Thank you, California.
****
Nov. 5, 2008
California voters overturned same-sex marriage rights in a vote that stands to impact how the issue plays out elsewhere in the nation. Proposition 8, which would establish marriage as a union between a man and a woman, passed with 52.1% of the vote, against 47.9% opposed, with 94.6% of precincts reporting. The approval marks a stunning upset in a $70 million campaign that just weeks ago looked to be running in favor of preserving gay marriage rights.
For more information, see:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122586056759900673.html?mod=djemalertNEWS
The article link above is also mobile friendly. Mobile users, click the link to see this story now.
- Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/05/2008
干嘛,怕妹妹不够?
玩笑玩笑。 - Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/05/2008
Thank you California. - Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/06/2008
真是搞不明白,人家同性恋的想man and man, wife and wife,干着straight人什么事儿呀,你结你的婚,他结他的婚,各过各的。我唯一能想出的问题是child adoption。这个可以加restriction或者给gay couple lower priority,但说实话,有loving gay parents比没父母或是有混帐父母强多了。
这种歧视也要成为宪法修正案。Obama出生的时候很多州interracial marriage都是非法的。 - posted on 11/06/2008
耐心点吧,各种歧视都迟早会被克服的。现在我对这个国家恢复了信心。:-)
Apple has joined Google in publicly opposing a California ballot initiative that would deny marriage rights to same-sex couples.
The company announced Friday that it would donate $100,000 to the No on Prop 8 campaign, which opposes a measure to ban gay marriage that California voters will consider a week from Tuesday. Google has also spoken out against the ballot measure.
"Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees' same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person's fundamental rights--including the right to marry--should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8," the company said in a statement posted to the Hot News section of its Web site.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10074793-37.html - Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/06/2008
反正我是越活越保守了。以前我还提倡多夫多妻呢。自己结婚生子后,才重新发现了很多传统文化的智慧。我虽然支持我的同性朋友结婚,但我不希望看到法律普遍承认这种结合。幸亏我不能投票,不然我不知怎样向我的同性恋朋友解释我的选择。我的一个朋友已经和他丈夫结过四次婚了。看来还没完。
- Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/06/2008
阿姗 wrote:
反正我是越活越保守了。以前我还提倡多夫多妻呢。
嘿嘿,我现在也不反对:)
自己结婚生子后,才重新发现了很多传统文化的智慧。
是智慧还是方便?问题是你可以智慧,是不是也可以别人“不智慧”?
另外单是传统文化说不过去,奴隶制也曾是几千年的传统呢。 - posted on 11/06/2008
加州这个结果倒是出乎意料.还是Straight 的人多.我觉得结婚制度是最不能细谈的,不管哪种都很难说有深远传统去依存.还是得自扫门前雪.
浮生 wrote:
阿姗 wrote:嘿嘿,我现在也不反对:)
反正我是越活越保守了。以前我还提倡多夫多妻呢。
自己结婚生子后,才重新发现了很多传统文化的智慧。是智慧还是方便?问题是你可以智慧,是不是也可以别人“不智慧”?
另外单是传统文化说不过去,奴隶制也曾是几千年的传统呢。 - Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/06/2008
不知道加州这个条款具体的写法。
我认为婚姻的确不能够跟同性共生混为一谈。
婚姻的目标是人类繁衍。同性共生的目标是个体存活。 - Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/06/2008
我的理解,这次加州修宪实际上是加州居民对“法官立法”的反抗。 - Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/06/2008
Interracial marriage is "marriage". Gay relationship is NOT.
The society has been very understanding and even more tolerant toward gay relationships so now they can walk out of the closet. This understanding and respect is not reciprocal to this point. Rewarding gay couple with "marriage" is discrimination against and insult to the heterosexuals. In plain words, this is 迈着锅台上炕。If the gay people need some definition, create one, don't invade the social norms.
- posted on 11/06/2008
moab wrote:
Interracial marriage is "marriage". Gay relationship is NOT.
Rewarding gay couple with "marriage" is discrimination against and insult to the heterosexuals.
How so? I am very straight. But I feel neither discriminated nor insulted.
In plain words, this is 迈着锅台上炕。If the gay people need some definition, create one, don't invade the social norms.
Some online dictionaries have already done so. Here are two definitions of marriage:
Dictionary.com:
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
Merriam-webster:
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
The meanings of many words have been changing over time. "Traditional","normal" are all relative. Slavery used to be the "social norm". - Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/06/2008
八十一子 wrote:
不知道加州这个条款具体的写法。
我认为婚姻的确不能够跟同性共生混为一谈。
婚姻的目标是人类繁衍。同性共生的目标是个体存活。
婚姻是个社会学词汇,不是生物学词汇。很多异性夫妻选择不生育,同样是好婚姻。 - Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/06/2008
That's one side of the "change over time". The other side is, some things have always been universally deemed wrong(or right), regardless of time, race, location, etc. It's the subtlety that the "all relative" approaches miss.
gz wrote:
The meanings of many words have been changing over time. "Traditional","normal" are all relative. Slavery used to be the "social norm". - posted on 11/06/2008
Support moab, 阿姗, and 81zi. There's got to be a bottom line. Otherwise, should we also legalize "unions" among multiple (>2) people, or between humans and animals, as "marriage"? I am all for change or progress. But progress has to be in forward, not backward, direction. Defining marriage as an institution between a man and a woman is a watershed that differentiates humans from animals, and a civilized society from pre-historical tribes.
As for legistating from the bench, it is good the majority of the Calfornians said "no" to it.
moab wrote:
That's one side of the "change over time". The other side is, some things have always been universally deemed wrong(or right), regardless of time, race, location, etc. It's the subtlety that the "all relative" approaches miss.
gz wrote:
The meanings of many words have been changing over time. "Traditional","normal" are all relative. Slavery used to be the "social norm". - Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/06/2008
不就是子女和财产的过节么? 给风子的同事们一个建议,有潜力产品换代的叫婚姻(包括收养),自生自灭的叫同居,财产共有,遗产充公,与性别无关,吵什么吵:) - Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/06/2008
That's one side of the "change over time". The other side is, some things have always been universally deemed wrong(or right), regardless of time, race, location, etc. It's the subtlety that the "all relative" approaches miss.
扣字眼叫真啦?那咱也会啊。再过些年太阳死了,人类毁灭了,还有什么"universally deemed wrong(or right)"吗?:-) - posted on 11/06/2008
Support moab, 阿姗, and 81zi. There's got to be a bottom line. Otherwise, should we also legalize "unions" among multiple (>2) people, or between humans and animals, as "marriage"? I am all for change or progress. But progress has to be in forward, not backward, direction. Defining marriage as an institution between a man and a woman is a watershed that differentiates humans from animals, and a civilized society from pre-historical tribes.
It is all ideology, which changes over time. "forward", "backward", it is always hard to define. I wouldn't be surprised if someone time traveling back from the future told me that marriage no longer exists two thousand years from now.
As for legistating from the bench, it is good the majority of the Calfornians said "no" to it.
The trend is clear though. More states are discussing this issue of same-sex marriage and a growing number of people are for it, compared with ten year ago. It is all likely that it will become legalized within the next ten years.
It is human nature to reject anything different from one's own. It is in everybody's genes, resulting in various types of discrimination. But we learn to understand and accept things that are different, so that the society becomes more tolerant. - posted on 11/06/2008
扣字眼? You can't tell the subtle difference between slavery, interracial marriage and gay relationship in your analogy.
If you can't draw a line, you don't know what's right and what's wrong. Tolerant of anything and everything is often indication of insecure inner-self. (aka. 无所谓). Being indifferent to moral issues is pure irresponsible.
Let me quote a conversation:
A: ...people who are so "open-minded" that their brains fall out.
B: No, they have to wrap it up first before it falls out.
...
Your argument of you yourself being okay with gays calling their relationship "marriage" does not reflect the view of the majority who voted for the proposition 8. Even if, as you say, in a decade or two, gay relationship got ratified by
law, it still doesn't mean that it's right. (by the same token of the liberals, 多数人的民主是对少数人的专政)
gz wrote:
That's one side of the "change over time". The other side is, some things have always been universally deemed wrong(or right), regardless of time, race, location, etc. It's the subtlety that the "all relative" approaches miss.扣字眼叫真啦?那咱也会啊。再过些年太阳死了,人类毁灭了,还有什么"universally deemed wrong(or right)"吗?:-) - posted on 11/06/2008
indeed. many traditions are senseless.
traditionally the society was poligamy;
traditionally women had no voting power;
浮生 wrote:
阿姗 wrote:嘿嘿,我现在也不反对:)
反正我是越活越保守了。以前我还提倡多夫多妻呢。
自己结婚生子后,才重新发现了很多传统文化的智慧。是智慧还是方便?问题是你可以智慧,是不是也可以别人“不智慧”?
另外单是传统文化说不过去,奴隶制也曾是几千年的传统呢。 - Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/06/2008
不要吵了, 未来,婚姻说不定都不复存在了, 还限制个什么。
做为个人, 我会vote no on prop8. 因为我不认为立法去限制同性恋婚姻是公平的。
做为家长, 我在乎孩子的影响, 我不会教育孩子去敌视同性恋, 但我不希望看到同性恋大张旗鼓的把这些事搞得象很酷, 很时尚似的。
有时极力反对的结果只能让这些事情更沸沸扬扬。 因为Prop8 sign到处都是,最近我还要和儿子讨论这些问题, 说真的, 还蛮难说的。 - Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/06/2008
没有_限制_同性恋的relationship。是不予从法律上承认这是婚姻。
草叶 wrote:
做为个人, 我会vote no on prop8. 因为我不认为立法去限制同性恋婚姻是公平的。
做为家长, 我在乎孩子的影响, 我不会教育孩子去敌视同性恋, 但我不希望看到同性恋大张旗鼓的把这些事搞得象很酷, 很时尚似的。
- Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/06/2008
我也反感那些大张旗鼓的campaign, 不管是Yes side 还是No side的。They could give the money to soup kitchen. - Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/06/2008
The question is: who started it?
yc wrote:
我也反感那些大张旗鼓的campaign, 不管是Yes side 还是No side的。They could give the money to soup kitchen. - posted on 11/06/2008
草叶说的是。婚姻不是从来就有,人类繁衍也没见耽误了,也不会永远存在,看来同性恋们还是不够前瞻哈。本来我根本没觉这是个事儿,我这儿附近人家窗户上的牌子没见一个Obama的,倒尽是No on 8,还有朋友跟我说要投No on 8,我说,嘿,别告我怎么投票哈。后来一看,原来是ban gay marriage,竟然闹那么大动静,欲禁弥彰了 :)
个人的好恶与judgement和立法应当是区分的。
moab 你那 universal 的门槛儿太低了啊,52.5%比47.5%,这么说还真是全国人民都支持Obama了哈,而且恐怕再过些年就要“universally”不反对同性恋结婚拉 :)再者,啥时候婚姻成reward了,由着straight的人分发?你那么黑白分明让我想起奥运期间对运动员的男女鉴别中心设在协和,说是他们使用四种不同技术做鉴别很先进,看那新闻前,我想男女鉴别谁不会呀,没想到有不少情况相当的ambiguous,just a thought, irrelevant here :)
- posted on 11/06/2008
我一直不关心这个 issue,因为我觉得想结婚的同性朋友总是有地方去的。不太明白支持同性婚姻的人在争取什么,是 same financial treatment, 是跟家庭有关的权益,如 adoption,绿卡婚姻等,是要个名正言顺的名,和社会人的尊重(如果法律承认了,就应该受到社会尊重),还是这个“婚姻”的名字给带来的一系列 religious, emotional convention,还是什么别的。我觉得前面几项都很容易解决啊。如果只是法律给于的保障,我是觉得“无所谓”,同性结合当然可以享受相同的法律待遇。我想多数人投 yes,可能还是对 marriage 这个词有强烈的传统感情。最好法律弄一个新词,比如 coupled union,for both traditional and same sex "marriage"。
我家(女)房东和女朋友前两个月从 Georgia 飞来加州,在海滩上结了婚。喝她们喜酒的只有她们一个侄子,和我们一家。我们都为她们高兴。她们年纪已大,在一起十几年,其中一人有个女儿。别的同性朋友结婚,我都是真诚祝福。但我总觉得这种他们的婚姻只是一个 imitation of the traditional form。
如果真的是社会在进步,同性婚姻10年后会得到法律承认,那我们就等10年吧。社会是在变化,最近变得太快,也许投 yes 的加州人跟我一样,也需要10年才能适应社会的变化。走在社会前面的改革先锋,不需要太着急。我是觉得美国社会要学得有节制,不要整天跟青少年似的反抗这个反抗那个。
- posted on 11/06/2008
If you can't draw a line, you don't know what's right and what's wrong. Tolerant of anything and everything is often indication of insecure inner-self. (aka. 无所谓). Being indifferent to moral issues is pure irresponsible.
