Unoffical empeg BBS

Quick Links: Empeg FAQ | Software | RioCar.Org | Hijack | jEmplode | emphatic
Repairs: Repairs | Addons: Eutronix | Cases

Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#282508 - 06/06/2006 19:13 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: JeffS]
wfaulk
carpal tunnel

Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
FWIW, I recognize that. I wasn't accusing you of anything.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk

Top
#282509 - 06/06/2006 20:59 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: peter]
SE_Sport_Driver
carpal tunnel

Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
Quote:
Quote:
Next thing you know they'll want to abolish slavery

Yeah, and, you know, it wasn't the Right that made that into an issue, it was the slave activists...

Peter


And for the record, the Abolitionist Movement was a movement by Christians and more Republicans voted for the right of blacks to vote than Democrats.

Equating slavery to preserving marriage as it has been throughout all of civilization is a bit insulting to the horrors that slaves went through.
_________________________
Brad B.

Top
#282510 - 06/06/2006 21:02 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: webroach]
SE_Sport_Driver
carpal tunnel

Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
Quote:
Quote:
First: I love how the Left is trying to redefine marriage from what it has been through out history...


You know, I think it's this particular attitude about the marriage argument that's the most maddening. Mostly because it's incorrect. People making this argument seriously need a history class (any good Western Civilization course should do). The "church" had nothing to do with marriage until fairly recently (well, recently being maybe the last 1000 years or so).


Provide examples. The quote from me says nothing about the church and even if it did, that doesn't change the fact about what marriage has been.
_________________________
Brad B.

Top
#282511 - 06/06/2006 21:19 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: tonyc]
SE_Sport_Driver
carpal tunnel

Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
Quote:
Quote:
I mean, YOUR side is the one trying to redefine marriage and WE get demonized for defending it.


Defending it from what, exactly? So-called "activist judges?" The "attack" that is being "defended" against here simply does not exist. I cannot possibly speak any more eloquently on this than this document from the Center for American Progress has, so I will simply quote them here as evidence there is no "attack" on the institution of marriage:


Marriage is not being redefined by "activist judges." As a new Cato nstitute report by Professor Dale Carpenter notes, "The 'threat' from courts is more imagined than real." Only one state has adopted same-sex marriage as a result of a court decision; 45 states have barred same-sex marriage by various means. The question isn't whether "activist judges" should redefine marriage, but whether the states should have the opportunity to settle this matter in their own fashion, without federal interference.


For those unaware, the Cato Institute is a Libertarian (and often Conservative) think tank. The fact is, true conservatives believe in States' rights, and the goal of this amendment is to take away the right of individual states to confer marriage upon certain couples.

Again, what exactly is it that social conservatives are so afraid of that they need to "defend" from?

Quote:
Second: You have to admit that the Right is NOT bringing this topic up..


Bill Frist sets the legislative calendar for the Senate. He has chosen now to bring this issue up (along with flag burning, another golden oldie from the GOP Wedge Issue Greatest Hits collection.) With all of the other problems that need to be solved in the halls of Congress, why does he choose now?

You've acknowledged that the timing is a little too convenient, and I appreciate your candor. I will, in turn, acknowledge that gay rights groups are exerting a fair amount of legal pressure on the various state laws which restrict marriage. But, for you to claim that it's the left that's "bringing this topic up" means that the left somehow has the power to do so, and the only person with that power is Bill Frist. Bringing it up now, with all of the other things that need attention, implies that there is a grave, iminent threat. With 45 of 50 states having statutes or constitutional amendments explicitly barring gay marriage, how can this threat be categorized as iminent?

Quote:
Can one state choose to not recognize a marriage if it was done in another state? I'm not sure. That might make it a federal issue.


From The Defense of Marriage Act, signed by noted social conservative Bill Clinton:

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

In other words, under existing law, states have no obligation to recognize another state's marriage if it goes against their definition of marriage.

Quote:
I would wager that most conservatives would be okay if some states were in support of this and some weren't.


Would you put yourself in this "most conservatives" category? If so, you are in opposition to this amendment, which prevents states from deciding for themselves.


