Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Like most C-D libnuts I think you're confusing Republican with religious conservatives. These are two different groups.
Not any more they're not.
Look, I was a staunch Republican. Not only did I vote for Bush, I worked on his campaign and met him several times. But the knuckle dragging religious nutballs have taken over the asylum. Abortion, gay marriage, contraception, you name it. The anti-sex contingent of the religious right is turning people, especially younger people, off in huge numbers.
I'm still a fiscal conservative. I think Obama has been, and will continue to be, a disaster economically. I think we're already taxed at confiscatory rates.
But they drove me out with their insistence upon putting social (mostly sexual) issues such high priority.
I do have a relative that committed suicide because he was gay and it wasn't accepted in his family.
It still doesn't change my political viewpoint. I'm a republican and not because of social issues. They don't affect me at all when voting unless there is a social issue bring voted on.
I could care less if gay people want to marry. Doesn't affect me. The way politicians spend my money affects me greatly and that's what I listen for before voting.
When are you people going to realize that social issues have no place in national politics.
I have no problem with civil unions, just think marriage should stay normal, man and woman. And gays are abnormal. No matter how media and Hollywood pushes them on society, men acting half like a girl and talking with a speech impediment is not normal. Being sexually attracted to your own is not normal. I don't hate then for that but I'm not going to smile on it as if its normal and not sick and disturbing, born that way or not
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980
I don't think you understand the meaning of "normal," since it doesn't generally mean "less worthy than the norm" - it only means NOT the norm, as in statistically less common. Left-handed people are less common than right-handed, redheads are less common than brunettes, Black Americans are less common than Hispanic Americans, etc. Do any of these groups deserve less than equal rights in your mind, simply because they don't make up the majority?
You think all gay men talk with a lisp? Maybe you really DO need to stop listening to Hollywood, because that's only the more common trait in TV/movies. Seriously, you need to get out more.
And how does representing a subset of society = "pushing them on you?" If they make a movie featuring Hindus, are they pushing Hinduism on the whole country? GLBTQ folks make up a large enough percentage of Americans (estimates range from 2-10%, maybe more if you're including bisexuals), that they should & will be represented in our media.
Not normal, as in not the majority? That is true, although I don't see why it matters. But if you mean not natural, that would be empirically false.
"I don't hate *insert ethnic group* - but don't expect me to smile and act as if they're normal, and not sick and inferior to my ethnic group." See how hypocritical and hateful that sounds? You do hate, and that is your right... but don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise, because most of us aren't buying that for a dollar.
Not everything can have a normal version.
If five jelly beans are orange, four are blue, six are green and five are red, there is no "normal" color for these jelly beans.
The variables are too numerous and no specific type significantly outnumbers the others.
If 20 jelly beans are blue and 1 is red, the norm for this sample would be blue because the possibilities are limited to two and one type significantly outnumbers the other.
Since a person may have sex with a member of the opposite sex or a member of the same sex, and since heterosexuals significantly outnumber homosexuals, it is normal to be heterosexual.
As for handedness, it is normal to be right-handed, but since people are symmetrical, unless you're playing baseball or using scissors, handedness is not a material issue.
Sexuality is a material issue since heterosexuals follow nature's plan by using their sex organs in the manner for which they were intended.
As for races, since several exist and all are well represented, there is no normal race.
There should be one law for everybody. Why should we have identical laws, but with different names, for different groups of people based on arbitrary characteristics?
And why stop at the gay/straight distinction? Perhaps we should use the term "civil shacking-ups" for atheist couples, "civil mixings" for mixed faith and mixed race couples, etc (we don't want the Godless, miscegenationists, or Christians who sinfully marry outside the faith sullying the word marriage either).
We had one law for everyone.
It was called marriage and allowed anyone and everyone to marry one unrelated adult member of the opposite sex.
Now you want one law for everyone even though some of us will be doing something different from others.
Arbitrary characteristics is not the same as fundamentally different relationships.
Shacking-up doesn't require a license and mixed race and mixed faith marriages are covered under the current form of marriage.
Gotta love how conservatives are now desperately trying to just hold onto a word in this fight. It wasn't long ago that republicans were voting in favOr of employers being able to fire people for being gay. Conservatives know they have lost this fight, and after the decades of political hell that they have put gays and their supporters through we will be damned before we compromise on anything. Nope, we want the word marriage too!
