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.

If we keep on talking about this it will probably get the thread closed as being off-topic. Let's stick to how Republicans don't like Romney and start a new thread about gay marriage if we want to. Although every other gay marriage thread didn't fare well either.

Hey Mel....yours was longer then MINE!!!! You forget Mel I cannot advocate nor publicaly disagree with federal law for two more months. Something to do with UCMJ.

Yes, but mine was actually relevant and wasn't just an atrociously formatted list

And you know, if you are legally obligated not to disagree with the laws, you should really not post in topics where the laws are being debated in support of the laws and then complain about it afterwards...

Not complaining. Just pointing it out. State constitution is involve first

While I don't want to give the illusion that I respect states rights arguments, again, not according to DoMA.

According to DoMA, the federal definition comes first, and no other form of marriage is recognized.

Melissia wrote:

The court found no constitutional nor rational basis in the discrimination you support. Neither can I, and, apparently, neither can you.

As for the comparison to miscegenation, you can live in denial all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that your argument (which as I stated before, although you ignored my post because apparently you didn't want to face up to your own illogical argument) is the exact same argument used by the proponents anti-miscegenation laws, and the discrimination you support is opposed for many of the same reasons.

The court made very good arguments for changing the law. But it assumed as valid it's own definition. That is the only point I am making here (so let off !)

As for me making "the exact same argument" either you don't understand "exact same" or you believe that I oppose gay marriage on the grounds that whites and blacks should not intermarry.

Allow me to clarify then. I am stating that the intent off all of this is to redefine a right. I think we agree on that. We are having this mix up due to you assuming your definition of marriage is correct. While you may or may not be correct on moral grounds, that has little to do with law. The law is applied universally. The definition of marriage over the centuries s unchanged.

The bigots that tried to add a layer to the meaning of marriage at the state level were in the wrong to do so, as that is not how marriage is defined!

If you want to define (or redefine) a right, that is done in legislature.
Simple enough, right?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:As for me making "the exact same argument" either you don't understand "exact same" or you believe that I oppose gay marriage on the grounds that whites and blacks should not intermarry.

An absurdist and logically fallacious statement. To be specific, a false dichotomy fallacy.

There's a third option, too. The reason I'm saying you're making the exact same argument as anti-miscegenation law proponents is because you're making the exact same arguments as anti-miscegenation law proponents.

Your argument: It's okay to discriminate against homosexuals because everyone has the same rights, they can all marry those who are of the opposite sex.

Anti-miscegenist's argument: It's okay to discriminate against interracial marriages because everyone has the same rights, they can all marry those who are of the same race as they are.

Your argument about universality is the same argument that was used to defend anti-miscegenation laws. It uses the same logic, the same premises, the same justification, and will in the end have the same results-- ignored by the courts because it is a bad argument. The only difference is the subject matter.

Melissia wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:As for me making "the exact same argument" either you don't understand "exact same" or you believe that I oppose gay marriage on the grounds that whites and blacks should not intermarry.

An absurdist and logically fallacious statement.

There's a third option, too. The reason I'm saying you're making the exact same argument as anti-miscegenation law proponents is because you're making the exact same arguments as anti-miscegenation law proponents.

Your argument: It's okay to discriminate against homosexuals because everyone has the same rights, they can all marry those who are of the opposite sex.

Anti-miscegenist's argument: It's okay to discriminate against interracial marriages because everyone has the same rights, they can all marry those who are of the same race as they are.

Your argument about universality is the same argument that was used to defend anti-miscegenation laws. It uses the same logic, the same premises, the same justification, and will in the end have the same results-- ignored by the courts because it is a bad argument.

I am not saying it is okay.
I am saying you are going about fixing it the wrong way.

I have made that clear enough for a child. How much more clearer do you need it?!

The definition of marriage has been unchanged for centuries in western civilization. When the racist punks tried to change that definition, they were in the wrong. Because what they did was not the actual legal (federal) definition of marriage.

What you are doing is different from that. What I am doing is agreeing with those that overturned the racist laws. (aka - Upholding the legal and traditional definition of marriage).

If you want to expand rights, do it! Go for it! Have at it!
But to say a law is not being fair when all have the same right (albeit a right they don't want) you miss the whole point of defining rights!

DOMA has been under challenge in the federal courts, and on July 8, 2010, Judge Joseph Tauro of the District Court of Massachusetts held that the denial of federal rights and benefits to lawfully married Massachusetts same-sex couples under the DOMA is unconstitutional, under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.[18][19] This ruling is currently under a stay, but would affect residents residing within the federal district that covers Massachusetts if the stay is lifted.[citation needed] If this decision is appealed and affirmed, the ruling could apply elsewhere in the U.S. For now, no act or agency of the federal government—except within the state of Massachusetts if the stay is lifted—may recognize same-sex marriage.

