+- CDIH (https://www.cdih.net/cdih)
+-- Forum: General Discussion and Entertainment (https://www.cdih.net/cdih/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: The Pit (https://www.cdih.net/cdih/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Gay Marriage (/showthread.php?tid=8556)
- The Jays - 02-20-2004
GonzoStyle Wrote:Having two distinctions does not mean that one is superior and the other in inferior. How many times must I say that? If they both have the same rights, the same privileges, the same benefits, then the only difference is that one is only heterosexual, and the other is all inclusive. You are the one who is placing the label on inferiority on the civil union. How exactly can they be viewed as inferior if they have been given the same rights as the other? The marriage and the civil union just simply state that there is one distinction, that one can only be between man and woman, while the other can be between anyone.Quote:I'm not following you when say that the fags don't have the same right as everyone else in the Constitution. If you mean in terms of civil unions, then yes, that is true. All civil unions should receive the same rights and privileges. If that's the only thing, then we have agreed on every point, and I've basicaly been forced to quote Howard Dean for shits and giggles.
Thats exactly my point, having marriage and then civil union for gays is ridiculous. It's the same thing as having an ammendmant in the constitution defining blacks as chattle or the fountains example. It's keeping them seperate because they are viewed as inferior. Marriage by law is stated as between a man and a woman but as I said the law also defined blacks as property at one point. It's the same thing in my eyes, marriage is strictly a bond between two people who love eachother and thats what it should be. But theres too many people who wanna keep it segregated, like they didnt wanna send their kids to schools with blacks, or let women vote. It's americans once again seperating a class of people because they view them as inferior to what they percieve as "proper" and "pure".
And you keep bringing up this word segregated. There is no physical seperation happening here. We are not telling gay people to go live in their own town, to go to their own schools, and to not mix with heteros. By having marriage and civil union, it is saying "yes, we understand that there is a difference, but the two are both unions of people which have the same rights and priveleges."
And civil unions aren't just for gays. They are for everyone. ANY two people could get a civil union.
The arguement is going to boil down to this. You want marriage to include both, and I don't see the need to change a definition when there is a difference that is going to be recognized in another way anyway. You're still gonna have people saying "thats a straight marriage, thats a gay marriage." We aint changing each other's minds on that obviously, but we do agree that hetero marriage and gay marriage/civil unions ought to receive the same rights and benefits.
Drawing a distinction does not mean that one is better than the other, it just means the two are different.
Quote:It's americans once again seperating a class of people because they view them as inferior to what they percieve as "proper" and "pure".
Yet again, drawing distinctions does not mean that one is better than the other; it is observing than one is different than the other. Is homosexuality the same as heterosexuality? No. Is one better than the other? No. (no jokes, please.) They are just different. If they have both been afforded the same rights, and everything about the two unions are equal, then the only problem is your own view that one must be better than the other is because there is a distinction.
We draw the distinction that a man is different than a woman. Why?? Why don't we just call them both men? Does that distinction mean that men are pure, and women are inferior? Well, I guess so!
He's black, he's white. Obviously, the white man is better than the black man!
Distinctions do not cause prejudice to occur. Prejudice comes from failing to have a full understanding of all the facts, and forming a judgement regardless.
How bout this?
A civil union is the union of two people. They receive all the right, benefits, privileges, etc.
A marriage is simply a type of civil union. It is how we define a man and a woman uniting.
I mean, we have homosexuals, and then we have lesbians. There is no word specifically for a gay male. A lesbian is a type of homosexual.
It's coming down to a matter of words, and you are simply thinking that marriage is somehow better, but if a marriage simply means a civil union between a male and a female, then the only difference is the fact that two members of the opposite sex are uniting.
Marriage, if it is a type of civil union that occurs between members of the opposite sex, is the only type of civil union that the Catholic Church recognizes.
Marriage just distinguishes itself from other civil unions by the fact that it would be two people from the opposite sex.
- GonzoStyle - 02-20-2004
Quote:Having two distinctions does not mean that one is superior and the other in inferior. How many times must I say that? If they both have the same rights, the same privileges, the same benefits, then the only difference is that one is only heterosexual, and the other is all inclusive. You are the one who is placing the label on inferiority on the civil union. How exactly can they be viewed as inferior if they have been given the same rights as the other? The marriage and the civil union just simply state that there is one distinction, that one can only be between man and woman, while the other can be between anyone.
and how many times do I have to say it?
It's the same in legal terms but they cant have it in a church, synagouge, mosque or whatever their place of worship is. It's only recognized in VT. Thats how its segragational and how its not the same. The same way blacks were given the same rights technically but were still viewed as inferior, even after they got the right to vote and other rights in the 1964 equal rights act. Are you this fuckin blind that you cant see how its not the same?
