Rachmaninoff Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 [quote name='Sandy']I'm going to just say "Go California!" and let you all drown in your semantics.[/QUOTE]Personally, I'd rather drown the thread if such a thing was possible. Not that I'm against gay marriage being legalized, but because the semantics bit going on in here is kind of getting old. Kind of like the AA bit, sure you can look at it today and think it's unnecessary, but it doesn't change the fact that even with racial segregation (which was highly discriminatory) being ended, that kind of stupidity of not letting someone into work or school based on race or other factors was a big problem. It isn't the best solution, but saying it wasn't necessary is a bit hasty in my opinion. The biggest difference here is that gays don't even have the right to be married yet (at least not for most of the US) so the discrimination is a bigger issue and more than just a stance that some view it as a problem. Some viewed open discrimination for jobs and education as a non-problem because it didn't affect them directly. But that didn't change the fact that it [I]was[/I] a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shy Posted May 17, 2008 Author Share Posted May 17, 2008 [quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Oh yes, and Sandy? The opinion still won't take effect for another 26 days and it may very well be stuck down by the voters in November. So this celebration may be a bit premature.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE][size=1]I very highly doubt the ammendment will even make it to the ballots, let alone get voted into the constitution. California is an extremely liberal state, and many think this ruling has been a long time coming. The best chance the opposition has is to challenge it in the Surpreme Court, but it's a state's rights issue, and our they probably wouldn't even hear the case. -Shy[/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 [quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"] Oh yes, and Sandy? The opinion still won't take effect for another 26 days and it may very well be stuck down by the voters in November. So this celebration may be a bit premature.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [I]Semantics[/I]! *drowns Raiha in her words* I don't know if I'd want to get married with my boyfriend, even if it was possible here. It would probably make me feel too... normal, I guess. ;P Well, now we have the option to "register our relationship" in my country. Yep, kinda sounds like breeding dogs, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaryanna_Mom Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 [quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]To be frank, I'm not sure when you got the go-ahead to pontificate on the nature of online forum, and I'm offended that you're prepared to call me (and rather, not my argument) foolish. My intention was never to troll, and if confronting the logic of one's argument (and rhetorical fallacies) constitutes trolling, perhaps this entire thread should stop now. I'm not looking to spark unnecessary controversy, and I'm not arbitrarily trying to start a fight. I apologize if you view my posting as such.[/font][/QUOTE]I'll accept responsiblity for not wording that correctly, the stances/points being brought up are what I considered foolish, not you directly. I could have explained that a lot better instead of snipping at you. [quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]No, the fact that affirmative action has never been [i]necessary[/i]. And the fact that the mention of affirmative action is a [i]total non sequitur[/i] and irrelevant mention when discussing gay marriage and life partnership clauses. Honestly, it was a snarky interjection, commenting on both the nature of affirmative action and gay marriage, and I'll be damned if I give him a free pass on it. Feel free to write Morpheus off entirely, but his question concerning the alleged 'necessity' of affirmative action [i]was valid[/i]. I can certainly explain why AA is not necessary, but that would further derail the thread. I can kindly discuss this with all parties interested via PM, however. Or, if you really want me to, I can also post it here.[/font][/QUOTE]Snarky or not, it is relevant in that discrimination exists unless we do something about it. Gays getting married legally is only the first step, much like doing away with segregation was. If it ever becomes legal, I imagine we'll end up having issues with people subtly trying to mess it up much like the issues AA was meant to address. Unless I'm mistaken, Allamorph was making a snarky poke at the stupidity inherent in people that results in organizations like that being formed in an attempt to stop discrimination instead of a non sequitur interjection. I'm surprised no one seems to see that. Because I've been around long enough to know that once it becomes legal, that's most likely what will happen. Anyway... This bit by Rach goes into why I think a statement that AA is not necessary is short sighted and fails to see it in the context of more than just a decade or two ago:[QUOTE]Kind of like the AA bit, sure you can look at it today and think it's unnecessary, but it doesn't change the fact that even with racial segregation (which was highly discriminatory) being ended, that kind of stupidity of not letting someone into work or school based on race or other factors was a big problem. It isn't the best solution, but saying it wasn't necessary is a bit hasty in my opinion. [/QUOTE]If you want to argue that today it is outdated, I would agree. But in the context of it looking back to when segregation was ended and such, to say it wasn't necessary implies that there wasn't a problem to begin with. Also:[QUOTE]The biggest difference here is that gays don't even have the right to be married yet (at least not for most of the US) so the discrimination is a bigger issue and more than just a stance that some view it as a problem. Some viewed open discrimination for jobs and education as a non-problem because it didn't affect them directly. But that didn't change the fact that it [I]was[/I] a problem.[/QUOTE]That's the whole point of the right for gay marriage being fought for. If they could legally get married, we wouldn't have a problem. And since this thread has gotten way off of the intended start, I think I'll end it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunfallE Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 [COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]And since people seem to be more interested in arguing over semantics and poking apart others posting habits/intent and so forth [I]instead[/I] of discussing the main topic... I think this thread has outlived it's time. Let's try to do away with the trolling, nitpicking and semantic debates and actually [I]discuss the topic [/I]next time guys. This type of idiocy in The Lounge in the past few days is getting more than a little old. [B] Thread Closed[/B][/FONT][/COLOR] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts