With the marriage issue back in the news State's side...

[Kyobanim]

all i have to say to you is get your head out of lalla land because thats not how the world works.

We're not talking about the world, just the U.S.  In the U.S. that's the way it's supposed to work because of those documents I noted above.

you cant satisfy everyone so the minority gets the shaft thats the way it always has been, will be, and should be.

It's not about satisfying everyone, it's about following the law. And why, pray tell, should minorities get the shaft?

they should be treated fairly not equal there is a difference

Please explain the difference.

Its about what they want and what they deserve and what works.

I don't understand this either, please explain.

But gays getting married is just another way of them infiltrating our culture.

LMAO at the absurdity of that statement. For your information, gays have been around for all of recorded history. Yes, even in the bible. So, they were here before our American culture came about.

Yes, Mono, this conversation has degenerated into racism and bigotry because that's what the root of this problem is.

[MONOLITH]

The idea is that all human beings are equally entitled to certain unalienable rights and freedoms. Like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hope this sounds familir.

Noble words indeed.

Written by a slave owner.    


:wink:

[Zazoo]

Noble words indeed.
Written by a slave owner.    

I'm defending the ideal, not the actions or hypocrisy of the men who penned them.

~Mike

[MONOLITH]

I know.

It's just a wonderfully humorous bit of irony, that had never actually occurred to me before until I was reading our posts.  

[Laughing_Bun]

and why, pray tell, should minorities get the shaft?

Minorities should get shafted because they are MINORITIES; Majority rules. I use shafted loosely by the way. Everyones concerns should be considered and we should try and help them, But we cant go out of our way to much.

Please explain the difference

the difference between fairness and equality is that fairness takes in the concerns of other people....ok. ive been sitting here for a while trying to figure out how to explain it, I guess its one of those things you have to just understand. Its like trying to explain why something is funny, either the person gets it or they dont.

I don't understand this either, please explain.

Ill give you an example- "making ramps for handy cap people". You have to take into account how many handy cap people there are. How much good this is actually going to do, how much its going to cost. And ultimatly determine is it worth it? Everyone pays taxes why do the handicap people deserve these ramps?  Its just about weighing the concerns of the minority vs the majority.

LMAO at the absurdity of that statement. For your information, gays have been around for all of recorded history. Yes, even in the bible. So, they were here before our American culture came about.

thanks for the little history lesson there, but i have never heard of gay movements in the biblical times. So comparing then to now, is absurd. Its also not just about people of the same sex loving each other, its been glamourized and taken on its culture, which im not to fond of.

[farmboy]

Ill give you an example- "making ramps for handy cap people". You have to take into account how many handy cap people there are. How much good this is actually going to do, how much its going to cost. And ultimatly determine is it worth it? Everyone pays taxes why do the handicap people deserve these ramps?  Its just about weighing the concerns of the minority vs the majority.

This is the most insensitive shit I've ever heard.  Why should they be deprived their most basic governmental rights (such as fair trial or ability to vote)  because they can't access the facilities?  How is that any different than saying "our troops can't vote because it costs us extra money to make the ballots and mail them to their stations"?  bollocks.  i'm out of here.

[Fixxxer]

Minorities should get shafted because they are MINORITIES; Majority rules. I use shafted loosely by the way. Everyones concerns should be considered and we should try and help them, But we cant go out of our way to much.

So in a nutshell, Joe and Bill white guy should be allowed to and have priority to sit at the front of the bus and Rosa Parks should just be greatfull she's allowed on the bus at all? This is fair?

Just because blacks are a minority they shouldn't be treated equal? Especially when it's HARDER to segragate people rather than embrace cultural differences?

ok. ive been sitting here for a while trying to figure out how to explain it, I guess its one of those things you have to just understand.or they dont. I guess its one of those things you have to just understand. Its like trying to explain why something is funny, either the person gets it or they dont.

With all do respect, before you can tell others to know the difference between what is being treated fairly and what is being treated equally, you have to understand it yourself. You clearly don't or you would be able to enlighten the rest of us.

Here, let me ask you this- Since you can't explain what the difference between being treated fairly and being treated equally is;

How should -YOU- be treated? If being treated "fairly" is all you deserve, exactly what is "fair" to you personally? What privilages, either cultural or not, do you deserve? I'm almost willing to bet that you will feel as though you deserve anything and everything you want, much like the next guy does.

