Prop 8

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Why? Challenge me? You know my position so well so that you know the answer. Besides, the points in your last a couple of posts, either I have already stated my position clearly in my previous posts, or I see no points to discuss it further because without A, there is no point to discuss B.

Well, you've changed the original discussion of Equal but Separate to Natures Law. Avoiding all discussion on bigotry and sticking with what was taught by family and religion and comparing it with specious remarks of tolerance. Well, you can do that but you'll never change people to follow that train of thought. If people are borne with inalienable rights, then they are all the same people. I can not believe you really care about equality. As a Separatist, and you are, there are many States with Civil Unions. I am sure if some soul saving group put up the money to make that illegal, you would not find fault with it.

 

[jennylovskt]

Well, you've changed the original discussion of Equal but Separate to Natures Law. Avoiding all discussion on bigotry and sticking with what was taught by family and religion and comparing it with specious remarks of tolerance.

Both were talking from different angles of view to address the same issue. And I stand by both on what I said.

 

[Tonichelle]

I think it stands to reason that both sides are not going to change their minds no matter how long we debate the topic... and feelings are just going to end up getting more and more hurt...

 

[jennylovskt]

I think it stands to reason that both sides are not going to change their minds no matter how long we debate the topic... and feelings are just going to end up getting more and more hurt...

That is absolutely true! That is why I have stated on post 41 that I would do my part to stop on the discussion from that point of view. It looks like that there is not much that I need to say from this point of view either. No one has changed any one's mind.

 

[Bennett]

That is absolutely true! That is why I have stated on post 41 that I would do my part to stop on the discussion from that point of view. It looks like that there is not much that I need to say from this point of view either. No one has changed any one's mind.

I am sorry if you felt hurt. It's actually been very helpful for me to read your and ChrisH's opinions. Although a half of the American public seem to be against gay marriage, I haven't really had a chance to have discussions with anyone in that position. I acknowledge that those who are against gay marriage have diverse positions and various reasons and logics behind their thinking. So I am not saying that you and ChrisH would represent the typical opinions on that side or there would even exist any "typical" opinion in that matter. Yet, it has been wonderful to get to know your underlying logics and backgrounds in detail so that I could see things from different angles. I do not want to be only thinking and seeing things just in my own little box, which I admit I tend to do. Many of the things you said are really new to me and have shown me a different perspective.

 

[jennylovskt]

I am sorry if you felt hurt. It's actually been very helpful for me to read your and ChrisH's opinions. Although a half of the American public seem to be against gay marriage, I haven't really had a chance to have discussions with anyone in that position. I acknowledge that those who are against gay marriage have diverse positions and various reasons and logics behind their thinking. So I am not saying that you and ChrisH would represent the typical opinions on that side or there would even exist any "typical" opinion in that matter. Yet, it has been wonderful to get to know your underlying logics and backgrounds in detail so that I could see things from different angles. I do not want to be only thinking and seeing things just in my own little box, which I admit I tend to do. Many of the things you said are really new to me and have shown me a different perspective.

I really appreciate your concerns for this side of the people. Thanks! Though I am perfectly fine. After all it is so insignificant about a straight woman's feeling compare with the gay men's. I am glad that you actually got to know some of the other side of the opinions from the first time. I think It is important.

 

[ChrisH]

Rule 302 Pair Skating
5. The composition of a pair must be one Lady and one Man.

Rule 303 Content of Ice Dance
2. The composition of an Ice Dance Couple must be one Lady and one Man

http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-191593-208816-140518-0-file,00.pdf

I didn't see a rule specifying that only men can compete in mens singles and only ladies in ladies singles. Perhaps that rule is assumed (or the ISU wouldn't mind Mao Asada competing against the men in senior B internationals).

 

[Mathman]

5. The composition of a pair must be one Lady and one Man.

Phooey balooey. Besedin and Polishchuk rock.

