Marital Status of Prius Owners

[attachmentid=1915]Thought I would add this one...guess I could go under cover as no one will recognise me this way anyhow!!

Acid is so cool!!

 

what you can't have? you said it yourself, you've passed up the opportunity. with good reason.

although i know the feeling- that's how i feel about all my friends sending me pics of their kids.

 

Then quit looking at them. Duh! :wacko:

 

Kinda hard NOT to...

<_<

 

That picture could be considered some form of post modern art. The greens, blues, browns, give it a weird feel...


h34r:

 

Trippy! So, how much acid did you drop?

 

Schmika, I meant no disrespect - hopefully I can explain myself a little better. I was just trying to say that I think it will follow the same general process that interracial marriages did - my grandparents are still against it, my parents worried for us, but weren't upset, and my friends just don't give a damn. You and Squid, with your age groups seeming almost generational, seemed to work as a great analogy - if you'd prefer me to change it, I'd be happy to. (This goes for you too, Squid!)


Darelldd, you have a beautiful wife and a GORGEOUS daughter - good luck!

 

25 years married to my high school sweetheart, 3 kids. I am blessed!

 

Hello Schmika -

What the gay community has always demanded is equality under the law. Opposite-sex couples have government-regulated marriage, and this is what the vast majority of the gay community wants. Not just for us, but for our families and our children.

In states that have civil unions or have proposed civil unions, these have been fought just as vigorously by opponents as has been true legal marriage. Right here in Oregon, an anti-same-sex-marriage ballot initiative was passed. During the campaign, the backers of this initiative stated that we should have "civil unions" and not marriage. After the initiative passed, equal-rights supporters introduced a civil unions bill in the state legislature which was shamefully opposed by the very same people who had previously told us that civil unions was what we should accept. So now we still have nothing.

There is a saying in politics and business that goes "Don't negotiate with yourself"... meaning you should aim for what you really want, what is right and true, and then compromise if necessary. Don't scale back your demands in advance because then you'll have to start negotiating from there.

I also want to point out a common misconception (I'm not saying this applies to you)... we are asking for _legal_ equality. All of the legal rights and responsibilities for two couples attempting to form a permanent bond are called "marriage". This term is a loaded word because, of course, it also applies to religious unions as well. But to allow same-sex legal "marriage" does NOT mean that religious groups will somehow be forced to "accept" gay people. No church will be forced to perform a gay marriage or open their congregation to gay people. Even today, many mainstream churches perform same-sex marriages. We have already won this battle. What we are seeking is equality under the law.

There is also another important point to aiming for true equality: In Vermont, which has civil unions, the people with these unions have no standing with which to lobby or sue the federal government to have their unions recognized. Even when visiting Canada, which allows true same-sex marriage, Vermont residents may not have their union fully recognized because under the law it is not a "marriage".

Sooner or later (more like later, I'm realistic...) the federal government will have to recognize same-sex marriage, either from Massachusetts, or by treaty from a foreign nation such as Canada. For those couples who have a legal "marriage" rather than a "union", this recognition will become seamless and automatic much sooner.

Another analogy: Marriage is the whole meal. Civil unions are a few good bites of the meal. Contracts are just crumbs. When you are starving, you will accept crumbs, and a few good bites will sustain you for awhile and give you hope, but long-term survival requires a healthy meal.

Sincerest best wishes,
Bob R.

 

Giving Gays equal standing in marriage does so much more than 'add' the gay couples to an existing institution. It in fact destroys marriage all together. To bring an analogy.....

For 200 years, the basic formula for beer has been set and all beer manufacturers have by regulation been brewing within legal boundries with some having a better flavor and some with a lower calorie brew, but overall, beer has been beer. 300 million people know beer, respect it and enjoy it as it has been over the 200 years. Beer has been the national drink since the founding of the nation.

Over the last 40 years, a very small faction has decided that drinking used motor oil is quite auxilerating. They even developed a taste for it. In fact, they want used motor oil to be given equal space on the grocery shelf even though there are really not that many buyers.

So, they argue that motor oil is equal to beer, and that it is unlawful to continue to let beer be the national drink. If they and their lawyers get their way, the new national drink will be a blend between the two. Both motor oil and beer in the same glass. Beer drinkers will no longer be able to have just beer. Their favorite drink is now 50/50. There is no such thing as beer anymore, only beer mixed with used motor oil.

Now, no one that used to drink and respect the national drink of beer/oil will buy the national drink anymore. Straight beer is no longer legal or available, it has been taken away from those millions who have loved it their whole life. Now, whether they like it or not, their drink is disgusting and distasteful to them.

End of analogy: I value marriage, it means something significant to me. Gay people don't disgust me, but homosexuality does. I am very strongly against making man-man or woman-woman or woman-donkey-cow-pig-cousin-man relationships equal with man-woman marriage.

I accept the individual, but do not accept the individuals behaviors.

 

so you're saying that by allowing gay marriages, all hetero marriages become null and void, and even illegal? :huh:

 

Bob R.,

Thank you for stating so eloquently what I've been trying to figure out how to say!
Stand proud and move forward. With integrity and compassion,

 

First of all, as promised: You win 3 points for being the first to bring up human-animal relations. I am a man of my word, and you have been rewarded.

