Ramifications of the "Thumpin'"
As I've said in previous posts, having the government at it's own throat rather than OURS is a very good thing. Obviously, I'm not the only one who feels this way, this is a good article.
I am dissapointed in the general populous for being biggoted with the passing of AMD 43 and (especially) the killing of Ref I. It's great the way a fearful public can created a second class grouping of citizens. Ref I would have allowed same sex couples hospital visit rights by default and other items that a married couple enjoys. It wouldn't legally make them married, rather it would have given them their basic rights. I know calling the above biggoted is harsh... but accurate. If you take offense at being called a biggot, don't act biggoted.
To start off the obvious debate that this is going to cause, remember that a few decades ago, similar laws were in place against interracial marriages. This is no different and no less wrong.
I am dissapointed in the general populous for being biggoted with the passing of AMD 43 and (especially) the killing of Ref I. It's great the way a fearful public can created a second class grouping of citizens. Ref I would have allowed same sex couples hospital visit rights by default and other items that a married couple enjoys. It wouldn't legally make them married, rather it would have given them their basic rights. I know calling the above biggoted is harsh... but accurate. If you take offense at being called a biggot, don't act biggoted.
To start off the obvious debate that this is going to cause, remember that a few decades ago, similar laws were in place against interracial marriages. This is no different and no less wrong.
posted by Voodoo at 9:08 AM
18 Comments:
Colorado SB 166. Proposed, voted, defeated this year. It would have gone into effect in August. Of this year had it passed. It would have done the same things Ref I did. It was voted down, largely because of pressure from the homosexual lobbies, because it granted the rights to all people who wanted to enter into that arrangement, not just homosexuals. Ref I would not do this for everyone. Just the homosexuals. Colorado SB 166 bill does not mention sexual orientation at all. So it was defeated. Thus Ref I left some people with the impression that they aren't fighting for equal rights. They are fighting for special rights.
Be careful who you call a bigot.
From www.dictionary.com:
Bigot:
n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
Funny, I was going to post EXATLY that definition.
Sounds right on definition when someone say homosexuality is "wrong" and they won't abide by them getting the same rights they have. Note: SAME rights, not special. How is it a special right to marry someone you love (and lets face it, that's what this is about)
I would post a longer answer, but it would just start going in circles, and I wouldn't want to waste your time. You won't listen or agree or even see my point.
Case in point: did you even read what I said about SB 166? What was wrong with that one? Why didn't it pass? And Ref I was not about marriage. It was about domestic partnerships. Big difference.
How is is that I am a bigot for following my faith and you are not a bigot for judging me based on my faith and opinions? Do you not see that the language you use in your post makes you guilty of that very thing with which you accuse others? Accuse me?
First, I read SB 166, it was supported by Focus on the Family and killed by the legislature. Mainly becuase it did NOTHING. Pretty much just another wording for power of attourney. Frankly, I think AMD 43 should have died for the same reason.
Initiative I would have allowed a Domestic Partnership, which IS something new that protects rights.
Second, you seem to be reading WAY too much in my words. I haven't judged anyone. I just used the words that appropriately describe the action as I see it. I don't judge your faith or you... I simply describe actions. Frankly, I admire your strength of conviction, but you are asking others to live YOUR faith. That is bogus. You brought faith into this... are you going to ask me to worship the christian god by law next.
I had asked previously for someone to tell me WHY Gays shouldn't have marriage or partnership rights WITHOUT using Dogma and was summarily ignored. Care to take up the gauntlet?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, by passin 43 and not passing I, we are treating our fellow man (who cares if they are gay!!!) Exactly the same way we treated blacks in the past. Next thing you know we'll be selling them to clean our houses....
You judge me in the use of the term "bigot". When you call me a bigot, you judge me. Of course it is based on my actions. On what else do you base your judgements of people?
I disagree with you on SB 166. So we will have to leave that one there.
My convictions guide my life. I try to let them guide all aspects of my life, all decisions I make. I am not perfect and will be the first to tell you I don't always succeed. But when it comes time for me to vote, how do I vote if I don't vote my convictions? Whose convictions do I vote? Yours?
The question about requiring you to worship my God is beneath you. Its a cheap shot. You know me and you know better. Please don't let this discussion degenrate into cheap shots. You are better than that.
