Gay Marriage: The Latest Salvo

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:

I’ve got a little newsflash for you. Irrespective of what we believe now, pretty much the only minorities the majority of the Founders were concerned about treating fairly were religious and political minorities. The idea of racial equality was pretty much unknown (note: not the idea of being kind to all humans, but the idea that the races were equal in all respects) at that time, and definitely was not a concept embraced by the majority of people who ratified the Constitution. And if you really think that the Founders had gay rights in mind when the passed they ratified the Constitution, or even that the people who ratified the 14th Amendment had gay rights in mind, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you…

Now, all that means is that gay rights aren’t enshrined in the Constitution as it was originally intended. These days we let judges add things – but even now they have not yet managed to add that.

THis isn’t to argue you couldn’t go and get states to pass anti-discrimination laws that specifically protect gays and guarantee them equality under the law – you could probably also get Congress to pass something under its Commerce Clause authority, which apparently is just about, though is not quite, general power.

Just don’t claim stuff that isn’t there.

100meters wrote:
Thanks for the newsflash! And yet still we have a republic that’s designed to protect minorities. It matters not what they then thought of other races. It also matters not if they could conceptualize gay rights. It doesn’t change the system we have, nor the intent of the constitution and all its amendments which last I checked belonged to americans (I think gays are americans)

I’m sorry, but after reading this three times, I still don’t see your point? Obviously, the type of minority matters when you’re talking about protection, specifically Constitutional protection. Simply floating the idea “I’m a MINORITY!” does not instantly qualify you for specific extra Constitutional protection against legislation you find discriminatory against your group.

The morbidly obese are, thankfully, a minority, but they don’t get special Constitutional consideration when the state legislature passes a food tax. The bottom 20% of the income-bracket is, by definition, a minority, but they don’t get special protection either. And, by the way, the top 20% is also a minority. Obviously you can get into a discussion on how close or how far each of those, and gays, are to actual protected minority groups under the Constitution, but then you’re proving my point.[/quote]

The point contrary to others is that we protect minorities, not the majority. That’s it. I respect your false opinion that gays aren’t a minority—that’s fine however I was responding to someone else’s talk of the “majority’s” rights.

362

[quote]ZEB wrote:

WOW! You mean to tell me that the God haters are mainly the ones in favor of Gay marriage? Now who would have thought that? LOL
[/quote]
No mostly the fake christians don’t favor gay marriage–Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, and the cultists that follow them. (obviously god doesn’t hate gays or care if they marry—you know the whole he’s not petty, perfect being thing.)

363

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Rain,

I am sorry for the implication I made that you “hate fags”–the actual quote was ‘you hate “fags”’. I intentionally used the word “fags” in quotations as a slur that I felt emoted some deep-seated response. You never said the word “fags” or any other slur for that matter. I assure you I meant it in the general sense of the term and usually try to avoid such pronouns that speak directly to the second person when writing.

The entire air of this post reeks of hatred. We are all civil–I am sure–to our fellow man in public where our actions can be monitored. The feeling I get from reading this thread is hatred backed up by “legal” evidence, which tries to give credence to our arguments, which discriminate against individuals who live differently than us.
[/quote]

You see “hatred” because that is what you want to see. That is what you have been conditioned to see from the politically correct, and the militant gay lobby!

Not one person has stated that they hate anyone on this thread!

We can hold a position and be opposed to a practice being legitimized without hating anyone!

Why do you think words like “homophobic” are used? It is certainly not accurate. It is used to brand the opposition by implying that they are cowards. Silence the opposing side with name calling. No one wants to be called “scared” so therefore less people speak out agasint homosexuality.

You are no better for claiming that rainjack said he “hated fags” when in fact he never stated, or even implied such a thing.

Old tactics which are losing their steam.

