Gay Marriage

[Occhidiangela]

The tension between the legislators and the educators will never entirely go away on the utlity of standardized tests. I took reams of them all through my schooling years. There is plenty of discussion within the educational community on what good testing methods are.

Raising standards and holding people to them is the intent behind some of the state wide testing programs, to include the one in Texas, however, the danger that teachers will "teach to the test" in order to ensure high "success rates" and lay out their lesson plans with too narrow a focus is very real.

The difference between really knowing your stuff, passing a test, testing well, and knowing something well enough to keep on learning about it effectively can be very subtle.

We seem to agree that training and education are interrelated: yes, in the years I spent involved in pilot training, there was a continual budget fight over training skill sets and educating and informing the mental process so that pilots form an innate sound judgement. Pilot error is still a leading cause of mishaps. Some times, you can point to a training flaw, fixable with better task training, some times an education flaw, i.e. the entire community did not know how "x" works or the synergistic effect of "x, y and r" and sometimes failures in judgement are contributed to poor education, not poor training. And sometimes, people just plain screw up.

From what I see, and have seen, in college graduates over the past three decades, to include my peers, is that a focus on specialization in education can easily become job training. Not all bad, but it cheats the student in the long term.

And no, it is not a platitude. Having been up to my arse in the past 2 years in exactly that kind of discussion and budgeting process, I can seriously feel the pain of both the teachers and budgeteers in public schools on this score.

Occhi

[LemmingofGlory]

Don't much care that you are uncomfortable with colloquialisms, deal with it. I have to put up with a lot or rancid PC BS day to day, to include on this forum now and again. You've seen my bit on free speech before, won't bother to repeat it.

It appeared to me that your post reached beyond harmless political incorrectness and into outright bias, which is a mark against a speaker's credibility. You can call me "Generation Whine" or the "PC Police" if you want to, but I did not object to your word choice based soley on your word choice.

You also added a set of red herrings, to include heterosexual anal sex as a choice, irrelevant to the discussion; marriage being solely driven by sex, irrelevant and bogus; and then attempted obfuscation in dealing with reality of pederasty as a long standing habit.

(Semi-colons added to make list easier to read.)

Please eludicate what you think I was doing and why it was wrong. Your post does not sufficiently explain this list, and I do not wish to conjecture what your objections may be. Otherwise, I will ignore your claims.

One day you will learn that it is best to say what you mean and mean what you say. Best of luck on that journey.

What?

Did you even bother to read my commentary to Pete in re the evolving attitudes pro homosexual marriage?

I composed my post offline, while your discussion with Pete took place. Then I logged in and posted. Even after reading your subsequent posts, I still feel your post damages its speaker's credibility, as did your response to me prior to Griselda's edit suggestion.

Your misunderstanding of the term spiritual, which was not made in a religious sense, shows your own myopia. You can be an athiest and still have a rich spiritual life. What you won't have is a religious life based on a god. Again, you missed the point.

That depends how you define "spiritual." It seemed to me the way you were using it implied a transcending of the temporal world in some significant way that implied supernatural elements.

The next time you want to insult me and my marriage to Mrs Occhi, remember that this rogue bites.

As you've illustrated, one can take offense in absense of an insult.

-Lemmy

[JustAGuy]

I personally felt  when that word "faggot" was indiscrimmately thrown around. But of course, I realized that couldn't have been malicous. I guess being gay is not as stigmatized there as it here. One can see this, when you see people using "gay" and faggot" as insults towards people who don't care for the same sex. People don't want to be labled as such- to them it's really bad. Think... your average l33t dood in any online game. *Shudders* I think in America, most people who use these words don't have much clue on what it really means- considering it's directed quite randomly, not necassrily towards gay people. But perhaps it's a good thing people in the Netherlands don't care as much.

I believe the stigma stems from the method by which some homosexuals have sex. Some people find anal sex offensive, and maybe even laughable ("he's takin' it in the caboose!"). To call someone "gay" or "faggot" is to insinuate that they participate in anal sex, specifically, the receiving of anal sex.

In addition to the intercourse related insult, the thought of kissing another man, which is something I'd venture to say ALL gay couples do or have done at one point, is insinuated. That thought is either unbearable or hilarious to most heterosexual men. Which one they think it is dependent on their current opinion of homosexuality. Either way, calling someone "fag" or "gay" is both used as a joke and insult. I'm not saying it's right, or it's something I accept without question, I just understand why and how people use and say those things. I've even heard "gay" used as a comma...

Why would calling someone a man-kisser or caboose-receiver be insulting? Because it's painful and/or humiliating? Because it insinuates that the insulted is feminine and, by association, weak? "Gay" as an insult would then mean, "you're feminine, making you less than a man." Attacking manhood is a pretty good way to piss off a male schauvanist.

Honestly though, who wants to kiss a man? Not even women do! :)

[Occhidiangela]

That depends how you define "spiritual." It seemed to me the way you were using it implied a transcending of the temporal world in some significant way that implied supernatural elements.

You chose to define it in your response, using your own biases and assumptions in your first reply, as religious. Your issue to resolve, not mine. Had I meant religious, I would have said religious. Say what you mean, mean what you say.

QUOTE 
The next time you want to insult me and my marriage to Mrs Occhi, remember that this rogue bites.

As you've illustrated, one can take offense in absense of an insult.

Play the innocent if you wish, the insult was in both the tone and content, but at this point, the bickering between us must cease. I have sent counterfire, and we are both still standing.

I smell glue. :P

Occhi

[Chaerophon]

Well, here are the facts, laid out for you:

Lemming:

Before you were married, your wife didn't just mean sex to you, did she? You didn't need some marriage certificate to qualify your relationship with your wife as "more than sex." Neither is she just the mother of your children to you, is she? She's more than that.

Occhi:

The next time you want to insult me and my marriage to Mrs Occhi, remember that this rogue bites.

Lemming:

As you've illustrated, one can take offense in absense of an insult.

Occhi:

Play the innocent if you wish, the insult was in both the tone and content, but at this point, the bickering between us must cease. I have sent counterfire, and we are both still standing.

Say what you want Occhi, there was no insult there...

[Occhidiangela]

Honestly though, who wants to kiss a man? Not even women do!

My own experience does not square with that assertion. Kissing seems to be very much enjoyed by any number of women, to include a number I have had to good fortune to share that lovely past time with. What a great use for lips!

*hums* Hmmm, mmmm, kisses, sweeter than wine . . .

[Occhidiangela]

Say what you want Occhi, there was no insult there...

Perhaps not to you, since he was not talking at you. As to "say what you want" . . . don't I generally do that? :P

*Hears horse whinnying feebly*

Lucky me, I have some books to bind . . . :blink:

[LemmingofGlory]

Perhaps not to you, since he was not talking at you.

The bit Chaerophon quoted was, if anything, a statement that I think your marriage is most definitely important to you on many levels. But when it comes to same-sex marriage, you bring up non-courting debauchery and immediately thereafter state: "So, let's call a fag a fag, not a cigarette. Should the fag marry? No, marriage is between a man and a woman." Condensed, it may be viewed thusly: "This is what homosexuals are like. Should they marry? No, marriage is between a man and a woman." My point was to illustrate that, while not denying debaucherous activity goes on, same-sex couples that want to marry are probably not in non-courting relationships. Same-sex courting relationships are more like the relationship you share with your wife.

You chose to define it in your response, using your own biases and assumptions in your first reply, as religious. Your issue to resolve, not mine. Had I meant religious, I would have said religious. Say what you mean, mean what you say.

And I said "supernatural elements" not "religious elements." For example: a ghost is supernatural but not necessarily religious.

As for "using my own biases and assumptions," parrot me if you wish. However, my interpretation of what you said was weighted on the speaker. If Pete, for instance, had said a relationship was "spiritual" I would be baffled by his use of the term because it's my impression that Pete doesn't give weight to the supernatural. It is my impression, however, that you do, hence my interpretation. You may sit back and call that bias, or you may define your usage of the term so that I can parse it as intended. Your previous explanations that "A friendship can be spiritual" and "An atheist can have a spiritual life" do not do that.

-Lemmy

[Occhidiangela]

There have been enough of those demonstrated in this thread to fill a barnyard. I am done with this conversation, during which I bit your head off.

For that, old friend, I apologize. We go back too far.

Rogue with, believe it or not, a heart. ;)

[Minionman]

While people are talking about legal/insurance/etc. changes with marriage, what exactly are these changes? Just so we all know what we're talking about.

[--Pete]

Hi,

For a start, let me repost the link I gave Occhi. That document is quite a few pages long and only covers the provisions of the USA Federal government and then only the ones that are "code" (I think that means provisions that exist as laws as passed by congress and does not include regulations enacted by agencies, but I'd prefer a legal eagle to clarify that).

On top of that, add the laws and regulations of the States which cover things like ownership of properties, survivor's rights, etc. And at the State or County level, you have such regulations as visiting privileges at hospitals (ever seen those "family only" signs?). Even more important is the implied limited power of attorney. If one member of a heterosexual couple that have know each other for five days and have been married for five minutes is injured and needs an operation, the other member who is a (comparative) stranger but who happens to be the spouse can give permission for surgery. But if it is a homosexual couple, even if they have lived together for years, that privilege does not apply.

And then there is the whole industrial thing. There are many aspects to this (such as survivor benefits on retirement plans) but the biggest pole in that tent has to be health insurance. In many cases, the coverage of a worker is extended to his/her spouse but only if they are "legally married".

As I said, it is a huge topic. And the rhetoric around same sex marriage ignores most of it. However, anyone who claims that "marriage is a union of a man and a woman" is clearly ignoring all the other ramifications. And anyone who thinks the solution is to re-write all the laws, regulations, policies, signs, etc. is clearly in a dream world. We can't even get the media to use the word "media" right (i.e., it's plural, dammit!).

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Is often confused with a psychic along the lines of "tell my fortune and talk to my dead gerbil" occupation. Both of roughly equal credibility these days. :blink: Or is that "ruffly?" No, that would be the neck accoutrement.

As my Greek colleagues used to complain: "English is so confusing to learn." To which my British colleagues would generally respond "Only as spoken by Americans!" a comment frequently followed by the Canadians asking: "And what about us, eh?" :lol: At which point my German colleagues were prone to remark: "Time for a beer!" If only the UN would serve more beer . . . think of how harmonious the relations there would be!

[Count Duckula]

I don't know if someone's already said this, but I thought I'd throw this in. (I didn't have the patience to sit through 10+ pages of solid discourse and juvenile sniping.)

If gay marriage is banned in the US Constitution (an idea that dropped off the radar a few months ago thanks to the November elections) this will be the second time in US history where something has been outright NOT ALLOWED. The first time was the Prohibition of alcohol. And look how that turned out.

I wonder if it bothers anyone else that people were even THINKING about amending the Constitution to take away rights.

[Occhidiangela]

Laws and rights, aye, tender issues. "Rites" which marriage started as: do they need a Prohibition like ammendment? Is marriage a right or a rite? Or both? Or a convention? Pete's link to the law tangle shows the answer is "yes" and "sort of" and "gawd what a mess we have made of this!"

The Equal Rights Amendment (which if passed would have required young ladies as well as young men to register for selective service . . .) ran up the flag pole and failed under a very long and hard fought process as a referendum.

I do not believe that the Constitutional Amendment approach to "solving" the current disagreemtns would, or will, succeed. Why? See a few of my comments to Pete farther up, but societal norms and attitudes are changing. While there certainly is a loud reaction contra in some quarters, I am willing to gamble that when put to the test, a ban amendment would not get the referendum it needs.

I'd bet a quart of Oban scotch and a case of Guinness. Puttin' my money where my mouth is.

Your citing the Prohibition as an example of a bad idea in progress is a most apropos.

Occhi

[Guest]

The 13th amendment definetly makes something "not allowed". And to be honest its all in the wording, the diference between a "prohibition" and a definition is small often.

[Count Duckula]

The thing is, slavery is just plain wrong. Trying to control alcohol or gay marriage as other "just plain wrong" things is just plain stupid.

It also occured to me that organized religion was the driving force behind Prohibition and is currently the driving force behind the anti-gay marriage laws. I think Thomas Jefferson's separation of church and state idea shouldn't be just a good idea composed by a good guy, but something that should be made law. Get all that organized religion out of government.

[kandrathe]

I wouldn't blame religion, per se, but those that want to impose their beliefs on others. There are extremists on all sides as well. You might not believe that I should have the right to own a gun, for instance. I'm generally against those people who are anti-freedom. The common arguments are; "For the public good", or "because it is wrong or immoral".

More to your point; the "Bill of Rights" was an outline of rights specifically protected by the Constitution. Prohibition was the exception and an obvious mistake. Abolishing slavery was more establishing the "all persons are created equal" -- so slavery is unconstitutional. So in a way, abolishing discrimination (ala 14th amendment equal protection) is a similiar noble goal.

To me it seems that the problem is in the definition of morality, and how much morality should be enforced by law. We can all agree about the extremes. It's when it gets down to victimless topics like nudity, sexual acts in public, spitting on the sidewalk, pornography, consumption of drugs, prostitution, etc. -- that many get confused and want to enforce belief systems. Until recently, people extended homosexuality into that slippery slope of finer shades of morality stepping into belief systems codified into law. It's pretty clear now, even to the courts in the most extreme states, that homosexuality is not illegal (which for some southern states, was not that long ago).

I agree that its time we started to push morality out of the laws when it comes to personal decision making. Take prostitution, or marijuana as an example. I believe it should be legalized, but I've never used either and I don't imagine I would in the future. I would not encourage anyone to use them, but its a freedom that I don't think the government should prohibit.

Too much of our government is devoted to preventing people from failing (or succeeding really), even when people try really, really hard to do just that. They would prefer you would just be content with your average existence, pay your taxes, and cause very little trouble.

[eppie]

I wouldn't blame religion, per se, but those that want to impose their beliefs on others.

I thought that's what religion was all about? Using ones interpretation of a book to impose ones beliefs on others :blink: .

(sorry for the joke, as an atheist I like to impose my belives on others :D )

I agree that its time we started to push morality out of the laws when it comes to personal decision making. Take prostitution, or marijuana as an example. I believe it should be legalized, but I've never used either and I don't imagine I would in the future. I would not encourage anyone to use them, but its a freedom that I don't think the government should prohibit.

I agree, with the drug business I always have the idea the reason it isn't legalized yet is the fact that a lot of people make so much money on it. And why wouldn't those people influence politicians. (I hope I'm wrong)

eppie

[Occhidiangela]

Ghostiger:

Note the themes of three related amendments. Slavery prohibited. At the Federal level, due process required for all citizens. Universal suffrage.

XIII
Section. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
XIV
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
XV
Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This series of agreements cleaned up a compromise that had been required to get the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, agreed among the States and dealt with a carryover economic and social instution founded in the European colonial era of America wherein slavery was a legitimate practice. That change was paid for in blood.

The Prohibition was not just any prohibition, it was targeted via amendment, versus via statute, against consumption and production and sale of alcohol. That we could undo that dumbassity is admirable. There are still statutes that control alcohol, and even counties in Kentucky, for example, that prohibit at the local level, production, consumption, and sale of alcoholic beverages.

State or Federal issue: wherefore and why? That's a good test of how much "buy in" of any given law can expect.

At present, to return to on topic, that is still very much a work in progress in re the state of marriage in other than conventional pairs.

[kandrathe]

Most drugs are legal, as long as you get them from Pfizer, or Merck, etc. and you pay a doctor to give you a prescription. Should the government try to stop people from damaging themselves by using drugs? We certainly don't need millions of brain dead strung out zombies, but is it the governments place to control what a person imbibes?

Using ones interpretation of a book to impose ones beliefs on others  .

Heh. No, there are two kinds of people in this world; those that accept people as they are without judging them, and the other kind. :) I kind of view it as the "I will lead you", versus the "I will control you" types of persons. Now that I'm a parent, what I see is the link between paternalism (or maternalism) in human behavior extended beyond ones own children. Most adults can look after themselves, thank you very much. I think we would do so much better as a society if we would focus on what we might do cooperatively, rather than wasting our time looking down our noses at what others might be up to.