Originally Posted By Mr F Elder couples, Barron Women, and men with No sperm count can't produce children either, does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to marry? How about couples who don't want children, should they not be allowed to marry? Point is, marriage is not about children, anyone can have children without being married, marriage is about receiving the tax and health benefits which come with it.
Originally Posted By barboy Another bite at 100, ///Of course you come off as reasonable when you equate simple marriage equality to the treatment of blacks, Japanese and others./// I'm not sure if that was a one word mistake on your part(the omission of *don't* right before 'equate')---I'll assume it was. ///But if you look at the BIGGER PICTURE, you can not argue that gays have been any less oppressed throughout history, including of course in America./// That makes little sense to me: 1) gays could hide their same gender attraction to avoid societal persecution. Blacks, Indians, Latinos, those with Asian ties and women mostly could not hide their identity. 2) Gays in the US who were not part of the following classes were not systematically enslaved/segregated(blacks), removed from their lands/segregated/slaughtered(Indians), suddenly absorbed by another state(Latinos), segregated/subjected to an almost certain injury or death in mineral mines and RR building(Chinese and those with Chinese ties), segregated/rounded up and locked up in the desert(Japanese and those with Japanese ties) nor denied many rights granted to males(women). Now, if and when a gay 'came out' or if he/she was falsely accused of being homosexual then all bets are off--- that would be too hard to size up against the other groups.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <it's not a requirement, saying that straight couples can produce children and gay couples don't and therefore straights deserve marriage licenses and gays don't is a non-sequitur.> Again, you may think so, but for the reasons I've given multiple times, I don't believe that is true.
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin But on the other hand...maybe married couples who have not, shall we say forked over the future taxpayers, should not be allowed to continue their marriages with all those benefits. They haven't earned them, right? I mean the right to be married depends on the ability to procreate, according to the h8ers.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Some of these "save traditional marriage" types really reduce people down to breeders vs. non-breeders status. It's really insulting, and it's really just a last ditch effort at preserving the discrimination and ignorance they seem to truly cherish.
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin Why do guys ALWAYS twist perfectly innocent comments in a way to make them sound icky?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<it's not a requirement, saying that straight couples can produce children and gay couples don't and therefore straights deserve marriage licenses and gays don't is a non-sequitur.>> <Again, you may think so, but for the reasons I've given multiple times, I don't believe that is true.> Your reasons never hold any water. I know, I know - you disagree.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Why do guys ALWAYS twist perfectly innocent comments in a way to make them sound icky?<< It's what we do.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <gays could hide their same gender attraction to avoid societal persecution. Blacks, Indians, Latinos, those with Asian ties and women mostly could not hide their identity.> True, and for most of our history, most gays simply remained closeted. But it's worth pointing out that that is its own sort of oppression. Imagine having this deep dark secret and having to keep it your entire life. Imagine knowing that your society at large considered what you were to be sick and horrendous, would shun you if it ever came to light, and you would become an instant pariah, lower than a common criminal in a lot of people's eyes. Having to live in constant fear of being disowned by your family, shunned by your friends, mocked and always subject to sudden violence by who knows who. Imagine internalizing that, thinking those horrible things about YOURSELF - if everybody thinks that, it must be true, right? The other groups you named obviously have a history of oppression, but they never had to worry about being thrown out of their own families just for being who they were. They always had at least that to fall back on; for too many gay people, that was not the case. It's an apple and an orange, really, in terms of oppression - but it's worth noting.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I still stand by that one too and I don't know why you find my usage of 'offensive' offensive to you?