Tony, thanks for you post. While it's clear we disagree on the issue, I appreciate you being clear in your arguements. I'm not seeking to change anyone's mind here, but gaining clarity in where we disagree is an accomplishment (ie, you didn't make any bogus arguments that Republicans are only concerned about the rights of right while males).

You are talking about this issue as if it was just broughten up last week when I argue that it was brought up several years ago. Marriage, as defined today IS under attack. Whether that's a concern to you or not is your opinion, but the fact remains that gay activists (supported by the Left) are using the courts to impose their view of society on the whole country. This is being done through the courts. While we seem to agree that this should be left upto the states, what is a state to do if it's amendment to a state constitution is tossed out by its supreme court?

I do support states doing this on their own, if they are allowed to do so. At this point, I'm not "for" the US amendment because of that but if states are not allowed to pursue this locally, then I don't see an alternative.

I had the honesty to admit that this looks a bit too well timed for the 06 races, but I wonder how many of you will admit that Democrats would do the same thing? Leaks to the press days prior to a vote on the Patriot Act? Reprinting of a 6 month old story days prior to a new CIA chief being voted in? (Yes, I'm basically granting the NYT and WP official positions within the DNC! ) 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?
_________________________
Brad B.

Top
#282512 - 06/06/2006 21:58 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
hybrid8
carpal tunnel

Registered: 12/11/2001
Posts: 7738
Loc: Toronto, CANADA
Brad when it all comes down to it, the Right's position (and from what you've written, your position), is simply that people who happen to be gay (be they male or female) are simply less human than those who are straight and are not entitled to the same freedoms. There's no argument that can be made to get around that basic premise. Gays are simply "less" (entitled, worthy, important, significant what-have you) and that's the way it should stay.

Or maybe more can be taken away? How far can this go? It's persecution to some degree.

I'm Catholic and I support the idea of equality, which includes same-sex unions and/or marriage. Of course I also live in Canada and we all know that according to our own Terrance and Philip, we're a bunch of Uncle-F*ckas.

Bruno
_________________________
Bruno
Twisted Melon : Fine Mac OS Software

Top
#282513 - 06/06/2006 23:35 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
canuckInOR
carpal tunnel

Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3162
Loc: Portland, OR
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.

Top
#282514 - 06/06/2006 23:37 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
webroach
old hand

Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
Quote:
Provide examples. The quote from me says nothing about the church and even if it did, that doesn't change the fact about what marriage has been.


I'll do better: I'll show you how to find your own. Go to Google Scholar and search for polygamy marriage history. Granted, that will show you more about types of marriage not "ok" by the western view, rather than when the church got involved. But if you consider that the church has been around for no more than 2000 years, how were they involved in marriage before that? Or did it just not exist before the church "came up with it"? My point is that your statement about the way marriage "has been through out [sic] history" is simply ridiculous and disturbingly uninformed. This kind of spurious argument, tossed off as a soundbite left and right in recent times, is a much larger problem than whether someones marriage partner has a penis or a vagina.

And no, Brad, you're right: the quote from you said nothing about the church. Show me an athiest that gives a damn if gays or lesbians marry. We tend to be more concerned about individual rights than we are about policing everybody else.

As far as I'm concerned, and this is just me, every complaint regarding same-sex marriage has the church somewhere at its root.
_________________________
Dave

Top
#282515 - 06/06/2006 23:55 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: hybrid8]
canuckInOR
carpal tunnel

Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3162
Loc: Portland, OR
Quote:
I'm Catholic and I support the idea of equality, which includes same-sex unions and/or marriage.

Hear, hear. The government is supposed to protect the rights of its citizens, not embed persecution of same into its constitution.

Former Prime Minister Paul Martin's speech in support of Bill C-38 (the Canadian bill recognizing same-sex marriage) is an excellent read. (The text in the link is fully in English, but the video alternates between English and French, as is customary in the Canadian parliament.)

Top
#282516 - 07/06/2006 00:04 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: webroach]
canuckInOR
carpal tunnel

Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3162
Loc: Portland, OR
Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, and this is just me, every complaint regarding same-sex marriage has the church somewhere at its root.

I've heard one that isn't: marriage for the purposes of procreation to ensure the continued existance of the state. (Though, there is a religious parallel to this argument, which is that God commanded us to go forth and multiply.)

