The gay marriage debate in the US these days
Posted by: ErikL on 15 February 2004
Isn't it just a civil rights issue, or am I missing something?
I don't understand all the fuss.
I don't understand all the fuss.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by Johns Naim
Well,,,
I'm really quite stunned to be frank. Reading through all 8 pages of this post fills me for some unkown reason with a great deal of sadness.
Firstly, and importantly, whilst you take it as a given, I for one would very much like to publicly offer my condolences and support Throbnorth. I am sure that you have many loving friends around you, but none can quite assuage the sense of loss that you must surely feel I would think, and thus my words may mean little, but I am sure you have many friends here on the forum who feel as I do.
BrianD, I do not know you, and bear you no ill will, and respect the opinions you have offered.
Howver, IMHO, the fact that you read completely through Throbnorths last post as you have stated, and could only see fit to respond to what you felt were slights upon you re some implied sarcasm, shows the grossest insensitivity by you, IMHO, to Throbnorths own feelings and personal grief, - insensitivy which I find personally appalling, especially as you complain so vociferously of others seeming insensitiviy towards yourself.
I've read a lot of things on this forum over quite some time now, but I am quite flabbergasted by this, and I really do think you should have a quiet thought about offering an apology, or at least recognising his grief, as at the very least, surely that is not to much to ask of any reasonable person?
I recognise and understand your own hurt feelings in your posts, but scarecly see it as good reason to react to Throbnorth as you have, whilst completely dimissing his feelings in your response.
I do not wish to put words in your mouth, but in recent working experience, I came into contact with many 'sensitive' people who would give you a good kicking, as you put it to Matthew earlier, if they didn't like the way one spoke. In the main, they were never the quiet, shy, timid type, but rather, boastful, arrogant, and bloody minded people sensitive only to their own pride and opinion, who wouldn't tolerate anything different and would defend their 'masculinity' with their fists.
Now I'm neither saying or implying that is you, heavens this is an internet forum after all, and we don't know each other, but putting your protests about Matthews seeming insensitivity towards you, followed by your remarks that inferred he would be the type of person to seemingly invite "a good kicking" and now your gross insensitivity towards Throbnorth, makes me wonder if indeed you may be the type of person I've outlined above. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, and as I said, bear you no ill will, but as a newcomer to this post, needed to vent a little here, and meke my own point as it were.
I truly feel very saddened by Throbnorths situation, as I'm sure any reasonable and caring person would, and would've thought, being the sensitive person that you claim to be, that you would've recognised his feelings.
If my words seem condescending, or arrogant, or you choose to take umbridge with any of my words BrianD, well, fair enough, however I just needed to make my views known, as have you.
It's a democracy after all.
Best Regards to All
John...
Populist thinking exalts the simplistic and the ordinary
I'm really quite stunned to be frank. Reading through all 8 pages of this post fills me for some unkown reason with a great deal of sadness.
Firstly, and importantly, whilst you take it as a given, I for one would very much like to publicly offer my condolences and support Throbnorth. I am sure that you have many loving friends around you, but none can quite assuage the sense of loss that you must surely feel I would think, and thus my words may mean little, but I am sure you have many friends here on the forum who feel as I do.
BrianD, I do not know you, and bear you no ill will, and respect the opinions you have offered.
Howver, IMHO, the fact that you read completely through Throbnorths last post as you have stated, and could only see fit to respond to what you felt were slights upon you re some implied sarcasm, shows the grossest insensitivity by you, IMHO, to Throbnorths own feelings and personal grief, - insensitivy which I find personally appalling, especially as you complain so vociferously of others seeming insensitiviy towards yourself.
I've read a lot of things on this forum over quite some time now, but I am quite flabbergasted by this, and I really do think you should have a quiet thought about offering an apology, or at least recognising his grief, as at the very least, surely that is not to much to ask of any reasonable person?
I recognise and understand your own hurt feelings in your posts, but scarecly see it as good reason to react to Throbnorth as you have, whilst completely dimissing his feelings in your response.
I do not wish to put words in your mouth, but in recent working experience, I came into contact with many 'sensitive' people who would give you a good kicking, as you put it to Matthew earlier, if they didn't like the way one spoke. In the main, they were never the quiet, shy, timid type, but rather, boastful, arrogant, and bloody minded people sensitive only to their own pride and opinion, who wouldn't tolerate anything different and would defend their 'masculinity' with their fists.
Now I'm neither saying or implying that is you, heavens this is an internet forum after all, and we don't know each other, but putting your protests about Matthews seeming insensitivity towards you, followed by your remarks that inferred he would be the type of person to seemingly invite "a good kicking" and now your gross insensitivity towards Throbnorth, makes me wonder if indeed you may be the type of person I've outlined above. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, and as I said, bear you no ill will, but as a newcomer to this post, needed to vent a little here, and meke my own point as it were.
I truly feel very saddened by Throbnorths situation, as I'm sure any reasonable and caring person would, and would've thought, being the sensitive person that you claim to be, that you would've recognised his feelings.
If my words seem condescending, or arrogant, or you choose to take umbridge with any of my words BrianD, well, fair enough, however I just needed to make my views known, as have you.
