to heterosexual pairs falls short, as these are naturally unequal and unique. If you feel that unequal things should be treated equally, it seems that you need very good justification.

By the way, notice I called unions a “thing.” That’s because they are things, not people, like corporations are. An automotive company doesn’t say that the US should pay for it not making cars like it pays a farm for not growing corn and make Jim Crow comparisons to substantiate. Why? Because people are different from corporate entities – like marriages (loose definition of “corporate”).

Interestingly in China, a particularly secular nation, gay marriage/same-sex unions are unrecognized. Is the Christian right behind that as well?

-----

Ephesos, I’m sorry you think I evaded. I had written a longer response and then shortened it when Drew referred to varying State laws. But honestly, I don’t have an opinion on what should “be done” with them. If we’re talking about legalities, then we have to go with their legal sex.

Regarding your claims about me defending paying thousands of dollars for marriage: I’m doing no such thing. If you want to you can. My uncle married my wife and me in his basement with a few close friends and relatives on hand. Weeks later my father-in-law had a very large bar-b-que in his backyard with all of our family and friends. The only money that was spent was on food (his dollar) and a marriage license. My faith has no clergy class, so we don’t wear funny clothes. Neither do we pay for ceremonies. Even when our places of worship are used, there is no charge.

-----

Kel, only opposite sex pairings can produce children naturally and only they make use of the genitalia implied by their form. This makes them naturally different.

-----

quote:
Originally written by Oracularity:

the government does not encourage, support, maintain, or inhibit the termination of marriage in any way except for the benefits of marriage itself. THe government doesn't seem to have any vested interested in having people get and stay married.
This is an odd statement. Are you saying that something doesn’t happen except for when it happens?

quote:
Firstly, you're presupposing that homosexuality is unnatural, which flies in the face of science…
Alo, I’ve addressed your points, but I’m curious about your statement on saying homosexuality is not unnatural scientifically. What science are you referring to?

-----

Synergy, your points about the Bible are always so hopelessly wrong that I never know where to begin. God does not discriminate. From the Genesis on, Jehovah states his position as the God of all humanity and that he wants to help them all. His fairness and justice are constantly highlighted in everything he says and does. (Genesis 12:3; Leviticus 18:24-28; 19:33-36; Deuteronomy 10:17-19; 1 Kings 8:41-43; Job 34:10, 11; Ps 37:28; Micah 4:2-4; Matthew 24:14; Acts 10:34, 35; Galatians 2:6; 3:28; Revelation 5:9, 10; 22:2)

But really, your whole argument is misapplied because I’m not arguing Biblical morals.

-----

Locmarr, If I’m twisting words or misusing quotes, then give me an example of when I did it so I can at least explain myself. Otherwise, your posts merit no response from me.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #268
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Kel, only opposite sex pairings can produce children naturally and only they make use of the genitalia implied by their form. This makes them naturally different.
What do either of those things have to do with marriage?

quote:
Alo, I’ve addressed your points, but I’m curious about your statement on saying homosexuality is not unnatural scientifically. What science are you referring to?
Presumably the overwhelming amount of same-sex intercourse that occurs in nature.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #269
Kel, the point is that same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex unions. They are not equal. We assume that "all men are created equal" so we ignore inequalities in people based on that principle. We do not have a comparable universal principle regarding corporate entities that I know of. We treat them very differently based on what they are.

From that reasoning we could justify eating our young. That sounds more like opinion and non sequitor logic. I thought he was referring to some genetic studies that I was unaware of.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #270
According to that reasoning, Stillness, then any opposite sex-pairing incapable of doing those two things should not get government marriage benefits. Because then they would not be any more "naturally different" than a non-opposite sex-pairing. Right?

[ Friday, December 14, 2007 08:20: Message edited by: Fernication ]

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Warrior
Member # 6934
Profile #271
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Locmarr, If I’m twisting words or misusing quotes, then give me an example of when I did it so I can at least explain myself. Otherwise, your posts merit no response from me.
You are, I have, you didn't, I'm tired.
And I feel discriminated.

--------------------
Always be true to yourself - unless you suck
Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #272
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Kel, the point is that same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex unions.
I ask again what that has to do with marriage. If they differ, but do not differ in any way related to marriage, then they should be treated the same way with respect to marriage.

Put another way: The reason that racial discrimination in job applications is almost always prejudicial is that racial identity is of no significance to just about any job. But it is certainly true that an black person is not identical to a white person. In the same way, same-sex partnership is not identical to opposite-sex partnership, but in what way is the difference significant?

Discrimination (in the broad sense) based on irrelevant factors, such as race, is wrong. How is the sex of the two partners relevant to marriage?

[ Friday, December 14, 2007 09:38: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Councilor
Member # 6600
Profile Homepage #273
Originally by Stillness:

quote:
...and only they make use of the genitalia implied by their form. This makes them naturally different.
May I suggest reading the Wikipedia article on intersexuality? It's weird stuff.

quote:
According to the ISNA definition above, 1 percent of live births exhibit some degree of sexual ambiguity,[19] and that between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births are ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, including surgery to disguise their sexual ambiguity.
Dikiyoba.

--------------------
Episode 4: Spiderweb Reloaded
Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #274
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

(In the latter portion I’m much more humble because of my great lack, but I’ve asked questions and raised scenarios that the legal minds don’t seem to be addressing, which gives me a feeling that it’s not completely baseless). This issue is a matter of opinion and morality, on both sides.
What questions and scenarios have we not addressed? I'm pretty sure we've hit most of them. I think you may just be unwilling to acknowledge them.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #275
Homosexuality is quite common in animals, especially in the species most closely related to humans, bonobos. Biology has shown genetic and epigenetic factors that contribute to a homosexual phenotype. The factors are different for different taxa, but they're very much there.

If this is not "natural," then I must question what, exactly, you mean. It occurs among animals. It occurs among humans. It is not a condition considered deleterious by those who have it, so classifying it as a disease is highly problematic. Regardless of its genetic or non-genetic nature, what exactly makes homosexuality even possibly unnatural?

And I'm with Kel on equality and identicalness. No one is arguing that same-sex and opposite-sex couples are identical; they're obviously not. Therefore, they're not equal in a mathematical sense. The question is how the differences make any difference to marriage, which is not about sex or children.

Here's another question: same-sex marriages are different because men and women are different. Discrimination based on sex or gender is illegal, however. How is marriage different?

—Alorael, who would have you consider the fact that no two marriages are identical due to the myriad factors that go into two people and their relationship. Marriage must incorporate some degree of difference. You are being asked to justify putting the cutoff where you think it should be (or where evangelicals think it should be).
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Agent
Member # 2759
Profile Homepage #276
Is it natural or not? Scientists have discovered they can turn homosexuality on/off in flies. Crazy stuff.

--------------------
Espresso - as close as you're going to get to an intravenous caffeine shot.

Geneforge 4 stuff. Also, everything I know about Avernum | Avernum 2 | Avernum 3 | Avernum 4
Posts: 1104 | Registered: Monday, March 10 2003 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #277
quote:
Originally written by Airborne Stages:

And I'm with Kel on equality and identicalness. No one is arguing that same-sex and opposite-sex couples are identical; they're obviously not. Therefore, they're not equal in a mathematical sense. The question is how the differences make any difference to marriage, which is not about sex or children.
Well, if I may play devil's advocate for a moment, marriage as the law presently defines it is at least a little bit about sex, since failure or inability to consummate is grounds for an annulment in many jurisdictions.

Fun fact: the title of this topic is a perfect anagram of "Ooh, All My Ham Ingots!"

[ Friday, December 14, 2007 18:19: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #278
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

Well, if I may play devil's advocate for a moment
This is stepping out of character. :P

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted"
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Agent
Member # 8030
Profile Homepage #279
I'm wondering if any debate threads have ever achieved a length longer than this one.
Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #280
Yes. Many have, in fact.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00

Pages