What does the world have against America?

[adalekplunger]

Not entirely. I wasn't speaking with California in mind, no offense. And the instances I've read about haven't been there.

On the off chance you're not American, it's worth explaining something quickly: In the US, laws are broken up in three levels, Local, State, and Federal. Local affects a city (usually called ordinances), State affects that state, and only that state (with some peculiar exceptions), Federal governs laws that affect the entire country. With each tier trumping the previous one.

California is a bit... notable, for their state laws being somewhat outside the norm. So, while it's good to know they had some equity in mind, it is far from the norm. Additionally, there's an argument with the Full Faith and Credit clause, where other states have to accept the civil union, but don't accept the associated values which California places on it, leading back to the scenarios I posted above, if someone from California does leave the state.

Sorry, I can't vouch for the rest of the states. I was talking mainly about California because I live there, I know the issues, and it's currently poised as a sort of example for the rest of the states due to its battle with the legality of gay marriage, hence the focus from the media on issues like prop 8.

Except they haven't been fighting for rights
I think our disagreement here is based off of different perspectives. From what you have said (or what I have interpreted), you don't see marriage as a single entity or an idea, more a creation that is just a name for unity between two people (out of love ect.). I see marriage differently, I see it as something specific, although by different name sometimes it consists of the same thing.
To explain better: To me, marriage is something sacred (not in a religious or spiritual way, more cultural or social). The end all or be all of a relationship is marriage. This is how it is in every culture. And although the practice is different in other cultures, it is technically the same thing. So to me, legal basis is only the government's way of either incentiving or just supporting the idea of marriage. Therefor, government does not determine marriage, the two people determine the marriage.
From this, my issue with the "Domestic Relationships" (or whatever it is called) is that it is not marriage, it is something else. I think marriage in of it self is a right. Just as it is morally wrong to say that a person of dark skin cannot marry a person of lighter skin (outlawing interracial marriages), it is morally wrong to say two members of the same sex cannot marry (homosexual marriage).

To sum it up: from my perspective, marriage is a RIGHT. People have a RIGHT to choose who they want to marry no matter what. It is their RIGHT to choose. Restriction on this by changing the definition of the relationship to something else would be breaking that right as it would inhibit their ability to MARRY one person or another. From this, marriage is not a label, it is instead a right protected under the law.

"A rose by any other name is not a beautiful" (as to misquote Shakespeare).

Finally, as to quote an important gay activist (Harvey Milk), "These are our lives we are fighting for. Of coarse it matters to us, without this we are nothing."
Of coarse homosexuals fight so hard for this. If what separates them from their fellow human beings is a label, then they will break that wall. This is about equality, as a whole. If they are to be counted as the same, they are to be labeled as the same. This way, they are Americans, not homosexual Americans. They are people, not homosexual people. They have love, not homosexual love. And they marry, not have domestic relationships. Then it will be unity, not just in law, but in treatment and in words.

Exactly, and because of that, we won't meet any kind of middle ground. I just consider marriage to be the name we give to an outdated ritual that doesn't mean the same thing it did when it was made. Because of that, I don't hold much reverence for it, and just consider it something that a society could do without. So just re-naming it something else doesn't hold any sway with me.

I would say that your second part would be solid, if it wasn't for the fact that straight people may also get a domestic partnership. They aren't drawing a line between straight and gay. Like I've said countless times before, the only thing they're being denied is a label. Nothing more. Just a label. But as I also said, our different levels of care for any kind of special meaning of that label prevents any kind of agreement.

 

[Starke]

Sorry, I can't vouch for the rest of the states. I was talking mainly about California because I live there, I know the issues, and it's currently poised as a sort of example for the rest of the states due to its battle with the legality of gay marriage, hence the focus from the media on issues like prop 8.

Yeah, the proposition system (among other things) means that California state law is not terrible reflective of laws nation wide. So something that isn't an issue in California can still easily be an issue elsewhere in the country.

I just consider marriage to be the name we give to an outdated ritual that doesn't mean the same thing it did when it was made. Because of that, I don't hold much reverence for it, and just consider it something that a society could do without. So just re-naming it something else doesn't hold any sway with me.