It's a democracy after all.
Best Regards to All
John...
Populist thinking exalts the simplistic and the ordinary
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by Markus S
I'd just like to say that threads like this one convince me that on this forum I'm mostly among people with whom I'd probably get along fine if I ever met them in real life.
Thanks, guys.
Thanks, guys.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by matthewr
Throb -- Many thanks for that post. As with your contribution to the 3rd World AIDS debate the sharp blade of personal experience often cuts through a lot of the twaddle (both well intentioned and not so well intentioned).
Matthew
Matthew
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by RandallE
quote:
Originally posted by Ludwig:
Isn't it just a civil rights issue, or am I missing something?
I don't understand all the fuss.
Going back 8 pages to the original question.....
This has become 'a fuss' in the U.S. because pResident's Rove and Cheney badly need to steer everyone's attention away from the Iraq mess that they have created, the record deficit, and the most jobs lost of any administration. Elected or otherwise. Hence, the gay marriage issue pops up out of the blue.
What better way to rally the hardcore right wing than to scare them with (in so many words) "them Democrats want to destroy American values by *GASP* letting queers marry!!!"
No one appeals to the dumbest common denominator better than reTHUGlicans.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by JeremyD
Throb, I am very sorry to learn of the loss of Andru, and sorry that this thread got to the point where you felt it necessary to relate what you would rather have kept to yourself.
Brian, I cannot find the words to express how shocked and saddened I am by your reply to Throb.
BTW, Brian, I object to your bringing my name into this in your attempt to suggest that anyone who bothered to read other people's posts would see that you were only responding in kind to their insults, real or imagined. I assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. Quite frankly those who have continued to discuss this issue with you have, in my opinion, shown remarkable restraint and patience in attempting to communicate with you, which I for one find a deeply perplexing and frustrating process.
Brian, I cannot find the words to express how shocked and saddened I am by your reply to Throb.
BTW, Brian, I object to your bringing my name into this in your attempt to suggest that anyone who bothered to read other people's posts would see that you were only responding in kind to their insults, real or imagined. I assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. Quite frankly those who have continued to discuss this issue with you have, in my opinion, shown remarkable restraint and patience in attempting to communicate with you, which I for one find a deeply perplexing and frustrating process.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by adamk
Respect to BrianD for daring to declare his thoughts on this subject.
It was obvious that the 'forum Politically Correct thought police' would unite in their outrage and condemnation.
Tolerance, freedom of speech, acceptance of other opinions: Only applicable if you are singing from the same song sheet it seams.
It was obvious that the 'forum Politically Correct thought police' would unite in their outrage and condemnation.
Tolerance, freedom of speech, acceptance of other opinions: Only applicable if you are singing from the same song sheet it seams.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by Basil
adamk, go back and re-read throbnorth's post and BrianD's reply.
How can you respect this person?
How can you respect this person?
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by Former member
quote:Ah, so there are still some Daily Mail readers out there!
Originally posted by adamk:
Respect to BrianD for daring to declare his thoughts on this subject.
It was obvious that the 'forum Politically Correct thought police' would unite in their outrage and condemnation.
Tolerance, freedom of speech, acceptance of other opinions: Only applicable if you are singing from the same song sheet it seams.
Adam,
At which points was Brian not encouraged to voice his opinion? What I saw was a group of people trying to have a debate - firstly understanding his position and thinking, then (not unreasonably) trying to persuade him of a different way of looking at things - with partial success. Only on a couple of occasions were tempers frayed.
Still, nice of you to chip in at this stage with such a tried and trusted cliche. The debate is much better for it.
nick.lees at btinternet.com
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by BrianD
ag
You lost me.
quote:
By using the same method of evaluation that enables you to state that marriage should only be between man and woman and that same-sex relationships are not the right place to raise a child.
You lost me.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by BrianD
John'sNaim
I'm sorry, but I must respond to this. For the first time in this thread I really wish a person was standing in front of me making this accusation face to face. This has now gone too far.
In his post, Throbnorth said.....
I read the post from Throb, feeling a great deal of sympathy for him as he explained what had happened in his personal life, but I made no reference to it for 2 reasons. The first is quoted at the top of this post, it is what he requested. The second, and just as important or even more so, is that I was worried that any words of condolence from me might actually be deemed inappropriate given the way the thread has progressed. I considered that this may offend Throbnorth even more than anything else I’ve said so far. WHAT WAS IN MY MIND WAS TO TRY TO SHOW SOME RESPECT FOR THE MAN'S FEELINGS.
If Throbnorth reads what I've just posted and does not understand my reasons then I will be more than happy to apologise to him, even though there was absolutely NO INTENT AT ALL TO DISREGARD HIS FEELINGS in my post. That you believe I would do this is a disgrace. I wonder what kind of person and what kind of standards YOU have that you would so easily believe this of someone WHO YOU DON'T KNOW. With this accusation you have probably done me the biggest diservice I've ever suffered in my life. Thank you very much.
BTW This will be my last post on this thread, probably on the forum. I used to post on here for a long time until leaving when I was deemed a racist and in favour of killing children, despite the fact that I KNOW I'm not a racist and why on earth would I want to kill children?
