You do not [need] the approval, permission, endorsement or blessings of those that are not to do what you like to yourself. In a free society, what you put into your own body (or how) is your own business.
You do not need permission to call yourselves a couple, or live together, or even to call yourself married. Marriage is not some universal function that you have to participate in. It is a purely human construct in a purely human society. And such a construct was put together under the definition of a union between a man and a woman by religous leaders. And historically it has served two purposes; religious and political.
It makes as much, or more, sense to discard the ENTIRE concept of marriage (especially considering its religious foundation), then to change the definition to satisfy less than 3% of the population. Or ANY percentage. Unless of course you are planning a homosexual political marriage… or if you are a religous person, in which case if your religion says ‘no’ then you either need to find a new religion, or accept its rules. I mean, you accept thier authority on the fate of your ‘immortal soul’ but they are wrong about the use of a dink? (I am not excluding female homosexuality, terms for male genatialia is just funnier)
No one, NO ONE, has the right to force people to do things they disapprove of. If one of those marriage brokers does not WANT to marry you, this is his RIGHT. If you go into a coffee shop, and the girl behind the counter does not like your shirt, she has the RIGHT to refuse to serve you.
You do have the right to avoid that which you don’t like. If the word cunt offends you, you can choose not to read this post (again, I guess it is too late now). If you disapprove of Steven Colbert, you can change the channel.
If mister Colbert does not have the right to force you to watch his show, then why would a homosexual couple have the right to force a priest to perform a ceremony he PERSONALLY dislikes. A coffee shop can refuse to serve anyone, but a church cannot?
Discrimination? So people no longer have the right to decide what they do, and do not like? If I don’t like you because of your face, this is my RIGHT. And I can exercise this right by leaving, or kicking you out of my home, as the situation warrants. (to be clear, kicking one out of my house rarely involves actual kicking)
So do what you want and stop trying to get eveyone elses approval. And more to the point; quit trying to deprive people of their right to dislike shit.
You DO have the right to stick yer wiener up a (willing) sphincter, and I DO have the right to say “that is nasty.” This is the essence of freedom.
Afterword - This is in response to the remarkable close-mindedness I encountered when I dared question homosexuality in a thread touting increased tolerance as a social victory. Actually, to be fair the purpose of that thread was simply to verify methodologies involved in said survey. But when I challenged the viability ofhomosexuality as a social norm I encounterd a tremendous amount of rhetoric, fallacies and bias that actually rendered any discussion impossible. Amazing how someone playing devils advocate on a subject they have zero vested interest in can elicit such a response with a couple speculations and questions. I care little about peoples sexual lives, but I do so hate stupid and the amount of stupid I saw, HERE of all places, has put my dander up.
Odd that you mention fallacies. Because your post contains one glaring one. In no laws proposed or passed have priests/rabbis/mullahs/whomever been expected to marry a same-sex couple. In every legislation, all celebrants were free to marry or not marry whomever they choose. No church is forced to marry anyone. Right now, no priest is obligated to marry a Catholic to a Jew. If it violates the Church, then it can refuse.
qutsemnie - Sure. Except that it has also been a polical tool. If we can agree it is no longer viable for that either, then certainly, remove it.
Happy… you do know the definition of fallacy right? Such as the ‘red herring fallacy?’ The one where you bring the focus of a discussion somewhere that is not the actual point. Such as contesting a blanket statement about rights by pointing out a rights violation that may not have occured yet was referenced in the same? Also, my computer is not on my roof. That one I don’t get at all.
Edit - Actually that may be the fallacy of composition; if part of a statement is invalid then it must all be. Either way, I never asserted such was occuring, had occured, or would ever occured. I asserted no one has the right to force a priest to marry someone they do not wish to. An assertion you actually seem to agree with.