Gay Marraige? The objection is almost completely based in faith, so leaving dogma out of it is almost impossible and you know it. Again, if one's faith guides one's life, how does one leave their faith out of the decisions they make? Your faith guides your life as much as my faith guides mine, they are just different faiths. I don't ask or expect you to set aside your faith, why do you expect me to set aside mine?
I don't know if I want to take up the gauntlet, to tell you the truth. I don't know that we would get anywhere. I honestly do not believe you would hear a word I would say. And what's the point? I'm not going to change your mind, and you aren't going to change mine. So why bother?
I could call you a lighting designer based on your actions too... why is one "judgemental" and another isn't? I've endured FAR worse slings than bigot, and I've got no problem with them if they are true.
And in what way is asking me to follow one form of your faith resonable, and you admit that it is soley based on faith. While another is a cheap shot? Where do you draw the line that one should be enforced for others and another isn't? That's not a cheap shot, it's a logical conclusion to your argument.
And I do let my faiths guide me... in my ACTIONS, but I can override them if doing so is right and lawful. It's the same thing as supporting the KKK's right to free speech. I abhore their very existence... but I HAVE to defend them. You have to be willing to defend what you DON'T like in the name of freedom.
"First, I read SB 166, it was supported by Focus on the Family and killed by the legislature. Mainly becuase it did NOTHING. Pretty much just another wording for power of attourney."
Which is what some of us believe Ref. I was. So what?
"Bigot" is judgemental because it implies that you have made a moral judgement about someone. "Lighting designer" is an occupational title. World of difference. One is a statement of fact (designer), the other is your opinion based on you forming an idea of why someone believes what they believe (bigot).
"Which is what some of us believe Ref. I was. So what?"
I'm calling bullshit on that. The above argument was made that Ref I was "wrong" because it gave "special" rights. Not that it did nothing.
So, I'll address that.
Quite simply, if you are heterosexual, you have the right to get married, or form a domestic union (one could argue that that is what common law marriage is). By making your argument that ref I is "special rights" you are saying quite clearly that this is a right that only the heterosexual people have. So the argument boils down to, legally, that this is a special right to form a loving, sexual union... and that you don't want to share that right.
Funny how that is the same argument that was made against so many different things that we hold dear today. Wommen's Sufferage, Non-segregated schools, Interracial marriage, and the abolishment of slavery.
Anon said that my "judgement" was based off their actions. The only difference between "lighting designer" and "bigot" is that you take offense to one and not the other. I'd like to point out that no one has tried to make an argument against my "judgement", rather just trying to label me "judgemental." If by "judgemental" you mean I look at your actions and call them what they are... I'll accept the term. I'll also accept Mother Fucker, Arrogant, Elitist, Intellectual, and Idealist.
Just look in the mirror, it's all I ask.
This is where we start going in circles. So one more post and I am done.
No, there is a huge difference between "designer" and "bigot". Black Cross put it quite well, so I see no need to repeat it. But I will anyway. Perhaps if I rephrase, you will hear. "Designer" is a statement of fact. It is not qualified. If you design, you are a designer. Whether its lights or computer systems. "Good Designer", for example, is qualified, and would be a matter of opinion, a judgement call. Based on what and how you define "good". "Bigot" is a similar judgement call. It is you being intolerant of my beliefs and actions and opinions because you choose to attribute to them a motivation that is not my own. In your original post you stated that Ref I was voted down by a "fearful public" to "create a second class grouping of citizens". This is not why I voted against it. It is not out of fear or hatred or a desire to subjugate people. It is not because I see them as second class citizens or as people less than me.
In my posts I have tried to explain why I voted against it. Again, you do not hear. You say I have not "made an argument against your judgement". I have tried. Let me try again.
Let us say that there is a woman. Lets say she is about 70 years old. She gets Railroad retirement benefits from her now dead husband, who worked at the RR for 30 years. If she marries again, she loses those benefits. Lets say this same woman falls in love again, and wants to spend what time she has left with this person with whom she is in love. But if they marry, she loses her benefits from the RR and she and her new love cannot afford to live. So they would like to set up a domestic partnership, if you will. To maintain both of their retirement benefits which will allow them to get by. And for power of attorney, some health benefits, hospital visitiation, etc.
