Detour: Point of View thread

The Point of View thread has hit a small bump in the road. To protect that street from closure, this detour has been set up.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6347&start=370

And an aerial view of the bump in the road.

Relax wrote:

cthia wrote:CAUTION
YIELD
STOP

Or whichever traffic sign you pay more attention to. I am not intending to strike up a conversation about politics,

One you are: You just do not want anyone to reply while getting your own shovel full in.

Since you decided to run politics while claiming you are not(hypocrisy), why should we institutionalize perversion? Just because you are "married" does not mean you are allowed to dictate medical care for a loved one in a hospital. You see that requires Medical power of attorney. If your spouse has not put that in their will, you are SOL. Now the court may appoint the spouse as medical power of attorney, but it must be done THROUGH the courts. Same goes for power of attorney regarding $$$.

In short, the pervert "marriage" has nothing to do with
"rights", said "rights" already exist and have existed for a VERY LONG TIME, instead it is simply an attack on Religion so this segment of society with this form of perversion can feel good about their perversion.

Marriage is for raising of children acknowledging natural order that males and females are indeed different and learning how each interacts differently.

Perversion should not be glorified but treated as it is. Something we all deal with, but in different aspects of our lives.

I am a pervert. So is everyone else. I do not want my perverted nature to be "moralized" by society. It is wrong. Period. We should strive for optimum, not create laws to moralize perversion to make some group of peoples perversion "feel" good.

If DW glorifies perversion(any form), I will quit buying his books. Acknowledgment that perversion in many forms resides in all of us, causes us to negotiate our handicaps MUST be shown to mimic reality. But to glorify perversion? Hell no.

Relax. For most of your post, here is my response...

... akin to my ****** * found in my posts.

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day... Exodus 20:11

If you were a candidate running for Presidency, you'd have a strong chance of getting my vote if you made this speech in public. There are candidates who wish they could say this same thing, but are afraid. They lack the balls. Things can go into the crapper, quickly.

From the tone of your post directed at me, you probably didn't see it coming that I'm basically in your corner- even if not stemming from the same reason. I am a Christian. And God ordered man to go forth and multiply. It is impossible for same sex marriages to multiply. They can only add.

****** *

It is only your last paragraph that I have a serious issue.

If DW glorifies perversion(any form), I will quit buying his books. Acknowledgment that perversion in many forms resides in all of us, causes us to negotiate our handicaps MUST be shown to mimic reality. But to glorify perversion? Hell no.

I'll allow you to consider that more if you like. You see, in many peoples eyes, DW has already glorified perversion. He allowed black people to be depicted as Queens. In many people's eyes in America, that is worse than condoning gay marriages.

So where do we draw the line? My point is, where does our passion begin and end? I don't know about you, but I like black people. I like all flavors of our biological rainbow. What I don't like, is the evil within some people in all the colors of the rainbow. I don't like eradicating and mistreating any color of the rainbow as a whole. All of the colors make the whole all the more beautiful.

What I proposed in that post is that America has reached a point in time that we should have long been able to discuss these issues without blowing our stacks.

And you and I and anyone else are wrong to declare ourselves judge and jury to the point that we would murder minority people in the streets because we wear a badge. Or think we can target the gay and eliminate them. Opinions and convictions should not be written on bullets or on the trademark of baseball bats.

If DW decides to feature a gay couple. It is NOT glorifying perversion. It is accepting reality. It couldn't even be considered a compass as to his direction on the matter. The sky is blue. If DW depicts a blue sky in his books, doesn't mean that he agrees that the sky should be blue.

I don't think gay marriages should be legalized either, in lieu of my Christian values stated above and my own fears of the institution of marriage. But I do not bash gay or spit on their right to do as they please in their own bedrooms or lives. And I detest sweeping these issues under the rug by threatening the part of society that depicts life in its complete realities.

Does not interracial families and gay people have a right to buy Cheerios as well?

