Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on January 01, 2008, 09:28:48 PM
-
Anyone else see this documentary? I just caught it on Sundance Channel. Very, very good film. The story of a long standing foundation that gave scholarships to every student that graduated, donated land for schools and the efforts of administrators that moved into the district to undermine the principals of the foundation.
Seems since the money was coming from an old logging family with christian values. A new Superintendant tried to install gay and lesbian groups, abolish the dress code and more or less force his vision upon the community.
I HIGHLY reccomend watching this film if you have the opportunity.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0492947/
-
Didn't mean to interrupt crickets chirping due to some giving the thread a wide berth cause, well, it's obviously a smokescreen to cover your Godless commie agenda ... but ... thanks fo the recommendation. I'll check it out. :D
-
This review seems to suggest a slightly different view, with something your writeup oddly neglected:
Another disturbing situation has Lowther taking the barbarous initiative to publish names and addresses of SCHOOL KIDS whom organized a Gay Rights, silent inner-school protest event (Lowther PURCHASED PAID, ADVERTISEMENT space in the Local Newspaper to PUBLISH ADDRESSES of the HOMES FAMILIES of these kids and the 'atrocities and immoral actions of the kids'!!).
These stories are rarely as one sided as folks would think.
-
Sometimes a Great Notion
Now that was a movie about an Oregon timber town.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
This review seems to suggest a slightly different view, with something your writeup oddly neglected:
(unsourced review)
These stories are rarely as one sided as folks would think.
Nor is it always as simple as presenting a different side being a valid unbiased trump card all it's own. You forgot the source. If you're wanting to provide a complete and honest picture don't forget the frame. :)
-
"Quid-pro-quo" 's summary on IMDB is about as far off the mark as possible. I thought the film was very even handed in it's presentation.
Congradulations to Mr. Lowther for standing up for his family's principals.
-
It's at rpm's link, silly.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
It's at rpm's link, silly.
Ah. Silly me. RPM's actually seen the doc and, whether his viewpoint is biased or not, your immediate reaction was to look for a viewer comment to support your own obverse reactionary bias without bothering to go much past that. Picture a bit more complete in that context. Thanks.
Guess I'm gonna watch it and form my own opinion, afterall. :)
-
:huh Where'd ya get that?
-
Confusing? I was wrong?
RPM recommends something he saw.
Arlo thanks RPM for the recommendation and slots the flick for possible viewage.
Chairboy quotes a viewer comment (review) on the IMDB site RPM referenced that didn't concur with RPM's opinion (unsourced but, hey, everyone shoulda seen it and appreciated it).
Arlo made the "mistake" of asking for a source to put the review in greater context and assumed that since Chairboy is quoting it that he's not in a position to offer an actual personal opinion on the piece from a first-person standpoint and is reliant on said review.
Chairboy provides said source, giving Arlo a more complete picture on how the counter-point was deriven.
Arlo thanks Chairboy for the provision and proclaims his intent unchanged.
Thanks, again. :)
-
Arlo, he was just quoting the review posted at IMDB. It's not his fault it was a pi$$ poor review.
I'm probably not on the side of the issue most would would think.
-
Nobody here's as easy to read as those entirely reliant on presumption would like to think (and like to convince others of). ;)
-
:aok
-
I just watched the replay on Sundance and I'm pizzed off all over again.
The students calling the Clemens Foundation scumbags because they won't give them a free 4 year ride because they stand for principals the foundation does not believe in.
That's ludicrous. Why don't they try to get money from Greenpeace to start a commercial whaling operation? I guess Greepeace are scumbags, too. (well, you get the point)
-
That's ludicrous. Why don't they try to get money from Greenpeace to start a commercial whaling operation? I guess Greenpeace are scumbags, too. (well, you get the point)
Very nicely said. :D
-
Oregon has unfortunately been transformed a lot by all of the immigration into the state from other more liberal states, especially California. The state is now seriously divided politically on many issues, with Republicans controlling rural areas, and Democrats controlling all of the major urban areas.
In the 2006 election, Democrats won control of both houses of the legislature, and also the governorship too. One of the first things the legislature did last year was to give special rights to gay couples to have civil unions, which gives them equivalent legal rights as married couples. This new law was to go into effect yesterday, but a legal challenge has fortunately blocked it from being implemented. Voters had previously past a referendum a couple of years ago outlawing gay marriage in the state, so the legislature was unable to make gay marriage legal.
The issue of using Indian related names as school mascots has continued to be a big issue, with a committee set up by the state's Department of Education recommending that all 15 schools with such mascots be required to give them up by September of 2009, even if the schools and their communities did not want to. The State Superintendent of Schools, a liberal Democrat, will be making the final decision on this issue soon.
