gay marraige/gay rights
This Arizona fiasco over the last 5 days makes me chuckle. I can't for the life of me, figure out why the Republican party continues to fight this battle. It's not a losing battle. It is a LOST battle. I do understand that the far right hates the idea of two men or two women living together, getting married and raising a family. I understand that it is 'different' than what many were taught when they were brought up. But times change. And this battle is lost for them. Technically, the supreme court didn't 'settle' the gay marriage issue with last summers ruling. But as a practical matter...they did. That ruling, as Justice Scalia observed at the time, set the guideline for how any new rulings related to the matter should be handled. And now, almost every week, including yesterday in Texas of all places, new rulings come down using last summers case as the guideline to rule the same way. Every single case being ruled the same way, just as Justice Scalia predicted.
I suppose at some point the Supreme Court will weigh in again and make it official, but even if they don't. This battle is over. The rulings are all going one way. Public sentiment is all going the same way. Majority now favors allowing gay marriage and that majority will continue to grow as older folks die off and are replaced by the younger more tolerant generation. That's just a fact. So the Republican party continuing to fight this battle which is already lost is like that great scene from Monty Python, where the knight wants to continue to fight even though he has lost both his arms and legs.
And frankly, I just don't see why they continue to be so hung up on this one losing issue, when there are so many issue that they are winning right now, like the economy and Obamacare rollout (and this coming from a Democrat). Why does the far right part of the Repub party continue to get bogged down on this losing issue?
Ok. Ready.
The world is rapidly overpopulating and many children dont have parents, if anything homosexuality and gay marriage should be encouraged, to prevent needless reproduction and provide caretakers for orphans, that in my view is the logical position.
Quote: Gandlerhomosexuality and gay marriage should be encouraged, to prevent needless reproduction and provide caretakers for orphans, that in my view is the logical position.
You don't watch the Today Show I take it...:P
Quote: chickenmanYou don't watch the Today Show I take it...:P
No I don't really watch much tv, and I don't know what that is?
Dilutes the argument to an extent.
Quote: GandlerBecause it does not effect you and there is no rational reason to be so passionately against it.
You are a progressive (forward) thinking republican, Gandler. I applaud you. Not many of you around.
I think this line of yours that I quoted is exactly the point in which the argument was lost against gay marriage. Those that oppose lost this battle the first time they were asked how if harms them. The opposition line has been that it weakens traditional marriage, but no one has ever been able to explain how that is the case. How does Bob and John down the street being married 'weaken' Ted and Sue's marriage? Without an answer to that question, they had lost. Without actual damage it just comes down to "well I don't like the idea of two men marrying", similarly to decades ago with interracial marriage.
Quote: chickenmanI don't either, but one of the female hosts got artificially inseminated and had a child "with" her lesbian partner (couldn't tell you if they are married but no matter). Not uncommon from what I read.
Dilutes the argument to an extent.
Well the logic still works with men. But even so I would rather a child be born into a married couple (of any type) than a single parent. It is pretty much a psychological fact that children who are raised in married couples are much better off (and children raised in gay or straight couples do not have any significant differences). And gay male couple alone would be millions of new married couples over the next few decades, and many would adopt at least one child if not multiples. And I am sure not all females are comfortable with artificial, so many will probably adopt as well or a combination.
Quote: kewljYou are a progressive (forward) thinking republican, Gandler. I applaud you. Not many of you around.
I think this line of yours that I quoted is exactly the point in which the argument was lost against gay marriage. Those that oppose lost this battle the first time they were asked how if harms them. The opposition line has been that it weakens traditional marriage, but no one has ever been able to explain how that is the case. How does Bob and John down the street being married 'weaken' Ted and Sue's marriage? Without an answer to that question, they had lost. Without actual damage it just comes down to "well I don't like the idea of two men marrying", similarly to decades ago with interracial marriage.
There are more than most people think, there are also more gay conservatives than most people think. Because some people care more about economics and the military than social issues, even if their party is slanderous of their lifestyle, they just put up with it.
At any moment, the American public's trend of tolerance could reverse itself. You'll see. Just you wait: this trend will change course. Any moment now...
Quote: rdw4potusDiscrimination based on orientation is already allowed in AZ. Codifying the right to perform an act that isn't disallowed is just legislatively stupid. If these guys worst fears were realized and the LGBT community were to receive improved standing nationally, this law would not withstand judicial review. So, they spent time and energy passing a rule that does nothing now, and would do nothing in the future. I guess there might be some "benefit" during the brief period between passage and injunction. But this seems like a lot of work just for that...
If you're talking about the recent bill they passed in AZ then it was vetoed by the governor this morning.
Quote: rdw4potusSo, they spent time and energy passing a rule that does nothing now, and would do nothing in the future.
So, in other words...
