| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/06/2009 07:28:59 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by yanko:
To use a sports analogy, the game is tied 50-50 and one side just made a 50-0 run. Which team do you think will get all the press? Don't kid yourself, it's only 50-50 at the moment. Those against gay marriage is destined to lose just like those who opposed every other minority right in the past. |
So when do I get on the polygamy bandwagon? |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 07:38:46 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by david_c:
Why does support for "traditional" marriage necessitate opposition to gay marriage? |
It doesn't.
It's necessary to oppose it based on a belief system, but you don't have to....you could just concern yourself with your own relationship.....8>)
|
|
|
|
05/06/2009 07:44:18 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by yanko:
To use a sports analogy, the game is tied 50-50 and one side just made a 50-0 run. Which team do you think will get all the press? Don't kid yourself, it's only 50-50 at the moment. Those against gay marriage is destined to lose just like those who opposed every other minority right in the past. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So when do I get on the polygamy bandwagon? |
What I don't understand is the all-or-nothing scenario.
None of the human rights issues that are (mostly) resolved were done overnight, and we actually have progressed futher and faster on gay rights than anything I can remember, and have read about.....why can't there be more acceptance, compromise, and gratitude on both sides.
Though on a personal level I think Carrie Prejean is a twit, I don't think she deserved to be roasted on a spit for her comments.
Now having joined NOM, I think she deserves whatever comes her way since they are for the most part lying scum....no offense, of course.....8>)
Edited for fat fingers....
Message edited by author 2009-05-06 19:45:08.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2009 07:54:30 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
What I don't understand is the all-or-nothing scenario. |
I'm unclear what you are applying the all-or-nothing to. In a debate the all-or-nothing is the most easily defensible position intellectually, but it is rarely the most practical.
The Christian Science Monitor had an interesting article where they pointed out Prejean basically summarized Obama's position on gay marriage with her answer, albeit with much less "nuance". Let the states decide but personally I'm against gay marriage. That is apparently the position of both Prejean AND Obama. And Obama's not nearly as good looking! (although he doesn't augment as far as I know...)
Message edited by author 2009-05-06 19:54:49. |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 08:03:36 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
What I don't understand is the all-or-nothing scenario. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm unclear what you are applying the all-or-nothing to. In a debate the all-or-nothing is the most easily defensible position intellectually, but it is rarely the most practical. |
Sorry.....I was referring to the general uncompromising hardline that opponents take with each other.
Is it any shock to anyone that someone from a beauty pageant is not exactly a cutting edge thinker?
I mean, it's a low-brow, archaic, past-its-day ceremony in the first place, generally not a source of modern thinking and highly intelligent, world wise people in the first place.
I don't image that there are a lot of forward thinking parents of these women.....what other kind of background would you expect from a contestant?
Anita Bryant was a beauty queen.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The Christian Science Monitor had an interesting article where they pointed out Prejean basically summarized Obama's position on gay marriage with her answer, albeit with much less "nuance". Let the states decide but personally I'm against gay marriage. That is apparently the position of both Prejean AND Obama. And Obama's not nearly as good looking! (although he doesn't augment as far as I know...) |
Like I said, I certainly don't think she deserved to be vilified, but to be fair, you have to admit that a little turnabout gives the other side something to think about.
How do the people who oppose gay marriage like the same kind of treatment that they feel is okay to use against gay marriage when it's applied to them?