You can read about it here:
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=30535&sid=1&fid=1
These schools complain that these changes will cost them many thousands of dollars to implement, and also reject the charge that they are racists by calling their sports teams "Braves" or "Warriors". In fact, they say that they are honoring Indians by doing this.
SIG 220
-
Yeah, we don't want any of the gays getting married because then all of our heterosexual marriages will catch fire.
...I'm gonna have to say I'm not a huge fan of fellow Oregonian Sig's post.
-
thats what i don't understand about people against gay marriage. is it going to hurt your marriage? no. Is it going to corrupt and warp your poor little childrens minds? no. so whats the big deal. it's their buisness and since it doesn't harm yours why get your panties in a wad?
-
The United States has a fine tradition of sticking our noses in each other's business. The two-faced'ness of it is great too. The same folks that tell other people to mind their own business turn around and say the government better damn well make a constitutional amendment to force their beliefs on someone else. My favorite "counter argument" is when the anti-gay marriage folks say "Well, they're FORCING their gay marriage on US!". Nah, not unless you're getting naked with them on their honeymoon.
My question: If we have to put up with marriage, then why don't they? :D
My theory: The folks who object to gay marriage are the same ones that want to be able to keep trumpeting the immorality of gays and don't want them to do anything that'll hurt that line.
-
bungaroo, because it is the first step to something more dangerous.
If 2 adults of the same gender want to live together, touch each other, etc that is within their own rights as individuals. However, having the law recognize same-sex marriages AS a family (marriage=forming a family) opens a can of worms.
Many of these couples will eventually want to feel 'like a family' and want to adopt a kid.
That is the problem. You would be opening a legal loophole where innocent kids who have not created their own sexual identity will be placed in these homes.
Any and all children learn and emulate social and sexual behavior from the adults that care for them... placing them in these homes has a very high risk of these kids taking that behavior with them from home to school (getting picked on by the other kids and likely being ostracized, difficulty forming relationships with either gender, etc) from school to college and on to professional environments.
They may be doing the kids a good thing by adopting them in the short run but in the long run they may end up hurting their futures deeply.
Personally i'd say let homosexual couples register as a couple for tax reasons (as they are a household if they live together) but do not grant them recognition of marriage or as a family or allow them to adopt. They are what they are: 2 consenting adults minding their own business. When a 3rd person (kid) is involved who is not their own (genetically) they cease to be 2 consenting adults and become 2 consenting adults trying to get an innocent kid into their home.
-
Originally posted by Tac
Many of these couples will eventually want to feel 'like a family' and want to adopt a kid.
That is the problem.
I think I'd worry more about couples where one or both is a closet pedophile adopting a child before this would register on the scope. Or alcoholics. Or bigots.
*IF* (and this seems a stretch) a gay couple had an agenda of adopting a child to promote homosexual sexuality to it, I could equate it to the aforementioned disfunctionality. I didn't become heterosexual *because* my father slept with my mother. All that assured was that I was conceived and not a bastard. What made me a functional rather disfunctional member of society was being raised in a loving and caring enviroment.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Yeah, we don't want any of the gays getting married because then all of our heterosexual marriages will catch fire.
...I'm gonna have to say I'm not a huge fan of fellow Oregonian Sig's post.
So you don't believe in democracy??
The people had the chance to vote, and gay marriage lost, as it has in most states across the nation.
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by SIG220
So you don't believe in democracy??
The people had the chance to vote, and gay marriage lost, as it has in most states across the nation.
SIG 220
If people took a vote and your marriage was outlawed/anulled (no longer legally qualifying for recognition as a marriage) for some moral perception (maybe someone presented proof you had premarital sex) would that be right? Fair? Don't you believe in democracy?
Just looking for the defining litmus here. ;)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The United States has a fine tradition of sticking our noses in each other's bu My favorite "counter argument" is when the anti-gay marriage folks say "Well, they're FORCING their gay marriage on US!".
Well, but since the people of Oregon have voted AGAINST Gay Marriage, imposing it on the public in defiance of such a vote is indeed forcing it on the people.
The clear majority of Oregonians don't want it.
More Liberals need to be imported into the state in order for this to change.
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by SIG220
Well, but since the people of Oregon have voted AGAINST Gay Marriage, imposing it on the public in defiance of such a vote is indeed forcing it on the people.
The clear majority of Oregonians don't want it.
More Liberals need to be imported into the state in order for this to change.
SIG 220
If the populance voted to reinstitute negro slavery would that be a liberal or conservative standpoint and should it be upheld in either case, in your opinion?
-
Originally posted by Arlo
If people took a vote and your marriage was outlawed/anulled (no longer legally qualifying for recognition as a marriage) for some moral perception (maybe someone presented proof you had premarital sex) would that be right? Fair? Don't you believe in democracy?