Even if, as you say, in a decade or two, gay relationship got ratified by
law, it still doesn't mean that it's right. (by the same token of the liberals, 多数人的民主是对少数人的专政)
Other points aside, I have to take an issue with this idea of "right" vs. "wrong". Does the fact that 52% of the people voting yes on 8 make gay marriage "wrong"? How about the remaining 47% thinking it is not wrong? Obviously there is no single criterion in terms of what is right or wrong in this regard. If you insist on drawing a line, it is between agree and disagree, instead of right and wrong.
Imposing your personal moral standard on others does not work. What you call wrong may be considered right by others.
- Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/06/2008
This very much sounds like two quarreling kids: "he hit me first!" :-)
Without prop 8 banning same-sex marriage, there would be no "No on 8".
moab wrote:
The question is: who started it?
yc wrote:
我也反感那些大张旗鼓的campaign, 不管是Yes side 还是No side的。They could give the money to soup kitchen. - posted on 11/06/2008
浮生 wrote:
草叶说的是。婚姻不是从来就有,人类繁衍也没见耽误了,也不会永远存在,看来同性恋们还是不够前瞻哈。
就是,折腾什么,还要扯上前卫的大旗。
个人的好恶与judgement和立法应当是区分的。
法律的存在是有道理的。再就是social norm的问题。
moab 你那 universal 的门槛儿太低了啊,52.5%比47.5%,这么说还真是全国人民都支持Obama了哈,而且恐怕再过些年就要“universally”不反对同性恋结婚拉 :)
嗬嗬,是我没说明白还是你quote out of context? 我说的universal是说,比如,杀人放火是不被大多数社会成员接受的,就有法律约束,也有非法律的行为准则约束。就数字来说,即使在最liberal的加州,也没有弄成压倒多数,说明至少现在还是不得人心。
再者,啥时候婚姻成reward了,由着straight的人分发?你那么黑白分明让我想起奥运期间对运动员的男女鉴别中心设在协和,说是他们使用四种不同技术做鉴别很先进,看那新闻前,我想男女鉴别谁不会呀,没想到有不少情况相当的ambiguous,just a thought, irrelevant here :)
哪天你(any female)看到一个变性男人进了女厕是不是很高兴?
- Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/06/2008
我认识的gay关系更近,像我的亲兄弟。他和他的相好一年以前走在了一起,我是家里唯一支持他们的。我觉得他们在一起恩恩爱爱的挺好,尽管我不认为那是marriage.
阿姗 wrote:
我家(女)房东和女朋友前两个月从 Georgia 飞来加州,在海滩上结了婚。喝她们喜酒的只有她们一个侄子,和我们一家。我们都为她们高兴。她们年纪已大,在一起十几年,其中一人有个女儿。别的同性朋友结婚,我都是真诚祝福。但我总觉得这种他们的婚姻只是一个 imitation of the traditional form。 - posted on 11/06/2008
gz wrote:
Other points aside, I have to take an issue with this idea of "right" vs. "wrong". Does the fact that 52% of the people voting yes on 8 make gay marriage "wrong"? How about the remaining 47% thinking it is not wrong? Obviously there is no single criterion in terms of what is right or wrong in this regard. If you insist on drawing a line, it is between agree and disagree, instead of right and wrong.
See my reply to fusheng's post above.
Imposing your personal moral standard on others does not work. What you call wrong may be considered right by others.
Who is the imposERr? Gay people have the freedom to practice their relationship. With the respect and understanding, they turn around and impose their interpretation and ideas on the heterosexuals. No it's not "all relevant". There's sequence, and context. Besides Prop 8 is not a "ban" rather a revoke of the previous decision by the supreme court. - posted on 11/06/2008
Yes if it's totally uncalled for, the one who started it should be spanked. You'd think adults know better than the two quarreling kids.
Again, prop 8 is not a ban. It's a revoke of a unwise decision which didn't take into consideration of all the related problems caused by the redefinition of marriage.
gz wrote:
This very much sounds like two quarreling kids: "he hit me first!" :-)
Without prop 8 banning same-sex marriage, there would be no "No on 8".
moab wrote:
The question is: who started it?
yc wrote:
我也反感那些大张旗鼓的campaign, 不管是Yes side 还是No side的。They could give the money to soup kitchen. - posted on 11/06/2008
moab wrote:
法律的存在是有道理的。再就是social norm的问题。
那还改啥呀,Prop8是要改宪法哎 :)
moab 你那 universal 的门槛儿太低了啊,52.5%比47.5%,这么说还真是全国人民都支持Obama了哈,而且恐怕再过些年就要“universally”不反对同性恋结婚拉 :)嗬嗬,是我没说明白还是你quote out of context? 我说的universal是说,比如,杀人放火是不被大多数社会成员接受的,就有法律约束,也有非法律的行为准则约束。
那肯定是你没说明白了:)在讨论gay marriage, Prop8,你提universally right and wrong,我咋知道你偷偷地换了context,想的是杀人放火呢。不过你开的线,还是我认错吧。
哪天你(any female)看到一个变性男人进了女厕是不是很高兴?
他/她上他/她的厕所我上我的,是男是女变没变性关我什么事,还要我高兴不高兴的。男女必须分厕好像没有写进法律哎,要不要写进去啊?:) - posted on 11/07/2008
呵呵,感谢黑人兄弟吧,黑人投了高达70%的Yes.
我们这里投No的高于70%,南加州对此案通过起了主要作用。
我们家一个人投Yes,一个人投No,但是没有争论过。倒是看到网上到处争论,让我觉得得重新认识一下婚姻这个词。婚姻的出现一定是为了保护孩子的。对大人而言,多少妇女被捆在婚姻里,被婚姻中的另一主要成员虐待甚至杀害,简直罄竹难书。但是这么多年里,各种文化背景都克服重重障碍,置成年人的喜乐于不顾,积极维护婚姻这一形式,就是要给孩子提供一个相对稳定的成长环境。
但是现在社会变化了,婚姻里没有孩子的情况也比比皆是。我们对这种婚姻持同情兼肯定的态度。另一方面,同性恋伙伴却发展出很多领养孩子、或者自己生育孩子并抚养的组合。我们对这种组合却不肯给于婚姻的认可和保护。这是对婚姻原有的社会作用的否定。
为公平起见,是否考虑对有孩子者,无论同性异性组合,经本人申请,给予婚姻高级执照。否则,自愿组合者,一律发给婚姻初级执照,为养育孩子做准备。
- Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/07/2008
浮生 wrote:
那肯定是你没说明白了:)在讨论gay marriage, Prop8,你提universally right and wrong,我咋知道你偷偷地换了context,想的是杀人放火呢。不过你开的线,还是我认错吧。
我没有偷换context。不过是我没有说清楚。
男女必须分厕好像没有写进法律哎,要不要写进去啊?:)
好像是没有写进法律。不过谁想要试试?女的进男厕不算。这就是social norm. - posted on 11/07/2008
有意思。有没有gay的demographic information?
苦瓜 wrote:
呵呵,感谢黑人兄弟吧,黑人投了高达70%的Yes.
我们这里投No的高于70%,南加州对此案通过起了主要作用。
我们家一个人投Yes,一个人投No,但是没有争论过。倒是看到网上到处争论,让我觉得得重新认识一下婚姻这个词。婚姻的出现一定是为了保护孩子的。对大人而言,多少妇女被捆在婚姻里,被婚姻中的另一主要成员虐待甚至杀害,简直罄竹难书。但是这么多年里,各种文化背景都克服重重障碍,置成年人的喜乐于不顾,积极维护婚姻这一形式,就是要给孩子提供一个相对稳定的成长环境。
但是现在社会变化了,婚姻里没有孩子的情况也比比皆是。我们对这种婚姻持同情兼肯定的态度。另一方面,同性恋伙伴却发展出很多领养孩子、或者自己生育孩子并抚养的组合。我们对这种组合却不肯给于婚姻的认可和保护。这是对婚姻原有的社会作用的否定。
为公平起见,是否考虑对有孩子者,无论同性异性组合,经本人申请,给予婚姻高级执照。否则,自愿组合者,一律发给婚姻初级执照,为养育孩子做准备。
- Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/07/2008
苦瓜的分析和建议好。
我先生的同事,和他的 gay partner 养了两对双胞胎,就是两个男人和四个小孩。他们其中一人上班,另一人在家看孩子。他们肯定是要拿第四级的高级执照了。
- posted on 11/07/2008
婚姻是个社会学词汇,不是生物学词汇。婚姻是社会学概念也不足以说明同性恋结婚是对的. 国家也是社会的, 能有一个由同性恋组成的国家存在吗? 只看社会性,也就是人为性, 不足以说明问题. 社会必须顺应自然才能存在.
婚姻也不是定义出来的. 是创立出来的. 先有实践, 后有定义. 当初由谁创立的? 是由异性结合创立的. 具体说, 是有异性相吸能力的人创立出来的. 有这种异性吸引能力是一种特权. 同性恋人没有这种特权. 他们或是天生, 或是后天放弃(主动选择同性恋生活方式). 对prop 8 说yes 根本就谈不上侵犯同性恋权利一说. 同性恋也可以把他们同性相吸的能力也可以看成一种特权.
把问题说的更清楚些. 比如, 你天生唱歌发音不准, 和大家不一样. 大家唱C, 你走调, 唱出来的不是C, 你天生没有唱C的特权. 你有走调的特权. 这时候, 你偏要说你唱的也是C, 并要求大家承认. 不惜改C的定义, 人人唱的都是C, 人人平等. 否则大家就是侵犯你唱C的人权. 大家向你解释, 我们尊重你唱的独特音调. 能不能把你唱的调另外起名为civil union, 以示区别. 因为你唱的确实和大家不一样. 而C这个名已经首先被大家先用了. 你就是不答应. 而唱C的大家之中, 也有不少人支持你. 这样说, 是不是把事情说清楚了? 事情的表面是关于一个名字C的争议.但是实质是, 你一切想要的是加入主流. 如果大家把自己唱的C的名称改为其它的名称. 看吧, 你肯定也不争这个名称C了. 大家称呼什么, 你就要说你唱的是什么. 总之你就是要和大家一样,尽管事实上你唱的和大家不一样. 从这个例子回到现实中, 同性恋就象走调的人, 非要加入正调的主流行列.
加入主流行列是为什么呢? 换句话问, 也就是阿姗所问的, 倒底同性恋要争取什么呢? 从心理学上我觉得我能理解同性恋所有这一切努力. 同性恋要的就是他们正常化他们的不正常, 让人们认为他们是正常的. 只有当他们唱的也是C, 他们的结合也叫婚姻, 他们就是主流的一部分, 人们自然而然地认为他们是正常的.
