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.
Gay people will not truly have equality until same-sex marriage is recognized by the federal government. Civil-unions are not the same and
it is discrimination to say that heterosexuals can have marriage but gay people can not. If the holier than thous want to protect the sanctity of marriage then they need to outlaw divorce. with liberty and justice for ALL...ALL means Everyone !
LOL Funny thing though, Mister Kerby, is that the ideological side which is now likely to support gay marriage, are just the latter-day extensions of those who first came out in support of "no-fault" divorce. The whole idea was to weaken the traditional institution of marriage. The cover-story and/or "stalking horse" may have changed over the years, but the basic goal, hasn't. That "argument" is not only a lame attempt at deflection, but borders on a re-write of history itself in terms of just who supported what.
Put another way? Would you, as in you personally, support the "old" divorce laws which very much restricted/limited the "grounds for divorce"? As it is, they were pretty much limited to "alienation of affection" (i.e. an old, amusing, euphemism for refusing to have sex after a long period of time, with your wife/husband! LOL) and "adultry", as well as "non-support" and "abandonment" after a certain time-frame. Just to (essentially) get a divorce approved on the simple premise that "we don't get along" was not valid!
Sooooo? "Kerby"? Please state for the record if you personally believe that grounds of divorce should revert to the "old days" when it involved a lot more than "no fault"? If not? Why not? If it is in the affirmative (i.e. severe restrictions on grounds for divorce), would you likewise apply the same standard to gay couples divorcing (if ever made legal)?
IMHO, that is a fair question to ask...since your position seems to say those folks who do not, are -- by default -- guilty of being "holier than thou" if they don't support outright gay marriage...?
Off on another tangent? Yeah, you are right. It IS discrimination! So what? Is "discrimination" always an evil thing...? I mean, if something is called "discrimination" then -- according to the script -- are we are all supposed to scream in horror and roll over and play dead, or get all apologetic and defensive about it? Sorry, but balony on that!
There is such a thing as "rational discrimination" (I think it was Dinesh D'Souza) who first coined this phrase in his book "The End of Racism."
The reality and truth of it is every one of us "discriminate" in our lives when we choose our friends, places to patronize, where to send our kids to school, etc. Hell, what is "discrimination" anyway? Other than a preference for one thing over another...?
But more to the point, a coherent society cannot exist for long if certain attitudes and values are not generally accepted and shared among the populace. It will either splinter or self-destruct, otherwise. And the blunt truth is that shared definitions of institutions such as marriage are one of them.
Will it mean "discrimination"? Of course it will. But....it doesn't necessarily translate into that the underlying reason for the said discrimination is triggered by blind bigotry or hatred or irrational predjudice toward any certain people/group. Rather, it simply means that a majority of the society prefers the traditional and time-tested ideas/institutions-- for many reasons -- over that of another new concept.
In individual microcosm, I don't think it is a totally false analogy to put it in the frame-work of just because I happen to believe that Texas Independence Day should be a legal holiday in the state, and would very much object to Cinco-De-May becoming one?
Well, yes, that is "discrimination"...but it doesn't mean that the underlying reason is personal animosity toward Mexicans and/or Tejanos! Not at all...
A marriage between two people has NOTHING to do with you or me, so why do anti-gay marriage feel like they have a right to say whether it's right or wrong. It's none of your business. Land of the free my butt. Whatever happened to live and let live. If two loving consenting adults want to marry then why not? [
Quote:
And again, you can't use the slippery slope argument that if gay people can marry each other then what's next? people marrying animals, children etc.
LOL Of course I can use the "slippery slope" argument. I will use it until hell freezes over, far as that goes. Because it is true, for one thing. The lessons of history are rife with the reality of the "slippery slope." Twenty years ago, the crazy notion that marriage was anything but a traditional institution between a man and woman, would have been considered absurd. Can you deny with a straight face that the activists courts are not attempting to alter it today? And haven't been for some time...?
Quote:
They are nowhere near the same level. A rational person can see the difference between consenting adults making decisions for themselves vs underage people/animals/inanimate objects. By your rationale, alcohol should be illegal because if you allow adults the opportunity to obtain and abuse it, who's to say we won't allow kids to start using etc. We are humans and I'd say a great majority of us have better rationality than what you're giving credit for.
You have some really strange ideas on all this. LOL. Your attempted analogy about a connection with alcohol being made illegal borders on the bizarre. This makes no sense at all. For not the least of reasons that public opinion supports the sale of alcohol being legal...but objection to homosexual marriage do not enjoy that same status.
So like I have said before...when it becomes supported by a majority and upheld by courts? Then it should be legalized in the said state. If not? Then not! What is wrong with that?
Why the seeming problem with it being put to popular referendum and use that as the compasss? The only way an objection to such can be construed is that many of those who honk and tap about "tolerance" and "changing"...only embrace it when it lines up with their own beliefs/agenda.
Part of the problem is that TexasReb has shown, repeatedly, that he feels that gay people are unnatural and, thus, not quite the same as regular people.
Ahhhh, geeeez. Get off it, Fillmont. I expected better out of you than this kinda crap. You can't show me once when I said gay people -- as individuals -- are "unnatural." But yep, I sure as hell did say the literal sexual aspect of it is "unnatural." It is; and I am not going to apologize for saying so.
It doesn't make it "evil" or a "mortal sin" or whatever...but it is abnormal in the biological sense of that the main purpose of sex is to reproduce, and that only a man and woman can do so (or at least provide the proper parts).
If one believe (as a I do), that sexual relations can (and do) also have a very close connection with expressing love and affection? Then I agree with that. And I fully believe that homosexual people should not be bullied/persecuted for "expressing it" (in the manner they see it). No problem at all...so long as it is not demanded as being accepted at the point of judicial coersion and that everyone else embrace it as normal.
Me? Sure, I -- and apparently most Americans -- personally find it abnormal and disgusting in all its particulars, and that it obviously goes against laws of nature. And I absolutely DO NOT and never will elevate its practice to the level of traditional marriage. And absolutely not to sanctioning the artificial conception and/or adoption of infants by same-sex couples. Which is about the closest thing to an outrageous and abominable/sick social experiment with children that I can think of ever happening...or society could ever possibly sanction.
Quote:
It is a sad position to take, but he has shown his true feelings several times in this thread. I tried to be civil with him, but when someone basically calls a whole subset of people unnatural, for things out of their control, well, that's when I can't rightly respect that person anymore.
Translation? You can't make your point anymore without resorting to outright falsehoods as to my position, and are trying to steer it all into a ditch. So wanna talk about "respect"...? You really do have an inflated opinion of your own opinions as to scribing....
Quote:
For Reb and others like him, gay and lesbian people are just wrong. No amount of logical reasoning will get him to see otherwise.
*shakes head sadly* First of all, Fillmont, you seem to be under the false impression that I accept your premises to begin with. Worse than that? That I am impressed/intimidated by arguments of the sort you make...which make no sense to begin with, anyway. Just face it, Fillmont. You just confirm what has been repeatedly said. To wit? Those on your end of the spectrum just can't stand disagreement and counter-arguments (unless you can control them).
Heck, it is almost funny (i.e....that statement you make along the lines of "gosh, I tried to reason with (me) and be "logical"...but (I) refuse to adhere to your own delusions of a self-defined righteous high-ground... }
Just a word to the wise? You really should get over believing your own press-notices and that the web-sites you read are representative of what most Americans actually think. And how it is reflected in actually voting; which is the key indicator.
Quote:
Of course, he will then appeal to tradition, claim that we're being intolerant, etc. But, you know, whatever. I don't much care if I have his respect anymore. He's made his position clear. Gay people are inherently wrong and should be seen as such, apparently. After all, that's what we all know in our hearts.