Last I heard all but a handful of the states still prohibit same-sex marriage.
Actually, the word marriage is the only thing you really want.
It's socialized respectability, so there's plenty for both homosexuals and liberals to like.
Many Republicans ARE tolerant and accepting of gays.
Like most C-D libnuts I think you're confusing Republican with religious conservatives. These are two different groups.
I know Republicans/conservatives all look the same to you because you've been brainwashed by CNN/BSNBC to be bigoted and short-sighted about people from those scary Red States but in reality there are many differences between the groups, and this includes the Tea Partiers as well.
I love how you chide people for lumping all Republicans together, while calling liberals names and stereotyping them... that's rich!
P.S. I know there are different types of "righties" (just as there are different types of "lefties"), and never watch those two channels you mentioned. Stop being such a darned hypocrite.
There were times when Obama opposed homosexual "marriage." When he did, I wonder if he accepted support from "bigots and homophobes?"
Have you ever posted a link or photo NOT from Fox News? I like how the above poster claims all liberals watch CNN & MSNBC, while ignoring the fact that so many right-wingers get 99% of their "news" from Fox.
For the record, I believe Obama has always been for SSM - his official position has just loosened over the years, now that he is settled in his presidency.
Out of curiosity, if I only support marriages between people of the same race and religion, would you consider that acceptable?
I think only whites should be able to marry whites, blacks only blacks, asians only asians, etc. And God forbid a Catholic marry a Buddhist, or a Baptist.
As long as you don't try to pass any laws over it, I couldn't care less what you believe. My childhood Rabbi didn't believe in inter-faith marriages, so my sister had to get another Rabbi to perform her ceremony (marrying a non-Jew). No big deal, and despite the irrational fears of some, religious institutions still have the freedom to marry or not marry who they choose.
Yes, words typically change through common usage and not by an aggressive act of an overreaching government.
What you are trying to do is put the state in charge word use and word meaning.
Did you learn nothing from "1984"?
Normal or otherwise depends on the number of possibilities and the degree to which one possibility outnumbers the other.
Since two sexes exist and females only slightly outnumber males, there is no normal sex to belong to.
Not clearly belonging to one or the other would be abnormal.
Being a red head cannot be abnormal because hair color may be any of hundreds of possibilities.
There is no normal hair color.
There is no normal eye color.
There is no normal skin pigmentation.
There is no normal ethnicity.
There is no normal language.
There is no normal age.
Sex may take place between members of the opposite sex or members of the same sex.
This means sexuality options are heterosexuality, homosexuality or both (bi-sexuality).
As for the same-sex marriage debate, since an individual can only marry one person and by far the greatest part of the population is heterosexual, heterosexuality is the norm.
To fail to recognize it as such is illogical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980
Real life isn't a George Orwell book, and the state is in charge of changing many words' meanings... even the word marriage has been "redefined" numerous times already, changing the parts about women not being property, different races not being allowed to marry, etc. Why are you only concerned about THIS change specifically?
Who is failing to recognize that? We all realize heterosexuality is the "norm," we just don't think civil rights should be limited to the "norm." As long as they're not physically hurting anyone, what reason exists to deny them this legal benefit? Just because they aren't part of the normal crowd is no justification, at least not one based on sensible logic. I know you fail to see the validity of my analogies, but they really do have a connection... to get more specific, since Christian weddings are most common in the US, why do we allow Jews to marry?
White women were property?
Have a link?
I'd love to read the legal text.
"Why are you only concerned about THIS change specifically?"
I'm concerned about any government action that rejects reason in favor of that which is officially sanctioned by the state.
What can I say?
I'm a thought criminal.
A Jew can marry a Christian and as long as one is male and one is female, this marriage will be in harmony with nature's design.
I know you want to ignore the biology involved in marriage, but the point to marrying one unrelated adult member of the opposite sex is to provide a secure environment in which to raise children.
Without marriage, a man could start an unlimited number of families with any number of women.
Both male and female infidelity need to be controlled and marriage is the means by which it is controlled.
In the case of homosexuals, same-sex unions do not create children such that gay sex needs to be regulated in the same manner as heterosexual sex.
Of course you'll just ignore that, and not because it isn't true.
You'll ignore it because it doesn't fit in with what you want to be true.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many Republicans ARE tolerant and accepting of gays.