这些是我的看法. 所以, 我对Prop 8 说,YES. 我承认同性恋的结合, 但是我的婚姻名称不能和同性恋人共同享用, 就象正调的声音不能和走调的声音用一个名称指定的道理一样.
gz wrote:
婚姻是个社会学词汇,不是生物学词汇。很多异性夫妻选择不生育,同样是好婚姻。 - posted on 11/07/2008
其实应该感谢的是奥巴马. 否则不会有那么多的黑人出来投票. 从投入的钱的数量上看, Prop 8 是这次大选中仅次于总统选举的第二大选. 国际上有二十多个国家都捐赠了金钱.
最让我失望的是加州教师工会,向"NO”一方捐了1百万. 消息公布的第二天, 据说很多学校都出现了sickout, 有些"yes”的家长不让自己的孩子去学校. 工会是越来越腐败了. 奥巴马反对school choice, 据说就是因为他得到了教师工会的endowment. 对此我对奥也不满意.
投No票的相当一部分是不是18-20+的年轻人.我想他们当中相当多的人都没有结过婚吧. 婚姻大事让这些娃娃决定, 也够可笑的了.
苦瓜 wrote:
呵呵,感谢黑人兄弟吧,黑人投了高达70%的Yes.
- posted on 11/07/2008
Prop 8 exit polls: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1
老圣的比喻有问题,C音由频率决定是个固定的物理量,婚姻的形式是evolve的因为社会的变化,如苦瓜所说。异性相吸肯定不能是婚姻产生的原因,吸了多少万年了,早怎没婚姻呢。苦瓜说婚姻的出现是为保护孩子,愿望美好,但我也比较怀疑。婚姻产生可能有很多源,我还是倾向于主要是为了男人确定哪个孩子是自己的,这个需要又源于财产继承,还有是部落间的联盟方式。就是说这个social institution基本是经济的,有时是政治的。而且无论形式怎么变,经济特性不变,现在也如此,要不然离婚费那么大劲干什么。既然是经济的,过日子方便、抚养后代方便,谁跟谁都应该可以吧,跟性别有啥关系呀:)以前没有同性婚姻(好像有过,尼禄时代,切,这罗马人咋啥都干过,xw给确认下?)我想主要是生孩子的任务压倒一切,又只有一种方式,现在不是了且方式也多起来,怎么能指望婚姻的形式不变呢。
忽然想起一技术问题,组合的执照不知polygamy社会怎么发哈,还是俩人一本,一人手里好几本儿,分级?:)
- posted on 11/07/2008
(The following reflection about marriage was scribbled several years back. I'd like to read more about how marriage looked in different periods of human history -- but not finished.....as many other things.....:)
If we look at the many faces of marriage around us, we see the variety of life.
Often marriage is entered into when clear thinking is masked by physical needs. When a couple engage in a living arrangement that gives them needed companionship, their goals of self-reliance fly right out the window in the name of love.
In some cultures young marriages are encouraged when neither partner is ready. The result is lifetime obligations that are not good for either one of them with little recourse but to live with it.
There are few good relationships that can actually make the learning process easier if there is support between partners in whatever they choose to pursue. If you are in a relationship that is based on spiritual principles where together you create an environment that is conducive to spiritual growth this relationship is a spiritual refuge.
If we look at the life of the elite of all fields in the history, it is guaranteed to find out almost every single of them, their lives are all f&%$#ed up. Perhaps because of that, they can achieve what they achieved in art, literature, science, etc. Their achievements are transformation of the tempest in their mind.
The sense of feeling and ordinary life mean so little to them. It is perhaps the natural balance by the creation god. It is like --
Here comes another bear......
Shakespeare also said, “We are such stuff as dreams are made on; and our little life is rounded with a sleep.”
Marriage, perhaps, is also like our little life, is rounded with sleep. During the awaken hours of our days, we are haunted by our sense of feeling. We seldom remember there is an equally long period of our days; we were in the dream world. And there are unknown length period before we came to this life and after we leave this life.
The tempest in our current life may be overwhelming, but it is only that way if we give it that power to drive us.
Marriage, like many other things in life, has many standards. It is sometimes hard to adopt one that works well for our little family. However it is perfectly normal to have that dilemma. We are living in a changing world. We are not the only part which is changing, but the protocol of our living structure, marriage, standards too.
We don't know for sure, how far back human being in this planet, has developed the civilization that eventually evolve to what we have now. Comparing to the age of this planet that scientists believe and the length of the period we have records on. The human civilization is like a thin hair out in the 400 meter running field. Perhaps we lost some records; perhaps we did not lose the growing but the records between incarnations or between the several ice ages. Anyway, from what we know, what we have history records on, from the period we know is definitely tinny-tiny in our history. Marriage has been changed quite a bit.
- posted on 11/07/2008
浮生 wrote:
婚姻产生可能有很多源,我还是倾向于主要是为了男人确定哪个孩子是自己的,这个需要又源于财产继承,还有是部落间的联盟方式。就是说这个social institution基本是经济的,有时是政治的。而且无论形式怎么变,经济特性不变,现在也如此,要不然离婚费那么大劲干什么。既然是经济的,过日子方便、抚养后代方便,谁跟谁都应该可以吧,跟性别有啥关系呀:)
糊涂啊糊涂!
辨别父亲是为了“正姓氏”,而“正姓氏”是为了标记血缘关系,防止近亲通婚,以利于种族繁衍。
苦瓜说得对,婚姻的基本目标是为后代提供一个稳定的生长环境。这也不止于人类。很多鸟类、兽类都有类似的“家庭”关系。 - posted on 11/07/2008
st dude wrote:
婚姻是个社会学词汇,不是生物学词汇。婚姻是社会学概念也不足以说明同性恋结婚是对的. 国家也是社会的, 能有一个由同性恋组成的国家存在吗? 只看社会性,也就是人为性, 不足以说明问题. 社会必须顺应自然才能存在. blah blah...
这种跳跃式思维能把人吓死,从“婚姻是社会学概念“立即推出“能有一个由同性恋组成的国家存在吗“这样的责问,没有任何逻辑推导,一步到位。你想用“由同性恋组成的国家不存在“来说明婚姻不是社会学概念,还是同性婚姻是不对的?这样的作业不及格,回去重做。
再说,我从来不想说同性恋结婚是对还是错(倒是别人总再说 right or wrong),因为对这种社会问题,各人有自己的道德标准,谈不上对错。税收是社会问题,多收对还是少收对?
婚姻也不是定义出来的. 是创立出来的. 先有实践, 后有定义. 当初由谁创立的? 是由异性结合创立的......
我翻字典,是因为有人说If the gay people need some definition, create one, don't invade the social norms. 字典上的定义已经有了,而且也是“先有实践, 后有定义“嘛!
老圣有时间写长篇,陪不起了,理顺了思路,简要点再来谈吧。
反对 Prop 8 的就是因为这是一种歧视,剥夺与己不同的人的权利。 - posted on 11/07/2008
gz wrote:
反对 Prop 8 的就是因为这是一种歧视,剥夺与己不同的人的权利。
投“yes”的人想知道“权利”具体指的是什么。你这样说等于没说。这样的作业不及格,回去重做。
一些年前,我在一本百科全书上看到婚姻的一个定义,说婚姻就是一个法律的合同,marriage is a legal contract,既然是合同,就是跟钱有关,如果有孩子,也关系到孩子。婚姻实际上就是两个人对经济和子女的安排。当时我觉得这个定义怎么那样不浪漫啊。不过这个定义一直深深的埋在我脑子里了。所以我觉得浮生说的不错。
我就知道跟浮生辩是不会赢的。
我想很多投 yes 的人,都把法律定义的婚姻和他们心目中宗教或是传统定义的婚姻没有分开。他们不愿意把婚姻重新定义。我觉得婚姻这个词 across cultures and history 并没有太大的变化,为什么现在要重新定义呢?所以,投 no 的人,支持其他形式婚姻的人,应该定义一个新词,civil union 或什么别的,把各种形式的 "marriage" contracts 都包括在内。如果只是争取相同的经济和子女教育的“权利”,为什么要求其他人改变他们已有的关于“婚姻”的传统概念呢?有必要吗?我想如果另外用一个新词,这样的 proposition 一定会被大多数人接受 (“no”)。 - posted on 11/07/2008
gz wrote:
婚姻也不是定义出来的. 是创立出来的. 先有实践, 后有定义. 当初由谁创立的? 是由异性结合创立的......我翻字典,是因为有人说If the gay people need some definition, create one, don't invade the social norms. 字典上的定义已经有了,而且也是“先有实践, 后有定义“嘛!
哼哼。要是由同性创立的第一代就完完了。字典的定义?无聊。
反对 Prop 8 的就是因为这是一种歧视,剥夺与己不同的人的权利。
是同性恋的人通过ligitation剥夺与己不同的人的权利,才有今天的prop 8, 就是以其人之道还治其人之身。或者说己所不欲,勿施于人。有先有后,小孩子吵架都明白的道理,大人怎么反而糊涂了?
- Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/07/2008
八十一子那么确定么?能不能给些references,越近的越好,我以为对婚姻起源都是hypotheses尚无定论呢,先谢。
有一点,家庭和婚姻是有区别的,因为你用了动物的例子。起源上是否完全相同?如你如我所说不完全相同,如苦瓜所说相同。这个不是splitting hair,抛开起源说现在,比如你完全可以和一个女子在一起生儿育女比较长的一段时间不分开,这同样是家庭,社会也允许,但你们大概都更prefer结婚,就是要一个阿姗说的legal contract和随之而来的protection and benefit。同性恋要的是这个。
- Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/07/2008
Will "civil union" (ratified by law) fulfill the needs?
浮生 wrote:
就是要一个阿姗说的legal contract和随之而来的protection and benefit。同性恋要的是这个。
- Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/07/2008
How so? What rights did you lose after "同性恋的人通过ligitation"?
moab wrote:
是同性恋的人通过ligitation剥夺与己不同的人的权利,才有今天的prop 8, 就是以其人之道还治其人之身。或者说己所不欲,勿施于人。有先有后,小孩子吵架都明白的道理,大人怎么反而糊涂了?
- posted on 11/07/2008
哼哼。要是由同性创立的第一代就完完了。字典的定义?无聊。婚姻也不是定义出来的. 是创立出来的. 先有实践, 后有定义. 当初由谁创立的? 是由异性结合创立的......我翻字典,是因为有人说If the gay people need some definition, create one, don't invade the social norms. 字典上的定义已经有了,而且也是“先有实践, 后有定义“嘛!
是你自己要定义的,不是吗?(“If the gay people need some definition, create one“) 如果字典的定义无聊,谁的有聊?
同性恋的人剥夺了谁的什么权利了?你结你的婚,你过你的日子,他们碍你什么事了?反对 Prop 8 的就是因为这是一种歧视,剥夺与己不同的人的权利。是同性恋的人通过ligitation剥夺与己不同的人的权利,才有今天的prop 8, 就是以其人之道还治其人之身。或者说己所不欲,勿施于人。有先有后,小孩子吵架都明白的道理,大人怎么反而糊涂了?
- Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/07/2008
“剥夺与己不同的人的权利" :
此婚姻非彼婚姻。是剥夺还是限制/侵犯不是重点,直接引用套是用原话。
tar wrote:
How so? What rights did you lose after "同性恋的人通过ligitation"?
moab wrote:
是同性恋的人通过ligitation剥夺与己不同的人的权利,才有今天的prop 8, 就是以其人之道还治其人之身。或者说己所不欲,勿施于人。有先有后,小孩子吵架都明白的道理,大人怎么反而糊涂了?
- posted on 11/07/2008
See if I understand you correctly: You meant to say "同性恋的人通过ligitation',限制/侵犯与己不同的人的权利"?
You seem to change/move your argument as you go along; not very decent for debate.
moab wrote:
“剥夺与己不同的人的权利" :
此婚姻非彼婚姻。是剥夺还是限制/侵犯不是重点,直接引用套是用原话。
tar wrote:
How so? What rights did you lose after "同性恋的人通过ligitation"?
moab wrote:
是同性恋的人通过ligitation剥夺与己不同的人的权利,才有今天的prop 8, 就是以其人之道还治其人之身。或者说己所不欲,勿施于人。有先有后,小孩子吵架都明白的道理,大人怎么反而糊涂了?
- posted on 11/07/2008
Interesting comment.
I thought it's pretty obvious given the context. Anybody else held the same view? Do I have to put quotation marks around 剥夺与己不同的人的权利 for people to read what I meant?
GZ: 反对 Prop 8 的就是因为这是一种歧视,剥夺与己不同的人的权利。
Myself: 是同性恋的人通过ligitation剥夺与己不同的人的权利,才有今天的prop 8, 就是以其人之道还治其人之身。或者说己所不欲,勿施于人。有先有后,小孩子吵架都明白的道理,大人怎么反而糊涂了?
tar wrote:
See if I understand you correctly: You meant to say "同性恋的人通过ligitation',限制/侵犯与己不同的人的权利"?
You seem to change/move your argument as you go along; not very decent for debate.
- posted on 11/07/2008
gz wrote:
是你自己要定义的,不是吗?(“If the gay people need some definition, create one“) 如果字典的定义无聊,谁的有聊?哼哼。要是由同性创立的第一代就完完了。字典的定义?无聊。婚姻也不是定义出来的. 是创立出来的. 先有实践, 后有定义. 当初由谁创立的? 是由异性结合创立的......我翻字典,是因为有人说If the gay people need some definition, create one, don't invade the social norms. 字典上的定义已经有了,而且也是“先有实践, 后有定义“嘛!
你不会是说字典有法律效力吧?
再说了,是gay们需要一个定义,弄个不冲突的不就完了。
同性恋的人剥夺了谁的什么权利了?你结你的婚,你过你的日子,他们碍你什么事了?反对 Prop 8 的就是因为这是一种歧视,剥夺与己不同的人的权利。是同性恋的人通过ligitation剥夺与己不同的人的权利,才有今天的prop 8, 就是以其人之道还治其人之身。或者说己所不欲,勿施于人。有先有后,小孩子吵架都明白的道理,大人怎么反而糊涂了?
见我给tar的回帖,说岔了。
- posted on 11/07/2008
是剥夺还是限制/侵犯不是重点
If you meant "同性恋的人通过ligitation',限制/侵犯与己不同的人的权利", then tell me how in fact, through legislation and litigation, the homosexuals limited and violated other people's rights.
Give me one example will do.
moab wrote:
Interesting comment.
I thought it's pretty obvious given the context. Anybody else held the same view? Do I have to put quotation marks around 剥夺与己不同的人的权利 for people to read what I meant?
GZ: 反对 Prop 8 的就是因为这是一种歧视,剥夺与己不同的人的权利。
Myself: 是同性恋的人通过ligitation剥夺与己不同的人的权利,才有今天的prop 8, 就是以其人之道还治其人之身。或者说己所不欲,勿施于人。有先有后,小孩子吵架都明白的道理,大人怎么反而糊涂了?
tar wrote:
See if I understand you correctly: You meant to say "同性恋的人通过ligitation',限制/侵犯与己不同的人的权利"?
You seem to change/move your argument as you go along; not very decent for debate.
- posted on 11/07/2008
I've said it before and will say it again,
"this marriage" is not "that marriage". Go figure.
tar wrote:
If you meant "同性恋的人通过ligitation',限制/侵犯与己不同的人的权利", then tell me how in fact, through legislation and litigation, the homosexuals limited and violated other people's rights.是剥夺还是限制/侵犯不是重点
Give me one example will do.
moab wrote:
Interesting comment.
I thought it's pretty obvious given the context. Anybody else held the same view? Do I have to put quotation marks around 剥夺与己不同的人的权利 for people to read what I meant?
GZ: 反对 Prop 8 的就是因为这是一种歧视,剥夺与己不同的人的权利。
Myself: 是同性恋的人通过ligitation剥夺与己不同的人的权利,才有今天的prop 8, 就是以其人之道还治其人之身。或者说己所不欲,勿施于人。有先有后,小孩子吵架都明白的道理,大人怎么反而糊涂了?
tar wrote:
See if I understand you correctly: You meant to say "同性恋的人通过ligitation',限制/侵犯与己不同的人的权利"?
You seem to change/move your argument as you go along; not very decent for debate.
- Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/07/2008
咱就先撤了,把这个光荣而轻松的任务交给tar了。省的让人看了象是欺负人。:-)
- Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/07/2008
Geez.
gz wrote:
把这个光荣而轻松的任务交给tar了。省的让人看了象是欺负人。:-)
- Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/07/2008
近的怎么行?要回到太昊那里去啦。“上古男女无别,太昊始设嫁娶,以俪皮为礼,正姓氏、通媒妁,以重人伦之本,而民始不渎”。
你说得也不错。家庭是实质,婚姻是契约。
浮生 wrote:
八十一子那么确定么?能不能给些references,越近的越好,我以为对婚姻起源都是hypotheses尚无定论呢,先谢。
- posted on 11/07/2008
OK,看来理解英文你有困难,我就麻烦点码字吧。
你为了反驳这句话 "反对 Prop 8 的就是因为这是一种歧视,剥夺与己不同的人的权利“,你说 "是同性恋的人通过ligitation剥夺与己不同的人的权利,才有今天的prop 8, 就是以其人之道还治其人之身"。白纸黑字明摆在这儿。叫你给出个例子,你一会儿狡辩说“是剥夺还是限制/侵犯不是重点”,一会儿“此婚姻非彼婚姻”,何时我们在讨论此婚姻彼婚姻?我只是问你什么时候同性恋的人通过LITIGATION剥夺与己不同的人的权利?你要是不能回答这个问题你就把前面那句话收回去,我再来跟你纠缠此婚姻彼婚姻。
moab wrote:
I've said it before and will say it again,
"this marriage" is not "that marriage". Go figure.
tar wrote:
If you meant "同性恋的人通过ligitation',限制/侵犯与己不同的人的权利", then tell me how in fact, through legislation and litigation, the homosexuals limited and violated other people's rights.是剥夺还是限制/侵犯不是重点
Give me one example will do.
moab wrote:
Interesting comment.
I thought it's pretty obvious given the context. Anybody else held the same view? Do I have to put quotation marks around 剥夺与己不同的人的权利 for people to read what I meant?
GZ: 反对 Prop 8 的就是因为这是一种歧视,剥夺与己不同的人的权利。
Myself: 是同性恋的人通过ligitation剥夺与己不同的人的权利,才有今天的prop 8, 就是以其人之道还治其人之身。或者说己所不欲,勿施于人。有先有后,小孩子吵架都明白的道理,大人怎么反而糊涂了?
tar wrote:
See if I understand you correctly: You meant to say "同性恋的人通过ligitation',限制/侵犯与己不同的人的权利"?
You seem to change/move your argument as you go along; not very decent for debate.
- posted on 11/07/2008
哈哈,加州的选民同志们这一次做了件大好事。 在美国,选谁做总统实际上再坏也坏不过八年。八年之后就可以改朝换代了嘛。 可是像同性恋婚姻这样的事情一旦获得选民认准,具有法律效用,那就可能是永久性的了。 想推翻就十分困难。这就像美国虽然有保守派一直在企图推翻妇女的自由堕胎权利,甚至最高法院友布什任命额两位法官都十分保守,即使那样还无法使堕胎非法。 所以这一次加州给全国带了个好头 - 否决法律对同性婚姻的认可。
同性婚姻和堕胎是两回事。一个女人堕胎最多只是个道德问题。并不牵扯其它的社会福利或待遇。但婚姻却是受到法律保护,并享受到许多的社会福利和待遇。一旦同性婚姻成为法定认可的婚姻,那么同性婚姻者将享受和正常异性婚姻夫妻同样的待遇。 例如:对于一定的收入阶层,夫妻双方共同报税有可能减低联邦所得税税收率,得到较多的退税(但收入达到某个基点反而有可能交更多的税。这个在布什的减税计划中两党一致同意修理,已经改正)。在许多州的个人所得税更对夫妻共同报税有更明确的优惠。在法律方面,夫妻之间对于遗产是有法律保护的。比如说,在得克萨斯州,如果夫妻任何一方去世,双方的所有财产就自动归属为另一方,并不需要遗嘱。 除非遗嘱中有不同的规定。 更普遍的是,美国没有全民福利体制。雇员的医疗和退休福利基本上是由雇主支付的。而雇员的家属(配偶和子女)也可享受一些福利。比如说,许多雇主为雇员的家属提供医疗保险。 还有一切其他的福利,这里就不一一列举了。
同性婚姻在几个州(如马萨诸塞州)已经合法了(大多是州法院硬性批准)。这些州的同性婚姻者原则上可以享受其他所有正常婚姻者的一切好处。但是由于国会并没有立法认可这种婚姻,最高法院也没有任何判例来确定其合法性,所以这些人还无法享受任何联邦的福利。
如果同性婚姻成为合法,那么上述所有异性婚姻的福利将适用于同性婚姻。 这就是说,国家、企业、纳税人都要为他们这一些人提供财政支持。 这就超过了机会公平的原则了。为什么呢?
众所周知,美国几乎家家养狗养猫。美国的宠物每年吃的东西是美国婴儿吃的六倍(资金开销而言)。 许多美国人宁愿养猫狗也不愿养孩子。 更有很多美国人在报税表上把自己的猫狗列为子女。 甚至有人干脆说自己的猫狗就是自己的配偶,要求雇主提供配偶的福利。
如果这一次没有能够否决同性婚姻,那么要不了几年就会有人提出和动物结婚也要受法律保护。然后每个人还会把猫狗变为合法的子女。
所以,这一次加州的选民用自己的选票给婚姻下了一个定义 - 仅限于人类男女之间 (man and woman)。
你要同性恋随你便,但你要纳税人给你埋单,做梦! - posted on 11/07/2008
但婚姻却是受到法律保护,并享受到许多的社会福利和待遇。一旦同性婚姻成为法定认可的婚姻,那么同性婚姻者将享受和正常异性婚姻夫妻同样的待遇。 例如:对于一定的收入阶层,夫妻双方共同报税有可能减低联邦所得税税收率,得到较多的退税(但收入达到某个基点反而有可能交更多的税。这个在布什的减税计划中两党一致同意修理,已经改正)。在许多州的个人所得税更对夫妻共同报税有更明确的优惠。在法律方面,夫妻之间对于遗产是有法律保护的。比如说,在得克萨斯州,如果夫妻任何一方去世,双方的所有财产就自动归属为另一方,并不需要遗嘱。 除非遗嘱中有不同的规定。 更普遍的是,美国没有全民福利体制。雇员的医疗和退休福利基本上是由雇主支付的。而雇员的家属(配偶和子女)也可享受一些福利。比如说,许多雇主为雇员的家属提供医疗保险。 还有一切其他的福利,这里就不一一列举了。
Equal rights for gay people are already protected by law. Almost every state has domestic partners laws. Before you crack up a smile and make a dumbass of yourself, go learn some basics.
哈哈一笑 wrote:
哈哈,加州的选民同志们这一次做了件大好事。 在美国,选谁做总统实际上再坏也坏不过八年。八年之后就可以改朝换代了嘛。 可是像同性恋婚姻这样的事情一旦获得选民认准,具有法律效用,那就可能是永久性的了。 想推翻就十分困难。这就像美国虽然有保守派一直在企图推翻妇女的自由堕胎权利,甚至最高法院友布什任命额两位法官都十分保守,即使那样还无法使堕胎非法。 所以这一次加州给全国带了个好头 - 否决法律对同性婚姻的认可。
同性婚姻和堕胎是两回事。一个女人堕胎最多只是个道德问题。并不牵扯其它的社会福利或待遇。但婚姻却是受到法律保护,并享受到许多的社会福利和待遇。一旦同性婚姻成为法定认可的婚姻,那么同性婚姻者将享受和正常异性婚姻夫妻同样的待遇。 例如:对于一定的收入阶层,夫妻双方共同报税有可能减低联邦所得税税收率,得到较多的退税(但收入达到某个基点反而有可能交更多的税。这个在布什的减税计划中两党一致同意修理,已经改正)。在许多州的个人所得税更对夫妻共同报税有更明确的优惠。在法律方面,夫妻之间对于遗产是有法律保护的。比如说,在得克萨斯州,如果夫妻任何一方去世,双方的所有财产就自动归属为另一方,并不需要遗嘱。 除非遗嘱中有不同的规定。 更普遍的是,美国没有全民福利体制。雇员的医疗和退休福利基本上是由雇主支付的。而雇员的家属(配偶和子女)也可享受一些福利。比如说,许多雇主为雇员的家属提供医疗保险。 还有一切其他的福利,这里就不一一列举了。
同性婚姻在几个州(如马萨诸塞州)已经合法了(大多是州法院硬性批准)。这些州的同性婚姻者原则上可以享受其他所有正常婚姻者的一切好处。但是由于国会并没有立法认可这种婚姻,最高法院也没有任何判例来确定其合法性,所以这些人还无法享受任何联邦的福利。
如果同性婚姻成为合法,那么上述所有异性婚姻的福利将适用于同性婚姻。 这就是说,国家、企业、纳税人都要为他们这一些人提供财政支持。 这就超过了机会公平的原则了。为什么呢?
众所周知,美国几乎家家养狗养猫。美国的宠物每年吃的东西是美国婴儿吃的六倍(资金开销而言)。 许多美国人宁愿养猫狗也不愿养孩子。 更有很多美国人在报税表上把自己的猫狗列为子女。 甚至有人干脆说自己的猫狗就是自己的配偶,要求雇主提供配偶的福利。
如果这一次没有能够否决同性婚姻,那么要不了几年就会有人提出和动物结婚也要受法律保护。然后每个人还会把猫狗变为合法的子女。
所以,这一次加州的选民用自己的选票给婚姻下了一个定义 - 仅限于人类男女之间 (man and woman)。
你要同性恋随你便,但你要纳税人给你埋单,做梦! - Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/07/2008
谢八十一子,我说的“近”是指人类学或其他学科提供的证据。
哈哈一笑 wrote:
你要同性恋随你便,但你要纳税人给你埋单,做梦!
同性恋也是纳税人,按着同样的税率交税,人家为什么要给异性婚姻的埋单呢? - posted on 11/08/2008
tar wrote:
Equal rights for gay people are already protected by law. Almost every state has domestic partners laws. Before you crack up a smile and make a dumbass of yourself, go learn some basics.
Equal rights for gay people are already protected by law - ONLY in the form of domestic partners, not as married couple. There is a huge difference between the two. Certainly, under the law, no one can deny your rights of employement, military service, college admission, job promotion, etc. However, if you try to claim your domestic partner as your spouse, and ask your employer (if any) to cover his healthcare insurance, see what's going to happen - most employers will redirect you to a more expensive plan rather than the spouse/family coverage plan - not because gays have higher risk of AIDS, but becaues there is no law to put gay parteners as married couple.
By the way, unlike your smart ass that has dual functions and multiple features, my simple and dumbass can only do one thing - sxxx. You gays are such woderful group of people who are well respected by the society. Unfortunately, people in California just won't buy it. - posted on 11/08/2008
However, if you try to claim your domestic partner as your spouse, and ask your employer (if any) to cover his healthcare insurance, see what's going to happen - most employers will redirect you to a more expensive plan rather than the spouse/family coverage plan...
Really? Sounds like you already have some direct experience. Only if you didn't try to hide your deep desire and talk to ACLU, I am sure they can win you some big bucks by suing your company for discrimination.
By the way, unlike your smart ass that has dual functions and multiple features, my simple and dumbass can only do one thing - sxxx.
You surprised me. Dumb as you are, I thought a dumbass is still capable of exercising full function as a human being, not just a sh*tbag. You sure you want to down grade yourself to just a waste passing hole?
哈哈一笑 wrote:
tar wrote:Equal rights for gay people are already protected by law - ONLY in the form of domestic partners, not as married couple. There is a huge difference between the two. Certainly, under the law, no one can deny your rights of employement, military service, college admission, job promotion, etc. However, if you try to claim your domestic partner as your spouse, and ask your employer (if any) to cover his healthcare insurance, see what's going to happen - most employers will redirect you to a more expensive plan rather than the spouse/family coverage plan - not because gays have higher risk of AIDS, but becaues there is no law to put gay parteners as married couple.
Equal rights for gay people are already protected by law. Almost every state has domestic partners laws. Before you crack up a smile and make a dumbass of yourself, go learn some basics.
By the way, unlike your smart ass that has dual functions and multiple features, my simple and dumbass can only do one thing - sxxx. You gays are such woderful group of people who are well respected by the society. Unfortunately, people in California just won't buy it. - Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/08/2008
浮生 wrote:
同性恋也是纳税人,按着同样的税率交税,人家为什么要给异性婚姻的埋单呢?
那你还可以问,凭什么结婚的人就该比单身汉少缴税呢? 凭什么单身汉要为结婚的人埋单?你甚至可以更理直气壮地问:凭什么一对夫妻养的小孩子越多要交的税就越少?孩子越多,占用的社会资源就越多,孩子多的家庭应该多缴税才对,凭什么全社会要为有孩子的家庭埋单?
这就是美国的税法。 - Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/08/2008
看你们这么热闹,还是没太懂,也就是说在加州,即使同性之间有‘civil union’, 还是不能享受‘婚姻’同等的 benefits and rights? 如果如此的话,当然可以理解同性婚姻应该得到合法化。同样上税,同样消费,为什么不可以享受同等权利。
再说啦,婚姻又不是什么专利,不就是签署契约吗?只要双方愿意,当然得成年人之间,有啥不行啊?至于同性繁衍,事实上不已经通过领养,人工授精等实现了嘛?同性家庭要的是名分,法律承认,和民权运动一样,争取平等反对歧视。
唉,我要是能委托浮生帮我投一票 no 就好了。 - Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/08/2008
我一朋友老早说了: 婚姻就是互助组和经济公同体。 - posted on 11/08/2008
鹿希 wrote:
看你们这么热闹,还是没太懂,也就是说在加州,即使同性之间有‘civil union’, 还是不能享受‘婚姻’同等的 benefits and rights? 如果如此的话,当然可以理解同性婚姻应该得到合法化。同样上税,同样消费,为什么不可以享受同等权利。
再说啦,婚姻又不是什么专利,不就是签署契约吗?只要双方愿意,当然得成年人之间,有啥不行啊?至于同性繁衍,事实上不已经通过领养,人工授精等实现了嘛?同性家庭要的是名分,法律承认,和民权运动一样,争取平等反对歧视。
唉,我要是能委托浮生帮我投一票 no 就好了。
这就是一个社会价值观念的问题。 我可以尊重你的与众不同的特殊生活方式,不去干涉你的自由,但我不能推崇你的那一套东西,让它普遍化。 事实上,同性恋者在美国享受所有正常人的一切权利。歧视是没有的。他们所不能享受的只是许多专为正常婚姻者提供的福利。 提供这些婚姻福利只是为了推崇这种正常的生活方式,并无其它用意。如果同性恋者也获得了这些福利,这就意味着利用社会资源来推崇他们的特殊性生活和所谓的“家庭”模式。 这就超出了界限。
同性恋的所谓“人权”早已争取到了。没有任何人会干涉他们的生活方式。但他们要争取一纸婚姻证书,进而获得这一纸证书下的各种社会福利,这就首先需要社会大众的认可才行。现在加州的大众投票不认可这种所谓的婚姻,但并没有限制他们的任何权利,只不过是不给他们额外的社会福利而已。
一个社会当然应该尊重所有人的说话权利。但是听你说话并不等于就必须照你说的去做,更不等于你话一说完大家就得马上慷慨解囊。 - posted on 11/08/2008
这么点小事要找外人帮忙吗? :-)
鹿希 wrote:
看你们这么热闹,还是没太懂,也就是说在加州,即使同性之间有‘civil union’, 还是不能享受‘婚姻’同等的 benefits and rights? 如果如此的话,当然可以理解同性婚姻应该得到合法化。同样上税,同样消费,为什么不可以享受同等权利。
再说啦,婚姻又不是什么专利,不就是签署契约吗?只要双方愿意,当然得成年人之间,有啥不行啊?至于同性繁衍,事实上不已经通过领养,人工授精等实现了嘛?同性家庭要的是名分,法律承认,和民权运动一样,争取平等反对歧视。
唉,我要是能委托浮生帮我投一票 no 就好了。 - posted on 11/08/2008
He is just a bigoted moron who knows nothing about law or decency in America. Domestic Partners laws in CA and other states protect partners in long term relationships, gay or straight. His deranged racist and homophobic mind is still trying to trick himself to believe he is superior than somebody, now that Obama has been elected president.
I was being facecious when I asked him if he had personal gay experience and been denied benefits. Of course if any company dares to discriminate against people in providing benefits because of sexual orientation, they can be sued mercilessly. This imbecile just can't wrap his delusional mind around this fact.
Usually the most vicious homophobics are themselves secret gays in the closet. The other day I was talking to a co-worker about prop 8 and he was vehemently against gay marriage. He accepted the lies that kids in school would be taught homosexuality if prop 8 passed. He declared all kids would be tempted if they got the chance. I then asked him as a heterosexual kid growing up if he was at any point sexually aroused by the same sex. I told him I never was. He got very excited and accused me of lying. I can now see his point, if you are a gay and hate the thought of it, of course you see the temptation all around you. I bet this idiot is the same. ;-)
鹿希 wrote:
看你们这么热闹,还是没太懂,也就是说在加州,即使同性之间有‘civil union’, 还是不能享受‘婚姻’同等的 benefits and rights? 如果如此的话,当然可以理解同性婚姻应该得到合法化。同样上税,同样消费,为什么不可以享受同等权利。
再说啦,婚姻又不是什么专利,不就是签署契约吗?只要双方愿意,当然得成年人之间,有啥不行啊?至于同性繁衍,事实上不已经通过领养,人工授精等实现了嘛?同性家庭要的是名分,法律承认,和民权运动一样,争取平等反对歧视。
唉,我要是能委托浮生帮我投一票 no 就好了。 - posted on 11/09/2008
不是语言的问题,是观念的问题。Like it or not, 你问的问题正是prop 8的核心,就是此婚姻彼婚姻,我的回答简明扼要,不是跟你兜圈子,也不需要啰嗦。你把这个搞懂了就知道问什么Prop 8会通过。
1. traditionally the human society has been heterosexual.
2. Heterosexuals established a value system. Marriage is not just a legal term. It carries sacredness and other aspect of the value system.
3. Heterosexuals have been understanding toward gays and treated them with respect.
4. This respect is not reciprocal. Gays returned this respect and understanding with litigation in the most liberal state in order to overthrown a pre-exist, well established and well accepted value system.
5. This issue is not about equality of all people.
suggestions to gays and those supporters:
1. establish mutual respect
2. a step further from 1, try to gain an understanding of the traditional value of the term "marriage", which is more than just a legal term and which involves many more subtle aspects than benefits. If you are fixated on the "benefits", you are missing the forest for the trees.
3. Heterosexuals made the gesture of "civil union". How is that not going to provide the so-called "benefits" the gays seek (now that that seems to be the focus)?
tar wrote:
OK,看来理解英文你有困难,我就麻烦点码字吧。
你为了反驳这句话 "反对 Prop 8 的就是因为这是一种歧视,剥夺与己不同的人的权利“,你说 "是同性恋的人通过ligitation剥夺与己不同的人的权利,才有今天的prop 8, 就是以其人之道还治其人之身"。白纸黑字明摆在这儿。叫你给出个例子,你一会儿狡辩说“是剥夺还是限制/侵犯不是重点”,一会儿“此婚姻非彼婚姻”,何时我们在讨论此婚姻彼婚姻?我只是问你什么时候同性恋的人通过LITIGATION剥夺与己不同的人的权利?你要是不能回答这个问题你就把前面那句话收回去,我再来跟你纠缠此婚姻彼婚姻。
moab wrote:
I've said it before and will say it again,
"this marriage" is not "that marriage". Go figure.
tar wrote:
If you meant "同性恋的人通过ligitation',限制/侵犯与己不同的人的权利", then tell me how in fact, through legislation and litigation, the homosexuals limited and violated other people's rights.是剥夺还是限制/侵犯不是重点
Give me one example will do.
moab wrote:
Interesting comment.
I thought it's pretty obvious given the context. Anybody else held the same view? Do I have to put quotation marks around 剥夺与己不同的人的权利 for people to read what I meant?
GZ: 反对 Prop 8 的就是因为这是一种歧视,剥夺与己不同的人的权利。
Myself: 是同性恋的人通过ligitation剥夺与己不同的人的权利,才有今天的prop 8, 就是以其人之道还治其人之身。或者说己所不欲,勿施于人。有先有后,小孩子吵架都明白的道理,大人怎么反而糊涂了?
tar wrote:
See if I understand you correctly: You meant to say "同性恋的人通过ligitation',限制/侵犯与己不同的人的权利"?
You seem to change/move your argument as you go along; not very decent for debate.
- Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/09/2008
lucy wrote:
这么点小事要找外人帮忙吗? :-)
亲奈的,这些日子里不是见不到你吗?还等着你的粽子片片呢。:) - Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/09/2008
如果这一次没有能够否决同性婚姻,那么要不了几年就会有人提出和动物结婚也要受法律保护。然后每个人还会把猫狗变为合法的子女。
A typical slippery slope. - posted on 11/09/2008
哈哈一笑 wrote:
同性恋的所谓“人权”早已争取到了。没有任何人会干涉他们的生活方式。但他们要争取一纸婚姻证书,进而获得这一纸证书下的各种社会福利,这就首先需要社会大众的认可才行。现在加州的大众投票不认可这种所谓的婚姻,但并没有限制他们的任何权利,只不过是不给他们额外的社会福利而已。
一个社会当然应该尊重所有人的说话权利。但是听你说话并不等于就必须照你说的去做,更不等于你话一说完大家就得马上慷慨解囊。
先不说观念问题,短文不太容易沟通。
简单而言,不同意 “同性恋的所谓“人权”早已争取到了’之说。人权不等于福利,更何况这里谈的是人权范畴内的平等权所赋予的‘福利’,不是可以给以或施舍的,是作为‘人’本该 enjoy 的。多数人不同意某类人没有此权利不等于有理合理,更何况多数歧视欺负少数的现象多于少数歧视多数,因社会文化原因造成的此类现象迟早因该改善。
同性婚姻合法化不意味,更不强迫你自己也一定要和同性结婚。
- Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/09/2008
Moab 这样保守啊,看那些同性恋朋友整天好像作非法勾当一样住在一起,你不觉得可怜?他们也要个名分的呢。你说他们这样住一起同居算什么呢?心里很耻辱的。
不过话说回来,婚姻算什么呢?现在一多半的人都不结婚了,结婚离婚烦死人,何必多此一举?
既然藐视这些残酷无聊的法律,那么就藐视到底。不过,活在人间,我们要尽量让人间的法律少一点庸俗可耻,尽可能多一点高贵怜悯,人家要在神面前宣誓互相忠诚,就这么个仪式,难道你都不给? - posted on 11/09/2008
鹿希 wrote:
简单而言,不同意 “同性恋的所谓“人权”早已争取到了’之说。人权不等于福利,更何况这里谈的是人权范畴内的平等权所赋予的‘福利’,不是可以给以或施舍的,是作为‘人’本该 enjoy 的。多数人不同意某类人没有此权利不等于有理合理,更何况多数歧视欺负少数的现象多于少数歧视多数,因社会文化原因造成的此类现象迟早因该改善。
同性婚姻合法化不意味,更不强迫你自己也一定要和同性结婚。
在任何社会里,多数人不给予某类人某些权利的情况十分普遍,而且很多情况下也确实有理合理。 少年不可以enjoy成人的许多权利,有犯罪记录的人不可以enjoy普通人的许多权利,母亲肚子里的胎儿生命甚至没有被当作人的权利 - 母亲有权终止怀孕。这没有什么不正常。婚姻,至少法律认可的婚姻只能局限在两性之间,这并非歧视,而是一种简单的定义。两性结婚繁育后代,稳定的家庭和天然的母子、父子情结,不但是文化,而且也是这个人类社会的基石。 你可以举出成堆的例子,说两个同性恋男人也照样可以人工授精生子,同性恋人也可以天长地久,等等等等。我也可以举出更多的例子说很多15岁的少年也比很多55岁的老者更加深思熟虑,有许多坐过监狱的人比很多没有记录的人更加热爱生活,我更可以用科学证明5个月的胎儿已经有感情,知疼痛,等等等等。So what? 社会就是不给这些人的“正常权利”,争也没有用。
同性恋人不愿意干异性恋人之间发生的事,却又要顶着仅有异性恋人才有的法律名分,这才是不合理。
人类的正常繁殖目前只可能在精子卵子结合以后才可以发生。两个人的精子或两个人的卵子再怎么搞也搞不出一个具有两个人的DNA的小孩。 所以,婚姻至少在目前只能是两性的。
用国民党最近的一句话说:没有那个屁股,就不要吃那个泻药。 - posted on 11/10/2008
As long as you don't insist "是同性恋的人通过ligitation剥夺与己不同的人的权利,才有今天的prop 8, 就是以其人之道还治其人之身" to show your complete lack of intelligence in debate, I will waste no time on your other brain fart.
moab wrote:
不是语言的问题,是观念的问题。Like it or not, 你问的问题正是prop 8的核心,就是此婚姻彼婚姻,我的回答简明扼要,不是跟你兜圈子,也不需要啰嗦。你把这个搞懂了就知道问什么Prop 8会通过。
1. traditionally the human society has been heterosexual.
2. Heterosexuals established a value system. Marriage is not just a legal term. It carries sacredness and other aspect of the value system.
3. Heterosexuals have been understanding toward gays and treated them with respect.
4. This respect is not reciprocal. Gays returned this respect and understanding with litigation in the most liberal state in order to overthrown a pre-exist, well established and well accepted value system.
5. This issue is not about equality of all people.
suggestions to gays and those supporters:
1. establish mutual respect
2. a step further from 1, try to gain an understanding of the traditional value of the term "marriage", which is more than just a legal term and which involves many more subtle aspects than benefits. If you are fixated on the "benefits", you are missing the forest for the trees.
3. Heterosexuals made the gesture of "civil union". How is that not going to provide the so-called "benefits" the gays seek (now that that seems to be the focus)?
tar wrote:
OK,看来理解英文你有困难,我就麻烦点码字吧。
你为了反驳这句话 "反对 Prop 8 的就是因为这是一种歧视,剥夺与己不同的人的权利“,你说 "是同性恋的人通过ligitation剥夺与己不同的人的权利,才有今天的prop 8, 就是以其人之道还治其人之身"。白纸黑字明摆在这儿。叫你给出个例子,你一会儿狡辩说“是剥夺还是限制/侵犯不是重点”,一会儿“此婚姻非彼婚姻”,何时我们在讨论此婚姻彼婚姻?我只是问你什么时候同性恋的人通过LITIGATION剥夺与己不同的人的权利?你要是不能回答这个问题你就把前面那句话收回去,我再来跟你纠缠此婚姻彼婚姻。
moab wrote:
I've said it before and will say it again,
"this marriage" is not "that marriage". Go figure.
tar wrote:
If you meant "同性恋的人通过ligitation',限制/侵犯与己不同的人的权利", then tell me how in fact, through legislation and litigation, the homosexuals limited and violated other people's rights.是剥夺还是限制/侵犯不是重点
Give me one example will do.
moab wrote:
Interesting comment.
I thought it's pretty obvious given the context. Anybody else held the same view? Do I have to put quotation marks around 剥夺与己不同的人的权利 for people to read what I meant?
GZ: 反对 Prop 8 的就是因为这是一种歧视,剥夺与己不同的人的权利。
Myself: 是同性恋的人通过ligitation剥夺与己不同的人的权利,才有今天的prop 8, 就是以其人之道还治其人之身。或者说己所不欲,勿施于人。有先有后,小孩子吵架都明白的道理,大人怎么反而糊涂了?
tar wrote:
See if I understand you correctly: You meant to say "同性恋的人通过ligitation',限制/侵犯与己不同的人的权利"?
You seem to change/move your argument as you go along; not very decent for debate.
- posted on 11/10/2008
You can't comprehend. No I hold my position on this issue, on how it got started in the first place, and on how ignorant you've been. I am further amazed by your high intelligence of "farting with brain" - you've got to share how you achieve that so maybe a prop fart can be in the works soon - so that that special need be addressed.
p.s.--I have a pretty good idea who you are. If you feel like you don't deserve that little respect I had for you, who am I to stop you from doing so?
tar wrote:
As long as you don't insist "是同性恋的人通过ligitation剥夺与己不同的人的权利,才有今天的prop 8, 就是以其人之道还治其人之身" to show your complete lack of intelligence in debate, I will waste no time on your other brain fart.
- posted on 11/10/2008
Come again, respect? The minute people of your stock claim I got your respect is the time I quit coming here all together.
If you want to write your post in English, at least find out what common phrases like brain fart mean, instead of making yourself an ignorant fool.
moab wrote:
You can't comprehend. No I hold my position on this issue, on how it got started in the first place, and on how ignorant you've been. I am further amazed by your high intelligence of "farting with brain" - you've got to share how you achieve that so maybe a prop fart can be in the works soon - so that that special need be addressed.
p.s.--I have a pretty good idea who you are. If you feel like you don't deserve that little respect I had for you, who am I to stop you from doing so?
tar wrote:
As long as you don't insist "是同性恋的人通过ligitation剥夺与己不同的人的权利,才有今天的prop 8, 就是以其人之道还治其人之身" to show your complete lack of intelligence in debate, I will waste no time on your other brain fart.
- posted on 11/10/2008
Of all people you know words and phrases carry connotations. Your choice of such words and phrases indicates more than your language proficiency.
tar wrote:
Come again, respect? The minute people of your stock claim I got your respect is the time I quit coming here all together.
If you want to write your post in English, at least find out what common phrases like brain fart mean, instead of making yourself an ignorant idiot.
moab wrote:
You can't comprehend. No I hold my position on this issue, on how it got started in the first place, and on how ignorant you've been. I am further amazed by your high intelligence of "farting with brain" - you've got to share how you achieve that so maybe a prop fart can be in the works soon - so that that special need be addressed.
p.s.--I have a pretty good idea who you are. If you feel like you don't deserve that little respect I had for you, who am I to stop you from doing so?
tar wrote:
As long as you don't insist "是同性恋的人通过ligitation剥夺与己不同的人的权利,才有今天的prop 8, 就是以其人之道还治其人之身" to show your complete lack of intelligence in debate, I will waste no time on your other brain fart.
- posted on 11/10/2008
Don't try to play indignation to cover up your lack of understanding in common usages of the language.
And for your information, it is the unconscious thought exposed in your writing stinks more than my choices of words.
moab wrote:
Of all people you know words and phrases carry connotations. Your choice of such words and phrases indicates more than your language proficiency.
tar wrote:
Come again, respect? The minute people of your stock claim I got your respect is the time I quit coming here all together.
If you want to write your post in English, at least find out what common phrases like brain fart mean, instead of making yourself an ignorant idiot.
moab wrote:
You can't comprehend. No I hold my position on this issue, on how it got started in the first place, and on how ignorant you've been. I am further amazed by your high intelligence of "farting with brain" - you've got to share how you achieve that so maybe a prop fart can be in the works soon - so that that special need be addressed.
p.s.--I have a pretty good idea who you are. If you feel like you don't deserve that little respect I had for you, who am I to stop you from doing so?
tar wrote:
As long as you don't insist "是同性恋的人通过ligitation剥夺与己不同的人的权利,才有今天的prop 8, 就是以其人之道还治其人之身" to show your complete lack of intelligence in debate, I will waste no time on your other brain fart.
- posted on 11/10/2008
tar wrote:
Don't try to play indignation to cover up your lack of understanding in common usages of the language.
Whatever.
And for your information, it is the unconscious thought exposed in your writing stinks more than my choices of words.
Elaborate (seriously). I might not agree, but will for sure listen.
moab wrote:
Of all people you know words and phrases carry connotations. Your choice of such words and phrases indicates more than your language proficiency.
tar wrote:
Come again, respect? The minute people of your stock claim I got your respect is the time I quit coming here all together.
If you want to write your post in English, at least find out what common phrases like brain fart mean, instead of making yourself an ignorant idiot.
moab wrote:
You can't comprehend. No I hold my position on this issue, on how it got started in the first place, and on how ignorant you've been. I am further amazed by your high intelligence of "farting with brain" - you've got to share how you achieve that so maybe a prop fart can be in the works soon - so that that special need be addressed.
p.s.--I have a pretty good idea who you are. If you feel like you don't deserve that little respect I had for you, who am I to stop you from doing so?
tar wrote:
As long as you don't insist "是同性恋的人通过ligitation剥夺与己不同的人的权利,才有今天的prop 8, 就是以其人之道还治其人之身" to show your complete lack of intelligence in debate, I will waste no time on your other brain fart.
- Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/10/2008
哎,沥青同学,还说等着你妙语连珠好生数落数落某些人的 racist and homophobic 谬论呢。怎么跑题啦?这儿又不是托福季阿姨考场。。
- Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/10/2008
你也用不着这么虚伪,要反驳就直接说。 有道理我就听。
鹿希 wrote:
哎,沥青同学,还说等着你妙语连珠好生数落数落某些人的 racist and homophobic 谬论呢。怎么跑题啦?这儿又不是托福季阿姨考场。。
- posted on 11/10/2008
I don't have much patience to debate somebody who can't come to terms with the fact that he's caught red-handed in lying about gay community of "剥夺与己不同的人的权利". Furthermore, he thinks he personally granted gays their wishes of equal rights, not that it is guaranteed under our constitution.
If I have time, I will write an essay on this topic at some point.
鹿希 wrote:
哎,沥青同学,还说等着你妙语连珠好生数落数落某些人的 racist and homophobic 谬论呢。怎么跑题啦?这儿又不是托福季阿姨考场。。
- posted on 11/10/2008
moab wrote:
你也用不着这么虚伪,要反驳就直接说。 有道理我就听。
你干吗气急败坏呢?我喜欢看人争论,火上浇油还不成?
我的道理很简单,早说了,同性伴侣争取婚姻的合法化是社会进步的结果,更何况他们要的不是特权,而是平等。并不是他们的结合法律上获得承认就意味异性结合的权利丧失,家庭不会因此解体,同性家庭的孩子不见得就必定成为同性恋,这是我们广义’人‘的社会一部分人尽管是少数人的生活方式,他们的平等权利,从广义上讲,也是所有人的权利,所以没理由阻挡。
剩下的你自个儿琢磨去吧。 - posted on 11/10/2008
That essay might help people like me to see your thinking process, because obviously we couldn't get our ideas through to each other.
"caught red-handed in lying about gay community of "剥夺与己不同的人的权利". "?
I stick to my statement. That's how I see the litigation by the gay community in the first place. They were simply trying to force their ideology and their value system into the traditional society.
tar wrote:
I don't have much patience to debate somebody who can't come to terms with the fact that he's caught red-handed in lying about gay community of "剥夺与己不同的人的权利". Furthermore, he thinks he personally granted gays their wishes of equal rights, not that it is guaranteed under our constitution.
If I have time, I will write an essay on this topic at some point.
鹿希 wrote:
哎,沥青同学,还说等着你妙语连珠好生数落数落某些人的 racist and homophobic 谬论呢。怎么跑题啦?这儿又不是托福季阿姨考场。。
- Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/10/2008
- posted on 11/10/2008
我没有气急败坏, 也不是你说的racist / homophobic. 是你扣帽子。虚伪也许重了些,我是说没必要在一边阴阳怪调的,有不同意见我欢迎。
我们在这个问题上的分歧在于我不认为这是个“他们要的不是特权,而是平等“的问题。没有人歧视他们,各过各的,为什么偏要加入异性恋的婚姻?尤其是,婚姻这个词不是简单的权利的问题,也包含信仰等精神层面的隐性东西。你们只是在不停的强调权利,是这种片面导致了两个不同的group的对立。这也是我一直说的,“此婚姻不是彼婚姻“。
鹿希 wrote:
moab wrote:你干吗气急败坏呢?我喜欢看人争论,火上浇油还不成?
你也用不着这么虚伪,要反驳就直接说。 有道理我就听。
我的道理很简单,早说了,同性伴侣争取婚姻的合法化是社会进步的结果,更何况他们要的不是特权,而是平等。并不是他们的结合法律上获得承认就意味异性结合的权利丧失,家庭不会因此解体,同性家庭的孩子不见得就必定成为同性恋,这是我们广义’人‘的社会一部分人尽管是少数人的生活方式,他们的平等权利,从广义上讲,也是所有人的权利,所以没理由阻挡。
剩下的你自个儿琢磨去吧。 - Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/10/2008
Okay let's formally acknowledge the use of words like "chairwoman", or, better yet, "chairperson" instead of chairman, because it's discrimination against women.
--comment to Wolfson's remark.
rzp wrote:
Status of the same-sex marriage in the world:
- posted on 11/10/2008
I think the beauty of the democracy is to let the majority rule, and leave alone the difference view points among the voters to different levels or groups of the society. The result of the voting does not mean it is "correct" or "the right way", for there is no absolute standard that sounds "right" for everyone.
moab wrote:
Okay let's formally acknowledge the use of words like "chairwoman", or, better yet, "chairperson" instead of chairman, because it's discrimination against women.
rzp wrote:
Status of the same-sex marriage in the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage - posted on 11/11/2008
说多了你说是长篇大论, 说短了,你又说是跳跃式思维. 也不知道你的尺度是什么. 想说不想说, 随你便.反正你的观点既然登出来, 就subject to 任何人议论的. 你说婚姻是社会学词汇. 既然是社会的, 就是人之间的事情, 是人为的规定. 人想让它存在就存在. 我用国家的例子就是告诉你, 人为的东西也不能说明问题. 国家是人为创立的规定的, 是社会的, 但同性恋人就不可能想当年欧洲人那样躲避迫害,来到美洲成立一个自己的国家. 我想说的意思就是婚姻的社会性不能成为一种理由.
关于"同性恋结婚是对还是错", 我不是指任何道德规范下的对错. 我对同性恋结合没有意见. 上贴已经说了, 承认这种结合. 关键就是婚这个字, 我认为,是属于异性恋的. 和同性恋分享这个字就不对了.
gz wrote:
这种跳跃式思维能把人吓死,从“婚姻是社会学概念“立即推出“能有一个由同性恋组成的国家存在吗“这样的责问,没有任何逻辑推导,一步到位。你想用“由同性恋组成的国家不存在“来说明婚姻不是社会学概念,还是同性婚姻是不对的?这样的作业不及格,回去重做。
再说,我从来不想说同性恋结婚是对还是错(倒是别人总再说 right or wrong),因为对这种社会问题,各人有自己的道德标准,谈不上对错。税收是社会问题,多收对还是少收对?
婚姻也不是定义出来的. 是创立出来的. 先有实践, 后有定义. 当初由谁创立的? 是由异性结合创立的......我翻字典,是因为有人说If the gay people need some definition, create one, don't invade the social norms. 字典上的定义已经有了,而且也是“先有实践, 后有定义“嘛!
老圣有时间写长篇,陪不起了,理顺了思路,简要点再来谈吧。
反对 Prop 8 的就是因为这是一种歧视,剥夺与己不同的人的权利。 - posted on 11/11/2008
这个浮生, 我的例子是在说命名问题,. 这些音的音高/频率是物理决定的, 但它们的名字,A, B_, C,… 就是note name, 是人给命名的. 西方音乐叫做C, 其它文明可能叫做其它名. 现在我们就在西方音乐的命名系统下理解我的比喻. 争议就在这个人为的名字C上. 同性恋人要扩大这C的内涵, 要把他们走调的不同频率的音也包括到这个C的命名下. 你说一个音名C本来就是一对一的一个音高/频率,现在是要变成两个. 以后可能还会变成三个(按照liaokang所说, 人和动物. 也许还有兄弟姐妹之间也都可能发生).
其实, 你说的"各过各的",这话很对. 只是应该向同性恋的人说. 同性恋人应该自己给自己的结合起名子. 这才是(和异性恋)互不干涉, 各过各的呢. Moab前几个贴把这个观点说的很清楚了. 事实上同性恋的很多事情上也是这么做的. 比如, gay这个称呼, 就是同性恋人自己给自己的起的名字. 以前他们只是被称为同性恋--homosexual. 是他们自己不喜欢这个homosexual的称呼. 原因是它来自科学家. 出自医学家心理学家之口, 总有一点mental ill的病态意思. 所以, 他们不喜欢. 直到六十年代,他们开始普遍地称自己为gay. 他们也很会选字. Gay这个字本来是快乐的,喜悦的意思, 很好的一个字.电台里有时还有老歌,歌词好象是it’s a gay day, 或 what a gay day之类的, 具体记不清了. 我知道现在同性恋还是很受歧视, 很多人支持prop 8是出于同情. 但是, 情是情, 理是理. 该讲理的时候就应该讲理. 既然大家都赞成各过各的, 我们应该问, 同性恋人为什么不能象当年给自己选名字gay一样, 也给自己的白头到老的结合选个名字呢?
浮生 wrote:
Prop 8 exit polls: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1 老圣的比喻有问题,C音由频率决定是个固定的物理量,婚姻的形式是evolve的因为社会的变化,如苦瓜所说。异性相吸肯定不能是婚姻产生的原因,吸了多少万年了,早怎没婚姻呢。 - Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/29/2008
after they banned gay marriage, now they start talking about forbidding people from divorce! How nice!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n98gcBKvUIM
They use children again! how brutal! Now I feel like to kill someone. - Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/29/2008
I wonder how many of those prop 8 supports here in ths cafe would also support the prohibition of divorce.
Can't help but feeling every one of those in the video looks like a stupid, hypocritical religious maniac :-) - posted on 11/30/2008
亏你在这个自由的国家呆这么久了, 这里什么声音没有? 什么观点思想没有? 什么组织群体没有? 什么南腔北调,形形色色没有? youtube上的东西多的是, 怎么听见一点风就是雨呢? 你支持奥巴马, Venezuela的Chavez也支持奥巴马,你能说你和他就完全一样?
看来关于prop 8, 你还是没有get it, 所以才听到风就是雨. 连Elton John 都get it,你没有.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elton-john_N.htm
gz wrote:
I wonder how many of those prop 8 supports here in ths cafe would also support the prohibition of divorce.
Can't help but feeling every one of those in the video looks like a stupid, hypocritical religious maniac :-) - posted on 11/30/2008
st dude wrote:
, 这里什么声音没有? 什么观点思想没有? 什么组织群体没有? 什么南腔北调,形形色色没有? youtube上的东西多的是, 怎么听见一点风就是雨呢?
我说的不也算是“什么声音没有”里的一种声音,“ 什么观点思想没有”里的一种观点思想?
“亏你在这个自由的国家呆这么久了”?:-)
你支持奥巴马, Venezuela的Chavez也支持奥巴马,你能说你和他就完全一样?
不是有人既支持 Prop 8 也支持禁止离婚吗?说你老圣了吗?北京人讲话,别太吃心呀!:-) - Re: Same-Sexposted on 11/30/2008
Anybody tell me what's wrong?
Keith Olbermann Speaks Out On Prop 8, I just feel he speaks for me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HpTBF6EfxY&NR=1 - posted on 11/30/2008
what? Elton John? what a joke! Want to know what I think of him? He is a crap! His music is crap, he is a crappy old man and he talked crap! Period. I never liked his music, and i think he aged ugly,repulsively ugly! Don't show me ugly pictures, and keep my holiday sane.
看来关于prop 8, 你还是没有get it, 所以才听到风就是雨. 连Elton John 都get it,你没有.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elton-john_N.htm - posted on 11/30/2008
说到底,同性恋要求结婚的权力,并不是要求社会承认他们(她们)的性取向,而是要求人人平等的权利。既然宪法的宗旨是人人平等,同性恋当然有和异性恋一样结婚的权力。不给他们权力才是反宪法的。
不错,天主教和基督教的结婚仪式,都说上帝创立了一男一女的结婚制度,这是从上帝造亚当夏娃那里衍生出来,后人强化而成的。宪法是政教法三权分立,我实在看不到任何的根据同性恋不能结婚,只是目前美国的社会保守派还稍占上风,再等几年,就不会是问题了。
maya wrote:
what? Elton John? what a joke! Want to know what I think of him? He is a crap! His music is crap, he is a crappy old man and he talked crap! Period. I never liked his music, and i think he aged ugly,repulsively ugly! Don't show me ugly pictures, and keep my holiday sane.
看来关于prop 8, 你还是没有get it, 所以才听到风就是雨. 连Elton John 都get it,你没有.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elton-john_N.htm - posted on 11/30/2008
同意。
其实我们只要细想传统婚姻的基本及衍生功能(如爱情,性,繁殖后代,生活稳定,伴侣,教育后代,继承某种传统或文化,经济合伙,等等),就会发现这些因素同性婚姻基本也可满足大多甚至所有这些功能(如通过生物技术达到生殖目的,通过领养来教育后代等)。而另一方面,普遍婚姻通常也不同时具备这些传统婚姻的功能(如许多人结婚并不繁衍后代)。所以除了传统观念以外,实在没有什么很有说服力的理由来阻制同性恋者的权利。
至于上帝造一男一女婚姻模式说,只要把圣经稍微重新解释一下就行了。:) 夏娃其实是男的一部分,是上帝做了变性手术的结果。她的女姓是变性手术的结果。在本质上,她与亚当的结合是同性婚姻,或是一位男的与一位本是男的但做变性术的女子的婚姻. 圣经中描述的这种婚姻模式,实际上的两种:男与男及男与女,它本来就暗合了同性婚姻的模式。
在我看来,如果法律可以承认一个男子与另一个通过变性手术而成为在生物上是”女子”的男子的婚姻。它实在也应该承认一个男子与另一个没做手术的男子的婚姻。八戒可以变成美男,但醉后变原形后,索性说”变来变去得麻烦” ,便只以原形出现了。一个人的权利,不应取决于他(她)是否在生物构造上是否满足一些约定俗成(有些约定俗成从前或许有合理的原因但这些原因不再有效)的要求。这正如性别与种族不应成为对公民自由权力的限制一样。
July wrote:
说到底,同性恋要求结婚的权力,并不是要求社会承认他们(她们)的性取向,而是要求人人平等的权利。既然宪法的宗旨是人人平等,同性恋当然有和异性恋一样结婚的权力。不给他们权力才是反宪法的。
不错,天主教和基督教的结婚仪式,都说上帝创立了一男一女的结婚制度,这是从上帝造亚当夏娃那里衍生出来,后人强化而成的。宪法是政教法三权分立,我实在看不到任何的根据同性恋不能结婚,只是目前美国的社会保守派还稍占上风,再等几年,就不会是问题了。
maya wrote:
what? Elton John? what a joke! Want to know what I think of him? He is a crap! His music is crap, he is a crappy old man and he talked crap! Period. I never liked his music, and i think he aged ugly,repulsively ugly! Don't show me ugly pictures, and keep my holiday sane.
看来关于prop 8, 你还是没有get it, 所以才听到风就是雨. 连Elton John 都get it,你没有.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elton-john_N.htm - Re: Same-Sexposted on 12/01/2008
看到电视上两个男的手挽手,嘴要凑到一起,就要呕吐。
但是我也承认,人家两个人要在一起,要爱,确实不管我什么事儿,我也没权利说不,再想想,如果几个成年女的嫁一个男的,或几个成年男的嫁一个女的,我也没权利说不,人家也可能是真爱,而且不碍我什么事儿。
吃狗肉,吃猫肉呢?毕竟,鲜红的牛肉,大解八块儿的鸡大大方方地摆在商店里。 - posted on 12/01/2008
The Times They Are A-Changin'
Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.
The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ_XwLSN45I - Re: The Times They Are A-Changin'posted on 12/01/2008
我对於同性恋领养小孩有点意见。孩子的世界观与父母有很大关系,孩子以父母为role model。一个小孩在长大的过程中,看到作为role model 的两个同性长辈,会有怎样的困惑呢? - Re: The Times They Are A-Changin'posted on 12/01/2008
他们的role models会是两个loving and giving human beings. 因为有这样的父母,他们的眼界更加开阔,更加容忍,而不会去管别人用什么器官示爱做爱。
银桦 wrote:
我对於同性恋领养小孩有点意见。孩子的世界观与父母有很大关系,孩子以父母为role model。一个小孩在长大的过程中,看到作为role model 的两个同性长辈,会有怎样的困惑呢? - posted on 12/01/2008
如果你认为我的回应是冲着我或者某个XX来的, 你又没有 get it. 我们发表观点, make sense是第一的, make friend/enemy 是次要的(即使是以交友为目的来这里的网友也应该如此). 我回应你的意思是, 在自由的社会,我们应该有一种见怪不怪的习惯. 否则,累死你呀. 这是handle 自由的一种能力. 但, 如果是借用某种极少数人的观点来转移大多数人的理由, 那是掩盖真相. 就好比如果我用Chavez 的”favor奥巴马而不是麦坎”的事实攻击你对奥巴马的支持, 你不觉得我的这种等同扭曲了你真正支持的理由吗?
gz wrote:
不是有人既支持 Prop 8 也支持禁止离婚吗?说你老圣了吗?北京人讲话,别太吃心呀!:-) - posted on 12/01/2008
又不是音乐专线, 没有跟你说他的music. 也不是明星专线, 没有说他是否ugly还是old的长相. 而是在说他关于Prop 8的看法, 代表了包括本线线主moab在内的很多人的看法. 你在走题.
maya wrote:
what? Elton John? what a joke! Want to know what I think of him? He is a crap! His music is crap, he is a crappy old man and he talked crap! Period. I never liked his music, and i think he aged ugly,repulsively ugly! Don't show me ugly pictures, and keep my holiday sane.
- posted on 12/01/2008
说到底, 就是有人非得要用July的这个名字发言. 别人告诉他/她,这个名字已经有人用了, 而且已经在这里多年, 大家都很熟悉她了. 可这个人就是不答应, 还指控别人侵犯他/她发言等各种权利. 你说, 这都是哪儿跟哪儿啊.
这个人为什么不能自己给自己起个名字? 同样的, 同性恋人为什么不能根据自己的特殊情况,建立一套自己结合的名称和风俗呢? 为什么非得要用"婚姻, 男以昏时迎女,女因男而来, 新郎, 新娘等等等..."这些明显是异性结合的字眼,名称,话语和风俗呢?
July wrote:
说到底,同性恋要求结婚的权力,并不是要求社会承认他们(她们)的性取向,而是要求人人平等的权利。既然宪法的宗旨是人人平等,同性恋当然有和异性恋一样结婚的权力。不给他们权力才是反宪法的。
不错,天主教和基督教的结婚仪式,都说上帝创立了一男一女的结婚制度,这是从上帝造亚当夏娃那里衍生出来,后人强化而成的。宪法是政教法三权分立,我实在看不到任何的根据同性恋不能结婚,只是目前美国的社会保守派还稍占上风,再等几年,就不会是问题了。
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
- moab
- #1 touche
- #2 chloe
- #3 浮生
- #4 gz
- #5 阿姗
- #6 浮生
- #7 rzp
- #8 八十一子
- #9 八十一子
- #10 moab
- #11 gz
- #12 gz
- #13 moab
- #14 batman
- #15 老瓦
- #16 gz
- #17 gz
- #18 moab
- #19 sands
- #20 草叶
- #21 moab
- #22 yc
- #23 moab
- #24 浮生
- #25 阿姗
- #26 gz
- #27 gz
- #28 moab
- #29 moab
- #30 moab
- #31 moab
- #32 浮生
- #33 苦瓜
- #34 moab
- #35 moab
- #36 阿姗
- #37 st dude
- #38 st dude
- #39 浮生
- #40 rzp
- #41 八十一子
- #42 gz
- #43 阿姗
- #44 moab
- #45 浮生
- #46 moab
- #47 tar
- #48 gz
- #49 moab
- #50 tar
- #51 moab
- #52 moab
- #53 tar
- #54 moab
- #55 gz
- #56 moab
- #57 八十一子
- #58 tar
- #59 哈哈一笑
- #60 tar
- #61 浮生
- #62 哈哈一笑
- #63 tar
- #64 哈哈一笑
- #65 鹿希
- #66 草叶
- #67 哈哈一笑
- #68 lucy
- #69 tar
- #70 moab
- #71 鹿希
- #72 liaokang
- #73 鹿希
- #74 玛雅
- #75 哈哈一笑
- #76 tar
- #77 moab
- #78 tar
- #79 moab
- #80 tar
- #81 moab
- #82 鹿希
- #83 moab
- #84 tar
- #85 鹿希
- #86 moab
- #87 rzp
- #88 moab
- #89 moab
- #90 rzp
- #91 st dude
- #92 st dude
- #93 maya
- #94 gz
- #95 st dude
- #96 gz
- #97 July
- #98 maya
- #99 July
- #100 风子
- #101 LM
- #102 风子
- #103 银桦
- #104 玛雅
- #105 st dude
- #106 st dude
- #107 st dude
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation