Printable View
Oh wow, I get it now! Conservatives are racists and homophobes! :idea2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I'm pretty sure it's called democracy. In general, people don't want their government doing things that they view to be morally wrong, whether it's performing gay marriages or regulating carbon dioxide. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Are you disputing that both articles were published by National Review? Explain, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Also, I don't understand how you're using the word "conservative," but then I never have.
-edit-
Best summation I've yet read:
Remember: civil marriage for gay couples is not some kind of liberal special right. It requires no concession from anyone else; it requires no individual recognition from anyone who disapproves; it coerces no one; it taxes no one; it spends nothing; it takes not an iota from the rights and dignity of heterosexual marriages, which gave birth to gay people and give many of us our sense of morality and duty and civility. If the right is concerned about religious freedom, please reach out to those of us who favor civil equality and free speech and help protect both. But no, this is not what they are interested in, preferring to construct ads in which actors pretend to be people allegedly persecuted by gays for being Christians. Really, this is pure animus at this point — a decision to define a political movement by the people it excludes and the families it despises.
It is the only interpretation that is consistent with the rest of the scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Doesn't 'a rainbow coalition of people' imply a coalition of homosexuals? They need to work on the connotations of their rhetoric.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Ajax
In an article titled "Connecting the Dots: The Link Between Gay Marriage and Mass Murders." Why does this strike me as a classic case of "I'm not saying, but I'm saying ..."?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I like the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman only. I beleive that defining it as anythign other than that would obviously detract from the concept of marriage that I beleive in.
I don't beleive that my conscience calls on me to support Gay marriage, nor does my religion. If anything I beleive that my conscience and religion stand agaisnt both the practice as well as any detriment to marriage.
I don't see any benefit to supporting Gay marriage for myself or anyone that I care about and I believe that homosexuality is a bad thing to encourage for numerous reasons; including medical,emotional and spiritual.
I do not link the issue to the civil rights movement for women or minorities, nor do I see it as noble.
Effectively I am opposed to it. I disagree with the Vermont decision but view it as legitimate. I will continue to disagree with those in favor of it in order to keep my state and nation out of the business of marrying 2 people of the same gender.
Yes, the comparisons to the civil rights movement are ridiculous.
I think you're reading a bit too much into this. He suses gay marriage merely as an indicator of the moral degradation in our society. Then he explicitly blames the *moral degradation* for the mass murders. In other words, both gay marriage and mass murders stem from the same cause (moral degradation), but gay marriage doesn't cause mass murders any more than mass murders cause gay marriage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
First off, congratulations to Vermont.
Apparently the Wisconsin supreme court will be hearing a case on gay marriage in the next couple of days. http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/breaking_news/446462
I expect the status quo will remain the status quo. The conservatives in the state bought themselves a majority on the court by pouring money into ugly smear commercials in the last two judicial races. It would be rather embarrasing if their trained monkeys on the court turned against them.:whip:
edit: I should have said 2 of the last 3 supreme court races. We just had an election here(my first vote!) and our chief justice was re-elected.
RVG, were Vlad the Impaler and Elizabeth Bathory also the result of moral decay? Last I checked they lived in a world where one man marries one woman, and the church's commandments were law. How about Ed Gein? He was alive during the yesteryear that most history-impaired people hearken back to, the 1940s and 50s.
It's an absurd argument, and one that crotchety old coots have been making since before the city-state of Athens was founded. "We were much more noble before that darn Parthenon got built! Kids these days don't know a proper sacrifice to Zeus from a broken sandal!"
I can count on two constants in this world: Things keep improving and people keep complaining that everything's going to hell.
I wouldn't call it absurd. Weak perhaps. Nonetheless, it is not entirely without merit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
We'll see. The vast majority of judges who've been striking down same-sex marriage bans have been Republican appointees. These uppity judges today don't stay bought, that's the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by woad&fangs
Not really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Racial equality? IN MY AMERICA? I don't think so buddy.
I have been married for well over a decade. To my first wife, thank you very much, as opposed to "conservatives" like Limbaugh (who dumped his third wife in 2004) or Gingrich (who is still with wife #3).Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I fail to see how the lesbian couple who live three houses down from me detract from my marriage. I fail to see how them becoming legally bound would detract from my marriage.
Somebody please explain. Will I love my wife less? Will our bond become less tight? How exactly will the private affairs of gay couples damage my marriage?
Refer to Lewis Black:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Gay banditos
*Warning: One or two use of the "F" word*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Is marriage a private affair? Why is the public being asked to sanction it?