Nice try...but no cee-gar, Fillmont. See all the above. You know damn well almost all of what you attribute to me and my position is really just a frustrated attempt (even though you are careful not to come right out and say so) to deflect the discussion and try and present those who disagree with you and your side as bigots and haters. Because that is the onlyway you can convince yourselves you have the moral high-ground!
Like I say. I expected better out of you than that. But that's ok. It is time to eat some good fried food, read a book, and hit the sack! Have a good night, ya heah?
LOL Of course I can use the "slippery slope" argument. I will use it until hell freezes over, far as that goes. Because it is true, for one thing. The lessons of history are rife with the reality of the "slippery slope." Twenty years ago, the crazy notion that marriage was anything but a traditional institution between a man and woman, would have been considered absurd. Can you deny with a straight face that the activists courts are not attempting to alter it today? And haven't been for some time...?
You have some really strange ideas on all this. LOL. Your attempted analogy about a connection with alcohol being made illegal borders on the bizarre. This makes no sense at all. For not the least of reasons that public opinion supports the sale of alcohol being legal...but objection to homosexual marriage do not enjoy that same status.
So like I have said before...when it becomes supported by a majority and upheld by courts? Then it should be legalized in the said state. If not? Then not! What is wrong with that?
Why the seeming problem with it being put to popular referendum and use that as the compasss? The only way an objection to such can be construed is that many of those who honk and tap about "tolerance" and "changing"...only embrace it when it lines up with their own beliefs/agenda.
And back in the old days we used to think it was ok to own slaves, and separate whites from blacks in restaurants/bathrooms etc. and it used to be ok to deny women the right to vote and beat them with a stick no thicker than our thumbs.
We've progressed as a society. We've become educated, smarter. We realize just because things may be popular during a certain period of time doesn't mean it's right. If somehow a gay person's marriage affected other individuals adversely, I'd see a point to being against it. Fact is it doesn't. Just because a majority of people don't want to allow gay marriage doesn't mean it should be up to them. These marriages are simply none of their damn business, so why don't they mind theirs and take care of theirs and leave other people be?
btw, my analogy made the point, you're just extremely obtuse and don't wanna admit anything that doesn't fall in line with your narrow beliefs. I doubt I'll respond to anymore of your posts. No point, you're wrong and that's that.
And back in the old days we used to think it was ok to own slaves, and separate whites from blacks in restaurants/bathrooms etc. and it used to be ok to deny women the right to vote and beat them with a stick no thicker than our thumbs.
We've progressed as a society. We've become educated, smarter. We realize just because things may be popular during a certain period of time doesn't mean it's right. If somehow a gay person's marriage affected other individuals adversely, I'd see a point to being against it. Fact is it doesn't. Just because a majority of people don't want to allow gay marriage doesn't mean it should be up to them. These marriages are simply none of their damn business, so why don't they mind theirs and take care of theirs and leave other people be?
btw, my analogy made the point, you're just extremely obtuse and don't wanna admit anything that doesn't fall in line with your narrow beliefs. I doubt I'll respond to anymore of your posts. No point, you're wrong and that's that.
Actually, according to Gallup, 53% of Americans support same-sex marriage.
Democrats, Liberals, Independents and Moderates all favor same-sex marriage. Only conservatives and Republicans are opposed.
I'm afraid that to my mind, TexasReb just keeps confirming Fillmont's observations every time TR opens his mouth.
