Bowser said:
Wrong, I do have a right to involve myself with this public issue and any other that might come around. Tell me that I have no right to impose my vote where other social questions are raised: Prostitution, drug abuse, hate crimes... I'm certain that many others would share your opinion that these issues are none of my business; however, I would disagree.
So in your opinion, the signing of a very standard and common contract by two people is your business? Does this go for all marriages? Where exactly does this divine right of yours come from?
If you're worried that long-term homosexual relationships damage your community (a completely unsupportable position) don't stop your hand wringing and whining just yet, because quite frankly nothing is going to stop that, you haven't successfully voted against those, only against equal protection of them in the eyes of the law. If that's what's uppsetting you then you'd really just be better off buying a gun.
Bowser said:
Hs marriage is a public issue. Yes, and it does come under the scope of public scrutiny.
A public issue because you happen to have a problem with it? You have no real tangible interest in it, nothing to lose or gain by it's acceptance or failure. if I had some sort of vague objection to your marriage, would it give me the right to see it dissolved? At what point do we gain the ability to take such intrusive and inappropriate steps against our neighbors who have raised no hand against us?
Bowser said:
I would disagree with you there, but would asses that the Hs movement has been hammered by the recent run on state measures banning gay marriage. And the gorilla has lost weight because of it. I suppose you could say that the Supreme Court did not want to catch the issue.
The issue bought before the Supreme Court was the ruling which allowed same sex marriages in Massachusetts, a suit bought by a group of radical fundamentalists who also really had no real interest in it.
Also, the recent rash of states amending their constitutions to ban same sex marriage (and in many cases civil unions) isn't of great concern on a legal stand point. Nothing is really being outlawed here, these were unions already barred by other legislation in those states and federally as well, it's really just a sort of practice in mastubatory hatred and pettiness on the part of social conservatives. In the end it’s really our democracy that is hurt by such measures being enacted. The majority, it seems, is once again free to exert it’s hatred over a minority in defiance of the spirit of the principals and laws upon which our nation is supposed to operate. As I’ve said before it’s a dangerous path to walk down, the potential for abuse is great, and traditionalists would do well to keep in mind that the pendulum can swing both ways.
Bowser said:
Thousands? I might be willing to give you some distance with this argument. Maybe you should tell us exactly what the Hs community hopes to achieve with the notion of marriage. Also, would <b>Civil Unions</b> suffice?
What they hope to gain? Simply put those entitlements and the legal status which marriage grants. It's quite apropriate for the nature of the relationship which they are engaging in with one another anyhow, or at least that's how our culture looks at things. Asside from that it's quite nice to live in a world where the government won't give you shit just because of who you love, and hey maybe that'd even contribute to more regular people doing the same. Can you imagine a world where you don't fear being beaten to death because of who you were on a date with the other night? Sounds fantastic, I know, but some people feel that we might some day acheive it.
To put it in other words, we want to be treated like human beings, that's all were' looking for here. We're fed up with arbitrary restrictions and impositions being placed on us as though we'd done anything to disserve them, and we especially want the government, which we are ruled by and which we are a part of, which we give our taxes too, and for which we're even willing to fight and die for, even though they wouldn't have us if they knew the truth, to just give us a fair shake and put us on a level with everyone else in the country. That sure would be keen. Not so much to ask really when we contribute just as much as anyone else, and the single thing which differentiates us from everyone else sure as hell isn't hurting anyone. Unfortunately it sometimes seems like that goal makes a bit too much sense for this country.
Bowser said:
<i>" Hell they're separate and not even quite equal, is that what we should aspire to?"</i>
You need to elaborate on that one.
Individual contracts don't provide the same protection that marriage can, and they cost a lot more, hence they are not quite equal and separate (we don't even have a separate but equal situation going on here) and even if we did we as a nation decided that this is something we do not want to bother ourselves with.
Bowser said:
Hmm, that's too simple. You know as well as I that there are limits impose on the extent in which we can pursue happiness and liberty. Much of those limitations are based on public perception.
Those limits deal with who gets hurt, or at least they are supposed to. Granting a right which yields nothing but benefit to some, and no harm to any is entirely reasonable. When it's not granted, however, then who's getting screwed over? If you learn a little bit more about our democracy you'll see that there are measures in place which are supposed to keep the whim of the majority from dictating life for minorities. We've had some trouble with that in the past, if you'll remember, and it's rather sad that we need to revisit this practice again.
Bowser said:
Hey, that's what I thought, but it's the same issue, and here we are. If the majority is free to make these sorts of arbitrary moral decisions for everyone else, then who's to say that Harry Potter can't be banned? Who's to say Muslims won't be kicked out of the country? Who's to say whether or not Evangelical Christianity will become the national religion? Time was we had protections against these things, there were some decisions which simply weren't up to be made even by a majority vote of the people because we couldn't have one larger sect calling all the shots for everyone else. It seems that we're either to lazy or just apathetic to bother upholding that idea and I really do fear where it will get us.
Bowser said:
Also, you keep bringing up the term <i>mob.</i> Let me remind you that, had 36 failed, the mob would have been--in the Hs mind--enlightened. I can't help but feel that anyone who might disagree with the Hs mindset is quick to be labeled...bad, very baaad.
You seem to be confusing terminology here. I say mob not to mean majority but instead the unthinking, petty or just mean spirited individuals who would vote for Measure 36. The fact that they seem to be in the majority is simply a sad detail.
Bowser said:
I think that it destroys the definition of marriage and devalues its worth. It starts a downward slide that eats at the backbone of society. It is a non-productive union which desires to invade and weaken that which is productive and stable.
Oh boo hoo! Cry me a river. Does the fact that your definition of marriage offends me and makse my life harder matter just as much on a one to one ratio? Is it simply your numbers that make you right? What away to run a country, I thought the whole point of a civil society was to get rid of the idea that might makes right. Oh well back to the drafting board!
Also, please do elaborate on your claims that a homosexual union is "non productive" and weakens a single heterosexual union. First off, who is a marriage supposed to be productive for? Are you trying to argue that because it doesn't produce any benefits directy for you that you shouldn't bother with them? I couldn't agree more, you've not a thing to do with it, so just take your hands off of it! But how does it
harm a single same sex union? Wouldn't it be wiser to look to other homosexuals defaming the insitution of marriage? Why is there no outcry against Fox's shows like "Who wants to let the audience marry you to a complete stranger?" Or is a loving union between two people just so offensive to your idea of marriage that you've got to stop at nothing to protect your 50% divorse rate?
Bowser said:
It wants to borrow by hijacking truth.
You're really going to have to explain this one, I've got no idea where you’re coming from.
Bowser said:
Look, I'm certain that you're as red as a beet right now, but I do see Hs marriage as being a destructive element and cannot justify it anymore than I could justify a union between my neighbor and his dog.
So you're implying that the gender of one partner happens to be on the same level as a person falling in love with a dog? What does that say about your opinion of every other man and woman on the planet? Haha. And again, does that vague unsupported notion that something is icky give you some sort of supreme right to deny other human beings the rights guaranteed and due to them? You must be someone very important that your slightest displeasure should cause such havoc in the lives of others, I hope you're proud of being so petty and disagreeable, it's an astonishing feat.
Bowser said:
And so, the law now defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Good point. Maybe we should start defining "person" as a white land owning male again. Those were the good old days! Personally I like to think that the law should be written to apply to everyone, regardless of how the religious right would have it.
Bowser said:
That is the way it has always been and the way it should always be. You folks love to play with words, so we eliminated any doubt. I suppose that animal lovers and polygamist might have a problem with the above definition too.
Always was? Not in this country. . . not even really in this culture. You'd do well to look into the history of marriage in America and in Western Civilization, because you're rather off with this comment.
Also, try to keep in mind that for the most part they used to say that Marriage was between a Man and his docile cow of a wife, then marriage was between a Man and a woman of the same color only. Your supposedly static institution has changed quite a bit even just in the last 100 years to suit the times. This newest change should come as no real surprise.
Bowser said:
Short of drawing a picture, Hs is wrong.
And really that's what it all comes down to, doesn't it? You're a bigot and don't want to live peacefully with people, so you vote to outlaw their rights. Congratulations on letting petty hatred get in the way of your own decision making, and interfering with the rights and wellbeing of others.
Bowser said:
If my brother was Hs, I would still give him my respect for those thing which I felt are of worth. However, I would not surrender my truth for his. If he asked me what I thought, I would tell him the truth. If I had to choose between his way of life and mine, I would certainly choose my own--both at home and in public.
Now what in God's name does any of this even mean? Why would you have to chose between his way of life and your own? To each their own is what we tend to preach, you seem to be a bit confused;
You are the one who is trying to say that everyone should live as you and hold your values, not the homosexuals. We don't ask that you become like us, just deal with the fact that we're trying to live here too, thanks. Oh and please don't legislate against us or tie us to fence posts and beat us to death, that'd be just peachy.
It’s not a message that’s overly complicated or threatening, is it?
