Mitt Romney Challenged by Gay Veteran

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Seekster:
I don't get what the issue is. The man asked a question and Romney answered and the press tries to make it out like something more than that. I know plenty of Conservatives who will be happy to know that Romney is to the right of Obama when it comes to same-sex marriage (Obama is publicly against it but wont come out and say it without qualifiers).

It's significant because it lays bare an uncomfortable truth for the Romney campaign: New Hampshire is particularly important to his candidacy and this incident has demonstrated that he is out of step with NH voters on this issue. It's likely Romney's aides pulled him out of there because they realized nothing good would have come out of continuing the conversation.

CM156:
Meh. It's not like this matters much. The fight over marriage will be in the battle grounds of states, not on the federal level.

i'm not sure how you can possibly say this when a federal definition of marriage is already on the books.

Seekster:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Seekster:
I don't get what the issue is. The man asked a question and Romney answered and the press tries to make it out like something more than that. I know plenty of Conservatives who will be happy to know that Romney is to the right of Obama when it comes to same-sex marriage (Obama is publicly against it but wont come out and say it without qualifiers).

Just a warning: you are going to look silly in thirty years when same sex marriage is considered normal. Like that nice old grandparent who happens to be racist. I thought conservatives were only supposed to oppose things that didn't work or weren't tested enough? The only critique on same sex marriage is a couple's ability to raise kids, but the APA has put that fear to rest (though the studies done are relatively new). There is resisting change for a reason, then there is resisting change for the sake of resisting change.

All of us are going to look silly in 30 years when we try and tell our kids about how awesome the iPad was.

Conservatives are a filter on changes, we oppose changes that are seen as unnecessary or undesirable. Same-sex marriage is largely unnecessary for those seeking gay rights.

That's not true. Romney wasn't talking about "filtering" change, he was actively trying to reverse it. New Hampshire's gay marriage law is already in effect and immensely popular within the state, and Romney stated he was fully in support of a repeal of it. Other Republican candidates have said they're in favor of reinstating DADT, although they get uncomfortable when asked about what's going to happen to all the active-duty service members who have already come out.

Generally speaking conservatives are not "filtering change" on LGBT issues. They are actively working to undo the changes that have already occurred.

Diablo1099:

Seekster:
Same-sex marriage is largely unnecessary for those seeking gay rights.

For the world to see.
Marriage IS A RIGHT that GAY PEOPLE are SEEKING!

Not just gay people. I may be straight but i still reserve the right to marry a man if i so choose.

Amnestic:

Seekster:

You see, I don't have to win hearts and minds, YOU do.

Already done.

You will also note how support increases the younger you go? Yeah, that trend's not going to stop. As more younger people reach voting age, as more old people stuck in their old bigoted ways die, the numbers will only increase.

You've lost, and you will continue to lose as long as you continue to oppose it.

Ah so then you are happy with the status quo? You saw the map, there lies your battle. Fight and win if you can. If you do, fair play. If you don't, you made a mistake. I don't care either way.

Old people die off but they are replenished, not sure if you knew this but young people eventually become old people if they live long enough.

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Seekster:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

It is easy for a heterosexual to say that.

Being heterosexual has nothing to do with being reasonable and not letting emotion rule your thinking.

I'm not being reasonable? Tell me, what changes if tomorrow you woke up and this country had same sex marriages legal everywhere? Nothing changes for you or anyone else. So why deny homosexuals the right to marry? Going out of your way to oppose it is far more unreasonable.

Since when does "I would vote against it if it came up but if it was approved I wouldnt go out of my way to repeal it" count as going out of my way to oppose it? I would rather marriage be defined traditionally in this country but if the people of this country vote to have the definition changed I must live with that, that is Democracy.

Diablo1099:

Seekster:
No they are seeking the benefits and privileges that the government gives to married couples. Marriage itself will not advance gay rights by any amount.

Theres a bit more to it than that, If gay people can get the same rites as straight people, over time, the more extreme bigots (Like Rick Perry) will will become Fewer and Fewer, might not happen overnight, but the battle for Black civil rights lasted for years and it changed the whole country, if Gays can do that, then they will have gotten what they were working for.

Please don't compare the struggle of oppressed blacks with the struggle of inconvenienced gay people. Its not even close to a fair comparison and in some sense is downright insulting to people who participated in the civil rights movement.

Also if Rick Perry is your idea of an extreme bigot then what do you call Westboro (you know the group that the KKK said was in the wrong).

Buzz Killington:

Seekster:
Well yes, why anyone would talk about an already obsolete piece of tech 30 years from now is beyond me.

Of course. Nobody ever talks about old influential technology. That'd be silly.

I am not sure if you could possibly have missed the point more.

cobra_ky:

Seekster:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Just a warning: you are going to look silly in thirty years when same sex marriage is considered normal. Like that nice old grandparent who happens to be racist. I thought conservatives were only supposed to oppose things that didn't work or weren't tested enough? The only critique on same sex marriage is a couple's ability to raise kids, but the APA has put that fear to rest (though the studies done are relatively new). There is resisting change for a reason, then there is resisting change for the sake of resisting change.

All of us are going to look silly in 30 years when we try and tell our kids about how awesome the iPad was.

Conservatives are a filter on changes, we oppose changes that are seen as unnecessary or undesirable. Same-sex marriage is largely unnecessary for those seeking gay rights.

That's not true. Romney wasn't talking about "filtering" change, he was actively trying to reverse it. New Hampshire's gay marriage law is already in effect and immensely popular within the state, and Romney stated he was fully in support of a repeal of it. Other Republican candidates have said they're in favor of reinstating DADT, although they get uncomfortable when asked about what's going to happen to all the active-duty service members who have already come out.

Generally speaking conservatives are not "filtering change" on LGBT issues. They are actively working to undo the changes that have already occurred.

New Hampshire never voted on gay marriage, it was mandated by judges. If New Hampshire does not repeal the gay marriage law then it will mean that the people there approve of it and that is fine and good, its their state, their laws. I have to ask, what is wrong with the right to self determination when there are no rights being violated by it as in the case with this New Hampshire vote?

I think most of the GOP candidates are pandering on DADT as that policy is over and done with and the military has gone on as it always has. There is no reason to reimpose that policy. Instead they should move on to getting rid of other policies whose time has come and gone...like affirmative action.

The big problem I have is that Seekster, and people who agree with him, can not come up with valid criticisms of same sex mariage and only block it, aparently, for small minded and petty reasons. Een klein denkraam, as we say here.

Seekster:

Amnestic:

Seekster:

You see, I don't have to win hearts and minds, YOU do.

Already done.

You will also note how support increases the younger you go? Yeah, that trend's not going to stop. As more younger people reach voting age, as more old people stuck in their old bigoted ways die, the numbers will only increase.

You've lost, and you will continue to lose as long as you continue to oppose it.

Ah so then you are happy with the status quo? You saw the map, there lies your battle. Fight and win if you can. If you do, fair play. If you don't, you made a mistake. I don't care either way.

Old people die off but they are replenished, not sure if you knew this but young people eventually become old people if they live long enough.

Happy? Of course not. I just recognise that change is coming and it's inevitable, Mr. Anderson. Hearts and minds have already been won. It's simply a matter of having a safe enough majority. It's possible it may get pushed through sooner, but it will get pushed through.

The people are in favour, the laws lag behind. Such will change.

Seekster:

Please don't compare the struggle of oppressed blacks with the struggle of inconvenienced gay people. Its not even close to a fair comparison and in some sense is downright insulting to people who participated in the civil rights movement.

I personally see no difference. There is no reason on this planet for blacks to be discriminated against. Same for gays. There is violence and retaliation against blacks during the civil rights movement. Same for gays. You cannot choose to be black. You cannot choose to be gay.

THERE IS ZERO DIFFERENCE.

Amnestic:

Seekster:

Amnestic:

Already done.

You will also note how support increases the younger you go? Yeah, that trend's not going to stop. As more younger people reach voting age, as more old people stuck in their old bigoted ways die, the numbers will only increase.

You've lost, and you will continue to lose as long as you continue to oppose it.

Ah so then you are happy with the status quo? You saw the map, there lies your battle. Fight and win if you can. If you do, fair play. If you don't, you made a mistake. I don't care either way.

Old people die off but they are replenished, not sure if you knew this but young people eventually become old people if they live long enough.

Happy? Of course not. I just recognise that change is coming and it's inevitable, Mr. Anderson. Hearts and minds have already been won. It's simply a matter of having a safe enough majority. It's possible it may get pushed through sooner, but it will get pushed through.

The people are in favour, the laws lag behind. Such will change.