Business as usual?
I can read this.
What one has to do with gambling and the other does not I have no idea.
Quote: boymimboLet's throw this over to DT, please...
WHY???? Just block the thread if you are not interested! Problem solved. The fact of the matter is the thread will get FAR more discussion here than on DT. If the thread is of interest to you, and you want to read more opinions, then here, WoV, is where you want it.
I really don't like grouping gay rights with gay marriage. I know several people, myself included that see the two as very different issues. Gay rights, broadly, seems like an issue of forcing equality while gay marriage, to some of us, seems more like an issue of procedural justice, not social justice. I have always been frustrated by the left's attempt to package them together, although I suspect it is because it has never occurred to them that anyone thinks differently. That said, it's entirely possible it's a sales tactic. My track record when it comes to understanding how other people think is not that great.
I think the republican party is being particularly aggressive on this issue because they feel like they are under attack from a variety of angles and they decided to make a stand here, probably out of convenience more than principle. Maybe they feel (not consciously) that they can leverage religion where some of the other issues are harder to take head on. This is just one more in a string of decisions that makes supporting the libertarian party a no brainer for me, almost regardless of how bad the democratic candidate is.
Quote: socksI really don't like grouping gay rights with gay marriage. I know several people, myself included that see the two as very different issues. Gay rights, broadly, seems like an issue of forcing equality while gay marriage, to some of us, seems more like an issue of procedural justice, not social justice.
Can you elaborate on this?
I view the term "gay rights" as an umbrella term for the entire movement. Within that umbrella there are a variety of issues that the gay rights groups are working on: marriage equality, military service, adoption rights, revoking sodomy laws, employment discrimination, etc. Perhaps some gay advocacy groups specialize on one issue (i.e. marriage equality) and others on another issue (i.e. military service). Whether all these various issues are all equally important is open to debate.
Quote: kewljWhy does the far right part of the Repub party continue to get bogged down on this losing issue?
Because everything isn't politics to everybody, that's
why. Many people have a visceral bad reaction to
homosexuality, it's hardly a lifestyle that's widely
accepted as being normal to them. So the thought
of Gay marriage is an attack on their belief
system, they don't understand it and they don't
want it. In many parts of the world in this modern
age you'll get your head handed to you if you admit
to being Gay. Or get caught practicing it.
Quote: EvenBobBecause everything isn't politics to everybody, that's
why. Many people have a visceral bad reaction to
homosexuality, it's hardly a lifestyle that's widely
accepted as being normal to them. So the thought
of Gay marriage is an attack on their belief
system, they don't understand it and they don't
want it. In many parts of the world in this modern
age you'll get your head handed to you if you admit
to being Gay. Or get caught practicing it.
You forgot to mention Adam and Steve.
Quote: renoCan you elaborate on this?
I want to, and I have lot to say, but it'll have to be later today.
Quote: geoffIf you're talking about the recent bill they passed in AZ then it was vetoed by the governor this morning.
THAT LAW WAS READY TO BE SIGNED..BUT A FUNNY THING HAPPENED..
The NFL wieghed in, and suggested they might move the superbowl
the last time arizona hosted the superbowl..it supposedly was worth 500 mil
ya know.........accepting gays in arizona just became easier
Money talks
If you are a businessman that might see less business due to the loss of a superbowl in ARiz......all of a sudden having gays in your establishment isnt all that bad
the ariz law would have permitted business to prohibit gays in their establishment
So it follows that, as Americans, gays are entitled to all the protections and rights any other citizen has, including marriage. This seems like such an easy, straightforward issue that anyone arguing the converse (and some claiming anti-gay bias when that's not the real focus) has to have another agenda in doing so, whether inflaming a body of voters to increase attendance at the polls, strengthening a religious bias by reinforcing an exclusionary edict, or manipulating the media for attention.
Just thinking out loud as a 37 year registered Republican. RINO by now, sadly. Look at Republican party platforms from 1952-1976, it was a great agenda of fiscal responsibility, social progressiveness, well-funded national defense. I'm not just a RINO; I'm a dinosaur who just stays to vote down the worst of it in closed primaries.
Quote: beachbumbabs
So it follows that, as Americans, gays are entitled to all the protections and rights any other citizen has, including marriage.
Which protections and rights are they being
denied? They can marry the same people
everybody else can marry.
Quote: EvenBobBecause everything isn't politics to everybody, that's
why.
Gee, how admirable. The GOP would rather lose elections than let gays have rights.
Evenbob, if you compile an ugly laundry list of liberal pet causes (burdensome environmental laws, mandatory health insurance, high taxation, government-subsidized contraception, runaway spending on entitlements, ad nauseum) those issues might actually affect a conservative voter's life (or at least his pocketbook.) But gay marriage? How does that even impact your life? It makes no difference to your life what the 2 gay men next door are up to, so why waste precious, finite political capital fighting them? Surely the party could benefit from prioritizing the issues. These pointless crusades are a distraction from more winnable battles that ought to be higher priorites (Obamacare, taxes, cap & trade, Keystone, tort law reform, etc.)
