Prop 8 is to get a ruling today

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Right, but I think you'll live a happier and fuller life if you take things on face value - read those lines simply as "they're way ahead of us in terms of giving gay people the legal rights afforded to everybody else in terms of marriage" (which is demonstrably and unarguably true) and not as some ringing endorsement of Argentina as a queer Mecca.

Untrue and spoken like somebody who's never been on the other side of discrimination.

Face Value gets folks killed all the time because they never dig deeper to find out the truth in life.

That's how Rwanda and now Darfur can get away with genocide.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

Untrue and spoken like somebody who's never been on the other side of discrimination.

Wait . . . what? I was making fun of your preferential (and likely incorrect) application of a global principal to an innocuous sentence - here's a synopsis of what happened:

POSTER: "Other nations adopted gay marriage much sooner than we did."
YOU: "BUT YOU CAN'T PROVE HOMOSEXUALS ARE BETTER OFF THERE AS A RESULT!"

I mean . . . you're arguing a point nobody made. That's all I was saying, duder. Feel free to rage against the machine though.

Face Value gets folks killed all the time because they never dig deeper to find out the truth in life.

Now, at what point do you think I said "Live your life at face-value alone, free of a critical eye"? Honestly, nobody made ANY argument that Argentina is a "greater nation" than the US or that they were miles ahead in gay rights as a whole - just that they did the marriage thing first. Ahead. In temporal terms. While you should look at society, social norms, etc. with a critical eye, sometimes it's ok to view a throw-away sentence for what it's worth, and your blood pressure might even drop.

Words have meaning. And understanding that meaning literally doesn't kill people "all the time" at all.

That's how Rwanda and now Darfur can get away with genocide.

Yes, they get away with genocide because message board posters say things like "well, the ethnic minorities got water from Clinton - they were way ahead." That's how Darfur happened, totally.

It's kind of ironic that you're oversimplifying after accusing me of gross oversimplification.

Let's try again, though - things that are demonstrably true: other nations are ahead of the United States in terms of adopting marriage rights for homosexuals.

Things that are not demonstrably true: Rwanda happened because people assumed small advances in marriage rights for a minority indicated a larger trend, so folks looked the other way while millions were murdered.

Occam's Razor. For real.

EDIT: After re-reading, this might come off as harsh and I really don't mean it to be (happy hour wins again) - I feel what you're saying, but think about what you're accusing me of here, and realize exactly how limited my point (and the original point) really is, and I think you'll see that you're a bit beyond the pale.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Wait . . . what? I was making fun of your preferential (and likely incorrect) application of a global principal to an innocuous sentence - here's a synopsis of what happened:

POSTER: "Other nations adopted gay marriage much sooner than we did."
YOU: "BUT YOU CAN'T PROVE HOMOSEXUALS ARE BETTER OFF THERE AS A RESULT!"

I mean . . . you're arguing a point nobody made. That's all I was saying, duder. Feel free to rage against the machine though.



Now, at what point do you think I said "Live your life at face-value alone, free of a critical eye"? Honestly, nobody made ANY argument that Argentina is a "greater nation" than the US or that they were miles ahead in gay rights as a whole - just that they did the marriage thing first. Ahead. In temporal terms. While you should look at society, social norms, etc. with a critical eye, sometimes it's ok to view a throw-away sentence for what it's worth, and your blood pressure might even drop.

Words have meaning. And understanding that meaning literally doesn't kill people "all the time" at all.



Yes, they get away with genocide because message board posters say things like "well, the ethnic minorities got water from Clinton - they were way ahead." That's how Darfur happened, totally.

It's kind of ironic that you're oversimplifying after accusing me of gross oversimplification.

Let's try again, though - things that are demonstrably true: other nations are ahead of the United States in terms of adopting marriage rights for homosexuals.

Things that are not demonstrably true: Rwanda happened because people assumed small advances in marriage rights for a minority indicated a larger trend, so folks looked the other way while millions were murdered.

Occam's Razor. For real.

