"I Care about Civil Rights... but not that much"

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If I had written a post like this there is a good likelihood it gets wiped out. I likewise don't agree with the suggestion that I shouldn't have the right to reply to posts personally directed at me. Other's have this right.

 

No one is compelled to read my posts. They have ways to avoid them. But it sure is interesting how much activity they generate around here.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No. Not mocking or anything of that nature. Simply CYA.

Edited September 8, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[kapkomet]

No. Not mocking or anything of that nature.  Simply CYA.

Why? So you can cry foul every 5 minutes that we are treating you unfair?

 

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm going to risk this post getting wiped out to clear the air on this.

 

I firmly believe that if I had posted that I was 100% in favor of same-sex marriage or 100% in favor of Darwinism none of this activity is generated. Nor would a mod bother me. I could easily articulate posts supporting these positions & then there would be no opposing viewpoints in the forum. That type of bias does not sit well with me. Which is why I will continue to articulate the opposing viewpoints if for no other reason but to demonstrate that this is an open-mined forum.

Edited September 8, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[bmags]

when did this board become a group of people just waiting to call out for a suspension on somebody else...

 

a bit 1984ish.

[kapkomet]

I'm going to risk this post getting wiped out to clear the air on this.

 

I firmly believe that if I had posted that I was 100% in favor of same-sex marriage or 100% in favor of Darwinism none of this activity is generated. Nor would a mod bother me.  I could easily articulate posts supporting these positions & then there would be no opposing viewpoints in the forum.  That type of bias does not sit well with me.  Which is why I will continue to articulate the opposing viewpoints if for no other reason but to demonstrate that this is an open-mined forum.

That's where you are incorrect. But now, the table is set. You are suggesting that we pick on you because of your viewpoints, and you are 100% wrong. It's your style and nitpicking that gets you in trouble.

 

But hey, that's fine. You keep thinking what you are thinking, that way nothing will ever change. Your day will come.

 

/that's all.

[Soxy]

when did this board become a group of people just waiting to call out for a suspension on somebody else...

 

a bit 1984ish.

This is by far the exception not the rule.

[bmags]

This is by far the exception not the rule.

 

i know...this thread weirded me out though. as well as a thread earlier today i read.

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is a way that I can prove/disprove the claim. Afford me the opportunity to test it.

Allow me to create a new id that always takes the majority position. After 1 month's time I will reveal that it's really me Juggs & we can then look at the activity generated.

 

Short of that there is plenty of evidence in the posts & threads. Including the topics I have created.

 

Getting the thread back on topic, the issue is complex as it pertains to entitlements.

I believe the Fed's recognition of marriage is based on where you reside. If that state recognizes your marriage then the Fed does. If that is the case then there is not much reason to debate this nationally. There may be some entitlements afforded to you out of state but the vast majority of them are based on your state of residency.

 

It does not take a lot to establish some form of residency in another state. If entitlements were the central focus of the debate then it would not be unreasonable to suggest that same-sex resources could pool together to establish residency for all said couples in a state that recognizes their marriage. This can be established in a multitude of ways.

Edited September 8, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[kapkomet]

There is a way that I can prove/disprove the claim.  Afford me the opportunity to test it.

Allow me to create a new id that always takes the majority position.  After 1 month's time I will reveal that it's really me Juggs & we can then look at the activity generated.

 

Short of that there is plenty of evidence in the posts & threads.  Including the topics I have created.

You're afforded it now, you're still posting, right?

 

/ok now that's really all.

 

[kapkomet]

i know...this thread weirded me out though. as well as a thread earlier today i read.

Don't worry... this will be all over soon enough and we'll be back to the happy bickering on SLaP.

[bmags]

Don't worry... this will be all over soon enough and we'll be back to the happy bickering on SLaP.

 

 

Pheew. no let me find a dave matthews fan to belittle.

[Kid Gleason]

Wow, so then this:

 

That post is both offensive & flamatory to those of us who do not share your opinion.

 

was all for the sake of playing devil's advocate???

 

Mods, admins, can I call him an ass and be O.K. if I ask permission???

[southsider2k5]

There is a way that I can prove/disprove the claim.  Afford me the opportunity to test it.

Allow me to create a new id that always takes the majority position.  After 1 month's time I will reveal that it's really me Juggs & we can then look at the activity generated.

 

Short of that there is plenty of evidence in the posts & threads.  Including the topics I have created.

 

I'll make you a deal. If you quit intentionally trying to ruin everyone else's experiences on Soxtalk, I'll let you make up a new name and post under it.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Wow, so then this:

was all for the sake of playing devil's advocate???

 

Yes it was. Or, more, correctly, Soxtalk's Martyr, an unofficial and self-appointed position held perhaps most memorably by I4E during his short, tumultuous tenure.

 

I trust this will not be construed as a personal attack, since martyrdom is usually seen as quite the admirable thing. Lots of job turnover, true, but nice work if you can get it.

[southsider2k5]

Yes it was.  Or, more, correctly, Soxtalk's Martyr, an unofficial and self-appointed position held perhaps most memorably by I4E during his short, tumultuous tenure.

 

I trust this will not be construed as a personal attack, since martyrdom is usually seen as quite the admirable thing.  Lots of job turnover, true, but nice work if you can get it. 

 

The pay isn't that great, but think of the benefits

[FlaSoxxJim]

I'll make you a deal.  If you quit intentionally trying to ruin everyone else's experiences on Soxtalk, I'll let you make up a new name and post under it.

It's not the content, it's the style. People with characteristic posting styles can be identified just by that regardless of what position thay take on an issue.

 

That, of course, will be the failing of this experiment, unless Jugg's can argue alternate positions on issues while using the same posting style. Most likely, the posting style will be toned down under the new handle (kind of the original point, ironically), and so nobody will object to the posts regardless fo what viewpoints are set forth.

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Teach me. Please explain to me what in this thread demonstrates such an intention.

If you are referring to other threads my condescending style then was no worse than many others. But I have been enlightened to the new guidelines so that style is gone.

I believe this thread is good evidence of that. No personal attacks on my part nor use of terms that personally belittle another member. It's the new me

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The control for the test would be that the id has no prior history of taking a position contrary to the majority here at SOXTALK.

 

same-sex marriage entitlements:

Is there any poll data relating to issues specific to entitlements? That would be interesting. Simply ask the question of whether you would be in favor of re-writing marriage entitlements to include co-dependants married or otherwise.

Edited September 8, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[southsider2k5]

The control for the test would be that the id has no prior history of taking a position contrary to the majority here at SOXTALK. 

 

Is there any poll data relating to issues specific to entitlements?  That would be interesting.  Simply ask the question of whether you would be in favor of re-writing marriage entitlements to include co-dependants married or otherwise.

 

Go ahead and register a whole new ID. None of us will say a word, like I said, as long as you promise to stop trying to ruin Soxtalk for everyone else.

[jasonxctf]

this is our generations civil rights battle. similar-types of people blocked womens rights and equal work equal pay, others blocked equal rights for minorities. in the end, they were defeated and we have progressed as a society. equal rights for homosexuals will be here soon. it's just a matter of how fast this train is traveling. will equality be provided in 5 years or 15 years? That's the battle that is being fought.

 

in the end, everyone will have equal rights. Not just the "chosen"

[Kid Gleason]

...this thread has officially started to confuse me. What's happening here???

[The Critic]

its debatable whether they get to be happy through marriage.

No, but they get the chance.

Like any other consenting adults would.

That's what the debate is IMO.

FWIW, I agree with Kid's take on it. If two adults of any gender want to ATTEMPT ( since I am well aware of the divorce statistics ) to spend the rest of their lives together in a committed relationship, I feel no need, want or desire to stand in their way. It doesn't affect me, so I don't want to affect it.

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's the new me. Respective & cordial.

 

I disagree that this is this generation's civil rights issue. IMHO there is simply not enough support for it to be considered as such. Likewise with media segmentation occuring on a mass level these days I think it's going to be very difficult for such support to manifest itself. It is more likely that government's will move away from marriage altogether to better deal with issues of divorce & alternative lifestyles.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've decided to try a different experiment first. I am going to put forth my best effort to represent the minority opinion in a respective & cordial way. Let's see what happens.

Edited September 8, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[longshot7]

There is a way that I can prove/disprove the claim.  Afford me the opportunity to test it.

Allow me to create a new id that always takes the majority position.  After 1 month's time I will reveal that it's really me Juggs & we can then look at the activity generated.

 

Short of that there is plenty of evidence in the posts & threads.  Including the topics I have created.

 

Getting the thread back on topic, the issue is complex as it pertains to entitlements.

I believe the Fed's recognition of marriage is based on where you reside.  If that state recognizes your marriage then the Fed does.  If that is the case then there is not much reason to debate this nationally.  There may be some entitlements afforded to you out of state but the vast majority of them are based on your state of residency. 

 

It does not take a lot to establish some form of residency in another state.  If entitlements were the central focus of the debate then it would not be unreasonable to suggest that same-sex resources could pool together to establish residency for all said couples in a state that recognizes their marriage.  This can be established in a multitude of ways.

 

I'd like to respond to this point, Juggs, without name calling.

 

You make an interesting point about entitlements - as well as the fact that the majority of Americans do not support gay marriage, as seen in the anti-gay marriage bills voted on in last year's election. But what you say about marriages in general I find really interesting.

 

Marriages like any social institution evolve, and have evolved over time. I suspect in time (say 50 years) that the concept of marriage will become even more secular than it is now, and that Americans will look back at these discussions that we have now and see them as fairly rediculous, like modern-day people look back at the pro-slavery arguments in the early 19th Century.

 

The institution of marriage started as a simple property arrangement - because of the patriarchal system, men wanted to protect their property, their wives - from other men and from the women running away. Marriage installed a woman as property of her husband, and this was the way it was for a long time.

 

Later, marriages took on Judeo-Christian religious components, which would function to justify the unequality of these "partnerships." It also, as religions often do, was used to keep naysayers in their place. This is the way God wants it, women were told, and because they didn't want to be condemned to hell, no one questioned it.

 

Nowadays, it seems that although the property issues have been moved to the back-burner, religious issues still exist in the minds of many. However sad, I don't expect this to change anytime soon. But when that fades in America, as it has in much of Europe & Asia (but not in other places in the world which still utilize the dark ages model), I expect the institution of marriage to evolve once again.

 

The entitlements issue I find interesting. Many insurance companies are now offering coverage to domestic partnerships, and I think that once people get used to the idea of same-sex partnerships, more advancements will follow.

[knightni]

I believe that "Same Sex Unions" should be a state issue and a tool for financial linking as well as relationaship cementing.

 

Leave the word "marriage" and the church out of it.

 

Most churches don't approve of it anyway, so why try and make them bend their religious beliefs?

 

If courthouses can't have the 10 commandments, then churches shouldn't be forced to allow same sex marriages.

 

 

It's a two-way street.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Civil rights movements start small by definition. Eventually the minority becomes a plurality, and the plurality eventually becomes the majority.

 

Why, I can remember a time here on this very board when chicken plookers and coffee table lickers were considered outcasts. . .