gay marraige/gay rights
Quote: thecesspitMoreover, it wasn't YOUR post :)
Huh? I have no idea which post you're referring to.
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..
And if gay marriage is legal then you'll have the right to marry another man if you wish. Then everyone will have the right to marry another person and everyone will have equal rights just like you said.
Quote: gpac1377The 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.
Libertarians, for the most part, are pretty consistent on this issue. Although I completely disagree with their conclusion, I can't really quibble since the arguments they use (such as the one above) are perfectly sound. I respect that. OTOH, most liberals are total hypocrites.
Quote: EvenBobI want 3 wives
I'd just rather have 3 girlfriends. Marriage is for suckers.
Quote: Beethoven9thSo "equal rights" are only worth fighting for if it wins elections?
I'm not suggesting that politicians should cynically pander with an insincere soundbyte will win them an election. My advice to the GOP: pick your battles. Save your firepower for issues you can actually win: jobs, taxes, public pensions, deficits. Don't blow your ammunition on an issue you're bound to lose.
Terry McAuliffe is one of the sleaziest Democrats in the entire party, he had no business becoming Governor of Virginia. But the Republicans chose a man who wanted to make sodomy his flagship issue. Cucinelli could have campaigned on Obamacare or taxation or jobs or his record as Attorney General or the fact that Terry McAuliffe is one of the sleaziest Democrats in the party. But he didn't. He campaigned on sodomy. So Virginia's voters held their nose and voted for one of the sleaziest Democrats in the entire party.
Would you rather Cucinelli lecture us all on sodomy and lose the election? Or would you rather Cucinelli talk about taxes and win the election?
Pictured: the Honorable Terry McAuliffe.
Quote: renoMy advice to the GOP: pick your battles. Save your firepower for issues you can actually win: jobs, taxes, public pensions, deficits. Don't blow your ammunition on an issue you're bound to lose.
I don't get it, so you're saying that you only oppose gay marriage bans for purely practical reasons? Judging by your previous posts, you've always seemed like a pretty vigorous supporter of gay marriage to me.
Quote: Beethoven9thI don't get it, so you're saying that you only oppose gay marriage bans for purely practical reasons? Judging by your previous posts, you've always seemed like a pretty vigorous supporter of gay marriage to me.
I'm definitely a vigorous supporter of gay marriage. Right now, most Americans agree with me. (That wasn't the case 5 years ago.) My views on gay marriage are sincere.
Here's a different example: I'm a vigorous opponent of the death penalty. (I'm in the minority, most Americans support the death penalty.) If I was running for office, I wouldn't make the death penalty the center of my campaign. If a news reporter asked me my position on the death penalty, I wouldn't lie, I would acknowledge that I oppose the death penalty. But out on the campaign trail, I wouldn't make my unpopular position on the death penalty the flagship issue of my campaign.
So Cucinelli hates sodomy more than anything, good for him. However, if he wants to win an election, he should talk about other issues.
Quote: renoI'm definitely a vigorous supporter of gay marriage. Right now, most Americans agree with me. (That wasn't the case 5 years ago.) My views on gay marriage are sincere.
I definitely don't doubt your sincerity. I'm wondering though, when people didn't agree with you 5 years ago, how come you continued to press on?
Quote: renoI'm not suggesting that politicians should cynically pander with an insincere soundbyte will win them an election. My advice to the GOP: pick your battles. Save your firepower for issues you can actually win: jobs, taxes, public pensions, deficits. Don't blow your ammunition on an issue you're bound to lose.
Terry McAuliffe is one of the sleaziest Democrats in the entire party, he had no business becoming Governor of Virginia. But the Republicans chose a man who wanted to make sodomy his flagship issue. Cucinelli could have campaigned on Obamacare or taxation or jobs or his record as Attorney General or the fact that Terry McAuliffe is one of the sleaziest Democrats in the party. But he didn't. He campaigned on sodomy. So Virginia's voters held their nose and voted for one of the sleaziest Democrats in the entire party.
Would you rather Cucinelli lecture us all on sodomy and lose the election? Or would you rather Cucinelli talk about taxes and win the election.
I think you hit it on the head. While we have a society with men fathering children with 5-6 or more different women and taking no responsibility, we have republicans argung that if we allow gay marriages why not let a man marry 5 women. Heck....as far as I am concerned...go ahead and marry them...have a legal document showing you are responsible for the family. While sosciety is being plauged by unsupervised children becoming a burden to our everyday life, the republicans every election make a big deal over abortion. While the economy is being pummelled and healthcare needed work, the republicans were proclaiming that the family values of marriage between men and women would be upheld.
Sad to say that opened the door for the Dems to fk up healthcare.
The everyday man and woman are affected daily by crime, economy, healthcare, education........yes some of them have values regarding abortion and gay marriage.....but the party that addresses the everyday concerns of crime and the economy, and education and healthcare......will have the upper hand. They will be trying to solve issues that affect us everyday, and not concerned with something less tangible like "values".
If tomorrow people couldnt get abortions and gays could not marry.....how would that help my life or the lives of my children.Thats how people think. Thats how people struggling to make ends meet think. Those people dont have time to think about the values of our country. They want to elect people who they feel will tangibly effect their lives for the better.
heck people used to be complaining how homosexuals were permiscuous with multiple partners. Now they are being allowed to have the legal ball and chain applied so that there are consequences for adultery, and financial divorce issues in splitting up property if infidelity and an ensuing divorce occur. I would think that this is good for society. Less promiscuity means less HIV cases.
Quote: geoffAnd if gay marriage is legal then you'll have the right to marry another man if you wish. Then everyone will have the right to marry another person and everyone will have equal rights just like you said.
And if plural marriage is legal, then we'll all
have that right. Just quit saying Gay people
don't have the same rights as everybody
else, that's a lie. They have the exact same
rights.
+1Quote: EvenBobJust quit saying Gay people
don't have the same rights as everybody
else, that's a lie. They have the exact same
rights.
Quote: Beethoven9th+1
Saying you don't have the same rights
and saying you want a law changed are two
different things.
Quote: EvenBobAnd if plural marriage is legal, then we'll all
have that right. Just quit saying Gay people
don't have the same rights as everybody
else, that's a lie. They have the exact same
rights.
They don't have the right to marry who they want to provided the person they want to marry wants to marry them...a heterosexual does have that right. It just happens that a heterosexual does not want to marry a man if a man or a woman if a woman.
Quote: thecesspitQuote: 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 :)
To help Beethoven out, he said in the above 'the member lied about my post'. He now says he doesn't know which post I am referring to. Well, the post the member 'lied about' wasn't his. Unless it's not the post I am looking at on Diversity Tomorrow. And was some other post. That he doesn't know which post that is...
Very confusing. Just like editing a post while attributing it to someone else.
But anyways, wasn't really the direction this needs to go in :)
The point about plural marriages is something I thought about in the gym. The difference is the number, rather than the sex. In that currently, I can marry one person, as long as they are female (and unrelated and over the age of majority). The argument is that the sex of the person you want to make a partnership with shouldn't matter to the law (it can matter all you want your church and religion and they can choose who they allow to be married in that church). The plural marriage argument is saying number is important, and greater than one is fine too.
I -like- the idea of being able to form a partnership, exclusively with one person, so in the eyes of the law there are benefits and obligations I can transfer to one other person (and recieve). I am not sure how that works in some cases (legally) with multiple people. But if marriage weren't a legal entity, I am pretty sure it would be invented by various legal forms and contracts and doctrine.
I'm not sure love needs to have anything to do with it, at least to law and government. It's not for them to know or choose or decide.
But what I like, and what should happen aren't one and the same. All I know is that gay men don't have the same rights that straight women do. They can't marry a man. Clearly there is a difference in rights based on the sex of the person. If the sex of the person is important to your decision in who should be allowed to get the state's approval of having a legal partnership, opposing gay marriage as not needed seems reasonable. To me it doesn't.
Quote: EvenBobJust quit saying Gay people
don't have the same rights as everybody
else, that's a lie. They have the exact same
rights.