Just looking for the defining litmus here. ;)
That is comparing Apples and Oranges. Taking away a right that has existed for thousands of years is different than granting a new right.
I have no objection to the state having a Civil Unions law that gives equivalent rights, as long as it does not give special rights only to homosexuals, as the current law that is on legal hold does.
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I think I'd worry more about couples where one or both is a closet pedophile adopting a child before this would register on the scope. Or alcoholics. Or bigots.
*IF* (and this seems a stretch) a gay couple had an agenda of adopting a child to promote homosexual sexuality to it, I could equate it to the aforementioned disfunctionality. I didn't become heterosexual *because* my father slept with my mother. All that assured was that I was conceived and not a bastard. What made me a functional rather disfunctional member of society was being raised in a loving and caring enviroment.
Well Arlo, in the case of such heterosexual couples adopting a kid planning to abuse him/her .. there is really no way to tell really. That is a sort of issue taken to the extreme for this argument...its like saying they might be adopted by a potential serial killer or something.
And im not saying the homosexual couples would adopt a kid to turn him/her into becoming a homosexual. I'm saying that kids are monkey see monkey do when they are very young. If its ok for dad1 to kiss dad2 why cant i kiss my friend at school that's my same gender? i wonder what its like to have a mom/dad ... etc. The kid may not be homosexual but the mannerisms, gestures, behaviour.. that is all learned at home from the parents. Kids don't develop their own social behaviour, they emulate it. It is why I bet almost everyone here has been told at one point in their life that 'you smirk/smile like your dad' or 'you have your mom's stare', etc. You've been copying it since you were a kid!
-
Originally posted by Arlo
If the populance voted to reinstitute negro slavery would that be a liberal or conservative standpoint and should it be upheld in either case, in your opinion?
Comparing Gays Rights to the suffering and abuse that Black Americans suffered under slavery is an insult to all Black Americans, in my opinion.
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by SIG220
That is comparing Apples and Oranges. Taking away a right that has existed for thousands of years is different than granting a new right. [1]
I have no objection to the state having a Civil Unions law that gives equivalent rights, as long as it does not give special rights only to homosexuals, as the current law that is on legal hold does. [2]
SIG 220
[1] A vote's a vote. If you claim supporting a law based on the local demographics makes it a morally defendable position based on democracy .. alone ... then your apples and oranges are already mixed.
[2] Special rights? The current law on legal hold offers a gay couple something a heterosexual married couple can't legally do? If not then it's still equal rights.
-
Originally posted by SIG220
Comparing Gays Rights to the suffering and abuse that Black Americans suffered under slavery is an insult to all Black Americans, in my opinion.
SIG 220
You've a right to your opinion, I reckon. Would you still feel it an insult to say prejudice is prejudice no matter what the rationalization behind that?
-
Originally posted by Tac
And im not saying the homosexual couples would adopt a kid to turn him/her into becoming a homosexual. I'm saying that kids are monkey see monkey do when they are very young. If its ok for dad1 to kiss dad2 why cant i kiss my friend at school that's my same gender? i wonder what its like to have a mom/dad ... etc. The kid may not be homosexual but the mannerisms, gestures, behaviour.. that is all learned at home from the parents. Kids don't develop their own social behaviour, they emulate it. It is why I bet almost everyone here has been told at one point in their life that 'you smirk/smile like your dad' or 'you have your mom's stare', etc. You've been copying it since you were a kid!
Can a homosexual be the child of a straight couple that exhibit no "gay" mannerisms?
Can a heterosexual exhibit "gay" mannerisms when brought up by a heterosexual couple that exhibit no such tendencies?
Can someone have a genetic mannerism?
Yes to both the first two through having met examples firsthand.
Yes to the third for having had a mannerism recognized in me from a relative that died before I was born.
As such I find your particular argument lacking (though such an argument is not uniquely yours, I understand).
-
There's no data to suggest that kids who grow up in gay households are more likely to become gay, so that's a pretty weak argument.
Sig220, on an unrelated note, how did you feel about the courts overturning the assisted suicide law that we voted in? Just curious to see how evenly applied your outrage at judicial intervention is. Your stance seems to have flip-flopped a little, this was the text I responded to:
This new law was to go into effect yesterday, but a legal challenge has fortunately blocked it from being implemented.
In one post, you dislike judges overruling the voters, in another, you advocate it. Which one is correct?
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Can a homosexual be the child of a straight couple that exhibit no "gay" mannerisms?
Can a heterosexual exhibit "gay" mannerisms when brought up by a heterosexual couple that exhibit no such tendencies?
Can someone have a genetic mannerism?
Yes to both the first two through having met examples firsthand.
Yes to the third for having had a mannerism recognized in me from a relative that died before I was born.