As a republican I think of this and realize that we allow our party to be defined and run by the oldtimers. While the democrats have younger leaders.
Dole vs Clinton. Really???Is that old relic the best that the republican party could come up with?
Look who we put up against a younger Obama>...geez..could they be any older?
and the old folks keep alive the old values and hunker down and try to protect them. But they dont realize that the "old values" are no longer relevant compared to bigger issues
So while the democrats were addressing healthcare in the last 2 elections....republicans were trying to preserve the value system and were vocal about abortion and gay marriage. Even though the Democrats were off the mark in how they addressed healthcare in my opinion...at least they were addressing something relevent
you are right..the gay rights ship has sailed, and the abortion ship has sailed along time ago,...the horse is already out of the barn,,,,,thehorse has lived a long life and has died....yet the older republicans want to beat the dead horse..
My opinion is that republicans should be focusing on economic and core issues and staying away from the contentious issues that will lose elections.
The AZ law had a noble intent. There should be absolutely nothing wrong with, say, a Musliim photographer who refuses to shoot a gay wedding because it violates his beliefs. I just don't understand why gays can't simply go to a different photographer instead of forcing a Muslim to do something against his religion.
Quote: renoGee, how admirable. The GOP would rather lose elections than let gays have rights.
What rights don't Gays have? They have exactly
as many rights as I do. I can't marry anybody
I want either. I can't marry a man, or
more than one woman. What are you talking about.
I think you mean Gays want different rights than
everybody else. How would that be fair?
Quote: Beethoven9thI expect libs to act all sanctimonious when it comes to gay marriage, but it really cracks me up when I hear so-called "Republicans" spew the same nonsense.
The AZ law had a noble intent. There should be absolutely nothing wrong with, say, a Musliim photographer who refuses to shoot a gay wedding because it violates his beliefs. I just don't understand why gays can't simply go to a different photographer instead of forcing a Muslim to do something against his religion.
I agree with that, further, the only entities that should be absolutely required to perform the marriage are Justices of the Peace, there's no reason any Religious institution should be forced to perform or make their church open for the marriage. I understand that some homosexuals may also simultaneously be Religious, but if your particular congregation is not one that approves of your marriage, why would you not find a different church, anyway?
Anyway, the entire argument (and my argument) is that individuals who are not homosexuals have no reason to oppose two homosexuals getting married, well, if you're forcing them to be involved, now you are giving them grounds to oppose it, so, you know, don't do that.
Quote: Beethoven9thI expect libs to act all sanctimonious when it comes to gay marriage, but it really cracks me up when I hear so-called "Republicans" spew the same nonsense.
The AZ law had a noble intent. There should be absolutely nothing wrong with, say, a Musliim photographer who refuses to shoot a gay wedding because it violates his beliefs. I just don't understand why gays can't simply go to a different photographer instead of forcing a Muslim to do something against his religion.
why would a gay couple want an antigay photographer. Why would a Jewish couple want an antisemite photographer. Wouldnt they think the "work" would be of poor quality? There is no "force" needed. The customer in the case you described will solve the problem.
Quote: EvenBobWhat rights don't Gays have? They have exactly
as many rights as I do. I can't marry anybody
I want either. I can't marry a man, or
more than one woman. What are you talking about.
In most U.S. states, it is illegal for gays & lesbians to marry the people they're in love with.
Your argument is cute & clever, but if your goal is to win elections, your argument needs to be more than cute & clever. It needs to be persuasive and compelling. You need an argument that clearly explains how gay marriage hurts society, who the victims are, and why government ought not recognize it.
It is absolutely critical that the GOP come up with a persuasive argument to shift public opinion, but they can't. They're clueless.
Quote: renoIn most U.S. states, it is illegal for gays & lesbians polygamists to marry the people they're in love with.
Your argument is cute & clever, but if your goal is to win elections, your argument needs to be more than cute & clever. It needs to be persuasive and compelling. You need an argument that clearly explains how gay multiple-person marriage hurts society, who the victims are, and why government ought not recognize it.
It is absolutely critical that the GOP libs come up with a persuasive argument to shift public opinion on multiple-person marriage, but they can't. They're clueless.
Fixed
Quote: LarrySthe horse is already out of the barn,,,,,thehorse has lived a long life and has died....yet the older republicans want to beat the dead horse..
Very good LarryS. Best line of the day.
EvenBob: Your responses don't surprise me at all. Very typical based on your history and basically typical of 'more experienced' folks of your generation who are very slow and hesitant to accept change. I guess change scares you. I see that behavior in my Grandma all the time.
That's true and before 1967, you couldn't marry outside of your race in the South. The law applied equally to Whites and Blacks. Then Richard Loving decided that he wanted "different" rights than everybody else so he married a Black woman and got arrested making a whole federal case over it. Why couldn't he just marry someone who he didn't love and stop making all those waves?!Quote: EvenBobWhat rights don't Gays have? They have exactly
as many rights as I do. I can't marry anybody
I want either. I can't marry a man, or
more than one woman. What are you talking about.
I think you mean Gays want different rights than
everybody else. How would that be fair?
Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: renoIn most U.S. states, it is illegal for gays & lesbians polygamists to marry the people they're in love with.
Your argument is cute & clever, but if your goal is to win elections, your argument needs to be more than cute & clever. It needs to be persuasive and compelling. You need an argument that clearly explains how gay multiple-person marriage hurts society, who the victims are, and why government ought not recognize it.
It is absolutely critical that the GOP libs come up with a persuasive argument to shift public opinion on multiple-person marriage, but they can't. They're clueless.
Fixed
Didn't someone get really upset recently about changing their posts, but keeping the attributions over on Diversity Tomorrow? I can't remember who it was...
For me, marriage should be a contract in the eyes of the law between two people, of legal majority.
Quote: thecesspitDidn't someone get really upset recently about changing their posts
In that case, the member [can't say who; don't want to get suspended] actually lied about my post and didn't even fess up when he was called out on it. In my previous msg, it's obvious that I struck out some words and "fixed" the post.
Quote: EvenBobWhat rights don't Gays have? They have exactly
as many rights as I do. I can't marry anybody
I want either. I can't marry a man, or
more than one woman. What are you talking about.
I think you mean Gays want different rights than
everybody else. How would that be fair?
Can I ask which man it was that you wanted to marry ?
Quote: EvenBobWhat rights don't Gays have? They have exactly
as many rights as I do. I can't marry anybody
I want either. I can't marry a man, or
more than one woman. What are you talking about.
I think you mean Gays want different rights than
everybody else. How would that be fair?
Exactly. And hey two water fountains just meant shorter lines for everyone right? How could that possibly be unfair.
Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: renoIn most U.S. states, it is illegal for gays & lesbians polygamists to marry the people they're in love with.
Your argument is cute & clever, but if your goal is to win elections, your argument needs to be more than cute & clever. It needs to be persuasive and compelling. You need an argument that clearly explains how gay multiple-person marriage hurts society, who the victims are, and why government ought not recognize it.
It is absolutely critical that the GOP libs come up with a persuasive argument to shift public opinion on multiple-person marriage, but they can't. They're clueless.
Fixed
Dems aren't losing elections because of polygamy. No need to change.
Beethoven, don't get me wrong: I don't actually want the GOP to do a 180 on gay marriage. In fact, I wish the GOP would speak up louder and make sodomy the centerpiece of every campaign, just like Ken Cucinelli did. It's a recipe for extinction.
Quote: renoDems aren't losing elections because of polygamy. No need to change.
Ah, I get it now. So "equal rights" are only worth fighting for if it wins elections? Makes sense...NOT
Quote: BuzzardCan I ask which man it was that you wanted to marry ?
Kody Brown wants to get married to 4 consenting women, but he can't. Where's the sympathy for him?
Quote: Beethoven9thKody Brown wants to get married to 4 consenting women, but he can't. Where's the sympathy for him?
The Arizona Libertarian Party is sympathetic:
http://www.azlp.org/platform.php#polygamy
"We call for the abolition of all laws prohibiting marriage between any consenting adults, or any number of consenting adults."
I didn't read every word of the platform, but it all looked generally reasonable to me.
Quote: Beethoven9thIn that case, the member [can't say who; don't want to get suspended] actually lied about my post and didn't even fess up when he was called out on it. In my previous msg, it's obvious that I struck out some words and "fixed" the post.
I disagree with your view of the situation. Both look much the same. Both had the same caveat before the post. One didn't show strike throughs.
Moreover, it wasn't YOUR post :)
Quote: reno
Your argument is cute & clever, .
No, my argument is spot on. We all have
the same rights, Gays included. What you
want is 'extra' rights, isn't that special.
I want 3 wives, where are my rights?
I have the same right to marry 3 wives
as you do. None at all..
Quote: EvenBobNo, my argument is spot on. We all have
the same rights, Gays included. What you
want is 'extra' rights, isn't that special.
I want 3 wives, where are my rights?
I have the same right to marry 3 wives
as you do. None at all..
For what it's worth, provided all of the wives after the first are aware of all prior (and ongoing) marriages, I have no moral objection to a guy taking multiple wives or a woman having multiple husbands.
