OLYMPIA, Wash (Reuters) - A bill to legalize gay marriage in Washington now has enough votes to pass the state legislature, a lawmaker who sponsored the measure said on Monday, as the state moved closer to becoming the nation's seventh to legalize same-sex unions.
Democratic Sen. Ed Murray said supporters had secured the 25 votes needed in the state Senate to pass the bipartisan measure, which is being debated in a legislative committee and will likely come to a final vote next month.
Governor Chris Gregoire, a Democrat, announced earlier this month that she would support the legislation, while the state House version already has enough votes to pass.
"I'm hopeful we'll pick up even more (votes) now," Murray said, referring to the handful of lawmakers who remain officially undecided. "I would like to get to 27 or higher." The state Senate has 49 members.
Opponents of same-sex marriage now plan to put the issue before voters, asking them to reaffirm marriage as between one man and one woman.
To qualify for the November ballot, the measure must collect at least 241,153 signatures of registered voters by July 6.
"The institution of marriage does not belong to the legislature, it belongs to the people," said Joseph Backholm, head of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, an organization affiliated with Focus on the Family.
Murray said the bill's supporters are prepared for a referendum, although he hoped it would not come down to a public vote.
"It will be difficult, there's no doubt about it, but I'm confident that the state is now with us on this issue -- that on the issue of marriage equality we are now the mainstream," he said.
Opponents of gay marriage said they plan to spend $250,000 to fund primary challenges against the Republican lawmakers who vote in favor of gay marriage.
More than 40 U.S. states have outlawed same-sex marriages, while six states explicitly allow it: New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Iowa. Gay marriage is also legal in the District of Columbia.
Polls show sharp national division on same-sex marriage, and the issue is still divisive in Washington state, which tends to be split between a liberal coast, including Seattle, and a more conservative inland.
Six prominent Pacific Northwest companies, including Microsoft and Nike, have officially endorsed the legislation.
"We believe that passing this bill would be good for our business and good for the state's economy," Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith wrote in a blog post last week.
More than 100 people testified before the Senate and House committee hearings Monday, each allotted one minute to express impassioned views for or against the proposed legislation.
"Allow me the right to marry the person who has agreed to stand by me, by my side, no matter what, until death do us part," said Sgt. Pablo Monroy, 23, a Navy veteran from Tacoma who now serves in the National Guard.
More than a dozen couples in the room raised their hands when asked who else planned to wed after same-sex marriage is legalized. They included Murray, Rep. Jaime Pederson, the bill's sponsor in the house, and Rep. Laurie Jinkins.
Now im a bleeding heart liberal0. So i hope this passes. I in all honesty cant see how gay marriage hurts anyone or threatens families in anyway
"The institution of marriage does not belong to the legislature, it belongs to the people," said Joseph Backholm, head of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, an organization affiliated with Focus on the Family.
Er...what? If it belongs to the people then it most certainly belongs to the legislature.
I generally support popular referendums, so I've got no problem with putting this to a vote of the people at large, if there's enough interest to put it to a vote.
Hopefully we won't see a return to the hate and bigotry of the left. See e.g. California Prop. 8.
Do you live in some kind of weird, parallel universe biccat?
Historically, bigotry and a lack of tolerance for other's beliefs has been associated with the right. As far as I know, you don't get too many Democrats stood outside of Abortion clinics denying women rights over their own bodies, and it would be the same again with this situation.
Case in point, same-sex marriages have been legal for more than a decade in most of Western Europe, the governments of these countries are generally regarded as being left wing compared to their Eastern European counterparts (or the US for that matter) where same sex marriages generally aren't permitted.
Pacific wrote:Historically, bigotry and a lack of tolerance for other's beliefs has been associated with the right.
Bwah? You really need to learn your history. Really.
Pacific wrote:As far as I know, you don't get too many Democrats stood outside of Abortion clinics denying women rights over their own bodies, and it would be the same again with this situation.
And as far as I know, you don't get too many Republicans asking for the right to murder their children. But this thread isn't about abortion.
Pacific wrote:Case in point, same-sex marriages have been legal for more than a decade in most of Western Europe, the governments of these countries are generally regarded as being left wing compared to their Eastern European counterparts (or the US for that matter) where same sex marriages generally aren't permitted.
They also oppress free speech and freedom of religious expression.
Although if you're OK with this type of thing, I'm sure you wouldn't see it as "bigotry and lack of tolerance for others' beliefs."
Pacific wrote:Case in point, same-sex marriages have been legal for more than a decade in most of Western Europe, the governments of these countries are generally regarded as being left wing compared to their Eastern European counterparts (or the US for that matter) where same sex marriages generally aren't permitted.
They also oppress free speech and freedom of religious expression.
Although if you're OK with this type of thing, I'm sure you wouldn't see it as "bigotry and lack of tolerance for others' beliefs."
They oppress the right of those who would propagate discrimination certainly.
The left support free speech and religious expression, but not as far as allowing racism and homophobia. The left don't oppress free speech, you can say and write almost anything you like. But they do 'oppress', if it's appropriate to use that term here, those people trying to enforce inequality upon society. How can it be reasonable to argue a lack of tolerance for their beliefs, when their beliefs are deeply prejudiced. You don't see many people getting bent out of shape because neo-nazis can't go around with the freedom to spew as much racist hate as they can. Are they being oppressed by laws that give race equality?
If allowing gay marriage is a "lack of tolerance for religious beliefs" then feth them. Their beliefs do not trump the rights of others to equality.
"The institution of marriage does not belong to the legislature, it belongs to the people," said Joseph Backholm, head of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, an organization affiliated with Focus on the Family.
Er...what? If it belongs to the people then it most certainly belongs to the legislature.
What he's trying to say is that "We shouldn't legislate marriage unless I agree with the outcome."
Pacific wrote:Do you live in some kind of weird, parallel universe biccat?
Historically, bigotry and a lack of tolerance for other's beliefs has been associated with the right. As far as I know, you don't get too many Democrats stood outside of Abortion clinics denying women rights over their own bodies, and it would be the same again with this situation.
Case in point, same-sex marriages have been legal for more than a decade in most of Western Europe, the governments of these countries are generally regarded as being left wing compared to their Eastern European counterparts (or the US for that matter) where same sex marriages generally aren't permitted.
Republicans ended slavery
Republicans managed to get eneacted the seminal Amendments to the Constitution [prohibiting slavery, all incidents and badges thereof, and insuring the right to vote.
Republicans were the Congress members that brought you the Civil Rights Act.
Lack of tolerance? Who enacts speech codes? Who is intolerant of people practicing their faith?
Your very statement belies your lack of understanding.
Can we stop using nebulous, inaccurate terms like "the left"?
Next you'll see someone come along and say "all [conservatives / right wingers / everyone I disagree with] are homophobic gaybashers".
Frazzled wrote:Republicans ended slavery
The republican party was... different back then.
It has changed drastically since then and not, in my view, necessarily for the better. For one, big business (And this applies to both parties) has them in their pocket basically. If you had Ronald Reagan running for office in modern times for example, the Republican party would be bashing, flaming, and throwing about accusations of socialism and crying out against just about everything he stood for. It has changed quite a bit, which many people like, but I certainly don't.
Melissia wrote:What he's trying to say is that "We shouldn't legislate marriage unless I agree with the outcome."
Isn't that the point that the pro-gay marriage side is making as well?
Melissia wrote:The republican party was... different back then.
What Melissia is saying here is that the Republican party was full of the good guys back when they did good things. But those good guys would be Democrats today.
Howard A Treesong wrote:The left support free speech and religious expression, but not as far as allowing racism and homophobia. The left don't oppress free speech, you can say and write almost anything you like.
...as long as it's acceptable.
I take the position that offensive speech is more deserving of protection than non-offensive speech.
biccat wrote:Isn't that the point that the pro-gay marriage side is making as well?
The gay marriage proponents want to legalize gay marriage. If that means going through the courts, they'll do that, if that means going through referendums or other legislative means, then they'll do that. When they lost battles, they took the battle to a different place, still arguing their only goal was to allow for gay marriage. Fighting tooth and nail for the right to marry like this is quite consistent.
But the section you quoted, on the other hand, was essentially the moanings of a sore loser who was trying to save face by directly contradicting their earlier actions.
So basically they're saying "what we did earlier was wrong."
biccat wrote:What Melissia is saying here is that the Republican party was full of the good guys back when they did good things.
No, I'm saying it was different. which is an undeniable fact.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Who do you think is paying those $80 grand tickets at Obama dinners?
The majority of "evil" Bain's contributions have gone to the Democratic Party.
Obama at least got more from the common person than his opponents did with his internet campaign, but suffice it to say (in case you didn't actually bother reading) I already said that:
Howard A Treesong wrote:The left support free speech and religious expression, but not as far as allowing racism and homophobia. The left don't oppress free speech, you can say and write almost anything you like.
...as long as it's acceptable.
I take the position that offensive speech is more deserving of protection than non-offensive speech.
Specifically what sorts of things are you not allowed to say? You are not allowed to incite crime and violence, in some parts of Europe you cannot display the swastika. I think you are overstating the 'oppression' here, the left do not support censorship. 'Hate speech' is a rarely used prosecution that covers only the most extreme cases in which people incite racial hatred, such as from muslim extremists. And I think you'll find that the right are more than happy to take action against these people. Even then the topic is strongly debated with people concerned about damaging free speech when trying to tackle extremists. Saying "the left want to oppress religious views" is just wrongheaded.
biccat wrote:Isn't that the point that the pro-gay marriage side is making as well?
The gay marriage proponents want to legalize gay marriage. If that means going through the courts, they'll do that, if that means going through referendums or other legislative means, then they'll do that. When they lost battles, they took the battle to a different place, still arguing their only goal was to allow for gay marriage. Fighting tooth and nail for the right to marry like this is quite consistent.
I have a problem with the "by any means necessary" approach to any issue. I especially have a problem with the judicial branch determining social issues and trying to legislate. This was particularly apparent in Iowa where, after determining that there was a right to gay marriage (insert huge caveat here), all of the justices up for confirmation were removed from the bench.
Melissia wrote:But the section you quoted, on the other hand, was essentially the moanings of a sore loser who was trying to save face by directly contradicting their earlier actions.
I think a good case can be made that the legislature, at least on this issue, may not be representative of the desires of the people. Every time the issue has been put to popular vote, gay marriage has not fared well.
There are a lot of areas where I don't think popular referendums are effective because sometimes legislators do have to make bad choices. Marriage, however, is a purely social issue that has very little consequence beyond social interaction. So I think popular referendums (direct democracy, ugh) are the way to go.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote:Specifically what sorts of things are you not allowed to say?
Frazzled wrote:Internet contributions were anonymous, so you have no clue who actually paid them. Could have been Trump for all we know.
It's still more information than we know about super PACs.
Mmmm..no. But thats ok. keep thinking Oabam is able to raise $1.0Bn from OWS protestors or whatever nonsense you believe. Just like some Republican can believe everything they get is from hard working small business that never plays the tax game.
Pacific wrote:Do you live in some kind of weird, parallel universe biccat?
Historically, bigotry and a lack of tolerance for other's beliefs has been associated with the right. As far as I know, you don't get too many Democrats stood outside of Abortion clinics denying women rights over their own bodies, and it would be the same again with this situation.
Case in point, same-sex marriages have been legal for more than a decade in most of Western Europe, the governments of these countries are generally regarded as being left wing compared to their Eastern European counterparts (or the US for that matter) where same sex marriages generally aren't permitted.
Republicans ended slavery
Republicans managed to get eneacted the seminal Amendments to the Constitution [prohibiting slavery, all incidents and badges thereof, and insuring the right to vote.
Republicans were the Congress members that brought you the Civil Rights Act.
Lack of tolerance? Who enacts speech codes? Who is intolerant of people practicing their faith?
Your very statement belies your lack of understanding.
The leaning of both major parties has changed during the course of history.
When formed before the Civil War, the Republican Party was regarded as quite a radical group compared to the Democrats.
Hang on, I though the left wingers were trying to oppress religious viewpoints. Here we have someone absurdly prosecuted for insulting the bible. The "traditionally Catholic country" bit should be a clue that this sort of stupidity is led by the conservative elements, not the left... The left would, or should be opposed to this sort of legislation.
Pacific wrote:Do you live in some kind of weird, parallel universe biccat?
Historically, bigotry and a lack of tolerance for other's beliefs has been associated with the right. As far as I know, you don't get too many Democrats stood outside of Abortion clinics denying women rights over their own bodies, and it would be the same again with this situation.
Case in point, same-sex marriages have been legal for more than a decade in most of Western Europe, the governments of these countries are generally regarded as being left wing compared to their Eastern European counterparts (or the US for that matter) where same sex marriages generally aren't permitted.
Republicans ended slavery Republicans managed to get eneacted the seminal Amendments to the Constitution [prohibiting slavery, all incidents and badges thereof, and insuring the right to vote. Republicans were the Congress members that brought you the Civil Rights Act.
Lack of tolerance? Who enacts speech codes? Who is intolerant of people practicing their faith? Your very statement belies your lack of understanding.
The leaning of both major parties has changed during the course of history.
When formed before the Civil War, the Republican Party was regarded as quite a radical group compared to the Democrats.
You missed the one about the Civil Rights Act, and how the only known US Senator who was a KKK Grand Dragon was a Democrat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd
Howard A Treesong wrote:The republicans aren't what they were 30 years ago let alone back in the times of slavery.
Duh. Neither are the Democrats. neither is the Greens Party, nor the American Communist Party, nor the Libertarians. Ok, maybe the Libertarians still are.
biccat wrote:I especially have a problem with the judicial branch determining social issues and trying to legislate.
The Judicial branch can't legislate. They interpret what is already legislated. If what has been legislated is insufficient for the case being considered, they temporarily make case law until the gap is filled by the actual legislative action-- which is why people get legislature to try to close up loopholes, not judges.
Which leads to many people getting upset cause this constitution thing keeps getting in the way of legislation they like.
biccat wrote:I think a good case can be made that the legislature, at least on this issue, may not be representative of the desires of the people. Every time the issue has been put to popular vote, gay marriage has not fared well.
Quite a few polls have shown that fewer people are in favor of outlawing gay marriage than are okay with it being legal.
However, homophobes are a minority that is quite easy to rouse in to political action, so they are overrepresented in referendums. So effectively the democratic process has failed. That's okay though, we're a three-body republic, not a democracy. There are, and have always been, other ways to get things done than merely through referendums.
Melissia wrote:The Judicial branch can't legislate. They interpret what is already legislated.
That's what you think.
In Massachusettes the Judicial branch told the legislature what to do. In Iowa the judiciary declared the Iowa marriage law unconstitutional but ordered marriages to continue with the same-sex modification.
These are just examples in the area of marriage. There are plenty of cases where judges have ordered appropriations from legislatures (usually in school related cases) or other relief.
Melissia wrote:Which leads to many people getting upset cause this constitution thing keeps getting in the way of legislation they like.
Yup. See, e.g., Prop. 8 in California.
Melissia wrote:Quite a few polls have shown that fewer people are in favor of outlawing gay marriage than are okay with it being legal.
Which, even if true, isn't the choice we're given.
Melissia wrote:However, homophobes are a minority that is quite easy to rouse in to political action, so they are overrepresented in referendums. So effectively the democratic process has failed. That's okay though, we're a three-body republic, not a democracy. There are, and have always been, other ways to get things done than merely through referendums.
First, the use of hate rhetoric is amusing, but really unfounded and unnecessary.
Second, you're assuming polls are indicative of the popular sentiment and giving them more legitimacy than election results. I don't think this is necessarily true.
And third, I take major exception to your argument that when the democratic/republic process doesn't work that it's appropriate to seek "other ways to get things done." If you want to effect legal change you should play by the rules.
Then again, you've clearly expressed in the past that you believe in the "by any means necessary" approach to achieving political aims that you support. So I'm not terribly surprised by your support for it here.
biccat wrote:the use of hate rhetoric is [...] really unfounded
No, it's not.
Yes it, in fact is. Utilizing the pattern and practice of declaring everyone who disagrees with you as racist, homophobic, or whatever "ist" is not only lame and tiresome, but shows you can't support your issue properly. Or to use a Melissianism, people who slag on the opinions of breeders are just heterophobes. Don't be a hata, support your local breeder.
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Now im a bleeding heart liberal0. So i hope this passes. I in all honesty cant see how gay marriage hurts anyone or threatens families in anyway
You don't have to be a "bleeding heart liberal" to recognize that a group of people are being discriminated against unfairly. Marriage as recognized by the state amounts to a business contract that opens doors for spouses to tax options, insurance, and other similar opportunities: most of which involve money not family values.
Frazzled wrote:Democracy at work. Unlike the rule of judges.
I agree with this in the sense that I despise activist judges of any kind, but especially the ones I disagree with.
Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Pacific wrote:Do you live in some kind of weird, parallel universe biccat?
Historically, bigotry and a lack of tolerance for other's beliefs has been associated with the right. As far as I know, you don't get too many Democrats stood outside of Abortion clinics denying women rights over their own bodies, and it would be the same again with this situation.
Case in point, same-sex marriages have been legal for more than a decade in most of Western Europe, the governments of these countries are generally regarded as being left wing compared to their Eastern European counterparts (or the US for that matter) where same sex marriages generally aren't permitted.
Republicans ended slavery
Republicans managed to get eneacted the seminal Amendments to the Constitution [prohibiting slavery, all incidents and badges thereof, and insuring the right to vote.
Republicans were the Congress members that brought you the Civil Rights Act.
Lack of tolerance? Who enacts speech codes? Who is intolerant of people practicing their faith?
Your very statement belies your lack of understanding.
The leaning of both major parties has changed during the course of history.
When formed before the Civil War, the Republican Party was regarded as quite a radical group compared to the Democrats.
You missed the one about the Civil Rights Act, and how the only known US Senator who was a KKK Grand Dragon was a Democrat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd
All of these posts are so full of win!
The left has the APPEARANCE of tolerance, but I seem to remember a poll that showed that people who identified themselves as "liberals" had almost twice the tendency towards antisemitism.
However those Republicans that Frazzled is referencing are, as KilKrazy rightly points out rabid and wild eyed leftists. I use Strom Thurmond as the thermometer for when the Republicans turned sour, But to say that bigotry and intolerance are rooted in the right is pedantic. Biogtry and intolerance is rooted in PEOPLE, it's simply weather you agree or disagree with their rhetoric.
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Now im a bleeding heart liberal0. So i hope this passes. I in all honesty cant see how gay marriage hurts anyone or threatens families in anyway
You don't have to be a "bleeding heart liberal" to recognize that a group of people are being discriminated against unfairly. Marriage as recognized by the state amounts to a business contract that opens doors for spouses to tax options, insurance, and other similar opportunities: most of which involve money not family values.
Frazzled wrote:Democracy at work. Unlike the rule of judges.
I agree with this in the sense that I despise activist judges of any kind, but especially the ones I disagree with.
Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Pacific wrote:Do you live in some kind of weird, parallel universe biccat?
Historically, bigotry and a lack of tolerance for other's beliefs has been associated with the right. As far as I know, you don't get too many Democrats stood outside of Abortion clinics denying women rights over their own bodies, and it would be the same again with this situation.
Case in point, same-sex marriages have been legal for more than a decade in most of Western Europe, the governments of these countries are generally regarded as being left wing compared to their Eastern European counterparts (or the US for that matter) where same sex marriages generally aren't permitted.
Republicans ended slavery
Republicans managed to get eneacted the seminal Amendments to the Constitution [prohibiting slavery, all incidents and badges thereof, and insuring the right to vote.
Republicans were the Congress members that brought you the Civil Rights Act.
Lack of tolerance? Who enacts speech codes? Who is intolerant of people practicing their faith?
Your very statement belies your lack of understanding.
The leaning of both major parties has changed during the course of history.
When formed before the Civil War, the Republican Party was regarded as quite a radical group compared to the Democrats.
You missed the one about the Civil Rights Act, and how the only known US Senator who was a KKK Grand Dragon was a Democrat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd
All of these posts are so full of win!
The left has the APPEARANCE of tolerance, but I seem to remember a poll that showed that people who identified themselves as "liberals" had almost twice the tendency towards antisemitism.
However those Republicans that Frazzled is referencing are, as KilKrazy rightly points out rabid and wild eyed leftists. I use Strom Thurmond as the thermometer for when the Republicans turned sour, But to say that bigotry and intolerance are rooted in the right is pedantic. Biogtry and intolerance is rooted in PEOPLE, it's simply weather you agree or disagree with their rhetoric.
biccat wrote:the use of hate rhetoric is [...] really unfounded
No, it's not.
Yes it, in fact is. Utilizing the pattern and practice of declaring everyone who disagrees with you as racist, homophobic, or whatever "ist" is not only lame and tiresome, but shows you can't support your issue properly. Or to use a Melissianism, people who slag on the opinions of breeders are just heterophobes. Don't be a hata, support your local breeder.
Or just do both.
As a former hardcore right wing-er turned centrist with a left-leaning social side, I used to feel persecuted when people would accuse me of being intolerant or whatnot, but come to find i actually was being a jackass that was threatened by what he didn't understand. Not saying this is the case for all, but there are plenty of jerkwads regardless of political influence who can't stand what someone else does.
Where we are apparently oppressed because we allow people who love each other to enter into contracts that give them property rights based on that profession of love.
Personally I ask my self this question: Does what that person wants to do bring harm to others? If the answer is no then screwit let them get on with it. If the answer is yes then there needs to be a curb on the action or provision for the protection of those that would be harmed.
I fail to see how a contract that effects two people has anything to do with anyone other than those entering into the contract.
You've almost got to feel sorry for social conservatives. There's not a lot they can win on these days. Gay marriage is one of the few, at least in a couple states, though demographic trends tell us that's only going to be the case for another ten to fifteen years.
Seaward wrote:You've almost got to feel sorry for social conservatives. There's not a lot they can win on these days. Gay marriage is one of the few, at least in a couple states, though demographic trends tell us that's only going to be the case for another ten to fifteen years.
No really, I think alot of social conservatism is hurting people. Things like trying to outlaw birth control(Santorum) just make things worse. I do feel sorry thought that alot cant see past there own view. I caan see where some come from. The fear for their family. They want there family to be strong. And what alot of what people think makes family stong is social conservatism. And if they want t be like that good for them. Just dont try to force on others who want nothing to do with religion or social conservatism? Isnt that what this country was founded on? The right to be who you are free from religious and government persecution? Isnt the whole reason we fight tooth and nail for our rights is so we can live how we want? They say terrorist wish to take our freedoms? But are we not dong a better job then them?
How can we say we fight for freedom when we removes others?
Seaward wrote:You've almost got to feel sorry for social conservatives. There's not a lot they can win on these days. Gay marriage is one of the few, at least in a couple states, though demographic trends tell us that's only going to be the case for another ten to fifteen years.
No really, I think alot of social conservatism is hurting people. Things like trying to outlaw birth control(Santorum) just make things worse. I do feel sorry thought that alot cant see past there own view. I caan see where some come from. The fear for their family. They want there family to be strong. And what alot of what people think makes family stong is social conservatism. And if they want t be like that good for them. Just dont try to force on others who want nothing to do with religion or social conservatism? Isnt that what this country was founded on? The right to be who you are free from religious and government persecution? Isnt the whole reason we fight tooth and nail for our rights is so we can live how we want? They say terrorist wish to take our freedoms? But are we not dong a better job then them?
How can we say we fight for freedom when we removes others?
Surely what makes families strong should be taught by parents not enforced by the state because it is not a fixed formula. What makes my family strong is not what makes my neighbour's family strong but I don't seek to punish them for it.
I find it astounding that the US is still having debates about the freedoms we in Europe take for granted. Social conservatism seems to be puritan christian rhetoric dressed up in a political suit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CallsignNeptune wrote:I'm gay myself so when stuff like this happens, it always brings a smile to my face.
Being from Brighton it has much the same effect on me.
Sonophos wrote:Surely what makes families strong should be taught by parents not enforced by the state because it is not a fixed formula. What makes my family strong is not what makes my neighbour's family strong but I don't seek to punish them for it.
I find it astounding that the US is still having debates about the freedoms we in Europe take for granted. Social conservatism seems to be puritan christian rhetoric dressed up in a political suit.
So you're OK with a parent teaching their children that what makes a family strong is hatred of <insert race here>?
Sonophos wrote:Surely what makes families strong should be taught by parents not enforced by the state because it is not a fixed formula. What makes my family strong is not what makes my neighbour's family strong but I don't seek to punish them for it.
I find it astounding that the US is still having debates about the freedoms we in Europe take for granted. Social conservatism seems to be puritan christian rhetoric dressed up in a political suit.
So you're OK with a parent teaching their children that what makes a family strong is hatred of <insert race here>?
It's worked so well in the past...
that and get rid of women's suffrage it destroys the family bond by eroding the role of the man in the household.
Sonophos wrote:
Surely what makes families strong should be taught by parents not enforced by the state because it is not a fixed formula. What makes my family strong is not what makes my neighbour's family strong but I don't seek to punish them for it.
We're really only interested in what makes a particular type of family strong.
Sonophos wrote:Surely what makes families strong should be taught by parents not enforced by the state because it is not a fixed formula. What makes my family strong is not what makes my neighbour's family strong but I don't seek to punish them for it.
I find it astounding that the US is still having debates about the freedoms we in Europe take for granted. Social conservatism seems to be puritan christian rhetoric dressed up in a political suit.
So you're OK with a parent teaching their children that what makes a family strong is hatred of <insert race here>?
It's worked so well in the past...
that and get rid of women's suffrage it destroys the family bond by eroding the role of the man in the household.
So you would disagree with Sonophos' comment: in your opinion what makes families strong should be enforced by the state...correct?
Sonophos wrote:Surely what makes families strong should be taught by parents not enforced by the state because it is not a fixed formula. What makes my family strong is not what makes my neighbour's family strong but I don't seek to punish them for it.
I find it astounding that the US is still having debates about the freedoms we in Europe take for granted. Social conservatism seems to be puritan christian rhetoric dressed up in a political suit.
So you're OK with a parent teaching their children that what makes a family strong is hatred of <insert race here>?
It's worked so well in the past...
that and get rid of women's suffrage it destroys the family bond by eroding the role of the man in the household.
So you would disagree with Sonophos' comment: in your opinion what makes families strong should be enforced by the state...correct?
I neither agree particularly with Sonophos nor disagree, because of the other things he is hanging on that. I'd prefer the state feth off and let people live their lives, from xenophobic open bigotry to wild eyed idealism, it's not MY responsibility to manage their home, and therefor also not the governments.
Pacific wrote:Historically, bigotry and a lack of tolerance for other's beliefs has been associated with the right.
Bwah? You really need to learn your history. Really.
Pacific wrote:As far as I know, you don't get too many Democrats stood outside of Abortion clinics denying women rights over their own bodies, and it would be the same again with this situation.
And as far as I know, you don't get too many Republicans asking for the right to murder their children. But this thread isn't about abortion.
Pacific wrote:Case in point, same-sex marriages have been legal for more than a decade in most of Western Europe, the governments of these countries are generally regarded as being left wing compared to their Eastern European counterparts (or the US for that matter) where same sex marriages generally aren't permitted.
They also oppress free speech and freedom of religious expression.
Although if you're OK with this type of thing, I'm sure you wouldn't see it as "bigotry and lack of tolerance for others' beliefs."
biccat wrote:the use of hate rhetoric is [...] really unfounded
No, it's not.
Yes it, in fact is.
Not at all.
Homophobia, whether originating from religion or social norms, is the primary and, as far as I can tell, the ONLY reason for banning gay marriage. Certainly the only logically consistent one (even if it is very poor logic).
"It's always been that way!" is logically fallacious (appeal to tradition-- just because something is tradition is not itself a logical reason to keep it that way). Nevermind that the reason why it is tradition in the first place is because of a wave of homophobia that developed in the Victorian era (amongst other things) as well as the fact that marriages now aren't anywhere near what they were way back when. Marriages in that time were basically just used to breed new families, nowadays, they are expressions of romantic feelings and a desire for permanence and integration.
"It's unnatural!" Is logically unsound, as it is present in nature-- and is brought about by homophobia. Nevermind that "natural" isn't necessarily a good thing to begin with (Solanaceae-- nightshade-- is natural, but you still shouldn't eat it).
"It violates the sanctity of marriage" indicates a religious component which indicates our government is violating its own constitution (because all that is needed to oppose this is to have a religion which states that gay marriage doesn't violate the sanctity of marriage, and there are many who think that), and furthermore is logically inconsistent as the supposed "sanctity" is inconsistently applied. to the rest of the population. "God doesn't like it" follows a similar path, it's inconsistent amongst various religions and religious sects within each individual religion. Secular sanctity of a concept is subjective at best, and again, is never used consistently in terms of marriage.
"I don't like it so I oppose it", aside from being basically the root cause of all of these, at least avoids the logical flaws of the other reasons.
biccat wrote:the use of hate rhetoric is [...] really unfounded
No, it's not.
Yes it, in fact is.
Not at all.
Homophobia, whether originating from religion or social norms, is the primary and, as far as I can tell, the ONLY reason for banning gay marriage. Certainly the only logically consistent one (even if it is very poor logic).
Thats as far as you can tell. Thats not the actual reasons cited. Try again.
Ok, so maybe the problem here is that there is monetary value related to marriage?
If marriage was just a contract be the two individuals and nothing else, under US law they are just two individuals living together, homo individuals might not be pushing the issue as hard and hetro individuals might not marry as much?
Zyllos wrote:Ok, so maybe the problem here is that there is monetary value related to marriage?
If marriage was just a contract be the two individuals and nothing else, under US law they are just two individuals living together, homo individuals might not be pushing the issue as hard and hetro individuals might not marry as much?
Aside from taxes and insurance, it's also about family and cultural importance, as well as the romantic value of marriage.
Frazzled wrote:Thats not the actual reasons cited.
Yes it is, or it is the root cause of the reasons at any rate, and none of the ones are actually logically consistent anyway.
I defy you to prove otherwise.
Just three: 1. My etheral sky god's teachings say otherwise. 2. A fundamental reason for marriage is the making of little demon seeds known as children. Until recently, that wasn't possible. 3. Little demon seeds benefit from the nurturing perspectives of both male and female viewpoints.
None of them are inconsistent. None of them are based on a phobia or ism. All of them can be argued for or against on the merits.
And hre's how you can argue them without calling anyone names. 1. Does It really? Your cite of X verse says this but your cite of Y verse says that. 2. It is now possible. Further, adoption is also a method. 3. ignoring the studies either way, at least in the case of adoption, two good parents trump no parents. See how easy it is?
Frazzled wrote:1. My etheral sky god's teachings say otherwise.
A religious argument, and one which is logically questionable given that many other people disagree with you on the meaning of your ethereal sky god's teachings. Also, are you going to be consistent and apply the teachings of everyone's ethereal sky god, or everyone's different interpretations of ethereal sky gods, to the same law? Do those whom do not follow the teachings of an ethereal sky god get a free pass?
The logic is anything but consistent, nevermind that the government is prevented from legislating in such a way to begin with.
Frazzled wrote:2. A fundamental reason for marriage is the making of little demon seeds known as children.
Okay then, bar people who have no plans for children or who are sterile from marrying, but allow homosexual couples who use science to become pregnant. Well, are you going to be consistent?
Frazzled wrote:3. Little demon seeds benefit from the nurturing perspectives of both male and female viewpoints.
This is logically unsound, as it has been proven to be false by research.
The root cause is still homophobia. Just because people don't like the label doesn't mean it is not applicable.
biccat wrote:
Bwah? You really need to learn your history. Really.
The Democrats were always on the left side of the political spectrum?
The political spectrum is a thing which is sensible, and should be used?
biccat wrote:
And as far as I know, you don't get too many Republicans asking for the right to murder their children. But this thread isn't about abortion.
Don't play coy, now. We all know you want to discuss the finery of killing babies.
biccat wrote:
Although if you're OK with this type of thing, I'm sure you wouldn't see it as "bigotry and lack of tolerance for others' beliefs."
And I'm sure you're apparent opposition to abortion is about protecting babies, and not at all about the lack of tolerance of the beliefs of others.
dogma wrote:The Democrats were always on the left side of the political spectrum?
The political spectrum is a thing which is sensible, and should be used?
Obviously your dispute is with Mannahnin and Pacific. I wasn't the one who raised the spectre of politics.
dogma wrote:Don't play coy, now. We all know you want to discuss the finery of killing babies.
It's an art, certainly.
dogma wrote:And I'm sure you're apparent opposition to abortion is about protecting babies, and not at all about the lack of tolerance of the beliefs of others.
It's all about oppressing women and turning them into mindless servile baby-factories.
2. A fundamental reason for marriage is the making of little demon seeds known as children. Until recently, that wasn't possible.
It is a fact that until recently not only children were not possible without marriage, but furthermore children were only invented in 1850 by Charles Babbage. Prior to this adults were made in factories which boomed during the industrial revolution. As a result of all the new industries, it was found that adults were too big for many tasks such as chimney sweeping and picking bits of wool out of looms, thus the scientific discovery of child was a massive breakthrough. Due to advances in science, it is now possible for everyone can have children even outside of marriage...
biccat wrote:
Obviously your dispute is with Mannahnin and Pacific. I wasn't the one who raised the spectre of politics.
But you are the one that implied the Democrats were, historically, a left-wing party by responding to a comment based on bigotry being, historically, associated with the right.
Just because the Democrats are a left-wing party now, doesn't mean they've always been one.
Howard A Treesong wrote:
It is a fact that until recently not only children were not possible without marriage, but furthermore children were only invented in 1850 by Charles Babbage. Prior to this adults were made in factories which boomed during the industrial revolution.
2. A fundamental reason for marriage is the making of little demon seeds known as children. Until recently, that wasn't possible.
It is a fact that until recently not only children were not possible without marriage, but furthermore children were only invented in 1850 by Charles Babbage. .
Agreed. Indeed, Cabbage Patch Kids were a play on his name.
Of course, that sounds like a fault of the health care system instead of marriage. Romantic value I can not speak of as I have no prior knowledge or experience. Family and cultural important, at least it seems like to me, is still upheld. It is still a contract between individuals, which is still upheld by law, but removes any monetary value gained in marriage.
But in the end, I do feel that every individual should have the right of marriage. But having gay marriages destroys the the old views of marriage which many religeous individuals hold dear. So in the end, I feel that I can not add a whole lot to the discussion because I, myself, feel confused on who's side has more merit.
Zyllos wrote:Interesting cartoon up there, Melissia.
Of course, that sounds like a fault of the health care system instead of marriage.
Marriage is a legal representation of partnership, and the health care system allows for partners to use their insurance to care for eachother. The marriage is used to prove that they are legally related to eachother (in this case as spouses, but birth certificates and other means are used to determine familial relationships). However, when a couple can't marry they cannot do this. It is a fault of the restrictions on marriage as much as the health care system.
Zyllos wrote:But having gay marriages destroys the the old views of marriage
That's okay, we as a society have been "destroying" them for centuries. Divorce, multiple marriages, drive by marriages, sham marriages to import people in to the country, interracial marriages, marriages between people of different social classes, interreligious marriages, non-Christians marrying at all, etc.
dogma wrote:But you are the one that implied the Democrats were, historically, a left-wing party by responding to a comment based on bigotry being, historically, associated with the right.
No, that would be Pacific. I never mentioned party affiliation.
I see Mannahnin has edited his post to remove the reference to "right-wing" bigots, whose comment I was indirectly responding to.
However, whether pro- or anti-gay marriage, bigotry exists on both sides of the political spectrum. It does, however, tend to be more violent when coming from those who identify with the DNC.
dogma wrote:Just because the Democrats are a left-wing party now, doesn't mean they've always been one.
I much prefer the labels "progressive" vs. "conservative." This makes the Democrat-Republican split consistent with the Progressive-Conservative split for a much longer time frame, and more accurately reflects the perspectives of both parties over the term.
Frazzled wrote:1. My etheral sky god's teachings say otherwise.
A religious argument, and one which is logically questionable given that many.
No its logically consistent. They follow their sky god. Their sky god tells them what to do. In no sense is it an “ism” which you seem to accept and thus destroy your entire argument.
Frazzled wrote:2. A fundamental reason for marriage is the making of little demon seeds known as children.
Okay then, bar people who have no plans for children or who are sterile from marrying, but allow homosexual couples who use science to become pregnant. Well, are you going to be consistent?
1. Again you’ve not disputed that the argument is not an “ism.” Frazzled is now 2-0!
Frazzled wrote:3. Little demon seeds benefit from the nurturing perspectives of both male and female viewpoints.
This is logically unsound, as it has been proven to be false by research.
1. Again you’ve not disputed that the argument is not an “ism.” Frazzled is now 3-0!
2. Actually its been supported many times by research but thats another thread.
The root cause is still homophobia. Just because people don't like the label doesn't mean it is not applicable.
Evidently you missed the part where you conceded all three points to me.
Zyllos wrote:Interesting cartoon up there, Melissia.
Of course, that sounds like a fault of the health care system instead of marriage.
Marriage is a legal representation of partnership, and the health care system allows for partners to use their insurance to care for eachother. The marriage is used to prove that they are legally related to eachother (in this case as spouses, but birth certificates and other means are used to determine familial relationships). However, when a couple can't marry they cannot do this. It is a fault of the restrictions on marriage as much as the health care system.
My employer allows "domestic partner" coverage if you're not married to your SO, therefore this is factually wrong.
Also, the idea that life-saving treatment is denied to people without insurance is one of the canards single-payer supporters love to bring up. It's not true and hasn't been true since Reagan.
edit: And I've never had to show a birth certificate to establish health insurance for the spawn.
Zyllos wrote:Interesting cartoon up there, Melissia.
Of course, that sounds like a fault of the health care system instead of marriage.
Marriage is a legal representation of partnership, and the health care system allows for partners to use their insurance to care for eachother. The marriage is used to prove that they are legally related to eachother (in this case as spouses, but birth certificates and other means are used to determine familial relationships). However, when a couple can't marry they cannot do this. It is a fault of the restrictions on marriage as much as the health care system.
Zyllos wrote:But having gay marriages destroys the the old views of marriage
That's okay, we as a society have been "destroying" them for centuries. Divorce, multiple marriages, drive by marriages, sham marriages to import people in to the country, interracial marriages, marriages between people of different social classes, non-Christians marrying,etc.
Like I said, both sides have merits in the system and implementing one destroys the other. It's part of the reason why I have an EXTREMELY religeous up bringing but yet feel disconnected from every single person who follows these beliefs because of what they stood for in the past and present.
I've pointed out that it is not logically consistent, but I don't expect you to actually read what I'm posting. I already pointed out why it is homophobic in nature in previous posts.
Frazzled wrote:Again you’ve not disputed[...]
I've pointed out that it is not logically consistent, but I don't expect you to actually read what I'm posting. I already pointed out why it is homophobic in nature in previous posts.
Frazzled wrote:Actually its been supported many times by research
Prove it.
Frazzled wrote:Evidently you missed the part where you conceded all three points to me.
It's easy to miss something that doesn't exist in the first place, such as your wholesale fabrication of me "conceding" anything. Lying to yourself isn't healthy, Frazzled.
Zyllos wrote:Like I said, both sides have merits
No.
biccat wrote:
That is a new phenomenon and it is also considered in most places to be an unequal coverage ("separate but equal" was proven in SCotUS to be a contradiction in terms). Therefor it is not factually wong.
Sonophos wrote:Surely what makes families strong should be taught by parents not enforced by the state because it is not a fixed formula. What makes my family strong is not what makes my neighbour's family strong but I don't seek to punish them for it.
I find it astounding that the US is still having debates about the freedoms we in Europe take for granted. Social conservatism seems to be puritan christian rhetoric dressed up in a political suit.
So you're OK with a parent teaching their children that what makes a family strong is hatred of <insert race here>?
I would hope that societal norms outside the family home would correct this but you will never be able to stop it as this is the very method by which religion is propagated. You can not regulate what is spoken in the privacy of the home.
Personally I would have as little to do with a family like this as I could.
I find it astounding that the US is still having debates about the freedoms we in Europe take for granted.
And for that I am thankful. We still have the freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly. By your admission, you don't.
We have all of those things.
The freedoms I was referring to were those of self determination that the religious right on the US seem intent on taking away, that said they are still up for debate.
I am free to be gay and if I was I could enter into a "marriage" with another man.
Contraception is freely available.
etc. etc.
I find it astounding that the US is still having debates about the freedoms we in Europe take for granted.
And for that I am thankful. We still have the freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly. By your admission, you don't.
We have all of those things.
The freedoms I was referring to were those of self determination that the religious right on the US seem intent on taking away, that said they are still up for debate.
I am free to be gay and if I was I could enter into a "marriage" with another man.
Contraception is freely available.
etc. etc.
its already been stated by and /or your compatriots than only certain types of speech are permissable. Sorry, it either is or it isn't.
