Texas is... progressive?Follow

Ok that's a stretch, but still, I found this rather amusing.



"We don't approve of gay marriage, but we'll give you a gay divorce, on a technicality."

Most of you know I'm not heavily pro or anti-gay marraige. I figure it's one issue that doesn't really affect me either way, but this seems kind of stupid even to me.

I'm not sure it is so bold. I'm not gay, nor do I have any gay friends or acquaintances (that I know of) that want to get married. I'm not saying it'll never affect me, but right now, it doesn't.

Edited, Oct 2nd 2009 1:03am by BrownDuck

Sarcastic joke WHOOSH.

Ok, so I missed the sarcasm. However, I've stated on several occasions that while I understand some people "take up the cause" whether it affects them directly or not, I just don't happen to feel this is an issue worth my compassion, as you put it. I'm fairly indifferent on the topic of gay marriage, not just because it doesn't apply to me (directly, or indirectly), but because I have no personal interest in the topic outside of general discussion.



This was kind of my view on the situation. The fact that a court is willing to mandate the recognition of a union created outside of its jurisdiction is, at least on some level, progress. The amusing part is that someone seems perfectly willing to allow the destruction of something they specifically disallow the creation of. Then again, amusing as it may be, I suppose it's not all that uncommon for human kind in general.

On an additional note:



I've long postulated that most people who fight for something that does not directly affect them are on at least some significant level motivated by said desire. I concede that it is possible to care about something for other reasons, but being cynical as I am, I'm inclined to believe that scenario is rather uncommon.

Edited, Oct 2nd 2009 1:33am by BrownDuck

I can agree to gay marriages, but now they want to get divorced too?

You know, that's what makes people hate you

More a comment on the meaninglessness of life in the long term. And an assumption that everything will become extinct eventually anyway, if not for a few billion years when the Sun turns into a red giant, so what does it matter?

Next, the Gay Prenuptial Settlement Hearing.

Well, looking at the big picture if arbitrary and bigoted law-making is allowed, it impacts all of us.

My goal is neither to perpetrate hatred nor violence. I'm simply indifferent on this particular subject because it resides outside my monkeysphere. I don't see how that can be particularly loathsome or bigoted.

With the way people get married and divorced these days I find it hard to believe that marriage is seen as anything serious or meaningful anymore. It's just a contract that allows two people to combine their resources. Let the gays / lesbians / "gender confuseds" / whatever you want to be calleds have their marriage. Jesus.

Trying to tell someone they should care when they don't is a futile endeavor. A more useful approach would be to give said person a reason to care, but that's not likely here either. Just so there's no confusion, if there's ever a federal or state ballot initiative to allow gay marriage, I'd vote for it. What I'm unwilling to do is take up a torch and march with the rest of the cause's supporters. It just doesn't mean that much to me.

So you DO have an opinion. You'd vote in favor of it.

I was never arguing that you had to become an activist about it, just that you could have an opinion about something that doesn't affect you (and furthermore, should have an opinion, if you are reasonably informed about a topic).



Edited, Oct 2nd 2009 11:03am by trickybeck

Yes, but it allows for it to occur.

You don't even need to have true support for their rights, only for the goal of limiting the pervasiveness of adgenda driven institutional control over the populace, especially when the adgendas are inherently at odds with the general benefit of society.

If an institution was disriminatory towards a certain racial group, you don't need to be part of that group, or know someone who is to dislike those actions or policies with regards towards any group.

If an institution was built to financially exploit the fears, or ignorance of a certain subset of people, you don't need to be caught in that web to dislike, and oppose this method of exploitation.

And by doing nothing, or remaining wholely apathetic to those conditions actively encourages people to use those tactics. If there is no retalitory pushback for practices that collectively we would like to discourage, they will be successful, and thus more likely to be carried out in perpetuity. Vocal minorities only have a small segment of the power quotient neccessary to make those positions untenable in even the strictest of game theory dissections of their successfulness. And if they have a high proportionality of successfulness, they will exist, and entrench themselves deeper into society at large.