Bah, it's like saying a blind person read a contract he didn't see and you're holding him to it along with sighted people. If you keep repeating, "well he had the right to read it" as your argument, it makes as much sense as to hold a gay person to the right to marry the sex they don't desire.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I never post on DT. Don't even have an account there. A member on this forum once referred to a previous post I had made, but he totally lied about what I had said. Yet after I brought the lie to his attention, he didn't even fess up! (Then _I_ got warned for saying he was dishonest.....lol)Quote: thecesspitTo help Beethoven out, he said in the above 'the member lied about my post'. He now says he doesn't know which post I am referring to. Well, the post the member 'lied about' wasn't his. Unless it's not the post I am looking at on Diversity Tomorrow. And was some other post. That he doesn't know which post that is...
Anyway...
I know, that's one of my points. If gays can arbitrarily change the definition to suit their needs (i.e., the sex of the person), then I don't see why polygamists can't come in and change the definition to suit theirs (i.e., the number).Quote: thecesspitThe point about plural marriages is something I thought about in the gym. The difference is the number, rather than the sex
Quote: rxwineBah, it's like saying a blind person read a contract he didn't see and you're holding him to it along with sighted people. If you keep repeating, "well he had the right to read it" as your argument, it makes as much sense as to hold a gay person to the right to marry the sex they don't desire.
The state of blindness is not normal. Blind people have a defect regarding their eyes since they can't see like everyone else. Unless you're prepared to say that gayness isn't normal and that gays have a defect like blind people, then I don't know what your point is.
Quote: Mission146They don't have the right to marry who they want.
They have the right to marry who the law
says they can marry. Just like me. They
have EXACTLY the same rights as I do.
Quit fostering the canard that Gays have different
rights than straights. They don't like the law,
so they lie about it. What they need to do is
say the law needs to be changed, not that they
don't have the same rights. But that doesn't
sound as good as playing the victim card, so
we never hear it.
Quote: EvenBobJust like me. They
have EXACTLY the same rights as I do.
No, they don't. As a heterosexual, you have the right, very simply, to marry any individual person you want to provided that person reciprocates your desire for marriage. Homosexuals do not have that right in many states.
I agree they have the right to marry who the law says they can marry, so I have great news for you: If gay marriage is legalized nationally, everyone will still have the right to marry who the law says they can marry and your right to do so will remain completely unaffected.
Quote:Quit fostering the canard that Gays have different
rights than straights. They don't like the law,
so they lie about it. What they need to do is
say the law needs to be changed, not that they
don't have the same rights. But that doesn't
sound as good as playing the victim card, so
we never hear it.
So, your opposition to their position that gay marriage should be legalized is that you disagree with their semantics?
Quote: Beethoven9thThe state of blindness is not normal. Blind people have a defect regarding their eyes since they can't see like everyone else. Unless you're prepared to say that gayness isn't normal, I don't know what your point is.
I didn't think the analogy was good enough either. Try this:
Quote:Bias against left-handed people is discrimination, conscious or not, against people who are left-hand dominant. Approximately 8–15% of the world's population is left-handed.[1] Yet many common tools are designed solely for use by right-handed people, making them difficult, painful, or unsafe for left-handed people to use. These range from simple objects such as scissors to dangerous machinery such as power saws.[2] Beyond such neglect, however, left-handed people have frequently been subjected to deliberate discrimination and disparagement. In many societies, they are considered unlucky or even malicious by the right-handed majority. Many languages use references to left-handedness to convey awkwardness, dishonesty, stupidity, or other undesirable qualities. Even in relatively "modern" societies, left-handed people historically have been—and in some places still are—forced from childhood to use their right hands for tasks which they would naturally perform with the left, such as eating and writing.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_against_left-handed_people
I don't know who wrote that Wiki piece, but I have a feeling it can be very upsetting just to be forced to use a non-dominant hand, much less sex and marriage.
Quote: MoosetonThe whole idea of changing the definition of marriage is as silly as saying that ugly people want hot people rights. For example, saying that they can't get into the club and protesting them to change the definition of who's hot enough to get in. Silly.
That is the worst analogy I have ever heard in my entire life.
Being a lefty, I don't mind using my right hand to write (on a chalkboard) or bowl in a bowling alley or throw a baseball but as a gay man, I'm not having sex with any women. If Lady Gaga sang me a Judy Garland torch song like The Man The Got Away, I still wouldn't be able to get it up for her!Quote: rxwineI have a feeling it can be very upsetting just to be forced to use a non-dominant hand, much less sex and marriage.
Quote: rxwineI didn't think the analogy was good enough either. Try this:....
I don't know who wrote that Wiki piece, but I have a feeling it can be very upsetting just to be forced to use a non-dominant hand, much less sex and marriage.
As a left-handed person, I would have to agree. It's quite difficult, many assumptions get made about dexterity (even that word) and a good analogy in many ways.
Quote: s2dbakerIf Lady Gaga sang me a Judy Garland torch song like The Man The Got Away, I still wouldn't be able to get it up for her!
Um...This must be National Bad Analogy Day. I'm as straight as they come, but that wouldn't help me a bit, either...lol
(That's 'cause you're straight)Quote: Mission146Um...This must be National Bad Analogy Day. I'm as straight as they come, but that wouldn't help me a bit, either...lol
;)
Quote: s2dbakerBeing a lefty, I don't mind using my right hand to write (on a chalkboard) or bowl in a bowling alley or throw a baseball
You might be ambi, and go both ways.
: )
Consider yourself lucky that I didn't break out the Streisand!Quote: kewljReally s2dbaker? You are going to work a Judy Garland Video into a gay marriage debate? Lol
Quote: geoffThat is the worst analogy I have ever heard in my entire life.
Ok. Maybe it is a bad analogy. I did say they are both silly, though. Perhaps you could at least explain how it's any different.
Quote: MoosetonOk. Maybe it is a bad analogy. I did say they are both silly, though. Perhaps you could at least explain how it's any different.
Okay, let's revisit the analogy
First, Have you been to the club? There are some real trolls in there!Quote: MoosetonThe whole idea of changing the definition of marriage is as silly as saying that ugly people want hot people rights. For example, saying that they can't get into the club and protesting them to change the definition of who's hot enough to get in. Silly.
Second, In your analogy, it's the gays who are represented by the ugly people and the club is the institution of marriage. You're saying that the ugly people want to change the definition of 'Hot' in order to get into the club. That's not correct. Gay people do not want to change the definition of heterosexuality in order to get married. They just want the 'ugly people' to get into the club (see previous sentence labeled 'First').
Quote: s2dbakerOkay, let's revisit the analogyFirst, Have you been to the club? There are some real trolls in there!.
And then there are many that are somewhat hot by the dark of night when the alcohol is flowing, but a little frightening by the light of the next morning. :-)
(At least that's the way I remember it from my clubbing days...lol)
Quote: Mission146No, they don't. As a heterosexual, you have the right, very simply, to marry any individual person you want to
Nope, I can't marry a man. Neither can a Gay
person. We have exactly the same rights.
He can't marry a man and neither can I. Why
is this so hard to understand? Rights have
nothing to do with it.
You're going to the grave with that, aren't you? So you'd be okay with Richard Loving not being able to marry Mildred Jeter because you couldn't marry her either before 1967.Quote: EvenBobNope, I can't marry a man. Neither can a Gay
person. We have exactly the same rights.
He can't marry a man and neither can I. Why
is this so hard to understand? Rights have
nothing to do with it.
Quote: Mission146So, your opposition to their position that gay marriage should be legalized is that you disagree with their semantics?
I think all the marriage laws should be rewritten.
Spread the misery of marriage equally. Anybody
can marry anybody, it's just a legal contract. I
can marry a man and two women if I want. It's
my business and nobody elses if I'm that stupid.
Single men are the smart ones, always have
been.
Quote: Beethoven9thI definitely don't doubt your sincerity. I'm wondering though, when people didn't agree with you 5 years ago, how come you continued to press on?
It's true: years ago, I refused to soften my support for gay marriage even though it was unpopular in those days. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, I'm suggesting that if the GOP wants to win elections, they ought to be cynically pragmatic: drop their unpopular opposition to gay marriage. Am I a hypocrite?
Look at the graph below: 5 years ago, it was obvious which way the wind was blowing. (Even 10 years ago, it was obvious which way the wind was blowing.) In order for the trend to shift directions, the opponents to gay rights would have to launch a convincing, compelling, persuasive argument. So far, their best argument is "gay sex is icky." Their second best argument is "the Bible says it's wrong." Neither of those arguments are particularly persuasive to someone with a gay friend. Do I want my gay friend to have the option to marry their soulmate? Of course. But what about the "sanctity" marriage? Well, if Newt Gingrich can have 3 marriages, surely my lesbian neighbor can have 1 marriage.
It became obvious that as more sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, friends, neighbors, coworkers, classmates, and teachers came out of the closet, society would be forced to accept gay people as human beings. Not as criminals.
Quote: EvenBobI think all the marriage laws should be rewritten.
Spread the misery of marriage equally. Anybody
can marry anybody, it's just a legal contract. I
can marry a man and two women if I want. It's
my business and nobody elses if I'm that stupid.
Single men are the smart ones, always have
been.
Comedian Lewis Black said he though gay people shouldn't just be allowed to get married, but that it should be required. The punchline: why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us.
Quote: kewljAnd then there are many that are somewhat hot by the dark of night when the alcohol is flowing, but a little frightening by the light of the next morning. :-)
(At least that's the way I remember it from my clubbing days...lol)
Quote: Mission146I'm as straight as they come, but that wouldn't help me a bit, either...lol
Speaking as a straight man, Lady Gaga is foul. But Judy Garland circa 1939? No complaints.
OMG, did you get a look at those cell phones?Quote: rxwineyoutube clip from 1720
Quote: renoIt's true: years ago, I refused to soften my support for gay marriage even though it was unpopular in those days. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, I'm suggesting that if the GOP wants to win elections, they ought to be cynically pragmatic: drop their unpopular opposition to gay marriage. Am I a hypocrite?
Uh...yeah!
with heterosexuals indescriminantly having children they cant take care of, isnt it good to know there are 2 men married couples that are willing to adopt.
If the homosexual community used to be more promiscuous which helped the spread of Aids....isnt monogomy with all its legal remifications a good thing?
Gay couples are good income families and well educated compared to heterosexual
Homosexuality is not classified as a disease....it doesnt spread. its not contagious.
What is the downside to me or you if gays can marry. Other than insulting your personal religion.
I feel sorry for the buffet "{fill in the religion}........who pick and choose what to grab hold of as being of value in their religion. They can have sex outside of marriage..but gays are an abomination, they can miss going to church every sunday.....but the bible is valid in its categorization of gays. they can take birth control pills or use condoms.....but their faith is right about non acceptance of gays in marriage. There are so many religious doctrines that people ignore, but they will pick this gay marriage view of their religion as a must to follow.
So outside of the religious hypocracy that everyone seems to hide behind.....what is the big deal....whats the downside.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/01/gay-couples-more-educated-higher-income-than-heterosexual-couples
Only if she singing "The Man That Got Away"Quote: djatcI'm lefthanded and demand all people to be left handed or else I'm blasting lady gaga music all up and down your neighorhood
Quote: kewljComedian Lewis Black said he though gay people shouldn't just be allowed to get married, but that it should be required. The punchline: why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us.
Far be it from me to deny them the expense and agony of a bitter divorce...;-)
Quote: FrankScobleteWhy is the government involved in marriages? Gays should be able to marry gays; lesbians lesbians. You want to be in a polygamous or polyandrous marriage fine. I don't think people should be voting on this stuff. What does it matter what I think as to whom should marry who? Yes, if a man wants to marry a 10-year old we call that child abuse, not marriage. Otherwise, stay out of the bedrooms of citizens unless a real crime is being committed...real as in real.
$
