2014: the year Ellen Page made scores of neckbeards cry out in psychic anguish

[LimpyLoo]

Arizona, such an edgy, oft misunderstood place.

 

Is that irony? I would normally think yes, but you live in Texas so I can't tell.

[DorkingtonPugsly]

 

 

 

*every time this thread gets bumped & someone i like has posted in it*

 

 

^this

 

and this...

 

 

haha yes

[azatoth]

What an abortion of a thread.

[hoggy]

but marriage was never meant for other configurations than man + woman, for whatever reason. your point on love in an universal sense is irrelevant imo. i'm not even giving my personal opinion, i'm stating a fact, a social reality.

 

i'll give you a personal opinion though. it's not related to your point but i want to state this:

the whole homophobia debate is another big intellectual fraud imo, in the case of france. i'm only talking about france, and no other country.

it's an intellectual fraud because the situation is not that of a discriminated community fighting for civil rights, it is that of a lobby claiming to represent that community, paired with the government, that decide together what should be done for the civil rights of that "community", without even asking anybody's opinion.

so the homophobia point has no relevance in this debate because the most concerned people on the matter, the gay "community", were not its instigators. why should we debate something when the most concerned people have the same rights as everybody, and were not the instigators of that debate?

"IMO"-"I'm not giving my opinion"

 

Just because that's what marriage always has been, doesn't mean that's what it always should be.

 

In a way, you're right, it's not your opinion, it's your BELIEF, and as a secularist, I don't think your beliefs should allow you to have legal control over how people are allowed to define their commitment to one another.

 

It doesn't matter whether or not people who oppose gay marriage are homophobic personally, they are committed to ideas which discriminate against gay people. They align themselves with homophobic institutions.

[azatoth]

IMO the legal authority to marry should be taken away from all churches and only civil unions being legal. If you want to add a bunch of rituals and other fuss in a church or other house of worship then you are welcome, but the legal business is signed and stamped in a magistrate.

[DerWaschbar]

100%

[Guest A/D]

Fantastic post(s) hoggy, thanks for being so articulate.

 

It's been a tough thread. I feel like it's been hard for the opposing parties to define their axioms and be understood.

 

Brian, I don't think your concept of "social reality" makes any sense! Ideas about marriage change over time and are different even in straight couples. I'm certain some people would consider "open marriages" to be wrong, or even destructive to the idea of marriage. And yet, they exist in varying forms, and are legal in places that don't punish adultery.

 

Human homosexuality has been unfairly (though not consistently) looked down upon for thousands of years. That means that whatever roots of marriage you choose to identify with are going to be tied to homophobia. I think that's the only reason why marriage discriminates against gay folk.

[vertsk8er419]

hard candy is good

[brian trageskin]

 

but marriage was never meant for other configurations than man + woman, for whatever reason. your point on love in an universal sense is irrelevant imo. i'm not even giving my personal opinion, i'm stating a fact, a social reality.

"IMO"-"I'm not giving my opinion"

 

i didn't say "imo" in the context of "but marriage was never meant for other configurations than man + woman, for whatever reason". read more carefully.

whether you like it or not, it is an indisputable fact that "marriage was never meant for other configurations than man + woman, for whatever reason". just saying.

 

Just because that's what marriage always has been, doesn't mean that's what it always should be.

 

i never said it should. you deduced that out based on my opinions.

i never gave my opinion on the topic of marriage and i won't, since it's irrelevant. i only gave my opinion on the political context in which this topic was discussed, and the way the debate was led. which, IMO, is a gazillion times more relevant to the situation. smoke screen baby, smoke screen.

 

In a way, you're right, it's not your opinion, it's your BELIEF, and as a secularist, I don't think your beliefs should allow you to have legal control over how people are allowed to define their commitment to one another.

 

i personally have no political power, i'm nobody. so my beliefs allow me nada, zip, niente, ничего, waxba.

 

It doesn't matter whether or not people who oppose gay marriage are homophobic personally, they are committed to ideas which discriminate against gay people. They align themselves with homophobic institutions.

 

way to shift the debate. whether marriage is a homophobic institution or not is none of our business here. the homophobia point is irrelevant to the questions raised by the specific situation i'm talking about. it's off-topic in the current situation of france.

[brian trageskin]

by the way, i'm gay.

[Schlitze]

Only way thread can reach a conclusion is if neckbeards all cum hard simultaneously onto their screens on this, page 17. The release will be profound, orgasms in synch, a cry of psychic anguish, neckbeards howlin at the moon like a wolves, sheer ecstacy, drawing matters to a close and welcoming the dawn of a new era.