*** Not offensive to me, per se, but certainly offensive to both gays AND blacks (blacks because you are making some broad assumptions about where they stand on this issue if you expect that some/many would "take offense"). Why should blacks folks be "offended" by gays equating their equal rights struggle with that of African Americans or anyone else. As I wrote, you are equating ALL they went through (other minorities) with gays wanting equal marriage rights, whereas you should be looking at ALL that gays have gone through to make a valid comparison. Not just marriage. Look at the discrimination they have dealt with (right up to and including death, ...which is still a possibility in some parts of the world, by law, even today). ***Using a black voice in the ad can offend because it wrongly assumes that blacks are on board with 'no 8' when, obviously, collectively they are not.*** I haven't heard this voice over everyone is talking about, but I would assume they would use a black actor (assuming it WAS strategy and not just coincidence) to keep the equal rights issue in peoples' minds rather than imply somehow that because one black person is speaking that means all black people are in favor of gay marriage. Seems like a stretch to me.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***///Of course you come off as reasonable when you equate simple marriage equality to the treatment of blacks, Japanese and others./// I'm not sure if that was a one word mistake on your part(the omission of *don't* right before 'equate')---I'll assume it was.*** Nope, not a mistake BB. Perhaps a badly worded comment though, lemme rephrase. My point is, your argument seems reasonable on the face of it, when you point to gay marriage which is not a HUGELY big deal compared to segregation or slavery of course, and use that as your entire argument about why it's somehow offensive for gays to equate their current battle with what other minorities have gone through. But again, it's not JUST about this one battle, this is simply the point society has arrived at today. The fight continues, and if the roadblock issue is "marriage" then it needs to be dealt with (just like "bus seating" really wasn't the point back in the 60's, the issue was simple discrimination in all its' forms). There's a lot of history to look back upon regarding discrimination against gays (including killing them), and it's hardly offensive to look at the issues side by side and appreciate why they identify with what blacks went through and want to point that out to everyone as well. Hope that made more sense. For some reason, it's clear enough in my head what I want to say but putting it down "on paper" is difficult.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***///But if you look at the BIGGER PICTURE, you can not argue that gays have been any less oppressed throughout history, including of course in America./// That makes little sense to me: 1) gays could hide their same gender attraction to avoid societal persecution. Blacks, Indians, Latinos, those with Asian ties and women mostly could not hide their identity.*** Ah, this old chestnut. I've heard it before. It's a non-argument. Jews can hide too. I guess the genocide victims were just 6 million fools who weren't smart enough to conceal their true identities. Just like all the gays throughout history who suffered similar fates. And while we're at it, let's stop referring to those "witches" as persecuted, shall we? Come on. All they had to do was deny it, and point the finger at some other chick (or 20) and they got off scott-free. Hardly rises to the level of "persecution" eh?
Originally Posted By barboy I'm still working on 100 so I haven't forgotten you Dabob. And SinglePark you had something important to say also but I need more time before I can get back to you as well. Mr X's ///Did Hitler spare the gays?/// No, they were subjected to indescribable horrors. The Natzi party created 'Pink Lists' and those on the list were treated just as inhumanely as the gypsies, some Catholics, disfigured/mentally retarded/diseased, Jewish and politcal dissidents. The more fortunate 'Pinks' under Natzi Germany received reeducation but most were sent to labor camps or just straight up executed. ///Have they until very recent history ever been accepted into ANY society as a whole?/// Yes, I know two countries....there might be more out there(I'd bet Loas but I can't confirm that one)..... Thailand and Republic of Philippines.
Originally Posted By Mr X Historically? Really? If so, interesting. But anyway, you really can't argue that it was virtually impossible for gays to live openly on MOST of the planet until very recently in history. It was always a matter of survival for them to be as secretive as possible (as it was for some Jews who didn't happen to look very Jewish). Interesting that both those countries are Asian. There's a very different attitude towards gays in Asia I think (probably the lack of a bible to thump has something to do with it). The issue isn't really discussed, and most people seem to "tolerate" gays in the sense that they think it's weird but it doesn't make them angry or anything. Just a very different vibe.