It is clear that I'm not welcome here but I've popped in from time to time and the manner of some people seemed to have died down a bit. Well it looks like I was wrong. You people are unable to tolerate any kind of point of view that conflicts with your own. If you don't agree you claim that the arguments are absurd, bollix, poorly put forward or even don't exist at all. Some are flabbergasted, I am deemed 'not a reasonable person', god only knows what that implies about me. I am homophobic, despite the fact I have no problem with gay relationships, I just don't want to see them married.
I hope you all enjoy your forum and go on to have many happy agreements with each other.
Edited to correct some spelling mistakes.
I'm actually very sorry that I returned to this forum.
[This message was edited by BrianD on THURSDAY 19 February 2004 at 14:39.]
quote:
However, IMHO, the fact that you read completely through Throbnorths last post as you have stated, and could only see fit to respond............shows the grossest insensitivity by you, IMHO, to Throbnorths own feelings and personal grief, - insensitivy which I find personally appalling
I'm sorry, but I must respond to this. For the first time in this thread I really wish a person was standing in front of me making this accusation face to face. This has now gone too far.
In his post, Throbnorth said.....
quote:
I really didn't want to talk about this, partly because discussion of my personal anguish is not appropriate for an anonymous hi-fi forum [I take your condolences as read, BTW - you don't need to post them],
I read the post from Throb, feeling a great deal of sympathy for him as he explained what had happened in his personal life, but I made no reference to it for 2 reasons. The first is quoted at the top of this post, it is what he requested. The second, and just as important or even more so, is that I was worried that any words of condolence from me might actually be deemed inappropriate given the way the thread has progressed. I considered that this may offend Throbnorth even more than anything else I’ve said so far. WHAT WAS IN MY MIND WAS TO TRY TO SHOW SOME RESPECT FOR THE MAN'S FEELINGS.
quote:
I've read a lot of things on this forum over quite some time now, but I am quite flabbergasted by this, and I really do think you should have a quiet thought about offering an apology, or at least recognising his grief, as at the very least, surely that is not to much to ask of any reasonable person?
If Throbnorth reads what I've just posted and does not understand my reasons then I will be more than happy to apologise to him, even though there was absolutely NO INTENT AT ALL TO DISREGARD HIS FEELINGS in my post. That you believe I would do this is a disgrace. I wonder what kind of person and what kind of standards YOU have that you would so easily believe this of someone WHO YOU DON'T KNOW. With this accusation you have probably done me the biggest diservice I've ever suffered in my life. Thank you very much.
BTW This will be my last post on this thread, probably on the forum. I used to post on here for a long time until leaving when I was deemed a racist and in favour of killing children, despite the fact that I KNOW I'm not a racist and why on earth would I want to kill children?
It is clear that I'm not welcome here but I've popped in from time to time and the manner of some people seemed to have died down a bit. Well it looks like I was wrong. You people are unable to tolerate any kind of point of view that conflicts with your own. If you don't agree you claim that the arguments are absurd, bollix, poorly put forward or even don't exist at all. Some are flabbergasted, I am deemed 'not a reasonable person', god only knows what that implies about me. I am homophobic, despite the fact I have no problem with gay relationships, I just don't want to see them married.
I hope you all enjoy your forum and go on to have many happy agreements with each other.
Edited to correct some spelling mistakes.
I'm actually very sorry that I returned to this forum.
[This message was edited by BrianD on THURSDAY 19 February 2004 at 14:39.]
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by Thomas K
Adam,
Political Correctness makes me nauseous, yet I belong to the group of people you have neatly lumped together under the term "Politically Correct thought police". The world isn't quite as simple as that.
And for the 100th time -- most people here are less upset about Brian's view as such, but about his lack of stringent argument. "It's always been like that and we don't want change because change is dangerous" doesn't cut it, especially if you're denying someone certain rights on the basis of their sexuality.
Just as an aside, I would rather see a change in marital law altogether. In Germany, for instance, single, childless people are beginning to be stigmatised to a degree I personally find threatening. Married couples who consciously decide not to procreate seem to be exempt from the "fucking for the economy" jingoism, so they happily enjoy tax benefits and their double income/shared living costs status until they die. Meanwhile, the Bavarian conservatives are proposing pension cuts for childless people.
Thomas
[This message was edited by Thomas K on THURSDAY 19 February 2004 at 15:09.]
Political Correctness makes me nauseous, yet I belong to the group of people you have neatly lumped together under the term "Politically Correct thought police". The world isn't quite as simple as that.
And for the 100th time -- most people here are less upset about Brian's view as such, but about his lack of stringent argument. "It's always been like that and we don't want change because change is dangerous" doesn't cut it, especially if you're denying someone certain rights on the basis of their sexuality.
Just as an aside, I would rather see a change in marital law altogether. In Germany, for instance, single, childless people are beginning to be stigmatised to a degree I personally find threatening. Married couples who consciously decide not to procreate seem to be exempt from the "fucking for the economy" jingoism, so they happily enjoy tax benefits and their double income/shared living costs status until they die. Meanwhile, the Bavarian conservatives are proposing pension cuts for childless people.
Thomas
[This message was edited by Thomas K on THURSDAY 19 February 2004 at 15:09.]
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by Phil Barry
BrianD,
Let me see if I understand:
The insult is that most of us appear not to respect your opinion.
The sense of insult does not derive from the various contributors' support of same-sex marriage. Is that right?
There's a difference between
respecting opinions with which one disagrees
and
respecting the right of a person to hold an opinion with which one disagrees.
The 2 are usually associated with each other, but they do not necessarily go together.
Yes, I am aware that you seemed to have changed significantly. Once you understood at least some of the issue, you came down on the side of all human beings, and that's laudable.
But in treating a group of people differently, with more limits, than anyone else is treated generally implies a sense that that group is somehow less human than the rest of of us.
Whenever we dehumanize a group, however slightly, we damage that group and ourselves (though the dehumanized group generally feels more pain than the rest of us).
So, you're entitled to your opinion. I would oppose the imposition of any sanction on you because the PTB dislike your opinions.
But so far you have not supported your belief that same-sex unions are 'not OK' with credible evidence or argument. It's virtually impossible to respect opinions that are based only on repitition.
You complain of being attacked often in this forum. I urge you to look at your style. Do your contributions communicate both your thoughts and your personal style? Are you as arrogant as much of your writing is?
Given your writing style, I was surprised at your change of opinion here, BTW. Your style may portray someone more rigid than you actually are, which may draw harsher responses than appropriate.
Randall,
Sure, Rove and Cheney are pushing a homophobic agenda, but I suspect strongly that they're being pushed by their fundamentalist supporters. Here are a couple of riffs on the theme 'religious fundamentalism is the major problem facing the world today.'
The Bible is a core cultural document for Jews, Christians, and Muslims. The creator or compilers of Bible clearly had great difficulty with sexual pleasure.
Jews may have a slightly easier time with sexuality, since the Talmud reportedly provides a lot of support for sexual pleasure between man and wife. And the history of Jewish thought processes provide support for extanding that from 'man and wife' to 'loving sexual partners'. But the Talmud is far from a Tantric document. No, the Bible has cast a pall over sexuality for 1000s of years.
I suspect that fundamentalists (mainly Christian in the US, Christian and Muslim worldwide) are highly conflicted - puritanical in thinking but driven to violate their principles in practice. Perhaps there's some internal dynamic like:
All sex is evil
I like sex
Therefore I'm evil
Holy cow, there are some men who f*** other men
I don't want to do that
I don't want to think of myself as evil
So homosexuals are the evil ones, more evil than I am at any rate.
The only other explanation for homophobia that I can think of is that leaders are more aware of and more afraid of their attraction to other men (leaders being almost exclusively male until recently).
Perhaps, knowing that the vast majority of men tend to be exclusively heterosexual, these potentially bisexual leaders attack homosexuality to show the flock which they wish to lead that they're one of them.
But this explanation is awfully far-fetched,IMO.
Perhaps fundamentalist teaching is the actual cause of much of our (i.e. in the US) dysfunctional sexual behavior. Perhaps we're driven to adultery because sex is evil, so sex with the one we love most diminishes the one we love most.
And consider this: You're a 59 year old man, sitting in a bar. Someone looking for all the world like a woman comes on to you. You delight in the compliments you receive. Then 'she' tells you that 'she' is, in fact, a gay man in drag. How insulted will you feel? How insulted should you feel? How much has your sexual integrity been compromised?
Same bar, different night. An apparently male person - short hair, deepish voice, not curvaceous - comes on to you. How will you react? How should you react? What if the man is actually a mannish-looking woman?
Personally speaking, I think anyone should enjoy almost any sexual compliment from almost anyone. After all, it's so easy to say, 'Thanks', and even, when necessary, 'Thanks, I'm not interested.' After all, joy is an important element of life, and sex is an important element of joy.
Oh, well.
Sorry for my long posts in this thread. I think this is an important topic, since I think society's treatment of homosexuality is a symptom of our deepest problems.
And I think homosexuality is going to play a significant part in US elections this year. The wrong guy is on the more popular (but wrong) side of the issue, and this does not bode well for the US or the world.
If the US Right wins, I look for a strong reaction against and suppresion of cultural diversity. And it's going to affect ALL minorities.
Regards.
Phil
[This message was edited by Phil Barry on THURSDAY 19 February 2004 at 15:24.]
Let me see if I understand:
The insult is that most of us appear not to respect your opinion.
The sense of insult does not derive from the various contributors' support of same-sex marriage. Is that right?
There's a difference between
respecting opinions with which one disagrees
and
respecting the right of a person to hold an opinion with which one disagrees.
The 2 are usually associated with each other, but they do not necessarily go together.
Yes, I am aware that you seemed to have changed significantly. Once you understood at least some of the issue, you came down on the side of all human beings, and that's laudable.
But in treating a group of people differently, with more limits, than anyone else is treated generally implies a sense that that group is somehow less human than the rest of of us.
Whenever we dehumanize a group, however slightly, we damage that group and ourselves (though the dehumanized group generally feels more pain than the rest of us).