[Guest fiznuthian]

** cums **

[Guest fiznuthian]

[goDel]

way to shift the debate. whether marriage is a homophobic institution or not is none of our business here. the homophobia point is irrelevant to the questions raised by the specific situation i'm talking about. it's off-topic in the current situation of france.

 

 

Just a silly idea and other generalisations: Americans and cultural context tend not to mix very well, I've noticed.

 

Might be because the US is a huge melting pot of immigrants from the outset and it doesn't have any kind of noteworthy culture or tradition left in it. Any culture from outside gets smashed into pieces as soon as it crosses US borders. In a way, in the US every culture is valid (which is good), but the result is that every culture or tradition loses meaning in the greater scheme of things. So in American thinking, culture or context does not exist. (Silly idea, i know....and not arguing it's good or bad or anything..just trying to explain this awkward phenomenon)

 

It's either that, or it's just their debating style. Absolutes and absolutes.

 

It's a rare event to see an American arguing sensibly about foreign cultures when it comes to morals, for instance. When it comes to morality, it tends to be argued from some absolute position which might work on the US mainland, but not so much for the rest of the world. It's a kind of a blind spot, which is often interpreted as the typical US arrogance from outside US borders.

 

So, the notion that marriage means different things in different cultures is just lost and the result is some absolute concept where different cultural backgrounds are irrelevant, and entitlement becomes the dominant position from a moral point of view. Leaving some kind of: everyone is entitled to be able to marry, regardless of various cultural meanings.

 

In France the situation might be that gays couples could have the same rights as heterosexual married couples, but it's just called different (because marriage has a specific meaning in french culture). In the US, the cultural meaning is irrelevant and if heterosexual couples have a thing called marriage, than so do gay couples. End of...

 

Again, no judgment intended. Just trying to understand why the fuck this discussion tends to go on and on and on ...

 

Anyways....I already feel ashamed of being part of this discussion. And I'm not that big of an Ellen Page fan either.

[Guest A/D]

No shame man, those are very valid points. I often catch myself thinking in the way you describe.

[goDel]

Thanks man. Lets marry!

[Guest A/D]

A second-class civil union, where cultural relativism is completely ignored! I do.

[joshuatxuk]

 

Arizona, such an edgy, oft misunderstood place.

 

Is that irony? I would normally think yes, but you live in Texas so I can't tell.

 

 

There as antidote I heard from a moderate Texas senator about a Hispanic in-law of his and how she felt just fine driving in Texas but absolutely refused to be behind the wheel in Arizona. Getting pulled over in certain parts of that state is a scary prospect if you have dark skin. If you're an undocumented worker, the local law enforcement will be hellbent on sending you to jail, not merely deported. Most U.S. states only imprison illegal immigrants with outstanding criminal records.

 

Texas has it's nutters and backass laws and attitudes, especially in certain regions, but we were also part of Mexico until 1836. The Southern border has never been majority white. It's been too diverse historically to get to that level of oppression. Unlike New Mexico or West Texas, Arizona was always sparsely populated and more of the "wild west" until the turn of the century. Overall, there's a far more insane concentration of what I'd easily deem fascist lawmakers, particularly in this county, than in Texas...at least in the present day.

 

In other words, we're too big and diverse to be as blatantly ignorant as smaller conservative states. We're like run by, more restrained and subtle right-wing asshats.

[OneToThirtySix]

by the way, i'm gay.

...and Ellen Page is French.

[brian trageskin]

 

way to shift the debate. whether marriage is a homophobic institution or not is none of our business here. the homophobia point is irrelevant to the questions raised by the specific situation i'm talking about. it's off-topic in the current situation of france.

 

 

Just a silly idea and other generalisations: Americans and cultural context tend not to mix very well, I've noticed.

 

Might be because the US is a huge melting pot of immigrants from the outset and it doesn't have any kind of noteworthy culture or tradition left in it. Any culture from outside gets smashed into pieces as soon as it crosses US borders. In a way, in the US every culture is valid (which is good), but the result is that every culture or tradition loses meaning in the greater scheme of things. So in American thinking, culture or context does not exist. (Silly idea, i know....and not arguing it's good or bad or anything..just trying to explain this awkward phenomenon)

 

It's either that, or it's just their debating style. Absolutes and absolutes.

 

It's a rare event to see an American arguing sensibly about foreign cultures when it comes to morals, for instance. When it comes to morality, it tends to be argued from some absolute position which might work on the US mainland, but not so much for the rest of the world. It's a kind of a blind spot, which is often interpreted as the typical US arrogance from outside US borders.

 

So, the notion that marriage means different things in different cultures is just lost and the result is some absolute concept where different cultural backgrounds are irrelevant, and entitlement becomes the dominant position from a moral point of view. Leaving some kind of: everyone is entitled to be able to marry, regardless of various cultural meanings.

 

In France the situation might be that gays couples could have the same rights as heterosexual married couples, but it's just called different (because marriage has a specific meaning in french culture). In the US, the cultural meaning is irrelevant and if heterosexual couples have a thing called marriage, than so do gay couples. End of...

 

Again, no judgment intended. Just trying to understand why the fuck this discussion tends to go on and on and on ...

 

Anyways....I already feel ashamed of being part of this discussion. And I'm not that big of an Ellen Page fan either.

 

 

pretty insightful.

 

what i tried to explain is that the debate on gay marriage in france took place in a very specific political context. once one removes the political context it took place in, and starts focusing on general considerations about gay marriage, we enter an entirely different topic that i'm not interested in, because it's completely irrelevant to the political situation i'm talking about.

i wasn't talking about gay marriage in general. i don't give a rat's ass about the debate on gay-marriage-in-general.

i hope this will help clarify my position.

 

in short,

 

 

it's been nice educating you.

 

 

[Adieu]

 

way to shift the debate. whether marriage is a homophobic institution or not is none of our business here. the homophobia point is irrelevant to the questions raised by the specific situation i'm talking about. it's off-topic in the current situation of france.

 

 

Just a silly idea and other generalisations: Americans and cultural context tend not to mix very well, I've noticed.

 

Might be because the US is a huge melting pot of immigrants from the outset and it doesn't have any kind of noteworthy culture or tradition left in it. Any culture from outside gets smashed into pieces as soon as it crosses US borders. In a way, in the US every culture is valid (which is good), but the result is that every culture or tradition loses meaning in the greater scheme of things. So in American thinking, culture or context does not exist. (Silly idea, i know....and not arguing it's good or bad or anything..just trying to explain this awkward phenomenon)

 

It's either that, or it's just their debating style. Absolutes and absolutes.

 

It's a rare event to see an American arguing sensibly about foreign cultures when it comes to morals, for instance. When it comes to morality, it tends to be argued from some absolute position which might work on the US mainland, but not so much for the rest of the world. It's a kind of a blind spot, which is often interpreted as the typical US arrogance from outside US borders.

 

So, the notion that marriage means different things in different cultures is just lost and the result is some absolute concept where different cultural backgrounds are irrelevant, and entitlement becomes the dominant position from a moral point of view. Leaving some kind of: everyone is entitled to be able to marry, regardless of various cultural meanings.

 

In France the situation might be that gays couples could have the same rights as heterosexual married couples, but it's just called different (because marriage has a specific meaning in french culture). In the US, the cultural meaning is irrelevant and if heterosexual couples have a thing called marriage, than so do gay couples. End of...

 

Again, no judgment intended. Just trying to understand why the fuck this discussion tends to go on and on and on ...

 

Anyways....I already feel ashamed of being part of this discussion. And I'm not that big of an Ellen Page fan either.

 

 

 

Cultural context means nothing, because people's basic rights don't' change depending on what arbitrary portion of the planet they happen to be on.

 

The discussion goes on and on because you have people with a perspective that is based on nothing substantial (brian, sheatheman, xox) who refuse to change their position regardless how much their position is proved to be bullshit.

 

Fucking right and wrong doesn't change based on what country you are in. What a bullshit point.

 

He specifically stated they don't have the same rights over and over again.

 

Also, Brian, fuck you. Fuck your bullshit arguments. Fuck your trolling. Fuck your attitude. You're a disgrace. Fucking scum.

[Guest A/D]

In b4 lock

[Guest fiznuthian]

 

oh oops, she's 26

[goDel]

[sheatheman]

A friend of mine - Mexican - who lives in Tucson, tends to scoff when people talk about those edgy Arizona laws. Just know that he scoffs, and that he is Mexican and is also an artist. He scoffs. Arizona has just been the battlefield of the political hype machine for several years now. At the end of the day, what really matters in Tucson is getting some Eegee's.

http://www.eegees.com/