Not to mention Will Ferrell and Jon Heder. Show me a mixed pair that can do the Iron Lotus and you might have a point.

Check this out. :yes:

 

[Tonichelle]

don't they do it out of 'fairness' as much as being 'socially easier'?

 

[antmanb]

Ant - I think you have been very rational - and yet passionate - in your responses. I respect a lot of what you offer on this subject, as well as the rest of the board. Just felt the need to say...

Thanks Tony I really appreciate it

don't they do it out of 'fairness' as much as being 'socially easier'?

I thought the original separation of the ladies and mens events was because a lady entered the competition and kicked all the men's asses! Was it Madge Sayers or one of those early pioneering ladies?

Ant

 

[Bennett]

The same-sex pairs would bring newer styles .

 

[Tonichelle]

ant - I am not a skating history buff so I have no idea... being born in 1985, I don't really have a lot of that trivia tucked away like so many on here... I'll get there eventually (I can say "I remember figures" ... barely lol)

 

[Mathman]

I thought the original separation of the ladies and mens events was because a lady entered the competition and kicked all the men's asses! Was it Madge Sayers or one of those early pioneering ladies?

ant - I am not a skating history buff so I have no idea... being born in 1985,...

Well, if you had been born 104 years earlier you would be the same age as Madge Syers.

Yes, that was a totally awesome part of figure skating history. In 1902 Madge Syers noticed that the rules of the ISU did not specifically forbid ladies from competing in the world championship.

Sort of like when Babe the Pig found out that you didn't have to be a dog to compete in the sheep-herding contest. The organizers of the event never in a million years thought any such thing would ever happen. Imagine! A pig wanting to herd sheep or a lady wanting to participate in athletics!

So when Syers signed up for the World Championship the ISU had no way to keep her out. She finished second to Ulrich Salchow (there is a legend that Salchow gallantly offered Syers his medal, acknowledging that she was the better skater, but that story is probably apochrophal.)

Anyway, the response of the ISU was swift. They immediately passed a rule instituting secret judging...on no, wait, that was 2002. They immediately passed a rule prohibiting women from competing. The reason: when ladies skate in ankle length dresses, the judges can't see their feet, so they can't give a fair evaluation of their talent.

Show a little ankle, now, that was another story! Syers cut off her skirt at mid-calf (starting a fashion trend, much like Dorothy Hamill's haircut) and entered the 1903 British Open Championship, which was not an ISU event and did not prohibit women. She won the gold medal, and her husband won silver.

Finally in 1906 the ISU initiated a women's world championship alongside the separate but equal men's. Syers won, becoming the first ladies' world champion. She won again in 1907 and was the gold medalist (ladies) at the 1908 Olympics. (She and her husband got bronze in pairs -- I think we can see who was the weak sister in that partnership. )

I guess in the long run the ladies had the last laugh. Once Sonia Henie burst onto the scene (even shorter skirt), ladies' skating pretty much took over, in terms of public interest.

But in 2010 the pendulum swung back the other way, as Patrick Chan and Takahiko Kozuka made everyone forget all about Mao Asada and Yuna Kim at the Vancouver Olys. Even the return of Michelle Kwan could not wrest the spotlight from the gentlemen's side of the sport.

 

[Tonichelle]

see, my point is proven - didn't even know when the disiplines split

 

[antmanb]

Well, if you had been born 104 years earlier you would be the same age as Madge Syers.

Yes, that was a totally awesome part of figure skating history. In 1902 Madge Syers noticed that the rules of the ISU did not specifically forbid ladies from competing in the world championship.

Sort of like when Babe the Pig found out that you didn't have to be a dog to compete in the sheep-herding contest. The organizers of the event never in a million years thought any such thing would ever happen. Imagine! A pig wanting to herd sheep or a lady wanting to participate in athletics!

So when Syers signed up for the World Championship the ISU had no way to keep her out. She finished second to Ulrich Salchow (there is a legend that Salchow gallantly offered Syers his medal, acknowledging that she was the better skater, but that story is probably apochrophal.)

