Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

11/13/2009 02:06:27 PM · #2901

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You do recall that I am a card carrying Democrat and hate Fox news with a passion...

That doesn't change the fact that the views you express are classic conservatism, and therefore the opinions of a conservative offering any sort of justification for those views would resonate with you. Someone offering justification for slavery would similarly resonate with a slaveholder, no matter how honorable or reasonable the latter might otherwise be.

11/13/2009 02:11:04 PM · #2902

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You do recall that I am a card carrying Democrat and hate Fox news with a passion...

That doesn't change the fact that the views you express are classic conservatism, and therefore the opinions of a conservative offering any sort of justification for those views would resonate with you. Someone offering justification for slavery would similarly resonate with a slaveholder, no matter how honorable or reasonable the latter might otherwise be.

Thanks for reducing me to a knee-jerk reactionist Shannon. Glad to know you think I'm capable of independent thought.

Robert, I read the second article and liked that as well. Although he is clearly against gay marriage, he does present both sides as being reasonable. I liked the last paragraph and think we need more of it on threads like this:

"None of this is a case per se against gay marriage, for which a strong moral argument certainly can be made. It is rather to say that with gay marriage proponents racking up loss after loss in state balloting, they would do well to quit falling back on the self-serving "bigotry" excuse and do what they (quite justifiably) ask of their opponents: imagine what this issue looks like through the eyes of people not like themselves. "

11/13/2009 02:18:47 PM · #2903

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Thanks for reducing me to a knee-jerk reactionist Shannon. Glad to know you think I'm capable of independent thought.

I didn't "reduce" you to anything. It's a simple truth that the opinions of those who agree with you on any issue (especially where objective facts are lacking or subject to question) are going to resonate with you. The guy is reading talking points off a Rush Limbaugh playbook, and his foundational assertions are demonstrably untrue (see 2nd comment for a list), thereby undermining what might otherwise sound like logical rationale.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

11/13/2009 02:49:32 PM · #2904

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Robert, I read the second article and liked that as well. Although he is clearly against gay marriage, he does present both sides as being reasonable. I liked the last paragraph and think we need more of it on threads like this:

"None of this is a case per se against gay marriage, for which a strong moral argument certainly can be made. It is rather to say that with gay marriage proponents racking up loss after loss in state balloting, they would do well to quit falling back on the self-serving "bigotry" excuse and do what they (quite justifiably) ask of their opponents: imagine what this issue looks like through the eyes of people not like themselves. "

The sad fact is that "bigotry" is indeed at the forefront of the argument, regardless on how hard one tries to disguise it.

The comment: "imagine what this issue looks like through the eyes of people not like themselves" pre-supposes that all who take issue with the anti-gay marriage stance fall into the "People not like themselves" group.

Similarly, shall we assume that those who support gay marriages are devoid of morals, or are only the morals of some worthy of consideration.

Makes me glad I live in Canada.

Ray

Message edited by author 2009-11-13 14:50:04.

11/13/2009 03:09:51 PM · #2905

This is what utterly frustrates me about this thread. Did either Ray or Shannon actually read the entire quote?

Would Rush Limbaugh actually utter the words, "None of this is a case per se against gay marriage, for which a strong moral argument certainly can be made."? The answer is not no, it's HELL NO! To equate this author with Limbaugh is really beyond the pale.

Similarly Ray, do you think this author "assumes that those who support gay marriage are devoid of morals" when he just wrote that "a strong moral argument certainly can be made (to support gay marriage)?

Honestly, people. Who are the sheep here? I participate in this thread to try to foster communication. I think a few know that. Jeb. Louis. Robert. Even as they disagree with me. But all I'm getting back now is bleating and all I can do is roll my eyes and move on.

Message edited by author 2009-11-13 15:11:12.

11/13/2009 03:38:42 PM · #2906

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Would Rush Limbaugh actually utter the words, "None of this is a case per se against gay marriage, for which a strong moral argument certainly can be made."? The answer is not no, it's HELL NO! To equate this author with Limbaugh is really beyond the pale.

Hanging your hat on one statement as an "out" is like saying you'd have dinner with a black man, therefore you must not be racist. Declaring that same sex marriage is a redefinition or that no society has ever sanctioned it is a myth. Asserting that anti-gay stances are somehow different from Jim Crow laws is an utter fabrication. Try asking slaves to have empathy or understanding for those that oppress themâ�� it's a ludicrous proposition. There is a wide gulf between vandalism and harassment of Prop 8 supporters, and the beatings, murders and degrading public humiliation of gays. It's no contest. The notion that gay marriage is any sort of threat to heterosexual marriage is plain silly, and all of this is entirely consistent with the nonsense that Limbaugh spews. You may not like him or his opinions on some matters, but you're very much a conservative cheerleader on this one.

11/13/2009 03:55:02 PM · #2907

O-key do-key.

baaa.

11/13/2009 04:04:31 PM · #2908

For best effect, wave your pom-poms while you do that. ;-)

11/13/2009 04:09:49 PM · #2909

Originally posted by scalvert:

For best effect, wave your pom-poms while you do that. ;-)

I can't, cuz you ate them... :P

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

11/13/2009 04:12:00 PM · #2910

Originally posted by Louis:

The weakness of the first article is exposed in the last comments: "...people will have to yield to an ideational model of some sort. It is doubtful that any culture can long survive without strong, traditional families and durable moral norms based in a transcendental source."

Just as the author can come up with this kind of argument from thin air, I can say, from thin air, "Tosh".

It reminds me of the religious discussions where the conclusion comes first and then it's wedged into almost anything to give it the guise of legitimacy.

In the other article I found this interesting...

"You can't expect gay folks to privilege religious liberties over their own interests, but likewise, why is it bigoted for religious traditionalists to stand up for what they believe to be bedrock rights â�� rights that will be curtailed by same-sex marriage?"