However, that's a rubbish argument, because the state (and most religions, for that matter) still recognize marriages between infertile couples, and couples who choose not to have children. Ergo, lack of ability to procreate isn't a sufficient reason to deny gay people the right to get married.

Top
#282517 - 07/06/2006 00:47 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: canuckInOR]
webroach
old hand

Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
Quote:
Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, and this is just me, every complaint regarding same-sex marriage has the church somewhere at its root.

I've heard one that isn't: marriage for the purposes of procreation to ensure the continued existance of the state. (Though, there is a religious parallel to this argument, which is that God commanded us to go forth and multiply.)


You're 100% right, of course. While I had thought of the religious version of this argument, I had not considered the social version. To be honest, even now it seems moot, as there will always be enough people breeding to keep overpopulation alive. I mean, if it ain't broke don't fix it, right?
_________________________
Dave

Top
#282518 - 07/06/2006 06:43 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: canuckInOR]
peter
carpal tunnel

Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4153
Loc: Cambridge, England
Quote:
I've heard one that isn't: marriage for the purposes of procreation to ensure the continued existance of the state. (Though, there is a religious parallel to this argument, which is that God commanded us to go forth and multiply.)

However, that's a rubbish argument

Not least because it assumes that the availability of marriage is a big enough incentive to make someone switch teams. Now I guess that might have a small amount of traction in the bi community, but I'm pretty sure the asymmetrical availability of marriage hasn't been a factor in the straightness of any of the straight couples I know, nor is it a strain on the gayness of any of the gay couples I know. And heck, would anyone want to promote the sort of loveless and unhappy marriages that would be likely to arise if one or both partners are denying their sexuality to marry for society's sake? (Yes, there are people who are very happy in these sorts of marriages. But there are also lots of people who are very unhappy.)

Peter

Top
#282519 - 07/06/2006 07:31 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: peter]
JeffS
carpal tunnel

Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Not least because it assumes that the availability of marriage is a big enough incentive to make someone switch teams.
I really don't think anyone believes that the point of the state recognizing marriage is to prevent gay coupling. Honestly, though, I'm not really sure what the real point of the state recognizing marriage actually is . . . .
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.

Top
#282520 - 07/06/2006 09:01 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: JeffS]
Anonymous
Unregistered


The problem is that a guy sticking his weiner into another guy's butt is perversion, plain and simple. Why should they get a stamp of approval from the government? It makes a mockery of what marriage really is.

In india, a woman just recently married a snake. Should the US government sanction this type of marriage as well? What if I want to f*ck a dog, my own mother, a child, or a lead pipe? Should we be allowed to be officially married? Can we adopt children?

If there's no victim, then there's no crime. So if some crazy b*tch wants to stick a snake up her p**** or some guys want to nail eachother in the ass, then they can have it. But the rest of the country or state shouldn't be forced to officially sanction their relationship. And they definitely shouldn't be able to adopt children and screw them up for life.

If they want to have children they should try the old fashioned way. If two guys can't have children together then they shouldn't be able to raise any together. An infertile woman or man is different, because that's a medical issue. The point is: children come from a man and a woman, and they are best raised by a man and a woman.

I agree though that there are bigger issues in the US right now than gay marriage. Sending all of the f*cking mexicans home should be top priority.


Edited by Billy (07/06/2006 09:05)

Top
#282521 - 07/06/2006 09:32 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: JeffS]
julf
veteran

Registered: 01/10/2001
Posts: 1298
Loc: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Quote:
Honestly, though, I'm not really sure what the real point of the state recognizing marriage actually is . . . .


Legal recognition for purposes such as inheritance, social security, benefits, next-of-kin rights etc.?

The solution usually employed (in places such as the Netherlands) is a legal recognition of a relationship, without confusing it with the concept of "marriage".

But if you don't have something like that, you get situations like when somebody who has been living with his/her partner for 30 years is not allowed to be present at the hospital when the partner is dying, and has no rights to their joint home etc...

Top
#282522 - 07/06/2006 09:54 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: canuckInOR]
SE_Sport_Driver
carpal tunnel

Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
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.