As such I find your particular argument lacking (though such an argument is not uniquely yours, I understand).
This suddenly reminded me of the age-old question;What came first, the chicken, or the egg?
Obviously, since Human Reproduction involves' a Male/Female couple to naturally produce a child, And at least a sperm from a male, and an egg from a female in the case of test-tube babies, Then in fact, ALL homosexual men/women have come from some kind of Heterosexual background....Even in the cases' of Lesbian women who go to the sperm bank, and undergo artificial insemination.
Y'all seem to be tossing two subjects' around in this thread. One seems' to be States' rights and the wishes of the voters/constituents. The other seems to be the Morality of whether or not Homosexuality should even be tolorated to the extent that it is, in today's society.
For the question of States' rights, I would say that If the Federal Gov't. didn't tell Arizona to strike the law they just instituted that goes' after those who employ Illegal aliens', Then they should let Oregon chart it's own course, as well.
I think the subject of Morality will have to be answered with the phrase, "To each, his own..." Because everything is judged in the eye of the beholder, so to speak.
In the non-Politically correct world, Many(A large percentage of the population) are not only against gay marriage...They are against homosexuality whatsoever. Many believe that Homosexuality is nothing more than a Mental disorder, and not something that is recognized as a sexual trait. But in some places(at least legally) it is accepted. Not everywhere, though...
...But in the same token, there are people who now consider it IMMORAL (Yes, as in, not right) to take your son and teach him how to use a firearm, and kill animals' with it (Hunting, of course) even if it is to feed yourself. They regard it as a regression to barbarism. (The slaughterhouses' that supply the various grocery chains' go unmentioned here.) They feel that only a crazed lunatic could consider owning a firearm...or an automobile with a 400 H.P. V-8...Or letting their' children engage in gladiatorial combat on a field covered in chalk lines (Football, for you Soccer Moms).
Morality is constantly being redefined. It will never be in one definition. There are far too many that will dispute one version from another. People will always hate Gays. That seems to be the only constant. It's how many that do, that will change.
-
This is the only article that speaks from the foundations point of view. All the others paint them as a mean spirited conservitive christian homophobic foundation. Which seems to be what this thread has degenerated to also.
http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2003/jan03/logging-foundation.shtml
This article points out the position of the trusts board and their demand to the school system. The foundation is a private conservitive foundation of christian values, and they can do what ever the want with their money and make what ever requirments they want for eligibilty to receive their grants just the same. Unless, it becomes against the law to be christian, conservitive and beleive homosexuality is a sin as defined in the bible. Until then this foundation can do what they want.
The original demographics and cricumstances of the region that the foundation was created for is gone and has been replaced by more liberly minded white collor citizens who do not support the principles the foundation was created on.
Should the foundation be forced to continue supporting a community that no longer has the same values as the founder and current trustees? Seems that disagreeing with non christian\conservitives is grounds again for cries for being evil, homophobic and all the other derogitory chracterizations of conservitives and christians.
I think it was a loosing argument to demand changes of any public school system back towards conservitive and christian principels. I admire the foundation for standing to it's principels. Too many conservitive and christian groups are afraid of being branded all those names liberals have in their arsenals of adhominen attacks.
-
this thread is about gay marriage?
Gays have every right that anyone else has to get married.. they do it all the time. They just have to do it by the rules.
They can't marry their daughter or the dog or a dead person or someone of the same gender.
Now.. If they want to make some kind of contract with someone of the same gender.. they are free to do that. If they want the contract to have all the same rights as a legal marriage....
Well.. they need to do the work. they need to convince people that they deserve each and every right.. that it is to our benifiet and workable.. that we are willing to pay for it.
But that is not what they want.. they want to piggyback on the rights granted to marriage and just throw out a couple of the rules.
They need to start with a fresh sheet of paper is all.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Tac
Many of these couples will eventually want to feel 'like a family' and want to adopt a kid.
I know gay couples that are way more qualified to have children than straight couples. Sexual preference doesn't have anything to do with parenting skills, and trying to equate the 2 is BS.
Say you've got 2 gay guys. They both make upwards of $80k a year, have perfect credit, no criminal records, pay their taxes, and do community service.
On the other side, you've got a hetero trailer trash couple, below the poverty level, domestic violence, and histories of alcoholism.
According to you, the second couple is more qualified to adopt and raise a child? :lol
-
Indy.. would you say that it is a good thing that many boys today are raised by single women or even two women?
Almost universally it is agreed that the best way to raise a child is with one male and one female parent.
this is a generalization that works. Even tho it is not 100%.. it is the best their is and should not be tampered with lightly.
If you simply say that now marriage is redifined.. you don't just get the touchy feelie "domestic partner" thing.. you get every right that is marriage.