Zyllos wrote:I am not quite sure what to say to that other than that its hypocritical to say only one side has merit here.
Not at all.
Religious doctrine is both protected by the US constitution, and prevented from being enforced on others who have differing religious doctrines; What one religion believes is sacred, another believes is sacrilege. Why should a religion/religious sect which is perfectly okay with gay marriage be hindered from having it? If your entire argument is based off of religion, then you there is no answer to this question. It is similar to outlawing Eucharists from the nation; just because most people in the US don't use that particular religious ritual doesn't mean that it still isn't a violation of the establishment clause. There needs to be a valid reason, not merely a religious one, behind the law.
Sonophos wrote:
Surely what makes families strong should be taught by parents not enforced by the state because it is not a fixed formula. What makes my family strong is not what makes my neighbour's family strong but I don't seek to punish them for it.
We're really only interested in what makes a particular type of family strong.
Exactly. If you enforce through law what a family has to be like you have to design a theoretical family model to legislate and then you lose all freedom.
We have to allow people to be themselves and this includes being gay and being able to marry if the choose.
Teaching your child that it is wrong to be gay will not stop them being gay.
Sonophos wrote:If you enforce through law what a family has to be like you have to design a theoretical family model to legislate and then you lose all freedom.
No you don't.
If I say X is something we don't want families to be like, I'm not saying all families have to be Y; where Y is extremely narrow.
I find it astounding that the US is still having debates about the freedoms we in Europe take for granted.
And for that I am thankful. We still have the freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly. By your admission, you don't.
We have all of those things.
The freedoms I was referring to were those of self determination that the religious right on the US seem intent on taking away, that said they are still up for debate.
I am free to be gay and if I was I could enter into a "marriage" with another man.
Contraception is freely available.
etc. etc.
its already been stated by and /or your compatriots than only certain types of speech are permissable. Sorry, it either is or it isn't.
Only certain types of speech are permissible in the US as well. I'm not sure why you're harping on that point so hard.
I find it astounding that the US is still having debates about the freedoms we in Europe take for granted.
And for that I am thankful. We still have the freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly. By your admission, you don't.
We have all of those things.
The freedoms I was referring to were those of self determination that the religious right on the US seem intent on taking away, that said they are still up for debate.
I am free to be gay and if I was I could enter into a "marriage" with another man.
Contraception is freely available.
etc. etc.
its already been stated by and /or your compatriots than only certain types of speech are permissable. Sorry, it either is or it isn't.
Only certain types of speech are permissible in the US as well. I'm not sure why you're harping on that point so hard.
Other than the mythical "shouting fire in a theater" standard, what?
I find it astounding that the US is still having debates about the freedoms we in Europe take for granted.
And for that I am thankful. We still have the freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly. By your admission, you don't.
We have all of those things.
The freedoms I was referring to were those of self determination that the religious right on the US seem intent on taking away, that said they are still up for debate.
I am free to be gay and if I was I could enter into a "marriage" with another man.
Contraception is freely available.
etc. etc.
its already been stated by and /or your compatriots than only certain types of speech are permissable. Sorry, it either is or it isn't.
Only certain types of speech are permissible in the US as well. I'm not sure why you're harping on that point so hard.
Other than the mythical "shouting fire in a theater" standard, what?
sourclams wrote:Occupying public space comes to mind...
Noise violations, interrupting a court hearing, profanity during primetime hours on national broadcasts...
*National broadcasts-you mean "network" Tv? Well 1) thats because those are government woned waves; and 2) there's a little court case about that right now... *interrupting a court hearing, noise violations? These are the best you have? in the words of the Immortal bard: Sucker please!
biccat wrote:
No, that would be Pacific. I never mentioned party affiliation.
Sure, that's why you linked to Byrd's Wikipedia page, because you weren't mentioning party affiliation.
biccat wrote:
I see Mannahnin has edited his post to remove the reference to "right-wing" bigots, whose comment I was indirectly responding to.
So, you were indirectly conflating wings of the political spectrum with American political parties?
biccat wrote:
However, whether pro- or anti-gay marriage, bigotry exists on both sides of the political spectrum.
Indeed.
biccat wrote:
It does, however, tend to be more violent when coming from those who identify with the DNC.
You're really going to make this comment in light of your first statement in this post?
biccat wrote:
I much prefer the labels "progressive" vs. "conservative." This makes the Democrat-Republican split consistent with the Progressive-Conservative split for a much longer time frame, and more accurately reflects the perspectives of both parties over the term.
I disagree. The Republicans and Democrats have alternately split issues in ways that enable both to be labeled conservative or progressive.
The US government is the one desperate to shut down things like wikileaks, so I wouldn't get too excited about how free and wonderful you are compared to the oppressive nightmare that Europe apparently is.
Howard A Treesong wrote:The US government is the one desperate to shut down things like wikileaks, so I wouldn't get too excited about how free and wonderful you are compared to the oppressive nightmare that Europe apparently is.
Wikileaks is foreign. 'em with Matty's You guys started it with your "ha we're superior to you Colonials" nonsense. I'm perfectly fine going back to the original topic.
dogma wrote:Sure, that's why you linked to Byrd's Wikipedia page, because you weren't mentioning party affiliation.
Sen. Byrd was a well-known liberal/progressive/leftist.
dogma wrote:So, you were indirectly conflating wings of the political spectrum with American political parties?
Mannahnin opened the door, not me. Like I said, your beef should be with him, not me. Pacific raised the issue of the DNC & RNC, so again, your beef is with him.
dogma wrote:You're really going to make this comment in light of your first statement in this post?
Yup. I think that any rational examination of political history in the United States will show that Democrats and Progressives are resposible for far more violence, death, and property damage than Republicans and Conservatives.
biccat wrote:
Yup. I think that any rational examination of political history in the United States will show that Democrats and Progressives are resposible for far more violence, death, and property damage than Republicans and Conservatives.
biccat wrote:
Yup. I think that any rational examination of political history in the United States will show that Democrats and Progressives are resposible for far more violence, death, and property damage than Republicans and Conservatives.
You think a lot of incorrect things.
Independents have spilled more blood than this world will ever know.
I have the bizarre opinion that "Marriage" as a religious ceremony should provide absolutely nothing by the law.
"Marriage" as a legal binding thing, aka Civil Unions, should be the only thing recognised by the state in giving benefits, visitation rights, insurance sharing or whatever wonderful things some cartoons will show in this area. These civil union "things" should be available for all consenting adults.
biccat wrote:
Yup. I think that any rational examination of political history in the United States will show that Democrats and Progressives are resposible for far more violence, death, and property damage than Republicans and Conservatives.
Zyllos wrote:Ok, so maybe the problem here is that there is monetary value related to marriage?
If marriage was just a contract be the two individuals and nothing else, under US law they are just two individuals living together, homo individuals might not be pushing the issue as hard and hetro individuals might not marry as much?
Marriage is a contract between two individuals. The contract often involves various legal rights and privileges and is overseen by the law of the state. Religious states like Iran do things through their religion, but fundamentally the marriage is still a form of contract.
biccat wrote:
Sen. Byrd was a well-known Democrat.
Fixed that for you.
biccat wrote:
Mannahnin opened the door, not me. Like I said, your beef should be with him, not me. Pacific raised the issue of the DNC & RNC, so again, your beef is with him.
Whether or not someone else opened the door for X does not excuse you of doing X.
biccat wrote:
Yup. I think that any rational examination of political history in the United States will show that Democrats and Progressives are resposible for far more violence, death, and property damage than Republicans and Conservatives.
The Civil War, and slavery, may take issue with you.
Hrm. Although I don't necessarily agree with Biccat, I don't see how your post is factually correct. The North (assuming these are the 'progressives') were the aggressors/offensive force and there are those in the South who still style the Civil War as The War of Northern Aggression.
And Lincoln was a Whig who became a Republican and the first Republican president, so clearly you're not styling the Republicans as 'conservatives' but that's not really congruent with your rebuttal of Biccat's statement.
dogma wrote:Whether or not someone else opened the door for X does not excuse you of doing X.
Sure it does, that's what we here in civilized parts call "criticism."
But from what I gather from your comment, you're saying that the political spectrum is a thing which is sensible, and should be used?
dogma wrote:The Civil War, and slavery, may take issue with you.
Even assuming that you can lay all of the deaths of the Civil War on Republicans (and can somehow argue with a straight face that the Republican party was "conservative" on the issue of slavery), I will raise you Roe v. Wade.
biccat wrote:
Sure it does, that's what we here in civilized parts call "criticism."
Engaging in a fool's errand because someone else engaged in a fool's errand is not criticism.
biccat wrote:
But from what I gather from your comment, you're saying that the political spectrum is a thing which is sensible, and should be used?
In satire? Absolutely.
biccat wrote:
Even assuming that you can lay all of the deaths of the Civil War on Republicans (and can somehow argue with a straight face that the Republican party was "conservative" on the issue of slavery), I will raise you Roe v. Wade.
I win: 50 million+ vs. 700,000.
I wasn't referring to Republicans, but conservatives.
Of course, I don't really think death toll is a reasonable way of considering political philosophy, so it doesn't really matter.
dogma wrote:Engaging in a fool's errand because someone else engaged in a fool's errand is not criticism.
I think we've covered this before. Simply because you don't understand an argument doesn't make it a bad, nor fallacious (lets head that one off right away) argument.0
dogma wrote:I wasn't referring to Republicans, but conservatives.
Even so, to blame "conservatives" for the death toll in the Civil War is to ignore history. Fun fact: it takes two to start a war. Unlike a love life, it's tough to have a war all by yourself.
dogma wrote:Of course, I don't really think death toll is a reasonable way of considering political philosophy, so it doesn't really matter.
Not as an absolute measure, but it certainly bears consideration.
biccat wrote:Simply because you don't understand an argument doesn't make it a bad, nor fallacious (lets head that one off right away) argument.
That's not really true. If your target audience doesn't understand your argument, then its a bad argument. Not that I'm your target audience, as I think you're smart enough to know that there are few things political that you could bring to my attention in order to convince me (10-12 hours of political analysis per day will do that), but still.
Also, it isn't that I don't understand your argument, its that I think it isn't very good.
biccat wrote:
Even so, to blame "conservatives" for the death toll in the Civil War is to ignore history. Fun fact: it takes two to start a war. Unlike a love life, it's tough to have a war all by yourself.
There is always self mutilation.
That aside, its difficult to blame any vague political group for anything, welcome to RAA.
biccat wrote:
Not as an absolute measure, but it certainly bears consideration.
Frazzled wrote:Thats not the actual reasons cited.
Yes it is, or it is the root cause of the reasons at any rate, and none of the ones are actually logically consistent anyway.
I defy you to prove otherwise.
Just three:
1. My etheral sky god's teachings say otherwise.
2. A fundamental reason for marriage is the making of little demon seeds known as children. Until recently, that wasn't possible.
3. Little demon seeds benefit from the nurturing perspectives of both male and female viewpoints.
1: Not everyone beleives in the same god, Like i said before, As a country that says we have religious freedom, we sure do force our freedoms on another
2: I will fix that for you "A fundamental reason for sex is the making of little demon seeds" You don't need marriage to sstart a family. But marriages makes it a whole lot easier.
3: I was raised by a single mother. I am as normal as yuo can get for someone who plays 40k.
By that logic lets outlaw being a single parent, If you arent married you get your kids taken away.
Pacific wrote:Do you live in some kind of weird, parallel universe biccat?
Biccat lives in a world where calling someone a bigot for being a bigot is oppressive. It's a very strange place to live, but biccat seems to enjoy himself in there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Republicans ended slavery
Republicans managed to get eneacted the seminal Amendments to the Constitution [prohibiting slavery, all incidents and badges thereof, and insuring the right to vote.
Republicans were the Congress members that brought you the Civil Rights Act.
You've made the grade school error of assuming Republicans are an ever constant political force. Instead, try doing some reading on the issue. Try, for instance, to to read up on Wilson Bachelor, a contemporary of Lincoln, and a leader of the Republican Party in Arkansas. Bachelor argued for the equality of women, stated the freeing of slaves was an act of the highest society, claimed science was the record of the expanding human intellect not to be opposed by embraced by the forces of compassion and tradition, argued that there was not a Christian government and that laws based on Christian traditions had no right to exist, and he loathed the idea of political purity or litmus tests.
He was, in short, very similar to a modern liberal, and the kind of person the Republican party could not tolerate among it's ranks today. But he was a prominent and respected member of the Republican Party in his time. Because the Republican Party has changed a great deal over the course of its history.
It's Europe, so it's liberal. feth me that's lazy. I'll accept that you had no idea about the strength of conservative Catholicism in Poland, maybe you'd never heard the factoid about Poland having more nuns per capita than any other country in the world, but did you not think it even slightly necessary to look up if Poland was a bastion of leftie ideology before posting that?
This, biccat, is why your politics are as goofy today as when you joined this forum. Because you don't care about learning about the world, instead you just keep looking for anything that'll justify your politics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:You missed the one about the Civil Rights Act, and how the only known US Senator who was a KKK Grand Dragon was a Democrat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd
You also missed the Southern Strategy, the effort by Republicans to draw disaffected Democratic voters in Southern states to the Republican party in the wake of the Civil Rights act.
If you were to claim in the 1950s the party chock full of racists was the Democrats, you'd be absolutely, 100% correct. That just isn't the case today. Years of focussed, Republican campaigning to appeal to bigots have successfully drawn them to their party.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Duh. Neither are the Democrats. neither is the Greens Party, nor the American Communist Party, nor the Libertarians. Ok, maybe the Libertarians still are.
Then why in hell did you mention emancipation as a defence of the modern Republican party?
sebster wrote:Biccat lives in a world where calling someone a bigot for being a bigot is oppressive. It's a very strange place to live, but biccat seems to enjoy himself in there.
Actually, it's called "Dakka." Which apparently has a "zero tolerance policy" for calling someone a bigot.
The jury seems to be out on who, precisely, this rule applies to.
biccat wrote:Yup. I think that any rational examination of political history in the United States will show that Democrats and Progressives are resposible for far more violence, death, and property damage than Republicans and Conservatives.
That you think such an examination even possible, let alone one that could demonstrate one side as being more evil than the other just goes to show how far you've disappeared down the rabbit hole of 'yay my political team, boo your political team'.
There is no greater political force of good against some greater political force for evil. There's just the issues of the day, and a largely chaotic process decides which ones end up grouping with each other.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:I win: 50 million+ vs. 700,000.
If we assume that a fertilised egg is a person. Which lots of people believe, but remains an odious, cheap thing to simply assume.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Actually, it's called "Dakka." Which apparently has a "zero tolerance policy" for calling someone a bigot.
The jury seems to be out on who, precisely, this rule applies to.
A person who hates homosexuals is a bigot. That seems pretty much straight up according to the definition.
The trick is that in your world, if someone gives a homophobic reason for disapproval of gay marriage*, and another person calls them on it by calling them a bigot, that counts as oppression on apparently a far more grievous level than denying someone the right to marry the person they love.
*This is not something I can remember you doing. I certainly am not implying your opposition to gay marriage is based in bigotry. In fact, I don't even know what your opinion of gay marriage is, you may well be fine with it for all I know. All I've seen you comment on is a desire to have it resolved through legislation rather than courts (which is sensible), and to complain about how people keep being mean to conservatives (which is ridiculous).
Seaward wrote:I've never seen an argument against homosexual marriage that's not simply pure dislike for homosexuals cloaked in sophistry.
I’ve seen reasons other than straight up bigotry. I’ve seen people get caught up in the fantasy of declining Christian morals, who think the only way to stop that slow decline is to fight people looking to increase rights. It isn’t that they hate the gays, but the gays are just one part of this whole narrative they’ve been led to believe. Some people have been given a very narrow reading of the Bible, and been taught to believe that condoning gay relationships with marriage cannot be accepted if we are to think of ourselves as Christian, so it isn’t that they hate homosexuals, just that they can’t condone what they do. Some folk just reflexively deny benefits to anyone that isn’t them, on some kind of stunted understanding that rights are a zero sum game, so anything you gain may cost them. And I’ve seen people who just reflexively oppose anything suggested by the other side, so if the progressives think gay marriage is a bad idea, they assume their place is to argue against it.
They’re all pretty stupid reasons, but they’re not bigoted reasons. The last one, reflexively taking up the other side, you see a whole lot on Dakka. I’d think it’s probably more common than bigotry here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:I know biccat called me a bigot twice and was not banned as far as a I know, as posts continued unabated. Maybe he is talking about himself.
I find it really odd that so many posters can be so outraged that opposing equal rights for marriage could lead to them being called bigot, but the very same people will be so quick to call you anti-semitic if you oppose elements of Israel's foreign policy.
Frazzled wrote:There you go. Arguments without calling anyone an "ist." Excellent.
I agree with your points FYI.
Hmm, Well you re a breedist Frazzled. You seek to create a master weiner dog race that either seekss to enslave or destroy all other breeds.
Yep.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:There you go. Arguments without calling anyone an "ist." Excellent.
I agree with your points FYI.
I noticed that you did not respond to my post. You msut be conceding the points I made. Good for you.
I did. My argument was only that there are logical reasons besides "ism" to opposition. I didn't care to defend those reasons as I don't give a flying feth about the issue frankly. I just want the democratic process to occur and not the usual rule by judges.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
sebster wrote:... maybe you'd never heard the factoid about Poland having more nuns per capita than any other country in the world...
Now I know who to blame.
"We're on a mission from Gahd."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote:I've never seen an argument against homosexual marriage that's not simply pure dislike for homosexuals cloaked in sophistry.
Dude / dudet/whatever you are, we just freaking had this conversation. Hello! McFly!
And now for the whacky Libertarian view from a We don't allow the use of certain terms regardless of who uses them. Carry on. who would like to get married. (Is a mod seriously going to give me a warning for calling myself what I am again?)
Legalized gay marriage in WA state... Yay?...
People can barely afford to shelter themselves or the basics for living, but awesome. We can get married, in that state where unemployment remains quite high. Awesome, good priorities. Thumbs up.
Marriage should go back to being what it used to be. Not managed by the Government. Period. No legal or tax incentives, penalties, or any other such nonsense.
It should be between two people socially, by an established religious institution. Done, end of story.
Gay marriage used to be "legal" in this country, because it was not controlled by the Government. Gay marriage was "legal" and rather accepted on this continent before this country existed. It simple was not legislated.
Fight to get the Government hands off your personal business, and everyone elses, rather than ask them to get involved. There are so many other important things to do.
Ahtman wrote:I know biccat called me a bigot twice and was not banned as far as a I know, as posts continued unabated. Maybe he is talking about himself.
This must be part of the magic fantasy land that I'm not part of. Where all conservatives are evil and all liberals are loving and peaceful, as opposed to the murderous violent bastards they really are.
sebster wrote:The trick is that in your world, if someone gives a homophobic reason for disapproval of gay marriage*, and another person calls them on it by calling them a bigot, that counts as oppression on apparently a far more grievous level than denying someone the right to marry the person they love.
I don't think I've ever said someone isn't a bigot (at least as their opinions pertain to homosexuality) for being "homophobic" (probably the most overused inappropriate word in modern discourse). However, I don't think that people should be labeled as bigots simply because they oppose gay marriage, which is what tends to happen.
You're apparently under the assumption that I get offended by colorful language. I don't. But if you're a bigot if you hate homosexuals then you're equally a bigot if you hate Christians. Or Jews. Or Israelites. Or really any class of people.
That label could be easily applied to almost every poster here. For example, I'm bigoted against pedophiles.
Frazzled: And you didn't respond to my explanations of how each of them were caused or related, directly or indirectly, by homophobia.
The religious interpretations of the bible condemning homosexuality for example weren't very common until a specific period of history, the Victorian era-- oddly enough, this was also the era in which the very concept of homosexuality was first defined in fact, setting the stage for history up until now where people believe there is either homosexuality or heterosexuality. When in reality, it's more complex than that, but this allows for demagogues to easily put populaces in an us vs them mentality-- which they did of course, being demagogues.
Today science understands sexuality as more of shades of grey or possibly a color spectrum depending on who you ask. The most popular tool has several rankings along the line of "entirely heterosexual", "mostly heterosexual", "bisexual with heterosexual leanings", and so on all the way up to "entirely homosexual". And most people fall in closer to the bisexual line than either extreme.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Marriage should go back to being what it used to be. Not managed by the Government.
Wait, when was this?
I'm fairly certain marriage was managed by government for quite some time. Either secular government or religious bodies which effectively functioned as government of a different kind.
Frazzled: And you didn't respond to my explanations of how each of them were caused or related, directly or indirectly, by homophobia.
