posted
As a side note, I don't have any trouble with bestiality being made legal, on the grounds that I don't give a damn what happens to a horse. But it seems to me that even if marrying a horse were made legal, there would be some issues with the oath:
"Do you, John, take this horse, Dobbie, to be your lawfully married partner, to have and to etc?"
"I do".
"Do you, Dobbie, take this man, John, to be your lawfully married partner, to have and to etc?"
posted
And of course many same-sex couples have biological children of their own, either their own from previous heterosexual relationships, sperm donation or by surrogate parents.
Of course the state has an interest in encouraging committed couples to marry. As Rakeesh said, stability, pooled resources, and increased responsibility are all worthwhile results. The inclusion of homosexuals into a social framework may encourage more commitment and less promiscuity among the gay community. And the Report of the Secretary's Task Force on Youth Suicide suggested that suicide rates are highest for gay, lesbian, and transgendered teens. The existence of a valid social framework, and the (hopefully) increasing acceptance of homosexuality may help lessen that rate.
Personally, I see this as potentially a strong aid to marriage itself, as many heterosexuals have been treating marriage rather casually for quite some time now. Divorce rate is, what, 50%? And here we have a class of people who see the institution of marriage as being so important, so necessary for a lasting relationship, that they are willing to undergo ridicule and abuse to achieve it for themselves. The idea that two gay men who have been together for 20 years have less of a valid relationship than Britney Spears' famous 55-hour marriage is a sad one indeed.
I would like to see marriage once again considered to be the joining of two people for life, and it matters little to me what the genders of those people are.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Eugenics people, think of the eugenics!
Arguably KoM you could ethically argue against Beastiality under the grounds of animal (accidentely wrote that as "anime") cruelty.
However between two consenting and sentient human adults the same argument can not be made.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Here in the US the purpose of the state is to help the people. All the people. Even the minorities. Even the gay folks.
While I agree with the general thrust of Darth_Mauve's post, I think this part is so horribly wrong that I have to object. The purpose of the state is to prevent harm; not to help.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Arguably KoM you could ethically argue against bestiality under the grounds of animal (accidentely wrote that as "anime") cruelty.
Yes, someone who cared about animals might do that. I explicitly explained that I do not give a damn what happens to a horse.
As an aside, it's 'bestiality', from the adjective, 'bestial'. Not from 'beast', although the root is presumably the same.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In neither case is the purpose of the state to do what is good for the state.
Nor should people give up their happiness for the good of the state.
Someone made an argument that Homosexuality to the right is what Communism was 30 years ago--a rallying point. It was the devil we could all get behind and destroy. It was the threat so scary that true and good folks would obey their leaders blindly to be saved from it.
It is/was the devil that only with Christ-like striving could it be defeated.
Communism was defeated.
Faced with Homosexuality defeating them, they claim that for the good of the state---the happiness of a few must be denied. This is the same message that goes out daily on North Korean radio, that went out in each issue of Pravda.
To defend us from the new threat, they are becoming the old threat.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do think there's a bit of nuance to be had here. There is a difference between being denied a marriage license, and being systematically starved in a gulag. Do try not to go totally overboard on the rhetoric, eh?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Here in the US the purpose of the state is to help the people. All the people. Even the minorities. Even the gay folks.
While I agree with the general thrust of Darth_Mauve's post, I think this part is so horribly wrong that I have to object. The purpose of the state is to prevent harm; not to help.
This ain't even a matter of opinion, it's just straight-up incorrect. :/
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The state" is an organisation that exists in the minds of human beings; its purpose is, in effect, whatever those humans say it is. I suggest you qualify your statements a bit, so they no longer refer to some non-existent Platonic ideal of The State, but the actual organisations that we deal with in the real world.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure she'll be crying into her feedbag tonight that an unimportant nobody made fun of her on a webforum while she has to go home and snuggle Matthew Broderick. Her life must be hell.
I understand she and Matthew are having twins by Surrogate as well. I guess she didn't want to ruin her body by foaling.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apart from the unkindness of the joke, I must say I don't see the supposed resemblance to a horse. Which makes it fall kind of flat.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi, I came out of lurkerdom to ask this question (and voice some opinions), and will probably return afterward, but why are conservatives in favor of banning gay marriage?
As a conservative, this bugs me, because both opponents and proponents of gay marriage are seeking for the same amount of government regulation and intervention in the form of constitutional amendments.
I am in favor of the government butting out and leaving the matter entirely in the hands of the cultural institutions. If the government wants to give tax incentives to people who form partnerships, then civil unions are the answer and should be available to anyone, even beyond homosexual couples.
For instance, if two single moms wanted to combine their households, they could get a civil union. Such an arrangement would be good for "the state" because reducing two households to one reduces things like carbon emissions and sprawl. Housepooling right along with carpooling.