Anyway, the response of the ISU was swift. They immediately passed a rule instituting secret judging...on no, wait, that was 2002. They immediately passed a rule prohibiting women from competing. The reason: when ladies skate in ankle length dresses, the judges can't see their feet, so they can't give a fair evaluation of their talent.

Show a little ankle, now, that was another story! Syers cut off her skirt at mid-calf (starting a fashion trend, much like Dorothy Hamill's haircut) and entered the 1903 British Open Championship, which was not an ISU event and did not prohibit women. She won the gold medal, and her husband won silver.

Finally in 1906 the ISU initiated a women's world championship alongside the separate but equal men's. Syers won, becoming the first ladies' world champion. She won again in 1907 and was the gold medalist (ladies) at the 1908 Olympics. (She and her husband got bronze in pairs -- I think we can see who was the weak sister in that partnership. )

I guess in the long run the ladies had the last laugh. Once Sonia Henie burst onto the scene (even shorter skirt), ladies' skating pretty much took over, in terms of public interest.

But in 2010 the pendulum swung back the other way, as Patrick Chan and Takahiko Kozuka made everyone forget all about Mao Asada and Yuna Kim at the Vancouver Olys. Even the return of Michelle Kwan could not wrest the spotlight from the gentlemen's side of the sport.

Thanks MM for the hysterically funny potted history of the splitting of the disciplines!! I loved it - especially the accidental fast forward to 2002 and secret judging!

I remember that ice dance is a relatively new discipline - did it spring up in the 60s?

Anyway we appear to have swayed terribly off topic onto skating!!

Ant

 

[dorispulaski]

Ice dance first appeared at world championships in 1952. However, people have been dancing on ice a long time.



http://www.eskatefans.com/skatabase/worlddance1952.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/675466/A-Brief-History-of-Ice-Dancing

In fact, so far back that there is a Jackson Haines Waltz. The European Waltz which is skated in tests today originated before 1900. Many of the current compulsories were invented in the 1930's

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

hey Ant and MM - What have women originated? Even high heels were first worn by French men? n'est pas?

 

[dorispulaski]

No it ain't so and you aren't funny

Women inventors:

http://inventors.about.com/library/blwomeninventors.htm

For that matter, I've got a bunch of patents, some in the areas of lasers, some in molybdenum processing, some in inspection.

Quite a few technical Nobel prize winners, too:

Physics
1903 - Marie Curie
1963 - Maria Goeppert-Mayer
Chemistry
1911 - Marie Curie
1935 - Irène Joliot-Curie
1964 - Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin
Physiology or Medicine
1947 - Gerty Cori
1977 - Rosalyn Yalow
1983 - Barbara McClintock
1986 - Rita Levi-Montalcini
1988 - Gertrude B. Elion
1995 - Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard
2004 - Linda B. Buck
2008 - Françoise Barré-Sinoussi

 

[oleada]

Doris - Great answer to a stupid question.

The same-sex pairs would bring newer styles .

I'd love to see an Aliona Savchenko - Tatiana Volosozhar pairing!

 

[Tonichelle]

Women inventors:

http://inventors.about.com/library/blwomeninventors.htm

For that matter, I've got a bunch of patents, some in the areas of lasers, some in molybdenum processing, some in inspection.

Quite a few technical Nobel prize winners, too:

Physics
1903 - Marie Curie
1963 - Maria Goeppert-Mayer
Chemistry
1911 - Marie Curie
1935 - Irène Joliot-Curie
1964 - Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin
Physiology or Medicine
1947 - Gerty Cori
1977 - Rosalyn Yalow
1983 - Barbara McClintock
1986 - Rita Levi-Montalcini
1988 - Gertrude B. Elion
1995 - Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard
2004 - Linda B. Buck
2008 - Françoise Barré-Sinoussi

yeah, so there