> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:38:41 -0800 (PST), "deemsb...@aol.com"
> <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote: > >On Nov 5, 2:17=A0pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: > >> On 5 Nov 2009 18:32:48 GMT, The BorgMan <m...@me.net> wrote:
> >> So, I guess deems was right. He has proved I am not a bigot because I > >> don't have unfounded prejudices. They all have basis.
> >> Hugh-
> > There ya go.......even if you're intolerent, at least you're not a > >bigot!
> Replying to your first message where my response was wrong, in my > further defense I have had pink eye for 3 days now and I can still > just barely read the screen.
> I know, if I couldn't read the screen it was stupid for me to try to > respond.
> Between gout, allergies and pink eye I am convinced that aging is > detrimental to one's health. I don't want to be 81 years old anymore.
Randolph M. Jones wrote: > stephenJ wrote: >> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>> stephenJ wrote: >>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people to engage in sex acts >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> you find viscerally repugnant? (I doubt it.) >>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people who engage in such >>>>>>> acts to >>>>>>> enter into legal contracts with each other? (I doubt it.) >>>>>> Nope. If a brother and sister want to live together, and sign an >>>>>> agreement that says how their income will be split up, who gets >>>>>> what in >>>>>> the event one moves out, etc ... that's all strictly their business.
>>>>>> Just don't call it 'marriage', and don't compel me to have to >>>>>> respect it >>>>>> either morally/symbolically (by acknowledging the social >>>>>> legitimacy of >>>>>> the arrangement) or legally (i.e., if i'm an employer, to have to >>>>>> offer >>>>>> marriage benefits to them if i offer the same benefits to normal >>>>>> married >>>>>> couples, to give them the same tax breaks that actual married couples >>>>>> get, etc.).
>>>>> Because of your personal visceral repugnance? >>>> Yes.
>>> While I don't doubt your personal visceral repugnance, I'm doubtful that >>> you actually consider it a valid justification of your opinion. I think >>> you are going for a reaction here. >> It's not the only thing i mentioned as a reason for my opinion.
> From what I see, you listed as your reasons:
> 1. You find gay marriage "inconsistent with our cultural heritage" > (whatever that means). > 2. You find gay marriage to be in violation of your religious beliefs. > 3. You find gay marriage personally disgusting.
> I personally just don't find that to be a very good set of reasons on > which to base legislation.
I personally find them just fine for me.
-- "when i visited Aden before collectivization, all the markets were full of fish product. After collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."
stephenJ wrote: > Randolph M. Jones wrote: >> stephenJ wrote: >>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people to engage in sex acts >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> you find viscerally repugnant? (I doubt it.) >>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people who engage in such >>>>>>>> acts to >>>>>>>> enter into legal contracts with each other? (I doubt it.) >>>>>>> Nope. If a brother and sister want to live together, and sign an >>>>>>> agreement that says how their income will be split up, who gets >>>>>>> what in >>>>>>> the event one moves out, etc ... that's all strictly their business.
>>>>>>> Just don't call it 'marriage', and don't compel me to have to >>>>>>> respect it >>>>>>> either morally/symbolically (by acknowledging the social >>>>>>> legitimacy of >>>>>>> the arrangement) or legally (i.e., if i'm an employer, to have to >>>>>>> offer >>>>>>> marriage benefits to them if i offer the same benefits to normal >>>>>>> married >>>>>>> couples, to give them the same tax breaks that actual married >>>>>>> couples >>>>>>> get, etc.).
>>>>>> Because of your personal visceral repugnance? >>>>> Yes.
>>>> While I don't doubt your personal visceral repugnance, I'm doubtful >>>> that >>>> you actually consider it a valid justification of your opinion. I >>>> think >>>> you are going for a reaction here. >>> It's not the only thing i mentioned as a reason for my opinion.
>> From what I see, you listed as your reasons:
>> 1. You find gay marriage "inconsistent with our cultural heritage" >> (whatever that means). >> 2. You find gay marriage to be in violation of your religious beliefs. >> 3. You find gay marriage personally disgusting.
>> I personally just don't find that to be a very good set of reasons on >> which to base legislation.
> I personally find them just fine for me.
I find them just fine for you, as well. I don't find them to be a very good set of reasons on which to base legislation.
<deemsb...@aol.com> wrote: >On Nov 6, 9:16=A0am, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:38:41 -0800 (PST), "deemsb...@aol.com"
>> <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote: >> >On Nov 5, 2:17=3DA0pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: >> >> On 5 Nov 2009 18:32:48 GMT, The BorgMan <m...@me.net> wrote:
>> >> So, I guess deems was right. He has proved I am not a bigot because I >> >> don't have unfounded prejudices. They all have basis.
>> >> Hugh-
>> > =A0 =A0There ya go.......even if you're intolerent, at least you're not= > a >> >bigot!
>> Replying to your first message where my response was wrong, =A0in my >> further defense I have had pink eye for 3 days now and I can still >> just barely read the screen.
>> I know, if I couldn't read the screen it was stupid for me to try to >> respond.
>> Between gout, allergies and pink eye I am convinced that aging is >> detrimental to one's health. I don't want to be 81 years old anymore.
>> Hugh
> Well, you've only got two choices.......
I'll take the one where I will be 82 in a little more than 2 weeks.
Randolph M. Jones wrote: > stephenJ wrote: >> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>> stephenJ wrote: >>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people to engage in sex acts >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> you find viscerally repugnant? (I doubt it.) >>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people who engage in such >>>>>>>>> acts to >>>>>>>>> enter into legal contracts with each other? (I doubt it.) >>>>>>>> Nope. If a brother and sister want to live together, and sign an >>>>>>>> agreement that says how their income will be split up, who gets >>>>>>>> what in >>>>>>>> the event one moves out, etc ... that's all strictly their business.
>>>>>>>> Just don't call it 'marriage', and don't compel me to have to >>>>>>>> respect it >>>>>>>> either morally/symbolically (by acknowledging the social >>>>>>>> legitimacy of >>>>>>>> the arrangement) or legally (i.e., if i'm an employer, to have to >>>>>>>> offer >>>>>>>> marriage benefits to them if i offer the same benefits to normal >>>>>>>> married >>>>>>>> couples, to give them the same tax breaks that actual married >>>>>>>> couples >>>>>>>> get, etc.).
>>>>>>> Because of your personal visceral repugnance? >>>>>> Yes.
>>>>> While I don't doubt your personal visceral repugnance, I'm doubtful >>>>> that >>>>> you actually consider it a valid justification of your opinion. I >>>>> think >>>>> you are going for a reaction here. >>>> It's not the only thing i mentioned as a reason for my opinion.