364

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
100meters,

“Can you explain logically why a man and woman can marry but a man who want’s to marry 7 wives can’t. Or why that was allowed previously. Jeez! this lame polygamy distraction”

See, now we are getting somewhere. I never said that you - the collective you - couldn’t make that argument that gay marriage is ok, but bigamy is not…I am saying that nobody here is making that argument.

Gay marriage advocates around here are arguing in enormous absolutes - things like “individual freedoms” and “consenting adults” and “liberties” - all general, sweeping platitudes that when offered as a defense of gay marriage could also be applied to anyone of a non-traditional bent in their relationships.

What I have been trying to get at is that distinctions can be made - that is, people can, because of their value systems, religious backgrounds, general philosophies, etc., make distinctions that say two gays can marry but a man and seven wives cannot. What I was pointing out was that a strict adherence to ‘logic’ in the sense of defending a binary gay marriage forces those defenders to ‘logically’ apply the same defense to bigamists, etc.

And see what the problem is? You find incestual relationships or polygamy morally repugnant or something unnatural - and that is a perfectly defensible position…

…so just say so. Just say that you want to draw ‘arbitrary’ lines based on gut instinct or value systems or whatever. Explian why there is a recognizable difference between gay marriage and bigamy. Those of us who defend traditional marriage do so, or at least I do. I think the union of a man and woman is privileged above all others based on cultural patrimony, nature, and Western concepts of marriage, therefore I defend its status.

My point is simple: all this garbage about endless libertarian freedom, supposedly based in logic, that suggests anyone anywhere can do whatever they want unless it hurts someone else leads us down a road that, admittedly, we are not interested in going down.

As to the Constitutional side of it, this process should be left to the legislatures since it is such a values-driven debate. How can a neutral court possibly decide that one arrangement is better than another? All the court should do is ensure the “democratic rules of engagement” are followed.

As for the legislative debate, we can agree to disagree. You convince more people that gay marriage is good than I do that it is not good, and victory is yours. It is the American way.[/quote]

I don’t want to draw an arbitrary line, you do, you drew a line at straight marriage, when there’s just as many advantages to polygamy, just as much tradition, just as much religiosity, and just as natural(perhaps more so), yet still you drew the line, I’m not. (THAT’s my whole point)

365

[quote]ZEB wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ZEB wrote:

I see, so you want to accept gay marriage and polygamy as well. Any other perversion to the institution of marriage you would like to include? We want to make sure that everyone is happy…right?

You can call me anything you want but you’re not my father so don’t call me son. I say the same of you–no one has said anything you want to hear–so you put down people with legitimate questions because you haven’t the slightest idea of how to answer them. If you don’t know don’t bother posting a response. Say I don’t know–so far the only responses I have read have been laden with peoples religious ideology–which I have tried to argue are not qualified to base legality on. If you disagree please list arguments why you believe that way. So far all I have read is rhetoric about genetics, religion, and psycho-sociology?all of which has no proof or adequate data. I have only argued from an ethical standpoint.

Would it helped if we just changed the definition of marriage to “Civil Union” a la Vermont? Would that help you to get over the fact that I disagree with your opinion?

I don’t care what other people want to do behind closed doors–or in the open for that matter. What I do care about is that it is not allowed by the present definition of marriage.

You can argue on behalf of the sanctity and institution of marriage all you want–it is not my belief that there is such a thing. And the fact that it is defined by

If you don’t believe that a same sex marriage should occur then don’t marry the same sex but don?t deny two people that love each other and want to live under the same protection that you yourself enjoy those rights. Is that wrong for me to believe?

When did I ever call you son?

Hey rainjack, I think you put the kid under so much pressure by calling him out for lying that he is sort of losing it before our very eyes!

[/quote]

you never did. it was in sasquatches thread i beleive…page 13

366

I don’t quite see where you got that I said gays aren’t a minority. They’re quite a minority – no more than 5 percent (and that’s at the high end of credible estimates) of the population.

What I said is that they are not a Constitutionally protected minority.

There is a difference you know - which, after all, was my point…

367

[quote]
ZEB wrote:

WOW! You mean to tell me that the God haters are mainly the ones in favor of Gay marriage? Now who would have thought that? LOL

100meters wrote:

No mostly the fake christians don’t favor gay marriage–Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, and the cultists that follow them. (obviously god doesn’t hate gays or care if they marry—you know the whole he’s not petty, perfect being thing.)[/quote]

Wow 100meters, I didn’t know you had a direct line to God… Could you get him to give me some stock tips?

368

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:

I’ve got a little newsflash for you. Irrespective of what we believe now, pretty much the only minorities the majority of the Founders were concerned about treating fairly were religious and political minorities. The idea of racial equality was pretty much unknown (note: not the idea of being kind to all humans, but the idea that the races were equal in all respects) at that time, and definitely was not a concept embraced by the majority of people who ratified the Constitution. And if you really think that the Founders had gay rights in mind when the passed they ratified the Constitution, or even that the people who ratified the 14th Amendment had gay rights in mind, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you…

Now, all that means is that gay rights aren’t enshrined in the Constitution as it was originally intended. These days we let judges add things – but even now they have not yet managed to add that.

THis isn’t to argue you couldn’t go and get states to pass anti-discrimination laws that specifically protect gays and guarantee them equality under the law – you could probably also get Congress to pass something under its Commerce Clause authority, which apparently is just about, though is not quite, general power.

Just don’t claim stuff that isn’t there.

100meters wrote:
Thanks for the newsflash! And yet still we have a republic that’s designed to protect minorities. It matters not what they then thought of other races. It also matters not if they could conceptualize gay rights. It doesn’t change the system we have, nor the intent of the constitution and all its amendments which last I checked belonged to americans (I think gays are americans)

BostonBarrister wrote:

I’m sorry, but after reading this three times, I still don’t see your point? Obviously, the type of minority matters when you’re talking about protection, specifically Constitutional protection. Simply floating the idea “I’m a MINORITY!” does not instantly qualify you for specific extra Constitutional protection against legislation you find discriminatory against your group.

The morbidly obese are, thankfully, a minority, but they don’t get special Constitutional consideration when the state legislature passes a food tax. The bottom 20% of the income-bracket is, by definition, a minority, but they don’t get special protection either. And, by the way, the top 20% is also a minority. Obviously you can get into a discussion on how close or how far each of those, and gays, are to actual protected minority groups under the Constitution, but then you’re proving my point.

100meters wrote:

The point contrary to others is that we protect minorities, not the majority. That’s it. I respect your false opinion that gays aren’t a minority—that’s fine however I was responding to someone else’s talk of the “majority’s” rights.

I don’t quite see where you got that I said gays aren’t a minority. They’re quite a minority – no more than 5 percent (and that’s at the high end of credible estimates) of the population.

What I said is that they are not a Constitutionally protected minority.

There is a difference you know - which, after all, was my point…[/quote]

I got that part, apologies, I rushed and left out the constitutional protected part.

369

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

ZEB wrote:

WOW! You mean to tell me that the God haters are mainly the ones in favor of Gay marriage? Now who would have thought that? LOL

100meters wrote:

No mostly the fake christians don’t favor gay marriage–Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, and the cultists that follow them. (obviously god doesn’t hate gays or care if they marry—you know the whole he’s not petty, perfect being thing.)

Wow 100meters, I didn’t know you had a direct line to God… Could you get him to give me some stock tips?[/quote]

Well he told me to buy oil and defense 4 years ago and its the only thing making money in my portfolio on a steady basis, Now if you’re questioning god’s pettiness, or perfection (I don’t) I’d refer you to another discussion board.

370

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

ZEB wrote:

WOW! You mean to tell me that the God haters are mainly the ones in favor of Gay marriage? Now who would have thought that? LOL

100meters wrote:

No mostly the fake christians don’t favor gay marriage–Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, and the cultists that follow them. (obviously god doesn’t hate gays or care if they marry—you know the whole he’s not petty, perfect being thing.)

Wow 100meters, I didn’t know you had a direct line to God… Could you get him to give me some stock tips?[/quote]

God most certainly does hate fags, the Rev. Phelps said so. God also hates Sweden, America, Mormons, Catholics and just about everyone else.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html

Go ahead, read some of the wonderful Christian information on this site. I’m not sure who God actually likes after looking at some of it. I didn’t really read all of why God hates Catholics, just that Pope JPII has been in hell for 2 months now.
http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/may2005/20050501_pope-in-hell-san-francisco.pdf

Apparently, anyone who disagrees with Rev. Phelps is part of a “sodomite whorehouse”, including the high schools and churches that he plans to picket over the next couple of months. I hope someone kills this asshole.

371

Sasquatch,

At times I question your ability to distinguish between facts and opinions when in comes to things that agree with your point of view.

A quoted statistic may represent a fact, but the meaning of the fact is not very clear without a good understanding of the group providing the statistic and the manner in which is has been calculated.

Without those additional details, it is perhaps a fact, but generally a meaningless one. It doesn’t deserve the label without the additional details. You may agree with it, and in your opinion it may be a reasonable representation of fact, but that doesn’t mean it is “the truth”.

I think if you look a little closer into what is fact and what is opinion it would be easier to have a productive discussion without being offended and endangering the worlds tree supply.

372

Wow!!! 15 pages of “mind-numbing” jibberish. Who would have ever thought “Gays” were this popular?!?!

OD

373

[quote]100meters wrote:
ZEB wrote:

WOW! You mean to tell me that the God haters are mainly the ones in favor of Gay marriage? Now who would have thought that? LOL

No mostly the fake christians don’t favor gay marriage–Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, and the cultists that follow them. (obviously god doesn’t hate gays or care if they marry—you know the whole he’s not petty, perfect being thing.)

[/quote]

Of course God doesn’t hate homosexuals! he hates that act of homosexuality, but loves the person. And that is pretty much the way Dobson, Robertson, Falwell and other Christians feel as well.

It is the God haters who dispise anyone with balls enough to stand up to them and actually say that something is wrong with gays marrying.

I’m sure there are some tolerant homosexuals and social liberals, I have just never met any :slight_smile:

374

[quote]It is the God haters who dispise anyone with balls enough to stand up to them and actually say that something is wrong with gays marrying.

I’m sure there are some tolerant homosexuals and social liberals, I have just never met any :)[/quote]

And people choose to think I’m inflammatory?

375

thunderbolt,

as we mostly agree, I will stick to the only point, where we didn’t:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Makkun,
…
“What I don’t like about the comparison is that it tends to appeal more to feelings of repulsion (“What if you want to marry your daughter…?”) than fair discussion.”

I don’t think feelings ever exit the discussion - many people have moral qualms about homosexuality as much as they might have against polygamy - and the level of repulsion you feel for incest (which I share) may be the same ‘feeling’ that someone has for homosexuality.[/quote]

Hence my post earlier, with the (admittedly polemic) jew/gay comparison: I understand perfectly that some people feel this repulsion - some feel it people who display homosexual behaviours, some feel it for jews. Why do we accept one repulsion, why not another?

The question is in my view if the repulsion is justified by the common norms within a society and if it is supported by general ethics.

In the case of homosexuality, I would accept grudgingly that there is indeed a moral question as homosexual behaviour is directly against certain accepted norms. I have my doubts though if it is justified on the ethical level - no one is being hurt by the practice of homosexuality and scientific research shows clearly that it is an absolutely natural and healthy behaviour.

A society might define its norms in a way that it will support repulsion towards a certain group (on the moral level), but still not be in accordance with general ethics. Any society that pursues people for their skin colour, religion, gender, whatever, falls in this category.

Hence, I would argue that feeling repulsion of pedophilia (which fails on the moral and ethical levels), is more justified than repulsion of homosexuality (which fails at least on the ethical level), is more justified than repulsion of jews (which fails on both levels).