I certainly don't mind discussing gay marriage, but this thread was started complaining about the political motives of the gay marriage amendment. To that, I brought up two points and added a third:

1) Let's be honest that the radical agenda is to change marriage as has been defined throughout history. Many of you bring up good reasons on why it should be changed (and to be honest, I'm not 100% against it but it comes across that way because I'm one of only two people taking this side now), but you have to admit that it's not the conservatives initiating the change. To say that marriage included gay couples prior to the Christian faith is flat out wrong too (attn: marriage existed prior to Christ.) 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.

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.

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. I argue that what constitutes a family is very vital to our society and most on my side agree with me. I assume that most of you argue that global warming is a bigger issue. Shouldn't the people we elect advance the issues we feel strongest about? 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. It's what lost Ohio to Rebuplicans. I'd suggest continueing your arguements to try to sway people because if you ignore it, the same thing could happen.

Damn I wish I had more than 20 minutes a day online.. while we seem to disagree, you guys are much more fun to debate that some of the other sites I visit (even the ones where I'm in the majority).
_________________________
Brad B.

Top
#282523 - 07/06/2006 13:02 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
tonyc
carpal tunnel

Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
Quote:
I argue that it was brought up several years ago.


Okay, it definitely was brought up two years ago as a wedge issue in the '04 elections. Other than that, this mythical "assault on traditional family values" amounts to FOUR lower court decisions in solidly blue states and ONE single state court decision in Nebraska, currently under appeal, and only made because the statute as written would have disallowed any kind of same sex relationship (not just marriage.)

You're telling me THAT is enough to leave the Iraq war, gas prices, healthcare, education, etc. on the back burner?

Quote:
I wonder how many of you will admit that Democrats would do the same thing?

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?


Of course the Democrats are going to focus on issues that are strong for them, but they would NEVER choose a platform which advocates restricting the freedoms of individual Americans.

The issues you mention as "advantageous to Democrats" affect the majority of Americans directly. They are issues which people from both sides can agree on. Yes, healthcare costs are skyrocketing, yes, gas prices are too high, and yes, Virginia, the Iraq war is going badly. All the while, our leaders are focused on a token gesture

This is why Democrats have a 19% lead in the generic "who will you vote for in November" polling, and control a vast majority of the Independent vote. This blatant return trip to the "value voters" well is not going to be enough to overcome that.
_________________________
- Tony C
my empeg stuff

Top
#282524 - 07/06/2006 13:16 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
tonyc
carpal tunnel

Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
Quote:
Let's be honest that the radical agenda is to change marriage as has been defined throughout history.


Okay, let's run with the "marriage throughout history" meme. In the 1700s and 1800s, marriage was a financial / property arrangement, where the wife was little more than property of the husband. If you were alive back then, would you be opposed to the radical "the wife is more than just the husband's property" agenda?
_________________________
- Tony C
my empeg stuff

Top
#282525 - 07/06/2006 13:37 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
DWallach
carpal tunnel

Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3728
I know we've been around this block many times, but it's useful to separate out the definitions of "marriage" and "civil union", as is done in many other countries.

A "civil union" has legal consequences concerning taxes, parenting, inheritance, power of attorney, and a variety of other issues. (Hint: dual income gay couple pay *lower* taxes because they must file separately. If they filed jointly, they'd inevitably pay at the higher rate for their joint income.)

A "marriage" is a spiritual thing, typically sanctioned by a church or other religious organization, the details of which vary but generally include aspects like life-long commitments to one's partner.

What "gay activists" want are civil unions, because they want the legal protections and are willing to take on the legal obligations. They wouldn't mind also being "married", i.e., considered full-fledged members of society. What concerns "right-wing activists" is that granting such rights to homosexuals will cause the collapse of our society (e.g., humping of box turtles). To the extent that we have any objective evidence of the effects of gay marriage on the rest of society, they appear to be negligible or even beneficial (citation: Massachusetts, despite allowing gay marriage, has the lowest divorce rate in the 50 states). Correlation does not imply causation, but the lack of correlation does serve as a counter-example to causation.