You can dress up this thing anyway you want, a pig in a tutu is not a balerina. It's the same fuckin thing as was 40 years ago with blacks. If gays were not viewed as inferior then they could get marriage licenses not this bullshit.
Lets just set up the fountains again, by your theory its ok to have it seperate so why let blacks and whites comingle? You are like fuckin blind or something that you don't see this, its a simple point.
It's not equal, its segragating two classes of people cause they are viewed as inferior.. before you ask me for the umpteenth time how is that inferior, re-read what I just said here. It's labeling them inferior because they cant be in the same pool with "normal" people and enjoy the same benefits of having their weddings like normal people.
- GonzoStyle - 02-20-2004
Quote:We draw the distinction that a man is different than a woman. Why?? Why don't we just call them both men? Does that distinction mean that men are pure, and women are inferior? Well, I guess so!
He's black, he's white. Obviously, the white man is better than the black man!
So you don't believe that for as long as man has existed that women have been characterized as inferior to men? It's not about calling them both the same, you are being retarded now with that point, it's not a debate about men using womens bathrooms or vice versa, ofcourse women are different from men in apperance. The point is that as long as man has been around and as long as man will be around he will always have someone to call inferior. Which he has done to women, women to this day are not viewed as having the ability to be equal to men in the work force. I am not talking about heavy work like construction, I mean work as in the board room.
Whether its women, blacks, jews, gays, other races, other religions.
I mean distinctions have nothing to do with this, yes a female is not a male but you are going sooooooo beyond any logic with your argument.
Women until maybe the last 15-20 years were nowhere near as commonplace in the workforce as they are today. Women couldn't be leaders, executives, lawyers because men made them feel inferior. Even though as you said before "they had the same legal rights", rights are one thing but its the ability to enforce them fully thats another thing.
You really need to step back and think about this really thoroughly.
Let's just make seperate categories for marriage then for race, religion and sexual orientation by your standards since its ok to split things up.
- Splatterpunk - 02-20-2004
GonzoStyle Wrote:You could do with a step back yourself, Gonzo.Quote:We draw the distinction that a man is different than a woman. Why?? Why don't we just call them both men? Does that distinction mean that men are pure, and women are inferior? Well, I guess so!
He's black, he's white. Obviously, the white man is better than the black man!
So you don't believe that for as long as man has existed that women have been characterized as inferior to men? It's not about calling them both the same, you are being retarded now with that point, it's not a debate about men using womens bathrooms or vice versa, ofcourse women are different from men in apperance. The point is that as long as man has been around and as long as man will be around he will always have someone to call inferior. Which he has done to women, women to this day are not viewed as having the ability to be equal to men in the work force. I am not talking about heavy work like construction, I mean work as in the board room.
As long as men have existed women have not been considered inferior to men. Not all societies that developed were or are patriarchal. You're assuming that any society considered civilized by modern standards is automatically patriarchal because that's your own experience.
There are cultures thriving today in countries you'd consider under-developed by this same logical misstep, Genius, where women are in charge and men fill the role in which women have traditionally been viewed in western culture. Medical literature and anthropological research are full of studies of such societies. Your presumption that humanity is inherently misogynistic is as insulting as your presumption that I use a thesaurus whenever you see me use words you didn't know I knew. I really thought you knew better than that.
I've watched this argument and others on the board here closely for a year. I haven't always contributed because for the most part, this place is full of kids. I'm not a teenager, as you know. And contrary to whatever presuppositions you've formed about my mentality based on my own gender, admitted drug use, and perhaps ethnicity, I'm not a mental midget or incapable of debate. In simple terms, you need to choose your battles. A forum called Cold Day in Hell where the whole purpose of the site is to make fun and insult and laugh at what is at level ridiculous stupidity is not a forum for serious consideration.
I cam back here because I was asked to return twice, but you know, what I've seen in the past few days from Arpi, from Keyser, and to a lesser extent from the rest of you is that this really is nothing but a room full of fussing kids.
I've got a Master's Degree from USC. That's in Los Angeles, not South Carolina. So I don't need a fucking thesaurus to show your ass up on any topic, and I don't come in here and try to hold forth because it's a largely asinine chorus to be preaching to on just about most subjects. This topic eloquently demonstrates that.
I choose not to show off here, unlike most of you. The reason why is pretty evident in this thread, and especially in your last post.
So I'm out of here again. This time, I've got no animosity. But what I said to you was true the first time, Gonzo. I don't belong here. I thought it was fun. Sometimes it was. But mostly, it was an exercise in patience. Only Alkey and one or two others are apparently able to see, overall, it really doesn't seem to be paying off much.
