You think *I'm* delaying rights for polygamists? Really? Do you *remember* me??? :)
I believe that any adults who wish to enter into a marriage should be allowed to do so. Any sex, any number. Saying "give everyone access to the current system" isn't delaying anything. Saying "change the system while I put up my feet and bask in my right to use the current one" IS.
But the movement is to make marriage between two people. This would by it's very wording make the polygamist or group marriage a illegal thing.
I know you... that is why I am surprised that you back the movement or at least seem to.
You right if they put their feet up... which history has shown is the normal practice in such matters. I would rather aviod years of government forcing social change in the name of liberal's and get to the meat of the matter. Which would allow for freedom for all with out the fear of have the government tring to convert you in to acceptance of the lates sexual dream.
My solution would not only give the rights everyone seems to be seekign to every one but it would also prevent the use of the "titles" or "government acceptance of a form of sex" as a tool to attack peoples faiths in the school systems.
If you want to have as sexual life style that is poly then you are welcome to it. The government would need to recognize it or reject.. it simply would care about it. If you are homosexual, bi, poly, incestual, BDSM, beastiality... what ever government would be making no judgement of acceptance of rejection of it. If people are being hurt (against their wills) then normal laws dealing with abuse would come in to play. Otherwise it would be of no interest to the government at all.
The route that is being taken now is to redefine marriage as 2 people. So afte they spent billions pushing the acceptance of this in the schools and setting up the consitution for it are we going to go through this all again for the Polygamist? How many times do you think people will allow the goverment to jam morality down their neck with out the consent or approval?
"My solution would not only give the rights everyone seems to be seekign to every one but it would also prevent the use of the 'titles' or "government acceptance of a form of sex" as a tool to attack peoples faiths in the school systems."
Do you really think that merely not having a Special Legal Status will make the abuse in schools Go Away? Wave your magic gavel and nobody sees the differences any more? The fact that the State no longer recognizes heterosexual marriages will mean the swishy kid (who may or not be gay) will suddenly stop being called "faggot" in the hall?
You're waaay off in tangent-land here.
The video doesn't say "people who are in non-traditional relationships". It says "people who are different from you".
Accual you are of tangent here. I was refering to marriage in this part of the thread. As for abuse of people in schools it should be abuse that is addressed and not the disaproval. We already have rule stateing hitting other etc "Bullying" is wrong. We we disagree is that you seem to want to add social reform in to acceptance in to the list.
I never said differances will go way. In fact what I am suggesting is the preserving of differances not the mushing away of extreme view into one state oked moral code of "respect all".
And nobody is saying that we must do away with differences; the program encourages respect for differences. And that implies recognition that differences exist.
It is possible to "respectfully disagree".
It is the argument that respect itself is a bad thing that troubles me.
Have you heard of the statement "respect must be earned" Respect means more then tolerance. That is were we are disconnecting. Respect means on some level you admire something. That is the danger of the word respect.
You are right though that this part of the thread is a tangent. I has nothing to do with the video or goverment pushing morals (or not) in the schools. It also has nothing to do with school violance. But I think is is worth the talking about.
Respect means on some level you admire something. That is the danger of the word respect.
This is a usage/grammar/definition issue you appear to be caught up with then.
It didn't say "pledge to respect...". It said to "pledge to have respect for..."
Ex: Tony Soprano isn't someone I'd respect, but he's certainly someone I'd have respect for.
Having Respect is a matter of staying quiet while someone gets eulogized.
We're talking about respecting people...as people and nothing more. Not as ones we like necessarily.
And you even switched usages of the word. Lets put specifics into that pledge
"I pledge to respect all Jews".
Well, no. I don't do that. I respect their choice of religion, and respect them as I would anyone else, but some Jews are SOB's just like some Christians are SOB's. I dont think you'd expect me to behave differently. Right?
Same holds true for sexual identity. People are people. Respect them as you would any one else. Sexual Identity isn't a reason to respect one any less.
Likewise, it would be insane for anyone to expect one to expect all people of a different sexual identity.
Re: So much for Swiss
I believe that any adults who wish to enter into a marriage should be allowed to do so. Any sex, any number. Saying "give everyone access to the current system" isn't delaying anything. Saying "change the system while I put up my feet and bask in my right to use the current one" IS.
Re: So much for Swiss
I know you... that is why I am surprised that you back the movement or at least seem to.
You right if they put their feet up... which history has shown is the normal practice in such matters. I would rather aviod years of government forcing social change in the name of liberal's and get to the meat of the matter. Which would allow for freedom for all with out the fear of have the government tring to convert you in to acceptance of the lates sexual dream.
My solution would not only give the rights everyone seems to be seekign to every one but it would also prevent the use of the "titles" or "government acceptance of a form of sex" as a tool to attack peoples faiths in the school systems.
If you want to have as sexual life style that is poly then you are welcome to it. The government would need to recognize it or reject.. it simply would care about it. If you are homosexual, bi, poly, incestual, BDSM, beastiality... what ever government would be making no judgement of acceptance of rejection of it. If people are being hurt (against their wills) then normal laws dealing with abuse would come in to play. Otherwise it would be of no interest to the government at all.
The route that is being taken now is to redefine marriage as 2 people. So afte they spent billions pushing the acceptance of this in the schools and setting up the consitution for it are we going to go through this all again for the Polygamist? How many times do you think people will allow the goverment to jam morality down their neck with out the consent or approval?
Re: So much for Swiss
Do you really think that merely not having a Special Legal Status will make the abuse in schools Go Away? Wave your magic gavel and nobody sees the differences any more? The fact that the State no longer recognizes heterosexual marriages will mean the swishy kid (who may or not be gay) will suddenly stop being called "faggot" in the hall?
You're waaay off in tangent-land here.
The video doesn't say "people who are in non-traditional relationships". It says "people who are different from you".
Re: So much for Swiss
I never said differances will go way. In fact what I am suggesting is the preserving of differances not the mushing away of extreme view into one state oked moral code of "respect all".
Re: So much for Swiss
And nobody is saying that we must do away with differences; the program encourages respect for differences. And that implies recognition that differences exist.
It is possible to "respectfully disagree".
It is the argument that respect itself is a bad thing that troubles me.
Re: So much for Swiss
You are right though that this part of the thread is a tangent. I has nothing to do with the video or goverment pushing morals (or not) in the schools. It also has nothing to do with school violance. But I think is is worth the talking about.
Re: So much for Swiss
This is a usage/grammar/definition issue you appear to be caught up with then.
It didn't say "pledge to respect...". It said to "pledge to have respect for..."
Ex: Tony Soprano isn't someone I'd respect, but he's certainly someone I'd have respect for.
Having Respect is a matter of staying quiet while someone gets eulogized.
We're talking about respecting people...as people and nothing more. Not as ones we like necessarily.
And you even switched usages of the word. Lets put specifics into that pledge
"I pledge to respect all Jews".
Well, no. I don't do that. I respect their choice of religion, and respect them as I would anyone else, but some Jews are SOB's just like some Christians are SOB's. I dont think you'd expect me to behave differently. Right?
Same holds true for sexual identity. People are people. Respect them as you would any one else. Sexual Identity isn't a reason to respect one any less.
Likewise, it would be insane for anyone to expect one to expect all people of a different sexual identity.
So why are you thinking that's the case now?
Re: So much for Swiss
Likewise, it would be insane for anyone to expect one to respect all people of a different sexual identity