DocJ?,
*thinking and considering about a nano-second*
Now why in the world does it not surprise me in the least that you would take Fillmont's side on all this? LOL
Backtracking...in retrospect, I should probably have never gotten into this thread to begin with. Not for the least of reasons as in that it is invariably the same old scenario, and "no win nor lose"...but dad gummed lengthy...! *Whew*
Whether it be on the Texas forum or in the larger "Politics and Controversies"...any time when the "gay marriage/rights/adoption" topic comes up? Then it is as predictable as the sun rising in the east, that the "gay rights" crowd -- as if drawn to it like sharks to a feeding-frenzy -- will come rushing out in both hysteria and consternation that an opinion contrary to their own -- in both underlying vision and agenda -- can possibly exist. When it is expressed (counter-opinion)? It is attacked with a frustrated fury by those who -- when it comes right down to it -- don't so much counter with good, solid, argument, or explanation....but with name-calling and meaningless labels (such as "bigot" or "homophobe" or whatever).
Sorta reminds just a bit of "O'Brian" as the fictional character said it in Orwell's 1984 (condenced): "It is intolerable to us that a single erroneous thought can exist anywhere in the world...you must get over those 19th Century ideas about laws of nature. WE make laws of nature."
Literary comparrisons aside, hell, if the debated alternative viewpoint could be suppressed/censored completely? Then there are many homosexual and/or leftist organizations/individuals who would fully support it. Far as that goes, the above contention is backed up by the existence of "speech codes" on some college campuses....and proposals by some groups to follow the lead of Canada and make any objection to homosexuality a qualification for "hate speech."
I am not sure if this case has been decided (perhaps you might know), but here is a summation of a case in the latter:
Now, Doc, PLEEEEEEZE tell me even you would object to something like this in the United States as being an outrageous violation of the Bill of Rights ala' religious freedom and that of free speech...?
Quote:
With friends of teh gayz like TexasReb, really who needs enemies?
*observing a bit* Hmmmmm. The wording seems to suggest that -- contrary to how some would like to spin it -- that my points/arguments have "hit home" a bit...?
But seriously, at least partially because I am not obscessed with this subject, I am really not all that interested in keeping it up indefinetely. On the contrary, I will only reply from here on out when I am mis-quoted or the counter-replies slip into the realm of personal, so to speak. And BTW -- I know you are not of that genre at all...
In closing? As to your last quoted paragraph? Welllll, I am not sure about this "friends of gays as opposed to not needing enemies". BUT, I will say that, yeah, I have friends who are openly gay (I hope you still are, naturally), and not a problem in the least. I have said this many times before, and you know it damn well.
At the same time? You are correct if you are implying I will resist -- legally and morally -- all attempts to change marriage definitions and certainly adoption standards.
I never have and never will make a secret out of that fact....
*yawns* When you can come back with something original and coherent to say? That is, instead of going on like the ultimate definition of a broken record on points that have already been brought up and addressed quite a few times before? Then? Come back and rejoin (if the thread still exists by then, at all).
Otherwise, all you are doing is recording an old "sound-byte and listening to yourself promote it. Geez; it is been aired and played a million times before, and no one even listens to it anymore.
Have a nice day, you hear?
Quote:
Originally Posted by portyhead24
And back in the old days we used to think it was ok to own slaves, and separate whites from blacks in restaurants/bathrooms etc. and it used to be ok to deny women the right to vote and beat them with a stick no thicker than our thumbs.
We've progressed as a society. We've become educated, smarter. We realize just because things may be popular during a certain period of time doesn't mean it's right. If somehow a gay person's marriage affected other individuals adversely, I'd see a point to being against it. Fact is it doesn't. Just because a majority of people don't want to allow gay marriage doesn't mean it should be up to them. These marriages are simply none of their damn business, so why don't they mind theirs and take care of theirs and leave other people be?
btw, my analogy made the point, you're just extremely obtuse and don't wanna admit anything that doesn't fall in line with your narrow beliefs. I doubt I'll respond to anymore of your posts. No point, you're wrong and that's that.
Last edited by TexasReb; 01-31-2012 at 04:18 PM..
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.
I mean, if something is called "discrimination" then -- according to the script -- are we are all supposed to scream in horror and roll over and play dead, or get all apologetic and defensive about it? Sorry, but balony on that!
}