So yes. I get your little jokes about me. Hawt Baux -- your screenname is also asinine -- and Galt, I saw your veiled reference to my trip the other night. I thought the jokes flat and in Galt's case, beneath ability's level. Hence my commentary, or lack thereof.
Women are considered the superior gender in most societies until creationism is first recognized not to be miraculous. When men finally discover that women get pregnant not by themselves, but by something men are involved in -- that is when perceptions about gender and role change. Do a little read-up on evolution. Study the phases of gestation and you'll find that all human embryos are first female in the process of development.
Native American cultures are matriarchal. Look it up.
You're welcome.
Later, kids.
- The Sleeper - 02-20-2004
oh snap
- Galt - 02-20-2004
Splatterpunk owns my soul. Hard.
- diceisgod - 02-20-2004
Maybe it was something we said.
- The Sleeper - 02-20-2004
I thought she was nice and she was the only one who defended my actions in the job thread. i will miss her!
- diceisgod - 02-20-2004
Susan B Anthony had nothing on her. I did steal one of her lines that I intersperse in conversation when the occasion arises. It's the one how the sound of cars passing outside in the street sound like waves crashing on the beech. I though that was cool. But you poor ignorant "kids" probably couldn't appreciate that. She's a dumb, self righteous whore. She sits in her house all day getting stoned and preaches about the equity and culture and blah blah blah. Meanwhile there's some dude out there working his ass off all day long to house and feed the bitch. A nice smack in the teeth and her tune would change real quick. As I said before there is more to learn from a book by getting beat with it. She can take her master's degree and wipe her ass with it.
- Arpikarhu - 02-20-2004
i so want to fuck her
- Black Lazerus - 02-20-2004
I love people who brag about their educations, I believe everyone on this board has a college degree or are in pursuit of one. So I don’t follow you flaunting your Master’s degree. Yes you can have a place where we come together and insult each other and also have serious debate. If it was just one or the other, this place would become boring fast. I think you just need a lot of attention you get none at home which is shown through your rampant drug use and constant cries for attention here.
Now for my rebuttal:
History has shown that matriarchal societies never had any significant advancements. Matriarchal societies thrive in terms of living standards and material wealth, as well as basic survival but tended to stagnate or regress, and were soon, in historical terms, overwhelmed by patriarchies. Humans’ did start off in with matriarchal beliefs in most societies but it was evident that it didn’t work because humans have been around for about one million years. We just are starting to make advancements in the last 5000 with the males taking charge. Some may use the Argument that matriarchal societies are less violent but that is also not true, take a look at Indian and African societies and the constant wars that ultimately lead to both cultures demise. Too much infighting and trying to just survive all while the Patriarchal societies were advancing.
They should breed all women stupid and pretty.
- Goatweed - 02-20-2004
eh, another "I'm better than you all though I don't need to prove it except with the occassional drama-filled post about how much I can't take the bullshit going on a messageboard" drama queen leaves the board. We were long overdue for one of these anyway. If you really feel this way, then good riddance. For someone who is apparently so much more superior and merely tolerates the rest of us, you sure played a convincing role of a clueless moron - thanks for saving the best act for last!!
Some people think they "get it", when they really don't.
- diceisgod - 02-20-2004
Quote:I cam back here because I was asked to return twice
I think it's lesson time. Whoever it is that is begging people to return needs to be exposed and humiliated for a little while.
- The Sleeper - 02-20-2004
I can't wait for Keyser to brag that he ran off another member with a thread he started
- Goatweed - 02-20-2004
diceisgod Wrote:wuddent me.Quote:I cam back here because I was asked to return twice
I think it's lesson time. Whoever it is that is begging people to return needs to be exposed and humiliated for a little while.
- Black Lazerus - 02-20-2004
I point the finger at Alkey.
- Keyser Soze - 02-20-2004
obviously she is intellectually inferior to us since instead of trying to go toe to toe with our arguements she decide to run and hide. i think its funny how she said she didnt want to show off but instead of using her so-called knowledge she just listed her credentials, said shes better than us and left.
good riddance. we have plenty of intelligent people who talk the talk rather than run off their accomplishments to fill this place with interesting discussion.
- Goatweed - 02-20-2004
I miss her emoticon-only posts already.
- Galt - 02-20-2004
Falmouth High School, 1993
<ul>
<li>Two sport Varsity athelete (ice hockey, soccer)
<li>Honor Society
</ul>
Bentley College, B.A. 1997
<ul>
<li> Major: Marketing
<li> Minor: Data Communications
<li> Honors internship program
</ul>
Babson College, M.B.A 2003
<ul>
<li> Focus: Global Strategy
<li> Cum Laude
</ul>
Hmm, this would have been more obvious a joke if there wasn't a post in between Keyser's and mine.
Edited By Galt on 1077303280
- Goatweed - 02-20-2004
sorry