Message edited by author 2009-05-06 20:04:02.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2009 08:08:04 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
How do the people who oppose gay marriage like the same kind of treatment that they feel is okay to use against gay marriage when it's applied to them? |
Wait, but this goes both ways. We got gay marriage people cursing at the anti-gay marriage people and vice versa. It's not like the hate has just been flowing one way and finally the anti-gay marriage crowd is getting a taste of their own medicine. Wasn't Hilton's response far more hateful than Prejean's answer? Did you see some of the crap I dragged up on blogs cited by google news? It's ugly. Agree or disagree with what she says, but I have never heard Prejean resort to name calling. That's just childish. |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 08:08:43 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
To use a sports analogy, the game is tied 50-50 and one side just made a 50-0 run. Which team do you think will get all the press? Don't kid yourself, it's only 50-50 at the moment. Those against gay marriage is destined to lose just like those who opposed every other minority right in the past. |
So when do I get on the polygamy bandwagon? |
I don't know. Maybe check with your local religious fundamentalist to see how much traction that's getting. If you miss that one I'm sure you can get the next bandwagon at that infamous slippery slope you like hanging around. :)
Message edited by author 2009-05-06 20:12:04. |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 08:13:10 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
To use a sports analogy, the game is tied 50-50 and one side just made a 50-0 run. Which team do you think will get all the press? Don't kid yourself, it's only 50-50 at the moment. Those against gay marriage is destined to lose just like those who opposed every other minority right in the past. |
So when do I get on the polygamy bandwagon? |
I don't know. Maybe check with your local religious fundamentalist to see how much traction that's getting. If you miss that one I'm sure you can get the next bandwagon on that infamous slippery slope you like hanging around at. :) |
And why do you consider the scoring to be 50-0 lately when we have three presidents in a row against gay marriage (and I only say 3 because I don't know the position before that), a federal congress who's last bill on the subject is against it, and 45 of 50 states that currently do not allow it? I think your score counting is a bit optimistic. Even if we look at the states which have supported gay marriage we are obviously seeing advocates grab the "low hanging fruit". You see the tide changing in Florida, Texas, Idaho, Arkansas anytime soon? |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 08:19:00 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
How do the people who oppose gay marriage like the same kind of treatment that they feel is okay to use against gay marriage when it's applied to them? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Wait, but this goes both ways. |
Now, yes.....but until recently, you could be arrested, beaten to death (still can in certain areas), and in general abused, scorned, and mistreated, not to mention fired, court-martialed, and a whole other list of reprehensible activities and behaviors.
The name Matthew Shepard ring a bell? Westboro Baptist? Save Our Children?
Remember them, Jason?
|
|
|
|
05/06/2009 08:23:24 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
How do the people who oppose gay marriage like the same kind of treatment that they feel is okay to use against gay marriage when it's applied to them? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Wait, but this goes both ways. |
Now, yes.....but until recently, you could be arrested, beaten to death (still can in certain areas), and in general abused, scorned, and mistreated, not to mention fired, court-martialed, and a whole other list of reprehensible activities and behaviors.
The name Matthew Shepard ring a bell? Westboro Baptist? Save Our Children?
Remember them, Jason? |
Waitaminute Jeb. I think you are walking on very thin ice by making the assumption that Prejean and others against gay marriage would support this behavior. ("the same kind of treatment that they feel is okay to use against gay marraige"). That is patently untrue in the vast majority of cases. |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 08:24:16 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by yanko:
To use a sports analogy, the game is tied 50-50 and one side just made a 50-0 run. Which team do you think will get all the press? Don't kid yourself, it's only 50-50 at the moment. Those against gay marriage is destined to lose just like those who opposed every other minority right in the past. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So when do I get on the polygamy bandwagon? |
Why do opponents always try to throw polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality into the fray as if they're even remotely of the same circumstance?
If you're going to say that some people can't help those urges any more than a sociopath can't do anything about their murderous inclinations, then you have to include them, too.
Then the whole discussion becomes theater of the absurd, and the bottom line is that it's not longer about the homosexual act, it's about the commitment of two people who want to build a life together and just want to be left alone to do so the same way that you and I do......and take it for granted.
Yet people have all kind of bullshit reasons for telling others they cannot do what they already are doing.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2009 08:27:59 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by yanko:
To use a sports analogy, the game is tied 50-50 and one side just made a 50-0 run. Which team do you think will get all the press? Don't kid yourself, it's only 50-50 at the moment. Those against gay marriage is destined to lose just like those who opposed every other minority right in the past. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So when do I get on the polygamy bandwagon? |
Why do opponents always try to throw polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality into the fray as if they're even remotely of the same circumstance?
If you're going to say that some people can't help those urges any more than a sociopath can't do anything about their murderous inclinations, then you have to include them, too.
Then the whole discussion becomes theater of the absurd, and the bottom line is that it's not longer about the homosexual act, it's about the commitment of two people who want to build a life together and just want to be left alone to do so the same way that you and I do......and take it for granted.
Yet people have all kind of bullshit reasons for telling others they cannot do what they already are doing. |
Whoa champ. Polygamy would be about the commitment of more than two people who want to build a life together and just want to be left alone. I didn't bring up the other issues here and I think the similarities are quite striking. Minority population doing something that they view doesn't hurt anybody which is currently not allowed. How hard is it for you to explain to me why gay marriage should be allowed but polygamy NOT be allowed? I'm just taking Richard's post to its logical conclusion. He forsees the day polygamy will be allowed. I was just wondering when I should expect it.