Originally Posted By Mr F <gays could hide their same gender attraction to avoid societal persecution.> Not true, so gay men are TOO effeminate to hide their sexuality, and some lesbians are too butch to do the same, You know if Celebrities like Richard Simmons, Carson Kresley, Little Richard, K.D. Lang, or Micheal Jackson were to say they were straight, no one would believe them.
Originally Posted By Lil Mermaid Ok, so I it is late so bear with me. First I am a huge believer in gay rights/equal rights. There shouldn’t be a question in allowing gays to marry, however this is one aspect not many people look at. I am a psych major and I have taken several human sexuality classes and you would be amazed at all the different times of "ambiguous genitalia" and intersexuality disorders/syndromes there are on the books. 1 in every 500 women have some sort of intersexuality disorder. 1 in about 10 (fuzzy on the numbers) of men have some sort of ambiguous genitalia. Many of these problems are caused by having a XXY chromosome. The outside says one thing but all your chromosomes on the inside say another thing. They have been able to test and prove that some of gays have a disorder (which is a horrible word that I do not like for this type of situation but that is the definition for right now). Now putting that aside. What about all those people born with both parts. Mom and dad usually have the most difficult task of "choosing" a gender for them. Don't think this is an extremely rare occurrence. You would be surprised how often this happens. Sometimes its minor correction, sometimes it's major. Mom and dad decide that there are more girl parts than boy parts and decide to make their baby a girl, thinking that is what is best for them. Understandable. They are only doing what they think is right, right? So this little girl grows up and lives a normal life until one day she realizes she likes girls. She agonizes over this for years, fretting to tell mom and dad what she really feels. Finally she lets them know that she never felt like a girl and that she is attracted to girls. Mom and dad, who have kept her ambiguous genitalia a secret till now inform her of her situation. Her chromosomes even show the XXY status. She meets someone, a woman, falls in love and wants to marry. What do you do? You deny her that right? Something she never had a choice about in the first place, something she was born with and had no option in changing until it was too late, and you are going to use her sexuality to deny her a right? I've heard people suggest that they go to court and ask for approval in those specific cases. You are asking them to submit themselves to public humiliation, exploitation, a freak show. Why do that someone? Do you want to have to prove why you should be allowed to marry someone? Just realize that she's had a hard life and just wants to marry the person she loves. What is wrong with that? You are going to deny the tens of thousands (if not more) of people with situations like this the option to have a semi normal life? It is a gray area. And when its not hurting anyone else by allowing these people to sign a paper together and have a few rights (that won't in anyway affect your life) why deny it? Why make a problem about it? Are you someone who feels so confident in your decision making to deny these rights to another person? “Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone”
Originally Posted By barboy ///And if they used a white voice, would that assume that whites, collectively were on board with "no on 8?"/// Your question was a good one because it made me rethink things. To answer your question: no, not so much. I doubt that most ad viewers would make that connection since the ad profiled the injustices of Japanese/those of Japanese decent and blacks. ///One can only assume that the black actor they used was on board with it./// Yes, I'd say that is a safe assumptuion. Now, if he was paid $5 million to narrate then who knows? LOL ///Is he expected to represent his entire race,/// Normally(meaning if he is appearing in more public roles like movies, doing standup comedy or playing sports), absolutely not but in this case/context 'yes'.
Originally Posted By barboy ///What if he was just the one who read the ad copy the way they wanted it?/// I'd say that would be low odds, very low odds. I'm sure he did a fine job reading but we all know that the architects and decision makers were looking for a 'black' voice to enhance the mood of the ad. ///Why do we have to read anything into the idea that he "sounds black"? Why should should he not get the job BECAUSE he sounds black? This just seems to be making something out of what was probably not much to start with./// LOL! Keep in mind who raises these off the wall, coming out of left field comments and observations..... yep me barboy, the one who brought us: the accentuated red lipstick-- in the context of an all bluish gray hue picture--- on Miley Cyrus symbolized female genitalia(and ultimately 'sex') just like a baboon's backside.