The private affair arguement worked for overturning the sodomy laws. State marriage rights are firmly in the realm of the public, living together is not. Like it or not, marriage drags the public into your relationship.
Anyone who dumps the mother or father of their children is a sham and a coward. I do not respect the moral authority of Gingrich or Limbaugh, they have none.
Why is the public trying to ban a private affair?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I have been married for well over a decade. To my first wife, thank you very much, as opposed to "conservatives" like Limbaugh (who dumped his third wife in 2004) or Gingrich (who is still with wife #3).
I fail to see how the lesbian couple who live three houses down from me detract from my marriage. I fail to see how them becoming legally bound would detract from my marriage.
Somebody please explain. Will I love my wife less? Will our bond become less tight? How exactly will the private affairs of gay couples damage my marriage?
I have been thinking on this and i think i have come up with the answer...
People who believe gay marriage will make hetro marriage less will through thier own self belief see less value in marriage if gays get married... so its a self fufilling propehcy for them...
Don't worry yours and other marriages which don't see gay marriage as an insult to marriage will value marriage just as much as before!
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
So you would choose to accept a person regardless of the colour of their skin but wouldn't accept someone because of their sexuality?
:inquisitive:
Yes. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
Your skin colour says nothing about your character, it's not an action. On the other hand, homosexuality is an act and often a lifestyle, don't try to tell me homosexuals act just like anyone else.
How many gays do you know? I know plenty, and they live the same as my straight friends. Eat the same food, watch the same movies, many even dress the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
You seem to be making homosexuals out into animals rather than people. :inquisitive:
homosexuality is an act and often a lifestyle,
Is an act... people go through thier whole lives pertending to have a sexual orientation ?
I don't doubt there are some who choose to be gay.. or who just don't really mind if thier with a man or a woman.. but for some people it is who they are as much as you didn't choose to be hetorsexual...
don't try to tell me homosexuals act just like anyone else.
Don't try to tell me whites act just like anyone else
dont try to tell me blacks act like just anyone else
dont try to tell me asians act like anyone else
dont try to tell me disabled people act like anyone else
All these groups share lots of similaritys but there are characteristics common or more common within the groups... my point people born with little differences act different..
don't try to tell me homosexuals act just like anyone else.
Marriage is public and private.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Note that the majority of sodomy laws also banned you from performing orally on your wife. People did hard time for that. No, really. I'm ashamed that we ever had such laws on the books in any state.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Fair point, fair point. That said, however, if I had to petition my township or my state to marry the woman I love, I would feel an anger that is hard to even begin put in words.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I'll concede that marriage is both public and private, that's an excellent point you make. So if you're opposed to public recognition of marriage in this case, how would you address the private side? If people want to live in monogamous, long-term relationships, why should we discourage that?
Do you think heterosexual men like you and me would behave differently if it were illegal for us to marry? Would that be desirable? If not, why should we encourage the exact behavior that we find undesirable in the gay population?
And once again, how will two old coots finally getting married materially affect my relationship with my wife?
I've met a few. I don't think they are animals, I just think their sexual preferences impact more on their personality than, say, their skin colour. To be frank, most of them were the drama queen type. There was one person on work experience who was a genuinely nice guy. But then, he was also, em, flamboyant, which is part of his character.Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlXII
I didn't say its all bad, but if we're being honest, homosexuals do tend to be different.
For all the "OMG Christians say people choose to be gay" comments, there isn't really any convincing proof that it isn't a choice. I also don't buy the 'population control' argument, since it's seeen in all cultures in all times and socioeconomicgeographicblabla situations, and humans must have been in short supply in the old hunter-gatherer days. I didn't choose to be heterosexual because that is the default for any person.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Obviosuly the culture people are brought up in influences how they act, but that's not the same as race itself. People from different cultures do act different because they hold different values, I'm not saying any are superior. If they were brought up in a different culture, they would hold to those values, regardless of their 'race'.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
But really, homosexuals do act differently from other people, and its because of their homosexuality. I'm not saying they're evil, but I don't see how this can be denied.
lol..Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
I know gay people and they're exactly like you and me, minus the fact they prefer to sleep with members of the same sex. Sure some act more camp, but that can probably be explained due to the fact they have a different set of hormones going on. It's bound to make them act a bit more feminine in a mans case or masculine in a women's. You also give me the impression you've been living under a rock if you think that great stereotype applies to all homosexual people. Out of the gay people I know, I can honestly say non of them act so differently that they stand out as gay, If you met any of them you probably wouldn't tell to be honest.
To also suggest it's a lifestyle choice is ridiculous. Are you honestly saying that some one would choose to be rejected by society and to openly choose a life of prejudice and hostility?
