It was only a matter of time, I suppose. Any Dem who can remember FDR or Truman or JFK or Hubert Humphrey has to be ashamed.

It's come to this.

Quote from: tbone0106 on July 30, 2012, 11:58:54 AM
It was only a matter of time, I suppose. Any Dem who can remember FDR or Truman or JFK or Hubert Humphrey has to be ashamed.

It's come to this.

Since you've brought it back up, I think I have a safeguard from accusations of "beating a dead horse".

The million dollar question:

Why is it that gay couples cannot marry because they would make "poor parents", yet straight convicted murderers can marry?

Would it not be logical to draw the line for marriage at "do you make good parents?", if that is your definition of its purpose, rather than "are you gay?  because if you are, most of you would probably make worse parents than most straights!"  The latter, even if it were true, overlaps heavily.

It would be the equivalent of a college rejecting all applicants from America, correctly noting that the American education system is inferior to most economically comparable nations.  Yet this overlaps heavily; many Americans are academically smarter than many Chinese, even if this is the exception rather than the rule, so why not simply base admissions on merit rather than a [correct] generalization predicting merit?

----

Furthermore, how many opponents of gay marriage actually considered its pragmatic societal detriment in order to make up his mind?  Did his thought process go:

Is gay marriage right or wrong?
Well, gay marriage has X, Y and Z harmful effects based on scientific evidence...
So gay marriage is wrong!

Or...

Gay marriage is wrong!  Jesus says so!
OK, well, if I'm going to debate my liberal friends, I need some logical justification...
[does one-sided wikipedia research]
OK, here's why gay marriage is wrong.

Well, it follows. Libs seem to enjoy rewarding things that don't really take any effort, such as being born a certain race and being unemployed. It's no surprise they want to reward people based on where they stick their willies.

Quote from: CubaLibre on July 30, 2012, 12:06:15 PM
Well, it follows. Libs seem to enjoy rewarding things that don't really take any effort, such as being born a certain race and being unemployed. It's no surprise they want to reward people based on where they stick their willies.

You would have a point if gay couples were given special benefits over straight couples.  Rather, conservatives want to punish people based on where they stick their willies.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 30, 2012, 12:09:12 PM
You would have a point if gay couples were given special benefits over straight couples.  Rather, conservatives want to punish people based on where they stick their willies.

They want to bring back anti-sodomy laws? I haven't heard this yet.

Unless you're talking about the assumption that refusing to endorse gay marriage somehow means criminalizing homosexuality. If that's the case, I'll set up the ramp so you can make that leap.

Quote from: CubaLibre on July 30, 2012, 12:11:02 PM
They want to bring back anti-sodomy laws? I haven't heard this yet.

Actually, anti-sodomy laws were only appealed on top of fierce conservative opposition.  It's a common attitude of conservatives to look down upon their predecessors with scorn:

Homosexuals should be imprisoned!

Well, ok, those people were stupid.  But gays definitely cannot actually act on their desires!

Well, ok, those people were stupid.  But gays certainly cannot display their feelings in public, or join in civil unions!

Well, ok, those people were stupid.  But this is where the line ends; gays certainly cannot be allowed to marry!  We know history will judge us right here.

Quote
Unless you're talking about the assumption that refusing to endorse gay marriage somehow means criminalizing homosexuality. If that's the case, I'll set up the ramp so you can make that leap.

Nope, it means that you're granted special privileges to a certain type of sexual preference by allowing us to marry, and not gays.  Yet, you think that equality connotes "special privileges" for gays.

Straight people have always been allowed to marry. It's up to the people who want to change this definition to prove what is to be gained by doing so. What benefits can only be obtained by marriage, which cannot be obtained through civil unions or some sort of contractual arrangement?

I know we hashed this to death in the other thread, but to many people, marriage is more than just a signed piece of paper. To call it "marriage" essentially comes down to society endorsing and approving of homosexuality. Until you can understand this, and understand why that situation would put millions of Americans in a conflict of conscience, and also understand the rights outlined in the Constitution and the order they were outlined in, then you can't fully understand what's at play here.

Quote from: CubaLibre on July 30, 2012, 12:31:23 PM
Straight people have always been allowed to marry.

So don't we get a "special privilege"?

Is this not what you just attempted to accuse the democrats of doing?

Quote
It's up to the people who want to change this definition to prove what is to be gained by doing so.

Why is the burden of proof on gay marriage supporters, when they are advocating equality, not special benefit?

QuoteWhat benefits can only be obtained by marriage, which cannot be obtained through civil unions or some sort of contractual arrangement?

This argument can be easily turned upside down on its head; if there exists no difference between marriage and civil union, why is there active and mobilized opposition to allowing gays to marry?

