Free Allegiance Forums

Posted: **Mon Apr 15, 2013 11:41 pm**

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Apr 14 2013, 04:29 PM) You sir are quite all right

Thanks Adept!

Posted: **Mon Apr 15, 2013 11:41 pm**

Gandalf2 wrote:QUOTE (Gandalf2 @ Apr 15 2013, 05:50 PM) But we'll still have two separate institutions

Separate but equal is a legit thing... right? RIGHT????

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 7:34 am**

Gandalf2 wrote:QUOTE (Gandalf2 @ Apr 15 2013, 11:40 PM) This is basically what we have in the UK already, it's called a civil partnership and has the same legal rights as marriage and met with very little opposition. However now they are trying to change the definition of marriage too (but not civil partnerships which is a fun argument to make, that this law would actually create inequality!).

Meh. I think everyone is agreed Civil partnerships should change too. It's staggering that they haven't done that.

Sundance_ wrote:QUOTE (Sundance_ @ Apr 16 2013, 12:41 AM) Separate but equal is a legit thing... right? RIGHT????

Depends on your point of view.

Civil partnerships may confer the same legal rights in the UK, but other countries have no responsibility to recognise them, so several couples when travelling across europe have found they (for example) have no rights towards their partner if taken sick.

In addition it seems like a form of difference for same sex couples.
All the cultural norms in our society refer to "Marriage" adverts, tv, etc.

TO me it's just a word, and the "definition" or meaning of marriage is whatever the current culture makes of it.

But then, I'm an Secular, atheist, who doesn't really grok why many people are becoming so het up over what is a word.

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:10 am**

notjarvis wrote:QUOTE (notjarvis @ Apr 16 2013, 10:34 AM) But then, I'm an Secular, atheist, who doesn't really grok why many people are becoming so het up over what is a word.

Ditto.

In effect it's just discrimination.

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 6:29 pm**

It's discrimination to define a word. Why can't every word have every meaning? It just seems fair.

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:56 pm**

notjarvis wrote:QUOTE (notjarvis @ Apr 16 2013, 08:34 AM) Civil partnerships may confer the same legal rights in the UK, but other countries have no responsibility to recognise them, so several couples when travelling across europe have found they (for example) have no rights towards their partner if taken sick.

Plenty of other countries have something similar and the UK version is widely accepted in Europe (though I concede that's not all of Europe). And anyway, from that 2nd link, "Civil partnerships (and generally speaking marriages or any kind of civil unions) are not harmonized in the European Union. Member States can therefore freely regulate such unions on their own territory and recognize or not unions celebrated abroad, for the purpose of their fiscal or social legislation for instance." So issues could arise for married couples too. Perhaps two 16-year-olds who married in Scotland would not be recognised as being married in France, for example.

Interestingly the reason Luxembourg don't (as of 3 years ago) is that the point I raised earlier... their "civil union" is for the same or different genders and therefore is not the same as the UK's civil partnership, so they don't recognise it!

QUOTE In effect it's just discrimination.[/quote]
You can't be in favour of the UK law just because of this as I have already outlined.

QUOTE But then, I'm an Secular, atheist, who doesn't really grok why many people are becoming so het up over what is a word.[/quote]
It's more than a word. It has an epic history stretching back thousands of years. Some people want it, others are indifferent, others dislike it intensely. It's got a whole lot of baggage attached to it - whether that is good or bad baggage is dependant on the individual's viewpoint. Trying to think of other examples... this is a pretty limited one, but what if the government decided England was to be legally redefined to mean England and Wales?

Finally a genuine question for Metz... you have stated you're against marriage, but would you be willing to sign up to some other government scheme which recognised your relationship and bestowed certain benefits/responsibilities on both of you?

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:04 pm**

If I found a partner I was comfortable sharing those responsibilities with, sure.

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 11:32 pm**

Gandalf2 wrote:QUOTE (Gandalf2 @ Apr 17 2013, 07:56 AM) It's more than a word. It has an epic history stretching back thousands of years. Some people want it, others are indifferent, others dislike it intensely. It's got a whole lot of baggage attached to it - whether that is good or bad baggage is dependant on the individual's viewpoint. Trying to think of other examples... this is a pretty limited one, but what if the government decided England was to be legally redefined to mean England and Wales?

I typed a long reasoning post but gave up because at the end of the day, Gandy said it all with this and people who dont meet the criteria of an ancient religious social definition need to make a new future with something equally important and infinitely better than this that suits them and conveys commitment and equality of the union.

Corinthians 7:1-40

May I burn in hell for quoting the bible here but its just as a simplistic link to the first thing I find. I dont want theologens crawling all over this.

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 11:47 pm**

Sheriff Metz wrote:QUOTE (Sheriff Metz @ Apr 14 2013, 03:59 PM) Crono is an Aussie-Asian living in Asian land. Went from a college environment to another college environment.

I was like 1 of 2 white people working graveyard shift on Harbor Blvd in Santa Ana for a while - extremely high crime full of drugs addicts and pimps and streetwalkers, and being white if I turn the wrong corner I might end up dead; 1 of 2 non-swingers working for a swinger's organization at another time, the poorest person ever to be allowed to work near Dr Phil and Sandra Bullock's properties in Beverly Hills, the only white person laboring on construction sites for like a year and a half (you should hear how Mexicans talk @#(! about white people on construction sites. they even go as far as denying me a drink of water because I'm white, crap like that), not to mention almost all my friends in so-cal were Hispanic (Asians don't really co-mingle with other races, and there's no blacks in Orange County) I've been out of my element pretty much constantly for years. and my friends who come from illegal-immigrant families and such pretty much agree with with the conclusions of my analysis on like, everything.

Even the minorities group members I know are less racially paranoid than the people on this forum.
I say every racist thing I can think of to the slough of Hispanics on my Facebook list. Guess how many of them get upset? None.
Stop trying to defend people who don't need defending and go get a life.

Even *they* know it's true. Asian-Americans know they are bad drivers. Black-Americans know they purposely talk incorrectly as to not act "white". Mexican-Americans know they are poor and have tons of kids.

You'd all know that, you know, if you knew any.
Nobody is more racist than the minorities themselves.

In other news, there's a game on this talkshow I listen to called "Black, white, mexi, or Jew?" in which they describe a recent true event and you have to guess the race of the person involved. It's hilarious. (Asian isn't a choice because Asians don't really do anything unexpected)

But you don't really know anyone though, if you think about it. I don't claim to know what it's like but I have some broad cultural perspective, same as you. In reality though, even if you knew ten thousand people intimately, that is less than 1% of Orange County, let alone the entire LA metro area. Even knowing ten thousand people gives you a pitifully small sample size, and while you may occasionally get things right, you probably get a lot of things wrong and you might not even know it.

For example, are Asians bad drivers? Even I think so most of the time since I live in a predominantly Asian area, but look at this report: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809956.PDF

The conclusion was that for all racial groups that die in car crashes, minorities besides Asians were more likely to be drinking and not wearing seat belts. Asians are also more likely to wear seat belts in general and are involved in less fatal accidents. Although this doesn't necessarily suggest Asians aren't "bad" drivers, at least they're good at not dying while driving compared to other races. I would argue that's somewhat important in considering whether someone is a good driver or not. Are Asian drivers unassertive compared to other races? Probably. I'm very assertive, but that's just me.

Posted: **Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:11 am**

Its all perception anyway Chrono.....for instance you dont realise how many funeral parlours around until someone dies.
If someone says Asians drivers are bad, you will always notice them.

Which reminds me.....why didnt the media hit up on the 'WMD' thing once North Korea has a successful nuclear test. Iraq was good enough for some treatment under speculation. Surely an invasion is imminent? You dont notice nuclear weapons or WMD until someone has one after all.....

I like many people had forgot.

Free Allegiance Forums

Prop 8 Oral Arguments