Marriage Debate

[wastepanel]

No, that's your argument (do you think I didn't know where you were trying to go?)

Here's a clue, wastedpanel;

I don't like Vegas, either. I was there a couple of months ago only because I was threatened by the wife to accompany her and our children, and it damned sure won't happen again. The place sucks.

The part that pissed me off most were the illegal aliens standing on the sidewalk trying to hand me playing card size advertisements for whores while I walked along amid the crowds with my wife and grown daughters. When I asked them what the ◊◊◊◊ they thought they were doing, I had to repeat it in espanol so they couldn't play the "no comprende" game.

The Vegas analogy doesn't work with me. I say ban same-sex marriage, and burn Vegas.



The same is true of drug laws, speed limit laws, firearms laws (despite the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as well as the comparable state constitutional guarantees regarding firearms), and a whole slew of comparable violations of the spirit of the law.

That's what the "slippery slope fallacy" is all about.

Instead of answering the comparison, you go on a diatribe about hating Vegas. So, by using your logic, you hate gays/lesbians...correct? Since you drew that comparison instead of answering the question, I assume it is correct.

 

[Random]

Prediction: Backlash. Within twenty years, Lawrence v. Texas will be overturned. Anti-sodomy laws will be actively enforced in at least some southern and western states, and many of you will be stunned at such a reversion to barbarism. For the record, I will oppose any such step in that direction, and I predict I will lose.

Prediction: Apathy. After an initial screaming fit over same-sex marriage, people will start to settle down, realize that nothing bad is happening to them personally, then move on with their lives. Same-sex marriage will become more and more acceptable, and within twenty years, many of those people that opposed same sex marriage will be claiming that they were for it the whole time.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I am with Random, I think this will turn out to be like interracial dating and marriage issues.

 

[pgwenthold]

Prediction: Apathy. After an initial screaming fit over same-sex marriage, people will start to settle down, realize that nothing bad is happening to them personally, then move on with their lives. Same-sex marriage will become more and more acceptable, and within twenty years, many of those people that opposed same sex marriage will be claiming that they were for it the whole time.

This is already happening.

In the past two years, public opposition for gay marriage has dropped 10%.

This is the reason why the republicans KNOW they have to do it now. 10 years from now, no one will care about gay marriage. Just look at the age breakdown of the polling results. It's basically only the over-65 crowd that is massively anti-gay marriage. Middle ages are more evenly split, and those under 35 are for it.

That's why we they have to act now, before the old guys die.

 

[Huntster]

Instead of answering the comparison, you go on a diatribe about hating Vegas. So, by using your logic, you hate gays/lesbians...correct? Since you drew that comparison instead of answering the question, I assume it is correct.

Frankly, you can assume whatever you damned well please. You're gonna do that, anyway.

However, I'm willing to do it again:

So what your argument boils down to is that Ohio has to recognize that Nevada has legalized gambling and taxes it as legal income? Hmmm...

I will repeat myself:

No, that's your argument (do you think I didn't know where you were trying to go?)

Seems to be the point of the argument here. Some states recognize, some states don't. If a marriage is accepted in one state, why is it not in another?

Because of the demands of the sheep bleating in the fields. We do have gambling in Indian lands and navigable waters because federal laws cannot or is not currently willing to prevent it (for a variety of reasons).

Further, I really don't give a damn what you do in your state, but when you get the Feds to force feed it down our throats, I'm gonna get an attitude. And, if you'd like, you can refuse to accept my marriage to Mrs. Huntster in Ohio. We'll never be going there or thru there, anyway, and wouldn't much give a damn what you folks thought.

Finally, I'm not going to try to get you to understand the concept of "love the sinner, hate the sin" (with regard to Vegas or homosexuality), because you don't want to read it, you don't want to believe it, and you won't let me apply it anyway because you don't like me.

Is that better?

 

[ZirconBlue]

People have the right to smoke whatever they please, don't they? Isn't that a private issue? Why can they not legally smoke what they wish, while others can smoke tobacco, and yet others can drink alcohol? What right do you have to tell people they can drink whiskey, smoke tobacco, and not smoke other things? Isn't this a question of equality? If someone were to smoke, say, marijuana, how does that affect your right to drink alcohol? Why does the government have the authority to regulate medications, alcohol, and tobacco, and ban marijuana?

Shall I go on?

I know you were trying to be sarcastic, but I agree with most of this arguement. As far as I am concerned, there should be no such thing as a "victimless crime". If you're not hurting anyone else, you should be free to do what you like.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Frankly, you can assume whatever you damned well please. You're gonna do that, anyway.

Finally, I'm not going to try to get you to understand the concept of "love the sinner, hate the sin"

That's just christian garbage. It's like saying "don't hate them for being black, hate them for having dark skin."

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
People have the right to smoke whatever they please, don't they? Isn't that a private issue? Why can they not legally smoke what they wish, while others can smoke tobacco, and yet others can drink alcohol? What right do you have to tell people they can drink whiskey, smoke tobacco, and not smoke other things? Isn't this a question of equality? If someone were to smoke, say, marijuana, how does that affect your right to drink alcohol? Why does the government have the authority to regulate medications, alcohol, and tobacco, and ban marijuana?

Shall I go on?

I know you were trying to be sarcastic, but I agree with most of this arguement.....

It's the same argument, but it's not the "revolt" that's today's fad.

The bottom line is that the majority rules.

BTW, it's still a federal felony offense to possess marijuana.

 

[Huntster]

...It's like saying "don't hate them for being black, hate them for having dark skin."

Ummmmmmmmmmmm...................

Ever hear of black christians?

Do you know what "color" I am?

Does any of this have anything to do with gay marriage, or are you just stuffing both feet into your mouth again?

Gonna give me more sig lines?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Ummmmmmmmmmmm...................

Ever hear of black christians?

Do you know what "color" I am?

Does any of this have anything to do with gay marriage, or are you just stuffing both feet into your mouth again?

Gonna give me more sig lines?

Do you understand what an analogy is? Your "love the sinner hate the sin" is exactly the same thing as saying "love black people, hate their skin."

You are saying that you don't hate homosexuals, just their behavior. Sorry, that just doesn't fly around here. You are a bigot, that's a simple fact.

 

[Huntster]

Do you understand what an analogy is?

Very well. I use them all the time.

Your "love the sinner hate the sin" is exactly the same thing as saying "love black people, hate their skin."

No, it's not.

Skin pigmentation has absolutely nothing to do with behavior.

You are saying that you don't hate homosexuals, just their behavior. Sorry, that just doesn't fly around here. You are a bigot, that's a simple fact.

I don't give a damn about your opinion of flight.

And, what's more, I say that people who are political zealots are the problem, not homosexuals.

(Of course, some political zealots are homosexual, but even concerning homosexual issues, not all of them are).

 

[thaiboxerken]

No, it's not.

Skin pigmentation has absolutely nothing to do with behavior.

The analogy is accurate in the way that you are simply saying that it's ok to be a certain way, as long as you don't be a certain way. "It's ok to be black, as long as you don't have dark skin." "It's ok to be gay, as long as you aren't attracted to people of your own gender." "Love the sinner, hate the sin." These are all stupid cliches that are meaningless.

You hate homosexuals, that's plain and simple. Maybe it's because of some closetted feelings you have towards men, but I can't say for sure.





I don't give a damn about your opinion of flight.

And, what's more, I say that people who are political zealots are the problem, not homosexuals.

(Of course, some political zealots are homosexual, but even concerning homosexual issues, not all of them are).[/QUOTE]

 

[Huntster]

The analogy is accurate in the way that you are simply saying that it's ok to be a certain way, as long as you don't be a certain way.

Wrong again. I say that it's perfectly natural to be tempted sin, but if you do, do it behind closed doors and shut up. Don't expect society to change the definitions of one of it's oldest known foundations. I have my own sins, and I keep them to myself. I don't lobby or make demands to make the sins I like to commit legal and accepted by others.

You hate homosexuals, that's plain and simple. Maybe it's because of some closetted feelings you have towards men, but I can't say for sure.

You exhibit the remarkable trait of not being able to say anything with accuracy.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Wrong again. I say that it's perfectly natural to be tempted sin, but if you do, do it behind closed doors and shut up.

Basically, you want homosexuals to keep it in the closet, just like racists wanted black people to eat in the kitchen. Nice.

Don't expect society to change the definitions of one of it's oldest known foundations.

It's been pointed out numerous times that marriages have had different make-ups since known history.

I have my own sins, and I keep them to myself. I don't lobby or make demands to make the sins I like to commit legal and accepted by others.