My point—you are so upset that someone is “forced” to accept same-sex marriage. You say:
No one, NO ONE, has the right to force people to do things they disapprove of. If one of those marriage brokers does not WANT to marry you, this is his RIGHT. If you go into a coffee shop, and the girl behind the counter does not like your shirt, she has the RIGHT to refuse to serve you.
I don’t care how you feel about gay people or same-sex marriage. I seriously couldn’t care less. I had no intention of getting into this and feeding your bigotry. But get your facts straight. Marriage brokers have the legal right to deny marriage to ANYONE they want.
Of course, metaphorically on the roof. Why is figurative language lost on some people?
Wrote and posted this before your edit.
You can make whatever argument you want. I’m not saying your opinion is wrong because you got facts wrong. If you want to contend something, then make sure you don’t make serious errors. It makes it easier for people to take you seriously. Not me, but some people
`
Uh, didn’t you just say that this topic isn’t ‘even interesting’ to you Stormy?? And yet, here you are, right back at it…...and moreover, starting an entire NEW thread about it! Fascinating, psychologically. Anyway….
`
You DO have the right to stick yer wiener up a (willing) sphincter, and I DO have the right to say “that is nasty.” This is the essence of freedom.
And people have the same right to say ‘that is nasty’ about almost any heterosexual bedroom activity as well (which often INCLUDES the very specific ‘nasty’ act you referred to above :) And speaking of, did you think you were describing an exclusively ‘homosexual’ activity there? You have to be aware of the fact that the wiener/sphincter thing is a widespread activity of heterosexuals as well, yes? Well, maybe not :)
`
Amazing how someone playing devils advocate on a subject they have zero vested interest in can elicit such a response with a couple speculations and questions
Stormy, given the frequency of your engagement on this topic, and your head-in-the-sand ‘approach’ to responding, you obviously have more of a ‘vested interest’ than you’re admitting.
`
I do so hate stupid and the amount of stupid I saw, HERE of all places, has put my dander up
Stormy, you have consistently failed to defend/back-up your assertions on this topic in this forum. Many posters have rebutted yourfallacious ‘points’ and you’ve come back with absolutely nothing substantial or releveant to defend them. Then, you just resort to dismissing every counter point made by slapping ‘stupid’ on it. That’s how children make ‘arguments’ Stormy. You’ll need to do better than that.
The bottom line, Stormy, is that you seem to be of the ‘it’s ookie so it’s wrong’ camp (since that’s the only ‘reason’ of yours that stands up to scrutiny) and desperately want others to NOT see homosexuality as being acceptable….....but until you can demonstrate/back up/illustrate what great ‘harm’ is caused by homosexuality, you’ve got nothing. And up to this point, that’s precisely what you’ve been offering.
I’m pleased that you are so liberal in allowing people to do anything they want, S-FW. However, many states prohibit or won’t recognize (just as the federal government doesn’t recognize) marriage between homosexuals. As such, many of the benefits of marriage are denied to gays. Everything from Income tax exemptions, hospital restrictions that don’t apply to spouses, inheritance laws, and a few others mean that as citizens they are denied benefits given to others. While you may find their sexual activities personally distasteful, do your libertarian views extend to allowing them the above benefits?
Since failing to adress your sentences one a time is ‘head in the sand tactics’ I will, just for this post, address each individually, and as part of the whole.
Uh, didn’t you just say that this topic isn’t ‘even interesting’ to you Stormy?? And yet, here you are, right back at it…...and moreover, starting an entire NEW thread about it! Fascinating, psychologically. Anyway….
In my afterword I stated the exact reason for this post. You even quoted it and responded, so I will address that later in this post.
And people have the same right to say ‘that is nasty’ about almost any heterosexual bedroom activity as well (which often INCLUDES the very specific ‘nasty’ act you referred to above. And speaking of, did you think you were describing an exclusively ‘homosexual’ activity there? You have to be aware of the fact that the wiener/sphincter thing is a widespread activity of heterosexuals as well, yes? Well, maybe not
You got that right, you have the right to call me or anything I do ‘nasty’ all you want.