Because its prima facae stupid. None of the arguments have anything to do with homophobia, unless of course you assume any disagreement is homophobia, which you and Sebster seem to be doing. Your argument is so overly broad as to be nonsensical.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Legalized gay marriage in WA state... Yay?...
People can barely afford to shelter themselves or the basics for living, but awesome. We can get married, in that state where unemployment remains quite high. Awesome, good priorities. Thumbs up.
Marriage should go back to being what it used to be. Not managed by the Government. Period. No legal or tax incentives, penalties, or any other such nonsense.
It should be between two people socially, by an established religious institution. Done, end of story.
Gay marriage used to be "legal" in this country, because it was not controlled by the Government. Gay marriage was "legal" and rather accepted on this continent before this country existed. It simple was not legislated.
Fight to get the Government hands off your personal business, and everyone elses, rather than ask them to get involved. There are so many other important things to do.
Once again, it takes a Libertarian to say "get off my lawn!"
Frazzled wrote:None of the arguments have anything to do with homophobia,
Melissia wrote:"It's always been that way!" is logically fallacious (appeal to tradition-- just because something is tradition is not itself a logical reason to keep it that way). Nevermind that the reason why it is tradition in the first place is because of a wave of homophobia that developed in the Victorian era (amongst other things) as well as the fact that marriages now aren't anywhere near what they were way back when. Marriages in that time were basically just used to breed new families, nowadays, they are expressions of romantic feelings and a desire for permanence and integration.
Melissia wrote:"It's unnatural!" Is logically unsound, as it is present in nature-- and is brought about by homophobia. Nevermind that "natural" isn't necessarily a good thing to begin with (Solanaceae-- nightshade-- is natural, but you still shouldn't eat it).
Melissia wrote:"It violates the sanctity of marriage" indicates a religious component which indicates our government is violating its own constitution (because all that is needed to oppose this is to have a religion which states that gay marriage doesn't violate the sanctity of marriage, and there are many who think that), and furthermore is logically inconsistent as the supposed "sanctity" is inconsistently applied. to the rest of the population. "God doesn't like it" follows a similar path, it's inconsistent amongst various religions and religious sects within each individual religion. Secular sanctity of a concept is subjective at best, and again, is never used consistently in terms of marriage.
Melissia wrote:The religious interpretations of the bible condemning homosexuality for example weren't very common until a specific period of history, the Victorian era-- oddly enough, this was also the era in which the very concept of homosexuality was first defined in fact, setting the stage for history up until now where people believe there is either homosexuality or heterosexuality. When in reality, it's more complex than that, but this allows for demagogues to easily put populaces in an us vs them mentality-- which they did of course, being demagogues.
The four most popular reasons for banning gay marriages, and all of them are linked to homophobia or a history of homophobia.
Frazzled wrote:Sweet but irrelevant. None of those were the ones I noted.
Number 1 was directly mentioned and argued to be homophobic in nature.. Number 2 and 3 are very much related to the "tradition" argument, which was directly mentioned and argued to be homophobic in nature.
Frazzled wrote:Sweet but irrelevant. None of those were the ones I noted.
Number 1 was directly mentioned. Number 2 and 3 are related to the "tradition" argument, which was directly mentioned..
1. No I say Sky god. you're being specific to Christianity. Again not homophobic unless any disagreement is homophobic.
2. FAIL. neither are tradition related. . Both are related to children. Again not homophobic unless any disagreement is homophobic.
So it's not related to Christianity, but it's still an expression of homophobia. You don’t get it do you? The Sky God argument is one to be taken literally. Its not homophobia because its not based on fear or hate.
Frazzled wrote:2. FAIL. neither are tradition related.
Being in denal doesn't change anything.
I don’t know about “denal” but you’re assuming a mental state. A mental state has nothing to do with arguments about the best interests of children. You’re mental state is such that you are presuming homophobia. But with that standard I can now argue its an “ism” whenever someone disagrees with me on anything, because I am presuming their mental state.” Indeed in this instance I am presuming a mental state of heterophobia on your part. Don’t be in denal. Don’t be a hata!
Discrimination against homosexuals is, by definition, homophobic. If the argument was "blacks [or whites / asians / hispanics / purple people eaters] can't marry" it'd be racist. If it was "Jews can't marry" it'd be antisemitic. If it was "Muslims can't marry" it'd be Islamophobic.
It's rather hard to avoid being homophobic while advancing a homophobic agenda.
biccat wrote:
I generally support popular referendums, so I've got no problem with putting this to a vote of the people at large, if there's enough interest to put it to a vote.
Wait, are you saying minority rights should be decided by majority rules?
Discrimination against homosexuals is, by definition, homophobic. If the argument was "blacks [or whites / asians / hispanics / purple people eaters] can't marry" it'd be racist. If it was "Jews can't marry" it'd be antisemitic. If it was "Muslims can't marry" it'd be Islamophobic.
It's rather hard to avoid being homophobic while advancing a homophobic agenda.
Alternatively the same argument can be made about proponents of homosexual marriage. Yet I refuse to believe advocates are heterophobes determined to repress heterosexual culture.
Whats awesome is when you back off from the "you disagree with me thereforw you're an 'ist'!" mentality you can find common ground and things can actually get done.
Discrimination against homosexuals is, by definition, homophobic. If the argument was "blacks [or whites / asians / hispanics / purple people eaters] can't marry" it'd be racist. If it was "Jews can't marry" it'd be antisemitic. If it was "Muslims can't marry" it'd be Islamophobic.
It's rather hard to avoid being homophobic while advancing a homophobic agenda.
Alternatively the same argument can be made about proponents of homosexual marriage. Yet I refuse to believe advocates are heterophobes determined to repress heterosexual culture.
Whats awesome is when you back off from the "you disagree with me thereforw you're an 'ist'!" mentality you can find common ground and things can actually get done.
I agree. But its just so easy to call somone aa "Phope" or a "Ist" that you don't need to form aa coherent and well thoughtout argument.
Frazzled wrote:Alternatively the same argument can be made about proponents of homosexual marriage.
No it couldn't. Proponents of homosexual marriage are not proposing to remove the rights of heterosexuals. That argument isn't based on any form of logic or sanity.
True dat. If they really are an "ist" you're not going to change their opinion. If they aren't but you start throwing around the :ist " charge to quiet opposition, it merely hardens and radicalizes opposition instead. Instead if you use, you know, reasoned arguments, people's opinons can change, public opinion changes, and things change. Mmmm....democracy at work.
Frazzled wrote:Alternatively the same argument can be made about proponents of homosexual marriage.
No it couldn't. Proponents of homosexual marriage are not proposing to remove the rights of heterosexuals. That argument is stupid.
yea, its really the same argument as life is a zero sum game. Its stupid only because you're stuck in the "everyone else is an 'ist,' mindset. All you do is harden opinion against you.
Take moi. I'm of the Libertarian argument. The government needs to be out of it. If the government is not out of it, then I'm fine with it on an equal rights basis. But the moment you mistaken call me an "ist" then I am against you, and in strong visceral terms. Its human nature.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:True dat. If they really are an "ist" you're not going to change their opinion.
What a coincidence, opinions aren't changing around here amongst the homophobes that speak out against gay marriage.
Whats funny is: 1) you just broke Dakka Rule #1; 2) you're exhibiting the same unthinking discriminatory attitude you're describing to others; and 3) I may have missed it, but I don't think anyone has actually posted on this thread against the homosexual marriage vote. Thats kind of awesome now that I think about it. This requires a pic!
Frazzled wrote:True dat. If they really are an "ist" you're not going to change their opinion. If they aren't but you start throwing around the :ist " charge to quiet opposition, it merely hardens and radicalizes opposition instead. Instead if you use, you know, reasoned arguments, people's opinons can change, public opinion changes, and things change. Mmmm....democracy at work.
Ok, LEts see if wwe can try this. Give me a reasoned argument against gay marriage.
Frazzled wrote:yea, its really the same argument as life is a zero sum game. Its stupid only because you're stuck in the "everyone else is an 'ist,' mindset. All you do is harden opinion against you.
No, the argument is stupid because the argument is stupid. It is logically flawed. It is irrational. It is inane with no small amount of insane mixed in for good measure. The homosexual marriage proponents are not arguing for a reduction in the rights of heterosexuals (or bisexuals whom have a partner of the opposite sex for that matter), therefor the same argument cannot be applied to them.
Doing so is no less than trolling. There is no discrimination against heterosexual couples here.
Frazzled wrote:Whats funny is: 1) you just broke Dakka Rule #1;
"Around here" referred to Texas, Frazzled.
And I see homophobia quite frequently amongst my fellow Texans, especially the older generations. The ones who tend to vote more, sadly enough. They aren't changing their opinions no matter what arguments are put forth.
But hopefully they'll die off and let the non-homophobic generations gain control though. That may sound callous, but it's the result of our flawed democratic system.
Frazzled wrote:2) you're exhibiting the same unthinking
Frazzled wrote:True dat. If they really are an "ist" you're not going to change their opinion. If they aren't but you start throwing around the :ist " charge to quiet opposition, it merely hardens and radicalizes opposition instead. Instead if you use, you know, reasoned arguments, people's opinons can change, public opinion changes, and things change. Mmmm....democracy at work.
Ok, LEts see if wwe can try this. Give me a reasoned argument against gay marriage.
I'll go with the two arguments I proffered related to kidlets. Then again I offered counter arguments to them. I think the only other argument I'd make is that marriage is also a religious state. But then again there goes that Frazzled libertarian argument argument again that The State should stay out of marriage altogether and let whatever speghetti being faith requirements stand. Separation of Church and State baby. The State provides the contract structure, and whatever they want to call themselves or follow for religious marriage (or whatever) is their matter. You sign onto the super dooper Government Spouse plan, and then can call yourself married/hitched/tied to the old ball and chain, whatever you want. Just don't bug me about it unless there's going to be cake, in which case I'm so there.
Oh wait, there is one more argument. Its the "Brother's Keeper" argument. Basically, have you seen old married couples? We're old, slow, and pruny. Save them from that fate!
Ahtman wrote:I know biccat called me a bigot twice and was not banned as far as a I know, as posts continued unabated. Maybe he is talking about himself.
This must be part of the magic fantasy land that I'm not part of. Where all conservatives are evil and all liberals are loving and peaceful, as opposed to the murderous violent bastards they really are.
That doesn't make sense and is quite a leap from one thing to another. It happened and I would go into more detail if you want, but I think moving on would be better. I also think the mod and ex-mod community prefer not to rehash past incidents.
(Is a mod seriously going to give me a warning for calling myself what I am again?)
Yes. Using a slur, even when referring to ones self is against the rules. I also doubt it is the only way, or best way, to describe yourself.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Marriage should go back to being what it used to be. Not managed by the Government.
Wait, when was this?
I'm fairly certain marriage was managed by government for quite some time. Either secular government or religious bodies which effectively functioned as government of a different kind.
You are right there has generally always been some sort of involvement, but really not to the extent there is now.
Things that we just take for granted now as restricted;
For instance until 1862, Bigamy was not against the law.
Also back in the 1800's there are records of female husbands, two women married in the expanding West. It may not have been "formal" marriage through a church, but there were not the same implications tax wise, etc etc for being married. Common law marriage at the time was the standard.
Back further, up until the 16th Century, marriage was strictly a private affair between the two people wishing to be married and thier families. No marriage licenses, blood tests, etc.
Marriage licenses were not needed in the USA until after the civil war, and once the Government gets to lisencing things, is when the restrictions start coming. This is when it became "law" to discriminate about who was allowed to marry who, especially at the time, mixed race couples.
The whole process has in my view actually gotten more and more narrow and restrictive, and the easiest solution is just inviting the government to butt out.
biccat wrote:
I don't think I've ever said someone isn't a bigot (at least as their opinions pertain to homosexuality) for being "homophobic" (probably the most overused inappropriate word in modern discourse).
It ranks up there with "biased", "hypocrite", "antisemitic", "racist", and "ironic".
Though I suspect "biased" probably takes the cake because almost everyone who utters it uses it incorrectly.
Frazzled wrote:
Because its prima facae stupid. None of the arguments have anything to do with homophobia, unless of course you assume any disagreement is homophobia, which you and Sebster seem to be doing. Your argument is so overly broad as to be nonsensical.
For the record, its really hard to argue that the demands of your ethereal Sky God are not simply your demands. Because, even if your Sky God demands it, you're the one listening and relaying the information.
biccat wrote:
I don't think I've ever said someone isn't a bigot (at least as their opinions pertain to homosexuality) for being "homophobic" (probably the most overused inappropriate word in modern discourse).
It ranks up there with "biased", "hypocrite", "antisemitic", "racist", and "ironic".
Though I suspect "biased" probably takes the cake because almost everyone who utters it uses it incorrectly.
Frazzled wrote:
Because its prima facae stupid. None of the arguments have anything to do with homophobia, unless of course you assume any disagreement is homophobia, which you and Sebster seem to be doing. Your argument is so overly broad as to be nonsensical.
For the record, its really hard to argue that the demands of your ethereal Sky God are not simply your demands. Because, even if your Sky God demands it, you're the one listening and relaying the information.
For the record those who believe in the great Sky God #27 will disgaree and say they are wider demands, and you're just NOT listening.
I for one believe homosexual practice is wrong; I am Christian. However, I don't see any point in not allowing gay marriage because the bit I disagree with is the type of relationship that it is between the two people of the same gender. Even when gay marriage is illegal, people have gay relatnships, and nothing I can do will stop that. I wouldn't look down on anybody for being gay, though I would certainly urge them not to practice homosexual relationships-how a person feels and how they behave shouldn't be the same thing as far as I am concerned.
In the end though, I would blame the focus of modern society on sex, rather than any one specific group or affiliation of people for the fact that this sort of discussion is necessary-sex and relationships are not the be all and end all of human existance.
Rabtorian wrote:I for one believe homosexual practice is wrong; I am Christian.
You act like these two are mutually inclusive ,but I assure you that they are not. One can stretch Christian beliefs to decry homosexuality but not everyone does.
Rabtorian wrote:I for one believe homosexual practice is wrong; I am Christian.
You act like these two are mutually inclusive ,but I assure you that they are not. One can stretch Christian beliefs to decry homosexuality but not everyone does.
I believe that they should be mutually inclusive, and that stretching isn't what you should be doing, as the point of instructions isn't finding the loopholes or interpreting sections in a way that benifites you, but to follow the instructions.
I do understand that sex is necessary for people to exist, but I believe reproduction isn't the purpose of life. Many parts of modern culture make it seem like life isn't worth living without sex, something I would say could not be further from the truth.
Rabtorian wrote:the point of instructions isn't finding the loopholes or interpreting sections in a way that benifites you, but to follow the instructions.
The point of it isn't to provide you loopholes to justify any preconceived prejudices either.
Rabtorian wrote:the point of instructions isn't finding the loopholes or interpreting sections in a way that benifites you, but to follow the instructions.
The point of it isn't to provide you loopholes to justify any preconceived prejudices either.
if you don't like it, don't be a member of the sect he belongs to. Problem solved.
I hear Episcopals and Lutherans are hiring. Of course we'll take anyone that brings booze or baked goods.
Rabtorian wrote:I for one believe homosexual practice is wrong; I am Christian.
You act like these two are mutually inclusive ,but I assure you that they are not. One can stretch Christian beliefs to decry homosexuality but not everyone does.
I believe that they should be mutually inclusive, and that stretching isn't what you should be doing, as the point of instructions isn't finding the loopholes or interpreting sections in a way that benifites you, but to follow the instructions.
Rabtorian wrote:I for one believe homosexual practice is wrong; I am Christian.
You act like these two are mutually inclusive ,but I assure you that they are not. One can stretch Christian beliefs to decry homosexuality but not everyone does.
I believe that they should be mutually inclusive, and that stretching isn't what you should be doing, as the point of instructions isn't finding the loopholes or interpreting sections in a way that benifites you, but to follow the instructions.
Rabtorian wrote:
I believe that they should be mutually inclusive, and that stretching isn't what you should be doing, as the point of instructions isn't finding the loopholes or interpreting sections in a way that benifites you, but to follow the instructions.
Oh man, I haven't heard that one in a while.
"I don't interpret the rules, I just follow them." is pretty high up there on the "Lies we tell ourselves." totem pole.
Returning to the topic of marriage as a wholly legally unmediated arrangement, the difficulty is that marriage is involved in various areas of law such as inheritance, pensions, taxes, child adoption, and immigration.
For example, my brother married a US citizen and the two of them thereby gained a strong legal basis for visa and residence permits to each other's countries.
How should that situation be resolved if marriage has no legal definition and status?
Kilkrazy wrote:Returning to the topic of marriage as a wholly legally unmediated arrangement, the difficulty is that marriage is involved in various areas of law such as inheritance, pensions, taxes, child adoption, and immigration.
For example, my brother married a US citizen and the two of them thereby gained a strong legal basis for visa and residence permits to each other's countries.
How should that situation be resolved if marriage has no legal definition and status?
Substitute "marriage" for "spousal contract" or "domestic partner contract" and there you go.
Child adoption is separate as its the interests of the children.
Kilkrazy wrote:Returning to the topic of marriage as a wholly legally unmediated arrangement, the difficulty is that marriage is involved in various areas of law such as inheritance, pensions, taxes, child adoption, and immigration.
For example, my brother married a US citizen and the two of them thereby gained a strong legal basis for visa and residence permits to each other's countries.
How should that situation be resolved if marriage has no legal definition and status?
Substitute "marriage" for "spousal contract" or "domestic partner contract" and there you go.
Child adoption is separate as its the interests of the children.
So long as you attach ALL of the benefits, especially the tax ones and medical ones, this is fine.
Like, right now you can write all the contracts you want, the IRS is just going to laugh and tax the crap out of your inheritance.
Kilkrazy wrote:Returning to the topic of marriage as a wholly legally unmediated arrangement, the difficulty is that marriage is involved in various areas of law such as inheritance, pensions, taxes, child adoption, and immigration.
For example, my brother married a US citizen and the two of them thereby gained a strong legal basis for visa and residence permits to each other's countries.
How should that situation be resolved if marriage has no legal definition and status?
As always I don't get what the problem is. Marriage is a business contract between two people that makes them a unified legal entity and creates joint ownership for anything produced through that union; money, children, property. The debate against same sex marriage is idiotic to me (sorry if anyone here stands on that side of the issue). I can't think of any other way to say it.
What is the big deal does the fact that gay people could marry tarnish the marriage of straight people? Just because some people think it is wrong does not make it wrong. By not giving them the rights of heterosexuals you place them below heterosexuals. And i dont think anyone would want that
Kilkrazy wrote:Returning to the topic of marriage as a wholly legally unmediated arrangement, the difficulty is that marriage is involved in various areas of law such as inheritance, pensions, taxes, child adoption, and immigration.
For example, my brother married a US citizen and the two of them thereby gained a strong legal basis for visa and residence permits to each other's countries.
How should that situation be resolved if marriage has no legal definition and status?
Substitute "marriage" for "spousal contract" or "domestic partner contract" and there you go.
Child adoption is separate as its the interests of the children.
So long as you attach ALL of the benefits, especially the tax ones and medical ones, this is fine.
Like, right now you can write all the contracts you want, the IRS is just going to laugh and tax the crap out of your inheritance.
I tried to find a map of marriage by age to go with you two above, but could not. I did find quite a bit about the subject, confirming what I thought I already knew. Minimum marriage age in the USA seems to be 14 in a few states, requiring permission from parents, then a bunch of states with a minimum of 15, 16, 17 and so on.
Interesting stuff.
Oh wait. 13 years of age for girls, and 14 years of age for boys is the minimum marriage age. Good ole New Hampshire.
13?!? How does that tie in with the age of consent? Can you be married to someone you can't legally have sex with? What are their rape within marriage laws like?
That's just all kinds of wrong.
Maybe I should put this in the 'things that confuse you thread' but the whole gay marriage debate confuses the hell out of me.
Kim Kardashian is destroying the sanctity of marriage, not Gays. You're in the land of the free, not Iran. Move on.
I mean you'd think that allowing gay mariage would have been up there on his list of priorities, hell the rest of the western world is up for it. I guess its all due to the voters though, and hell failing a vote on that subject could really mess up his support (lot'sa conservatively minded individuals in the US). I kind of find the idea that laws on the suject of equality like gay marriage or allowing homosexuals/women (though as I recall the US isn't too bad with the later) into the military are rather silly in this day in age. =/
Wyrmalla wrote:I mean you'd think that allowing gay mariage would have been up there on his list of priorities
The President is opposed to gay marriage, but he supports "equality." The progressive movement apparently maintains that the latter requires the former.