:inquisitive:
Oh really? "Proof" is a bit of a loaded word in the scientific world. There's no definitive "proof" of gravity, but there's a hell of a lot of evidence. So a less guano-filled way of saying that would be "There isn't really any evidence that it isn't a choice." And that statement would be as false as can be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Fraternal birth order may affect homosexuality
Homosexual study cites hormonal link
What makes people gay?
Relevant quote:
Then, in 1991, a neuroscientist in San Diego named Simon LeVay told the world he had found a key difference between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men he studied. LeVay showed that a tiny clump of neurons of the anterior hypothalamus - which is believed to control sexual behavior - was, on average, more than twice the size in heterosexual men as in homosexual men. LeVay's findings did not speak directly to the nature-vs.-nurture debate - the clumps could, theoretically, have changed size because of homosexual behavior. But that seemed unlikely, and the study ended up jump-starting the effort to prove a biological basis for homosexuality. [...]
In 1993 came the biggest news: Dean Hamer's discovery of the "gay gene." In fact, Hamer, a Harvard-trained researcher at the National Cancer Institute, hadn't quite put it that boldly or imprecisely. He found that gay brothers shared a specific region of the X chromosome, called Xq28, at a higher rate than gay men shared with their straight brothers. Hamer and others suggested this finding would eventually transform our understanding of sexual orientation.
So on the face of it you are correct, there is no proof. But "proof" is a chimera, a misused word that should not be applied in the practical sciences. There is no "proof" of the particle/wave theory of light. There is no "proof" of thermodynamics. There is only evidence and testing. (You can prove things in mathematics, though, and that's loads of fun for the whole family.)
Let me ask you this: When did you decide to be attracted to women? Say you're thirteen or so, and the hormones are just kicking in. Did you lie there in your Yoda-themed Star Wars sheets and ask yourself, "Do I want to make the beast with two backs or kiss boys where they pee?" Please describe the thought process that led you to "choose" to be attracted to women instead of, say, Thai Ladyboys.
For all the "OMG Christians say people choose to be gay" comments, there isn't really any convincing proof that it isn't a choice.
What proof as i have seen lies on the side of it being nature over nurutre but i agree theres nothing concrete either way...
The things that do sway me...
Gay animals... these guys are obviously not in it to look cool
Gays throughout history... despite being looked down on and persecuted with the best of them people were still being gay... these people were either born gay or seriously sadistic...
Friend, in comprehensive school he acted gay all the way through... when i was younger he was my proof that just because people act gay doesn't mean they are gay... towards the end of school he came out....
Now either he had a really long term plan that he was going to be gay or he was just born with it...
Edit: just to calrify though i foun out the other day about another old friend who has come out as gay... i was shocked he had girlfriends ect. and didn't seem at all like he was gay....
I didn't choose to be heterosexual because that is the default for any person.
So are you attracted to members of the opposite sex because its the default or because of chemical reactions that make you attracted to a person ?
Obviosuly the culture people are brought up in influences how they act, but that's not the same as race itself.
My point is that with almost any grouping of people you can find charateristics that are more common in that group of people than the average...
A collection of policemen, a group of ex army vets, some people from highland scotland a group of people born with non working legs...
These people have shared common experience as gays (or disabled or police) they have been eqaully discriminated against or been to eqaully fabolous partys, or buy the same magazines which give them a slight different fashion sense..
Every grouping of people acts slightly different from the norm...
Many gay men are drama queens, I also find that personality to be annoying. But there are personality stereotypes for religious vs atheist, white vs black etc etc, and you know that it isn't inherent in them, so on what basis do you single out gay people?Quote:
I've met a few. I don't think they are animals, I just think their sexual preferences impact more on their personality than, say, their skin colour. To be frank, most of them were the drama queen type. There was one person on work experience who was a genuinely nice guy. But then, he was also, em, flamboyant, which is part of his character.
I didn't say its all bad, but if we're being honest, homosexuals do tend to be different.
https://img24.imageshack.us/img24/29...peareportr.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
PLAGIARISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hi,
To all those who wish to use Leviticus as an arguement:
What's the conversion from Judaic silver shekals to £ Sterling, just incase I see any of your daughters in a city and want to rape her?
More to the point, instituting "gay marriage" redefines marriage as an institution. While Western marriage may be monogomous, following the Romans, I know of no culture where marriage has not involved one man and one woman. Which is not to say there aren't plenty of places where people (usually men) can marry more than one person.
So, this is really about changing our language, and thereby our culture.