I would say that your second part would be solid, if it wasn't for the fact that straight people may also get a domestic partnership. They aren't drawing a line between straight and gay. Like I've said countless times before, the only thing they're being denied is a label. Nothing more. Just a label. But as I also said, our different levels of care for any kind of special meaning of that label prevents any kind of agreement.

Honestly, that ritual means a lot more to some people than others, no offense. And being denied that label is a more than subtle insult in some cases.

Additionally, Full Faith and Credit means that if one state says you're a married couple, every other state has to acknowledge that. (Basically, the full faith and credit clause sets up that each state has to acknowledge and accept documents issued by another state, like drivers licenses.) The problem is, many states look down their nose at Civil Unions as "not really marriages" so we don't have to respect them.

At the risk of being way off in my data, I vaguely recall a case where a couple was declared a civil union in New York, later moved to New Jersey, and could not file for divorce because New Jersey didn't have any concept of a civil union on the books.

 

[Luciella]

Sorry, I can't vouch for the rest of the states. I was talking mainly about California because I live there, I know the issues, and it's currently poised as a sort of example for the rest of the states due to its battle with the legality of gay marriage, hence the focus from the media on issues like prop 8.

Yeah, the proposition system (among other things) means that California state law is not terrible reflective of laws nation wide. So something that isn't an issue in California can still easily be an issue elsewhere in the country.

I just consider marriage to be the name we give to an outdated ritual that doesn't mean the same thing it did when it was made. Because of that, I don't hold much reverence for it, and just consider it something that a society could do without. So just re-naming it something else doesn't hold any sway with me.

I would say that your second part would be solid, if it wasn't for the fact that straight people may also get a domestic partnership. They aren't drawing a line between straight and gay. Like I've said countless times before, the only thing they're being denied is a label. Nothing more. Just a label. But as I also said, our different levels of care for any kind of special meaning of that label prevents any kind of agreement.

Honestly, that ritual means a lot more to some people than others, no offense. And being denied that label is a more than subtle insult in some cases.

Additionally, Full Faith and Credit means that if one state says you're a married couple, every other state has to acknowledge that. (Basically, the full faith and credit clause sets up that each state has to acknowledge and accept documents issued by another state, like drivers licenses.) The problem is, many states look down their nose at Civil Unions as "not really marriages" so we don't have to respect them.

At the risk of being way off in my data, I vaguely recall a case where a couple was declared a civil union in New York, later moved to New Jersey, and could not file for divorce because New Jersey didn't have any concept of a civil union on the books.

As adalekplunger said, homosexual fights for marriage are just a label what they are fighting for.
If you look back in history and do some research ull see that marriage by itself was mainly to protect women and their children:

" Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.[14] Legitimacy is the consequence of this transaction rather than its motivation. In Comanche society, married women work harder, lose sexual freedom, and do not seem to obtain any benefit from marriage.[15] But nubile women are a source of jealousy and strife in the tribe, so they are given little choice other than to get married. "In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition."-wikipedia

The implications of marriage itself is to secure legaly women and children, since in ancient times women were not supposed to work and be independent as we are now.

In all and all legal and comitment rights are achived via other sources that are not called marriage but do exactly the same.

The movement in general could be by all means called -superficial- also arent less and less couples be straight or gay that get separated or in marriage case divorced?
And the couples that DO stay together are a minority?

Whats the point to fight for something that in the end ur going to trash away?

 

[Biodeamon]

two words: Very Demotivational [http://verydemotivational.memebase.com/?s=america &utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=sharewidget]
need i say more?

oh ffs. She isnt holding her baby and giving it 100% of her attention for every second of the day, so obviously shes a TERRIBLE PERSON!

Thats just a photo from one second in time. It doesnt mean anything.

follow the link, then you'll understand

 

[Starke]

two words: Very Demotivational [http://verydemotivational.memebase.com/?s=america &utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=sharewidget]
need i say more?

oh ffs. She isnt holding her baby and giving it 100% of her attention for every second of the day, so obviously shes a TERRIBLE PERSON!