Message edited by author 2009-05-06 20:29:41. |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 08:29:37 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by david_c:
@ glad2badad...I'm not sure I've ever understood this position. Why does support for "traditional" marriage necessitate opposition to gay marriage? |
Wait, can you guys pick that up on the other thread? It's nice and juicy and long and I'd hate to wreck this thread which is more about the media and how they approach something like this.
No offense to anybody out there... ;) |
|
|
|
|
05/06/2009 08:30:10 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by david_c:
@ glad2badad...I'm not sure I've ever understood this position. Why does support for "traditional" marriage necessitate opposition to gay marriage? |
Wait, can you guys pick that up on the other thread? It's nice and juicy and long and I'd hate to wreck this thread which is more about the media and how they approach something like this.
No offense to anybody out there... ;) |
|
Thanks keeg. Good point. |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 08:30:26 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
To use a sports analogy, the game is tied 50-50 and one side just made a 50-0 run. Which team do you think will get all the press? Don't kid yourself, it's only 50-50 at the moment. Those against gay marriage is destined to lose just like those who opposed every other minority right in the past. |
So when do I get on the polygamy bandwagon? |
I don't know. Maybe check with your local religious fundamentalist to see how much traction that's getting. If you miss that one I'm sure you can get the next bandwagon on that infamous slippery slope you like hanging around at. :) |
And why do you consider the scoring to be 50-0 lately when we have three presidents in a row against gay marriage (and I only say 3 because I don't know the position before that), a federal congress who's last bill on the subject is against it, and 45 of 50 states that currently do not allow it? I think your score counting is a bit optimistic. Even if we look at the states which have supported gay marriage we are obviously seeing advocates grab the "low hanging fruit". You see the tide changing in Florida, Texas, Idaho, Arkansas anytime soon? |
Umm you're the one who came up with the 50/50 number. Regardless of what the actual split is the story doesn't change. Those in favor of gay marriage continues to increase.
Message edited by author 2009-05-06 20:33:18.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2009 08:31:04 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Surely you understand that the media particularly in America is about sensationalism and they like to polarize the community, nothing like a bit of sensationalism to sell a story. |
Oh, I surely understand this. My question is why don't we stand up more often and call bullshit on it? |
Because it's entertaining and I think sometimes we like to get all excited about stuff. The best way to stand up is to stop watching. |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 08:32:13 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
How do the people who oppose gay marriage like the same kind of treatment that they feel is okay to use against gay marriage when it's applied to them? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Wait, but this goes both ways. |
Now, yes.....but until recently, you could be arrested, beaten to death (still can in certain areas), and in general abused, scorned, and mistreated, not to mention fired, court-martialed, and a whole other list of reprehensible activities and behaviors.
The name Matthew Shepard ring a bell? Westboro Baptist? Save Our Children?
Remember them, Jason? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Waitaminute Jeb. I think you are walking on very thin ice by making the assumption that Prejean and others against gay marriage would support this behavior. ("the same kind of treatment that they feel is okay to use against gay marraige"). That is patently untrue in the vast majority of cases. |
You're absolutely right, Jason, but there was a time when it wasn't considered a horrible thing to beat the shit out of a gay man......just for being gay.
It was a redneck sport at one time.
It was also cool to lynch a black man for speaking to a white woman.
But people looked the other way for all too long.
I'm just talking about how this woman is now experiencing the backlash of the same kind of treatment that a gay man might have gotten had he stopped into the wrong convenience store while traveling...."Get out of here, faggot, we don't let your kind in here!".
That's what I mean.
She no more deserved the treatment that she got.....but maybe opponents of gay marriage have a thing or two to think about now......liike the feelings of the very real gay portion of our population.
It isn't okay to speak out against them and not expect backlash.
Tell me I can't have or do something 'cause I'm a UU and we'll have words because my religious freedom is guaranteed......what about Mousie's rights as a human being to make a life with his partner without interference from anyone who doesn't even know him?
I think that in and of itself is abhorrent.
You have a right to your views and opinions, but when you try to discriminate against others so that they may not have the same rights as you, then hold on to your hat.