Second: Your analogy is flawed for in fact being gay (an inherent biological trait common among mammals) is not inherently fatal or harmful to society as your use of the example of wide-spread drinking of motor oil would be. I would be happy to entertain a more appropriate analogy if you're willing to come up with one.

And if you're willing to listen with the inherent possibility of changing your views, I can even explain to you why the idea of bestiality or polygamy is logically inappropriate to introduce into this discussion. But only if you're willing to listen.

Bonus 3 points for the first person to bring up AIDS. (Hint: Not a valid answer.)

- Bob R.

 

Dave - Thanks!

- Bob R.

 

Hi Honey...(yes, Bob is my partner of 5 years)

I think that if animals become sentient enough to say "I do" and love and commit on the level that we humans do, then let them get married. It is a lame and ignorant argument, at best, when people compare same-sex marriage to bestiality.

I mean, really...Does daronspicher think that animals can consent to relationships or even sex with humans? Moreover, does he actually believe that an animal can understand marriage and sign a legally binding document to be the wedded spouse of anyone or anything else? These ridiculous threats of "animal marriage" only serve to degrade the argument in favor of hetero-only marriage as fear-based and unintelligible. Someone has been watching too many Dr. Dolittle reruns...

It is truly amazing to me - we now live in a world where a person will take directions from his car, yet the same person will not acknowledge the love between two consenting adults just because he believes it shouldn't be.

Jason E.

 

Wasn't this thread just about marital status? I don't think the subject asked "why" or what our "preferences" are. It should be obvious in your answer but minus the ideology opinions.

I have many opinions about these things but would be beaten down like a cancerous rat if I verbalized them. So, with respect to everyone's opinions, please respect others and bite your tongue.

 

If you believe in the concept of "natural rights", "we" (in this case, seeing us as a largely Christian, heterosexual majority) have no business "giving" these rights to gays. Gays HAVE these rights, have ALWAYS had them, and need only to have courts CONFIRMthat they have had them. The rights are currently illegally being withheld by the "tyranny of the majority", but it's slowly being corrected.

I do not believe that gays aspire to the "Christian concept of marriage" per se as if it were the "highest" concept, nor, for that matter, even to claim partial "ownership" of the word "marriage" (although I think some do). I think their use of the word in this struggle is merely to assert their right to all the legal rights subsumed under the marriage concept in most states. I think the term "civil unions" would be satisfactory to most IF that term meant "equal rights". Unfortunately, as "civil unions" is emerging, it does not mean that.

As one conservative commentator wryly observed, with a chronic 50% divorce rate involving heteros, how can it possibly be said that "marriage" will be "irreparably damaged" by gays practicing it?

 

Actually, bobr1, from a logical standpoint, daronspicher's argument is what's known as an informal fallacy or, more commonly, an error in reasoning. Specifically, it's the either/or variety. That is, either we have only heterosexual marriage or we have no marriage. That's an invalid argument. The analogy of oil and beer is problematic because it's unrealistic. That is, who the heck would ever drink oil? It's stupid. If anthing, it may be somewhere along the line of another informal fallacy known as slippery slope. This term is often used incorrectly or at least vaguely. It's correct definition is:

"This type of fallacy centers around the claim that if we justify an action (X), then this will also justify some other actions, and these will not be desirable. The idea here is that the reasoning which justifies one action will also justify other actions, ones which will be detrimental or undesirable. example:
The choice of what should be taught in universities should be left to professors. If students are allowed to influence this choice, they will see themselves as running the school. This will lead to a breakdown of order and discipline, and pretty soon there will be no learning at all in the University." ( http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/longview/CTAC/...lippery%20Slope )

I got that off the internet because it will take a while for me to dig my Logic textbook out of my convoluted library.

"Point of Clarification- when we talk of committing a fallacy, it is usually the person offering the flawed argument who is at fault" so you don't have to argue with someone like that who's argument is invalid.

 

I appreciate the spirit of your comment. Let me just say this:

Limited to "marital status" alone, my partner and I don't fit into any status. We're left out. We're not allowed into the club.

In regards to "preference", I don't think anyone would argue that we (as in, humans) never really choose our "preference". It's not like I'm straight but "prefer" guys on the side, just as heterosexuals don't "prefer" one gender over the other. It's hardwired, and there is no doubt as to who you are naturally attracted to. The only confusion that arises in sexual identity comes when the brute force of society, religion and "belief" have such a strong influence on an individual that one begins to doubt his/her contrary actions and feelings.

Jason E.

 

2Hybrids -

Way earlier in this thread I participated in the true spirit by describing my marital status, including the ups-and-downs of the current legal status of said marriage.

Another poster subsequently launched into a comment opposing same-sex marriage, and a discussion ensued.

My normal inclination in cases where threads veer off into a side-argument is to try and steer things back to the original point, as you have attempted.

However, this particular issue quite strongly affects my family and friends, and history has taught me that backing down from this fight, even in a rhetorical sense, can inhibit progress. Thus, I try to tackle what I view to be misconceptions about same-sex marriage and homosexuality. I try to do this politely, although sometimes in a snarky/sarcastic way, but never via personal attack.

If all the participants in this little argument would agree to move it to a new thread in the "Fred's House of Pancakes" section, I would be more than happy to move it there. But so long as my marriage is under fire in this forum, I will defend it.

- Bob R.