Lets say that the woman is homosexual. SB166 would have given her the rights she seeks. So would have Ref I. Fine. Everyone is happy.
But, now lets say the woman is heterosexual. Under SB166 she would have gotten those rights. But under Ref I she would not have gotten them.
This is why I voted against it. I was told it was homosexuals fighting for equal rights. But the way I saw it, it isn't. It is homosexuals fighting for special rights. The Ref felt like a lie to me. And that is why I voted against it. Because it is special rights. Special rights.
I figure if I say it enough it will sink in.
I don't require, or even ask, that you agree with me. I do ask that you try to understand my position. I ask that you listen. And you don't. You say you admire my strength of conviction, and then ask me lay them aside when it is convenient or when we disagree. I'm sorry, Voodoo. I can't do that. That's why, to me, they are convictions, and not just random opinions or ideas that I try to live by when its easy.
You call me a bigot because you seem of the opinion that everyone who didn't vote the way you wanted the vote to go is a bigot. Which is, in fact, a bigoted statement. Which was kind of the point of my original post. I wanted you to see that.
You think I am a bigot? Yeah, I'll admit this--it hurts me that you think that. It hurts me that you dont' understand me better, when I was under the evidently mistaken impression that you did. It bothers me that your impression and opinion of me means anything to me. And it bothers me that, while I really do see and understand your POV, it seems that you don't see mine. I don't expect you to agree with me, as you rarely to. I did expect you to listen. But you keep taking my words where they are not really going. I think that somewhere, you know that.
Anyway. Here is where we start going in circles.
I'm out.
Here's where your above argument is flawed. A heterosexual woman can marry in the first place. And a homosexual woman can't. And if they could, they would potentially have the same benefit problem you described for the elderly. Equal, not special. The people never got the chance to vote on 166. Like I said, legistlative. I probably would have voted FOR that too. Even though it's teh same as power of attourney
I have not taken anything you said out of context or not listened. You just got upset that I found your actions objectional. I will not fall prey to the "repeat until believed" concept. It's not that I don't hear you or have had it "sink in". It's that you are not changing what you are saying.
I have tried to explain why you are trying to enforce your faith on others. Why the rights you are claiming as special, are apparently for you only. I have tried to explain why, based on the definition of bigotry your apparent intollerant opinions fit that. And all of those have been met with comments of that's low, and you just don't listen.
I do not care if you like my opinions or not. But I take exception at being told I have not heard when I have responded to everything you said in a manner that shows exactly the opposite.
"I have tried to explain why you are trying to enforce your faith on others. Why the rights you are claiming as special, are apparently for you only. I have tried to explain why, based on the definition of bigotry your apparent intollerant opinions fit that."
You have been assigning motives to actions. You don't know "why" people do things. You can't say why people do things.
Were some people who voted against Ref I bigots? Yes. Were all? No.
Anon layed out her arguement for why she voted the way she did.
You dismissed it and told her why she did what she did.
I wonder who knows better why she does what she does... her, or you?
And why are you trying to force your beliefs on other people?
"Anon layed out her arguement for why she voted the way she did.
You dismissed it and told her why she did what she did."
No my friend, I pointed out logical flaws in the arguments she gave. And while I may have made an assumption on your positions that homosexuality is wrong, it wasn't a huge strech as we've had THAT discussion before.
If you think that you voted against this simply to deny them "special rights" (like I've said... one's you already have) and it had NOTHING to do with your personal views of homosexuality. Then I would view your actions as not bigotted, just horribly misguided. Otherwise, my thought stands.
"And why are you trying to force your beliefs on other people? "
Like which, the belief that all men are to be treated equal under the law. The one that is supposed to be a guiding principal in this country? One you should be protecting as well.
Then here is the flaw in your argument. Never once, not to you or to anyone else, I have I ever said that I believe that homosexuality is wrong. You ascribed to me that motivation for my decision and, in spite of my efforts to the contrary, continue to do so. Based on that assumption you call me a bigot, as you assume my actions are motivated in hatred or prejudice. You say so in your second post. 'Sounds right on definition when someone say [sic]homosexuality is "wrong" '
But I didn't say that.