Thats just a photo from one second in time. It doesnt mean anything.

follow the link, then you'll understand

I did, some if it's really goddamn funny. Like the demotivational that attributed obesity in Japanese monkeys to America. The Asian escalator being America's fault was pretty funny as well. Really, it's like everything else on the internet that wants to be Something Awful, random shit, some of which is amusing, all of which is predicated on someone with the intellectual capacity of an iguana saying or doing something idiotic, and then disseminating it to everyone everywhere.

Congrats, she's not paying attention to her baby at this moment. Clearly she's an unfit parent because she's texting someone and has an idiotic expression on her face.

 

[Starke]

The movement in general could be by all means called -superficial- also arent less and less couples be straight or gay that get separated or in marriage case divorced?
And the couples that DO stay together are a minority?

Whats the point to fight for something that in the end ur going to trash away?

Actually, Gay/Lesbian marriages are statistically less likely to end in divorce, at least in the United States.

Additionally? Why? I'd ask, why not? What compelling reason is there to say, "you love this person, but fuck you, you cannot undergo a ritual that obviously means a lot to you to affirm that love for this person"?

You're right, historically marriage was a very different thing, but at least in the United States, marriage is basically never about political or economic alliances anymore. So dragging up models of marriage that predate the modern incarnation is misleading, and does a serious disservice to your argument.

 

[Thyunda]

Is it? You demonstrated some knowledge of Gaelic a few posts back. You also threw a snitfit at being identified as British. Neither of those are the traits of someone who has assimilated into their monoculture environment.

The amount of ignorance in this post blew my mind so hard it's taken me this long to form a coherent response. Gods, you'd think there'd been a war fought over the country, and that Irish Gaelic had been outlawed, and so had Irish clothing. The only reason the language is even still used in conversation is because the Irish are independently minded, and it takes more than the law to stop an Irishman showing off his nationality.

 

[Starke]

Is it? You demonstrated some knowledge of Gaelic a few posts back. You also threw a snitfit at being identified as British. Neither of those are the traits of someone who has assimilated into their monoculture environment.

The amount of ignorance in this post blew my mind so hard it's taken me this long to form a coherent response. Gods, you'd think there'd been a war fought over the country, and that Irish Gaelic had been outlawed, and so had Irish clothing. The only reason the language is even still used in conversation is because the Irish are independently minded, and it takes more than the law to stop an Irishman showing off his nationality.

And yet all of this independent nationalism is an indication of how fine the Irish are with being British? Not an indicator of it being an occupied colony of the still living British Empire?

 

[Thyunda]

Is it? You demonstrated some knowledge of Gaelic a few posts back. You also threw a snitfit at being identified as British. Neither of those are the traits of someone who has assimilated into their monoculture environment.

The amount of ignorance in this post blew my mind so hard it's taken me this long to form a coherent response. Gods, you'd think there'd been a war fought over the country, and that Irish Gaelic had been outlawed, and so had Irish clothing. The only reason the language is even still used in conversation is because the Irish are independently minded, and it takes more than the law to stop an Irishman showing off his nationality.

And yet all of this independent nationalism is an indication of how fine the Irish are with being British? Not an indicator of it being an occupied colony of the still living British Empire?

All of this independent nationalism was an instruction to 'stop arguing with somebody who knows more about it than you do'.

The Irish WERE oppressed. Yes. Then we had the Troubles. And now? Even the IRA have decided it's too much effort to keep fighting. It's a lost cause. We can re-learn Irish Gaelic. We can wear our national dress again. Really, we're only part of the United Kingdom in name.

Though the religion could do with some settling. Good God, I'm glad I'm atheist. Hah. Oxymoron.

Anyway - stop making out that America's getting a free pass with the world for its actions, because it's not. Not one person has seen the Americans causing trouble in Pakistan and said "Ignore them, we've got them damn Imperials to fight."

 

[Starke]

Anyway - stop making out that America's getting a free pass with the world for its actions, because it's not. Not one person has seen the Americans causing trouble in Pakistan and said "Ignore them, we've got them damn Imperials to fight."

So, this means you haven't been reading my posts up to this point? Let's recap, you said something about how America is an evil empire, and smugly patted a fellow Brit on the back. You threw a tantrum about how America was shooting Pakistani soldiers, forgetting of course, you represent a country that actually massacred civilians in Pakistan, back when it was part of India.