So, you're entitled to your opinion. I would oppose the imposition of any sanction on you because the PTB dislike your opinions.
But so far you have not supported your belief that same-sex unions are 'not OK' with credible evidence or argument. It's virtually impossible to respect opinions that are based only on repitition.
You complain of being attacked often in this forum. I urge you to look at your style. Do your contributions communicate both your thoughts and your personal style? Are you as arrogant as much of your writing is?
Given your writing style, I was surprised at your change of opinion here, BTW. Your style may portray someone more rigid than you actually are, which may draw harsher responses than appropriate.
Randall,
Sure, Rove and Cheney are pushing a homophobic agenda, but I suspect strongly that they're being pushed by their fundamentalist supporters. Here are a couple of riffs on the theme 'religious fundamentalism is the major problem facing the world today.'
The Bible is a core cultural document for Jews, Christians, and Muslims. The creator or compilers of Bible clearly had great difficulty with sexual pleasure.
Jews may have a slightly easier time with sexuality, since the Talmud reportedly provides a lot of support for sexual pleasure between man and wife. And the history of Jewish thought processes provide support for extanding that from 'man and wife' to 'loving sexual partners'. But the Talmud is far from a Tantric document. No, the Bible has cast a pall over sexuality for 1000s of years.
I suspect that fundamentalists (mainly Christian in the US, Christian and Muslim worldwide) are highly conflicted - puritanical in thinking but driven to violate their principles in practice. Perhaps there's some internal dynamic like:
All sex is evil
I like sex
Therefore I'm evil
Holy cow, there are some men who f*** other men
I don't want to do that
I don't want to think of myself as evil
So homosexuals are the evil ones, more evil than I am at any rate.
The only other explanation for homophobia that I can think of is that leaders are more aware of and more afraid of their attraction to other men (leaders being almost exclusively male until recently).
Perhaps, knowing that the vast majority of men tend to be exclusively heterosexual, these potentially bisexual leaders attack homosexuality to show the flock which they wish to lead that they're one of them.
But this explanation is awfully far-fetched,IMO.
Perhaps fundamentalist teaching is the actual cause of much of our (i.e. in the US) dysfunctional sexual behavior. Perhaps we're driven to adultery because sex is evil, so sex with the one we love most diminishes the one we love most.
And consider this: You're a 59 year old man, sitting in a bar. Someone looking for all the world like a woman comes on to you. You delight in the compliments you receive. Then 'she' tells you that 'she' is, in fact, a gay man in drag. How insulted will you feel? How insulted should you feel? How much has your sexual integrity been compromised?
Same bar, different night. An apparently male person - short hair, deepish voice, not curvaceous - comes on to you. How will you react? How should you react? What if the man is actually a mannish-looking woman?
Personally speaking, I think anyone should enjoy almost any sexual compliment from almost anyone. After all, it's so easy to say, 'Thanks', and even, when necessary, 'Thanks, I'm not interested.' After all, joy is an important element of life, and sex is an important element of joy.
Oh, well.
Sorry for my long posts in this thread. I think this is an important topic, since I think society's treatment of homosexuality is a symptom of our deepest problems.
And I think homosexuality is going to play a significant part in US elections this year. The wrong guy is on the more popular (but wrong) side of the issue, and this does not bode well for the US or the world.
If the US Right wins, I look for a strong reaction against and suppresion of cultural diversity. And it's going to affect ALL minorities.
Regards.
Phil
[This message was edited by Phil Barry on THURSDAY 19 February 2004 at 15:24.]
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by BrianD
Phil
Ok, I'm still looking to see how much more abuse people are going to aim toward me, so you can all thrill in my 'taking the bait'.
Phil, you call me arrogant and you criticise my writing 'style'. Bit of a nerve, there mate. Have you any idea how the highlighted text quoted comes across? If that is not arrogant and also condescending, then I don't know what is. Seemingly this attracts no criticism when used by those who agree that gays should be allowed to marry.
What makes you believe you understand the issue any better than I do? Is it because if I understood the issue properly I'd obviously agree with you. I can only show I understand the issue by agreeing with you people.
As for me being arrogant, well I've actually stated at some point in this thread that I may not be right, something I doubt I'd ever read from many of you people on this forum. Those are not the words of an arrogant person. I simply believe at this point in my life that gays should not be allowed to marry. I fail to see what is so disgraceful about that point of view. After 9 pages I am still waiting for someone to offer me a reason why I should not be entitled to that opinion without being told it is absurd, bollix or any number of derogatory comments or veiled sarcasm aimed toward me.
I also really fail to see why I have to give a reason for having this view. It's like asking someone why they follow a certain faith. As far as I'm aware many people who follow any faith do so just because they believe in it. If you ask most of these people why they hold certain beliefs, I'm certain most would struggle to give you an acceptable answer if you are a person who does not believe in any kind of faith at all. It appears irrational.
I am not homophobic. The way many of you people have responded to my absurd and bollix opinions you'd think I'd advocated the execution of everyone who is gay. All I'm saying is that I would prefer them not to marry. For christ's sake, try to get things in perspective here. I am not advocating persecution of these people.
quote:
Once you understood at least some of the issue, you came down on the side of all human beings, and that's laudable.
Ok, I'm still looking to see how much more abuse people are going to aim toward me, so you can all thrill in my 'taking the bait'.
Phil, you call me arrogant and you criticise my writing 'style'. Bit of a nerve, there mate. Have you any idea how the highlighted text quoted comes across? If that is not arrogant and also condescending, then I don't know what is. Seemingly this attracts no criticism when used by those who agree that gays should be allowed to marry.
What makes you believe you understand the issue any better than I do? Is it because if I understood the issue properly I'd obviously agree with you. I can only show I understand the issue by agreeing with you people.
As for me being arrogant, well I've actually stated at some point in this thread that I may not be right, something I doubt I'd ever read from many of you people on this forum. Those are not the words of an arrogant person. I simply believe at this point in my life that gays should not be allowed to marry. I fail to see what is so disgraceful about that point of view. After 9 pages I am still waiting for someone to offer me a reason why I should not be entitled to that opinion without being told it is absurd, bollix or any number of derogatory comments or veiled sarcasm aimed toward me.
I also really fail to see why I have to give a reason for having this view. It's like asking someone why they follow a certain faith. As far as I'm aware many people who follow any faith do so just because they believe in it. If you ask most of these people why they hold certain beliefs, I'm certain most would struggle to give you an acceptable answer if you are a person who does not believe in any kind of faith at all. It appears irrational.
I am not homophobic. The way many of you people have responded to my absurd and bollix opinions you'd think I'd advocated the execution of everyone who is gay. All I'm saying is that I would prefer them not to marry. For christ's sake, try to get things in perspective here. I am not advocating persecution of these people.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by BrianD
Thomas K
We differ in our approach to change.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
I need to be convinced that changing something to something else is beneficial.
If I understand you correctly, you have to be convinced that something is worth maintaining otherwise you would change it to something else just for the sake of change.
Hence, I have to convince you that the existing law restraining the marriage of gays is correct, rather than you convincing me of the justification for change?
Is this what you're saying?
BTW I don't agree that people aren't upset about my views and are more upset that I haven't supported them. IMO People are very much upset by my view that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.
I have said that I am agreeable to awarding all married couple rights to gay couples in long term relationships. The only thing I'd deny them is the actual 'marriage'.
quote:
And for the 100th time -- most people here are less upset about Brian's view as such, but about his lack of stringent argument. "It's always been like that and we don't want change because change is dangerous" doesn't cut it, especially if you're denying someone certain rights on the basis of their sexuality.
We differ in our approach to change.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
I need to be convinced that changing something to something else is beneficial.
If I understand you correctly, you have to be convinced that something is worth maintaining otherwise you would change it to something else just for the sake of change.
Hence, I have to convince you that the existing law restraining the marriage of gays is correct, rather than you convincing me of the justification for change?
Is this what you're saying?
BTW I don't agree that people aren't upset about my views and are more upset that I haven't supported them. IMO People are very much upset by my view that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.
quote:
especially if you're denying someone certain rights on the basis of their sexuality
I have said that I am agreeable to awarding all married couple rights to gay couples in long term relationships. The only thing I'd deny them is the actual 'marriage'.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by Former member
Brian,
This is going in circles - go and get ready to thrash Boro on Saturday.
nick.lees at btinternet.com
This is going in circles - go and get ready to thrash Boro on Saturday.
nick.lees at btinternet.com
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by JeremyD
Brian,
quote:I seem to remember a certain individual being banned for this sort of thing - ironic isn't it? It is you who have gone too far.
I'm sorry, but I must respond to this. For the first time in this thread I really wish a person was standing in front of me making this accusation face to face. This has now gone too far.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by BrianD
Nick
We can definitely agree on that one.
In fact we can agree on both, although as usual before any match, I'll settle for 1-0. I expect we'd have more chance if we hadn't sold Solano, but that's for another day.
We can definitely agree on that one.
In fact we can agree on both, although as usual before any match, I'll settle for 1-0. I expect we'd have more chance if we hadn't sold Solano, but that's for another day.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by Bruce Woodhouse
I've just read this thread.
I do not understand why BrianD has to produce reams of rational argument for his view to be taken as valid. It may make for a more interesting debate if he could develop his ideas here, but it does not reduce his right to hold that view.
I also struggle to admire insults based on perceived defects of spelling, punctuation or writing stile (sic)
Is it only me that senses a vicarious enjoyment in seizing on the post of a contributor (in this and other infamous threads) and calling them 'fascist', 'racist', 'homophobic' with scant evidence ?
Throbnorth's post, way back on Page 2, makes a pretty compelling summary for me. It also made me laugh. His latter post makes it all the more relevant.
Bruce
I do not understand why BrianD has to produce reams of rational argument for his view to be taken as valid. It may make for a more interesting debate if he could develop his ideas here, but it does not reduce his right to hold that view.
I also struggle to admire insults based on perceived defects of spelling, punctuation or writing stile (sic)
Is it only me that senses a vicarious enjoyment in seizing on the post of a contributor (in this and other infamous threads) and calling them 'fascist', 'racist', 'homophobic' with scant evidence ?