And that is what the gays want.. they want the freebies. they want to get everything that marriage gets. they want to be recognized as a legit marriage that can't be discriminated against based on being two of the same gender.
I say let em have a contract or a different form of marriage and they can work on each right individually instead of the lazy and harmful piggy back method.
Why not let parents marry their kids to get some of the benifiets? why the prejudice against that? or dogs? some people really love their dogs.. a man (or woman) and their dog make great parents.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Well.. they need to do the work. they need to convince people that they deserve each and every right.. that it is to our benifiet and workable.. that we are willing to pay for it.
lazs
what exactly needs to be to your benefit and what are "we" paying for it? just don't quite follow your meaning here bud
-
Originally posted by Tac
bungaroo
just for future reference I'd normally stop reading what you have to say if your going to start off like this. why should anyone take your views seriously if you start the argument by mocking.
luckily for you i went on to read and respond, but normally only 13 year olds have arguments that way and i'd like to think for a civil discussion we could get past crap like that
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Indy.. would you say that it is a good thing that many boys today are raised by single women or even two women?
Single mother or father are both bad imho. In my personal experiences, the children are way more screwed up. I'd say 2 parents in a stable relationship are going to do a better job overall, regardless of gender. There are single parents that do a good job, but I only know a few.
If you're looking for a male role-model in a lesbian relationship, then go attend a WNBA game. More bull-dykes than you can shake a stick at, and more testosterone than guys I know.
-
Originally posted by bongaroo
just for future reference I'd normally stop reading what you have to say if your going to start off like this. why should anyone take your views seriously if you start the argument by mocking.
luckily for you i went on to read and respond, but normally only 13 year olds have arguments that way and i'd like to think for a civil discussion we could get past crap like that
That was an accidental typo it was not intentional.
You even had me googlin' the word now lol.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungaroo
?
-
Rpm, as to your original post, I believe you are right in the assertion that any organization that grant's a scholorship has the right to disperse those funds' as they see fit...or not to, if such is the case. They have the right to enforce any requirement's that are laid forth in they're charter.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
]
Special rights? The current law on legal hold offers a gay couple something a heterosexual married couple can't legally do?
Yes. The Civil Union law specifically only applies to gay couples. It is a law created only for them, and only grants them rights.
It does not allow heterosexual couples to form a Civil Union. You must be a gay couple. If the law applied to all citizens equally, then I would certainly support it.
The law is clearly unconstitutional as it is currently written.
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by Arlo
You've a right to your opinion, I reckon. Would you still feel it an insult to say prejudice is prejudice no matter what the rationalization behind that?
For your information, slavery never even existed in Oregon. So how could it be even be brought back?
These silly hypotheticals you are coming up with are irrelevant
If you want to go ahead and believe that the vast majority of Americans are prejudiced, go ahead. It is a free country, and you can believe what you want to.
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Sig220, on an unrelated note, how did you feel about the courts overturning the assisted suicide law that we voted in? Just curious to see how evenly applied your outrage at judicial intervention is. Your stance seems to have flip-flopped a little, this was the text I responded to:
In one post, you dislike judges overruling the voters, in another, you advocate it. Which one is correct?
If you knew anything about politics here in Oregon, you would know that the Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury has been extremely abusive of his powers, and has used them to advance his own political agenda a number of times regarding the state's signature gathering process.
He did not have valid grounds to deny the signatures to put Ralph Nader on the ballot back in 2004, but he did anyway. And the same is true how he threw out so many signatures that were gathered to put this matter to a vote of the people.
I believe in Democracy. I believe that the people should be allowed to vote on this issue. The Judge in this case is concerned that Bradbury violated the law in blocking a vote taking place. If the majority of Oregonians want this law, I certainly have no problem in it becoming law.
As for me flip flopping, you are making no sense at all. What previous statement that I made have I contradicted?? You are making stuff up now, in order to attack me. And honest people do not use that sort of underhanded tactic.
Your tactic of even inserting comments about someone's else's remarks here into this message directed at me is yet another low-down tactic of trying to make it appear that I said anything about the other issue, when I actually did not make any such comment like the one that you refer to.
Words to more properly describe you as a person are not allowed here on this forum.
SIG 220
-
bong boy... what part of "benifiet" or "pay for" do you not get?
We as a people have, for right or wrong, figured that a marriage and the raising of children is to societies benifiet and we are willing to pay for it.. this would include tax breaks and health care breaks from employers.
If you redefine marriage as meaning any two people or animals or whatever then the rest of us have to pay the increased cost.
It is not the white dress the preacher they want... it is the monetary part.
lazs
-
Goodness, Sig220, strong emotions! I asked for a clarification. In the message you responded to, I quoted a statement you had made that appeared to support judicial override of a law and asked to understand why you support that in situation, then oppose it in another?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
bong boy... what part of "benifiet" or "pay for" do you not get?
We as a people have, for right or wrong, figured that a marriage and the raising of children is to societies benifiet and we are willing to pay for it.. this would include tax breaks and health care breaks from employers.
If you redefine marriage as meaning any two people or animals or whatever then the rest of us have to pay the increased cost.
It is not the white dress the preacher they want... it is the monetary part.
lazs
wow, ask for a clarification or explanation and i get to see you get all riled up. no wonder no one wants to talk to you
otherwise thank you for your elaboration.
you think the small percentage of gays getting married(actually i have no idea how many people this would entail, but i seriously doubt in the national scheme of things its going to put a hurting on your wallet) is really going to break the bank?
-
Originally posted by Tac
That was an accidental typo it was not intentional.
You even had me googlin' the word now lol.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungaroo
?
lol, appology accepted, funny typo in that case
-
Originally posted by lazs2
They can't marry their daughter or the dog or a dead person or someone of the same gender.
Whoa! Apples, bananas, grapes *AND oranges! Mixed fruit in that bit of logic (ptp). ;)
Originally posted by lazs2
Now.. If they want to make some kind of contract with someone of the same gender.. they are free to do that. If they want the contract to have all the same rights as a legal marriage....
Well.. they need to do the work. they need to convince people that they deserve each and every right.. that it is to our benifiet and workable.. that we are willing to pay for it.
If heterosexual couples had to jump those same hoops (and believe me, it's crossed my mind they should) then I might be inclined to agree with that proposal. :D
-
Originally posted by SIG220
Yes. The Civil Union law specifically only applies to gay couples. It is a law created only for them, and only grants them rights.
It does not allow heterosexual couples to form a Civil Union. You must be a gay couple. If the law applied to all citizens equally, then I would certainly support it.
The law is clearly unconstitutional as it is currently written.
SIG 220
Where does it specifically prohibit civil union of heterosexuals? And where does the logic of the law being written to grant a right pre-existing to heterosexual married couples make it "exclusive", as well? Seems more an addendum to existing state law to make a right more inclusive in spite of homophobia.
Your "clearly" meter may be pegged but I might recommend recalibration.
Our opinions differ. :)
-
Originally posted by SIG220
For your information, slavery never even existed in Oregon. So how could it be even be brought back?
These silly hypotheticals you are coming up with are irrelevant
If you want to go ahead and believe that the vast majority of Americans are prejudiced, go ahead. It is a free country, and you can believe what you want to.
SIG 220
As can you. I dig your need to argue semantics about how a national prohibition can't be threatened by a state who didn't practice in the past but .....
Now, if the majority of Americans thought slavery was cool, today .... even Oregonians who, apparently, never felt such a compulsion in their lifetimes, ever .... would that make it right because democracy demands it?
:D
-
bongboy....Your argument is that if it is only a little wrong then it is ok?
arlo... along the same lines... right or wrong.. hetrosexual marriage has evolved into what it is. the rights were given over time and he conditions laid out.
Now (you?) want to change the rules.. the ones wanting to change the rules are the ones who need to make the case. I simply don't want to pay for their desires.
I do see some benifet to hetro couples being married and.. to raising kids.
I see no benifet at all associated with gays being married in the conventional sense.
They are welcome to form their own type of contract tho.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
arlo... along the same lines... right or wrong.. hetrosexual marriage has evolved into what it is. the rights were given over time and he conditions laid out.
Now (you?) want to change the rules.. the ones wanting to change the rules are the ones who need to make the case. I simply don't want to pay for their desires.
How am (I) changing rules? Seems I'm all for the same rules applied to all. (Isn't that a supporting pillar of many a political debate here?) I'm pretty sure homosexual relationships have "evolved" to what they are, too.
Unless their goal is to spread homosexuality all over the globe (which I find doubtful, at best), I see no more a rational argument in denying a homosexual couple the same rights as a heterosexual one, whether that's civil ceremony and license (even a church one for faiths and denominations open to such), adoption, widow's bennies, etc. A disfunctional family isn't even a "right" of a heterosexual one (nor is it apparently sole basis to break them up, from what I've seen). Yet I see it's the one argument offered but until those presenting it have more than a feeling that it's more prone to happen if daddy (or mommy) closes their bedroom door and climbs into bed with someone of the same gender, I don't see a very good one.
*ShruG*
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Where does it specifically prohibit civil union of heterosexuals? And where does the logic of the law being written to grant a right pre-existing to heterosexual married couples make it "exclusive", as well? Seems more an addendum to existing state law to make a right more inclusive in spite of homophobia.
Your "clearly" meter may be pegged but I might recommend recalibration.
Our opinions differ. :)
You obviously know nothing about this law, if you think that it is not a same sex civil unions law. It is very explicit in the text of the law, and the news media here in Oregon has been most clear about this point. So you obviously don't live here in Oregon either.
You need to know the facts before you open your mouth. Your opinion is manufactured purely out of thin air.
Here is a link to a legal reseach website that has the actual text of the law, so you can read it for yourself:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/04/oregon-house-passes-same-sex-civil.php
-
Originally posted by SIG220
You obviously know nothing about this law, if you think that it is not a same sex civil unions law. It is very explicit in the text of the law, and the news media here in Oregon has been most clear about this point. So you obviously don't live here in Oregon either.
You need to know the facts before you open your mouth. Your opinion is manufactured purely out of thin air.
Here is a link to a legal reseach website that has the actual text of the law, so you can read it for yourself:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/04/oregon-house-passes-same-sex-civil.php
Don't get pissy and invent my ignorance because your opinion differs from mine, darlin'.
What part of "affording them the benefits [already] available to married couples" (as specifically stated in the link which supposedly proves my general ignorance of the issue) is "exclusive?"
I'm all for having an intelligent debate on this. But I'm not going to provide the intelligent part for you ... as well. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Where does it specifically prohibit civil union of heterosexuals? And where does the logic of the law being written to grant a right pre-existing to heterosexual married couples make it "exclusive", as well? Seems more an addendum to existing state law to make a right more inclusive in spite of homophobia.
Your "clearly" meter may be pegged but I might recommend recalibration.
Our opinions differ. :)
To further illustrate my point, I have copied below the official legislative summary for the bill, from the State of Oregon's web site. I also included the very beginning of the actual text of the law. As you can easily see, the very first four words in the law specifically state that it only applies to same-sex relationships.
In the future, you may want try to use a tool like Google and investigate an issue, before questioning that something being said is not accurate and correct. Google is very easy to use, you should really give it a try sometime.
SIG 220
From the State of Oregon's website:
House Bill 2007
Sponsored by COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, ETHICS AND RULES (at the request of Governor¢s Task Force on Equality)
SUMMARY
Establishes requirements and procedures for entering into civil union contract between individuals of same sex. Provides that any privilege, immunity, right or benefit granted by law to individual who is or was married is granted to individual who is or was in civil union. Provides that any responsibility imposed by law on individual who is or was married is imposed on individual who is or was in civil union.
Provides that any privilege, immunity, right, benefit or responsibility granted or imposed by law to or on spouse with respect to child of either spouse is granted to or imposed on partner with respect to child of either partner.
A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to same-sex relationships; creating new provisions; and amending ORS 107.615, 192.842, 205.320, 409.300, 432.235 and 432.405.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:....... etc.......
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Don't get pissy and invent my ignorance because your opinion differs from mine, darlin'.
What are you saying here? Clearly you were ignorant about this law, otherwise you would not have made such a statement questioning that it was a law specifically for gay couples.
So I clearly did not invent your ignorance about this law. You SPOKE IT Mister!! I didn't put YOUR words into YOUR mouth.
If you cannot own up to what you say, well, gee whiz ......
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by SIG220
To further illustrate my point, I have copied below the official legislative summary for the bill, from the State of Oregon's web site. (snip)
Yay you. Can't understand the fault of your argument no matter who cuts and pastes it :D
Sorry .... my "skill at Google" isn't reflective in your confusion in logic. You're not making a good case with your "Google skill, " either.
Here, I know you hate this correlation because you're an Oregonian and all (not sure why Organ-ownians, supposedly, have problems having things simplified and explained to them):
The amendment outlawing slavery was not an "exclusive right" granted to said former slaves. The right of freedom already existed to those who weren't slaves prior to the amendment. So to try to claim said amendment would be unconstitutional because it "excluded" free individuals would be (and I'll slow down at this point) a .... stupid .... claim.
Has nothing to do with my not being a native of Oregon (ahem). Has nothing to do with the amazing ability even the simplest of minds have finding what they think makes their argument smarter on Google.
;)
-
arlo.. how are you not understanding this one.. everyone has exactly the same right so far as marriage goes.
Anyone can marry anyone else so long as they fit the guidelines.. everyone has to live by these rules who wants to get married.
These rules were formed over the centuries because people felt that the rules best served society and now.. everyone has to abide by them. you can't just change the gender part without being unfair to anyone else who wants to marry a sister or whatever... you have to say that marriage is a contract between any two of anything..
There is no benifiet to the expense of homosexuals marrying each other to me.. prove that there is. It costs money and they are the ones wanting to change the rules.
If they want to change the rules then they have to make a case that I/we think is worthwhile before we pay for it. Like I said.. it isn't the right to wear a white dress and have a reception that they want.
