Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

AustonT wrote:

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.

The mutual admiration society continues.

AustonT wrote:. Biogtry and intolerance is rooted in PEOPLE, it's simply weather you agree or disagree with their rhetoric.

Yes, I think you hit the nail on the head right there.

It occurs to me I spelled "whether" wrong.

I blame straight people.

If they just stopped having gay babies then we wouldn't have this problem.

AustonT wrote:It occurs to me I spelled "whether" wrong.

Don't be a weather hata!

You have obviously never lived in the UK.

Sonophos wrote:You have obviously never lived in the UK.

"In Scotland 'damp' is a color pattern."

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

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?

I'm gay myself so when stuff like this happens, it always brings a smile to my face.

hotsauceman1 wrote:

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>?

biccat wrote:

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.

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.

AustonT wrote:

biccat wrote:

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?

biccat wrote:

AustonT wrote:

biccat wrote:

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.

biccat wrote:

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."

And this is why I am registered Independent!

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

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.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

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.

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.

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.

And things like this:

Melissia wrote:

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.

Frazzled wrote:2. A fundamental reason for marriage is the making of little demon seeds known as children. Until recently, that wasn't possible.

Which bit wasn't possible, the making of children?

People have always had children outside of marriage, and infertile couples do get married. Perhaps they should be banned just like the gays!!

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Frazzled wrote:2. A fundamental reason for marriage is the making of little demon seeds known as children. Until recently, that wasn't possible.

Which bit wasn't possible, the making of children?

People have always had children outside of marriage, and infertile couples do get married. Perhaps they should be banned just like the gays!!

HERE HERE!