>>> From what I see, you listed as your reasons:
>>> 1. You find gay marriage "inconsistent with our cultural heritage" >>> (whatever that means). >>> 2. You find gay marriage to be in violation of your religious beliefs. >>> 3. You find gay marriage personally disgusting.
>>> I personally just don't find that to be a very good set of reasons on >>> which to base legislation. >> I personally find them just fine for me. > I find them just fine for you, as well. I don't find them to be a very > good set of reasons on which to base legislation.
Fair enough. If the issue comes up, by all means vote to allow gays to marry. I don't think i can convince you otherwise.
--
What is sacred has changed in this culture. The Prophet Mohammed and Jesus Christ are not sacred anymore, while Jews and the Holocaust and homosexuality have become sacred.
stephenJ wrote: > Randolph M. Jones wrote: >> stephenJ wrote: >>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people to engage in sex >>>>>>>>>> acts >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> you find viscerally repugnant? (I doubt it.) >>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people who engage in such >>>>>>>>>> acts to >>>>>>>>>> enter into legal contracts with each other? (I doubt it.) >>>>>>>>> Nope. If a brother and sister want to live together, and sign an >>>>>>>>> agreement that says how their income will be split up, who gets >>>>>>>>> what in >>>>>>>>> the event one moves out, etc ... that's all strictly their >>>>>>>>> business.
>>>>>>>>> Just don't call it 'marriage', and don't compel me to have to >>>>>>>>> respect it >>>>>>>>> either morally/symbolically (by acknowledging the social >>>>>>>>> legitimacy of >>>>>>>>> the arrangement) or legally (i.e., if i'm an employer, to have to >>>>>>>>> offer >>>>>>>>> marriage benefits to them if i offer the same benefits to normal >>>>>>>>> married >>>>>>>>> couples, to give them the same tax breaks that actual married >>>>>>>>> couples >>>>>>>>> get, etc.).
>>>>>>>> Because of your personal visceral repugnance? >>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>> While I don't doubt your personal visceral repugnance, I'm doubtful >>>>>> that >>>>>> you actually consider it a valid justification of your opinion. I >>>>>> think >>>>>> you are going for a reaction here. >>>>> It's not the only thing i mentioned as a reason for my opinion.
>>>> From what I see, you listed as your reasons:
>>>> 1. You find gay marriage "inconsistent with our cultural heritage" >>>> (whatever that means). >>>> 2. You find gay marriage to be in violation of your religious beliefs. >>>> 3. You find gay marriage personally disgusting.
>>>> I personally just don't find that to be a very good set of reasons on >>>> which to base legislation. >>> I personally find them just fine for me.
>> I find them just fine for you, as well. I don't find them to be a very >> good set of reasons on which to base legislation.
> Fair enough. If the issue comes up, by all means vote to allow gays to > marry. I don't think i can convince you otherwise.
Probably not. On the other hand, I do find that tradition, my religion, and my personal visceral repulsions all go against the eating of shellfish. But I would vote to keep that legal, as well.
Randolph M. Jones wrote: > stephenJ wrote: >> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>> stephenJ wrote: >>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people to engage in sex >>>>>>>>>>> acts >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> you find viscerally repugnant? (I doubt it.) >>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people who engage in such >>>>>>>>>>> acts to >>>>>>>>>>> enter into legal contracts with each other? (I doubt it.) >>>>>>>>>> Nope. If a brother and sister want to live together, and sign an >>>>>>>>>> agreement that says how their income will be split up, who gets >>>>>>>>>> what in >>>>>>>>>> the event one moves out, etc ... that's all strictly their >>>>>>>>>> business.
>>>>>>>>>> Just don't call it 'marriage', and don't compel me to have to >>>>>>>>>> respect it >>>>>>>>>> either morally/symbolically (by acknowledging the social >>>>>>>>>> legitimacy of >>>>>>>>>> the arrangement) or legally (i.e., if i'm an employer, to have to >>>>>>>>>> offer >>>>>>>>>> marriage benefits to them if i offer the same benefits to normal >>>>>>>>>> married >>>>>>>>>> couples, to give them the same tax breaks that actual married >>>>>>>>>> couples >>>>>>>>>> get, etc.).
>>>>>>>>> Because of your personal visceral repugnance? >>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>> While I don't doubt your personal visceral repugnance, I'm doubtful >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> you actually consider it a valid justification of your opinion. I >>>>>>> think >>>>>>> you are going for a reaction here. >>>>>> It's not the only thing i mentioned as a reason for my opinion.
>>>>> From what I see, you listed as your reasons:
>>>>> 1. You find gay marriage "inconsistent with our cultural heritage" >>>>> (whatever that means). >>>>> 2. You find gay marriage to be in violation of your religious beliefs. >>>>> 3. You find gay marriage personally disgusting.
>>>>> I personally just don't find that to be a very good set of reasons on >>>>> which to base legislation. >>>> I personally find them just fine for me. >>> I find them just fine for you, as well. I don't find them to be a very >>> good set of reasons on which to base legislation. >> Fair enough. If the issue comes up, by all means vote to allow gays to >> marry. I don't think i can convince you otherwise.
> Probably not. On the other hand, I do find that tradition, my religion, > and my personal visceral repulsions all go against the eating of > shellfish. But I would vote to keep that legal, as well.
Maybe that's because others eating shellfish can't really impact on you in any way. E.g., you don't have to worry about being expected to extend social courtesies and consideration to the "wife" of a shellfish, if you run a business you don't have to pay for benefits if a "married" shellfish complains to the EEOC, etc. etc. etc.
-- There are so many posts in government service that it is frightening just to think about them.
stephenJ wrote: > Randolph M. Jones wrote: >> stephenJ wrote: >>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people to engage in sex >>>>>>>>>>>> acts >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> you find viscerally repugnant? (I doubt it.) >>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people who engage in such >>>>>>>>>>>> acts to >>>>>>>>>>>> enter into legal contracts with each other? (I doubt it.) >>>>>>>>>>> Nope. If a brother and sister want to live together, and sign an >>>>>>>>>>> agreement that says how their income will be split up, who gets >>>>>>>>>>> what in >>>>>>>>>>> the event one moves out, etc ... that's all strictly their >>>>>>>>>>> business.