The author is right in one regard. Just because you're against gay marriage doesn't necessarily make you a bigot. I am however curious about the rights that will be curtailed by same-sex marriage?. Please, kind sir, continue.

Message edited by author 2009-11-13 16:13:41.

11/13/2009 04:14:25 PM · #2911

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:
For best effect, wave your pom-poms while you do that. ;-)

I can't, cuz you ate them... :P

Just trying to filter out the cigar smoke, buddy. ;-D

Louis

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

11/13/2009 04:20:17 PM · #2912

Originally posted by yanko:

The author is right in one regard. Just because you're against gay marriage doesn't necessarily make you a bigot. I am however curious about the rights that will be curtailed by same-sex marriage?. Please, kind sir, continue.

Yes, I was wondering that too. I'm curious how extending the rights of one group to another group winds up restricting the rights of the first group.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/13/2009 04:27:58 PM · #2913

Originally posted by Louis:

I'm curious how extending the rights of one group to another group winds up restricting the rights of the first group.

Well duhhh... it eliminates their exclusivity. Pretty soon you'd have minorities in country clubs, women in professional sports, and former slaves voting. It's the end of the world!

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

11/13/2009 04:32:00 PM · #2914

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Louis:
I'm curious how extending the rights of one group to another group winds up restricting the rights of the first group.

Well duhhh... it eliminates their exclusivity. Pretty soon you'd have minorities in country clubs, women in professional sports, and former slaves voting.

Not to mention atheists getting married at City Hall ...

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

11/13/2009 04:34:11 PM · #2915

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Louis:
I'm curious how extending the rights of one group to another group winds up restricting the rights of the first group.

Well duhhh... it eliminates their exclusivity. Pretty soon you'd have minorities in country clubs, women in professional sports, and former slaves voting.

Not to mention atheists getting married at City Hall ...

God forbid!

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

11/13/2009 04:37:41 PM · #2916

Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Louis:
I'm curious how extending the rights of one group to another group winds up restricting the rights of the first group.

Well duhhh... it eliminates their exclusivity. Pretty soon you'd have minorities in country clubs, women in professional sports, and former slaves voting.

Not to mention atheists getting married at City Hall ...

God forbid!

Speaking of which, I grow weary of seeing the same people ribbon over and over. I didn't realize that my rights were being curtailed. Maybe I should call my congressman...

Louis

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

11/13/2009 05:26:34 PM · #2917

Originally posted by Melethia:

I've always loved the phrase, "Heaven forfend!"

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/13/2009 06:03:37 PM · #2918

Originally posted by Louis:

"Heaven forfend!"

Wonderful word. To save our readers the trouble, debar: prevent the occurrence of; prevent from happening...

R.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/13/2009 06:06:26 PM · #2919

Originally posted by Louis:

I'm curious how extending the rights of one group to another group winds up restricting the rights of the first group.

Well, the *argument* goes something like this: "If you force me to admit women into the membership of my club, you have curtailed my right to associate only with men." I'm not saying it's a *good* argument, but it's by gawd a common one :-)

R.

VitaminB

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

11/13/2009 06:33:09 PM · #2920

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Louis:
I'm curious how extending the rights of one group to another group winds up restricting the rights of the first group.

Well, the *argument* goes something like this: "If you force me to admit women into the membership of my club, you have curtailed my right to associate only with men." I'm not saying it's a *good* argument, but it's by gawd a common one :-)

R.

Where the mens club analogy breaks down, however, is that in a mens club, if you suddenly admitted women, men would have to associate with the women. With gay marriage, nobody is forcing anyone to hang out with gays. Its more that gays would be allowed to have their own 'club' as well.

:)

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

11/13/2009 06:43:23 PM · #2921

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Louis:
I'm curious how extending the rights of one group to another group winds up restricting the rights of the first group.

Well, the *argument* goes something like this: "If you force me to admit women into the membership of my club, you have curtailed my right to associate only with men." I'm not saying it's a *good* argument, but it's by gawd a common one :-)

R.

Where the mens club analogy breaks down, however, is that in a mens club, if you suddenly admitted women, men would have to associate with the women. With gay marriage, nobody is forcing anyone to hang out with gays. Its more that gays would be allowed to have their own 'club' as well.

:)

Correct. That argument would make sense if a law was being proposed that required all churches to wed gay people. This of course isn't the case. However, once you educate people of this fact it doesn't leave much wiggle room to still oppose it without appearing at best incredibly selfish or at worse bigoted.

Message edited by author 2009-11-13 18:44:11.

11/13/2009 07:07:31 PM · #2922

People are afraid one thing will lead to another and that is not a completely irrational fear.

Counselor subject to complain for Yes on 1 ad

If it's happening now, what would happen if/when gay marriage is legal? We all say we are entitled to our own private opinions, but people feel their opinions will be threatened with the passing of these laws. I don't know if it would really happen or not, but apparently we already have examples and I think the worry is, at least, justified.

Excerpt:
Don Mendell, of Palmyra, is the subject of the complaint, filed Oct. 19 with the state Department of Professional and Financial Regulation. According to documents of the complaint, it was sent Oct. 19 by a person only identified as "Ann" and seeks to have Mendell's license as a social worker revoked.

"While Mr. Mendell is entitled to his own personal opinion," the complaint states, "he does not have the right as a licensed social worker to make public comments that can endanger or promote discrimination."

Message edited by author 2009-11-13 19:08:05.

11/13/2009 07:20:13 PM · #2923

Let's also remember that church attendance in Maine is the fifth lowest in the country at 31% answering that they attend church "every week or nearly every week". The sentiment among voters cannot be laid exclusively at the feet of some obsolete, religious fringe.

VitaminB