I just wish America could be as passionate on many other much more pressing matters that need attending to. Homelessness. Murder for color. Child abuse. Spousal abuse. Rape on campuses. Child predators. Sex trafficking. Animal cruelty.

But one thing I do know. One of our most unforgivable sins and transgressions as humans, will probably not be, at all, perpetrated by gay marriages. Throwing unwanted infant babies in the dumpster.

Relax wrote:In short, the pervert "marriage" has nothing to do with "rights", said "rights" already exist and have existed for a VERY LONG TIME, instead it is simply an attack on Religion so this segment of society with this form of perversion can feel good about their perversion.

Yeah. Uh-huh. Sure. "An attack on religion".

Name one marriage, ONE SINGLE FUCKING MARRIAGE, that has failed because someone else was allowed to marry as well.

Marriage is for raising of children acknowledging natural order that males and females are indeed different and learning how each interacts differently.

Seems to me that children raised by homosexual (or other non-binary) family arrangements are just as able to make out those differences as anyone else.

Perversion should not be glorified but treated as it is. Something we all deal with, but in different aspects of our lives.

I am a pervert. So is everyone else. I do not want my perverted nature to be "moralized" by society. It is wrong. Period. We should strive for optimum, not create laws to moralize perversion to make some group of peoples perversion "feel" good.

If everyone's perverted, how can anyone be?

If DW glorifies perversion(any form), I will quit buying his books. Acknowledgment that perversion in many forms resides in all of us, causes us to negotiate our handicaps MUST be shown to mimic reality. But to glorify perversion? Hell no.

Someone call the Smithsonian, cos they're missing a dinosaur. Have you paid attention to the books in any way? Didn't you notice Sarnow being happily married to another man? Or Honor Harrington living in a decidedly non-binary constellation? Or every single Grayson marriage ever?

This "perversion" you do not want to see normalized? It's everywhere in the Honorverse. It's just that, unlike today's discussions on the subject, people just accept these things as things people do and don't feel the need to comment about how wrong it all is.

I'm a straight man who has been in a heterosexual marriage for nearly 40 years, and fail to see how if gay (male or female) friends get married it has an adverse effect on my wife and I. Just as I fail to understand how it is an attack on anyone's religion. If they make it compulsory then that would be a problem.

Gay friends in a long term partnership have reared really well adjusted kids. They had to actively arrange to have them, so cherish them more than many who had a shotgun wedding after a drunken night out.

My definition of perversion is whatever materially disadvantages vulnerable people, and religious zealotry is one of the worst perversions.

I suspect that Relax and I would not get on if we met.

Relax wrote:In short, the pervert "marriage" has nothing to do with "rights", said "rights" already exist and have existed for a VERY LONG TIME, instead it is simply an attack on Religion so this segment of society with this form of perversion can feel good about their perversion.

The E wrote:Yeah. Uh-huh. Sure. "An attack on religion".

Name one marriage, ONE SINGLE FUCKING MARRIAGE, that has failed because someone else was allowed to marry as well.

Well, I would guess some marriages where one partner is gay but was forced by their religious beliefs to "do the right thing" might flounder, but I doubt that helps Relax's point.

Relax wrote:Marriage is for raising of children acknowledging natural order that males and females are indeed different and learning how each interacts differently.

The E wrote:Seems to me that children raised by homosexual (or other non-binary) family arrangements are just as able to make out those differences as anyone else.

For that matter, my uncle and his wife were married for over 60 years without children, so I guess under Relax's definition above they were perverts, too. And I'm 62 and probably past child-procreation; would I be a pervert if I took a wife at this stage of my life?

Relax wrote:I am a pervert. So is everyone else. I do not want my perverted nature to be "moralized" by society. It is wrong. Period. We should strive for optimum, not create laws to moralize perversion to make some group of peoples perversion "feel" good.

The E wrote:If everyone's perverted, how can anyone be?

Plus, who gets to define what is perversion? Relax? E? Me? Religion (take your pick)? Science?

