Christopher Moore Home Page

The bulletin board is currently closed to new posts. Instead, why not check out Chris' Twitter and Facebook pages?


bbs.chrismoore.com Forum Index -> Politics

miss america / gay marriage
Goto page Previous  1, 2
  Author    Thread This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics. This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
wlstone



Joined: 12 Sep 2008
Posts: 13
Location: Here-ish.
 Reply with quote  

imagining something what wasn't meant wrote:

In any event: Pray tell, wlstone, what constitutes these "lifestyles" of which you speak?


I understand this is a sensitive issue to many people, as I have many friends who are gay, but I don't understand what you are implying mllefifi.

That I'm somehow demeaning homosexual lifestyles or in anyway comparing them to heterosexual lifestyles with any malicious undertone?

I hope this isn't what you read, as that's not what was meant. :/

I'm only saying that anyone seeking the right to do what they want, has to accept that others can do the same. That tolerance is a two way street.

As far as you interracial replacements you put in my post, i'm confused as to what you meant. :/ I'm assuming either you are joking, or have misunderstood my inability to express what I was intending to say.

To answer your question, I meant "lifestyle" as in whatever a person chooses to do. Whether it be what opinions someone has, what gender they are attracted to, what religion they follow etc. Please don't interpret my usage of lifestyle as demeaning to gay people, was not meant that way AT ALL.

and Jester85:
Jester85 wrote:
I don't see why I have to be tolerant of people who don't tolerate me and think I should be a second-class citizen for my gender attraction.


That attitude is why after thousands of years of evolution, humans are still at war.

They may think of you as a second-class citizen, but you thinking of them that way isn't helping anything, but maybe I'm more passive than most.
_________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes.

Post Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:13 pm   View user's profile Send private message
mllefifi



Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 8964
Location: Deleoware
 Reply with quote  

wlstone wrote:
imagining something what wasn't meant wrote:

In any event: Pray tell, wlstone, what constitutes these "lifestyles" of which you speak?

I understand this is a sensitive issue to many people, as I have many friends who are gay, but I don't understand what you are implying mllefifi.

It is not a "sensitive" issue. It is a fundamental issue, an issue of fundamental, equal civil rights. Two consenting adults who are not already closely related should be allowed to marry each other under civil law.
Quote:
That I'm somehow demeaning homosexual lifestyles or in anyway comparing them to heterosexual lifestyles with any malicious undertone?

You didn't have to compare them to heterosexual "lifestyles" -- in fact, you didn't do so at all, because you used that term only with regard to "them" (i.e., gays).

I assume you are old enough and aware enough to know that throwing in the word "lifestyle" in reference only to gay people does not contribute positively to a conversation. It's been a standard weasel-word tactic of anti-gay bigots for years and years and years; and unfortunately it has seeped into the speech of even well-meaning, otherwise thoughtful people.
Quote:
I hope this isn't what you read, as that's not what was meant. :/
I'm only saying that anyone seeking the right to do what they want, has to accept that others can do the same. That tolerance is a two way street.

Gays aren't trying to stop straight couples from marrying each other. THAT would be intolerance. Mere disagreement is not intolerance.
Quote:
As far as you interracial replacements you put in my post, i'm confused as to what you meant. :/ I'm assuming either you are joking, or have misunderstood my inability to express what I was intending to say.

I am not joking. Look up Loving v. Virginia.

Each of us is born/conceived with the genes that (eventually) make our skin color, facial features, hair texture, etc. Likewise, each of us is born/conceived with our sex. There is no fundamental difference between prohibiting marriage between two persons of the "wrong" combination of racial characteristics and marriage between two persons of the "wrong" combination of sexual organs. "Society" used to criminalize the former with the ignorance, vehemence, and lies that are employed today in order to legally prohibit the latter.
Quote:
To answer your question, I meant "lifestyle" as in whatever a person chooses to do. Whether it be what opinions someone has, what gender they are attracted to, what religion they follow etc.

A person does not choose his/her own sex, i.e., the junk between their legs (barring extraordinary medical procedures). Nor does he/she get to choose what junk their partner should have between that partner's legs. Opposition to same-sex marriage discriminates against couples based purely on what kind of junk is between their legs. There is no "lifestyle" involved in that basic situation.