The only reason I can see for gay marriage to be a partisan issue is that the republican party has moved so far away from small government that they have to make non-issues into hot topics because otherwise no-one would vote for them.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: As for a man marrying a horse, it's already happened was was perfectly legal.
Well, your 'joke' was effectively: this lady is really, really, really ugly.
Yeah, Pix, you're gonna catch some flak for that, because it's just a nasty thing to say - even if the subject of the insult probably wouldn't give a sh@#, and that's even if she ever heard about it, which is of course extremely unlikely.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good point, Jamio. I concur with your idea of expanding civil unions beyond the basis of romantic connections.
However I wonder how boundary conditions would be set for establishing such civil unions. As a case in point, I refer back to a situation I posed in a thread discussing Proposition 8 in CA. I believe the idea posed by the situation can easily be generalized to a multitude of cases.
Suppose I have just started university and live in housing with roommates. To gain eligibility for higher Pell grants and for other tax benefits I establish a non-romantic civil union with a roommate.
Should such a situation be sanctioned? I honestly have no strong opinion one way or another here. I don't know what conditions would be requisite for civil unions. The purpose of the example is to illustrate that some kinds of conditions may be required.
**Post edited** Change in bold (from definite to indefinite).
posted
i thought the joke was we expected it to be a legitimate news story but only found a normal human couple with the implication that she is ugly, its the betraying of our naive expectations thats funny.
IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing is, Scholarette, nothing at all! Good point. Sure enough, opposite gender roommates can now. And, maybe they should?! Tax breaks and financial benefits are there for the taking provided requirements are satisfied. Thinking about it in that light, I am surprised that opposite gender roommates don't do it much more often than they do.
As I said, I don't have any firm stand or opinion on the particular situation. I am just trying to posit circumstances where society may want to "define the line" about how/when civil unions apply, other than the current inferred basis of romantic partnership.
Perhaps there don't need to be any lines other than the approval of the mutual parties involved in a civil union?
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It apparently grants every right except the actual word "married" to same sex couples, but once it's passed, it's only a matter of time before the word follows.
See, I don't think that follows. I think that states which do what Washington is doing will be among the last to allow it to be called marriage. The average voter simply won't see the importance of a word.
Yeah but, that isn't the case at the moment. Right now, a lot of people DO have a problem with the word, which is why it isn't an out and out gay marriage bill. If it wasn't important, there wouldn't be a necessity to specifically exclude the word.
But when it is acceptable, there will certainly be people there to agitate for change, and if it really isn't a problem, then it'll go through. I don't think they'll be the last because no one care so it won't be an issue.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, I forgot to thank you earlier for your very informative wee-hour-of-the-morning post about the status of SSM debate in so many states. It was very helpful and interesting. Just want to let you know that your time spent researching and consolidating information is appreciated.
posted
You're welcome, and as an update, New Hampshire's legislature pass their gay marriage bill today as well.
Governor Lynch will have five days from the moment it reaches his desk to veto or sign the bill, or it becomes law without his signature.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:At present there is a crusade to have them treated exactly the same as the majority group.
Shock horror! Treating a minority group as human beings with the same rights as normal people, good white protestants that make up the majority of the wor- oh, I mean, wait a second, hang on...
Give us a break. People are people. You're gonna actually start the "majorities deserve less" argument?
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Usually I make fun of myself, but I look like an old crone, not a horse, so the joke wouldn't work.
I'm sorry you have no sense of humor.
Don't worry Pixiest, I found it funny. Unfortunately this forum has SERIOUS people who are SERIOUS. And while they can make fun of people like Blayne Bradley to his face whenever they want, posting a random comment about a celebrity's looks on a forum that the target is never, ever going to see is totally off-limits.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Don't worry Pixiest, I found it funny. Unfortunately this forum has SERIOUS people who are SERIOUS. And while they can make fun of people like Blayne Bradley to his face whenever they want, posting a random comment about a celebrity's looks on a forum that the target is never, ever going to see is totally off-limits.
I dare you to be more inaccurate.
Mocking Blayne for specific behaviors and saying, "She is hideously ugly," are two very different things. Don't get me wrong. It's not as though I think the insult matters. It's not a big deal.
But, "It's not a big deal!" isn't actually a rebuttal to, "That was a bad thing to say." Nor of course is, "They're too SERIOUS!"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie: Nothing is, Scholarette, nothing at all! Good point. Sure enough, opposite gender roommates can now.
Isn't that the basic plot of an upcoming Sandra Bullock movie? In fact, "faking" a marriage in order to dupe the government is a staple romance novel formula (I only read the dust jackets, honest).
Posts: 101 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Don't worry Pixiest, I found it funny. Unfortunately this forum has SERIOUS people who are SERIOUS. And while they can make fun of people like Blayne Bradley to his face whenever they want, posting a random comment about a celebrity's looks on a forum that the target is never, ever going to see is totally off-limits.
I dare you to be more inaccurate.
Mocking Blayne for specific behaviors and saying, "She is hideously ugly," are two very different things. Don't get me wrong. It's not as though I think the insult matters. It's not a big deal.
