Fwd: Libs/Labs and other politics, statistics and myths
To be perfectly honest, and I think that others would agree, you've been less than clear on the matter.
To be perfectly honest, it's what I said right from the start, then you
brought up other issues to muddy the waters, to help make your point. I have typed "SUPPORT" in CAPS a number of times to emphasise it. It's good to know that you support the legal establishment of same-sex
marriage.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I do not support same sex marriage, whichever way you want to phrase it. Legal rights of same sex couples is a different matter.
Have a nice day,
-- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
On Sat, November 8, 2014 11:10 am, Michael Scott wrote:
It's good to know that you support the legal establishment of same-sex
marriage.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I do not support same sex marriage,
whichever way you want to phrase it. Legal rights of same sex couples is a different matter.
See, this is why it's so confusing. You say one thing then you say another which contradicts it. Let me phrase it as a yes/no proposition. Hopefully there is no wriggle room here. "Do you support the right of same-sex couples to a legal marriage?" -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
lev> It's good to know that you support the legal establishment of lev> same-sex marriage. michael> Please don't put words in my mouth. I do not support same sex michael> marriage, whichever way you want to phrase it. Legal rights michael> of same sex couples is a different matter. lev> See, this is why it's so confusing. You say one thing then you lev> say another which contradicts it. AFAICT, as I hinted earlier, Michael et al only care about the word "marriage". As long as we use a different word, he doesn't care.
On Sat, November 8, 2014 2:10 pm, Trent W. Buck wrote:
AFAICT, as I hinted earlier, Michael et al only care about the word "marriage". As long as we use a different word, he doesn't care.
The issue being of course is that no religious sect has exclusive ownership of that word or what it means. It is something is enshrined in civil law which can and will be changed according to legislative process. By the next generation people are going to be looking at debates like these a little like we would look at debates over "interracial" marriages. Most of North America (most US states, Canada), South America, and Northern and Western Europe now have marriage equality. It really is quite inevitable in this country as well, because the overwhelming majority are now supporters because they accept the simple principle of equal rights for all. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
On Sat, 8 Nov 2014, "Lev Lafayette" <lev@levlafayette.com> wrote:
By the next generation people are going to be looking at debates like these a little like we would look at debates over "interracial" marriages. Most of North America (most US states, Canada), South America, and Northern and Western Europe now have marriage equality.
It really is quite inevitable in this country as well, because the overwhelming majority are now supporters because they accept the simple principle of equal rights for all.
Apparently the level of support for marriage equality in the US now is about the same as the support for inter-racial marriage was when it was legalised. So it seems obvious that in a decade or two homophobes will be rejected by society in the way that racists are now. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 12:23:24PM +1100, Lev Lafayette wrote:
See, this is why it's so confusing. You say one thing then you say another which contradicts it.
Let me phrase it as a yes/no proposition. Hopefully there is no wriggle room here.
"Do you support the right of same-sex couples to a legal marriage?"
try taking the word "support" out of it and replace it with "accept". "Support" (capitalised or not) seems to have a special meaning to him, and admitting that he "supports" same-sex marriage will somehow contaminate him (possibly turning him into some kind of poof eventually...oh the horror!) "Do you accept the right of same-sex couples to a legal marriage?" you don't have to be in favour of or support something to accept it - for example, i accept the right of religious people to believe whatever stupid shit that they want to, but i'll never be in favour of such cretinism. IMO the world would be a much better place if people put such dangerous nonsense aside. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
participants (5)
-
Craig Sanders -
Lev Lafayette -
Michael Scott -
Russell Coker -
Trent W. Buck