So, in my view, indeed we have a range from “justified repulsion” to “unjustified repulsion”, and repulsion of homosexuality falls IMO into the latter. Trying to explain this with phobic behaviour is IMO a realistic attempt, as experience shows it is often our fear of diversity (not in the PC but rather in its true meaning) which leads to such a lack of ambiguity tolerance.

Not addressing this issue can lead to further sanctions against the group that is being identified as “repulsive”. And in those cases the theorists (gay-repulsives) may hold pretty much the same responsibility as the ones who actually conduct the sanctions (gay-bashers), as they provide the basic justification. Antisemitism is also a good example for this mechanism - hence my earlier comparison.

Makkun

376

[quote]vroom wrote:
It is the God haters who dispise anyone with balls enough to stand up to them and actually say that something is wrong with gays marrying.

I’m sure there are some tolerant homosexuals and social liberals, I have just never met any :slight_smile:

And people choose to think I’m inflammatory?[/quote]

I notice you didn’t pick 100meters comments to call inflammatory. Only the comments meant to defend the people that he attacked…And that’s one reason that you are called a liberal!

377

293×646 48.4 KB

How can a man look at an ass like this and want to be “Gay”!!! Don’t you just have an urge to just shove your… Just a little???

OD

378

Grind that axe Zebby! 100meters was probably inflammatory too, but his post was too long for me to be bothered to dissect it.

We all do the same thing, pick out points from people we always argue with. No use thinking it means more than that.

Anyway, I was going a different direction, as indeed I was called “inflammatory” earlier in the thread for my pontifications, which I didn’t think were comparable.

379

[quote]vroom wrote:
I notice you didn’t pick 100meters comments to call inflammatory. Only the comments meant to defend the people that he attacked…And that’s one reason that you are called a liberal!

Grind that axe Zebby! 100meters was probably inflammatory too, but his post was too long for me to be bothered to dissect it.

We all do the same thing, pick out points from people we always argue with. No use thinking it means more than that.

Anyway, I was going a different direction, as indeed I was called “inflammatory” earlier in the thread for my pontifications, which I didn’t think were comparable.[/quote]

vroom:

“100meters post was to long for you to dissect?” Here is his post in it’s entirity:

“No mostly the fake christians don’t favor gay marriage–Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, and the cultists that follow them. (obviously god doesn’t hate gays or care if they marry—you know the whole he’s not petty, perfect being thing.)”

His post was 38 words! My post which you chose to attack was almost double in length at 74 words! So much for that excuse.

You may have been called inflammatory earlier in the thread, but it was not by me. I in no way was attempting to “grind an axe.” However, you attacked so I defended. I certainly would not have brought that up again if you did not come after me.

Take care and enjoy your day :slight_smile:

380

[quote]ZEB wrote:
100meters wrote:
ZEB wrote:

WOW! You mean to tell me that the God haters are mainly the ones in favor of Gay marriage? Now who would have thought that? LOL

No mostly the fake christians don’t favor gay marriage–Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, and the cultists that follow them. (obviously god doesn’t hate gays or care if they marry—you know the whole he’s not petty, perfect being thing.)

Of course God doesn’t hate homosexuals! he hates that act of homosexuality, but loves the person. And that is pretty much the way Dobson, Robertson, Falwell and other Christians feel as well.

It is the God haters who dispise anyone with balls enough to stand up to them and actually say that something is wrong with gays marrying.

I’m sure there are some tolerant homosexuals and social liberals, I have just never met any :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Of course God doesn’t hate the act of homosexuality. (God is not petty! and he certainly has NOTHING in common with the evilness of Dobson and the like) and again the God haters—Dobson, Robertson, etc. don’t have the balls to tell their congregations that God wouldn’t give a rat’s ass if two women married each other(WHY THE HECK WOULD HE?) as for tolerance—oy! Tolerant social liberals—social liberal = tolerance.