SAnd that's really and truly the only way that's fair.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2009 08:34:58 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Whoa champ. Polygamy would be about the commitment of more than two people who want to build a life together and just want to be left alone. I didn't bring up the other issues here and I think the similarities are quite striking. Minority population doing something that they view doesn't hurt anybody which is currently not allowed. How hard is it for you to explain to me why gay marriage should be allowed but polygamy NOT be allowed? I'm just taking Richard's post to its logical conclusion. He forsees the day polygamy will be allowed. I was just wondering when I should expect it. |
Subterfuge!.....8>)
I don't think it'll happen in either of our lifetime, though to be honest, the acceptance, and legality of gay marriage would take it one step closer.
Personally, I don't care.......it's certainly obvious that one man cannot possibly satisfy the needs, and capabilities of one woman, so if she wants tow, or more husbands, I say go for it!
|
|
|
|
05/06/2009 08:55:52 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Whoa champ. Polygamy would be about the commitment of more than two people who want to build a life together and just want to be left alone. I didn't bring up the other issues here and I think the similarities are quite striking. Minority population doing something that they view doesn't hurt anybody which is currently not allowed. How hard is it for you to explain to me why gay marriage should be allowed but polygamy NOT be allowed? I'm just taking Richard's post to its logical conclusion. He forsees the day polygamy will be allowed. I was just wondering when I should expect it. |
Huh. Perhaps you're confusing one of my posts with one of your strawmen arguments? You're the one hinting that polygmay is next, not I.
Message edited by author 2009-05-06 20:58:54. |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 09:25:29 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Huh. Perhaps you're confusing one of my posts with one of your strawmen arguments? You're the one hinting that polygmay is next, not I. |
Maybe I didn't realize you weren't egalitarian in your declaration of what constitutes a "minority right" when you said, "Those against gay marriage is destined to lose just like those who opposed every other minority right in the past. "
We can spare the thread though and jaw at each other on IM if you want... :)
Message edited by author 2009-05-06 21:45:35. |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 09:46:50 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Huh. Perhaps you're confusing one of my posts with one of your strawmen arguments? You're the one hinting that polygmay is next, not I. |
Maybe I didn't realize you weren't egalitarian in your declaration of what constitutes a "minority right" when you said, "Those against gay marriage is destined to lose just like those who opposed every other minority right in the past. " |
Polygamy (and all the other variations in sexual practices which come up in these discussions) are not at issue, because what is at issue is one of equal protection under/application of the law, as mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment and numerous State Constitutions.
As I've stated numberous times, marriage can be restricted to any two adult, competent, unmarried, unrelated humans without discriminating on the basis of gender, and without greasing any slippery slopes.
Sometimes I think you're being deliberately obtuse on this point, when you don't avoid it altogether.
Message edited by author 2009-05-06 21:47:35. |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 09:54:10 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Huh. Perhaps you're confusing one of my posts with one of your strawmen arguments? You're the one hinting that polygmay is next, not I. |
Maybe I didn't realize you weren't egalitarian in your declaration of what constitutes a "minority right" when you said, "Those against gay marriage is destined to lose just like those who opposed every other minority right in the past. " |
I'm not the one putting forth an argument so I don't get why you are jumping to all these conclusions. I have not expressed any views on polgmay nor made any predictions in it's future legal status.
Message edited by author 2009-05-06 21:55:09. |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 10:43:58 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So when do I get on the polygamy bandwagon? |
Out here about 30 east of us is a town called Colorado City (you might have heard of it). By my figuring , you being the good doctor and all, and the high dollar tithing you are good for. Well hell you should be good for 8 maybe 10 wife̢۪s or so.. ;p
|
|
|
|
05/06/2009 10:52:31 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Does the media have an extra beef against Christian hypocrites? Maybe? I dunno. |
Ah yes, ever since the Middle Ages, Christians have had a hankering to be martyrs again. Sorry, but you can't take over Western culture *and* be persecuted (except of course in certain non-Western areas). I'd gladly grant you the latter, but the former is the card you've been dealt.
But who knows? What goes up, must come down, and maybe you'll get some martyrs on the way down. |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 11:27:22 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Sometimes I think you're being deliberately obtuse on this point, when you don't avoid it altogether. |
Aw Paul, why do you have to be such a playah hatah? What you are doing is nothing but saying, "I want the line to be HERE!" which is the same as anybody else. Blah blah blah.
What's your take on the media aspect? Sensationalism as usual? Ax to grind? Unbiased?
But since you are always into the legal aspect, if the California Supreme Court upholds Prop 8, is it a case of, "well, that's what the court says, so that's the way it's gonna be"? You seem to be quickest to equate legal judgement with right and wrong.
Message edited by author 2009-05-06 23:27:57. |
|