But do your "sins" involve consenting adults? It's interesting that you want the government to legislate based on your religious beliefs of what sins are.

You exhibit the remarkable trait of not being able to say anything with accuracy.

Quite the contrary, I've placed things in accurate perspective.

You are a bible-thumping christian that hates homosexuals and want the government to legislate based on your religious beliefs.

 

[Darat]

Paulisone, Huntster, thaiboxerken & Fowlsound - a warning if you can't keep to your Membership Agreement don't post here.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[The Don]

I don't lobby or make demands to make the sins I like to commit legal and accepted by others.

That's an interesting viewpoint and one with which I disagree.

If there's something that I enjoy doing which is currently against the law then I would be very eager for it to be made legal - not least because if it were so, I would no longer be risking arrest/prosecution/fine/imprisonment for doing the thing I enjoy doing.

 

[Meadmaker]

It's been pointed out numerous times that marriages have had different make-ups since known history.

And it has been pointed out numerous times that if it has ever included two people of the same sex, no one bothered to write it down.

But that is easily proven wrong, if it is wrong. Just produce any document that refers to same sex marriage within the culture of the author, as opposed to describing the strange and/or sinful nature of the behavior of those other guys. The best hope would be a brief period in late Republican Rome (hmmm...just before the dictatorship.) I've never seen a primary document describing it at that time, but I've seen numerous secondary documents, and no refutation, so that might be the place to find it.

 

[Hardenbergh]

Todd Feinburg, a radio talk show host, was talking about the marriage amendment last night. He mentioned the Gay Pride Week window display at Macy's. He poked fun at the idea that "We must celebrate diversity" when Macy's said that they believed in diversity and the window display was a way of showing their support. "Why must we celebrate diversity?", he said. It sounds as though he's suggesting that we should have the freedom of not celebrating diversity if we so choose. I guess he thought that the gay pride parades were a little too flamboyant. He didn't really understand why we need to celebrate diversity because gays and lesbians only represent about 2% of the population. I think someone called in questioning the 2%. Todd might have said that 2% of gays and lesbians were in a relationship. I'm not very good at repeating something verbatim unless I have a pen and paper handy. In other words, he seemed to be essentially saying that they're entitled to be happy but why do we need to join in the celebration?

Macy's removes display marking local gay pride week

June 7, 2006

BOSTON --Macy's department store has altered a window display marking Boston's gay pride week after a group that opposes gay marriage complained it was offensive.

The display at the downtown Boston store featured two male mannequins, with one wearing a gay pride rainbow flag around his waist, next to a list of several planned Boston Pride Week events.

The mannequins were removed after MassResistance, formerly the Article 8 Alliance, which has campaigned against gay marriage and gay-themed textbooks in public schools, objected to the display.

"We believe in diversity, and our customers are very important to us," Kazan said. "But (the display) did offend a few of our customers, and we had to re-examine it."

ACLU of Massachusetts spokeswoman Sarah Wunsch criticized Macy's for "succumbing to the bigotry" of what she said was a fringe anti-gay group.

Macy's Pride Week Window Display
http://massresistance.com/docs/events06/pride06/macys/
http://www.toddtalk.com/index.asp

 

[The Don]

And it has been pointed out numerous times that if it has ever included two people of the same sex, no one bothered to write it down.

Not to put words into thaiboxerken's mouth but I think he was trying to say that the current Christian concept of marriage (one man, one woman until death do us part) has not always and has not universally been the state of affairs.

Certainly polygamy is acceptable in some cultures (sometimes one man, many wifes less often one woman, many husbands) and in some cases comlpetely open relationships.

The ability to divorce has also been a feature of many cultures.

Taking the Christian concept of marriage and retaining it indefinitiely woudl run counter to the progression of human society.

I do not believe that thaiboxerken meant there are cultures who supported gay marriage although ancient Greece and Sparta in particular were tolerant of, and indeed supportive of long term gay relationships

 

[pgwenthold]

And it has been pointed out numerous times that if it has ever included two people of different races, no one bothered to write it down.

But that is easily proven wrong, if it is wrong. Just produce any document that refers to interracial marriage within the culture of the author, as opposed to describing the strange and/or sinful nature of the behavior of those other guys. ... I've never seen a primary document describing it at that time, but I've seen numerous secondary documents, and no refutation, so that might be the place to find it.

Edited, and returned right back at you. Apply it to 1945.