In the meantime... what is wrong with simply having a contract between them?
lazs
-
Lasz2, what business does the government have telling folks who they can marry or not? Isn't your willingness to submit to their rules basically subscribing to another aspect of the nanny state?
-
chair.. very good point.. the contract of marriage should be open to anyone but have no state functions or privilidge.
That is not what is being discussed here. They want to add to the burden on me. If I had my way.. marriage would be a personal contract for everyone. It would confer no monetary or governmental perks.
That is not what we have tho. I am merely saying that we are stuck with what we have but I see no reason to make it worse.
This arguement is brought up all the time here "we already pay for blah blah blah.. why not one more thing?" or.. "it won't make you go broke to pay for this one little thing quit being a meany"
I would love to roll back government spending and control but what is wrong with.. in the meantime... just stopping them from growing any worse?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
arlo.. how are you not understanding this one.. everyone has exactly the same right so far as marriage goes.
No Laz. That's what I understand fine. You seem to be a bit confused on the details. :)
-
which details do I have wrong?
lazs
-
Lazs is right, gay men have the right to marry women, the same way women in Muslim countries have the right to walk in public with their faces uncovered if they're men.
-
well... not quite the same. No one is asking them to change their gender. No one is required to be married. it is just that if you want to get married you have to go by the same rules as everyone else.
You want to make a new type of marriage... fine.. do it. Just don't say you entitled to be part of the institution and break the rules because of some sort of sexual preference. Some guys would like to marry mom or a sister... sorry.. there are rules against it... can't marry dead people or dogs either. sometimes life is full of disapointment and heartache.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
which details do I have wrong?
lazs
I'd say your attempt to rationalize that a difference in sexual orientation requires proof someone deserves equal rights. Yeah. Pretty sure that's where you tripped. ;)
-
where do they not get equal rights? and.. there is plenty of precident for not giving the same right to people with different sexual preferences.
child molesters... necrophliacs.. rapists and mother lovers and all sorts of sexual preference that the person can do nothing about.
lots of gays have married people of the other gender. lots don't.. lots of staight people never get married because they don't want to have just one other sex partner for the rest of their lives.
Lots of restrictions and rules to marriage.. either throw em all out and start over or quit yer whining and get your own form of contract.
It is not complex.. it is not about fred wanting to wear the wedding gown. It is about getting into everyones pocket and it is about a lot of lawyers looking at a whole new class of lucrative divorce cases.
married people are eligible for more home loans.. divorced people cause forclosure.. we don't have enough forclosures?
lazs
-
Pedophilia, necrophilia, rape, incest... all of your examples describe actions that are illegal, unlike homosexuality. I'm certain you didn't mean to provide such a weak rationale, why not try again? It's ok, not everyone can always hit home runs on the first try.
-
let gays marry, then they can find out how much fun divorce court is. :D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
where do they not get equal rights? and.. there is plenty of precident for not giving the same right to people with different sexual preferences.
child molesters... necrophliacs.. rapists and mother lovers and all sorts of sexual preference that the person can do nothing about.
lots of gays have married people of the other gender. lots don't.. lots of staight people never get married because they don't want to have just one other sex partner for the rest of their lives.
Lots of restrictions and rules to marriage.. either throw em all out and start over or quit yer whining and get your own form of contract.
It is not complex.. it is not about fred wanting to wear the wedding gown. It is about getting into everyones pocket and it is about a lot of lawyers looking at a whole new class of lucrative divorce cases.
married people are eligible for more home loans.. divorced people cause forclosure.. we don't have enough forclosures?
lazs
I see. No really. I see how far you're willing to go not to get it. All homos are equivalent to pedophiles, sheephumpers and necros but NOT equivalent to heteros. ;)
-
ah... so the test is legality then? I hate to break it to you but many states (rightly or wrongly) have sodomy laws.
Gays have exactly the same right to marry as anyone else. you can't get around the fact. Their sexual preference is not everyone elses problem.. it is theirs alone.
marriage is not defined as "two loving people" . It is a union between two people of different genders. Play by the rules or change the rules.
I think it is unfair to just make an exception for one oddball minority sexual preference.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
marriage is not defined as "two loving people" . It is a union between two people of different genders.
Who defines it? The government? What business of theirs is it?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ah... so the test is legality then? I hate to break it to you but many states (rightly or wrongly) have sodomy laws.
Guess you missed the mentioning of laws or practices (ie: slavery? Bueller?)having existed that weren't right in spite of you having just said so.
No .... the test is equality. If homosexuality isn't a crime (do you believe it is?) then your reasoning doesn't work. And where does the Constitution define a legal marriage? How will you pen this amendment, yourself?
"marriage is not defined as "two loving people" . It is a union between two people of different genders."
Like that? "Seperate but equal but not really?"
:aok