If your only argument is the passive "there's no reason to allow it!", why the hate and scorn for its supporters?  Why do you even give a damn? 

This makes it difficult for me to believe that your reasons for opposing gay marriage are based on logical grounds, rather than religious and primal concerns rationalized.

Quote
I know we hashed this to death in the other thread, but to many people, marriage is more than just a signed piece of paper. To call it "marriage" essentially comes down to society endorsing and approving of homosexuality.

What about when straight convicted murderers marry?  Does this come down to society endorsing and approving of murder?

QuoteUntil you can understand this, and understand why that situation would put millions of Americans in a conflict of conscience, and also understand the rights outlined in the Constitution and the order they were outlined in, then you can't fully understand what's at play here.

Conscience?  Moral concerns only apply to law if an action in question is harmful to someone, or society as a whole.  The "moral" issue with gay marriage is basically "I personally find it detestable", which is not a grounds to deny others equal protection under the law.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 30, 2012, 12:39:52 PM
So don't we get a "special privilege"?

Is this not what you just attempted to accuse the democrats of doing?

No, we don't get a special privilege. The government would ideally have no say in marriage, but seeing as it does, it's only logical to keep it as it's always been.

Quote
Why is the burden of proof on gay marriage supporters, when they are advocating equality, not special benefit?

Because they're the ones who are demanding an endorsement of their lifestyle, and demanding it be rushed, rather than approached level-headedly, so that Americans of all faiths don't find themselves taking orders from the government as to what can and cannot constitute moral doctrine.

Quote
This argument can be easily turned upside down on its head; if there exists no difference between marriage and civil union, why is there active and mobilized opposition to allowing gays to marry?

If your only argument is the passive "there's no reason to allow it!", why the hate and scorn for its supporters?  Why do you even give a damn? 

Why do you give a damn? How is your life any more enriched knowing that gay couples can marry?

Quote
This makes it difficult for me to believe that your reasons for opposing gay marriage are based on logical grounds, rather than religious and primal concerns rationalized.

And those religious beliefs are protected by the Constitution. Something about the government keeping its nose out of religion.

Quote
What about when straight convicted murderers marry?  Does this come down to society endorsing and approving of murder?

Are you comparing homosexuals to murderers? Or are you familiar with some sex act that involves murder? Either way, you seem to have shot yourself in the foot there.

Quote
Conscience?  Moral concerns only apply to law if an action in question is harmful to someone, or society as a whole.  The "moral" issue with gay marriage is basically "I personally find it detestable", which is not a grounds to deny others equal protection under the law.

Again, the whole Constitution thing. Until you find the first draft of the Constitution where Jefferson put the right to have your sexual preferences supported and celebrated by society above the right to freely practice your religious beliefs, you're fighting a losing argument.

Quote from: CubaLibre on July 30, 2012, 12:31:23 PM
Straight people have always been allowed to marry. It's up to the people who want to change this definition to prove what is to be gained by doing so. What benefits can only be obtained by marriage, which cannot be obtained through civil unions or some sort of contractual arrangement?

I know we hashed this to death in the other thread, but to many people, marriage is more than just a signed piece of paper. To call it "marriage" essentially comes down to society endorsing and approving of homosexuality. Until you can understand this, and understand why that situation would put millions of Americans in a conflict of conscience, and also understand the rights outlined in the Constitution and the order they were outlined in, then you can't fully understand what's at play here.

It has nothing to do with simply straightening out legalities. It's all about forcing the majority of society to except their particular perversion as "normal". Just as it isn't about "tolerance", but as the Chick-a-fil controversy shows forcing even religious people to violate their beliefs. So how long do you think it will be after gay marriage, before activist gays start demanding church ceremonies?

Quote from: mdgiles on July 30, 2012, 12:57:07 PM
It has nothing to do with simply straightening out legalities. It's all about forcing the majority of society to except their particular perversion as "normal". Just as it isn't about "tolerance", but as the Chick-a-fil controversy shows forcing even religious people to violate their beliefs. So how long do you think it will be after gay marriage, before activist gays start demanding church ceremonies?

Not too long. A gay couple asked a Christian photographer to take some pics of their ceremony. The photographer refused, they took her to court, and she was fined.

Yup, nothing but tolerance and equality there... 

Quote from: CubaLibre on July 30, 2012, 12:51:58 PM
No, we don't get a special privilege. The government would ideally have no say in marriage, but seeing as it does, it's only logical to keep it as it's always been.

No, that's not logical.  I know mdgiles will hate me more for bringing this analogy up, but this worship of the status quo is precisely why slavery persisted for a century after the founding of our nation.  By the same logic, we should have kept our education system the same it was in the 18th century.

After all, throughout most of human civilization, girls were forced to marry old men when they were only 13.  Why did the evil liberals reform this?   