The deeper concern, so far as I can intuit, is that "gay marriage" is considered to be an abomination by a segment of the population, and any state recognition of gay rights (marriage, civil union, or whatever else) would undermine religious or cultural biases against it. State sanctioned marriage would clearly lead to more gay marriages (particularly starting from zero such marriages today). The "it's an abomination" crowd might conclude that state sanctioning caused the rise in gay marriage, perhaps by contradicting their religious / cultural message that opposes it. The "gay" response would naturally be that they've been gay all along, thank you, leading to the "nature" vs. "nurture" debate. If you believe homosexuality is a learned (and undesirable) behavior (i.e., comparable to drug use, criminal behavior, etc.), then you can legitimately argue that mainstream culture could / should take steps to avoid legitimizing homosexual culture. If you believe, however, that homosexuality is an inherent behavior, then culture has nothing to do with it, and you would by extension believe that the gay population, as a distinct group, deserves civil equality in precisely the fashion way that women and minorities have fought for in the past.

As such, there will always be an impasse between "gay rights" and "family values" because they have fundamentally opposite beliefs about the causes and social acceptability of homosexuality. No amount of debate or even scientific evidence will ever address these different worldviews. In short, we're doomed to have this argument over and over.

Top
#282526 - 07/06/2006 14:14 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
wfaulk
carpal tunnel

Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
Quote:
I do support states doing this on their own, if they are allowed to do so

I'm unsure what you mean here.

The amendment, as written, has no effect other than preventing states from changing their constitutions to explicitly recognize gay marriage. They would still be allowed to pass laws recognizing gay marriage, but they would not be allowed to make that law part of their constitution. They would also be allowed to make laws denying gay marriage, and would be allowed to make that part of their constitutions.

Interestingly, I don't believe that any state has ever brought the notion of a constitutional amendment affirming gay marriage.

It also has a clause that says that the US Constitution cannot explicitly recognize gay marriage. If it wasn't clear that this is just for show, that should be your proof. An amendment that states what the Constitution cannot (as opposed to does not say is a complete noop. In order for the Constitution to say it, it would have to be amended, and if that were the case, then it's just as easy to repeal or modify the old amendment anyway. Basically, it's remarkably unlikely to get a two-thirds majority in favor of explicitly recognizing gay marriage, but fail to acheive the same two-thirds majority to repeal the clause denying it.

There is also a clause defining marriage for the federal government, which is the only part that makes any sense to me, even if I think it's both silly and disagreeable.

Anyway, in addition to being spurred by anti-gay sentiment, all it does is restrict states' rights, which I thought the Republicans were supposed to be in favor of. In particular, its supposed reason for existence is to prevent "activist judges" from allowing gay marriage, but I fail to see how a judge interpreting his state's marriage laws as allowing gay marriage has anything to do with denying states the right to have their constitution explicitly allow it.


Edited by wfaulk (07/06/2006 14:23)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk

Top
#282527 - 07/06/2006 14:31 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: wfaulk]
tonyc
carpal tunnel

Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
Results of the Senate vote:
Aye: 49
Nay: 48

GOP spin:
"We're building votes," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who is among supporters of the ban who were not in the Senate when the amendment was last voted on in 2004. "That's often what's required over several years to get there, particularly to a two-thirds vote."

Reality:
There were 48 "aye" votes for such an amendment in 2004, but there were also fewer Republicans in the Senate. So this actually represents a decline in momentum for this ridiculous charade, even within the GOP ranks.
_________________________
- Tony C
my empeg stuff

Top
#282528 - 07/06/2006 14:52 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: wfaulk]
DLF
addict

Registered: 24/07/2003
Posts: 500
Loc: Colorado, N.A.
The Republicans are really *much* better at this than the Democrats, and Rush has certainly become a spokesaddict. My favorites are "do-gooder" (since when is doing good, bad?) and "tree-hugger" (sounds perverted, huh?), followed closely by "femiNazi" (practictioners of what, gendercide?). Words are significant.

Just look at the recurring debate about what conservatives call "The Death Tax." Who *wouldn't* be against taxing the DEAD? Nevermind that the real argument has to do with the fact that the majority of inheritances would already have been taxed as they were earned; that argument's *WAY* too complicated to bother.

I positively loathe both major U.S. political parties. Can you tell?

Quote:
Quote:
As for the word "liberal", I've never really seen this as a negative word

You're either lying, dense, or have never seen so much as a conservative campaign ad. (Or maybe you live in Texas. ;-) You can virtually hear the derision dripping off the word when, for example, Rush Limbaugh says it.
_________________________
-- DLF

Top
#282529 - 07/06/2006 17:44 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: DLF]
Daria
carpal tunnel

Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3932
Loc: Providence, RI
I'll ignore the real debate here, and instead suggest we simply continue reducing things to the simplest case.

If marriage needs to be defended, so be it. Introduce a bill banning divorce. That's the best defense possible. Then, pass it. The mess that follows will be a hoot, but man will we have protected marriage.

Top
#282530 - 07/06/2006 19:01 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: ]
hybrid8
carpal tunnel

Registered: 12/11/2001
Posts: 7738
Loc: Toronto, CANADA
I support your right to be a bigot. Just don't allow the federal governments or state governments to impose bigotry on anyone else. This doesn't have to have anything to do with party politics or even religion.

Despite what Brad says, Man-Woman marriage is not the "core" of Christianity. Do you have any type of work trailer or pickup truck we can carry a large load of rocks in? I think it's time for a few stonings. After all, that's the way certain problems have always been solved. And it IS the Judeo-Christian way.

Seeing as parts of the US government (and certainly many of those in power positions) are already borderline fascist, I think some folks would like to help with the final push.
_________________________
Bruno
Twisted Melon : Fine Mac OS Software

Top
#282531 - 07/06/2006 19:07 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: Daria]
petteri
addict

Registered: 02/08/2004
Posts: 432
Loc: Miami, FL USA
Either that or we just ban marriage outright. No benefits, no tax breaks, nothing. The curches and the like can do as they please, but on a civil level nada.

Top
#282532 - 07/06/2006 19:32 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
canuckInOR
carpal tunnel

Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3162
Loc: Portland, OR
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.

Top
#282533 - 07/06/2006 19:37 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: petteri]
canuckInOR
carpal tunnel

Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3162
Loc: Portland, OR
Quote:
Either that or we just ban marriage outright. No benefits, no tax breaks, nothing. The curches and the like can do as they please, but on a civil level nada.

That is a possible solution -- it was mentioned in Paul Martin's speech, linked above. I'll leave you to read his response to that proposal, as I'm in full agreement (and he's far more eloquent than I).

Top
#282534 - 07/06/2006 23:54 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: tonyc]
tanstaafl.
carpal tunnel

Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5402
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
Again, what exactly is it that social conservatives are so afraid of that they need to "defend" from?

Well, it's obvious, isn't it?

Once same-sex marriages are allowed, then everybody will be doing it. No more children will be born, the work force will decline with devastating effects on the economy.

I mean, who in their right mind would even want to marry one of those icky opposite-sex people, anyway? They probably all have cooties or something.

Yep, just as soon as people are allowed to have same-sex marriages, the institution of heterosexual marriage will collapse. Probably just a matter of weeks, a year or two at most.

If we're not careful, those leftist liberals will destroy the very things that once made America great.

Oh, wait... I think the Bush cabal has beaten us to it.

tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"

Top
#282535 - 08/06/2006 00:13 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
tanstaafl.
carpal tunnel

Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5402
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
Marriage, as defined today IS under attack.

Ummm... by whom, exactly?

Who is attacking your marriage? If two women in Nebraska want to call themselves married, how in the hell does that have any impact, any bearing whatsoever on the personal relationship between you and your wife?

And if it doesn't, how in God's name (or anybody else's name, for that matter) can you possibly justify the extraordinary arrogance of assuming that it is even any of your business, much less that you should be entitled to do something about it?

tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"

Top
#282536 - 08/06/2006 02:51 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: tanstaafl.]
tfabris
carpal tunnel

Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31295
Loc: Seattle, WA
_________________________
Tony Fabris

Top
#282537 - 08/06/2006 11:18 Re: Finally, America is safe! [Re: tfabris]
mlord
carpal tunnel

Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14098
Loc: Canada
Quote:
William J. Bennett on the Jon Stewart show.


Hehh.. Bennett's statements sound extraordinarily similar to the ones used to justify other big right feather issues there. Amazing, that.

Cheers

Top
Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >