Gay Marriage

I myself am a 4th generation Californian that graduated from the University of California at Berkeley in the early 80's and spent ten years of my life as a floor trader in New York City.

Yes, I do tend to think of myself as a fairly smart guy, as you say in your previous post. Thus, I have no problem at all with highlighting the word DISCRIMINATE in my previous post because in contrast to you, I do not think of it as some sort of slick "buzzward" that trivializes the topic.

In fact, I really do believe that you are WRONG when you say that the issue of gay marriage runs "deeper" than anything that can be summed up with a slick buzzword . . . for the simple fact of the matter that the U.S. Constitution has never been amended in order to discriminate against a group of people.

That is what we are talking about here, right?

Whether or not to amend the Constitution of the United States of America to discriminate against a group of people; which I might add has never, ever been done before!
 
Alfonso:
>Would you want your kid turing out gay?

Me:
>I want her or any other child of mine to be comfortable
>and proud of what they ARE and what they have become.

Alf:
>Lol, spoken like a politician. What does that really mean?
>You'd encourage your child to be proud of being a drug
>addict? A whore?

You asked it in the specific context of "gay". For you to expand it to drug addicts and prostitution shows how you are much more interested in vitrol than exchange. The question stands as answered and you know exactly what it means.

>Understandable that someone who has no moral basis
>would think that way.

So somehow (without even asking) you know my "moral basis"? I know for a fact that I find some of your morals completely disgusting, but since I don't know you I could never assume that you have no moral basis -- but then, that's just another delightful difference between us (thankfully).

Me:
> I don't give a rip gay, straight or bi-sexual.

Alf:
>But what would you prefer? Honestly now.

I think bi-sexual is probably the most enjoyable (twice as much chance of finding your soulmate) so I'll go with that one. I might not prefer that for my son since there is much more of a stigma attached to bi-sexual men then woman. If there is any part of me that wishes and hopes for my children to be hetero it is only because I would not want then to have to deal with the homophobic venom that gets spewed -- other than that I simply don't wish or care.

>I doubt you'll backpedal and admit you'd rather
>she was hetero, but I think in your heart you
>know you do.

That's what you get for thinking when you're not used to it. You think you know what's in my heart and yet you haven't even asked if I'm gay. I'll use ARTs favorite term...hubris.

>Just that it would nice to hear you actually address
>the points I've raised on this rather simply acting like
>they don't exist

Most of them don't exist, but I'll go back in the thread and work on accomodating that request.

JB
 
Jem, before you can even hope to achieve any constructive dialog you would have to actually make up you mind what it is that your don't like about it because you are inconsistent.

First you say:
>By changing that definition you are changing what I am.

Then you say:
>My responses have nothing to do with my self worth.
>They have to do with my respect for the U.S. and its
>institutions.

Again, it's a sad place to be when we allow others actions define what we are. I hope more for you and all some day.

JB

PS. Waggie...it doesn't

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to point out that you are either being a jerk or you incapable of creating anything greater than simple thought. (In which case I apologize for chastising a moron).

I am a married man with children. That is what I am. (Part of it) But that only has a small bearing on my self worth. Didn't you read my response to waggie.

You persist in writing your little requotes and misguided responses. You are a pain in the ass. I will not respond to any thing you write unless I deem it to be intelligent on point, worth my time and something I read by accident.
 
Jem:
>I am a married man with children. That is what I am.
>(Part of it) But that only has a small bearing on my
>self worth.

That's great. Someday perhaps you'll reach a point in your life where what someone does a thousand miles away no longer 'changes what you are'.

>I will not respond to any thing you write unless I deem
>it to be intelligent on point, worth my time and something
>I read by accident.

That's not an issue for me. I choose not to define myself by what others do. Enjoy yourself.

JB
 
Besides wishing everyone a great Weekend, I simply wish to add one more thought regarding the choice that one can make in their own life of not allowing "others" the opportunity to define them.

When I think of some of the greatest achievements on this planet called Earth, by both very talented men and women, I am always amazed at their incredible ability to focus and not be effected by the stress and "noise" of others around them that fail to overcome their very own insecurities. The men and women that I speak of are the ones that don't make excuses for their lack of performance for they are the ones that are utterly accountable to no one else but themselves, and their very own Spirit or drummer to which they march to. If others somehow feel threatened by their courage, than so be it. It is simply not something that they need to be concerned with.

While it would be easy to reflect on how Lance Armstrong refused to be "defined" by the cancer that invaded most of his body and almost took his life, or someone like Jackie Robinson who had a fierce determination to succeed in the nation's "white" pastime . . . I have always enjoyed seeing the incredibly focused young athletes participating in The Special Olympics who refuse to be defined by their handicaps.

They not only show courage, strength, and joy but also an incredible will to explore what they can achieve as athletes without the insecurities of others having any sort of an effect on them whatsoever. They are great role models for all of us.

To that end, I would encourage everyone to embrace the freedom of choice and the diversity that it breeds. That is what our Nation was founded on. That was what our Constitution was born from.

Peace.
 
wag:
>I have always enjoyed seeing the incredibly focused
>young athletes participating in The Special Olympics
>who refuse to be defined by their handicaps.

What an amazing and worthy example. Thanks Wag.

JB
 
Quote from waggie945:

I myself am a 4th generation Californian that graduated from the University of California at Berkeley in the early 80's and spent ten years of my life as a floor trader in New York City.
More...


Umm, that's fanastic. Good for you. But I don't get it....this has what exactly do with our conversation?


In fact, I really do believe that you are WRONG when you say that the issue of gay marriage runs "deeper" than anything that can be summed up with a slick buzzword . . . for the simple fact of the matter that the U.S. Constitution has never been amended in order to discriminate against a group of people.

That is what we are talking about here, right?

Whether or not to amend the Constitution of the United States of America to discriminate against a group of people; which I might add has never, ever been done before!
More...


Okay, let's talk about that.

How exactly does a government imprimatur on the definition of the word "marriage" constitute discrimination?

Gays want to redefine marriage and the government (and other normal people) say no. Whoa, discrimination there, yup. Sure puts segregation to shame.


Anyway, I really think straights that support this ridiculous notion are quite able to see this has nothing to do with civil rights, rather they are engaging in some bizarre, slow-acting schadenfreude (for reasons only God can understand), so there's little point talking about this for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top