But, "It's not a big deal!" isn't actually a rebuttal to, "That was a bad thing to say." Nor of course is, "They're too SERIOUS!"
Don't know how I'm being inaccurate at all.
I quite agree that they are two very different things. Frankly I think the former is far more cruel (though I don't particular care about it either) than the latter.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wanted to, in fairness, point out that Pix's joke wasn't just her saying Sarah Jessica Parker is hideously ugly. She was alluding to a pretty common perception of Sarah Jessica Parker having something of a horse face. A quick google search will reveal Pix isn't the only one who thinks this.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nod* I will freely admit to thinking that Sarah Jessica Parker looks like a horse and occasionally making fun of Blayne. I can do this because I am a horrible person.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Humor is subjective. Accept it. Not agreeing that something is funny is not the same thing as being too serious.
I'm one of those who didn't find this one funny and have never found the jokes about Sarah Jessica Parker's looks to be funny. Perhaps it's because I've been the butt of one too many jokes about my looks in the past. You see, when things are subjective, we view them through the skewed perspective of our personalities and personal history.
It doesn't mean I'm too serious. I find many things funny. Just not this.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok enough people laughed that I don't feel so bad about the joke anymore. I'm sorry some people were offended, though and my lesson is learned. Next time I think about lightening the mood on a thread with a SJP joke, I'll just say Neigh.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I just wanted to, in fairness, point out that Pix's joke wasn't just her saying Sarah Jessica Parker is hideously ugly. She was alluding to a pretty common perception of Sarah Jessica Parker having something of a horse face. A quick google search will reveal Pix isn't the only one who thinks this.
I wouldn't have found funny a bald assertion that Sarah Parker (btw someone has yet to explain to me why nearly everybody indulges certain celebrities by saying three names instead of the customary two) is really ugly.
I found something sort of funny about the Pixiest post, though, because it really wasn't just "she's ugly, ha ha ha". It had the same element of surprise/subversion that underlies a lot of humor. And of course, as Dan says, there's the tie-in to the popular perception of a "horse face", which isn't automatically ugly*, btw, just a "long" face esp. a long nose. Penelope Cruz has also been said to have a horsey face and she's stunningly beautiful IMO.
Yes, it was mean. No, I don't care (at all) because Sarah bathes in adulation and riches (and Garnier Fructis) and she can tolerate attempts to knock her down a peg from anonymous strangers in obscure corners of the web. Ridicule is always going to be part of the price of celebrity, and I'm fine with that. [Well, let me disclose that I just find her one of the more annoying celebrities, although definitely not down on the rung with the VH1 crew. But I'd still have found the joke funny if it was about Cruz, even though I love her.]
I guess personal appearance is just a thing that some people feel is off limits...(?)
In other news, a man married his dog (the dog's drool actually made the slope more slippery, from what I understand).
*I guess since the joke has already been beat to death and then some like the horse it rode in on, we could just ask Pixiest if she thinks SP is ugly.
Edited for missing "funny"
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Anyway, I think SJP is rather pretty, especially back when she was in LA Story."
OK, so for others - is this sufficient evidence that The Pixiest did not intend malice with the joke? Can it be funny if she's not saying SJP is ugly?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: (btw someone has yet to explain to me why nearly everybody indulges certain celebrities by saying three names instead of the customary two)
Usually it's because someone with that name is already in SAG. You can't have the same name as someone in SAG. That's why Michael J. Fox uses the initial: because there was already a Michael Fox. And presumably, there was already a Sarah Parker.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So we all love at least most of the works of OSC and most of us are strongly in favor of SSM.
How do you reconcile your belief in equal rights with support for OSC? Unless the accounts I have read are wrong he is rabidly anti-SSM.
I know we can all separate the two but would you still read OSC if he had views that were personally very objectionable to you? (You pick one for yourself, I do not want to create controversy by giving you some potential examples.)
Just a question. Thanks. My first post. I am interested in your views.
posted
Well, your post seems to me to be quite a loaded question, making me wonder how much it really is 'just a question', but...
I don't vet my entertainment by the entertainers politics, generally. That's my reason. I also don't vet my barber's politics to ensure I'm not supporting someone whose views I object to.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the forum exists plenty who argue the point vociferously and plenty who disagree with him passionately and a few who have become outright hostile to him in response to his World Watch articles, many of whom have since vanished. But his 'fringe'-iest writings provoked HUGE, spiraling debates that exhaustively covered the large-scale disagreement that Card has inspired — for both his words and his deeds — in the forum community at large.
As for still reading the books, it's just like still looking at a Caravaggio even if you don't like the artist. Still art. If he still makes good books, I'd still read them, still think they're good books, etc.
I mean, unless I knew somehow that proceeds from the books go to anti-SSM causes, in which case I'd just shrug and wait to pick up a copy at a yard sale or sommat.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