One might think that this would discourage progressives from supporting the President.
Kilkrazy wrote:Returning to the topic of marriage as a wholly legally unmediated arrangement, the difficulty is that marriage is involved in various areas of law such as inheritance, pensions, taxes, child adoption, and immigration.
For example, my brother married a US citizen and the two of them thereby gained a strong legal basis for visa and residence permits to each other's countries.
How should that situation be resolved if marriage has no legal definition and status?
Substitute "marriage" for "spousal contract" or "domestic partner contract" and there you go.
Child adoption is separate as its the interests of the children.
Question. What is marriage? if they get all benefits why not just call it marriage. Then the only difference is a word.
....Like you said, how the hell can you be a progressionist and not support sexual equality?
But I think that, like I mentioned, the US is fairly conservative in its views, may have had an effect on his policies. You have to get rid of all the close minded hicks before you can start going about saying that two women can get married in Texas. Silly country. ^^
....Like you said, how the hell can you be a progressionist and not support sexual equality?
But I think that, like I mentioned, the US is fairly conservative in its views, may have had an effect on his policies. You have to get rid of all the close minded hicks before you can start going about saying that two women can get married in Texas. Silly country. ^^
Government laws override state laws right?
In essence yeah.
Also he didnt support prop 8. HE said he didnt support gay marriage but the constitution shouldnnt be used to limits "Rights"
To me this subject is like whether you would allow people of any religion to their right of worship or those of another race to visit the same premises as those native to a given country (yes the later is rather silly as even though a person isn't the same race as you doesn't mean that they're family haven't been living in your country for generations). Its just really backwards that people shouldn't be allowed to marry the person that they love because of their sexual orientation. People have been having relationships like these for centuries. What's the difference between being married to your partner and not other than some paperwork really (yes there is a sentimental side to it, but that's not my argument)? That these people want the right to get married is a way of showing that they want to be acknowledged by the state that they are equal to everyone else.
And yet, Obama's still appointed more homosexuals to office than any other president, and abolished the DADT. Just saying.
More than likely I think his statements about gay marriage were meant to make sure he didn't offend independents considering how big a deal it was at the time. It's just a guess, but either way it's disappointing, yes.
Melissia wrote:And yet, Obama's still appointed more homosexuals to office than any other president, and abolished the DADT. Just saying.
More than likely I think his statements about gay marriage were meant to make sure he didn't offend independents considering how big a deal it was at the time. It's just a guess, but either way it's disappointing, yes.
Considering how much it would gridlock the congress maybe iits for the best he doesnt tuch it while there are more nation threatinging there are.
It's also far less big of a deal than it used to be for conservatives (or rather, pressing the issue isn't as good of an idea). More Americans now support legalizing gay marriage than ever before-- to the point where the ones supporting gay marriage are in the majority. The percent who support legalizing gay marriage has almost doubled in the past five years (going from 37% to 53%).
biccat wrote:
The President is opposed to gay marriage, but he supports "equality." The progressive movement apparently maintains that the latter requires the former.
One might think that this would discourage progressives from supporting the President.
To my knowledge Obama doesn't have an explicit for or against stance on gay marriage. He basically tries to avoid the issue.
biccat wrote: The President is opposed to gay marriage, but he supports "equality." The progressive movement apparently maintains that the latter requires the former.
One might think that this would discourage progressives from supporting the President.
To my knowledge Obama doesn't have an explicit for or against stance on gay marriage. He basically tries to avoid the issue.
biccat wrote:
eta: I'm not aware that his position has changed.
I had forgotten about that interview, though its still a pretty shaky commitment to marriage in the sense its normaly considered. This outlines the position more thoroughly:
Basically, marriage without the m word for everyone.
There's also been some recent noise about his position on gay marriage "evolving" prior to the election.
Wyrmalla wrote:I mean you'd think that allowing gay mariage would have been up there on his list of priorities
The President is opposed to gay marriage, but he supports "equality." The progressive movement apparently maintains that the latter requires the former.
One might think that this would discourage progressives from supporting the President.
Not really. He's still exponentially better on the issue than the average offering from the other side.
Though many progressives have been disappointed by Obama, so they may be less inclined to show up at the polls. Though, really, I don't think that's likely considering polarization, and certain things that Obama can run on.
Rabtorian wrote:I for one believe homosexual practice is wrong; I am Christian.
Out of curiosity, you being a Christian, you believe God created everything, correct?
Studies lean towards that homosexuality is not a choice but genetic, something they are born with.
When the day comes where it is a fact that homosexuality is genetic and not a choice would you change your mind? If God did create everything he had to have created that gene... correct?
Rabtorian wrote:I for one believe homosexual practice is wrong; I am Christian.
Out of curiosity, you being a Christian, you believe God created everything, correct?
Studies lean towards that homosexuality is not a choice but genetic, something they are born with.
When the day comes where it is a fact that homosexuality is genetic and not a choice would you change your mind? If God did create everything he had to have created that gene... correct?
Careful what you wish for. The other option is to eliminate the gene disposition.
dogma wrote:Though many progressives have been disappointed by Obama, so they may be less inclined to show up at the polls. Though, really, I don't think that's likely considering polarization, and certain things that Obama can run on.
Yeah, as I said, he's done quite a bit for homosexuals already, and he's still fethtons better than the opposition, whom generally oppose gay marraige.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:I don't know of many, if any, credible studies that consider homosexuality to be genetic alone.
Alone, no. But it is a big part of it for many people. After all, we are driven to some extent by genetics, otherwise many people wouldn't ever choose to have children, something that is genetically satisfying to have.
Also there's the fact that most people think of sexuality as an on-off switch when it's more like a sliding scale or even a graph...
dogma wrote:Basically, marriage without the m word for everyone.
Which is basically the "domestic partnership" position. Which gay marriage proponents apparently hated in California. So much that they had it ruled unconstitutional.
The problem with Obama, well, one of many, is that he doesn't really take explicit positions on things. He does the "this, but on the other hand that..." routine so well that you can really attribute almost any position you want to him. So people broadcast their own preferences onto him, and then vote for him because he represents everything they want.
As we've found out, he really doesn't have strong positions on anything, and this doesn't really make for a good president.
dogma wrote:There's also been some recent noise about his position on gay marriage "evolving" prior to the election.
"I'm in favor of traditional marriage. I oppose same-sex marriage. At the same time, I don't believe in discriminating in employment or opportunity for gay individuals. So I favor gay rights; I do not favor same-sex marriage. That has been my position all along."
Piston Honda wrote:When the day comes where it is a fact that homosexuality is genetic and not a choice would you change your mind? If God did create everything he had to have created that gene... correct?
I, for one, hope that we never determine that homosexuality is genetic.
"I'm in favor of traditional marriage. I oppose same-sex marriage. At the same time, I don't believe in discriminating in employment or opportunity for gay individuals. So I favor gay rights; I do not favor same-sex marriage. That has been my position all along."
Yes. Part of Romney's primary troubles stem from the fact that he doesn't appear to be a raving Santorum-style social conservative lunatic.
biccat wrote:Well, then hypothetically so is Romney
Romney didn't spearhead the opposition to DADT, nor did Romney appoint a record number of homosexual officials to positions in his term . Obama also signed in several other laws to this effect, such as laws stating that extended benefits normally associated with spouses to same sex partners of federal employees.
Essentially-- Hypothetically yes, Romney might be a good candidate.. and yet... Obama, despite having a shorter time serving the nation, has more accomplishments in terms of civil rights (and not just for homosexuals either, he's signed in plenty of bills for women as well for example as well as for the handicapped) than Romney does despite Romney's extended service.
So unless Romney takes a REAL stance on the issue, it's unlikely he'll garner much of the vote from this particular part of the constituency.
Rabtorian wrote:I wouldn't look down on anybody for being gay, though I would certainly urge them not to practice homosexual relationships-how a person feels and how they behave shouldn't be the same thing as far as I am concerned.
It's not really any of your business to 'urge' anyone to carry out certain sexual practices or not. How would you like someone telling you never to have sex with your partner because you are 'wrong'?
Anyway, people opposing homosexuality because of the bible should try reading it and explaining why theytake some bits literally and not others. Do they also wear clothes of mixed fibres, eat shell fish or share a house with a women on her period? It's not all Leviticus either, can we stone a woman to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night? Are women allowed to speak in church?
Rabtorian wrote:I wouldn't look down on anybody for being gay, though I would certainly urge them not to practice homosexual relationships-how a person feels and how they behave shouldn't be the same thing as far as I am concerned.
It's not really any of your business to 'urge' anyone to carry out certain sexual practices or not. How would you like someone telling you never to have sex with your partner because you are 'wrong'?
Anyway, people opposing homosexuality because of the bible should try reading it and explaining why theytake some bits literally and not others. Do they also wear clothes of mixed fibres, eat shell fish or share a house with a women on her period? It's not all Leviticus either, can we stone a woman to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night? Are women allowed to speak in church?
Dont forget that one passage about killing someone who works on the sabbath or selling you daughter into slavery.
Yeah, Strangly those who use the bible like that support the republican paty, The party of big money. And people should act how they feel aslong as it doesnt hurt others(unless they are into that sorta stuff)
Piston Honda wrote:When the day comes where it is a fact that homosexuality is genetic and not a choice would you change your mind? If God did create everything he had to have created that gene... correct?
I, for one, hope that we never determine that homosexuality is genetic.
There is a problem with those that equate homosexuality with disease though, especially by those that try to 'cure' it. Homosexuality is likely a combination of genetic and environmental factors, there's nothing particularly radical about that IMO. Also the suggestion that there is a 'gay gene' doesn't make sense to me, there are so many differently nuanced types of sexuality and its expression that it has to be a complex genetic-chemical construct. People personalities are not controlled by a single gene to make them a nice or nasty person.
Many Christians do acknowledge scientific findings.
The comment did not direct that all Christians live in the 13th century.
There are still many that reject or deny findings, there are even some who believe dinosaurs never existed. Their bones were placed their by the devil or something like that.
I brought up the question because he claimed he is Christian and therefore homosexuality is wrong.
Fine, whatever.
But if God created everything, and if there is a "gay gene" which would mean god created the gene.
Would Christians reject God's creation?
Historically speaking shouldn't really have to ask that question. But people have gotten a lot better.
Rabtorian wrote:I wouldn't look down on anybody for being gay, though I would certainly urge them not to practice homosexual relationships-how a person feels and how they behave shouldn't be the same thing as far as I am concerned.
It's not really any of your business to 'urge' anyone to carry out certain sexual practices or not. How would you like someone telling you never to have sex with your partner because you are 'wrong'?
Anyway, people opposing homosexuality because of the bible should try reading it and explaining why theytake some bits literally and not others. Do they also wear clothes of mixed fibres, eat shell fish or share a house with a women on her period? It's not all Leviticus either, can we stone a woman to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night? Are women allowed to speak in church?
Isn't there something about not touching a woman during their period for a week? In the bible that is.
Forever unclean!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:Dont forget that one passage about killing someone who works on the sabbath or selling you daughter into slavery.
Forgot Deuteronomy's guidance on rape. If your virgin daughter is raped, the rapist should pay you 50 shekels and marry her.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Anyway, people opposing homosexuality because of the bible should try reading it and explaining why theytake some bits literally and not others. Do they also wear clothes of mixed fibres, eat shell fish or share a house with a women on her period? It's not all Leviticus either, can we stone a woman to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night? Are women allowed to speak in church?
You should also ask if they murder people, steal, worship more than one god, and bear false witness.
While you shouldn't take the Bible literally, you also shouldn't disregard it entirely.
The question is, does the prohibition "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind" carry the same weight (for Christians) as "Thou shalt not kill" or "neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard"?
What about "Do not have sexual relations with your mother"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Piston Honda wrote:But if God created everything, and if there is a "gay gene" which would mean god created the gene.
Would Christians reject God's creation?
Historically speaking shouldn't really have to ask that question. But people have gotten a lot better.
Like I said, Christians have reconciled their beliefs with a lot of issues more profound than some hypothetical gay gene.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Anyway, people opposing homosexuality because of the bible should try reading it and explaining why theytake some bits literally and not others. Do they also wear clothes of mixed fibres, eat shell fish or share a house with a women on her period? It's not all Leviticus either, can we stone a woman to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night? Are women allowed to speak in church?
You should also ask if they murder people, steal, worship more than one god, and bear false witness.
While you shouldn't take the Bible literally, you also shouldn't disregard it entirely.
Do christians really only refuse to murder and steal because the bible says so? I think it's because of social norms and the law. Murder and theft are crimes common to all societies, I don't think the bible can take the credit for this.
What some do is claim the bible is their reasoning for certain views, but then they only pick and choose what they want from the bible to support those views and ignore the rest. So in actual fact, they are not following the bible as such, rather they have been educated in a certain way and beyond saying "it's my religion" they haven't got a coherent argument for their morality.
Ultimately, saying "it's my religion" is a smokescreen to avoid analysis of what is actually their opinion. They don't take the bible literally, they have chosen what to accept in it which matches their own prejudices, they are still responsible for their attitude on homosexuality. They can't shrug and say "it's my religion, can't help it". Plenty of christians have no issue with homosexuality, which says it all IMO.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Ultimately, saying "it's my religion" is a smokescreen to avoid analysis of what is actually their opinion. They don't take the bible literally, they have chosen what to accept in it which matches their own prejudices, they are still responsible for their attitude on homosexuality. They can't shrug and say "it's my religion, can't help it". Plenty of christians have no issue with homosexuality, which says it all IMO.
No its not.
1. Some sects view it differently than others. Some churches care, some don't.
2. People believe more deeply in their teachings than others.
As an aside I see we're moving into the weekly bashing Christian thread.
See! People should read the bible, it's a blast. Alternatively skip to the really bloody chapters like Judges, it's all killing and enslaving. Like when Moses ethnically cleansed the holy land that had been promised to them by god. He told his men to exterminate most of the Midianites, of the children they were to kill all the boys and any of the girls that weren't virgins, of the rest they were to "keep alive for yourselves".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
1. Some sects view it differently than others. Some churches care, some don't.
2. People believe more deeply in their teachings than others.
I agree on both counts... but it doesn't reason why they believe the particular bits of the bible that that they do and not other parts.
Honestly, is a bill that only helps 10% of the population really worth spending time over fixing more major Economic and Social Problems? No, you can pass the bill and all other problems can go away as it's being passed. If it please/helps a minority what is the point of passing it? I want freedom over what I think. I have a problem with Same-Sex Marriage Activists that they force the thing down your throat. Usually it's "Vote Yes or you are a Homophobe." I have no need for it, so if a similar bill is put through referendum, I would vote no.
While you shouldn't take the Bible literally, you also shouldn't disregard it entirely.
The question is, does the prohibition "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind" carry the same weight (for Christians) as "Thou shalt not kill" or "neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard"?
What about "Do not have sexual relations with your mother"?
Many people who are not Christians or religious or who are Christians but fastidious with the bible see the whole argument of "homosexuality is immoral because the bible says so" is a tad bit silly because the bible displays a list of ridiculous laws and requirements.
That does not make everything in the bible aberrant. The bible has many good teachings in it, just not all laws in it originate from the bible.
Best thing is to be fair and practical about the whole issue. No one is forcing people to like same sex marriage or homosexuality. People can hate them as much as they want, we still have people who hate other races and religions.
I think it is only fair that gay people should be able to enjoy every right that straight people have. If it means 2 people are a little less lonely in this world why not? Allowing gays to get married is not going to murders, no one can catch "the gay", they will not raise gay children because they are gay, it will not destroy the traditional man and woman marriage.
Not asking anyone to accept homosexuality as something that is OK. Can't tell people they are not sinners and are not going to hell (not that I am the least bit religious). Hell, people can even think they are disgusting, I can't tell people what to think, not going to spend my time trying to convince otherwise.
I am asking that my fellow human beings and countrymen have the same rights as I do. This country, after all, is not a theocracy.
rockerbikie wrote:Honestly, is a bill that only helps 10% of the population really worth spending time over fixing more major Economic and Social Problems? No, you can pass the bill and all other problems can go away as it's being passed. If it please/helps a minority what is the point of passing it? I want freedom over what I think. I have a problem with Same-Sex Marriage Activists that they force the thing down your throat. Usually it's "Vote Yes or you are a Homophobe." I have no need for it, so if a similar bill is put through referendum, I would vote no.
That just sounds like pure selfishness. If it wasn't for the opposition to gay rights, then it could just pass and everyone could get on with their lives. Equality in society is an important thing that shouldn't be brushed aside just because there are other serious issues in the world. There are always serious issues in the world. And claiming that there's no point in passing something that only helps a minority is just a very sad, insular way of looking at society IMO.
So you'd vote 'no' just because you have "no need for it". Sigh. On that basis I guess you would have voted no for black and women's rights, assuming you are a white male, for example.
Many people who are not Christians or religious or who are Christians but fastidious with the bible see the whole argument of "homosexuality is immoral because the bible says so" is a tad bit silly because the bible displays a list of ridiculous laws and requirements.
Well if you're not a Christian we don't really give a what you think now do we?
Many people who are not Christians or religious or who are Christians but fastidious with the bible see the whole argument of "homosexuality is immoral because the bible says so" is a tad bit silly because the bible displays a list of ridiculous laws and requirements.
Well if you're not a Christian we don't really give a what you think now do we?
Does it help that I was once one?
Or are Catholics still not "true Christians"
Yes there are quite a few of them out there. I get them at my door from time to time.
I also change my religion from time to time when they come.
Last time I was Muslim. Before that I was a Priest in the Church of Satan. That time it was a mistake to say that.
rockerbikie wrote:Honestly, is a bill that only helps 10% of the population really worth spending time over fixing more major Economic and Social Problems? No, you can pass the bill and all other problems can go away as it's being passed. If it please/helps a minority what is the point of passing it? I want freedom over what I think. I have a problem with Same-Sex Marriage Activists that they force the thing down your throat. Usually it's "Vote Yes or you are a Homophobe." I have no need for it, so if a similar bill is put through referendum, I would vote no.
That just sounds like pure selfishness. If it wasn't for the opposition to gay rights, then it could just pass and everyone could get on with their lives. Equality in society is an important thing that shouldn't be brushed aside just because there are other serious issues in the world. There are always serious issues in the world. And claiming that there's no point in passing something that only helps a minority is just a very sad, insular way of looking at society IMO.
So you'd vote 'no' just because you have "no need for it". Sigh. On that basis I guess you would have voted no for black and women's rights, assuming you are a white male, for example.
Women aren't a minority. They have their rights. Black have plenty of rights and in cases more than whites. I got in a fight with a black person at school, he started it, I got suspended, he did not because he is black. Except for Gay Rights, Gay seems to have alot of rights, I have never seen a Straight Pride festival. I have heard gay people insulting straight people because they are straight . I can't say Hetereophobic, can I? I also need incentive other than justice for Homosexuals, I would have a slightly higher tax rate for gays that funds Hospitals and Orphanages for Homsexual Couples who do not adopt or have kids. I personally think that White Hetereosexuals rights are going down and being censored at alarmingly high rates. There is near equality except for Marriage for Homosexuals.
rockerbikie wrote: I have never seen a Straight Pride festival.
Well we have football an event filled with heterosexual testosterone and and cheerleaders in tight skimpy clothing,
I personally think that White Hetereosexuals rights are going down and being censored at alarmingly high rates. There is near equality except for Marriage for Homosexuals.
Aww crap. Why didn't Micheal Savage warn me of this?
Although I think you do bring up a point with regards to homosexual couples without kids paying a higher tax rate than heterosexual couples (as part of the tax cut is supposed to assist with the financial burden that children represent), I think you also have to have the same caveat for heterosexual couples that choose not to have kids, for the same reason.
sourclams wrote:Although I think you do bring up a point with regards to homosexual couples without kids paying a higher tax rate than heterosexual couples (as part of the tax cut is supposed to assist with the financial burden that children represent), I think you also have to have the same caveat for heterosexual couples that choose not to have kids, for the same reason.
I agree with that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Piston Honda wrote:
rockerbikie wrote: I have never seen a Straight Pride festival.
Well we have football an event filled with heterosexual testosterone and and cheerleaders in tight skimpy clothing,
I personally think that White Hetereosexuals rights are going down and being censored at alarmingly high rates. There is near equality except for Marriage for Homosexuals.
Aww crap. Why didn't Micheal Savage warn me of this?
Look at it this way, Western Countries are the only "Multi-Cultural" Countries on the earth, isn't it our turn to show them our culture?
rockerbikie wrote:Honestly, is a bill that only helps 10% of the population really worth spending time over fixing more major Economic and Social Problems? No, you can pass the bill and all other problems can go away as it's being passed. If it please/helps a minority what is the point of passing it? I want freedom over what I think. I have a problem with Same-Sex Marriage Activists that they force the thing down your throat. Usually it's "Vote Yes or you are a Homophobe." I have no need for it, so if a similar bill is put through referendum, I would vote no.
That just sounds like pure selfishness. If it wasn't for the opposition to gay rights, then it could just pass and everyone could get on with their lives. Equality in society is an important thing that shouldn't be brushed aside just because there are other serious issues in the world. There are always serious issues in the world. And claiming that there's no point in passing something that only helps a minority is just a very sad, insular way of looking at society IMO.
So you'd vote 'no' just because you have "no need for it". Sigh. On that basis I guess you would have voted no for black and women's rights, assuming you are a white male, for example.
Women aren't a minority. They have their rights. Black have plenty of rights and in cases more than whites. I got in a fight with a black person at school, he started it, I got suspended, he did not because he is black. Except for Gay Rights, Gay seems to have alot of rights, I have never seen a Straight Pride festival. I have heard gay people insulting straight people because they are straight . I can't say Hetereophobic, can I? I also need incentive other than justice for Homosexuals, I would have a slightly higher tax rate for gays that funds Hospitals and Orphanages for Homsexual Couples who do not adopt or have kids. I personally think that White Hetereosexuals rights are going down and being censored at alarmingly high rates. There is near equality except for Marriage for Homosexuals.
So you doont like equality? Also what Heterosexual rights? To have rights you have to had beeen oppresed. Hetero sexuals have nevr been opprsed.
rockerbikie wrote:
Women aren't a minority. They have their rights. Black have plenty of rights and in cases more than whites. I got in a fight with a black person at school, he started it, I got suspended, he did not because he is black.
I think this is the first time ive agreed with something dakka's resident neo nazi says, but here is some food for thought. According to the press, Patrice Evra admitted starting the argument with Luis Suazrez by mocking his sister and calling her a slut. Suarez responded by referring to the color of his skin and was banned for 3 months and heavily fined, no punishment was given to Patrice Evra.
Im not one to agree with racist people generally, but I do think the fear of being labelled a bigot does allows some overly harsh punishment of the majority to occur without criticism.
Patrice Evra should be sucking on the same punishment for what is essentially nothing more than name calling surely?
rockerbikie wrote:Honestly, is a bill that only helps 10% of the population really worth spending time over fixing more major Economic and Social Problems? No, you can pass the bill and all other problems can go away as it's being passed. If it please/helps a minority what is the point of passing it? I want freedom over what I think. I have a problem with Same-Sex Marriage Activists that they force the thing down your throat. Usually it's "Vote Yes or you are a Homophobe." I have no need for it, so if a similar bill is put through referendum, I would vote no.
That just sounds like pure selfishness. If it wasn't for the opposition to gay rights, then it could just pass and everyone could get on with their lives. Equality in society is an important thing that shouldn't be brushed aside just because there are other serious issues in the world. There are always serious issues in the world. And claiming that there's no point in passing something that only helps a minority is just a very sad, insular way of looking at society IMO.
So you'd vote 'no' just because you have "no need for it". Sigh. On that basis I guess you would have voted no for black and women's rights, assuming you are a white male, for example.
Women aren't a minority. They have their rights. Black have plenty of rights and in cases more than whites. I got in a fight with a black person at school, he started it, I got suspended, he did not because he is black. Except for Gay Rights, Gay seems to have alot of rights, I have never seen a Straight Pride festival. I have heard gay people insulting straight people because they are straight . I can't say Hetereophobic, can I? I also need incentive other than justice for Homosexuals, I would have a slightly higher tax rate for gays that funds Hospitals and Orphanages for Homsexual Couples who do not adopt or have kids. I personally think that White Hetereosexuals rights are going down and being censored at alarmingly high rates. There is near equality except for Marriage for Homosexuals.
So you doont like equality? Also what Heterosexual rights? [b]To have rights you have to had beeen oppresed. Hetero sexuals have nevr been opprsed.[/b]
What you said doesn't make any sense. That's basically implying Heterosexual people don't deserve right because they have not been oppressed. Your setence doesn't make sense.
hotsauceman1 wrote:So you doont like equality? Also what Heterosexual rights? To have rights you have to had beeen oppresed. Hetero sexuals have nevr been opprsed.
Look at it this way, Western Countries are the only "Multi-Cultural" Countries on the earth, isn't it our turn to show them our culture?
No one is stopping you. Where I live (upstate New York) European ancestory is celebrated often.
June we have an Italian festival.
July is Greek.
October is German.
Russian is in August.
Just about everyone gets Columbus day off unless you work in retail and there is a parade.
St. Patrick's day is very stereotypical in my area. Everyone gets drunk and eats corned beef and wears green hats. I've been told St. Pat's day is bigger in the states than it is in Ireland. Is that true?
Up north a bit in Syracuse area there is the Scottish games and festival. You can watch very strong white guys toss logs while drinking beer from your new wooden mug.
I enjoy attending all these festivals but some of the cultural music is a bit painful.
The closest thing in my area that has a festival celebrating minorities is MLK day, and 10 people plus the mayor show up for that.
Unless there is a law prohibiting you from celebrating you cultural heritage I don't see the issue. Perhaps you should orchestrate you own festival? It takes a lot of work, it does not happen out of thin air.
None of the events I have attended or even helped at are run or funded by the government nor has there been any federal intervention stopping us.
I'm sure the same goes parades involving minorities.
The only real requirement is the same at any major event with a lot of people in attendance. Security/police, ambulance, proper route for fire engines, etc.
Look at it this way, Western Countries are the only "Multi-Cultural" Countries on the earth, isn't it our turn to show them our culture?
No one is stopping you. Where I live (upstate New York) European ancestory is celebrated often.
June we have an Italian festival.
July is Greek.
October is German.
Russian is in August.
Just about everyone gets Columbus day off unless you work in retail and there is a parade.
St. Patrick's day is very stereotypical in my area. Everyone gets drunk and eats corned beef and wears green hats. I've been told St. Pat's day is bigger in the states than it is in Ireland. Is that true?
Up north a bit in Syracuse area there is the Scottish games and festival. You can watch very strong white guys toss logs while drinking beer from your new wooden mug.
I enjoy attending all these festivals but some of the cultural music is a bit painful.
The closest thing in my area that has a festival celebrating minorities is MLK day, and 10 people plus the mayor show up for that.
Unless there is a law prohibiting you from celebrating you cultural heritage I don't see the issue. Perhaps you should orchestrate you own festival? It takes a lot of work, it does not happen out of thin air.
None of the events I have attended or even helped at are run or funded by the government nor has there been any federal intervention stopping us.
I'm sure the same goes parades involving minorities.
The only real requirement is the same at any major event with a lot of people in attendance. Security/police, ambulance, proper route for fire engines, etc.
I should of been more specific. There should be Multicultirsm happening in the Middle-east, Part of Asia, Africa and South America. There is only a Portuguese Club and a German Club where I live by the way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:
rockerbikie wrote:
Women aren't a minority. They have their rights. Black have plenty of rights and in cases more than whites. I got in a fight with a black person at school, he started it, I got suspended, he did not because he is black.
I think this is the first time ive agreed with something dakka's resident neo nazi says, but here is some food for thought. According to the press, Patrice Evra admitted starting the argument with Luis Suazrez by mocking his sister and calling her a slut. Suarez responded by referring to the color of his skin and was banned for 3 months and heavily fined, no punishment was given to Patrice Evra.
Im not one to agree with racist people generally, but I do think the fear of being labelled a bigot does allows some overly harsh punishment of the majority to occur without criticism.
Patrice Evra should be sucking on the same punishment for what is essentially nothing more than name calling surely?
Yeah, I agree. I have asian friends and other friends from other ethnicies. We make jokes about each other ethnicies. That's not racism. Rascism still happens but it is dealt way too harshly in my opinion. An apology should be compulsary but a Match fine, that is pure foolishness.
rockerbikie wrote:
What you said doesn't make any sense. That's basically implying Heterosexual people don't deserve right because they have not been oppressed. Your setence doesn't make sense.
What im saying is the use of the term "Rights" cannot b applied to hetero sexuals. They have never been oppressed or denied anything someone else has because they have always had them.
Also how the Heck are heterosexuals bein oppresed? its not like you cant marry who you wish.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:So you doont like equality? Also what Heterosexual rights? To have rights you have to had beeen oppresed. Hetero sexuals have nevr been opprsed.
You clearly have never been married.
Nor do i plan to. While i think that marriage is something al deserve it doesnt appeal to me. Why get married and have a family when i dont have to anymore.
I also think having kds in ths day and age is irresponsible because it just adds to a overburdened society
rockerbikie wrote:
What you said doesn't make any sense. That's basically implying Heterosexual people don't deserve right because they have not been oppressed. Your setence doesn't make sense.
What im saying is the use of the term "Rights" cannot b applied to hetero sexuals. They have never been oppressed or denied anything someone else has because they have always had them.
Also how the Heck are heterosexuals bein oppresed? its not like you cant marry who you wish.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:So you doont like equality? Also what Heterosexual rights? To have rights you have to had beeen oppresed. Hetero sexuals have nevr been opprsed.
You clearly have never been married.
Nor do i plan to. While i think that marriage is something al deserve it doesnt appeal to me. Why get married and have a family when i dont have to anymore.
I also think having kds in ths day and age is irresponsible because it just adds to a overburdened society
What word can we use instead of "Rights" then? What noun can substitute it? We need the next generation to look after this generation, would you like it 50 years later, being 70 years old and having to wait hours for a health worker. Saying having kids is irresponsible is also very irresponsible in it's nature. Christianity has oppressed sexuals thought for Heterosexuals except for reproductive purposes.
rockerbikie wrote:
What you said doesn't make any sense. That's basically implying Heterosexual people don't deserve right because they have not been oppressed. Your setence doesn't make sense.
What im saying is the use of the term "Rights" cannot b applied to hetero sexuals. They have never been oppressed or denied anything someone else has because they have always had them.
Also how the Heck are heterosexuals bein oppresed? its not like you cant marry who you wish.
Thats nonsense. Everyone has rights or no one has rights. Reverse discimrination occurs in other fields. No reason to think it wouldn't or hasn't happened in this field either.
You clearly have never been married.
Nor do i plan to. While i think that marriage is something al deserve it doesnt appeal to me. Why get married and have a family when i dont have to anymore.
I also think having kds in ths day and age is irresponsible because it just adds to a overburdened society
I'm going to go out on a limb and bet you vote Democratic...
rockerbikie wrote:
What word can we use instead of "Rights" then? What noun can substitute it? We need the next generation to look after this generation, would you like it 50 years later, being 70 years old and having to wait hours for a health worker. Saying having kids is irresponsible is also very irresponsible in it's nature. Christianity has oppressed sexuals thought for Heterosexuals except for reproductive purposes.
Im telling you. No one s taking away rights of heterosexuals. No one s sayng you cant marry or adopt. All the LBGTQIA community wants is to be free of hate and fear that just by existing. And you are helping propagate that fear by claiming they are oppressing YOU!!!
Also Look where our reproductive processes got us. In a world that that is falling aprat and failing to support us.
rockerbikie wrote:
What word can we use instead of "Rights" then? What noun can substitute it? We need the next generation to look after this generation, would you like it 50 years later, being 70 years old and having to wait hours for a health worker. Saying having kids is irresponsible is also very irresponsible in it's nature. Christianity has oppressed sexuals thought for Heterosexuals except for reproductive purposes.
Im telling you. No one s taking away rights of heterosexuals. No one s sayng you cant marry or adopt. All the LBGTQIA community wants is to be free of hate and fear that just by existing. And you are helping propagate that fear by claiming they are oppressing YOU!!!
Also Look where our reproductive processes got us. In a world that that is falling aprat and failing to support us.
You do know that without kids the race, er, ends right? Or are you just against breeders in general?
As the immortal bard once said: "Well, tough. We're in it for the species people."
hotsauceman1 wrote:What im saying is the use of the term "Rights" cannot b applied to hetero sexuals. They have never been oppressed or denied anything someone else has because they have always had them.
What the heck are you talking about? Heterosexuals may not have been oppressed as a group, but they certainly still have rights.
Leaving your question for others, because that's just a flamewar waiting to happen.
hotsauceman1 wrote:I also think having kds in ths day and age is irresponsible because it just adds to a overburdened society
The US birthrate is at an all-time low, slightly below replacement level. Other western countries are exhibiting similar low birth rates. Japan is in terrible shape, averaging just over 1 child per woman.
These demographics pose two problems: first, and most obviously, the potential destruction of a people; and second, a disastrous effect on the welfare obligations to older generations (or younger, depending on who wins that fight). The no-kids (or 1-kid) viewpoint is not just wrong, it's dangerous.
rockerbikie wrote:
What word can we use instead of "Rights" then? What noun can substitute it? We need the next generation to look after this generation, would you like it 50 years later, being 70 years old and having to wait hours for a health worker. Saying having kids is irresponsible is also very irresponsible in it's nature. Christianity has oppressed sexuals thought for Heterosexuals except for reproductive purposes.
Im telling you. No one s taking away rights of heterosexuals. No one s sayng you cant marry or adopt. All the LBGTQIA community wants is to be free of hate and fear that just by existing. And you are helping propagate that fear by claiming they are oppressing YOU!!!
Also Look where our reproductive processes got us. In a world that that is falling aprat and failing to support us.
You do know that without kids the race, er, ends right? Or are you just against breeders in general?
As the immortal bard once said: "Well, tough. We're in it for the species people."
I just think we need to not have so many. The earth was not built to house us like this. The earth was not a living entiety that fresees everything. Everything is finite.
rockerbikie wrote:
What word can we use instead of "Rights" then? What noun can substitute it? We need the next generation to look after this generation, would you like it 50 years later, being 70 years old and having to wait hours for a health worker. Saying having kids is irresponsible is also very irresponsible in it's nature. Christianity has oppressed sexuals thought for Heterosexuals except for reproductive purposes.
Im telling you. No one s taking away rights of heterosexuals. No one s sayng you cant marry or adopt. All the LBGTQIA community wants is to be free of hate and fear that just by existing. And you are helping propagate that fear by claiming they are oppressing YOU!!!
Also Look where our reproductive processes got us. In a world that that is falling aprat and failing to support us.
What you are saying that Heterosexuals shouldn't have rights yet you promote LBGTQIA? I am using logic in this situation, Modern Science will keep this world alive if we change to more efficent ways of energy. Technology got us there. Reproduction did not. We should not just kill the human race by not reproducing. If I am reborn in this realm, I want to be human again. Sorry to poke this out, your spelling is atrocious. Your arguments is going around in circles and going nowhere. I am not propagating fear in any way what soever. You are accusing me of something I did not do and victimizing yourself when it isn't as bad as you make it out to be. Your double standards by saying Heterosexuals can't have rights in contradictory and very foolish indeed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
rockerbikie wrote:
What word can we use instead of "Rights" then? What noun can substitute it? We need the next generation to look after this generation, would you like it 50 years later, being 70 years old and having to wait hours for a health worker. Saying having kids is irresponsible is also very irresponsible in it's nature. Christianity has oppressed sexuals thought for Heterosexuals except for reproductive purposes.
Im telling you. No one s taking away rights of heterosexuals. No one s sayng you cant marry or adopt. All the LBGTQIA community wants is to be free of hate and fear that just by existing. And you are helping propagate that fear by claiming they are oppressing YOU!!!
Also Look where our reproductive processes got us. In a world that that is falling aprat and failing to support us.
You do know that without kids the race, er, ends right? Or are you just against breeders in general?
As the immortal bard once said: "Well, tough. We're in it for the species people."
I just think we need to not have so many. The earth was not built to house us like this. The earth was not a living entiety that fresees everything. Everything is finite.
hotsauceman1 wrote:What im saying is the use of the term "Rights" cannot b applied to hetero sexuals. They have never been oppressed or denied anything someone else has because they have always had them.
What the heck are you talking about? Heterosexuals may not have been oppressed as a group, but they certainly still have rights.
Ok, I think i am misrepresenting myself here. Ofcourse heterosexuals have rights. What 'im saying is the term "Gay Rights" is not the same as heterosexual rights. "Gay rights" and many ofther thrms like it are used for people who have been deenied rights because of how they where born. Heterosexuals have never been oppressed or denied anything so th term "Heterosexual Rights" cant be used. And no one is tryng to say you cant marry
rockerbikie wrote:Honestly, is a bill that only helps 10% of the population really worth spending time over fixing more major Economic and Social Problems? No, you can pass the bill and all other problems can go away as it's being passed. If it please/helps a minority what is the point of passing it? I want freedom over what I think. I have a problem with Same-Sex Marriage Activists that they force the thing down your throat. Usually it's "Vote Yes or you are a Homophobe." I have no need for it, so if a similar bill is put through referendum, I would vote no.
That just sounds like pure selfishness. If it wasn't for the opposition to gay rights, then it could just pass and everyone could get on with their lives. Equality in society is an important thing that shouldn't be brushed aside just because there are other serious issues in the world. There are always serious issues in the world. And claiming that there's no point in passing something that only helps a minority is just a very sad, insular way of looking at society IMO.
So you'd vote 'no' just because you have "no need for it". Sigh. On that basis I guess you would have voted no for black and women's rights, assuming you are a white male, for example.
Women aren't a minority. They have their rights. Black have plenty of rights and in cases more than whites. I got in a fight with a black person at school, he started it, I got suspended, he did not because he is black. Except for Gay Rights, Gay seems to have alot of rights, I have never seen a Straight Pride festival. I have heard gay people insulting straight people because they are straight . I can't say Hetereophobic, can I? I also need incentive other than justice for Homosexuals, I would have a slightly higher tax rate for gays that funds Hospitals and Orphanages for Homsexual Couples who do not adopt or have kids. I personally think that White Hetereosexuals rights are going down and being censored at alarmingly high rates. There is near equality except for Marriage for Homosexuals.
Well gosh, I mean where to begin? Need I bother? These are the ramblings of someone who doesn't appreciate what being disadvantaged actually means. Gays seem to 'have a lot of rights', well yes they have many of the same human rights as every ones, what they don't have are equal right sin all things. Perhaps you suggest they should be happy with their lot and consider themselves lucky they are given the freedoms they already have?
Heterosexuals don't need 'straight pride' because they already have the same rights and more than people of other orientations. What do they need to raise awareness about? You need incentives other than "justice for homosexuals", ie you only agree with equality if they pay higher tax. Yeah whatever, well maybe in your tiny world, but actually lots of people don't have kids because they chose not to or can't for medical reasons. But tax them all higher?? I can't believe this is a serious suggestion.
And white heterosexuals are "going right down and being censored as alarmingly high rates" is just pathetically crying victim-hood, where do you get this crap from? White heterosexuals have a very easy time of it. Black people are still disproportionately targeted for stop and searches by police sadly there's still a lot of racial prejudice around and homosexuals are still discriminated against in various ways beyond marriage, eg. they can't donate blood.
Maybe heterosexuals do need more rights, perhaps you'd like to describe some you think you are lacking. I don't feel particularly hard done by myself, I suppose the only thing that comes to mind is that if a straight man gets a divorce there's a bias towards the woman winning custody of any children. But that's a gender equality issue not an orientation one. But I don't see a valid reason to prevent bringing homosexual rights to the same level as heterosexuals.
Frazzled wrote:"Well, tough. We're in it for the species people."
Except we aren't talking about different species. Humans of different ethnic backgrounds are still human, so if it is just about the species we are doing fine, considering we have morre humans alive at this point than any other in known history. The species, as it were, is doing fine.
Frazzled wrote:"Well, tough. We're in it for the species people."
Except we aren't talking about different species. Humans of different ethnic backgrounds are still human, so if it is just about the species we are doing fine, considering we have morre humans alive at this point than any other in known history. The species, as it were, is doing fine.
Yep. until the asteroids start hitting our cities, then its all "bugs are bombing this" and "bugs are bombing that." Don't say you haven't been warned...
Frazzled wrote:"Well, tough. We're in it for the species people."
Except we aren't talking about different species. Humans of different ethnic backgrounds are still human, so if it is just about the species we are doing fine, considering we have morre humans alive at this point than any other in known history. The species, as it were, is doing fine.
Yep. until the asteroids start hitting our cities, then its all "bugs are bombing this" and "bugs are bombing that." Don't say you haven't been warned...
I'm nowhere near Rio so I'm feeling pretty good about my chances.