You blamed us for upsetting the middle east, and claimed London being bombed was our fault. And then when presented with evidence that many nations in the middle east have legitimate, historic grievances, you shoved your fingers in your ears, and balled your eyes out that because you don't care about history, no one else should.

You, (or BiscuitTrouser, not sure which started it), accused us of founding our nation on rivers of blood against the natives. But, that's been standard practice for every European nation the instant they set foot off the continent since time began. It was a policy that America first initiated under British rule.

And while I would be the first to say the treatment of Native Americans is appalling, they aren't reverting to terrorist tactics in order to ensure their own sovereignty the way the IRA did for most of the last century.

I don't care if you want to say there are things about America that aren't perfect. There are. There are things that are downright horrifying. But, don't pretend you're any better, and don't blame us for when the world stomps it's way to your doorstep for your past mistakes.

 

[Thyunda]

Anyway - stop making out that America's getting a free pass with the world for its actions, because it's not. Not one person has seen the Americans causing trouble in Pakistan and said "Ignore them, we've got them damn Imperials to fight."

So, this means you haven't been reading my posts up to this point? Let's recap, you said something about how America is an evil empire, and smugly patted a fellow Brit on the back. You threw a tantrum about how America was shooting Pakistani soldiers, forgetting of course, you represent a country that actually massacred civilians in Pakistan, back when it was part of India.

You blamed us for upsetting the middle east, and claimed London being bombed was our fault. And then when presented with evidence that many nations in the middle east have legitimate, historic grievances, you shoved your fingers in your ears, and balled your eyes out that because you don't care about history, no one else should.

You, (or BiscuitTrouser, not sure which started it), accused us of founding our nation on rivers of blood against the natives. But, that's been standard practice for every European nation the instant they set foot off the continent since time began. It was a policy that America first initiated under British rule.

And while I would be the first to say the treatment of Native Americans is appalling, they aren't reverting to terrorist tactics in order to ensure their own sovereignty the way the IRA did for most of the last century.

I don't care if you want to say there are things about America that aren't perfect. There are. There are things that are downright horrifying. But, don't pretend you're any better, and don't blame us for when the world stomps it's way to your doorstep for your past mistakes.

And once again you have demonstrated your amazing capacity to TOTALLY MISS THE POINT.

 

[Starke]

And once again you have demonstrated your amazing capacity to TOTALLY MISS THE POINT.

The point is, some people have a longer memory than is convenient for you. If you're going to point out someone's flaws, you should remember you're opening yourself up to a massive and hilarious accusation of hypocrisy if it's behavior your proxy has engaged in gleefully.

 

[Thyunda]

And once again you have demonstrated your amazing capacity to TOTALLY MISS THE POINT.

The point is, some people have a longer memory than is convenient for you. If you're going to point out someone's flaws, you should remember you're opening yourself up to a massive and hilarious accusation of hypocrisy if it's behavior your proxy has engaged in gleefully.

But you're missing the point. Still. It's not that the British Empire haven't done bad things. It's that the Empire flew the evil flag and bloody well knew it. America, on the other hand, wages a secret war NOW and consistently destabilises otherwise stable countries.
You can complain all you want about how the Empire destabilised those countries when it abandoned its Middle Eastern territories, but I can't imagine somebody being upset at the man who broke his window while three others are smashing his house up.

 

[Starke]

You can complain all you want about how the Empire destabilised those countries when it abandoned its Middle Eastern territories, but I can't imagine somebody being upset at the man who broke his window while three others are smashing his house up.

No one cares that you left the middle east. That's possibly the only redeeming feature you have on that front. It's that you went there in the first place.

And yes, we're trashing the place right now, but you didn't break a goddamn window, you kicked the door in, ransacked the place, took everything of value you could carry in a truck, held the family hostage and when you finally got bored, you came back and did it all over again, only this time you helped set up a guy with a goddamn rocket launcher outside their front door, and told him to do whatever he wanted. All we're doing is breaking a few windows. Proportionality, in all things is necessary.

 

[Thyunda]

You can complain all you want about how the Empire destabilised those countries when it abandoned its Middle Eastern territories, but I can't imagine somebody being upset at the man who broke his window while three others are smashing his house up.