Quote
Because they're the ones who are demanding an endorsement of their lifestyle, and demanding it be rushed, rather than approached level-headedly, so that Americans of all faiths don't find themselves taking orders from the government as to what can and cannot constitute moral doctrine.

Nobody is ordering you to engage in a homosexual relationship.  What "orders" do you refer to?  Since when does people with their own lives entering into gay marriages infringe on your rights?

This is a dangerous line of thinking: that your rights extend not only to yourself and your property, but to what other people and their property can do.  So if somebody can do something that you don't agree with, their own liberty cannot exist because it infringes on your own.

Quote
Why do you give a damn? How is your life any more enriched knowing that gay couples can marry?

Because I have a moral conscience?  Why do you oppose abortion?

QuoteAnd those religious beliefs are protected by the Constitution.

You have the right to practice your own religion.  You have no right to force others to live according to yours.

What if two gay men were members of a cult that worships homosexuals?

QuoteSomething about the government keeping its nose out of religion.

Excellent point.  Which is precisely why legislation should not endorse or be modeled around your own Christian belief system.

Your reasoning is this:

Government should stay out of religion...so therefore, it should endorse all Christian beliefs, because not endorsing it would infringe on religious freedom!

QuoteAre you comparing homosexuals to murderers? Or are you familiar with some sex act that involves murder? Either way, you seem to have shot yourself in the foot there.

My point was aiming to pick holes in your proposition that "not actively denying X group to marry" connotes "endorsing X behavior".

This would mean that letting muslims marry indicates that we have become an islamic state.

QuoteAgain, the whole Constitution thing. Until you find the first draft of the Constitution where Jefferson put the right to have your sexual preferences supported and celebrated by society above the right to freely practice your religious beliefs, you're fighting a losing argument.

No, your entire argument is "gays being allowed to marry affects my religious freedom."  Which implies that your own religious freedom is so great,  it supersedes that of others. 

You've expanded "I can practice my own religion" to "I can force others to not do something I don't like, because I have religious freedom". 

I suppose that we should close down all restaurants that sell pork, because they, implicitly endorsing and celebrating pork, infringe on the religious freedom of Hindus?

  Your failure to grasp my rather simple point is giving me a sharp pain in between my eyes. Let's try an illustration:

A Black man can walk into a Hindu restaurant, or a Kosher or Hallal restaurant, for that matter, sit at a table or counter, and order a meal. This was not possible under Jim Crow. This is equality.

Now let's say the Black man sits at the table or counter of the Hindu, Kosher, or Hallal restaurant and orders a plate of pulled pork. When the restaurant informs him that they do not serve pork, he vociferously states that this is discrimination, that he is being denied his rights. More individuals jump on the bandwaggon and demand that Hindu, Kosher, and Hallal restaurants serve pork in order to accomodate customers who don't adhere to Hindu, Kosher, or Hallal dietary norms.

Now do you get it?

Quote from: CubaLibre on July 30, 2012, 01:10:35 PM
Your failure to grasp my rather simple point is giving me a sharp pain in between my eyes. Let's try an illustration:

A Black man can walk into a Hindu restaurant, or a Kosher or Hallal restaurant, for that matter, sit at a table or counter, and order a meal. This was not possible under Jim Crow. This is equality.

Now let's say the Black man sits at the table or counter of the Hindu, Kosher, or Hallal restaurant and orders a plate of pulled pork. When the restaurant informs him that they do not serve pork, he vociferously states that this is discrimination, that he is being denied his rights. More individuals jump on the bandwaggon and demand that Hindu, Kosher, and Hallal restaurants serve pork in order to accomodate customers who don't adhere to Hindu, Kosher, or Hallal dietary norms.

Now do you get it?

Assumption 1: government supported institutions like marriage are equivalent to private restaurants.  If restaurants were nationalized and the government refused to serve pork on petty grounds, I would fully side with the man.

Assumption 2: that there exists an equal alternative to marriage.  The black guy could go across the street and order a pork dish from a nearby restaurant; "civil unions" are quite clearly inferior in status to marriage, and rarely provide equal benefits under the law.  This ties into assumption 1.

Assumption 3: that homosexuality is as repulsive to marriage as pork would be to a Hindu restaurant, even though no logical reason for this has been provided, other than blind appeal to tradition.

They should have stuck with "civil union". It's already going on in a lot of places, and gives them the same rights as married husbands and wives.

I'm glad they're adding it to their platform. It will end up costing them a lot of black, Jewish, Hispanic, Muslim.................and many others that happen to be in a religion that doesn't sanction homosexuality. It's only August, and they're already making "Hail Mary" passes. I think they are becoming a very desperate bunch.