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.

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.

And spice.

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.

AustonT wrote:

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!

I agree. BAN THE DEMON SEEDS!

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.

Marriage kills jobs!

Howard A Treesong wrote:

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.

Interesting cartoon up there, Melissia.

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.

Melissia wrote:

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.

Melissia wrote:

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.

Melissia wrote:

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.

Frazzled wrote:No its logically consistent.

Read what I posted it again.

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: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.

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>?

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.

Melissia wrote:
...

Zyllos wrote:Like I said, both sides have merits

No.
...

I am not quite sure what to say to that other than that its hypocritical to say only one side has merit here.

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Zyllos wrote:

Melissia wrote:
...

Zyllos wrote:Like I said, both sides have merits

No.
...

I am not quite sure what to say to that other than that its hypocritical to say only one side has merit here.

Meet Melissa.

Sonophos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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.

dogma 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.

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.

Frazzled wrote:

Sonophos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Seaward wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Sonophos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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?

Occupying public space comes to mind...

Noise violations, interrupting a court hearing, profanity during primetime hours on national broadcasts...

Frazzled wrote:

Seaward wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Sonophos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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?

Speech is free. Intent is not.

Where did I say that our speech is not free?

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.

There should need to be a vote. Not that hard of a concept to allow the laws of the land benefit everyone. And not just some people.