No one cares that you left the middle east. That's possibly the only redeeming feature you have on that front. It's that you went there in the first place.

And yes, we're trashing the place right now, but you didn't break a goddamn window, you kicked the door in, ransacked the place, took everything of value you could carry in a truck, held the family hostage and when you finally got bored, you came back and did it all over again, only this time you helped set up a guy with a goddamn rocket launcher outside their front door, and told him to do whatever he wanted. All we're doing is breaking a few windows. Proportionality, in all things is necessary.

So what you're telling me is that by some complete reversal of actual fact, America is now operating under England's orders?

You're really trying every trick in the book to win this, aren't you?

 

[Starke]

You can complain all you want about how the Empire destabilised those countries when it abandoned its Middle Eastern territories, but I can't imagine somebody being upset at the man who broke his window while three others are smashing his house up.

No one cares that you left the middle east. That's possibly the only redeeming feature you have on that front. It's that you went there in the first place.

And yes, we're trashing the place right now, but you didn't break a goddamn window, you kicked the door in, ransacked the place, took everything of value you could carry in a truck, held the family hostage and when you finally got bored, you came back and did it all over again, only this time you helped set up a guy with a goddamn rocket launcher outside their front door, and told him to do whatever he wanted. All we're doing is breaking a few windows. Proportionality, in all things is necessary.

So what you're telling me is that by some complete reversal of actual fact, America is now operating under England's orders?

You're really trying every trick in the book to win this, aren't you?

Is your own metaphor too complex for you? I mean, if it is, I can understand that. I'll think on this for a while and see if I can come up with a metaphor simple enough for you to understand.

You see, you conquered and looted the middle east. Thought that was a good idea, went back and did it again. And then when you finally got bored and wandered off you turned a rogue state into a nuclear power on the way out. Oops, your bad. You still gleefully display the trophies of you conquests in museums, and every time Egypt comes along and says "give us our stuff back" you ***** slap them.

 

[Thyunda]

You can complain all you want about how the Empire destabilised those countries when it abandoned its Middle Eastern territories, but I can't imagine somebody being upset at the man who broke his window while three others are smashing his house up.

No one cares that you left the middle east. That's possibly the only redeeming feature you have on that front. It's that you went there in the first place.

And yes, we're trashing the place right now, but you didn't break a goddamn window, you kicked the door in, ransacked the place, took everything of value you could carry in a truck, held the family hostage and when you finally got bored, you came back and did it all over again, only this time you helped set up a guy with a goddamn rocket launcher outside their front door, and told him to do whatever he wanted. All we're doing is breaking a few windows. Proportionality, in all things is necessary.

So what you're telling me is that by some complete reversal of actual fact, America is now operating under England's orders?

You're really trying every trick in the book to win this, aren't you?

Is your own metaphor too complex for you? I mean, if it is, I can understand that. I'll think on this for a while and see if I can come up with a metaphor simple enough for you to understand.

You see, you conquered and looted the middle east. Thought that was a good idea, went back and did it again. And then when you finally got bored and wandered off you turned a rogue state into a nuclear power on the way out. Oops, your bad. You still gleefully display the trophies of you conquests in museums, and every time Egypt comes along and says "give us our stuff back" you ***** slap them.

Why is any of this bad? We conquered most of the known world and everybody knew what we were doing. My problem is not with the US being aggressive, it's with the US pretending they're 'helping'. And a rogue state becoming a nuclear power? Sounds like we gave them a leg up in a competitive market. Big oops indeed.

 

[Starke]

My problem is not with the US being aggressive, it's with the US pretending they're 'helping'.

And if you'd just said this 20 posts ago, instead of going off on an inventory of sins, this would have been a much shorter and less acrimonious argument.

 

[Thyunda]

My problem is not with the US being aggressive, it's with the US pretending they're 'helping'.

And if you'd just said this 20 posts ago, instead of going off on an inventory of sins, this would have been a much shorter and less acrimonious argument.

This has always been my argument...

 

[Steinar Valsson]

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/obama-warns-iceland-on-whaling-activity/

Do you NOT call that a direct play of power by the U.S?