Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Ted Kennedy says we should be spending this time talking about gas prices, health care costs and the Iraq war. Those aren't advantagous to Democrats?

I don't give a flying fig who those things are "advantageous" to -- we should be talking about those things because they really matter, because they have a vast impact on society as a whole. If talking about those things is a "disadvantage" to the Republican party, doesn't that just confirm that they're a bunch of self-serving <insert favourite invective here> that need to be tossed out?

Can you give me one, just one credible reason how Adam marrying Steve has any impact on you personally, let alone society as a whole?

I can sure do that for either of those three things mentioned above.


Legalizing prostitution, drug use, consentual incest, polygamy or beastiality have no personal effect on me or my family. But it'd be selfish in my view to only look at things that effect me directly. I oppose them because they are bad for society. If you don't value Judeu-Christian values that this country was founded on as much as I do, then it's understandable that we'd differ in this area. But to only look at how things effect me (or you for that matter) is wrong.

Hence the reason I also added the phrase let alone society as a whole. And personally, none of those things you've mentioned above, I see as being particularly bad for society as a whole, either. I find some of them revolting (incest/beastiality), but others (legalized prostitution and drug use, in particular) I think would actually go so far as to improve society (even though I have no interest in partaking of either activity). It's not the Judeo-Christian values I object to -- it's that people think religious values should be used to guide society even to the point of persecuting minority segments of the population. Isn't that partly why this country was founded in the first place? To escape religious persecution?

That said, can you provide any valid demonstration of how gay marriage harms society?

Quote:
1) Let's be honest that the radical agenda is to change marriage as has been defined throughout history. [...] To say that marriage included gay couples prior to the Christian faith is flat out wrong too (attn: marriage existed prior to Christ.)

I'm quite well aware that marriage existed before Christ. I'm also quite well aware that the concepts of marriage have changed and evolved over time, too -- both before, and after Christ. Polygamy was, at one point, acceptable (and still is, in some cultures). The bride, at one point, was considered nothing more than property, for which a bride-price was paid. According to the Bible, a man is required to marry his brother's wife, should his brother die -- we don't do that, anymore, either. Nor do we practice arranged marriages, though some cultures still do. Inter-racial marriages were also unacceptable at one point, too. There may or may not have been gay marriages at some point in history (I don't know of any instances of such, but, unlike you, I'm not willing to categorically deny such possibilities -- I'm not a scholar of the topic), but it doesn't matter: the crux of the argument is that you're defense is "tradition says...", but tradition is a) constantly changing, and b) culturally dependant.

Quote:
To say that's it's radical to want to keep marriage as it's defined today means that all of society has been radical until this was brought up several years ago.

Not really. I don't think it's radical to have behave based on ignorance. What I consider radical is, having been educated about the ignorance -- realizing the hypocrisy, oppression and bigotry involved in the subject -- to continue in that behaviour, and to defend that continued behaviour based on flimsy arguments drawn almost purely from religion. It's not radical to want to be treated as any other human being.

Quote:
2) Republicans are initiating this amendment to time with the 06 elections, but they in no way started this ball of wax from rolling. To say that they started it because they suddenly in 2002 stopped issuing marriage licenses to gay couples is beyond silly.

I agree that the Republicans may not have started the ball rolling, and I didn't claim that Republicans did so. The word I used was conservatives, with a lower-case 'c'. Further, it's not that they suddenly stopped giving out marriage licenses -- it's that they refused to give them out in the first place. The only two courses of action available after that, as a gay couple, is to either a) go along with the crowd, and accept your sub-citizen status, or b) seek redress through the legal system.

Quote:
3) Even thought the timing was political, we all know that Democrats not only would do the same thing, they ARE doing the same thing by raising issues their base feels strongly about.

Oh, yes... the tired old "well the other guys are doing it" argument.

Quote:
I argue that what constitutes a family is very vital to our society and most on my side agree with me.

I agree -- strong family values are very important. However, there is a very large sector of the US that needs to wake up to the fact that a strong family isn't due to its constituent members -- it's made through love, caring, generosity, sacrifice, communication, and a whole host of other things. Conservatives are willing to deny the potential for a strong family based on nothing more than the presence of a penis and a vagina.

Quote:
I assume that most of you argue that global warming is a bigger issue.

Not global warming, so much as a comprehensive, and sustainable energy policy -- I think the solutions for global warming will fall out of that. However, yes... I think the question of "how can we continue to advance our society when continuing to advance in our current direction is detrimental to our society's existance" is a hell of a lot more important than whether or not two "roommates" can get that little piece of paper that says they are, in fact, married.

Quote:
Shouldn't the people we elect advance the issues we feel strongest about?

Yes, but I also expect them to prioritize those issues with the society, as a whole, in mind -- not on getting re-elected.

Quote:
To you it's just a silly (or bigoted) social issue, but social issues were enough to sway the 04 election because they were largely ignored by Democrats.

Agreed -- the DNC was being run by idiots.

Quote:
It's what lost Ohio to Rebuplicans.

Honestly, I don't think so. I think there were far more nefarious things happening in Ohio than simple DNC idiocy, that lost it to Republicans. (Note that the provided link is not to some random leftwing conspiracy-theorizing blog, but to Rolling Stone magazine. Put your political biases behind you while reading it, and look at it from a purely numbers perspective.)

Quote:
I'd suggest continueing your arguements to try to sway people because if you ignore it, the same thing could happen.

Of course... you and Jeff both give me hope that rational (or even semi-rational) discourse isn't as futile as I sometimes feel it is.