EDIT: After re-reading, this might come off as harsh and I really don't mean it to be (happy hour wins again) - I feel what you're saying, but think about what you're accusing me of here, and realize exactly how limited my point (and the original point) really is, and I think you'll see that you're a bit beyond the pale.

Proof 1:

"POSTER: "Other nations adopted gay marriage much sooner than we did."
YOU: "BUT YOU CAN'T PROVE HOMOSEXUALS ARE BETTER OFF THERE AS A RESULT!"

My question was specifically for those who actually DID say other countries are so ahead of us. Go back and actually read those previous before I made my sideline comment. Don't summarize.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Don't forget that the central and south American countries are ahead of us, too.

I accuse you of oversimplification because you asked me to simplify. (You know the infamous, I would live a happier life if I accept things at face-value.) That is what got the more so harsher response from me. It's like patting me on the top of my head and telling me "There, there, don't worry about things like that it will make your head explode.

So I do want to know the intent behind being ahead. That's where we get into issues a law to me does not denote ahead.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

My question was specifically for those who actually DID say other countries are so ahead of us. Go back and actually read those previous before I made my sideline comment. Don't summarize.

Well, I suppose accusing me of terrible reading comprehension is at least an improvement.

It would be just as easy to counter "don't summarize" with "don't read into things that aren't there" but I'm not sure it furthers discussion at all.

I accuse you of oversimplification because you asked me to simplify. (You know the infamous, I would live a happier life if I accept things at face-value.) That is what got the more so harsher response from me. It's like patting me on the top of my head and telling me "There, there, don't worry about things like that it will make your head explode.

Right, I was making a joke, but really didn't intend it to be condescending. Rather, I wanted to make the point that yelling into the rain is even less effective when it's not raining.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

Proof 1:

"POSTER: "Other nations adopted gay marriage much sooner than we did."
YOU: "BUT YOU CAN'T PROVE HOMOSEXUALS ARE BETTER OFF THERE AS A RESULT!"

My question was specifically for those who actually DID say other countries are so ahead of us. Go back and actually read those previous before I made my sideline comment. Don't summarize.

I accuse you of oversimplification because you asked me to simplify. (You know the infamous, I would live a happier life if I accept things at face-value.) That is what got the more so harsher response from me. It's like patting me on the top of my head and telling me "There, there, don't worry about things like that it will make your head explode.

So I do want to know the intent behind being ahead. That's where we get into issues a law to me does not denote ahead.

I stand by my post...Those countries are ahead of us in acceptance of gay marriage. It is official. Ta Da.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I stand by my post...Those countries are ahead of us in acceptance of gay marriage. It is official. Ta Da.

I'm confused about how that's controversial. If these countries did it before us, then by definition, they are ahead of us.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

I'm confused about how that's controversial. If these countries did it before us, then by definition, they are ahead of us.

It's not controversial - it's the closest thing to QED that we've had around here since 2002.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

It's not controversial - it's the closest thing to QED that we've had around here since 2002.

Fair enough I guess I will step away from the sidelines.

First though.

@ AOII Angel.

Yes I understand that in the truest since yes they are ahead and we have lagged behind in putting law on books concerning the issue of gay marriage.

@ Preciousjeni

It's not controversial, it was a sideline comment just meant to garner responses. Not meant to be controversial but just input.

Now I get back to the person I quoted. I started this so I guess I will end it.

Not every conversation or comment is meant to be taken as part of the whole, just opinions on that said thing.

With that being said, okay yes other countries are ahead of putting a law on the book. Whoop di friggin do. What does that mean? Because they are first that means they are ahead.

Is everybody's mentality in respect to this topic so surface that all they need is a law on book to slap five and say we made it?

If that is the case, then yes per the surface my comment is QED and done, but what does it say about those who look at surface.

Is it truly about doing it first or doing it best? Heck some have listed other countries in respect to civil unions for one, marriage for others. Is that a win against the US? Is it just enough to put it on the books. Heck the 15th Amendment was ratified on February 3, 1870, yet we still had to have the Voting Rights Act in '65. Hey but the US was able to get the 15th Amendment on the books, let's pat ourselves on the back sip a latte and order a Turkey Burger, we fought the good fight.