Frazzled wrote:"Well, tough. We're in it for the species people."
Except we aren't talking about different species. Humans of different ethnic backgrounds are still human, so if it is just about the species we are doing fine, considering we have morre humans alive at this point than any other in known history. The species, as it were, is doing fine.
Yep. until the asteroids start hitting our cities, then its all "bugs are bombing this" and "bugs are bombing that." Don't say you haven't been warned...
I'm nowhere near Rio so I'm feeling pretty good about my chances.
biccat wrote:While you shouldn't take the Bible literally, you also shouldn't disregard it entirely.
Disregard it? No. It's played a crucial role in Western history ever since its compilation.
As it's a book compiled by committee, written by authors of dubious credibility, hundreds and hundreds of years ago, I certainly wouldn't consider it authoritative on anything, though.
biccat wrote:
Which is basically the "domestic partnership" position. Which gay marriage proponents apparently hated in California. So much that they had it ruled unconstitutional.
Of course they did, why wouldn't they? They want to get married, and be easily categorized.
biccat wrote:
The problem with Obama, well, one of many, is that he doesn't really take explicit positions on things. He does the "this, but on the other hand that..." routine so well that you can really attribute almost any position you want to him. So people broadcast their own preferences onto him, and then vote for him because he represents everything they want.
That's not so much a problem, as damn good branding.
biccat wrote:
As we've found out, he really doesn't have strong positions on anything, and this doesn't really make for a good president.
See, this is a great example of why I say things like "You don't know anything about politics." No President of any merit, which is to say most Presidents (have merit), has ever expressed a strong position on anything in any sense that isn't predicated on rhetoric alone.
biccat wrote:
Which election?
2012. Just punch "Obama position gay marriage" into Google.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
The question is, does the prohibition "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind" carry the same weight (for Christians) as "Thou shalt not kill" or "neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard"?
Well, its been pretty well accepted that Leviticus is at the discretion of the reader, which is to say there isn't much of any weight to it.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Gay marriage used to be "legal" in this country, because it was not controlled by the Government. Gay marriage was "legal" and rather accepted on this continent before this country existed. It simple was not legislated.
That state of affairs has simply never existed. Marriage has always come with rights, even when there was no formal government marriage changed how a couple was treated in society.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Where all conservatives are evil and all liberals are loving and peaceful, as opposed to the murderous violent bastards they really are.
All liberals are murderous, violent bastards...
I think at this point you probably need some genuine help. You're getting into some weird territory.
I don't think I've ever said someone isn't a bigot (at least as their opinions pertain to homosexuality) for being "homophobic" (probably the most overused inappropriate word in modern discourse). However, I don't think that people should be labeled as bigots simply because they oppose gay marriage, which is what tends to happen.
It does happen too often, and is something of an issue, because some people get shouted down for opposition to gay marriage, when that opposition can merely be the product of being poorly informed, or out of poorly reasoned selfishness, or reflexive opposition to progressive ideals. Calling these people bigots is bad, because by dealing with their actual reasons for opposition, they might be won over.
You're apparently under the assumption that I get offended by colorful language. I don't.
No, you just worry, about people being accused of being bigots, when it's true only most of the time. You worry about this more than just about any other issue in this whole debate. It seems an odd thing to get particularly worried about, when there's people who are actually being denied the right marry the people they love.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote:Wait, are you saying minority rights should be decided by majority rules?
Lacking a truly objective means of determining the rights all people should have, there isn't a particularly good alternative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:I think the only other argument I'd make is that marriage is also a religious state.
But there are religious organisations that are willing to marry gay people. If such an organisation wants to do so, why should the state tell them they cannot?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rabtorian wrote:I believe that they should be mutually inclusive, and that stretching isn't what you should be doing, as the point of instructions isn't finding the loopholes or interpreting sections in a way that benifites you, but to follow the instructions.
You miss the point. The plain and simple fact is that the rules of your faith are very hard to fully and properly establish. I offer as evidence of this the incredibly wide variety of values within different Christian sects.
Some Christians believe that the call to 'love your neighbour' and be charitable is far more important that scarce comments made on homosexuality. They are not looking for loopholes, they are simply interpreting the text differently to yourself.
You don't get to declare your reading objectively more true than their's, and remove yourself from the issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:The President is opposed to gay marriage, but he supports "equality." The progressive movement apparently maintains that the latter requires the former.
One might think that this would discourage progressives from supporting the President.
One would then note that it has, and Obama has recieved considerable criticism from progressives, particularly in the GLBT community. And that this has led to much of his 'enthusiasm gap'.
Because if it is a biological drive, it is not a choice. If God created a person to be attracted to the same sex, it doesn't become an issue of people choosing to commit homosexual acts, but them simply acting as they were created. Which makes it much, much harder to call it a sin.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:While you shouldn't take the Bible literally, you also shouldn't disregard it entirely.
Why shouldn't a non-Christian disregard entirely?
Should a Christian be expected to consider the Talmud?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rockerbikie wrote:Honestly, is a bill that only helps 10% of the population really worth spending time over fixing more major Economic and Social Problems? No, you can pass the bill and all other problems can go away as it's being passed.
Because it isn't an RTS where you can only pass one piece of law per turn. You can, in fact, do both things at once.
If it please/helps a minority what is the point of passing it? I want freedom over what I think. I have a problem with Same-Sex Marriage Activists that they force the thing down your throat. Usually it's "Vote Yes or you are a Homophobe." I have no need for it, so if a similar bill is put through referendum, I would vote no.
So you're wondering why should you bother when it's someone else who is having their rights denied?
Yeah, when I mentioned non-bigot reasons to oppose gay marriage, I mentioned what is, more or less, rockerbikie's stance. It isn't bigoted, but to be perfectly honest, it's probably worse than a bigot's reason.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rockerbikie wrote:Women aren't a minority. They have their rights.
The term minority refers not to raw numbers but the number of people in positions of power, status and privilege. While things have improved considerably for women, they are still significantly under-represented in major positions in government and the private sector.
Black have plenty of rights and in cases more than whites.
It isn't just a count of 'rights', but privilege and opportunity within society. A simple look at relative incomes (white man $31k average income, black man $22k average income) says that there still isn't a level playing field.
Except for Gay Rights, Gay seems to have alot of rights
This is the best sentence ever. Except for income, black people earn as much money as white people.
Awesome.
I have never seen a Straight Pride festival.
Because we're the majority. We don't need to have our place in society recognised, because society is geared almost entirely to recognising us already.
I have heard gay people insulting straight people because they are straight . I can't say Hetereophobic, can I?
You can, it's a real thing and it does happen. But the important thing is to understand that if one in two homosexuals is heterophobic, then a whoping 2 or 3% of the population would be hostile to your sexual preference. This is not enough to meaningfully impact your life.
But if one in two straight people is homophobic, then about 48% of the population is hostile to a gay person's sexual preference. This is enough to make being openly homosexual a genuinely terrifying experience.
This is why the actions of the majority simply matter more, because there are more of us, we have more power to impact the lives of the minority.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sourclams wrote:Although I think you do bring up a point with regards to homosexual couples without kids paying a higher tax rate than heterosexual couples (as part of the tax cut is supposed to assist with the financial burden that children represent), I think you also have to have the same caveat for heterosexual couples that choose not to have kids, for the same reason.
But this is one of those things where nonsense just compounds on top of more nonsense.
If you want to give people a tax break to encourage children, then you don't give them a tax break for getting married and just hope kids come, and then think about not extending that tax break to same sex couples (and logically also infertile couples and maybe then also to couples who want to get married but don't want kids)... you just give a tax break to people when they have kids.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:I think this is the first time ive agreed with something dakka's resident neo nazi says, but here is some food for thought. According to the press, Patrice Evra admitted starting the argument with Luis Suazrez by mocking his sister and calling her a slut. Suarez responded by referring to the color of his skin and was banned for 3 months and heavily fined, no punishment was given to Patrice Evra.
Im not one to agree with racist people generally, but I do think the fear of being labelled a bigot does allows some overly harsh punishment of the majority to occur without criticism.
Patrice Evra should be sucking on the same punishment for what is essentially nothing more than name calling surely?
I do agree that certain things have become hyper-sensitised, such as racial name calling, resulting in bizarre results like the above.
But I don't that is anywhere near the scale of advantages white people still benefit from. In fact, the odd instance like the above receiving as much attention as it does, while black people still earn about 2/3 of what white peopl do on average being almost entirely unknown, is a pretty classic example of white privilege.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote:Im telling you. No one s taking away rights of heterosexuals. No one s sayng you cant marry or adopt. All the LBGTQIA community wants...
Everytime I see that thing there's more letters in it. What are the I and A for?
biccat wrote:The problem with Obama, well, one of many, is that he doesn't really take explicit positions on things. He does the "this, but on the other hand that..." routine so well that you can really attribute almost any position you want to him. So people broadcast their own preferences onto him, and then vote for him because he represents everything they want.
That's not so much a problem, as damn good branding.
Depends on what you want/expect out of a president.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:As we've found out, he really doesn't have strong positions on anything, and this doesn't really make for a good president.
See, this is a great example of why I say things like "You don't know anything about politics." No President of any merit, which is to say most Presidents (have merit), has ever expressed a strong position on anything in any sense that isn't predicated on rhetoric alone.
You're equivocating. Bush took strong positions, as did Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Nixon... I suppose you could suggest that there haven't been presidents "of any merit" for the past 30 years or so, but that's not really fair, and completely discretionary.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:Which election?
2012. Just punch "Obama position gay marriage" into Google.
He says his position "is evolving." Not sure how it has changed.
sebster wrote:
You're apparently under the assumption that I get offended by colorful language. I don't.
No, you just worry, about people being accused of being bigots, when it's true only most of the time. You worry about this more than just about any other issue in this whole debate. It seems an odd thing to get particularly worried about, when there's people who are actually being denied the right marry the people they love.
You're assuming that people have "the right to marry the people they love." This is not true now, nor has it ever been true as long as states have regulated marriage.
And my problem with the "bigotry" card is that it's an attempt to frame the debate in a manner favorable to those in support of gay marriage. If opponents of gay marriage are bigots (or if marriage is a fundamental right), then the only rational conclusion is in favor of gay marriage. I think that a good debate might be had on the issue if gay marriage proponents would yield to civility.
I don't see this happening.
sebster wrote:Because if it is a biological drive, it is not a choice. If God created a person to be attracted to the same sex, it doesn't become an issue of people choosing to commit homosexual acts, but them simply acting as they were created. Which makes it much, much harder to call it a sin.
No it isn't. Christians believe that everyone is a sinner. We all (apparently) are created to sin. A gay man acting on his urges is little different than a straight man seeking a mistress.
sebster wrote:Why shouldn't a non-Christian disregard entirely?
Should a Christian be expected to consider the Talmud?
You shouldn't disregard certain rules simply because they're also present in the Bible. There can be overlap between "Christian" teachings and secular teachings.
And yes, a Christian should be expected to consider the Talmud, insofar as the two intersect.
sebster wrote:Yeah, when I mentioned non-bigot reasons to oppose gay marriage, I mentioned what is, more or less, rockerbikie's stance. It isn't bigoted, but to be perfectly honest, it's probably worse than a bigot's reason.
That's classy right there.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Im telling you. No one s taking away rights of heterosexuals. No one s sayng you cant marry or adopt. All the LBGTQIA community wants...
Everytime I see that thing there's more letters in it. What are the I and A for?
Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, Transgendered, Queer, Intersex, and Allies (allies is usually the last A).
I prefer "Gilberts" (GLBT), it's close enough to the line to be offensive.
biccat wrote:You're assuming that people have "the right to marry the people they love."
So do most straight people.
biccat wrote:And my problem with the "bigotry" card is that it's an attempt to frame the debate in a manner favorable to those in support of gay marriage.
The debate has always been morally favorable to the pro gay marriage stance. Be that as it may, it's not merely an "attempt to frame the debate", but a discussion of the underlying prejudices which were/are present in some way or form in the majority of the populace.
Prejudices which many people have but are in denial of. It might anger them when it is pointed out, but it's still there. There's the "big scary black man" stereotype for example-- he might be the gentlest type in the world but to everyone else, with the stereotypes and prejudices the majority of the population has in the modern world, he's pretty intimidating. It's a very subtle form of racism that is still present in our society, and in many ways perpetuated by our society's media (he makes a popular character in movies for example, though rarely is he the main character).
But pointing this out often makes people angry because they believe they have no prejudices and are perfectly good non-prejudiced law abiding citizens. Few people like it when it's pointed out that they aren't perfect, especially when they realize that it's true.
biccat wrote:You're assuming that people have "the right to marry the people they love."
So do most straight people.
Actually, they don't. However, given that you've classified any opposition to gay marriage as bigotry, I'm less inclined to accept your arguments at face value.
Melissia wrote:But pointing this out often makes people angry because they believe they have no prejudices and are perfectly good non-prejudiced law abiding citizens. Few people like it when it's pointed out that they aren't perfect, especially when they realize that it's true.
biccat wrote:Actually, they don't. However, given that you've classified any opposition to gay marriage as bigotry, I'm less inclined to accept your arguments at face value.
You never did anyway, so what's the difference here?
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Gay marriage used to be "legal" in this country, because it was not controlled by the Government. Gay marriage was "legal" and rather accepted on this continent before this country existed. It simple was not legislated.
That state of affairs has simply never existed. Marriage has always come with rights, even when there was no formal government marriage changed how a couple was treated in society.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Where all conservatives are evil and all liberals are loving and peaceful, as opposed to the murderous violent bastards they really are.
All liberals are murderous, violent bastards...
I think at this point you probably need some genuine help. You're getting into some weird territory.
I don't think I've ever said someone isn't a bigot (at least as their opinions pertain to homosexuality) for being "homophobic" (probably the most overused inappropriate word in modern discourse). However, I don't think that people should be labeled as bigots simply because they oppose gay marriage, which is what tends to happen.
It does happen too often, and is something of an issue, because some people get shouted down for opposition to gay marriage, when that opposition can merely be the product of being poorly informed, or out of poorly reasoned selfishness, or reflexive opposition to progressive ideals. Calling these people bigots is bad, because by dealing with their actual reasons for opposition, they might be won over.
You're apparently under the assumption that I get offended by colorful language. I don't.
No, you just worry, about people being accused of being bigots, when it's true only most of the time. You worry about this more than just about any other issue in this whole debate. It seems an odd thing to get particularly worried about, when there's people who are actually being denied the right marry the people they love.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote:Wait, are you saying minority rights should be decided by majority rules?
Lacking a truly objective means of determining the rights all people should have, there isn't a particularly good alternative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:I think the only other argument I'd make is that marriage is also a religious state.
But there are religious organisations that are willing to marry gay people. If such an organisation wants to do so, why should the state tell them they cannot?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rabtorian wrote:I believe that they should be mutually inclusive, and that stretching isn't what you should be doing, as the point of instructions isn't finding the loopholes or interpreting sections in a way that benifites you, but to follow the instructions.
You miss the point. The plain and simple fact is that the rules of your faith are very hard to fully and properly establish. I offer as evidence of this the incredibly wide variety of values within different Christian sects.
Some Christians believe that the call to 'love your neighbour' and be charitable is far more important that scarce comments made on homosexuality. They are not looking for loopholes, they are simply interpreting the text differently to yourself.
You don't get to declare your reading objectively more true than their's, and remove yourself from the issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:The President is opposed to gay marriage, but he supports "equality." The progressive movement apparently maintains that the latter requires the former.
One might think that this would discourage progressives from supporting the President.
One would then note that it has, and Obama has recieved considerable criticism from progressives, particularly in the GLBT community. And that this has led to much of his 'enthusiasm gap'.
Because if it is a biological drive, it is not a choice. If God created a person to be attracted to the same sex, it doesn't become an issue of people choosing to commit homosexual acts, but them simply acting as they were created. Which makes it much, much harder to call it a sin.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:While you shouldn't take the Bible literally, you also shouldn't disregard it entirely.
Why shouldn't a non-Christian disregard entirely?
Should a Christian be expected to consider the Talmud?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rockerbikie wrote:Honestly, is a bill that only helps 10% of the population really worth spending time over fixing more major Economic and Social Problems? No, you can pass the bill and all other problems can go away as it's being passed.
Because it isn't an RTS where you can only pass one piece of law per turn. You can, in fact, do both things at once.
If it please/helps a minority what is the point of passing it? I want freedom over what I think. I have a problem with Same-Sex Marriage Activists that they force the thing down your throat. Usually it's "Vote Yes or you are a Homophobe." I have no need for it, so if a similar bill is put through referendum, I would vote no.
So you're wondering why should you bother when it's someone else who is having their rights denied?
Yeah, when I mentioned non-bigot reasons to oppose gay marriage, I mentioned what is, more or less, rockerbikie's stance. It isn't bigoted, but to be perfectly honest, it's probably worse than a bigot's reason.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rockerbikie wrote:Women aren't a minority. They have their rights.
The term minority refers not to raw numbers but the number of people in positions of power, status and privilege. While things have improved considerably for women, they are still significantly under-represented in major positions in government and the private sector.
Black have plenty of rights and in cases more than whites.
It isn't just a count of 'rights', but privilege and opportunity within society. A simple look at relative incomes (white man $31k average income, black man $22k average income) says that there still isn't a level playing field.
Except for Gay Rights, Gay seems to have alot of rights
This is the best sentence ever. Except for income, black people earn as much money as white people.
Awesome.
I have never seen a Straight Pride festival.
Because we're the majority. We don't need to have our place in society recognised, because society is geared almost entirely to recognising us already.
I have heard gay people insulting straight people because they are straight . I can't say Hetereophobic, can I?
You can, it's a real thing and it does happen. But the important thing is to understand that if one in two homosexuals is heterophobic, then a whoping 2 or 3% of the population would be hostile to your sexual preference. This is not enough to meaningfully impact your life.
But if one in two straight people is homophobic, then about 48% of the population is hostile to a gay person's sexual preference. This is enough to make being openly homosexual a genuinely terrifying experience.
This is why the actions of the majority simply matter more, because there are more of us, we have more power to impact the lives of the minority.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sourclams wrote:Although I think you do bring up a point with regards to homosexual couples without kids paying a higher tax rate than heterosexual couples (as part of the tax cut is supposed to assist with the financial burden that children represent), I think you also have to have the same caveat for heterosexual couples that choose not to have kids, for the same reason.
But this is one of those things where nonsense just compounds on top of more nonsense.
If you want to give people a tax break to encourage children, then you don't give them a tax break for getting married and just hope kids come, and then think about not extending that tax break to same sex couples (and logically also infertile couples and maybe then also to couples who want to get married but don't want kids)... you just give a tax break to people when they have kids.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:I think this is the first time ive agreed with something dakka's resident neo nazi says, but here is some food for thought. According to the press, Patrice Evra admitted starting the argument with Luis Suazrez by mocking his sister and calling her a slut. Suarez responded by referring to the color of his skin and was banned for 3 months and heavily fined, no punishment was given to Patrice Evra.
Im not one to agree with racist people generally, but I do think the fear of being labelled a bigot does allows some overly harsh punishment of the majority to occur without criticism.
Patrice Evra should be sucking on the same punishment for what is essentially nothing more than name calling surely?
I do agree that certain things have become hyper-sensitised, such as racial name calling, resulting in bizarre results like the above.
But I don't that is anywhere near the scale of advantages white people still benefit from. In fact, the odd instance like the above receiving as much attention as it does, while black people still earn about 2/3 of what white peopl do on average being almost entirely unknown, is a pretty classic example of white privilege.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote:Im telling you. No one s taking away rights of heterosexuals. No one s sayng you cant marry or adopt. All the LBGTQIA community wants...
Everytime I see that thing there's more letters in it. What are the I and A for?
The ammount of time debating Gay Marriage can be used in bennifiting other people. So, I am unallowed to say Straight Pride because I'm not an oppressed Minority. To be proud to be the Majoirty would be a good reason to be proud infact. Black People get privilages in the court of Law, also in politcal correctness. I am unable to emphasize with Homosexual because I am not one, so I can not make a mention wether it is scary or not being a homosexual. Women usually take jobs of less pay then males. That's why the income is less. I have no problem if people were for it before it became "cool" but people just jump on the "For" band wagon just to seem cool these days. In the 90s, it was unheard of, if it was a subtle movement instead of this flayboyant mess which it was became, I might support it. I have seen scenes of Gay Parades on the News, they are a mess. If they done it more subtle than in your face I might be for it.(I am being too harsh mods?)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
rockerbikie wrote:If it please/helps a minority what is the point of passing it?
Because minorities also have rights. Or do you oppose the thirteenth amendment because it only effects a minority of the population?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:More to the point, I'm saying that it's wrong to promote childlessness.
Why, and what does this have to do with homosexual marriage (read, it has nothing to do with homosexual marriage)?
I am Australian. Some kid derailed the topic. The minorities seem to be getting more rights than majorities these days.
rockerbikie wrote:The ammount of time debating Gay Marriage can be used in bennifiting other people.
You again act as if it's mutually exclusive.
You also act as if it is "straight or gay, nothing in between"...
rockerbikie wrote:So, I am unallowed to say Straight Pride because I'm not an oppressed Minority.
You practice "straight pride" every day. Heterosexual couples people go around kissing, holding hands, fondling, and so on in public without any fear of retribution or violating social norms. Heterosexual couples brag about their relationships (or "conquests" for single heterosexual-leaning people who aren't interested in relationships) all the time. The majority of the media emphasizes heterosexuality and glorifies it. The hero gets the girl in action flicks. The good girl gets the best guy in chick flicks. At the end of the story, the husband and wife live happily ever after, with babies and such.
So it's not that you aren't "allowed" to say "straight pride" so much as, in practice, the majority population puts the idea of "straight pride" in practice without labeling it as such.
rockerbikie wrote:I am unable to emphasize with Homosexual because I am not one
... that doesn't mean that you can't empathize* with them. I empathize with the plight of the homeless despite not being homeless myself.
*I assume empathize is the word you meant.
rockerbikie wrote:Women usually take jobs of less pay then males.
Bullgak. When taking the same job as men, women tend to be paid less than men. Women get offered promotion to higher levels less than men, as well. And in some countries they aren't allowed to work at all in such an environment.
I should note that women have been graduating from college more than men recently. So it's not a matter of effort-- women certainly are on average putting forth more effort than men when it comes to education-- but rather prejudices left over from centuries of business practices and biases which are very hard to throw off considering the bias towards older white men in society which is still to this day being shaken off (I mean, just look at social security, ageism in government vastly favors the old as opposed to the young even in these days-- any attempt to change social security brews a veritable gakstorm, but how DARE we suggest that the government should help insure children!).
rockerbikie wrote:The minorities seem to be getting more rights than majorities these days.
That's a cute lie there that you tell yourself to make yourself feel like a victim.
rockerbikie wrote:The ammount of time debating Gay Marriage can be used in bennifiting other people.
You again act as if it's mutually exclusive.
You also act as if it is "straight or gay, nothing in between"...
rockerbikie wrote:So, I am unallowed to say Straight Pride because I'm not an oppressed Minority.
You practice "straight pride" every day. Heterosexual couples people go around kissing, holding hands, fondling, and so on in public without any fear of retribution or violating social norms. Heterosexual couples brag about their relationships (or "conquests" for single heterosexual-leaning people who aren't interested in relationships) all the time. The majority of the media emphasizes heterosexuality and glorifies it. The hero gets the girl in action flicks. The good girl gets the best guy in chick flicks. At the end of the story, the husband and wife live happily ever after, with babies and such.
So it's not that you aren't "allowed" to say "straight pride" so much as, in practice, the majority population puts the idea of "straight pride" in practice without labeling it as such.
rockerbikie wrote:I am unable to emphasize with Homosexual because I am not one
... that doesn't mean that you can't empathize* with them. I empathize with the plight of the homeless despite not being homeless myself.
*I assume empathize is the word you meant.
rockerbikie wrote:Women usually take jobs of less pay then males.
Bullgak. When taking the same job as men, women tend to be paid less than men. Women get offered promotion to higher levels less than men, as well. And in some countries they aren't allowed to work at all in such an environment.
I should note that women have been graduating from college more than men recently. So it's not a matter of effort-- women certainly are on average putting forth more effort than men when it comes to education-- but rather prejudices left over from centuries of business practices and biases which are very hard to throw off considering the bias towards older white men in society which is still to this day being shaken off (I mean, just look at social security, ageism in government vastly favors the old as opposed to the young even in these days-- any attempt to change social security brews a veritable gakstorm, but how DARE we suggest that the government should help insure children!).
rockerbikie wrote:The minorities seem to be getting more rights than majorities these days.
That's a cute lie there that you tell yourself to make yourself feel like a victim.
Yeah. Bi-sexuals, the one inbetween which gets hated by alot of the LG community. Melissia, it is not a lie, a white person can't sue a person for racial taunts can they? Look, at what jobs men and women do, labour jobs such as Boilmaker and Engineer is not typically a female job, they pay highly. Also, the pay differance is only a 5% difference, at most for those job you have mentioned. If straight people don't lable straight pride, why on earth should gays do foolisj act in the name of "Gay Pride". These parades are not needed, they could do it subtley and intelligently but no, they have to stick in your face, just like the liberal feminist movement, which I am quite indeead sure you are in. Insuring a child in a ridiculous idea, what will b next do we want to insure goldfish? Also, that is a lie that women put more effort into College than Men. Isn't it funny that thing that will help a minority that will be passed by Majority rules? We will be better of with Absolute Monarchy(not trolling.)
Joey wrote:So this is what Washington State will look like now?
Awesome
Not exactly but that will probably occur every frickin month. Mardi Gras is one of the worse events I heard of. If you are trying to be funny I am unimpressed.
rockerbikie wrote:Yeah. Bi-sexuals, the one inbetween which gets hated by alot of the LG community.
Yes, some people (both heterosexual and homosexual) say "pick a side!" but they're in the minority as far as the LGBT community goes.
rockerbikie wrote: Melissia, it is not a lie, a white person can't sue a person for racial taunts can they?
Yes they can. Someone at a prior workplace got fired for calling me racist epithets, and I'm as white as can be.
rockerbikie wrote:Also, the pay differance is only a 5% difference
... "ONLY" a 5% difference. When you're making ~50k a year, losing out on 2,500 a year is a fairly sizable difference. You really need to get a grasp on your perspective, it's still inferior no matter how much you try to justify it.
rockerbikie wrote:If straight people don't lable straight pride
Why do they need to? Every day is straight pride day.
rockerbikie wrote:why on earth should gays do foolisj act in the name of "Gay Pride".
Why not? Is that one of those things that you claim only the majority is allowed to do or something?
rockerbikie wrote:These parades are not needed
Yes they are. It is as much a celebration of the community as it is an opportunity for the community to draw in new members who, due to the fact that the community is smaller, don't know about it or don't know how to get involved. It's also an opportunity to educate the majority population. It's not always done very well, don't get me wrong, but it's still an important part of the civil rights movement.
rockerbikie wrote:they could do it subtley
What makes you think that the LGBT community doesn't do this also? You probably know LGBT members and don't even know it.
rockerbikie wrote: but no, they have to stick in your face
Right, just like heterosexuals do to homo/bisexuals.
rockerbikie wrote:just like the liberal feminist movement
You realize that feminism also argues for men's rights, too, right? Feminism as a philosophy argues for equal rights between the genders-- and equal rights means equal for both parties. That the media focuses on extremists just means the media is flawed.
rockerbikie wrote:Insuring a child in a ridiculous idea, what will b next do we want to insure goldfish?
I'm not touching this crap.
rockerbikie wrote:Also, that is a lie that women put more effort into College than Men.
Statistics proves otherwise. Women as a group graduate from college at a higher percent than men.
rockerbikie wrote:We will be better of with Absolute Monarchy(not trolling.)
An absolute monarchy is the equivalent of a very small minority dictating the rules for all other minorities and the majority populace.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:
Spoiler:
You gotta admit... those men are more manly than you.
rockerbikie wrote:Yeah. Bi-sexuals, the one inbetween which gets hated by alot of the LG community.
Yes, some people (both heterosexual and homosexual) say "pick a side!" but they're in the minority as far as the LGBT community goes.
rockerbikie wrote: Melissia, it is not a lie, a white person can't sue a person for racial taunts can they?
Yes they can. Someone at a prior workplace got fired for calling me racist epithets, and I'm as white as can be.
rockerbikie wrote:Also, the pay differance is only a 5% difference
... "ONLY" a 5% difference. When you're making ~50k a year, losing out on 2,500 a year is a fairly sizable difference. You really need to get a grasp on your perspective, it's still inferior no matter how much you try to justify it.
rockerbikie wrote:If straight people don't lable straight pride
Why do they need to? Every day is straight pride day.
rockerbikie wrote:why on earth should gays do foolisj act in the name of "Gay Pride".
Why not? Is that one of those things that you claim only the majority is allowed to do or something?
rockerbikie wrote:These parades are not needed
Yes they are. It is as much a celebration of the community as it is an opportunity for the community to draw in new members who, due to the fact that the community is smaller, don't know about it or don't know how to get involved. It's also an opportunity to educate the majority population. It's not always done very well, don't get me wrong, but it's still an important part of the civil rights movement.
rockerbikie wrote:they could do it subtley
What makes you think that the LGBT community doesn't do this also? You probably know LGBT members and don't even know it.
rockerbikie wrote: but no, they have to stick in your face
Right, just like heterosexuals do to homo/bisexuals.
rockerbikie wrote:just like the liberal feminist movement
You realize that feminism also argues for men's rights, too, right? Feminism as a philosophy argues for equal rights between the genders-- and equal rights means equal for both parties. That the media focuses on extremists just means the media is flawed.
rockerbikie wrote:Insuring a child in a ridiculous idea, what will b next do we want to insure goldfish?
I'm not touching this crap.
rockerbikie wrote:Also, that is a lie that women put more effort into College than Men.
Statistics proves otherwise. Women as a group graduate from college at a higher percent than men.
rockerbikie wrote:We will be better of with Absolute Monarchy(not trolling.)
An absolute monarchy is the equivalent of a very small minority dictating the rules for all other minorities and the majority populace.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:
Spoiler:
You gotta admit... those men are more manly than you.
The pick a side argument is really stupid. Let's put it this way, if a small Group let's say Asexuals have a huge parades trying to recruit people, would people allow it? Hell no. This special treatment of this group is completely absurd. I am well aware of people who I know and their sexual attraction. Actually all the Feminists I know, promote a Matriachial society. Maybe if done the education in the High School Syllabus of why people are homosexual, maybe we would not this disorganised mess. Also, about that photo, how manly you are does not determine how much muscle and how big you are. The problem is that you are generalising Women and Men, many men are successful, it is unfortunate that alot of my colleagues don't care about education. You could argue that too many females settle down to have kids and quit their jobs once the kid is born to care about it.
rockerbikie wrote:This special treatment of this group is completely absurd.
The LGBT movement agrees, that's why they're pushing for equal treatment.
Oh wait, you're probably using "special" as "favorable". In that case you're wrong. Homosexuals are not treated as "special" by society unless you define "special" as "second class citizen".
rockerbikie wrote:I am well aware of people who I know and their sexual attraction.
lol... keep telling yourself that.
rockerbikie wrote:The problem is that you are generalising Women and Men
rockerbikie wrote:This special treatment of this group is completely absurd.
The LGBT movement agrees, that's why they're pushing for equal treatment.
Oh wait, you're probably using "special" as "favorable". In that case you're wrong. Homosexuals are not treated as "special" by society unless you define "special" as "second class citizen".
rockerbikie wrote:I am well aware of people who I know and their sexual attraction.
lol... keep telling yourself that.
rockerbikie wrote:The problem is that you are generalising Women and Men
So I was born to fail. Seriously, what is dragging down the ammount of college degrees for males is the annoying males who spend no time on study and all the time on video games and worthless things. It's no that females are naturally smarter which you are trying to lean towards, it is that there is a high ammount of pathetic Males who need to get a grip of reality. Gays are treated favourable comapred to a-sexuals. If a-sexuals came down the street full down blazing there choice, no-one would really be happy. They get to do things like this, when other minorities which are more oppressed can not do so, when is the last time you saw a Pagan Pride parades with people dressing up as Gods and Heros hailing different religons. People who I know, know me as a White Nationalist and therefore the LBG community does not even communicate with me most of the time except to throw an occasional insult.
rockerbikie wrote:It's no that females are naturally smarter
I never said that. I said they put more effort in to college on average.
In fact, your statement here:
rockerbikie wrote:Seriously, what is dragging down the ammount of college degrees for males is the annoying males who spend no time on study and all the time on video games and worthless things.
Agrees with my assertion that women on average put in more effort than men.
rockerbikie wrote:Gays are treated favourable comapred to a-sexuals.
No they aren't.
rockerbikie wrote:If a-sexuals came down the street full down blazing there choice, no-one would really be happy.
More likely than not nobody would care, nevermind be offended. Someone who is non-sexual, IE not interested in sex in any form (asexual indicates that they reproduce through non-sexual means, so non-sexual is more accurate) is a very much accepted form of sexuality in comparison to homosexuality.
Indeed, it is actually a required trait for monks and nuns, for example, for religions across the world.
biccat wrote:I see we've moved into the "women are better than men" part of the dialogue.
You really hate paying attention, don't you?
Rockerbikie asserted that women don't earn as much because they don't work as hard, and I pointed out (with sources I should note) that women tend to put forth more effort in education than men.
I'm not saying women are better than men, merely stating a fact which contradicts the argument made by Rockerbikie that men are better than women
rockerbikie wrote:This special treatment of this group is completely absurd.
The LGBT movement agrees, that's why they're pushing for equal treatment.
Oh wait, you're probably using "special" as "favorable". In that case you're wrong. Homosexuals are not treated as "special" by society unless you define "special" as "second class citizen".
rockerbikie wrote:I am well aware of people who I know and their sexual attraction.
lol... keep telling yourself that.
rockerbikie wrote:The problem is that you are generalising Women and Men
So I was born to fail. Seriously, what is dragging down the ammount of college degrees for males is the annoying males who spend no time on study and all the time on video games and worthless things. It's no that females are naturally smarter which you are trying to lean towards, it is that there is a high ammount of pathetic Males who need to get a grip of reality. Gays are treated favourable comapred to a-sexuals. If a-sexuals came down the street full down blazing there choice, no-one would really be happy. They get to do things like this, when other minorities which are more oppressed can not do so, when is the last time you saw a Pagan Pride parades with people dressing up as Gods and Heros hailing different religons. People who I know, know me as a White Nationalist and therefore the LBG community does not even communicate with me most of the time except to throw an occasional insult.
So, Rather take a fact and go with it you make excuses to make sense and not give them due credit.
Melissia wrote:I'm not saying women are better than men, merely stating a fact which contradicts the argument made by Rockerbikie that men are better than women
Hey you know, men and women are both as mentally capable, but men are far more powerful physically... so we kinda are better arent we?!
One thing you have to keep in mind in any socioeconomic impact of gender studies over the last ~5-10 years is how the real estate development / construction industries were booming, creating a fairly large amount of relatively high wage blue collar physical jobs.
Those physical labor jobs favor men, and often offered similar starting salaries to something that would have required a 4 year degree, but required less duration of training.
So you have a structural shift within the socioeconomic 'offerings' for 18 year old men that incentivized them to opt for short-term profits over deferred earning potential (degrees). As a result the college-ready pool shrinks, and gender spreads move accordingly.
It will be interesting to see if this is an enduring trend, and if that affects top-earner gender makeup in the long run.
biccat wrote:
You're equivocating. Bush took strong positions, as did Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Nixon...
For the purposes of rhetoric.
Reagan, for example, loved calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire", then negotiated with them. He also liked low government spending an awful lot, then started the present deficit spending trend.
I'm not equivocating (I'm not entirely sure you know what that word means.) so much as saying something you apparently dislike sufficiently to have not registered a key element of the statement. But sure, "strong position", a phrase you brought into this discussion, is exceptionally precise, and not at all something one would say in order to avoid committing to a statement.
biccat wrote:
He says his position "is evolving." Not sure how it has changed.
And I said that there was some noise about his position evolving prior to the election, not that there was some noise about his position having changed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
No it isn't. Christians believe that everyone is a sinner. We all (apparently) are created to sin.
That's not how original sin works.
biccat wrote:
You shouldn't disregard certain rules simply because they're also present in the Bible. There can be overlap between "Christian" teachings and secular teachings.
Indeed there can be, the determination of whether or not a particular source, or rule, is valid, useful, or compelling is not based on it source but rather its quality.
The prohibition of homosexual behavior contained within the Bible is shoddily written, and relatively insignificant compared to not only other prohibitions contained within the Bible, but other prohibitions contained within any other text. It isn't a prohibition based on argument or reason, but on statement alone. Citing it is like citing Jim from down the street who lots of people respect.
biccat wrote:
And yes, a Christian should be expected to consider the Talmud, insofar as the two intersect.
dogma wrote:I'm not equivocating (I'm not entirely sure you know what that word means.) so much as saying something you apparently dislike sufficiently to have not registered a key element of the statement.
You're using ambiguous language ("strong position," "on rhetoric alone," "of any merit") to avoid committing yourself. The fact is, most presidents take "strong positions."
I'm not going to put words in your mouth, but it sure looks like you're equivocating to avoid labelling the current president as weak or really anything negative.
dogma wrote:And I said that there was some noise about his position evolving prior to the election, not that there was some noise about his position having changed.
You raised this to respond to my comment that his position hasn't changed. There's no indication that it has changed, other than the sufficiently politically vague term "evolving."
biccat wrote:
You're using ambiguous language ("strong position," "on rhetoric alone," "of any merit") to avoid committing yourself. The fact is, most presidents take "strong positions."
In using "strong position" I was speaking directly to your language. I could use the phrase "on really anything" as well if you like, but I prefer more precision.
Which is to say, the phrases "of any merit" and "on rhetoric alone" should be, and easily can be, interpreted literally.
biccat wrote:
I'm not going to put words in your mouth, but it sure looks like you're equivocating to avoid labelling the current president as weak or really anything negative.
I can make the same statement regarding your argument by substituting avoidance with "in order to".
biccat wrote:
You raised this to respond to my comment that his position hasn't changed. There's no indication that it has changed, other than the sufficiently politically vague term "evolving."
biccat wrote:I'm not going to put words in your mouth, but it sure looks like you're equivocating to avoid labelling the current president as weak or really anything negative.
I can make the same statement regarding your argument by substituting avoidance with "in order to".
Yes, but then I wouldn't be equivocating, would I?
biccat wrote:I'm not going to put words in your mouth, but it sure looks like you're equivocating to avoid labelling the current president as weak or really anything negative.
I can make the same statement regarding your argument by substituting avoidance with "in order to".
Yes, but then I wouldn't be equivocating, would I?
Per more stringent standards than those which you applied, and therefore per the standards which you applied, yes you would be.
The use of deliberate ambiguity with the intent to mislead is equivocation. Your use of phrases like "pretty much" necessarily places your argument in the category "ambiguous". I assume this was done deliberately in order to cloak a general argument of distaste in an ostensibly serious position. That is equivocation.
Of course, neither of us was formally engaging in equivocation, you just threw it out there because you made an initially weak argument.
rockerbikie wrote:This special treatment of this group is completely absurd.
The LGBT movement agrees, that's why they're pushing for equal treatment.
Oh wait, you're probably using "special" as "favorable". In that case you're wrong. Homosexuals are not treated as "special" by society unless you define "special" as "second class citizen".
rockerbikie wrote:I am well aware of people who I know and their sexual attraction.
lol... keep telling yourself that.
rockerbikie wrote:The problem is that you are generalising Women and Men
So I was born to fail. Seriously, what is dragging down the ammount of college degrees for males is the annoying males who spend no time on study and all the time on video games and worthless things. It's no that females are naturally smarter which you are trying to lean towards, it is that there is a high ammount of pathetic Males who need to get a grip of reality. Gays are treated favourable comapred to a-sexuals. If a-sexuals came down the street full down blazing there choice, no-one would really be happy. They get to do things like this, when other minorities which are more oppressed can not do so, when is the last time you saw a Pagan Pride parades with people dressing up as Gods and Heros hailing different religons. People who I know, know me as a White Nationalist and therefore the LBG community does not even communicate with me most of the time except to throw an occasional insult.
So, Rather take a fact and go with it you make excuses to make sense and not give them due credit.
rockerbikie wrote:
I don't trust interent sources.
Why would you trust any source?
Books at least are more creditable than Internet sources. They are written by creditable Authors than random people who could make up random facts on the spot.
rockerbikie wrote:
I also need incentive other than justice for Homosexuals, I would have a slightly higher tax rate for gays that funds Hospitals and Orphanages for Homsexual Couples who do not adopt or have kids.
Why only homosexuals, why not heterosexuals as well?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rockerbikie wrote:
Books at least are more creditable than Internet sources. They are written by creditable Authors than random people who could make up random facts on the spot.
Unlike the rule of judges.
'em with Matty's 