>>>>>>>>>>> Just don't call it 'marriage', and don't compel me to have to >>>>>>>>>>> respect it >>>>>>>>>>> either morally/symbolically (by acknowledging the social >>>>>>>>>>> legitimacy of >>>>>>>>>>> the arrangement) or legally (i.e., if i'm an employer, to >>>>>>>>>>> have to >>>>>>>>>>> offer >>>>>>>>>>> marriage benefits to them if i offer the same benefits to normal >>>>>>>>>>> married >>>>>>>>>>> couples, to give them the same tax breaks that actual married >>>>>>>>>>> couples >>>>>>>>>>> get, etc.).
>>>>>>>>>> Because of your personal visceral repugnance? >>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>> While I don't doubt your personal visceral repugnance, I'm doubtful >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> you actually consider it a valid justification of your opinion. I >>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>> you are going for a reaction here. >>>>>>> It's not the only thing i mentioned as a reason for my opinion.
>>>>>> From what I see, you listed as your reasons:
>>>>>> 1. You find gay marriage "inconsistent with our cultural heritage" >>>>>> (whatever that means). >>>>>> 2. You find gay marriage to be in violation of your religious >>>>>> beliefs. >>>>>> 3. You find gay marriage personally disgusting.
>>>>>> I personally just don't find that to be a very good set of reasons on >>>>>> which to base legislation. >>>>> I personally find them just fine for me. >>>> I find them just fine for you, as well. I don't find them to be a very >>>> good set of reasons on which to base legislation. >>> Fair enough. If the issue comes up, by all means vote to allow gays to >>> marry. I don't think i can convince you otherwise.
>> Probably not. On the other hand, I do find that tradition, my religion, >> and my personal visceral repulsions all go against the eating of >> shellfish. But I would vote to keep that legal, as well.
> Maybe that's because others eating shellfish can't really impact on you > in any way. E.g., you don't have to worry about being expected to extend > social courtesies and consideration to the "wife" of a shellfish, if you > run a business you don't have to pay for benefits if a "married" > shellfish complains to the EEOC, etc. etc. etc.
Really? You think gay marriage should be illegal so that you don't have to feel expected to extend social courtesies to gay couples? You really are incapable of using rational principles on this issue, aren't you? You do realize that every one of the arguments you have listed in this thread would be equally valid when used to argue that interracial marriage should be illegal, don't you?
On Nov 5, 9:56 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> Just don't call it 'marriage', and don't compel me to have to respect it > either morally/symbolically (by acknowledging the social legitimacy of > the arrangement) or legally (i.e., if i'm an employer, to have to offer > marriage benefits to them if i offer the same benefits to normal married > couples, to give them the same tax breaks that actual married couples > get, etc.).
Employers are quickly learning that it's good business to offer these benefits since gays are a vital part of the workforce. But they do satisfy you by calling it partners or some other term. So that surely makes you glad.
> stephenJ wrote: >> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>> stephenJ wrote: >>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people to engage in sex >>>>>>>>>>>>> acts >>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>> you find viscerally repugnant? (I doubt it.) >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people who engage in such >>>>>>>>>>>>> acts to >>>>>>>>>>>>> enter into legal contracts with each other? (I doubt it.) >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. If a brother and sister want to live together, and sign an >>>>>>>>>>>> agreement that says how their income will be split up, who gets >>>>>>>>>>>> what in >>>>>>>>>>>> the event one moves out, etc ... that's all strictly their >>>>>>>>>>>> business.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just don't call it 'marriage', and don't compel me to have to >>>>>>>>>>>> respect it >>>>>>>>>>>> either morally/symbolically (by acknowledging the social >>>>>>>>>>>> legitimacy of >>>>>>>>>>>> the arrangement) or legally (i.e., if i'm an employer, to >>>>>>>>>>>> have to >>>>>>>>>>>> offer >>>>>>>>>>>> marriage benefits to them if i offer the same benefits to normal >>>>>>>>>>>> married >>>>>>>>>>>> couples, to give them the same tax breaks that actual married >>>>>>>>>>>> couples >>>>>>>>>>>> get, etc.).
>>>>>>>>>>> Because of your personal visceral repugnance? >>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>> While I don't doubt your personal visceral repugnance, I'm doubtful >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> you actually consider it a valid justification of your opinion. I >>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>> you are going for a reaction here. >>>>>>>> It's not the only thing i mentioned as a reason for my opinion.
>>>>>>> From what I see, you listed as your reasons:
>>>>>>> 1. You find gay marriage "inconsistent with our cultural heritage" >>>>>>> (whatever that means). >>>>>>> 2. You find gay marriage to be in violation of your religious >>>>>>> beliefs. >>>>>>> 3. You find gay marriage personally disgusting.
>>>>>>> I personally just don't find that to be a very good set of reasons on >>>>>>> which to base legislation. >>>>>> I personally find them just fine for me. >>>>> I find them just fine for you, as well. I don't find them to be a very >>>>> good set of reasons on which to base legislation. >>>> Fair enough. If the issue comes up, by all means vote to allow gays to >>>> marry. I don't think i can convince you otherwise.
>>> Probably not. On the other hand, I do find that tradition, my religion, >>> and my personal visceral repulsions all go against the eating of >>> shellfish. But I would vote to keep that legal, as well. >> Maybe that's because others eating shellfish can't really impact on you >> in any way. E.g., you don't have to worry about being expected to extend >> social courtesies and consideration to the "wife" of a shellfish, if you >> run a business you don't have to pay for benefits if a "married" >> shellfish complains to the EEOC, etc. etc. etc. > Really? You think gay marriage should be illegal so that you don't have > to feel expected to extend social courtesies to gay couples?
That's one reason, yes. If gay marriage is 'normalized', eventually the day will come when it is socially expected to actually treat those 'marriages' the way you would treat any other normal married couple.
An idea that strikes me as ridiculous.
> You really > are incapable of using rational principles on this issue, aren't you? > You do realize that every one of the arguments you have listed in this > thread would be equally valid when used to argue that interracial > marriage should be illegal, don't you?
They could be used to argue that my own marriage should be illegal. And if someone wants to argue that and propose it as a constitutional amendment or somesuch, well this is America and they are free to go ahead and try to do that. That's why we have democratic political processes.
But of course i wouldn't agree with them and would oppose that idea, because i don't find my marriage to violate cultural traditions, to be against my religious beliefs, or to be viscerally repugnant to me.
-- As a tourist, you become economically significant but existentially loathsome, an insect on a dead thing.
Jaybyrd wrote: > On Nov 5, 9:56 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>> Just don't call it 'marriage', and don't compel me to have to respect it >> either morally/symbolically (by acknowledging the social legitimacy of >> the arrangement) or legally (i.e., if i'm an employer, to have to offer >> marriage benefits to them if i offer the same benefits to normal married >> couples, to give them the same tax breaks that actual married couples >> get, etc.).
> Employers are quickly learning that it's good business to offer these > benefits since gays are a vital part of the workforce. But they do > satisfy you by calling it partners or some other term. So that surely > makes you glad.
Employers should be free to offer or not offer benefits to gay couples if they want to. That's their business.
Of course the rest of us are also free to signal our approval or disapproval by choosing to boycott or buy from them, etc.
-- "when i visited Aden before collectivization, all the markets were full of fish product. After collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."
> Jaybyrd wrote: > > On Nov 5, 9:56 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> >> Just don't call it 'marriage', and don't compel me to have to respect it > >> either morally/symbolically (by acknowledging the social legitimacy of > >> the arrangement) or legally (i.e., if i'm an employer, to have to offer > >> marriage benefits to them if i offer the same benefits to normal married > >> couples, to give them the same tax breaks that actual married couples > >> get, etc.).
> > Employers are quickly learning that it's good business to offer these > > benefits since gays are a vital part of the workforce. But they do > > satisfy you by calling it partners or some other term. So that surely > > makes you glad.
> Employers should be free to offer or not offer benefits to gay couples > if they want to. That's their business.
And it's good business despite bigots that dont' agree.
> Of course the rest of us are also free to signal our approval or > disapproval by choosing to boycott or buy from them, etc.
They can but that would be such a small % of the population that it wouldn't make any impact except for these boycotters to stew in their own bitter hate.
stephenJ wrote: >>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >> stephenJ wrote: >>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people to engage in sex >>>>>>>>>>>>>> acts >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you find viscerally repugnant? (I doubt it.) >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people who engage in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>>>> acts to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> enter into legal contracts with each other? (I doubt it.) >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. If a brother and sister want to live together, and >>>>>>>>>>>>> sign an >>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement that says how their income will be split up, who >>>>>>>>>>>>> gets >>>>>>>>>>>>> what in >>>>>>>>>>>>> the event one moves out, etc ... that's all strictly their >>>>>>>>>>>>> business.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just don't call it 'marriage', and don't compel me to have to >>>>>>>>>>>>> respect it >>>>>>>>>>>>> either morally/symbolically (by acknowledging the social >>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimacy of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the arrangement) or legally (i.e., if i'm an employer, to >>>>>>>>>>>>> have to >>>>>>>>>>>>> offer >>>>>>>>>>>>> marriage benefits to them if i offer the same benefits to >>>>>>>>>>>>> normal >>>>>>>>>>>>> married >>>>>>>>>>>>> couples, to give them the same tax breaks that actual married >>>>>>>>>>>>> couples >>>>>>>>>>>>> get, etc.).
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because of your personal visceral repugnance? >>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>> While I don't doubt your personal visceral repugnance, I'm >>>>>>>>>> doubtful >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> you actually consider it a valid justification of your >>>>>>>>>> opinion. I >>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>> you are going for a reaction here. >>>>>>>>> It's not the only thing i mentioned as a reason for my opinion.
>>>>>>>> From what I see, you listed as your reasons:
>>>>>>>> 1. You find gay marriage "inconsistent with our cultural heritage" >>>>>>>> (whatever that means). >>>>>>>> 2. You find gay marriage to be in violation of your religious >>>>>>>> beliefs. >>>>>>>> 3. You find gay marriage personally disgusting.
>>>>>>>> I personally just don't find that to be a very good set of >>>>>>>> reasons on >>>>>>>> which to base legislation. >>>>>>> I personally find them just fine for me. >>>>>> I find them just fine for you, as well. I don't find them to be a >>>>>> very >>>>>> good set of reasons on which to base legislation. >>>>> Fair enough. If the issue comes up, by all means vote to allow gays to >>>>> marry. I don't think i can convince you otherwise.
>>>> Probably not. On the other hand, I do find that tradition, my >>>> religion, >>>> and my personal visceral repulsions all go against the eating of >>>> shellfish. But I would vote to keep that legal, as well. >>> Maybe that's because others eating shellfish can't really impact on you >>> in any way. E.g., you don't have to worry about being expected to extend >>> social courtesies and consideration to the "wife" of a shellfish, if you >>> run a business you don't have to pay for benefits if a "married" >>> shellfish complains to the EEOC, etc. etc. etc.
>> Really? You think gay marriage should be illegal so that you don't have >> to feel expected to extend social courtesies to gay couples?
> That's one reason, yes. If gay marriage is 'normalized', eventually the > day will come when it is socially expected to actually treat those > 'marriages' the way you would treat any other normal married couple.
Of course it will. This is going to happen whether you like it or not. Just like it did for interracial couples.
> An idea that strikes me as ridiculous.
It doesn't strike me as ridiculous to treat other people with respect, even when you disagree with some of theirs tastes and choices. I don't actually think you find that idea ridiculous either...Based on what little I know of you, I think you are trying to argue a point here that you know is actually at odds with your general principles, as well as the way you would behave in practice.
>> You really >> are incapable of using rational principles on this issue, aren't you? >> You do realize that every one of the arguments you have listed in this >> thread would be equally valid when used to argue that interracial >> marriage should be illegal, don't you?
> They could be used to argue that my own marriage should be illegal. And > if someone wants to argue that and propose it as a constitutional > amendment or somesuch, well this is America and they are free to go > ahead and try to do that. That's why we have democratic political > processes.
> But of course i wouldn't agree with them and would oppose that idea, > because i don't find my marriage to violate cultural traditions, to be > against my religious beliefs, or to be viscerally repugnant to me.
You are pretending those would be your reasons, but again I don't buy it. Your reasons would be because it would be unfair, wrong, and disrespectful.
> stephenJ wrote: >>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>> stephenJ wrote: >>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people to engage in sex >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you find viscerally repugnant? (I doubt it.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people who engage in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acts to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enter into legal contracts with each other? (I doubt it.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. If a brother and sister want to live together, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement that says how their income will be split up, who >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the event one moves out, etc ... that's all strictly their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> business.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just don't call it 'marriage', and don't compel me to have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> either morally/symbolically (by acknowledging the social >>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimacy of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the arrangement) or legally (i.e., if i'm an employer, to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> offer >>>>>>>>>>>>>> marriage benefits to them if i offer the same benefits to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal >>>>>>>>>>>>>> married >>>>>>>>>>>>>> couples, to give them the same tax breaks that actual married >>>>>>>>>>>>>> couples >>>>>>>>>>>>>> get, etc.).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because of your personal visceral repugnance? >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>> While I don't doubt your personal visceral repugnance, I'm >>>>>>>>>>> doubtful >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> you actually consider it a valid justification of your >>>>>>>>>>> opinion. I >>>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>>> you are going for a reaction here. >>>>>>>>>> It's not the only thing i mentioned as a reason for my opinion.
>>>>>>>>> From what I see, you listed as your reasons:
>>>>>>>>> 1. You find gay marriage "inconsistent with our cultural heritage" >>>>>>>>> (whatever that means). >>>>>>>>> 2. You find gay marriage to be in violation of your religious >>>>>>>>> beliefs. >>>>>>>>> 3. You find gay marriage personally disgusting.
>>>>>>>>> I personally just don't find that to be a very good set of >>>>>>>>> reasons on >>>>>>>>> which to base legislation. >>>>>>>> I personally find them just fine for me. >>>>>>> I find them just fine for you, as well. I don't find them to be a >>>>>>> very >>>>>>> good set of reasons on which to base legislation. >>>>>> Fair enough. If the issue comes up, by all means vote to allow gays to >>>>>> marry. I don't think i can convince you otherwise.
>>>>> Probably not. On the other hand, I do find that tradition, my >>>>> religion, >>>>> and my personal visceral repulsions all go against the eating of >>>>> shellfish. But I would vote to keep that legal, as well. >>>> Maybe that's because others eating shellfish can't really impact on you >>>> in any way. E.g., you don't have to worry about being expected to extend >>>> social courtesies and consideration to the "wife" of a shellfish, if you >>>> run a business you don't have to pay for benefits if a "married" >>>> shellfish complains to the EEOC, etc. etc. etc. >>> Really? You think gay marriage should be illegal so that you don't have >>> to feel expected to extend social courtesies to gay couples? >> That's one reason, yes. If gay marriage is 'normalized', eventually the >> day will come when it is socially expected to actually treat those >> 'marriages' the way you would treat any other normal married couple.
> Of course it will.
Exactly, which confirms this basis for my opposition to gay marriage. Now if you were to argue that "well, even if gay marriage is enacted, the day will never come when those who find it repugnant are expected to accord it social legitimacy", then that basis would be undermined.
But we both agree that's not the case.
-- As a tourist, you become economically significant but existentially loathsome, an insect on a dead thing.
Jaybyrd wrote: > On Nov 7, 1:24 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >> Jaybyrd wrote: >>> On Nov 5, 9:56 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>> Just don't call it 'marriage', and don't compel me to have to respect it >>>> either morally/symbolically (by acknowledging the social legitimacy of >>>> the arrangement) or legally (i.e., if i'm an employer, to have to offer >>>> marriage benefits to them if i offer the same benefits to normal married >>>> couples, to give them the same tax breaks that actual married couples >>>> get, etc.). >>> Employers are quickly learning that it's good business to offer these >>> benefits since gays are a vital part of the workforce. But they do >>> satisfy you by calling it partners or some other term. So that surely >>> makes you glad. >> Employers should be free to offer or not offer benefits to gay couples >> if they want to. That's their business.
> And it's good business
Perhaps it is. That should be up to the business to decide.
-- In South Africa there is such an ill distribution of wealth that any form of political freedom that doesn't touch on the proper distribution of wealth will be meaningless.
stephenJ wrote: >>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >> stephenJ wrote: >>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people to engage >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sex >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you find viscerally repugnant? (I doubt it.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people who engage in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acts to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enter into legal contracts with each other? (I doubt it.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. If a brother and sister want to live together, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement that says how their income will be split up, who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the event one moves out, etc ... that's all strictly their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just don't call it 'marriage', and don't compel me to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either morally/symbolically (by acknowledging the social >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimacy of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the arrangement) or legally (i.e., if i'm an employer, to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> marriage benefits to them if i offer the same benefits to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> married >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couples, to give them the same tax breaks that actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> married >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couples >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get, etc.).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because of your personal visceral repugnance? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>> While I don't doubt your personal visceral repugnance, I'm >>>>>>>>>>>> doubtful >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> you actually consider it a valid justification of your >>>>>>>>>>>> opinion. I >>>>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>>>> you are going for a reaction here. >>>>>>>>>>> It's not the only thing i mentioned as a reason for my opinion.
>>>>>>>>>> From what I see, you listed as your reasons:
>>>>>>>>>> 1. You find gay marriage "inconsistent with our cultural >>>>>>>>>> heritage" >>>>>>>>>> (whatever that means). >>>>>>>>>> 2. You find gay marriage to be in violation of your religious >>>>>>>>>> beliefs. >>>>>>>>>> 3. You find gay marriage personally disgusting.
>>>>>>>>>> I personally just don't find that to be a very good set of >>>>>>>>>> reasons on >>>>>>>>>> which to base legislation. >>>>>>>>> I personally find them just fine for me. >>>>>>>> I find them just fine for you, as well. I don't find them to be a >>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>> good set of reasons on which to base legislation. >>>>>>> Fair enough. If the issue comes up, by all means vote to allow >>>>>>> gays to >>>>>>> marry. I don't think i can convince you otherwise.
>>>>>> Probably not. On the other hand, I do find that tradition, my >>>>>> religion, >>>>>> and my personal visceral repulsions all go against the eating of >>>>>> shellfish. But I would vote to keep that legal, as well. >>>>> Maybe that's because others eating shellfish can't really impact on >>>>> you >>>>> in any way. E.g., you don't have to worry about being expected to >>>>> extend >>>>> social courtesies and consideration to the "wife" of a shellfish, >>>>> if you >>>>> run a business you don't have to pay for benefits if a "married" >>>>> shellfish complains to the EEOC, etc. etc. etc. >>>> Really? You think gay marriage should be illegal so that you don't >>>> have >>>> to feel expected to extend social courtesies to gay couples?
>>> That's one reason, yes. If gay marriage is 'normalized', eventually the >>> day will come when it is socially expected to actually treat those >>> 'marriages' the way you would treat any other normal married couple.
>> Of course it will.
> Exactly, which confirms this basis for my opposition to gay marriage. > Now if you were to argue that "well, even if gay marriage is enacted, > the day will never come when those who find it repugnant are expected to > accord it social legitimacy", then that basis would be undermined.
> But we both agree that's not the case.
The day's going to come whether gay marriage is enacted or not, which disconfirms that basis for your opposition to gay marriage.
Randolph M. Jones wrote: > stephenJ wrote: >>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people to engage >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sex >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you find viscerally repugnant? (I doubt it.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people who engage in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acts to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enter into legal contracts with each other? (I doubt it.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. If a brother and sister want to live together, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement that says how their income will be split up, who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the event one moves out, etc ... that's all strictly their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just don't call it 'marriage', and don't compel me to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either morally/symbolically (by acknowledging the social >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimacy of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the arrangement) or legally (i.e., if i'm an employer, to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> marriage benefits to them if i offer the same benefits to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> married >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couples, to give them the same tax breaks that actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> married >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couples >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get, etc.).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because of your personal visceral repugnance? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> While I don't doubt your personal visceral repugnance, I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>> doubtful >>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>> you actually consider it a valid justification of your >>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion. I >>>>>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>>>>> you are going for a reaction here. >>>>>>>>>>>> It's not the only thing i mentioned as a reason for my opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>> From what I see, you listed as your reasons:
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. You find gay marriage "inconsistent with our cultural >>>>>>>>>>> heritage" >>>>>>>>>>> (whatever that means). >>>>>>>>>>> 2. You find gay marriage to be in violation of your religious >>>>>>>>>>> beliefs. >>>>>>>>>>> 3. You find gay marriage personally disgusting.
>>>>>>>>>>> I personally just don't find that to be a very good set of >>>>>>>>>>> reasons on >>>>>>>>>>> which to base legislation. >>>>>>>>>> I personally find them just fine for me. >>>>>>>>> I find them just fine for you, as well. I don't find them to be a >>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>> good set of reasons on which to base legislation. >>>>>>>> Fair enough. If the issue comes up, by all means vote to allow >>>>>>>> gays to >>>>>>>> marry. I don't think i can convince you otherwise.
>>>>>>> Probably not. On the other hand, I do find that tradition, my >>>>>>> religion, >>>>>>> and my personal visceral repulsions all go against the eating of >>>>>>> shellfish. But I would vote to keep that legal, as well. >>>>>> Maybe that's because others eating shellfish can't really impact on >>>>>> you >>>>>> in any way. E.g., you don't have to worry about being expected to >>>>>> extend >>>>>> social courtesies and consideration to the "wife" of a shellfish, >>>>>> if you >>>>>> run a business you don't have to pay for benefits if a "married" >>>>>> shellfish complains to the EEOC, etc. etc. etc. >>>>> Really? You think gay marriage should be illegal so that you don't >>>>> have >>>>> to feel expected to extend social courtesies to gay couples? >>>> That's one reason, yes. If gay marriage is 'normalized', eventually the >>>> day will come when it is socially expected to actually treat those >>>> 'marriages' the way you would treat any other normal married couple. >>> Of course it will. >> Exactly, which confirms this basis for my opposition to gay marriage. >> Now if you were to argue that "well, even if gay marriage is enacted, >> the day will never come when those who find it repugnant are expected to >> accord it social legitimacy", then that basis would be undermined.
>> But we both agree that's not the case.
> The day's going to come whether gay marriage is enacted or not, which > disconfirms
.. only if you are a recognized master of predicting the future.
-- What is liberalism, generally speaking, but an attack on the existing order of things?
stephenJ wrote: > Randolph M. Jones wrote: >> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people to engage >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sex >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you find viscerally repugnant? (I doubt it.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engage in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acts to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enter into legal contracts with each other? (I doubt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. If a brother and sister want to live together, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement that says how their income will be split up, who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the event one moves out, etc ... that's all strictly their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just don't call it 'marriage', and don't compel me to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either morally/symbolically (by acknowledging the social >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimacy of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the arrangement) or legally (i.e., if i'm an employer, to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> marriage benefits to them if i offer the same benefits to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> married >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couples, to give them the same tax breaks that actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> married >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couples >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get, etc.).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because of your personal visceral repugnance? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While I don't doubt your personal visceral repugnance, I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doubtful >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you actually consider it a valid justification of your >>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are going for a reaction here. >>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not the only thing i mentioned as a reason for my >>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>>> From what I see, you listed as your reasons:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. You find gay marriage "inconsistent with our cultural >>>>>>>>>>>> heritage" >>>>>>>>>>>> (whatever that means). >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. You find gay marriage to be in violation of your religious >>>>>>>>>>>> beliefs. >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. You find gay marriage personally disgusting.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I personally just don't find that to be a very good set of >>>>>>>>>>>> reasons on >>>>>>>>>>>> which to base legislation. >>>>>>>>>>> I personally find them just fine for me. >>>>>>>>>> I find them just fine for you, as well. I don't find them to >>>>>>>>>> be a >>>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>>> good set of reasons on which to base legislation. >>>>>>>>> Fair enough. If the issue comes up, by all means vote to allow >>>>>>>>> gays to >>>>>>>>> marry. I don't think i can convince you otherwise.
>>>>>>>> Probably not. On the other hand, I do find that tradition, my >>>>>>>> religion, >>>>>>>> and my personal visceral repulsions all go against the eating of >>>>>>>> shellfish. But I would vote to keep that legal, as well. >>>>>>> Maybe that's because others eating shellfish can't really impact on >>>>>>> you >>>>>>> in any way. E.g., you don't have to worry about being expected to >>>>>>> extend >>>>>>> social courtesies and consideration to the "wife" of a shellfish, >>>>>>> if you >>>>>>> run a business you don't have to pay for benefits if a "married" >>>>>>> shellfish complains to the EEOC, etc. etc. etc. >>>>>> Really? You think gay marriage should be illegal so that you don't >>>>>> have >>>>>> to feel expected to extend social courtesies to gay couples? >>>>> That's one reason, yes. If gay marriage is 'normalized', eventually >>>>> the >>>>> day will come when it is socially expected to actually treat those >>>>> 'marriages' the way you would treat any other normal married couple. >>>> Of course it will. >>> Exactly, which confirms this basis for my opposition to gay marriage. >>> Now if you were to argue that "well, even if gay marriage is enacted, >>> the day will never come when those who find it repugnant are expected to >>> accord it social legitimacy", then that basis would be undermined.
>>> But we both agree that's not the case.
>> The day's going to come whether gay marriage is enacted or not, which >> disconfirms
> .. only if you are a recognized master of predicting the future.
> stephenJ wrote: >> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>> stephenJ wrote: >>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people to engage in >>>>>>>>>>>>> sex acts >>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>> you find viscerally repugnant? (I doubt it.) >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people who engage in >>>>>>>>>>>>> such acts to >>>>>>>>>>>>> enter into legal contracts with each other? (I doubt it.) >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. If a brother and sister want to live together, and >>>>>>>>>>>> sign an agreement that says how their income will be split >>>>>>>>>>>> up, who gets what in >>>>>>>>>>>> the event one moves out, etc ... that's all strictly their >>>>>>>>>>>> business.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just don't call it 'marriage', and don't compel me to have >>>>>>>>>>>> to respect it >>>>>>>>>>>> either morally/symbolically (by acknowledging the social >>>>>>>>>>>> legitimacy of >>>>>>>>>>>> the arrangement) or legally (i.e., if i'm an employer, to >>>>>>>>>>>> have to >>>>>>>>>>>> offer >>>>>>>>>>>> marriage benefits to them if i offer the same benefits to >>>>>>>>>>>> normal married >>>>>>>>>>>> couples, to give them the same tax breaks that actual >>>>>>>>>>>> married couples >>>>>>>>>>>> get, etc.).
>>>>>>>>>>> Because of your personal visceral repugnance? >>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>> While I don't doubt your personal visceral repugnance, I'm >>>>>>>>> doubtful that >>>>>>>>> you actually consider it a valid justification of your >>>>>>>>> opinion. I think >>>>>>>>> you are going for a reaction here. >>>>>>>> It's not the only thing i mentioned as a reason for my opinion.
>>>>>>> From what I see, you listed as your reasons:
>>>>>>> 1. You find gay marriage "inconsistent with our cultural >>>>>>> heritage" (whatever that means). >>>>>>> 2. You find gay marriage to be in violation of your religious >>>>>>> beliefs. >>>>>>> 3. You find gay marriage personally disgusting.
>>>>>>> I personally just don't find that to be a very good set of >>>>>>> reasons on which to base legislation. >>>>>> I personally find them just fine for me. >>>>> I find them just fine for you, as well. I don't find them to be a >>>>> very good set of reasons on which to base legislation. >>>> Fair enough. If the issue comes up, by all means vote to allow gays >>>> to marry. I don't think i can convince you otherwise.
>>> Probably not. On the other hand, I do find that tradition, my >>> religion, and my personal visceral repulsions all go against the >>> eating of shellfish. But I would vote to keep that legal, as well.
>> Maybe that's because others eating shellfish can't really impact on >> you in any way. E.g., you don't have to worry about being expected to >> extend social courtesies and consideration to the "wife" of a >> shellfish, if you run a business you don't have to pay for benefits >> if a "married" shellfish complains to the EEOC, etc. etc. etc.
> Really? You think gay marriage should be illegal so that you don't > have to feel expected to extend social courtesies to gay couples? You > really are incapable of using rational principles on this issue, > aren't you? You do realize that every one of the arguments you have > listed in this thread would be equally valid when used to argue that > interracial marriage should be illegal, don't you?
I think you've missed his past posts where he says the SC was wrong in Loving v. Virginia...
> Jaybyrd wrote: > > On Nov 7, 1:24 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>> On Nov 5, 9:56 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>> Just don't call it 'marriage', and don't compel me to have to respect it > >>>> either morally/symbolically (by acknowledging the social legitimacy of > >>>> the arrangement) or legally (i.e., if i'm an employer, to have to offer > >>>> marriage benefits to them if i offer the same benefits to normal married > >>>> couples, to give them the same tax breaks that actual married couples > >>>> get, etc.). > >>> Employers are quickly learning that it's good business to offer these > >>> benefits since gays are a vital part of the workforce. But they do > >>> satisfy you by calling it partners or some other term. So that surely > >>> makes you glad. > >> Employers should be free to offer or not offer benefits to gay couples > >> if they want to. That's their business.
> > And it's good business
> Perhaps it is. That should be up to the business to decide.
businesses already can choose what benefits to provide. If they have anything to do with including domestic partners, the issue of homosexuality isn't in the package.
Jaybyrd wrote: > On Nov 7, 10:51 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >> Jaybyrd wrote: >>> On Nov 7, 1:24 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>> On Nov 5, 9:56 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>> Just don't call it 'marriage', and don't compel me to have to respect it >>>>>> either morally/symbolically (by acknowledging the social legitimacy of >>>>>> the arrangement) or legally (i.e., if i'm an employer, to have to offer >>>>>> marriage benefits to them if i offer the same benefits to normal married >>>>>> couples, to give them the same tax breaks that actual married couples >>>>>> get, etc.). >>>>> Employers are quickly learning that it's good business to offer these >>>>> benefits since gays are a vital part of the workforce. But they do >>>>> satisfy you by calling it partners or some other term. So that surely >>>>> makes you glad. >>>> Employers should be free to offer or not offer benefits to gay couples >>>> if they want to. That's their business. >>> And it's good business >> Perhaps it is. That should be up to the business to decide.
> businesses already can choose what benefits to provide.
.. and they should be able to choose who to provide them to. If a business is run by someone who finds 'gay partnerships' repugnant, then of course he/she should be able to exclude those partnerships from any benefits packages he wants to provide to normal, respectable married couples.
-- As a tourist, you become economically significant but existentially loathsome, an insect on a dead thing.
> Jaybyrd wrote: > > On Nov 7, 10:51 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>> On Nov 7, 1:24 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 5, 9:56 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Just don't call it 'marriage', and don't compel me to have to respect it > >>>>>> either morally/symbolically (by acknowledging the social legitimacy of > >>>>>> the arrangement) or legally (i.e., if i'm an employer, to have to offer > >>>>>> marriage benefits to them if i offer the same benefits to normal married > >>>>>> couples, to give them the same tax breaks that actual married couples > >>>>>> get, etc.). > >>>>> Employers are quickly learning that it's good business to offer these > >>>>> benefits since gays are a vital part of the workforce. But they do > >>>>> satisfy you by calling it partners or some other term. So that surely > >>>>> makes you glad. > >>>> Employers should be free to offer or not offer benefits to gay couples > >>>> if they want to. That's their business. > >>> And it's good business > >> Perhaps it is. That should be up to the business to decide.
> > businesses already can choose what benefits to provide.
> .. and they should be able to choose who to provide them to. If a > business is run by someone who finds 'gay partnerships' repugnant, then > of course he/she should be able to exclude those partnerships from any > benefits packages he wants to provide to normal, respectable married > couples.
Not "gay partnerships", domestic partners. Maybe they are asexual, none of my business. Try not to be so obsessed with sex.
> On Nov 9, 5:27 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> > Jaybyrd wrote: > > > On Nov 7, 10:51 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > >> Jaybyrd wrote: > > >>> On Nov 7, 1:24 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > >>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > >>>>> On Nov 5, 9:56 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> Just don't call it 'marriage', and don't compel me to have to respect it > > >>>>>> either morally/symbolically (by acknowledging the social legitimacy of > > >>>>>> the arrangement) or legally (i.e., if i'm an employer, to have to offer > > >>>>>> marriage benefits to them if i offer the same benefits to normal married > > >>>>>> couples, to give them the same tax breaks that actual married couples > > >>>>>> get, etc.). > > >>>>> Employers are quickly learning that it's good business to offer these > > >>>>> benefits since gays are a vital part of the workforce. But they do > > >>>>> satisfy you by calling it partners or some other term. So that surely > > >>>>> makes you glad. > > >>>> Employers should be free to offer or not offer benefits to gay couples > > >>>> if they want to. That's their business. > > >>> And it's good business > > >> Perhaps it is. That should be up to the business to decide.
> > > businesses already can choose what benefits to provide.
> > .. and they should be able to choose who to provide them to. If a > > business is run by someone who finds 'gay partnerships' repugnant, then > > of course he/she should be able to exclude those partnerships from any > > benefits packages he wants to provide to normal, respectable married > > couples.
> Not "gay partnerships", domestic partners.
Gay, straight, asexual, formally married or just shacking up, etc. - it should be up to the business owner to decide who they want to provide benefits to.
> > stephenJ wrote: > >> Randolph M. Jones wrote: > >>> stephenJ wrote: > >>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: > >>>>> stephenJ wrote: > >>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: > >>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: > >>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: > >>>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> stephenJ wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people to engage in > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sex acts > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>> you find viscerally repugnant? (I doubt it.) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think it should be illegal for people who engage in > >>>>>>>>>>>>> such acts to > >>>>>>>>>>>>> enter into legal contracts with each other? (I doubt it.) > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. If a brother and sister want to live together, and > >>>>>>>>>>>> sign an agreement that says how their income will be split > >>>>>>>>>>>> up, who gets what in > >>>>>>>>>>>> the event one moves out, etc ... that's all strictly their > >>>>>>>>>>>> business.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Just don't call it 'marriage', and don't compel me to have > >>>>>>>>>>>> to respect it > >>>>>>>>>>>> either morally/symbolically (by acknowledging the social > >>>>>>>>>>>> legitimacy of > >>>>>>>>>>>> the arrangement) or legally (i.e., if i'm an employer, to > >>>>>>>>>>>> have to > >>>>>>>>>>>> offer > >>>>>>>>>>>> marriage benefits to them if i offer the same benefits to > >>>>>>>>>>>> normal married > >>>>>>>>>>>> couples, to give them the same tax breaks that actual > >>>>>>>>>>>> married couples > >>>>>>>>>>>> get, etc.).
> >>>>>>>>>>> Because of your personal visceral repugnance? > >>>>>>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>>>> While I don't doubt your personal visceral repugnance, I'm > >>>>>>>>> doubtful that > >>>>>>>>> you actually consider it a valid justification of your > >>>>>>>>> opinion. I think > >>>>>>>>> you are going for a reaction here. > >>>>>>>> It's not the only thing i mentioned as a reason for my opinion.
> >>>>>>> From what I see, you listed as your reasons:
> >>>>>>> 1. You find gay marriage "inconsistent with our cultural > >>>>>>> heritage" (whatever that means). > >>>>>>> 2. You find gay marriage to be in violation of your religious > >>>>>>> beliefs. > >>>>>>> 3. You find gay marriage personally disgusting.
> >>>>>>> I personally just don't find that to be a very good set of > >>>>>>> reasons on which to base legislation. > >>>>>> I personally find them just fine for me. > >>>>> I find them just fine for you, as well. I don't find them to be a > >>>>> very good set of reasons on which to base legislation. > >>>> Fair enough. If the issue comes up, by all means vote to allow gays > >>>> to marry. I don't think i can convince you otherwise.
> >>> Probably not. On the other hand, I do find that tradition, my > >>> religion, and my personal visceral repulsions all go against the > >>> eating of shellfish. But I would vote to keep that legal, as well.
> >> Maybe that's because others eating shellfish can't really impact on > >> you in any way. E.g., you don't have to worry about being expected to > >> extend social courtesies and consideration to the "wife" of a > >> shellfish, if you run a business you don't have to pay for benefits > >> if a "married" shellfish complains to the EEOC, etc. etc. etc.
> > Really? You think gay marriage should be illegal so that you don't > > have to feel expected to extend social courtesies to gay couples? You > > really are incapable of using rational principles on this issue, > > aren't you? You do realize that every one of the arguments you have > > listed in this thread would be equally valid when used to argue that > > interracial marriage should be illegal, don't you?
> I think you've missed his past posts where he says the SC was wrong in > Loving v. Virginia...
The court clearly was wrong in "loving", but that really doesn't bear on this discussion.
> On Nov 9, 5:02 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 5:27 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> > > Jaybyrd wrote: > > > > On Nov 7, 10:51 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > >> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > >>> On Nov 7, 1:24 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > >>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > >>>>> On Nov 5, 9:56 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>> Just don't call it 'marriage', and don't compel me to have to respect it > > > >>>>>> either morally/symbolically (by acknowledging the social legitimacy of > > > >>>>>> the arrangement) or legally (i.e., if i'm an employer, to have to offer > > > >>>>>> marriage benefits to them if i offer the same benefits to normal married > > > >>>>>> couples, to give them the same tax breaks that actual married couples > > > >>>>>> get, etc.). > > > >>>>> Employers are quickly learning that it's good business to offer these > > > >>>>> benefits since gays are a vital part of the workforce. But they do > > > >>>>> satisfy you by calling it partners or some other term. So that surely > > > >>>>> makes you glad. > > > >>>> Employers should be free to offer or not offer benefits to gay couples > > > >>>> if they want to. That's their business. > > > >>> And it's good business > > > >> Perhaps it is. That should be up to the business to decide.
> > > > businesses already can choose what benefits to provide.
> > > .. and they should be able to choose who to provide them to. If a > > > business is run by someone who finds 'gay partnerships' repugnant, then > > > of course he/she should be able to exclude those partnerships from any > > > benefits packages he wants to provide to normal, respectable married > > > couples.
> > Not "gay partnerships", domestic partners.
> Gay, straight, asexual, formally married or just shacking up, etc. - > it should be up to the business owner to decide who they want to > provide benefits to.
and it is now, even in states that recognize gay marriage.
|