WHy does Romney religion is a concern?

I wonder how many here would avoid the draft to go to Iraq or Afghanistan if it was in play today?

For his overseas accounts from what I understand he pays taxes on.

You think there be a "smoking gun" of him actually outsourcing jobs to other countries. All I hear is talk but no proof.

You again act as if the definition of marriage has been unchanged for thousands of years. And that the racists who attempted to change the definition of marriage to only between members of the same race are any different from the homophobes attempting to change the definition of marriage to only those of opposite sexes.

A highly ignorant statement to be sure. Oh, and yes, the anti-gay marriage activists are changing the definition, specifically trying to work changes in to the laws and constitutions of the various states and the federal government in order to unconstitutionally restrict the rights of homosexuals.

Jihadin wrote:Lets not forget the Super Committee that couldn't get it together and seriously gutting the US Military.

Last I looked the US still spends more than every other nation on Earth combined on its military. I can't see why a reduction in military spending would mean "gutting" it.

Actually, it wasn't even a reduction in overall spending.

It was a reduction in the increase of overall spending.

So spending is still increased. Just by a lesser amount.

Melissia wrote:You again act as if the definition of marriage has been unchanged for thousands of years. And that the racists who attempted to change the definition of marriage to only between members of the same race are any different from the homophobes attempting to change the definition of marriage to only those of opposite sexes.

A highly ignorant statement to be sure. Oh, and yes, the anti-gay marriage activists are changing the definition, specifically trying to work changes in to the laws and constitutions of the various states and the federal government in order to unconstitutionally restrict the rights of homosexuals.

So marriage hasn't been between just men and women for thousands of years?

So then why is it that the only countries in which it is legal have only made it legal in the last century?

The vast majority of the world over the course of history, and even now, recognize marriage as only being between a man and a woman.

So yes, up until the last century, the definition of marriage over thousands of years remained fairly unchanged.

And again, no one said homosexuals can't get married, but getting married means a person of each sex, not two of the same.

If you want to change the definition of marriage, that is one thing. But no ones rights are being ignored here. They just don't like the rights that they have, and would rather have it changed, which is fine but there are specific ways to do that.

But seriously, just drop it. It has feth all to do with Republican views on Romney, which is what the thread is about. If you want a gay marriage rights thread, go make one and gtfo of this thread.

Jihadin wrote:

DOMA has been under challenge in the federal courts, and on July 8, 2010, Judge Joseph Tauro of the District Court of Massachusetts held that the denial of federal rights and benefits to lawfully married Massachusetts same-sex couples under the DOMA is unconstitutional, under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.[18][19] This ruling is currently under a stay, but would affect residents residing within the federal district that covers Massachusetts if the stay is lifted.[citation needed] If this decision is appealed and affirmed, the ruling could apply elsewhere in the U.S. For now, no act or agency of the federal government—except within the state of Massachusetts if the stay is lifted—may recognize same-sex marriage.

WHy does Romney religion is a concern?

I wonder how many here would avoid the draft to go to Iraq or Afghanistan if it was in play today?

For his overseas accounts from what I understand he pays taxes on.

You think there be a "smoking gun" of him actually outsourcing jobs to other countries. All I hear is talk but no proof.

Thats funny because Romney was pro war and pro draft for viet nam, then ran off to france to avoid it.

Plus his whole economic plan is really just, he wants to save 5 million a year on taxes.

Aerethan wrote:So marriage hasn't been between just men and women for thousands of years?

The woman is of equal status and often works alongside the man, divorce is easy to access with not even a single word from the church, most families in modern times don't pay dowries either. Marriage is not commonly done for the sake of continuing the family line anymore, and even having children is often an afterthought these days (We're gonna get married! Hm, children? That'd be nice, someday, wouldn't it?). And many, if not most, couples these days have sex before marriage, and there's very little shame in many parts of the modern world for not being a virgin at the time of marriage, for men or women, nor is divorce necessarily looked upon badly. Even the numbers involved would be shocking-- a husband can have only one wife! Shocking! Hell, the amount of respect that marriage is given is, itself, a drastic change. Commonly, marriage was nothing more than a political tool and a means to continue the bloodline or to obtain a dowry that would ensure the parents' retirement, or worse than that, it was considered a means in which to fulfill one's sexual desires without sinning. These days it's held sacrosanct, done for its own sake.

So... never mind that there were definitely unions between homosexual males in ancient cultures (with women in many of those cultures pretty much utterly ignored except for reproduction, leaving very little knowledge about the prevailing beliefs on lesbianism even though we know it existed back then based off of art and objects found).

Even ignoring that, marriage in its modern form would be almost unrecognizable to people thousands of years ago. Society has drastically changed, and marriage, being a part of society, has changed drastically as well.

Melissia wrote:

Aerethan wrote:So marriage hasn't been between just men and women for thousands of years?