Stormy, given the frequency of your engagement on this topic, and your head-in-the-sand ‘approach’ to responding, you obviously have more of a ‘vested interest’ than you’re admitting.
Back to your fist quote, my first response, and my upcoming one.
Stormy, you have consistently failed to defend/back-up your assertions on this topic in this forum. Many posters have rebutted your fallacious ‘points’ and you’ve come back with absolutely nothing substantial or releveant to defend them. Then, you just resort to dismissing every counter point made by slapping ‘stupid’ on it. That’s how children make ‘arguments’ Stormy. You’ll need to do better than that.
My assertions on peoples right to dislike something is “fallacious?” Exactly what fallacy has been presented in this thread by me? What points have been refuted that I failed to address? And what argument did I ever dismiss or call stupid?
The bottom line, Stormy, is that you seem to be of the ‘it’s ookie so it’s wrong’ camp (since that’s the only ‘reason’ of yours that stands up to scrutiny) and desperately want others to NOT see homosexuality as being acceptable….....but until you can demonstrate/back up/illustrate what great ‘harm’ is caused by homosexuality, you’ve got nothing. And up to this point, that’s precisely what you’ve been offering.
The bottom line is that you have replied to a topic about civil rights and liberties, without understanding the stance of the author, and completely missed the point of the post while at the same time attempted to discredit the source without addressing the topic. That seems alot more ‘head-in-the-sand’ to me.
The bottom line is that no has the right to tell someone else what they are ALLOWED to dislike, or like.
The bottom line is that your reading comprehension is abyssmal. In the thread I met you before I was interested enough in the subject to attempt to start a debate about the viability of the same. What I got was not a debate, it was responses such as the one I am currently replying to. Ones that missed the point, contributed nothing, and appear suspiciously like ad hominen. Interesting how it never even occured to you I may be gay.
The bottom line is that if you cannot be objective, then that is fine, recuse yourself and allow others who may be to discuss it.
Edit - Occam, I already answered that. Go ahead and abolish it. As far as I can tell it is just a formality anyway. And while we are at it, a new tax system may be a good idea. A simpler that did not require an entire industry to sit between you and the tax man to decipher. I love that, you pay someone just to figure out how much you have to pay someone else. Now that is stupid.
`
Stormy, go back to the original thread to see all of the rebuttals you simly ‘dismissed’...........the issue of sex having ‘purposes’ outside of procreation, for one.
And of course, everyone’s allowed to ‘dislike’ whatever they want. No one here has argued otherwise, have they??
The bottom line there is: if person A simply ‘dislikes’ some non-harming behaviour of person B, that personal dislike shouldn’t be given the force of law to negatively affect person B’s rights/privileges.
`
Stormy Fairweather - 27 June 2010 05:22 PM
Interesting how it never even occured to you I may be gay.
The bottom line is that if you cannot be objective, then that is fine, recuse yourself and allow others who may be to discuss it.
Why do you keep bringing this up? Whether you are (or i am) gay or not has absolutely no bearing on whether the points we make are solid and hold up to scrutiny. Could you please explain how one’s ‘objectivity’ is an issue if the points they make are valid? Or do you simply think that if someone is biased, that automatically renders their points dismissable, regardless of their mert? I’m curious to know which it is for you.
I never asserted such was occuring, had occured, or would ever occured. I asserted no one has the right to force a priest to marry someone they do not wish to.
`
Why on earth would you say/assert that ‘no one has the right to force a priest to marry someone they do not wish to’ if you’re NOT asserting that it’s happening or would ever happen? Why even mention it then?
Here in Canada, where same-sex marriage has been legal for quite a few years now, priests/clergy aren’t and wouldn’t ever be forced to marry anyone they didn’t want to.
So, if you’re not asserting that priests are being forced to marry certain people or that this would ever occur, what was your point in bringing it up?