Relax wrote:If DW glorifies perversion(any form), I will quit buying his books. Acknowledgment that perversion in many forms resides in all of us, causes us to negotiate our handicaps MUST be shown to mimic reality. But to glorify perversion? Hell no.

The E wrote:Someone call the Smithsonian, cos they're missing a dinosaur. Have you paid attention to the books in any way? Didn't you notice Sarnow being happily married to another man? Or Honor Harrington living in a decidedly non-binary constellation? Or every single Grayson marriage ever?

This "perversion" you do not want to see normalized? It's everywhere in the Honorverse. It's just that, unlike today's discussions on the subject, people just accept these things as things people do and don't feel the need to comment about how wrong it all is.

In Relax's defense (such as it is), many religious folks do have deep an abiding issues with the type and pace of changes these days. Much the same occurred in the 1960's/70's with the Civil Rights movement (did you know that the laws banning inter-racial marriage in a number of the US states were not overturned Nationally until 1967? (Loving v Virgina). Until that time you could call the marriage of a black man/white woman or white man/black woman the 'perversion' of misceganation.

Things change fast (in terms of history-it might be 10-20 years in the making) socially, some times after long periods of stagnation (call it 'puncutated equilibrium' if you will... . That tends to upset conservatives (since by definition, they wish to conserve the status quo to the greatest extent possible). So I understand when your world is turned upside down, it is very understandable that the overturners are too blame.

But that does not stop progress, it does not stop learning, and it does not stop rationality; and those forces, IMHO, will continue to forge ahead, much to the discomfort of conservatives.

Where it ends up--heck, hopefully in Beowulf....

Hutch wrote:snip
In Relax's defense (such as it is), many religious folks do have deep an abiding issues with the type and pace of changes these days. Much the same occurred in the 1960's/70's with the Civil Rights movement (did you know that the laws banning inter-racial marriage in a number of the US states were not overturned Nationally until 1967? (Loving v Virgina). Until that time you could call the marriage of a black man/white woman or white man/black woman the 'perversion' of misceganation.

Things change fast (in terms of history-it might be 10-20 years in the making) socially, some times after long periods of stagnation (call it 'puncutated equilibrium' if you will... . That tends to upset conservatives (since by definition, they wish to conserve the status quo to the greatest extent possible). So I understand when your world is turned upside down, it is very understandable that the overturners are too blame.

But that does not stop progress, it does not stop learning, and it does not stop rationality; and those forces, IMHO, will continue to forge ahead, much to the discomfort of conservatives.

Where it ends up--heck, hopefully in Beowulf....

The assumption here is change is always progress and that all progress is invariably good. It is not.

I am ambivalent about same sex marriage. The assertion that same sex couples provide the same sets of benefits to children as dual sex couples is hardly proven. This isn't a logical exercise. It is a significant shift in our society and will carry with it significant consequences. Many of those consequences will be unintended. One of the gray areas I see with respects to same sex marriage is the legal impact on adoptive rights and rights of parents on their progeny. Same sex marriages require going outside the union to have children. That means having courts intervene more often when concerns over adoption conflict with rights of parents and progeny. Perhaps that will evolve into courts asserting their right to decide if parents can keep their children.

This last might seem far fetched, but recently a couple was chastised for allowing their children, 6 and 9 I believe, to walk alone to the park a few blocks away. The police actually stopped the children and took them into custody while they were walking home. The children had food allergies and so declined to eat what the police offered for several hours while they were held. The police were concerned that a homeless man was near the children when they picked the children up. Instead of driving the children home they took the children into custody because they did not trust parents who would allow their children out alone.

Lord, I am glad I grew up in another time. I recall at 10-11 years old going across Chicago to watch Cubs games with an friend of similar age. No cell phones at that time. We took the train by ourselves to Wrigley field, sat in the bleachers, watched the game and returned home afterwards. Were our parents neglecting us or were they irresponsible to let us do these things? No. Had I allowed my children to do this now, I would be chastised severely if not charged with child endangerment.