The woman is of equal status and often works alongside the man, divorce is easy to access with not even a single word from the church, most families in modern times don't pay dowries either. Marriage is not commonly done for the sake of continuing the family line anymore, and even having children is often an afterthought these days (We're gonna get married! Hm, children? That'd be nice, someday, wouldn't it?). And many, if not most, couples these days have sex before marriage, and there's very little shame in many parts of the modern world for not being a virgin at the time of marriage, for men or women, nor is divorce necessarily looked upon badly. Even the numbers involved would be shocking-- a husband can have only one wife! Shocking! Hell, the amount of respect that marriage is given is, itself, a drastic change. Commonly, marriage was nothing more than a political tool and a means to continue the bloodline or to obtain a dowry that would ensure the parents' retirement, or worse than that, it was considered a means in which to fulfill one's sexual desires without sinning. These days it's held sacrosanct, done for its own sake.

So... never mind that there were definitely unions between homosexual males in ancient cultures (with women in many of those cultures pretty much utterly ignored except for reproduction, leaving very little knowledge about the prevailing beliefs on lesbianism even though we know it existed back then based off of art and objects found).

Even ignoring that, marriage in its modern form would be almost unrecognizable to people thousands of years ago. Society has drastically changed, and marriage, being a part of society, has changed drastically as well.

And how does that make you feel about Romney?

/reelthreadbacktorelevence

Melissia wrote:And many, if not most, couples these days have sex before marriage...

Anecdotally, I would say most. It is considered unusual to be in your early 20's, and a virgin. Hell, I was shocked to find out the freshman girl I dated during my senior year of college was a virgin.

It also seems there is good statistical evidence to suggest this is correct.

Melissia wrote:
...and there's very little shame in many parts of the modern world for not being a virgin at the time of marriage...

I would even go so far as to say that virgins are considered less desirable due to a lack of sexual experience (and therefore skill), especially if they're male.

Gallup survey released last week found that veterans prefer Romney over Obama by 58 percent to 34 percent. That voting bloc, consisting mostly of older men, makes up 13 percent of the adult population. Obama won the presidency four years ago while losing veterans by 10 points to Sen. John McCain, a former Navy pilot.

I cannot judge the guy during the Vietnam Era. It was not my war. Iraq and Afghanistan is my war. I'm sure a lot of people giving the chance if the policy was the same for deferment will avoid as long as possible to go to war. I can't fault them

This again?

Homosexuality is not a a basic human characteristic in the same light as ethnic or racial origen ( it's a behavior). And it's insulting to those people that have been through a real civil rights struggle to attempt to equivocate the two.

GG

d-usa wrote:President Obama's executive branch has frozen my pay to help keep federal spending down.

His executive branch has also deported more people than any other president. Surely that counts as something.

w00t!

Yeah kinda sucks having to choose between the guy who froze your pay and the guy who'll fire you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Lets not forget the Super Committee that couldn't get it together and seriously gutting the US Military.

Last I looked the US still spends more than every other nation on Earth combined on its military. I can't see why a reduction in military spending would mean "gutting" it.

Don't exaggerate!

We only spend more than the next 19 other countries combined!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8002911/Defence-spending-the-worlds-biggest-armies-in-stats.html

generalgrog wrote:This again?

Homosexuality is not a a basic human characteristic in the same light as ethnic or racial origen ( it's a behavior). And it's insulting to those people that have been through a real civil rights struggle to attempt to equivocate the two.

GG

At best homosexuality is an anomaly. If it were an inherent trait the species would die off rather quickly.

Also, if homosexuality IS genetic, then it can be reversed, thus proving that homosexuality can, in theory, be cured.

So which is it? Genetic anomaly or choice? And if it's genetic, then for the good of the species we must cure it.

Still, nothing to do with Romney.

Oh dear.

generalgrog wrote:This again?

Homosexuality is not a a basic human characteristic in the same light as ethnic or racial origen ( it's a behavior). And it's insulting to those people that have been through a real civil rights struggle to attempt to equivocate the two.

GG

Ethnicity isn't a basic human characteristic. A person born to two Arab parents in the United States isn't Arab in the same sense as a person born to two Arab parents in Saudi Arabia unless they were somehow socialized in a manner which was consistent with Saudi Arabian Arabs. Ethnicity is a set of behaviors and beliefs attached to a vaguely defined group.

Race also isn't a basic human characteristic, its a social construct that deals with behavior as much as parentage, birth place, and skin color. Hence the "He doesn't act black." thing.

Both racial and ethnic behaviors are developed over time, unconsciously, just as homosexuality is if you accept that its a "choice."

Please note: I'm playing devils advocate.

I don't think that George Takei needs to be cured of anything besides him growing old and eventually dying.

The argument is there though. If we can alter genetics, then we can "fix" anomalies in them. So if homosexuality is a genetic, lets say "difference", from the majority of humanity, and is not needed in order to propagate the species, then evolution says it should be phased out.

Don't rage at me, I'm just the messenger.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:This again?

Homosexuality is not a a basic human characteristic in the same light as ethnic or racial origen ( it's a behavior). And it's insulting to those people that have been through a real civil rights struggle to attempt to equivocate the two.

GG

Ethnicity isn't a basic human characteristic. A person born to two Arab parents in the United States isn't Arab in the same sense as a person born to two Arab parents in Saudi Arabia unless they were somehow socialized in a manner which was consistent with Saudi Arabian Arabs. Ethnicity is a set of behaviors and beliefs attached to a vaguely defined group.

Race also isn't a basic human characteristic, its a social construct that deals with behavior as much as parentage, birth place, and skin color. Hence the "He doesn't act black." thing.

Both racial and ethnic behaviors are developed over time, unconsciously, just as homosexuality is if you accept that its a "choice."

Race is indeed directly related to environmental factors such as lineage and habitat. If you took the whitest, gingeriest Irish families and planted them in Africa, something like 30 generations down the line you see a major difference in appearance and skin tone. None of which has anything to do with how they behave, which is determined by their ethnicity. If they continued the usual Irish lifestyle and traditions, you'd have a bunch of black people with awesome accents who drink warm beer all day.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:This again?

Homosexuality is not a a basic human characteristic in the same light as ethnic or racial origen ( it's a behavior). And it's insulting to those people that have been through a real civil rights struggle to attempt to equivocate the two.

GG

Ethnicity isn't a basic human characteristic. A person born to two Arab parents in the United States isn't Arab in the same sense as a person born to two Arab parents in Saudi Arabia unless they were somehow socialized in a manner which was consistent with Saudi Arabian Arabs. Ethnicity is a set of behaviors and beliefs attached to a vaguely defined group.

Race also isn't a basic human characteristic, its a social construct that deals with behavior as much as parentage, birth place, and skin color. Hence the "He doesn't act black." thing.

Both racial and ethnic behaviors are developed over time, unconsciously, just as homosexuality is if you accept that its a "choice."

So what you just said is that African people aren't africans.

WOW...

GG

generalgrog wrote:
So what you just said is that African people aren't africans.

WOW...

No it isn't. First "African" isn't a race, or ethnicity, its a continental origin. Even if it were, being born in Africa doesn't make you African, what makes you African is living in Africa for an extended period of time early in life, and thereby acquiring the habits and mannerisms of an African. The point being that its a learned series of behavior and beliefs, not an intrinsic characteristic of your birth.

It is, assuming you truly are African, an intrinsic characteristic of who you are, who you are being a learned series of behaviors and beliefs. You don't choose to be African, it just happens to end up that way.

An African person by definition would have to be born in Africa. Note, there are many white skinned Africans in countries like South Africa.

If they were born in Detroit, they are just American. Now, they might be dark skinned, which was determined by lineage and at one point environment.

If you took a tribe of African people and planted them in Norway, 30 something generations down the line they would look like damn near everyone else in Norway. Also, they would no longer be African. They would be Norwegian.

Aerethan wrote:An African person by definition would have to be born in Africa. Note, there are many white skinned Africans in countries like South Africa.

If they were born in Detroit, they are just American. Now, they might be dark skinned, which was determined by lineage and at one point environment.

Not true in either case. A person can be born in Detroit, move to Africa at age 2, and live there the rest of their lives and be African. The fact that they were born in America would have virtually no impact on who they are as people. Conversely, a person can be born in Africa, and move to America at age 2, and live there the rest of their lives and be American because being in born in Africa has zero relevance to their personhood.

Aerethan wrote:
If you took a tribe of African people and planted them in Norway, 30 something generations down the line they would look like damn near everyone else in Norway. Also, they would no longer be African. They would be Norwegian.

Sure, if we're talking about a whole tribe that is going to be able reinforce its culture via insularity. But individuals can't do that, which shows us that your race and ethnicity are not determined by birth.

Your skin color is determined by birth, but what that makes you racially depends on where you grow up. A black person born in America, but who spends his formative years in Africa, is neither African nor black in the American sense.

I was meaning in more of a legal sense, in the way that anyone born in America is American, regardless of where they lived at any time after birth.

I will agree that if you grew up in Africa and spent the formative years of your life there that you would indeed be African.

I also think most African people would be pissed off to be associated with many "African-Americans" in our country. I like to think that Zimbabwe has more class than downtown Detroit.

General Grog apparently thinks he could choose to be African, and that he chose to be straight. He could decide tomorrow to be attracted to men instead, apparently.

Racism and homophobia are two bigotries which operate in nearly identical fashion. Romney's campaign is dependent on voters who are motivated by both.