Flipside Movie Emporium

stefanieduckwitz · Posted: 03.23.2004 11:37 pm Post subject:

Wow, quite a debate we got going here, and very interesting to read/watch... But I don't really understand where you, Danny, are coming from? None of this makes sense!
_________________
Stefanie Duckwitz

Danny Baldwin · Posted: 03.23.2004 11:47 pm Post subject:

matt header · Posted: 03.24.2004 12:15 am Post subject:

Danny Baldwin · Posted: 03.24.2004 12:59 am Post subject:

the night watchman · Posted: 03.24.2004 1:25 am Post subject:

So gay couples ought to bear the burden of mantaining economic status quo? It might be polite to ask them if they're willing to trade equality for this responsiblity.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."

-David Cronenberg

Danny Baldwin · Posted: 03.24.2004 2:07 am Post subject:

Well this is all determined by your definition of marriage, but, legally, the defense of marriage act, which was signed by a liberal, is what I'm going by in this debate. I personally think those who deserve most to be doing this are the ones creating children, and raising families.
_________________
Danny Baldwin

View My Reviews

the night watchman · Posted: 03.24.2004 2:29 am Post subject:

Okay, my wife and I, since we're not creating children and raising a family, will divorce post haste, so as not to tarnish the word "marriage," and get in line with the gays and lesbians for a civil union. God bless America.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."

-David Cronenberg

Danny Baldwin · Posted: 03.24.2004 3:55 am Post subject:

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm simply saying that the only ones making the families are the heterosexual couples, so therefore they're the ones who are in the position to get the benefit. This has nothing to do with divorce or whether homosexuality is "right" as some lame moralists will tell you.
_________________
Danny Baldwin

View My Reviews

Tooky Cat · Posted: 03.24.2004 4:41 am Post subject:

Oh my, how unfortuante that I've missed this sticky topic! I do so love controversial debate!

My first point: Why does it matter whether gay couples are procreating or not? Isn't the world overpopulated the way it is? That's one thing I don't understand about China, where gay just "doesn't exist". You'd think, given their cramped space, they'd be promoting homosexuality. JK. But quite frankly, why does marriage have to revolve arond families and children? Marriage is a commitment between two people who are in love to spend their lives with and to love each other. It's not mandatory that they have kids.

I have yet to hear an entirely logical argument against gay marriage. Bush will have us believe that it will destroy the "sanctity" or marriage. If you ask me, peaking divorce rates and Elvis' Chapel of Love already did that. Coincidentally, those are entirely heterosexual elements.

As for economic factors, I really can't see allowing more people to marry causing any sort of economic crisis, just a lot of smiles.
_________________
Let's See It In - T H X - The Audience is Listening.

the night watchman · Posted: 03.24.2004 4:41 am Post subject:

But gay couples can raise children too, through adoption or artificial insemination. I suppose I don't understand how a family with same-sex parents differs on a macroscopic scale economically or socially from a family with heterosexual parents.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."

-David Cronenberg

beltmann · Posted: 03.24.2004 4:44 am Post subject:

Tooky Cat · Posted: 03.24.2004 4:47 am Post subject:

Just out of curiosity, what were the arguments against interracial marriage when that was illega? This seems somewhat similar.
_________________
Let's See It In - T H X - The Audience is Listening.

the night watchman · Posted: 03.24.2004 5:53 am Post subject:

The general objections were 1) God did not intend for the races to mix, which is why he place them on different continents, and 2) non-whites were inferior to whites, and mixing white blood with non-white blood would "delute" the race. It's difficult to believe there was a time when people felt comfortable coming out and expressing such convictions. I hope twenty or thirty years down the line similar objects to gays will seem just as strange.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."

-David Cronenberg

the night watchman · Posted: 03.24.2004 6:06 am Post subject:

One other thing: There are white separatists and Afrocentrist today that believe that all races are inherently different and incompatible. They cite post-desegregation social strife as proof. It's strange how they don't consider their own xenophobia and racism as contributing factors to racial strife.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."

-David Cronenberg

beltmann · Posted: 03.24.2004 12:48 pm Post subject: