Liberal Fallacies

[A'isha]

Keep laughing.

Oh, I am. This just makes it even funnier.

Redefinition of "marriage" expands the class of people eligible for State-mandated employer-funded spousal benefits.

Oh, go on, you romantic softie, you!

 

[A'isha]

Why suppose white people can't love white people and black people love black people?

Seems pretty simple. I agree with Offspring, keep 'em separated.

Well, interracial marriage did expand the class of people eligible for State-mandated employer-funded spousal benefits, after all...

 

[bruto]

What "kind of love" is implied by marriage? I don't know what motivated that marriage. I suppose financial considerations (like inheritance and access to employer benefits). The guy involved was a friend of mine but we drifted apart and I never met his wife before the ceremony. They don't live on Oahu so I haven't crossed tracks much.

My statement was in specific response to a statement you made in specific response to a statement by Randfan that suggested heterosexual marriage is not a viable option for homosexuals. Your response here is utterly unrooted and makes no sense.

 

[RandFan]

It might not be the point but it pisses of bigots...

...and for that we also thank you.

 

[RandFan]

As of March 2013, nine state governments (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Maine, Maryland and Washington (along with the District of Columbia, the Coquille Indian Tribe, the Suquamish tribe and the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians) have legalized same-sex marriage and offer same-sex marriages. Same-sex marriage has been legalized through legislation and court rulings.

As of March 2013, eleven countries (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden), and several sub-national jurisdictions (parts of Brazil, Mexico, and the United States), allow same-sex couples to marry.

Some people just don't get that history doesn't give a **** about your bigotry. If you don't see the writing on the wall you are either blind or you are mentally incompetent.

Dear Opponents of Marriage Equality: Here's Why I Call You a Bigot

 

[bruto]

I suppose that some day people might stop speculating wildly about what might happen and look around to see what has actually happened.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Well, interracial marriage did expand the class of people eligible for State-mandated employer-funded spousal benefits, after all...

No, it did not. It expanded the number of possible marriages, but not the number of people.

 

[RandFan]

I suppose that some day people might stop speculating wildly about what might happen and look around to see what has actually happened.

Bingo. Thing about modern liberal democracies is that freedom eventually wins. It can take awhile but facts and decency can be stubborn things.

 

[jimbob]

No, it did not. It expanded the number of possible marriages, but not the number of people.

Nor does gay marriage.


But that is so far from where the argument should be that it is irrelevant.

Is it the right thing to do by many citizens? I'd say yes.

 

[RandFan]

We are just mammals. The end result so far of evolution We have sex. BFD. We form bonds. Again, BFD. So what if the govt hands out marriage licenses to two men or two women? Seriously? Who the hell gives a ****.

Gays and lesbians have been getting married all over the world and it has not stopped spinning. If you don't like gay marriage don't get gay married. What's so god damn difficult about that? Own your bigotry and keep it to yourself. Gay marriage won't raise your taxes or lower the octane of your gasoline. These ad hoc objections are just people's bigotry trying to justify its existence.

Look, for those too stupid to figure it out, you have a better chance of stopping the tides than stopping gay marriage. Even Limbaugh figured it out. As he said, it doesn't even matter what SCOTUS does. Bigots die by the tens of thousands a day and the younger generation just doesn't care. It's like younger generations wondering why people owned slaves or supported segregation?

It's just stupid emotion trying to reason. Keep fighting if you want but make no mistake about it, you've lost. Time is on the side of decency and freedom.

 

[The Don]

Some idiotic ideas die when the people that believe them die. And for that we thank them.

If you think the trend is simply people changing their minds then you don't understand the dynamics of generations and the power of ignorant people dying.

What happened in 2004 to trigger what appears to be a significant trend ?

 

[Puppycow]

What happened in 2004 to trigger what appears to be a significant trend ?

You might just be seeing an artifact of the fact that no polls on the question seem to have been taken between 2000 and 2004. In 2004 the Republicans decided to make it a campaign issue by introducing various ballot measures at the polls, to take advantage of the turnout. 11 states voted to ban gay marriage that year. Before that it wasn't really a mainstream question, so it wasn't asked very often. So maybe Republicans actually hastened the day when gay marriage would become a majority opinion by raising it as an issue, so that more people actually started to think about it.

 

[Spindrift]

What happened in 2004 to trigger what appears to be a significant trend ?

Reagan died.

ETA: And the spell was broken.

 

[Travis]

What happened in 2004 to trigger what appears to be a significant trend ?

My hypothesis: shows like this (which started running the previous year) started showing people that gay people don't spend all their time in fetish gear orgies and, indeed, are just like the rest of us.

 

[RandFan]

My hypothesis: shows like this (which started running the previous year) started showing people that gay people don't spend all their time in fetish gear orgies and, indeed, are just like the rest of us.

I do think pop culture had a big impact. Don't forget Will & Grace and Ellen as well as others.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Nor does gay marriage.

We disagree.
The parallel with changes to laws regarding which members of which race could marry would fit if members of some race could not marry at all.

 

[RandFan]

And even if it did make a significant difference it would still be the right thing to do.

Society is for the inhabitants of that society. We have moved away from "L'etat, c'est moi".

"Of the people, by the people for the people". That of course assumes that we think of gays and lesbians as people and the "right thing to do" isn't for sell.

 

[Upchurch]

We disagree.
The parallel with changes to laws regarding which members of which race could marry would fit if members of some race could not marry at all.

Isn't the anti-gay argument that gay people have just as much right to marry as anyone else, so long as they marry people of the opposite sex? Doesn't that satisfy your criteria?

 

[quadraginta]

You might just be seeing an artifact of the fact that no polls on the question seem to have been taken between 2000 and 2004. In 2004 the Republicans decided to make it a campaign issue by introducing various ballot measures at the polls, to take advantage of the turnout. 11 states voted to ban gay marriage that year. Before that it wasn't really a mainstream question, so it wasn't asked very often. So maybe Republicans actually hastened the day when gay marriage would become a majority opinion by raising it as an issue, so that more people actually started to think about it.

This seems quite likely to me.

I wonder if the Repugnicans will learn anything from the experience, or even recognize it.

Some cultural baggage only survives because it has not received any careful scrutiny. Perhaps we owe the right-wingnuts a vote of thanks for turning over their own rocks.

 

[jimbob]

Well, interracial marriage did expand the class of people eligible for State-mandated employer-funded spousal benefits, after all...

No, it did not. It expanded the number of possible marriages, but not the number of people.

Nor does gay marriage.


But that is so far from where the argument should be that it is irrelevant.

Is it the right thing to do by many citizens? I'd say yes.

We disagree.
The parallel with changes to laws regarding which members of which race could marry would fit if members of some race could not marry at all.

How do you work this out?

If interracial marriage increases the number of possible marriages but not the number of people who can marry, how does gay marriage do anything different.

Assuming that the age of consent doesn't change, then by the same reasoning, they* were previously eligible to marry, just not the person that they loved one.

*"they" being the members of an interracial couple or a homosexual couple. It makes no odds to the reasoning.