Throbnorth's post, way back on Page 2, makes a pretty compelling summary for me. It also made me laugh. His latter post makes it all the more relevant.
Bruce
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by BrianD
Jeremy
This is entirely different, but if it bothers you report it to the administrators. It won't be a loss to me to be banned and I'm sure many of you agreeable types will be relieved if I'm gone. The comment I made represents an instant reaction from me, and since I don't go about threatening people because it isn't my nature, it portrays quite well what I think about that unfounded accusation and slur on my character. No doubt you aren't bothered about that though.
Incidentally, why have you chosen to respond to THAT section rather than the more important content of my post. This is important particularly as you also posted in reply to my earlier response to throbnorth.
Take your time working out another spin on my words in order that you can find something else to moan about.
quote:
I seem to remember a certain individual being banned for this sort of thing - ironic isn't it?
This is entirely different, but if it bothers you report it to the administrators. It won't be a loss to me to be banned and I'm sure many of you agreeable types will be relieved if I'm gone. The comment I made represents an instant reaction from me, and since I don't go about threatening people because it isn't my nature, it portrays quite well what I think about that unfounded accusation and slur on my character. No doubt you aren't bothered about that though.
Incidentally, why have you chosen to respond to THAT section rather than the more important content of my post. This is important particularly as you also posted in reply to my earlier response to throbnorth.
Take your time working out another spin on my words in order that you can find something else to moan about.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by JeremyD
Bruce
The only reason that the thread developed the way it did was that Brian appeared to be uncertain about whether or not he had a reason for his view, first presenting a tautology as his reason, then denying that he needed to give a reason (quite reasonably) while simultaneously (unrasonably) presenting an argument based on the assumption that his reason was known. He later denied that he had said that he had a reason, which was more or less true [if you interpret his tautology as a way of saying "Who says I need a reason?"] but, nevertheless, was also deeply confusing...
After this, we were left with the tantalising prospect that Brian did have a reason but had not yet managed to explain it. People just wanted to make sense of what Brian was trying to say.
Bruce, like adamk you seem to be suggesting that poor Brian was the victim of an unprovoked stream of accusations and insults. As you can easily check, it was Brian who set the ball rolling with his baseless collective accusation that people wanting to stifle his right to an opinion. Repeating such an accusation ad nauseam doesn't make it true.
It was only then when he started receiving less than polite responses.
quote:Nobody suggested anything of the sort - except Brian in his repeated accusations.
I've just read this thread.
I do not understand why BrianD has to produce reams of rational argument for his view to be taken as valid. It may make for a more interesting debate if he could develop his ideas here, but it does not reduce his right to hold that view.
The only reason that the thread developed the way it did was that Brian appeared to be uncertain about whether or not he had a reason for his view, first presenting a tautology as his reason, then denying that he needed to give a reason (quite reasonably) while simultaneously (unrasonably) presenting an argument based on the assumption that his reason was known. He later denied that he had said that he had a reason, which was more or less true [if you interpret his tautology as a way of saying "Who says I need a reason?"] but, nevertheless, was also deeply confusing...
After this, we were left with the tantalising prospect that Brian did have a reason but had not yet managed to explain it. People just wanted to make sense of what Brian was trying to say.
Bruce, like adamk you seem to be suggesting that poor Brian was the victim of an unprovoked stream of accusations and insults. As you can easily check, it was Brian who set the ball rolling with his baseless collective accusation that people wanting to stifle his right to an opinion. Repeating such an accusation ad nauseam doesn't make it true.
It was only then when he started receiving less than polite responses.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by Thomas K
Brian,
I need to be convinced that changing something to something else is beneficial.
I understand that perfectly, and I'm not saying change is inherently good. (Neither do we need to maintain the status quo just for the sake of it.)
I and others believe that legal changes are necessary to reflect the current state of society. It is quite common for the law to be changed, not because a group of people seek to protect their interests, but to reflect changes that have already taken place. A number of pertinent reasons have been put forward (all very tangible and aimed at making life easier for homosexual couples who wish to bond). Belief thus becomes a cause, aiming to eliminate discrepancies between life in our society and the rules that govern it.
You believe that the proposed legal changes are not necessary or indeed wrong, which is fine. But you do not seem to have a cause, you can’t even say how the proposed changes would limit your own or others’ rights. You’re doing nothing to convince us it’s wrong. You can't really expect people not to tread new ground because someone else says “I believe that’s wrong”.
I have said that I am agreeable to awarding all married couple rights to gay couples in long term relationships. The only thing I'd deny them is the actual 'marriage'.
This I still find somewhat confusing, but perhaps it is just an indication of how personal this subject is to you (that is, how impossible or difficult it is to integrate into what is largely a political debate).
Thomas
I need to be convinced that changing something to something else is beneficial.
I understand that perfectly, and I'm not saying change is inherently good. (Neither do we need to maintain the status quo just for the sake of it.)
