The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[OmahaStar]

Woah .. CE is gay? When did that happen?

Sorry, just trying to bring some humor into it.

[colonyearth]

Originally posted by Jan
CE,

That was the *best* essay on just about any controversial subject I've ever read.

Thanks.
Jan

Thank you, Jan. ::bows lightly in respect::

See I can sound intelligent

[colonyearth]

Originally posted by OmahaStar
Woah .. CE is gay? When did that happen?

Sorry, just trying to bring some humor into it.

::In his best Margaret Cho:: "Is he...DA GAY?!"

Why yes I am thank you very much....and proud as hell to be a part of the faaabulous Queer Culture!

No I'm not a nelly sissy queen...but I can be if I feel like it...just like I can be a bitchy vicious one when the mood strikes me.

[OmahaStar]

Originally posted by colonyearth
::In his best Margaret Cho:: "Is he...DA GAY?!"

Why yes I am thank you very much....and proud as hell to be a part of the faaabulous Queer Culture!

No I'm not a nelly sissy queen...but I can be if I feel like it...just like I can be a bitchy vicious one when the mood strikes me.

You DO kinda remind me of the green woman with the flying monkeys ....

Actually, I think of it in First Wives Club terms ....

You're Goldie Hawn.
I'm Bette Midler.
Aisling is Diane Keating.
Jan is Dame Maggie Smith.

[colonyearth]

Originally posted by OmahaStar
You DO kinda remind me of the green woman with the flying monkeys ....

Actually, I think of it in First Wives Club terms ....

You're Goldie Hawn.
I'm Bette Midler.
Aisling is Diane Keating.
Jan is Dame Maggie Smith.

I can handle being Goldie...I love Goldie...that also means I get Kurt

And if I feel a bit of incest coming on...their son is HOT!



CE

PS: Jan, if you liked my reasoning here, check out my response in the "Two thing you don't talk about..." thread under discussion>Babylon 5

[OmahaStar]

Originally posted by colonyearth
[B]I can handle being Goldie...I love Goldie...that also means I get Kurt

And if I feel a bit of incest coming on...their son is HOT!

Which one? It shows two ... Wyatt and Oliver.

[colonyearth]

Originally posted by OmahaStar
Which one? It shows two ... Wyatt and Oliver.

"IT" shows two? What is "it"? Wyatt and Oliver? Goldie and Kurts sons...yes, there are two I believe...you found pics? WHERE!

PS: You noticed I kindly ignored the "Green woman with the monkeys" comment....

[Dr Maturin]

It's not a question of morality, it's one of law. California law forbids the marriages. Here where I live, a recent smoking ban was adopted, via a citizen vote. I don't smoke, but I am against the law, but I will now have to obey it because it is law. I would say the same if a law passed saying it was illegal to carry a gun. I would call my congressman and senator, but I would obey the law. Everyone has their important issues, so in their own viewpoints, theirs is the right one. That's why we have a party democratic process, to keep balance. We vote, we pass the law.

As for the gay character, did you see my SFW letter? Not all gays think alike, and my gay character will think how I write her. No, she won't have the stereotypical butch mullet, and no she will not be a "lipstick lesbian" type that has been popularized in modern entertainment. She will be a person, and her status won't be dealt with as an issue, but her part in the story will be what counts. I mean, did JMS factor in Sheridan's life as a straight man into B5? I mean, gay people are out there, and it makes sense that a character in my story will be one of them. It's not an activist statement, it's not a thing to make myself appear "compassionate," it's just one of the characters whose preference happens to be different. To my knowledge, not even Star Trek has done that. It doesn't make any sense.

That said, I am more of a fiscalist conservative than social, but I still am for the stereotypical issues. Big defense, tax cuts, etc.

Anyways...

[Radhil]

Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
It's not a question of morality, it's one of law. California law forbids the marriages. Here where I live, a recent smoking ban was adopted, via a citizen vote. I don't smoke, but I am against the law, but I will now have to obey it because it is law. I would say the same if a law passed saying it was illegal to carry a gun. I would call my congressman and senator, but I would obey the law. Everyone has their important issues, so in their own viewpoints, theirs is the right one. That's why we have a party democratic process, to keep balance. We vote, we pass the law.

Laws change though. Quite often, smoking bans being a good case. So it's really not an issue of law, but procedure. You'd rather not the cart come before the horse, as it were.

That's all well and good I suppose. Yet, the truth of the matter is though is that things are quite unlikely to change without a little stirring up, such as the San Fran bruhaha. Or a certain town nearby here in NY - they've pressed charges criminally there, you might be interested to here, and I'm listening to understand how that mayor defends himself. Breaking a law to challenge it has been a usable tactic for a while now, so long as you're willing to risk it. These people are. The system still holds, as I said the mayor here in York is being tried, there are suits pending to invalidate the CA unions - I think it's just a little more shook up than you'd like.

[Dr Maturin]

Well, just like abortion, a majority of Americans are against the marriagies (even the Liberal Hero John Kerry is!) so do you go against the will of the people for what some perceive as the moral thing to do? I understand the position. Would a serial killer want to be executed? (That analogy does not mean to equate gays with killers, just an example)

But...no one is saying we should burn gays at the stake (well, no one in a position of power or sensible). As far as I know, it's not illegal to be gay (not even in Texas).

What would happen if the equivalents of Saudi or Iranian mayor married gay couples? USA is very, very tolerant, despite what some people say.

That's my way of looking at it.

[OmahaStar]

Originally posted by colonyearth
"IT" shows two? What is "it"? Wyatt and Oliver? Goldie and Kurts sons...yes, there are two I believe...you found pics? WHERE!

PS: You noticed I kindly ignored the "Green woman with the monkeys" comment....

I noticed.

it - imdb.com .... imdb.com is our friend. and yes, pix of both boys. Both are yummy

[Radhil]

Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
Well, just like abortion, a majority of Americans are against the marriagies (even the Liberal Hero John Kerry is!)

Heh. Man ain't my hero. Just a most favored alternative.

so do you go against the will of the people for what some perceive as the moral thing to do? I understand the position. Would a serial killer want to be executed? (That analogy does not mean to equate gays with killers, just an example)

Zero offense taken - you're arguing well and more level-headed than most on that side of the fence.

That's a really tricky one though. Because the "what some perceive" arguement is easily launched at both sides, and has no logical backing. It's an easy mud-sling (not that that's your intent). One is not moral or right simply because one is in the majority.

But if you exclude the majority rule, the issue becomes how do you determine what is moral.... and we're back to square-one mass-disagreement on a country wide scale there. Merry-go-round we go.

But...no one is saying we should burn gays at the stake (well, no one in a position of power or sensible). As far as I know, it's not illegal to be gay (not even in Texas).

Illegal, of course not. It was never criminal to be black either. Then again, it was undesirable to everyone else.... and therein is the whole point.

What would happen if the equivalents of Saudi or Iranian mayor married gay couples? USA is very, very tolerant, despite what some people say.

That's my way of looking at it.

No doubt. And I'd agree wholeheartedly. "They're worse" is a misdirection though. That doesn't excuse the intolerances we do have, nor does it mean we shouldn't be fixing them.

[ShaiAlyt]

Good arguments by all, but it all ignores the reasons why marriage, as an institution, is promoted by governments (through tax cuts and such). What are your views as to the reason governments support marriage through such methods at all?

And what are your points against the "slippery slope" argument? (That, if gay marriage is officially recognized by law, that you cannot prohibit any other form of "married state" conceivable.)

[Dr Maturin]

The Bush tax reform actually gives a cut for being married, but it will sunset in 2006 (I think) and go back to how it was before (marriage penalty).

[Radhil]

What are your views as to the reason governments support marriage through such methods at all?

It's supposed to aid family creation, or at least that's been my assumption. I've tended to ignore the labrynth of tax law specifics though.

And what are your points against the "slippery slope" argument? (That, if gay marriage is officially recognized by law, that you cannot prohibit any other form of "married state" conceivable.)

The arguement has been used before against any number of previous marraige "taboos" - inter-faith, inter-racial... so it's rather weak. Typical counter is that we won't, that we haven't before, that the arguement is paranoia..... but those are also weak.

Yet my brain comes up with this curious twist on the counter that I'll share here - not that we won't slip, shouldn't slip, but that every "slip" down the slope so far has ended up being a good thing, so stop being so afraid of slippage. We can always change things back and climb back up if we hit something ugly.