Ill give you an example- "making ramps for handy cap people". You have to take into account how many handy cap people there are. How much good this is actually going to do, how much its going to cost. And ultimatly determine is it worth it? Everyone pays taxes why do the handicap people deserve these ramps?  Its just about weighing the concerns of the minority vs the majority.

I'm not sure I follow.

Is this statement saying making handicap ramps doesn't happen because of the "hassle" or are you saying even though it is a "hassle" it's done anyways?

And much like being black, or hispanic, or somlian, or , people that are handicapped don't choose to be, so why should they not get ramps that they need to get into the shopping centre? I get stairs and escolators, why shouldn't they be privy to the luxury of a ramp?

"Their" money is just as good as ours, so it would be in the store's best interest to pay a little money now to make a lot of money later.

I'm really having a hard time seeing your point here.

[MONOLITH]

I would say handicapped ramps is a pretty poor example to use. Not quite the same as gays getting legal marriage recognition.

If there was only one wheelchair bound person on the planet, it would still be worth any cost or effort to make ramps.

I honestly was/am trying to understand some of the views behind what's being said, but that ends when a justified "I don't agree with this" turns out to actually be "cruelty because we can, there's more of us than you".

There's a difference between majority rules, and the mob rules.

I think Bun still has some valid points behind his words, he's just wording his argument poorly.

I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong), the underlying theme of his position is that yes we need to look to the needs of minorities, but not to the degree where it compromises or hurts the majority.  That's not necessarily a bad posture to take. There is afterall, quite obviously something to be said for self preservation.  We can offer welfare to those minorities who are not working, but if we did it to the degree that it bankrupted the country, then we destoyed ourselves doing it. You can't sacrifice the majority, for the minority.

To quote Mr. Spock... "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, or the one".

All this, is of course a far stretch away from the original topic of gay marriage. It's relation, is many feel that by allowing gays to have legally recognized marriage, you are taking something away from the majority, by changing or taking away something they consider sacred; which is the 'accepted norm' of what a marriage is.

As I said before, it doesn't matter to me. Like Zazoo said, the only thing I need to care about is what my marriage is to me and my wife.

But to many others, it does matter. Whether we agree or we don't, it could possibly be said that just as it's unfair to deny gays legal marriage, it's equally unfair to alter something held sacred by the majority.

I say let them have marriages. I think they should be able to have 'spousal benefits' of insurances and taxes etc etc. But, do I have the right to make that decision for millions of others who don't want it?

I think that's where Bun's minority vs majority thing is coming in.

He's just not as eloquent as I.  :tongue: :wink:


I'll also add that there's no reason for anyone to get nasty or start arguing. Everyone can say their piece without fighting. I implied some serious sh*t with my post about urban blight. But I made maximum effort to say it in a way that kept the offensiveness to a minimum.

There's no reason we can't all do the same.

EDIT IN:

So in a nutshell, Joe and Bill white guy should be allowed to and have priority to sit at the front of the bus and Rosa Parks should just be greatfull she's allowed on the bus at all? This is fair? Just because blacks...

Just want to say we need to be careful what spins we put on peoples words with such a sensitive topic. I have no idea what Buns really feels about different races, but no where in his posts where he uses the phrase minorities vs majority, did he say anything that indicated something of a specifically racist nature like Fixxxers interpretation. I don't see anything that says "treat them badly because they are black".

Just trying to avoid this getting any worse than it has to be.

[Lazerblade]

Personally, I feel that when a minority group asks for something that the majority already has, and it isn't physically hurting or endangering anyone, and there is no financial or property loss, then why would such a request be ignored- or worse, denied? Gay marriage would only be introducing a concept into society that goes against the norms. It would be like so many other rebellious acts that have been commited by children against their parents ever since the concept of rebellion was introduced. Imagine what life would be like if the "majority" controlled everything that was acceptible...

No MTV
No violent video games
No pre-marital sex
Drinking, driving, and voting ages would be changed to include only those old enough to fit into the "acceptible majority"
Television would show only those things interesting to the majority
Music? Forget it- classical and jazz only. Some of that would be censored too, so you'd have almost nothing to choose from and it would only develop based on what the upper crust listened to.

There is no controlling culture or society- not even through majority rule. Society evolves as new cultures and new social interactions and perceptions are introduced. Trying to stop this is like standing naked in front of an army of SUV's speeding down a smooth highway with all their brake lines cut. They're not stopping, they're not swerving, so either get out of the way or get run over.

