Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on March 5, 2012 at 10:05am

Well then, let's make that day today.  You have patently rejected all factual claims by your debate opponent here, going so far as to say all empirical observations are nothing more than opinion, only to become more obstinate in your original position.  That, by definition, is bigotry.

Now I don't happen to feel that the prevalence of same sex intercourse in other species in anyway justifies the morality of homosexuality in humans - but there are actual arguments that one can use to refute such a position rather than just claiming such acts do not occur or are misinterpreted.

Furthermore, the allegory to black/female civil rights movements is perfect - yet again, rather than heading the argument straight on, you make a claim that black/female civil rights effects 'everyone' but gay rights do not, without drawing any rational justification for the differences between the two.

I stand by my evaluation of bigotry - a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. (merriam-webster)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shabaka Tecumseh on March 5, 2012 at 10:32am

lol I just can't disagree, I gotta be a bigot?  Your "facts" aren't my "facts"...that makes me a bigot? 

http://lemire.me/blog/archives/2010/09/17/can-science-be-wrong-you-...

How did feminism get into the equation?  That's on the level of "gay rights" not civil rights for a formally enslaved people. I told you why they are different, you just don't agree. 

Now we are at the core of this claim of yours.. 
 

"who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. (merriam-webster)"

Again, I don't give a damn about who is or isn't gay or what they do. In fact I'd object to anyone saying they can't be "gay" and participate in anal or female/female oral sex or even hold hands walking down the street, but that's not the issue at hand. The issue is the onslaught of homosexuals demanding some "rights" over the already established rights of certain people. Not being equal, that can never be because of the unequal/different lifestyle, (ie a pregnant male partner) or that their right to be together with the same legal privileges and immunity of other citizens are somehow infringed. They have domestic partner agreements etc. which carry the full force of equality without marriage and I'm sure if it's lacking they can get whatever it is changed. 

Although homosexuality MAY be in Nature (to some degree naturally) that doesn't make it universal behaviors or even "traditional" behavior more or less aberrant behavior.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on March 5, 2012 at 11:02am

The point is that you not only failed to offer an alternate explanation but you didn't even attempt to discredit the explanation offered.  That same sex intercourse occurs in other species is well documented, including photos and videos - yet all you have to say is that it does not constitute sexual intercourse, without raising the definition of sexual intercourse and/or explaining why the physical act taking place in such observations does not meet the criteria.  You see, you just side step any rational discourse and short cut to "that's just your opinion" and now you seem to be following the tack of "all knowledge is just opinion".

There is actually an entire field that delves into this; it's called Epistemology.  Now, the grand epistemological trilemma does, in fact, point out that justification of any knowledge is most likely to be made on some assumptions of underlying axioms - and one can attack from that angle - but that still does not make all knowledge nothing more than opinion.

By trying to argue from the perspective of 'formerly enslaved people" while also suggesting there is some justification for bigotry through a view being held for "200 years", you are playing both sides of the genetic fallacy in the same argument - almost entirely nullifying your entire assertion in one fell swoop.

Now, as far as gay rights, the 'rights' in question primarily relate to estates and power of attorney - something which married people can designate easily but which non-married people cannot.  The issue here that affects 'everyone' (since you seem to feel that is the only justification of 'rights') is that a single person, such as myself, might have my estate/power of attorney designations overturned by family members who manage to find a judge to trump my choices - which can, has, and does happen.  In the case of marriage, the closest living relative is the spouse and therefore cannot be trumped by other family claims.

This, of course, highlights the injustice faced by all single people and the special status granted to spouses which should be available to all people.  I personally wish to fight for these rights for single people - to be able to delegate my 'closest' relative as a person who is not necessarily my nearest genetic match - but I do as well recognize the justice that gays are seeking in this matter.

So the struggle for gay rights is not just a struggle for decriminalization of sexual acts - it's a struggle to receive the same rights afforded to opposite-sex couples who choose to designate their most beloved as their closest living relative for all legal purposes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Remy du Plessis on March 5, 2012 at 2:09pm

Thanks for your insight into the subject, Heather. I thoroughly enjoyed reading through all the posts, yours especially!

I'm so glad I saw this thread today because there was an article about Kirk Cameron's CNN anti-gay rant on a local (South African) website and reading through those comments was rather depressing. It's sad to think that so many people in the country I live in have such biblical views.

If you'd like to see the comments and article here is the link:

http://www.iol.co.za/tonight/kirk-cameron-lashed-for-anti-gay-rant-...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on March 5, 2012 at 2:21pm

Thanks, Remy, but I just can't take Kirk Cameron today.  It's not just his fundamentalist position that irks me but his lack of insight into the limited scope of his views.  As much as I love to rage against the bigotry, I've learned to be selective in my exposure/responses because too much just overwhelms me and leaves me on edge for the rest of the week.  :D

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by C Elaine Clark on March 11, 2012 at 3:05pm

The article didn't come up :(

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ed on March 5, 2012 at 7:23pm

@ Heather

"The issue here that affects 'everyone' (since you seem to feel that is the only justification of 'rights') is that a single person, such as myself, might have my estate/power of attorney designations overturned by family members who manage to find a judge to trump my choices - which can, has, and does happen.  In the case of marriage, the closest living relative is the spouse and therefore cannot be trumped by other family claims."

On what grounds would a judge make the decision to overturn a deceased individual's instructions laid out in a legal will? Those documents are intended to be binding.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on March 5, 2012 at 7:57pm

There have been mixed cases usually involving technicalities.  One of the most notable cases happened in Oklahoma.

Sam Beaumont and his partner Earl Meadows were partners for over two decades.  They literally built a home together -- a ranch -- in which both men sank their money, blood, sweat and tears.  The mortgage was in Earl's name.  Because they were not allowed to marry, Early left the property to Sam in his will.

When Earl passed away, the property should have gone to Sam; however, relatives contested the will.  It came down to a technicality: the will had two signatories instead of three.  Not only was the property awarded to these relatives, but Sam is not supposed to pay them back rent for the period between Earl's passing and the decision regarding the property. Sam can't afford this.  He sunk a couple of hundred thousand dollars into the ranch, which was (is?) his livelihood, I believe.

There are other cases that follow a similar pattern.  Technicalities be what they may, in Sam's case, the intent of the will is unambiguous and indisputable.  The decision was an affront to justice.

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/sam-beaumonts-bio 

This is not the only case of which I have heard, but it is the most extreme and notable.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on March 5, 2012 at 9:54pm

Try googling the phrase "family contests will".  In fact, declare here, openly and without exception, that you have NEVER heard the phrase "family contests will".  Please don't insult my ignorance here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ed on March 6, 2012 at 9:43pm

I, Ed, do openly declare here and w/o exception that I have heard the phrase "family contests will." 

I was unaware of the Family Protection Act 1955. 

Heather , I'll never intentionally insult your ignorance or intelligence.

Peace. 

Permalink Reply by C Elaine Clark on March 11, 2012 at 3:20pm

actually a will can be contested by a family  member...A will contest is a challenge to a will, usually initiated by a family member or a beneficiary who feels slighted by the testator’s choice of property distribution. Valid grounds for a will contest include claims that it was improperly executed (e.g., the testator did not sign it), the testator lacked testamentary capacity (e.g., he did not understand what he was doing), it contains a mistake, or it is the result of fraud, undue influence, duress, or insane delusion.    I just went though this process and all people concerned or mentioned in the will were notified and then they have to right to contest the will or ask to become the executor . They just have to show up  in the court. Its really best not to make a will. Just put , the people s names on your accounts and as beneficiaries.  When the state is involved u loose a lot of money to fees, bonds, adds in paper that are required, court fees. and in the end the state comes forth and trys to take it all away especially if it is an older person they can sue their estate for medicare  recovery . They took all of my mothers money away after we had already written out the checks to the started persons that were to receive the money and they the grand children had already cashed the checks. then we had to refinance our house to pay the state recovery unit  their money  and a lawyer . So beware of making a will ......  my dad didn't make a will he just signed everything over to his wife, no will, no fees, no taxes no lawyers, no lose of money . EASY !!! 

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on March 6, 2012 at 9:54pm

Sorry for chopping back rather hard, Ed - I have just been spending days with people who've been arguing hard that whatever they write in their will is absolutely binding, without exception, so gay marriage means nothing.  I directed my frustration in the wrong direction and I do apologize.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• …
• 13
• Next ›
• Page