Sexual orientation -- whether it's a "choice" or not -- is completely irrelevant to marriage. Two people of the same sex should be allowed to marry each other regardless of their sexual orientation -- just as two people of opposite gender currently ARE allowed to marry each other regardless of their sexual orientation. As far as I am aware, marriage licenses don't include a requirement for "lifestyle."
Quote:
Please don't interpret my usage of lifestyle as demeaning to gay people, was not meant that way AT ALL.

Then, in order to avoid misunderstanding, avoid invoking "lifestyle" in a one-sided way; or, better yet, don't use the term at all.
_________________
"If you allow yourself to be offended, then you're a bit of [a] nitwit."
(Christopher Moore)

Post Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:48 am   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
wlstone



Joined: 12 Sep 2008
Posts: 13
Location: Here-ish.
 Reply with quote  

I completely agree with you, in regards to it being a fundamental issue, but not to say that it isn't a sensitive one.

As stated before, my inability to explain myself has led to unintended "us and them" vocabulary, however, it wasn't meant as such, and I believe that over-political correctness in use of terms has only crippled the English language.

I have have used "their" but, being that I am not gay myself, seemed fitting, not because I view gay people as being "second-class citizens" or not equal to myself, but only separating this groups belief with this groups belief, not even intending to show a view opposite of mine. In fact, if I was gay I would have worded it the same way.

As far as lifestyles, I mean it only in the way the dictionary describes, and all of my words are meant the same way. I don't apply any politics to the words I chose. "Lifestyles" I believe seemed to be perfectly good word, that has been destroyed by anti-gay bigots, and now makes even well-meaning people look like asses.

As I am not "active" in any politics, I remain unaware of what words are acceptable with any given group.

With that said:

I have always been supportive of any god-given predisposition or choices that any has or makes.

You are the first person that I have notice not consider "choice" a determining factor in marriage, and I have long debated with people that that was irrelevant, if not counter-advantageous.

The misunderstandings from both sides of this argument are what have led me from usually staying out of this issue. The "anti-gay bigots" who criticizes me for supporting same-sex marriage, and the same-sex marriage advocates who criticize me for my view of same-sex marriage, and implying that it could be used to better serve many others groups who also seek these rights.

Now I feel I need to explain. I wholeheartedly believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, but I also believe that an argument made to support one group of people from getting married is self serving when gay people are not the only ones that are being discriminated against in concern to marriage.

I would have no quarrel if the movement was "A universal right to marry who (maybe even what) you chose", but I think that the argument for same-sex marriage seems passively intolerant to people that wish to marry anyone that is a first cousin or closer, people who wish to live as polygamists, and even as in the case in some states, to marry people with venereal diseases.

However, it seems that these groups are left out of the "universal right to marry". Now I'm sure that many would argue nature vs. nurture, and that gay people are born that way, and that the others are not, but I'm sure most people would realize that that was not necessarily true.

The only problem I have with same-sex marriage is that is defines the only criteria as love, or sexual love (not meant as "they only get married for sex"), if even that. Then polygamists would be allowed to marry on the basis that they all love each other, which is fine by me, but would seem to be crippling to the economy.

I simply believe that anyone should be allowed to marry anyone in any number, but also belief that straight, gay, incest, and polygamist couples would be a should not receive any subsidiaries.

So as you can see I DO support same-sex marriage but only see it as a small part of full universal marriage rights.

I don't want anyone to interpret this as "well if them ole gays can get muhrried, then what about them other deviants", because I do NOT see being gay as being deviant, or anything other than natural (even if by choice rather than being born that way). I simply believe that anything that is, is natural, in that respect.

I hope I have made myself clear this time, it only took me three tries. Laughing

Also, if I have previously offended any gay people with my usage of words like "lifestyle" which have taken only so much weight over the years, I am deeply sorry, but there was no intent to harm. Please forgive me if I have offended. Embarassed
_________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes.

Post Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:44 am   View user's profile Send private message
zendao42



Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 13570
Location: Somewhere in a galaxy near you
 Reply with quote  

Last time I checked, Lifestyles is a condom brand-
I recommend using something like it if you're getting slutty with cocks no matter which way you swing! Razz


*waits for feef to make a chicken reference*

Post Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:40 am   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Wonko



Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Posts: 4787
Location: ...but it's a hot heat
 Reply with quote  

zendao42 wrote:


*waits for feef to make a chicken reference*


Why, is he choking?
_________________
Avoid being normal -- John Lennon

Post Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:41 pm   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
  Display posts from previous:      
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics. This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2

Last Thread | Next Thread  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 
Templates created by Vereor and Ken