Change is inevitable. Even the minority groups can impose change, all we can do is keep our culture in perspective and hang on. The ripples get smaller with time, and eventually the waters surrounding that particular issue are no longer noticable, and yet another tidal wave heads our way.

The future is coming. Embrace it, capture it, mold it, and move on. Nobody can prevent change, and trying to contain it requires more effort than riding it out.

[Fixxxer]

Just want to say we need to be careful what spins we put on peoples words with such a sensitive topic. I have no idea what Buns really feels about different races, but no where in his posts where he uses the phrase minorities vs majority, did he say anything that indicated something of a specifically racist nature like Fixxxers interpretation. I don't see anything that says "treat them badly because they are black".

Just trying to avoid this getting any worse than it has to be.

I'm sorry, but when you say--

But i personally dont want them infecting my view of what marriage is. They have the right to be happy, but at the end of the day they are still different and i think there are worse things than reminding them off that.

"Infecting" is a HIGHLY volatile word in this context.

Not only that, but why isn't Mike's and his wife's view as to what marriage is "infecting" his view? They mean different things to each of them, but since Mike and his wife are hetro it's okay for them to have a different view as to what marriage is?

I just think different people should be treated differently, not poorly just accordingly.

According to who?

This is why I made the "Rosa Parks" comment. Sometimes, treating people differently (and justly to those that make these decisions) is meant to belittle them. Reminding them that they are different and inferior.

But gays getting married is just another way of them infiltrating our culture. My point is we need to quit bending over backwards for minorities. There are worse things than being different, or offended.

It doesn't leave a whole lot of options for me.

Saying things like "infecting my view.." or "infiltrating our culture" and such does not sound like a rational train of thought from someone who is against these values, but isn't hostile towards those that follow this lifestyle.

Yes, there are worse things then being different or offended. The problem is, much like the blacks can attest to- it starts off by being different, then evolves into being offended and then it snowballs into much worse things.

Now, I'm not saying Bun is racist (he's actually made no racial comments at all) nor am I saying he's a "gay basher". But these phrases are highly offensive to anyone who may be gay and reading this. And in all honesty. my "Rosa Parks" comment wasn't really a question to Bun himself, it was more of a rhetorical question.

It was just an example of how treating people differently in the past was like. So why would we want to make the same mistake again?

To tell someone that follows a different value system which doesn't harm anyone that they have the right to be happy so long as they're treated "accordingly" is boarderline bigotry. I'm not trying to start a war, but when you tell someone that because of their lifestyle they should be treated differently, either positively different or negatively different (and in these circumstances, it's rarely for the better as far as the minority is concerned), it's no longer a disagreement, but a battle of morals. Basically, leading back to my first reply-- "Holier than thou".

[Laughing_Bun]

This is the most insensitive shit I've ever heard.  Why should they be deprived their most basic governmental rights (such as fair trial or ability to vote)  because they can't access the facilities?  How is that any different than saying "our troops can't vote because it costs us extra money to make the ballots and mail them to their stations"?  bollocks.  i'm out of here.

you are obviously not familiar with this situation at all. Out here in CA this was actually sorta an issue, They wanted to spend TONS of money on building ramps to places like burger king and forcing the buisnesses to pick up the tab. Its different because participating in the workings of your goverment is different than not being able to get to stores. All federal buildings and places where people vote likes schools have ramps. Sorry if that wasnt clear. A poor example maybe, insinsitive, maybe to the buisnesses.

Anyways MONLOLITH pretty much summed up what i was trying to say. I like to make my arguments allitle less coherent and allitle more offensive. Because theres nothing wronnt abg with offending someone. As long as your not really bashing them or causing real harm.

@fixxer
Accordingly probably isnt the best word...It had a poetic ring to it so i used it. it all goes back to the Fair not equal thing. Who decides it? I dont know? will it be fair? i dont know. is it the best we can do? yes

All your points pretty much stress the same thing. should people be treated differently? ANd yes i strongly believe they should.

Since im not in charge of the world i cant decide how people are treated, but i can assure you that the power is rationed across the board among, politcal leaders, buisness leaders, anyone with allitle power has the ability to treat someone differently. Its up to them how they use it. THis isout bigotry though, its about looking out for whats best for the "whole". People will abuse it and we cant stop that.

[MONOLITH]

should people be treated differently? ANd yes i strongly believe they should.

Here's where Buns and I part company, because his statement is just way to generalized and vague.

Who are we talking about? What type of treatment are we talking about?

I still say the ramp thing is wrong. I think busineses should be required to create the necessary accesses for handicapped. That's just something we do as a 'civilized society'.

And yes Fixxxer, the highlighted words and phrases from Buns are harsh ones. I'm simply trying to play 'Liberal' and do the 'try to understand the thoughts behind the words" thing, which is not normal for me.

I disagree with his statement of "people should be treated differently" when based solely on majority or race or ethnic background or sexual preference. All humans deserve the same chance to get equal treatment. I do think you can be treated differently based on
individual merits. I think people sometimes get racism confused with judging individuals. What I mean by that is, I can drive through a crappy part of any American city, and see a black neighborhood that's in complete decay with crime, trash and poverty.The type of place you don't want to drive through with your nice white wife and children, and end up muttering "damn 'Nword's"; but is it really a particular race I don't like, or that particular situation. Because if Halle Berry knocked on my door, I'm surely letting her in. We certainly idolize black athletes. And there certainly is just as much white trash out there as any other race. So If I treat Leroy the pimp differently than I treat Bill Cosby, Leroy can scream racism all he wants, but it clearly isn't true.

I have two good friends right now that are gay. I actively seek out hanging out with them. Their sexual preference means nothing to me. Yet I can come across a gay who is a complete flamer, one of those obnoxious over the top, wearing a mink coat type of hollywood gay, and think to myself something rude like 'F*ing F*ggot". It would be easy to call me a bigot then, but I'm clearly judging that one particular individual who I find distasteful, while I'm perfectly fine with my other gay friends.

I guess I'm getting off on an unnecessary tangent, can't even remember what point I really wanted to get to.

Bottom line for me, is I don't agree with Buns statement of treat minorities different, just because they're minorities. There is however, something to be said for 'not damaging the majority'. To some degree, majority does rule. That is exaclty how voting works, right?

While I think gays should be allowed to marry, I also understand why millions of society don't want their vision of a marriage 'altered'.

[Zazoo]

I do think you can be treated differently based on
individual merits. I think people sometimes get racism confused with judging individuals. What I mean by that is, I can drive through a crappy part of any American city, and see a black neighborhood that's in complete decay with crime, trash and poverty.The type of place you don't want to drive through with your nice white wife and children, and end up muttering "damn 'Nword's"; but is it really a particular race I don't like, or that particular situation. Because if Halle Berry knocked on my door, I'm surely letting her in. We certainly idolize black athletes. And there certainly is just as much white trash out there as any other race. So If I treat Leroy the pimp differently than I treat Bill Cosby, Leroy can scream racism all he wants, but it clearly isn't true.

IMHO, the problem isn't so much that people get racism confused with judging individuals, but that most people (including me) don't feel that it is appropriate to use racial slurs when judging individuals. Since when does a disparaging term about a person's race pass as an acceptable judgement about his or her idividual merits (or shortcomings in this case)?

~Mike

[MONOLITH]

Understood Mike. Honestly.

Unfortunately, if you ask many people "from race type XYZ, how many individuals do you know that you would regularly associate with, in relation to how many you see that you would wish to avoid for some/any reason"

I think the answer would indicate a large percent of the population stereotypes individuals based on race, because on the type of individuals you mostly see from that race.

A lame attempt at an analogy....
If imaginary Race XYZ had an enormous ratio of criminal types compared to a small amount who were celebrities or upper class, it tends to make an individual blame the race, because of the overwhelming poor representation they have for their race.

Does that make sense? I hope you get what I'm saying.

I'm not saying it's 'right', I'm simply saying that is typically what you will get from the average guy on the street.

[MONOLITH]

PS. I don't think any of that came out right. :hmm:

[Zazoo]

Understood Mike. Honestly.

Unfortunately, if you ask many people "from race type XYZ, how many individuals do you know that you would regularly associate with, in relation to how many you see that you would wish to avoid for some/any reason"

I think the answer would indicate a large percent of the population stereotypes individuals based on race, because on the type of individuals you mostly see from that race.

A lame attempt at an analogy....
If imaginary Race XYZ had an enormous ratio of criminal types compared to a small amount who were celebrities or upper class, it tends to make an individual blame the race, because of the overwhelming poor representation they have for their race.

Does that make sense? I hope you get what I'm saying.

I'm not saying it's 'right', I'm simply saying that is typically what you will get from the average guy on the street.

It makes sense, and I get what you're saying, but if you acknowledge that it is wrong, why willingly play into it by doing the same as "the average guy on the street"?

~Mike

[MONOLITH]

Damn you. Stop it.      :tongue: