Current Annoyances

[Dalty]

Ol' Beau Watkins IS an institution.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

I don't believe in Ol' Beau Watkins. I just believe in me.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

Jubbers and me.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

And that's reality.

[Adam54]

I was all for the civil union compromise, but marriage works too. I think the homophobia comes in when people use...say...the nonsensical arguments against gay marriage like "It'll destroy the American family!" "Gay men will start recruiting children to be gay!" "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" etc.

But I'm with you, if a person truly believes, per their religion, that gays should not be married, they're entitled to do so. But they aren't entitled to deny legal rights to gays who are going to exist anyway, religious doctrine be damned.

Oh, but the Catholic Church gets absolutely no moral high ground to cast judgment on gays. They gave that up ~50 years of molestation ago.

[Dalty]

It's not necessarily religion. Some people just believe in marriage as it is. And when gays can get all legal rights from a civil union, why is their desire for 'Marriage' more worthy than others desire for marriage to remain as it is?

I dunno, as I said I have splinters in my arse from sitting on the fence on this one as I personally have no problem. I just kinda understand people who do and feel sympathy for them.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

It's all lame semantics. The word "marriage" means a number of things. It's borrowed from the French (which itself builds on the Latin) and it's not even a millennium old.

I think it's silly that people have gotten hung up on the word the way they have.

[Quasar]

why is their desire for 'Marriage' more worthy than others desire for marriage to remain as it is?

I would say somebody's desire for themselves trumps somebody's desire for how someone else should live.

[Adam54]

I agree with Quasar.

[Adam54]

I hate it when that happens.

[Quasar]

Could be worse. You could've agreed with Hicks.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

Adama will Hicks it.

[Adam54]

Now don't you start THAT again.

[Dalty]

why is their desire for 'Marriage' more worthy than others desire for marriage to remain as it is?

I would say somebody's desire for themselves trumps somebody's desire for how someone else should live.

Once again your logic is impeccable. You bastard!!!

[Mal Shot First]

It's all lame semantics. The word "marriage" means a number of things. It's borrowed from the French (which itself builds on the Latin) and it's not even a millennium old.

I think it's silly that people have gotten hung up on the word the way they have.

This.

Dalty, did gays in Britain really request the right to get married in churches? See, I think that goes too far. As long as there is a separation between church and state, the state shouldn't be allowed to prescribe the beliefs of any church. If a church (basically a private club or enterprise) denies gays the right to get married on its premises, then that's its decision, albeit an intolerant one. Conversely, if you're gay and you belong to a church that is outspoken against homosexuality, then maybe it's time to find a new religion... or to recognize that religions is BS anyway.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

I remember when Religion got its BS. It was a touching moment. It wasn't as touching as when Lanny Poffo called himself the Genius and carried around that fake diploma, but it was still pretty touching.

[Dalty]

Yes they did Mal, and the argument was that churches who denied the right to marriage were liable to prosecution under anti-discrimination laws.

[Adam54]

What's the consensus over there on private businesses denying services to gays on religious rights grounds?

[Dalty]

Exactly! A couple who owned a B&B refused to allow a gay couple to have a room and got the arse sued off them.

But a B&B is a private house. Surely you have the right to deny anyone access to your own house? No matter how medieval your reasons for doing so?

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

[Adam54]

Exactly! A couple who owned a B&B refused to allow a gay couple to have a room and got the arse sued off them.

But a B&B is a private house. Surely you have the right to deny anyone access to your own house? No matter how medieval your reasons for doing so?

Do they though? I have no idea what discrimination laws are like over there.

I had thought we settled that one over here during the 1960s, but apparently the state of Kansas is trying for it again.

[Mal Shot First]

So here's a question: If someone opened a private club, the sole purpose of which would be for white people to get together and to talk about the ups and downs of being white (they could even call it "The White People Club"), and the only prerequisite for joining the club were being a white person, could the club get sued for discrimination by someone of a different skin color who was denied access to the club?

I know it's a silly proposition, but it can have more serious implications. I'm not trying to defend racism or bigotry of any kind, but sometimes you have to wonder what's going on in these kinds of situations like Dalty mentioned above. If you're gay and you know that certain Christian denominations frown upon homosexuality, why do you go out of your way to have your wedding at a church? I realize that someone might find church weddings pretty, but that seems like a very superficial reason to challenge someone's personal beliefs and encroach upon their private right to exercise their religion (I'm disregarding the arguments about whether or not homosexuality is prohibited by the Bible). Because

1. Why do you want to impose your own way of being onto someone who obviously disapproves of it? Out of spite? And
2. Wouldn't you feel kind of uncomfortable having your ceremony performed in a place were many people don't welcome you and by a priest/minister who may be doing it against his will but has to do it if he doesn't want to face charges of discrimination?

I don't know. It just seems like this kind of behavior is only exacerbating the already existing tensions.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

I'm sure there's an element of spite to it, but I think it probably runs deeper.

I'm guessing it's a response, in part, to a greater oppression. If you are part of a group that has been marginalized, any loss or gain of right or space is going to mean a great deal to you.

If you've struggled for equality and have managed to win some (potentially at great peril), I feel it's natural to want more. You can conceive of losing your gains, and you may even develop a paranoia where the thought of losing them is concerned. Give them an inch, you worry, and maybe they'll take a mile.

Once a formerly oppressed party has secured some small victories and has the ball rolling, it's reasonable to expect them to continue trying to gain ground. This is an essential part of human nature--even where non-oppressed groups are concerned. You see it with Pass the Pigs. You see it with the economy.

With gambling and the economy, it's often a simple matter of greed and addiction. It doesn't have to be just that, though. It can depend on how deep you are in the hole. If you're in really deep, you might feel like you have to keep pressing just to survive. Maybe in this way gambling can be pretty similar to an oppressed group gaining ground. Maybe the oppressed group felt they were deep in the hole. (There's an obvious joke here.)

Spite, greed, addiction, and memories of oppression would probably make for a pretty potent cocktail. There's also some bravery mixed in there, too. You point out that there is a potential for discomfort when engaging. I wouldn't be surprised if this were the case. There's likely a facing-your-fears element at play, and there's probably a standing-your-ground element bound up in that. You show both yourself and your former oppressors that you mean business when you march into their territory. When you walk into the castle and throw the metaphorical king's deer down on the dinner table, it sends a message. You won't be steamrolled. You're here to stay.

It probably takes being one of an oppressed people to fully appreciate why they do what they do. To the outside observer, it may only register as pushy, obnoxious, greedy, spiteful, etc. To the oppressor, himself, it may come across as a genuine threat. It may even be a genuine threat. It depends on the situation. Xenophobics certainly feel like they are being threatened. Maybe this is a good thing, maybe it's not. Maybe it's good for the oppressor to get a taste of paranoia.

The downside: both sides could wind up paranoiac cold war. That's always a risk.

I'll take a cold war over an actual war any day. Some people wouldn't. Some people would rather fight it out. Both outcomes usually lead to some kind of resolution. It seems like fighting it out often leads to one side gaining way more ground than the other. That can be good or bad, depending on your side/perspective. Cold wars can lead to similar results, of course, but a good old-fashioned cold war can also lead to some impressive tech development, and, if both sides are lucky, a collective shoulder shrug. Most people--Jack D. Ripper excluded--don't want mutual assured destruction.

(Sorry for all the mixed metaphors. I'm too lazy to go back and write something more focused. With any luck, they won't be too much of a distraction.)

[Dalty]

As an aside it reminds me of a joke by Jimmy Carr, a British stand-up comedian who did a section on one of his shows about jokey small ads and lonely hearts personals he had place.

"Seeking a vocal minority to spoil it for the rest of us. There's always one. Is it you?"

[Adam54]

[Broken Record Alert!]

I HATE MEDICA WITH THE WHITE HOT HEAT OF 10,000 SUNS!!!

[/Broken Record]