I and others believe that legal changes are necessary to reflect the current state of society. It is quite common for the law to be changed, not because a group of people seek to protect their interests, but to reflect changes that have already taken place. A number of pertinent reasons have been put forward (all very tangible and aimed at making life easier for homosexual couples who wish to bond). Belief thus becomes a cause, aiming to eliminate discrepancies between life in our society and the rules that govern it.
You believe that the proposed legal changes are not necessary or indeed wrong, which is fine. But you do not seem to have a cause, you can’t even say how the proposed changes would limit your own or others’ rights. You’re doing nothing to convince us it’s wrong. You can't really expect people not to tread new ground because someone else says “I believe that’s wrong”.
I have said that I am agreeable to awarding all married couple rights to gay couples in long term relationships. The only thing I'd deny them is the actual 'marriage'.
This I still find somewhat confusing, but perhaps it is just an indication of how personal this subject is to you (that is, how impossible or difficult it is to integrate into what is largely a political debate).
Thomas
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by matthewr
Wot Jeremy said.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by BrianD
Thomas
Ah, but Thomas, I believe that change should only come when there is a convincing argument that the change is right. As I said earlier, it is for those who want the change to produce the reasons why, not for others to jusify the current system. That exists already.
A question. Why does a change have to "limit my rights", for me to oppose it?
quote:
You believe that the proposed legal changes are not necessary or indeed wrong, which is fine. But you do not seem to have a cause, you can’t even say how the proposed changes would limit your own or others’ rights. You’re doing nothing to convince us it’s wrong. You can't really expect people not to tread new ground because someone else says “I believe that’s wrong”.
Ah, but Thomas, I believe that change should only come when there is a convincing argument that the change is right. As I said earlier, it is for those who want the change to produce the reasons why, not for others to jusify the current system. That exists already.
A question. Why does a change have to "limit my rights", for me to oppose it?
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by BrianD
Jeremy
For someone with such a high IQ as yourself, you really do miss a lot.
Read the thread again. The hassle began on page 2 on 17th Feb at 0919 with the post from Matthew Robinson when he said.......
I know when I became cynical in my responses and this was the moment. Not saying it's justified, I'd like to have not taken the bait, but I did.
I prefer to believe that certain individuals were deliberately baiting me in an attempt to get me to say something like, "I hate all gays and would like to execute them all", or something along those lines.
Q. Why do I have to have a reason to oppose a change to a law?
Q. Why is it not up to those who want the change to produce the reasons for that change?
[This message was edited by BrianD on THURSDAY 19 February 2004 at 18:29.]
quote:
It was only then when he started receiving less than polite responses.
For someone with such a high IQ as yourself, you really do miss a lot.
Read the thread again. The hassle began on page 2 on 17th Feb at 0919 with the post from Matthew Robinson when he said.......
quote:
BrianD,
(<penny drops> Oh you're *that* BrianD. It all makes more sense now)
I know when I became cynical in my responses and this was the moment. Not saying it's justified, I'd like to have not taken the bait, but I did.
quote:
After this, we were left with the tantalising prospect that Brian did have a reason but had not yet managed to explain it. People just wanted to make sense of what Brian was trying to say.
I prefer to believe that certain individuals were deliberately baiting me in an attempt to get me to say something like, "I hate all gays and would like to execute them all", or something along those lines.
Q. Why do I have to have a reason to oppose a change to a law?
Q. Why is it not up to those who want the change to produce the reasons for that change?
[This message was edited by BrianD on THURSDAY 19 February 2004 at 18:29.]
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by Thomas K
I believe that change should only come when there is a convincing argument that the change is right.
I can't understand how you can make such a sweeping statement. In my view it depends on the particular case (or thing up for change), otherwise I might as well say that "the status quo should only be maintained if there is a convincing argument that it is right" and we'd be running in circles (as we are here).
There are a lot of things I like to see changed for the heck of it (my dinner, for example), but that is entirely beside the point and why I called your earlier statement to that effect absurd. Sorry if that offended you, but I stand by it.
Why does a change have to "limit my rights", for me to oppose it?
It doesn't at all. That's what I tried to explain in the last post. You can believe and oppose all you like, but don't expect anyone to restrict themselves if you cannot show that they're restricting you.
Q. Why is it not up to those who want the change to produce the reasons for that change?
Regardless of whether it is or is not up to those in favour of the change in this particular case -- we/they have produced reasons exhaustively.
This really is awfully repetitive.
Thomas
I can't understand how you can make such a sweeping statement. In my view it depends on the particular case (or thing up for change), otherwise I might as well say that "the status quo should only be maintained if there is a convincing argument that it is right" and we'd be running in circles (as we are here).
There are a lot of things I like to see changed for the heck of it (my dinner, for example), but that is entirely beside the point and why I called your earlier statement to that effect absurd. Sorry if that offended you, but I stand by it.
Why does a change have to "limit my rights", for me to oppose it?
It doesn't at all. That's what I tried to explain in the last post. You can believe and oppose all you like, but don't expect anyone to restrict themselves if you cannot show that they're restricting you.
Q. Why is it not up to those who want the change to produce the reasons for that change?
Regardless of whether it is or is not up to those in favour of the change in this particular case -- we/they have produced reasons exhaustively.
This really is awfully repetitive.
Thomas