However, if a person believes that homsexuality is wrong, or is against the Referendum for another reason or belief, and votes to support that belief, and you tell them that it is wrong to do so according to your beliefs, is that not then pushing your beliefs on that person? Is is not pushing your beliefs off on others when you expect them to vote according to what you believe?
Yeah, That's not a flaw, or at least one I didn't recognize.
Did you even READ when I said
"If you think that you voted against this simply to deny them "special rights" (like I've said... one's you already have) and it had NOTHING to do with your personal views of homosexuality. Then I would view your actions as not bigotted"
As I said above also. Which belief am I forcing on you? The American ideal of equal treatment under law? My faith says that a LOT of things are wrong... but I don't legislate them (see KKK argument above). I just live by them. THAT is the key point I've been trying to make, and is not being heard.
I understand that you believe that I am trying to make you accept my beliefs in the utter importance or individual freedoms. I've heard and understood that very clearly. Don't know why you think I haven't.
I accept that you hold your beliefs and am not asking you to change them. But I do ask you to not force them on others. You made your argument clear that it was your faith that led to your actions. That's fine. But I will not hold my toungue when I find the ACTIONS objectionable. If you feel the need to take offense or get defensive, also fine by me. Doesn't affect me one way or the other.
For me this issue is much deeper than visitation rights in hospitals or inheritance rights of benefits, etc. it speaks to the core of how we will define sexuality in our nation. Many on the left believe there is no difference between a man and woman as demonstrated by saying that a heterosexual home is equivalent to a homosexual home in the raising of a child and the new books being introduced in schools about princes falling in love with princes and the same for princesses. If you believe that a man and a woman are no different I think you are wrong, it is better to raise a child with a father and a mother; which is not to say a homosexual couple COULDN'T raise a healthy child, many I am sure could but the ideal is a father and mother. I can't imagine raising my children where the world is telling my young daughter that when she grows up she will need to choose if she wants to marry a woman or a man and it makes no difference. I have gay friends, I care for them, I want them to be happy but it's better for the human race if the ideal family is clearly supported as man and woman. I think it's the most important domestic issue going on today, like Islamic radicalism is the most important foreign issue. Finally, marriage is not a right, it’s a social contract, a privilege if you will, like driving a car and society can determine how to administer it. It’s not like free speech, which is a right. If we redefine marriage now, the first time in hundreds of year (the radical idea I submit) the polygamist WILL be next in line, and who after them? To think otherwise is fooling yourself, why in heavens name wouldn't they. The ‘this is just like not allowing blacks rights’ argument doesn’t hold up in my opinion; there is no difference between a black man and a white man, there is however major differences between a man and a woman. Differences that are essential to a healthy society which sits on the foundation of healthy homes and families. To maintain those healthy homes raising health children a mother and father are ideal and social policies should reflect that.
Thanks for the comments MM, They are well thought out and fairly clear. I would debate the underlying meaning of them with you though.
It seems from your comments that you believe that the sole reason for marriage is child rearing. Would it then not stem that the very elderly should not be allowed to marry? What about the infirtile? What if the intention is not to have children at all, as it is with several of my married friends?
Another point I would like to make, I never said that this was akin to blacks rights in my original post. Rather that we had similar restrictions on interracial marriage, one man, one woman... just of different color. These restrictions WERE made in the history of the instution of marriage, so it's obviously not immutable.
The last thought I have in this direction, is that we "on the left" DO draw a distinction between homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage as we do acknowledge the difference between man and woman... we just think both have the right to exist. My views on this come from there is no harm to be done by allowing it.
If the problems are strictly about child rearing, they already do that. Either through adoption or other means. It's just the child can now be taken from the "non-primary" parent and put into foster care if something happens to the primary. I don't think that anyone has the right to tell a lesbian she can't sleep with a man and concieve, I would hope you would feel the same.
Lastly, I'll briefly address the polygamy fear. I personally have no problem against it. Live and let live in my book. However, I can see where the cost to society would be impacted as there would be complications with benefits, insurance coverage and child rights that are far more complicated than a one on one marriage. So from a simple cost point of view it's clearly a different argument and one that I will not argue at this juncture.
Thanks again for your comments, hope to hear more.
Post a Comment
<< Home