U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska > Omaha
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-16-2010, 12:34 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,938 posts, read 19,166,693 times
Reputation: 9175

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
Whatever man. Tell me when you can make a logical argument without name-calling and personal attacks. I'm taking the high road and I'll just wait until then.
That's going to require you answering the question that you've avoided for days. You know, the one where I gave you every chance possible to defend your stance?

You can play the victim mentality all you want, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt for days while you acted wishy washy with your beliefs, so I have no choice but to come to the logical conclusion that it's because your reasons are rooted in bigotry.

If you find your testicles and decide to answer the question like a man, I'll be more than happy to rescind my comments. Until then, I stand behind them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-16-2010, 01:15 PM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 23,186,504 times
Reputation: 3889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
That's going to require you answering the question that you've avoided for days. You know, the one where I gave you every chance possible to defend your stance?

You can play the victim mentality all you want, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt for days while you acted wishy washy with your beliefs, so I have no choice but to come to the logical conclusion that it's because your reasons are rooted in bigotry.

If you find your testicles and decide to answer the question like a man, I'll be more than happy to rescind my comments. Until then, I stand behind them.
I won't get into the middle of your pushing-match here, but I do want to make a point.


I don't buy into the notion that we can use the term "bigotry" so easily. A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those who don't hold the same beliefs.

A Catholic disagreeing with a Jehovah's Witness doesn't automatically make the Catholic a bigot. A Democrat strongly disagreeing with a Republican does not automatically make the Democrat a bigot.

And there are many people (I don't know how many, or what percentage of the general population) that believe homosexuality is wrong. Most Christians, and I believe Muslims, view it as wrong and sinful. They disagree with it, but that disagreement does not automatically make them bigots. Yes, some ARE bigots. But not all. It is possible to disagree with somebody's lifestyle, choices and/or beliefs and still be very decent about it.


Also, I'd like to ask you to be careful to not be the bigot yourself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2010, 01:21 PM
 
6,486 posts, read 5,687,385 times
Reputation: 1272
IF you care to have a logical and civilized discussion on it, let me know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2010, 01:35 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,938 posts, read 19,166,693 times
Reputation: 9175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks View Post
I won't get into the middle of your pushing-match here, but I do want to make a point.


I don't buy into the notion that we can use the term "bigotry" so easily. A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those who don't hold the same beliefs.

A Catholic disagreeing with a Jehovah's Witness doesn't automatically make the Catholic a bigot. A Democrat strongly disagreeing with a Republican does not automatically make the Democrat a bigot.

And there are many people (I don't know how many, or what percentage of the general population) that believe homosexuality is wrong. Most Christians, and I believe Muslims, view it as wrong and sinful. They disagree with it, but that disagreement does not automatically make them bigots. Yes, some ARE bigots. But not all. It is possible to disagree with somebody's lifestyle, choices and/or beliefs and still be very decent about it.


Also, I'd like to ask you to be careful to not be the bigot yourself.
I agree with your post. That's why I've been pushing Calvin so hard to reveal his reasoning. Since he refuses to do so, I really have no other conclusion to come to though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
IF you care to have a logical and civilized discussion on it, let me know.
By all means.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2010, 02:00 PM
 
6,486 posts, read 5,687,385 times
Reputation: 1272
Bosco, what EXACTLY are you asking for? Why gays can't get married?

I've repeatedly told you that they are not being discriminated against, as they can marry a person of the opposite gender--something that we can all do, and there is no law preventing anyone from doing. I don't see the need to change the law to "fix" a problem that isn't there. Why change the law to allow gay people to do something that I can't do (marry someone of the same gender)? That seems like a "special right" to me.

You ask why 2 gay people in a "marriage" won't be recognized as married? Because the "marriage" is not a legitimate marriage. It's that simple.

When I tell you that, you then decide to change tactics and start inquiring why I think the way I do...and you assign the motive of hatred or bigotry. That is what I find offensive--when you can't comprehend that someone can legitimately disagree with you, they must be bigots. That's pretty typical, actually, and franky, it's extremely intolerant of you.

If you don't like my opinion, fine. I'm sorry. I am willing to be tolerant of your opinion, and your right to be wrong. You should try giving the same respect in return. You might find you get treated better in life if you're nice to people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2010, 02:25 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,938 posts, read 19,166,693 times
Reputation: 9175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
Bosco, what EXACTLY are you asking for? Why gays can't get married?

I've repeatedly told you that they are not being discriminated against, as they can marry a person of the opposite gender--something that we can all do, and there is no law preventing anyone from doing. I don't see the need to change the law to "fix" a problem that isn't there. Why change the law to allow gay people to do something that I can't do (marry someone of the same gender)? That seems like a "special right" to me.

You ask why 2 gay people in a "marriage" won't be recognized as married? Because the "marriage" is not a legitimate marriage. It's that simple.

When I tell you that, you then decide to change tactics and start inquiring why I think the way I do...and you assign the motive of hatred or bigotry. That is what I find offensive--when you can't comprehend that someone can legitimately disagree with you, they must be bigots. That's pretty typical, actually, and franky, it's extremely intolerant of you.

If you don't like my opinion, fine. I'm sorry. I am willing to be tolerant of your opinion, and your right to be wrong. You should try giving the same respect in return. You might find you get treated better in life if you're nice to people.
Ok, I'll try to be clear about this.

We've well established that gays are free to marry as they choose, and we've also established that those marriages are essentially pointless since they're not valid or recognized except in a few states.

What I'm saying is that gay marriages should be recognized just like straight marriages. No special rights or anything like that, we simply extend the same rights and benefits to them.

You're saying that shouldn't happen because it doesn't meet the requirement for marriage. I say that should be changed to allow any two consenting adults to get married.

If you don't think that should happen, I'd like to know why you feel that way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2010, 02:33 PM
 
6,486 posts, read 5,687,385 times
Reputation: 1272
Quote:
Ok, I'll try to be clear about this.

We've well established that gays are free to marry as they choose, and we've also established that those marriages are essentially pointless since they're not valid or recognized except in a few states.
Currently, no law restricts them from marrying anyone of the opposite gender. Other states have laws that enable to "marry" someone of the same gender in their state, but our state doesn't recognize that.
Quote:

What I'm saying is that gay marriages should be recognized just like straight marriages. No special rights or anything like that, we simply extend the same rights and benefits to them.
Why should Nebraska be forced to recognize a law that another state passes? Suppose Utah decides to pass the polygamy law...should Nebraska, or Iowa or whatever be forced to recognize Brother Steve and his 12 wives?


Quote:
You're saying that shouldn't happen because it doesn't meet the requirement for marriage. I say that should be changed to allow any two consenting adults to get married.

If you don't think that should happen, I'd like to know why you feel that way.
We'll just have to disagree. Why shouldn't it happen? I think it should be a state's right to determine what kind of marriage laws they have. If Iowa wants to allow it, fine. let them. I personally would not vote to allow it in Nebraska, as I don't see a discrimination issue--people can marry someone of the opposite gender, regardless of sexual preferences. To allow gay people to marry someone of the same gender is giving them a right that straight people don't have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2010, 03:10 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,938 posts, read 19,166,693 times
Reputation: 9175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
We'll just have to disagree. Why shouldn't it happen? I think it should be a state's right to determine what kind of marriage laws they have. If Iowa wants to allow it, fine. let them.
So basically you're reasoning is that the laws should be based on popular opinion?

Ok, but why is that ok when it comes to gay marriage but not when it comes to interracial marriage? It's really one or the other.

Quote:
I personally would not vote to allow it in Nebraska, as I don't see a discrimination issue--people can marry someone of the opposite gender, regardless of sexual preferences. To allow gay people to marry someone of the same gender is giving them a right that straight people don't have.
But we would have eliminated that problem. Any two consenting adults would be allowed to marry and their marriages would all be treated the same. If two straight guys wanted to marry each other (not that that makes any sense, but whatever) they would be able to do so.

Would you support that, and if not, why?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2010, 03:25 PM
 
6,486 posts, read 5,687,385 times
Reputation: 1272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
So basically you're reasoning is that the laws should be based on popular opinion?
No...you're giving the state the right to decide for themselves. That's how our form of gov't is set up. We are the United STATES.
Quote:
Ok, but why is that ok when it comes to gay marriage but not when it comes to interracial marriage? It's really one or the other.
You keep going back to that but it's not a valid comparison. Let's compare apples to apples here.

Restricting marriage by race is not the same thing. I've explained that before, but you don't seem to want to get that.

By telling a person you can't marry a white person you are now discriminating on race, as there are people that have the right to do so.

Nobody is taking anything away from a gay person that anyone else has.
Quote:



But we would have eliminated that problem. Any two consenting adults would be allowed to marry and their marriages would all be treated the same. If two straight guys wanted to marry each other (not that that makes any sense, but whatever) they would be able to do so.

Would you support that, and if not, why?
I just don't see the need for it. I'm sorry.

Having said that, would common law kick in and treat 2 longtime roommates as "married" if they live together for a number of years?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2010, 04:07 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,938 posts, read 19,166,693 times
Reputation: 9175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
No...you're giving the state the right to decide for themselves. That's how our form of gov't is set up. We are the United STATES.
That's only half true. You know as well as I do that the federal government has had to step in when states where doing things that should not be allowed.

Quote:
You keep going back to that but it's not a valid comparison. Let's compare apples to apples here.

Restricting marriage by race is not the same thing. I've explained that before, but you don't seem to want to get that.

By telling a person you can't marry a white person you are now discriminating on race, as there are people that have the right to do so.

Nobody is taking anything away from a gay person that anyone else has.
It's as apples as apples as you can get. Whether you're telling a black person they can't marry a white person or a gay man can't marry another gay man, you're still discriminating against them. Race or sexual orientation, it don't matter.

Quote:
I just don't see the need for it. I'm sorry.
Sorry, that's not a reason. If your attitude on the matter is really that cavalier then you wouldn't be here fighting so hard against it, especially since the way I laid it out your seemingly two biggest gripes (discrimination and special treatment) were eliminated.

I'm starting to think that this whole issue is more of a catalyst for the "us (states) versus them (feds)" issue rather than "is what we're doing right?", which is how you should be looking at it IMO.

Quote:
Having said that, would common law kick in and treat 2 longtime roommates as "married" if they live together for a number of years?
Nebraska doesn't do common law marriages, so the answer would be no unless they included a change to that law as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska > Omaha
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:44 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top