My point is that our laws are changing and those changes are not always good. Allowing another reason to let an uncaring (how can they care more than I) court system decide what is best for my children more and more is not a wise thing to do. Resisting that sort of intrusion is not reactionary conservatism but the exercise of wisdom.

So, if same sex marriage recognizes the differences inherent in the different sort of union they represent, the impact on the rest of us will be mitigated. Same sex unions must go outside their union to get children after all while dual sex unions usually don't. Yet that is not being debated. What is being debated is how to change all our laws so that same sex couples with their different needs have the identical privileges as dual sex couples. Taking this approach demands that the real differences in the two situations are ignored. Instead the commonalities are the only thing that matter. Resorting to least common denominator does not strike me as a good approach to solving this issue.

That's just this topic. The changes we face in the US are much more extensive and in many ways even less well considered.

Thoughtful and well-put, PeterZ. I tend to disagree with some of your points, but let me cogitate anon before I reply.

I disagree, specifically with the first line,
not with the last line.

I think that the advocates are saying that This Change,
stopping the persecution of homosexuals, is Good,
and never mind any other Progress in other cases.

If there is a General Assumption here,
I think it is that Persecution Is Bad,
especially of people for what they are,
not what they choose to be.

If being Gay were a Choice,
Then all the persecution would have persuaded
the Choosers to Choose Straigtness - which seems
to have the reason for the persecution.
But the Plan failed, thus disproving the Theory.

People might be able to choose a religion,
or their own characters might force them into
a particular one. Then they get to choose whether
to persecute other groups, or not. This is where
saying that "their character made them do it" isn't
allowed. For what we do, we may be held responsible.

HTM, Pointy-Headed Liberal

PeterZ wrote:
The assumption here is change is always progress
and that all progress is invariably good.
It is not.

{snip to eopost - htm}

Howard,

That is not what I meant by my line. I was addressing Hutch's comments about the reasons conservatives resist change in general. My post does not advocate pro or con same sex unions. I caution that those who advocate for wholesale change should consider all the ramifications of the changes they seek. Further that resistance to the changes sought does not necessarily mean a rejection of the fundamental premise but of how the implementation of what is desired is to be affected.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:I disagree, specifically with the first line,
not with the last line.

I think that the advocates are saying that This Change,
stopping the persecution of homosexuals, is Good,
and never mind any other Progress in other cases.

If there is a General Assumption here,
I think it is that Persecution Is Bad,
especially of people for what they are,
not what they choose to be.

If being Gay were a Choice,
Then all the persecution would have persuaded
the Choosers to Choose Straigtness - which seems
to have the reason for the persecution.
But the Plan failed, thus disproving the Theory.

People might be able to choose a religion,
or their own characters might force them into
a particular one. Then they get to choose whether
to persecute other groups, or not. This is where
saying that "their character made them do it" isn't
allowed. For what we do, we may be held responsible.

HTM, Pointy-Headed Liberal

PeterZ wrote:
The assumption here is change is always progress
and that all progress is invariably good.
It is not.

{snip to eopost - htm}

I find this discussion completely baffling.

Why shouldn't homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals?

What's more - what would that cost anyone? Nothing. Heterosexual marriage has exactly zero drawbacks for anyone else.

Homosexuals do have the same rights hetersexuals. The difference is homosexuals don't wish to exercise that right. Anyone has the right to enter into a long term relationship with someone of the opposite sex. Same sex marriage wants to expand that right to include persons of the same sex.

The relationship itself has no impact on others. The changing the law to grant rights and responsibilities to a new sort of relationship might well impact a great many people.

Bruno Behrends wrote:I find this discussion completely baffling.

Why shouldn't homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals?

What's more - what would that cost anyone? Nothing. Heterosexual marriage has exactly zero drawbacks for anyone else.