Fine then do it. If change is inevitable then just do it. Stop talking about it and stop bitching about it and do it. There are votes on gay marriage on the ballot in 2012, lets see which way the wind blows.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Seekster:

Please don't compare the struggle of oppressed blacks with the struggle of inconvenienced gay people. Its not even close to a fair comparison and in some sense is downright insulting to people who participated in the civil rights movement.

I personally see no difference. There is no reason on this planet for blacks to be discriminated against. Same for gays. There is violence and retaliation against blacks during the civil rights movement. Same for gays. You cannot choose to be black. You cannot choose to be gay.

THERE IS ZERO DIFFERENCE.

No its not even close to the same, blacks were oppressed and faced widespread violence and injustices. Homosexuals face inconvenience, and isolated cases of violence by your occasional nut ball homophobe. Do not even dare say there is no difference.

Seekster:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Seekster:

Please don't compare the struggle of oppressed blacks with the struggle of inconvenienced gay people. Its not even close to a fair comparison and in some sense is downright insulting to people who participated in the civil rights movement.

I personally see no difference. There is no reason on this planet for blacks to be discriminated against. Same for gays. There is violence and retaliation against blacks during the civil rights movement. Same for gays. You cannot choose to be black. You cannot choose to be gay.

THERE IS ZERO DIFFERENCE.

No its not even close to the same, blacks were oppressed and faced widespread violence and injustices. Homosexuals face inconvenience, and isolated cases of violence by your occasional nut ball homophobe. Do not even dare say there is no difference.

I dare to, because I dare to speak the truth.

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32353

1,317 REPORTED incidents of violence in 1999 based on sexual orientation.

"ISOLATED CASES" my asshole. 61% of all gays and lesbians surveyed feared for their physical safety.

Arguing that somehow the case for blacks is different is nothing short of ignorance.

Seekster:

Fine then do it. If change is inevitable then just do it. Stop talking about it and stop bitching about it and do it. There are votes on gay marriage on the ballot in 2012, lets see which way the wind blows.

I see your anger has blinded your ability to read. Did you not note where I stated "safe enough majority"? For one reason or another, people in favour may stay home or not vote, while those opposed may surge to the polls. Such is not unusual when it comes to voting. To take an obvious example, the GOP Base is usually far more incensed than the Dem base.

Thus, it makes more sense to let support grow, let more people clamour for it until the clamour is deafening, until the politicians have no choice but to acquiesce.

Putting it to a vote prematurely just opens you up to the chance of failure.

reonhato:
so with all that knowledge of human history: warfare; development; economic; and critically our past failures as well as your economic and human psychology knowledge how the hell did you come to the logical conclusion that ron paul is the best candidate.

ron paul lives in a fantasy world. a lot of his ideas rely on the human race being something it is not. he may sound great on paper, but in the real world his ideas have many many flaws.

OT: this has just shown once again that none of the candidates except maybe gingrich can actually face any sort of questioning without having time to prepare without shooting themselves in the foot.

Did I say he should be President? No.
Did I say he is the best Candidate on offer? Yes.

What does that tell you?

Gingrich:

Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Speaker Gingrich during his term. After extensive investigation and negotiation by the House Ethics Committee, Gingrich was sanctioned US$300,000 on a 395-28 House vote.[66] Gingrich acknowledged in January 1997 that "In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee". [67] Most of the charges were dropped, in one case because there was no evidence that Gingrich was still violating, as of the time of the investigation, the rule that he was found to have violated in the past.[68] The one charge not dropped was a charge claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes. In addition, the House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented "intentional or ... reckless" disregard of House rules.[69] Special Counsel James M. Cole concluded that Gingrich violated federal tax law and had lied to the ethics panel in an effort to force the committee to dismiss the complaint against him. The full committee panel did not agree whether tax law had been violated[70] and left that issue up to the IRS.[71] In 1999, the IRS cleared the organizations connected with the "Renewing American Civilization" courses under investigation for possible tax violations.[72][73]

Corrupt.
That is from his Wikipedia page... his Protected Wikipedia page that can only be edited upon approval of the changes...

I would not trust him as far I could throw hi- no, no, even that's too much.

Obama... is he much better? Well not really but he's less likely to ruin the country and just plod along as per normal... consider him the best... by default. Of course Paul has the potential to run the country pretty well, we don't know but he is not what most would consider safe so it depends what you want. Radical change for better or worse, or to plod along on the safe side.

Seekster:
You see, I don't have to win hearts and minds, YOU do.

No... all that needs to happen is to wait 30-40 years for the old generation to die off, who looking back in history will be viewed in a similar light to those who fought against the abolition of Slavery and those against the Civil Rights Movement.

Lets be honest... these people will be viewed as monsters one day... (lest we nuke each other)

Seekster:
No its not even close to the same, blacks were oppressed and faced widespread violence and injustices. Homosexuals face inconvenience, and isolated cases of violence by your occasional nut ball homophobe. Do not even dare say there is no difference.

I'm not going to try to say it's on the level of the problems blacks faced (because it's not), but I don't think it's fair to ignore gay bullying in schools. I've seen it myself, and it's a nasty thing. In too many situations gays ARE treated unfairly, and in too many situations it's allowed to happen simply because it's easier to allow it to happen than it is to stand up and say it's wrong.

Also, I'm with Amne when it comes to getting the right of marriage. Believe it or not, I'm even seeing more pro-gay youth in church. The more "liberal" churches of course, but it is quickly trickling upwards and it's being realized at an astounding rate that the hate against homosexuals is simply unacceptable anymore, both socially and religiously.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Seekster:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

I personally see no difference. There is no reason on this planet for blacks to be discriminated against. Same for gays. There is violence and retaliation against blacks during the civil rights movement. Same for gays. You cannot choose to be black. You cannot choose to be gay.

THERE IS ZERO DIFFERENCE.

No its not even close to the same, blacks were oppressed and faced widespread violence and injustices. Homosexuals face inconvenience, and isolated cases of violence by your occasional nut ball homophobe. Do not even dare say there is no difference.

I dare to, because I dare to speak the truth.

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32353

1,317 REPORTED incidents of violence in 1999 based on sexual orientation.

"ISOLATED CASES" my asshole. 61% of all gays and lesbians surveyed feared for their physical safety.

Arguing that somehow the case for blacks is different is nothing short of ignorance.

Heh, Newt Gingrich dares to speak the "truth" too.

If 61% of gays and lesbians fear for their physical safety then perhaps they should seek counseling for such paranoia. The majority of homosexuals have no reason to fear for their personal safety. There arent gangs of people going around lynching gay people or judges or cops looking the other way while they do it.

Amnestic:

Seekster:

Fine then do it. If change is inevitable then just do it. Stop talking about it and stop bitching about it and do it. There are votes on gay marriage on the ballot in 2012, lets see which way the wind blows.

I see your anger has blinded your ability to read. Did you not note where I stated "safe enough majority"? For one reason or another, people in favour may stay home or not vote, while those opposed may surge to the polls. Such is not unusual when it comes to voting. To take an obvious example, the GOP Base is usually far more incensed than the Dem base.

Thus, it makes more sense to let support grow, let more people clamour for it until the clamour is deafening, until the politicians have no choice but to acquiesce.

Putting it to a vote prematurely just opens you up to the chance of failure.

What happened to all that confidence Amne? If its a foregone conclusion, if its true that people are onboard with the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, why are you so skittish about putting it to a vote?

Heck it may not be 2012, it may be after that, but if you are right then a trend should appear and be translated into law approved of by the people. What are you worried about?

Lilani:

Seekster:
No its not even close to the same, blacks were oppressed and faced widespread violence and injustices. Homosexuals face inconvenience, and isolated cases of violence by your occasional nut ball homophobe. Do not even dare say there is no difference.

I'm not going to try to say it's on the level of the problems blacks faced (because it's not), but I don't think it's fair to ignore gay bullying in schools. I've seen it myself, and it's a nasty thing. In too many situations gays ARE treated unfairly, and in too many situations it's allowed to happen simply because it's easier to allow it to happen than it is to stand up and say it's wrong.

Indeed you are right in this post. Bullying against anyone, gay or not, is a serious issue and should not be ignored. Crimes have been committed against people because of their orientation and that is unquestionably wrong and should not be ignored. My only point was that its not even close to the same level that blacks faced during the civil rights movement and its not right to try and compare the two as if they are on the same level.

Comando96:

Seekster:
You see, I don't have to win hearts and minds, YOU do.

No... all that needs to happen is to wait 30-40 years for the old generation to die off, who looking back in history will be viewed in a similar light to those who fought against the abolition of Slavery and those against the Civil Rights Movement.

Lets be honest... these people will be viewed as monsters one day... (lest we nuke each other)

You are the monster if you truly believe that. How dare you compare the opposition to the legal recognition of same-sex marriage to those who were on board with slavery. The ignorance people have about history is very troubling to me and this post is a perfect example of the false equivalencies that ignorance of history can create.

Seekster:

What happened to all that confidence Amne? If its a foregone conclusion, if its true that people are onboard with the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, why are you so skittish about putting it to a vote?

Heck it may not be 2012, it may be after that, but if you are right then a trend should appear and be translated into law approved of by the people. What are you worried about?

I have confidence in the future. Every single one of my posts has been about how it would be inevitable and I stand by that. Rushing it, however, could ultimately do more harm than good. It would delay, but not stop. I would rather it not be delayed longer than necessary, thus, holding for a safe enough majority may be the wiser course of action.

Did you lose all political sense in your attempts to make me look a coward?

Amnestic:

Seekster:

What happened to all that confidence Amne? If its a foregone conclusion, if its true that people are onboard with the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, why are you so skittish about putting it to a vote?

Heck it may not be 2012, it may be after that, but if you are right then a trend should appear and be translated into law approved of by the people. What are you worried about?

I have confidence in the future. Every single one of my posts has been about how it would be inevitable and I stand by that. Rushing it, however, could ultimately do more harm than good. It would delay, but not stop. I would rather it not be delayed longer than necessary, thus, holding for a safe enough majority may be the wiser course of action.

Did you lose all political sense in your attempts to make me look a coward?

No, I just wanted to hear (well read) you say what you just did. Why force the issue if its inevitable. If it will be then it will be. Make it happen if you can. If same-sex marriage will be recognized anyway then why force the issue and have a huge controversy? The worst thing you can do is what Massachusetts and most states that legally recognize same-sex marriage (with the exception of New York) did, this is not an issue that should be mandated by a judge. If the people of a state support it, I will not object. I have said that many times before.

Seekster:

Amnestic:

Seekster:

What happened to all that confidence Amne? If its a foregone conclusion, if its true that people are onboard with the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, why are you so skittish about putting it to a vote?

Heck it may not be 2012, it may be after that, but if you are right then a trend should appear and be translated into law approved of by the people. What are you worried about?

I have confidence in the future. Every single one of my posts has been about how it would be inevitable and I stand by that. Rushing it, however, could ultimately do more harm than good. It would delay, but not stop. I would rather it not be delayed longer than necessary, thus, holding for a safe enough majority may be the wiser course of action.

Did you lose all political sense in your attempts to make me look a coward?

No, I just wanted to hear (well read) you say what you just did. Why force the issue if its inevitable. If it will be then it will be. Make it happen if you can. If same-sex marriage will be recognized anyway then why force the issue and have a huge controversy? The worst thing you can do is what Massachusetts and most states that legally recognize same-sex marriage (with the exception of New York) did, this is not an issue that should be mandated by a judge. If the people of a state support it, I will not object. I have said that many times before.

Because some people would rather not wait. I don't have as much of a vested interest; I'm not gay. I don't begrudge them for wanting to get married now. Were I in their shoes I'd probably be right alongside them. I'm playing this from the "objective" political standpoint. They're playing it from the issue of people who're being discriminated against based on their sex and the sex of their partner.

Amnestic:

Seekster:

Amnestic:

I have confidence in the future. Every single one of my posts has been about how it would be inevitable and I stand by that. Rushing it, however, could ultimately do more harm than good. It would delay, but not stop. I would rather it not be delayed longer than necessary, thus, holding for a safe enough majority may be the wiser course of action.

Did you lose all political sense in your attempts to make me look a coward?

No, I just wanted to hear (well read) you say what you just did. Why force the issue if its inevitable. If it will be then it will be. Make it happen if you can. If same-sex marriage will be recognized anyway then why force the issue and have a huge controversy? The worst thing you can do is what Massachusetts and most states that legally recognize same-sex marriage (with the exception of New York) did, this is not an issue that should be mandated by a judge. If the people of a state support it, I will not object. I have said that many times before.

Because some people would rather not wait. I don't have as much of a vested interest; I'm not gay. I don't begrudge them for wanting to get married now. Were I in their shoes I'd probably be right alongside them. I'm playing this from the "objective" political standpoint. They're playing it from the issue of people who're being discriminated against based on their sex and the sex of their partner.

They are letting emotion cloud their reason and its going to hurt their own cause, at least in the short term. In the long term you are probably right and if you are I will accept it.

Seekster:

They are letting emotion cloud their reason and its going to hurt their own cause, at least in the short term. In the long term you are probably right and if you are I will accept it.

No, their emotion isn't "clouding" anything. They're being very reasonable. I'm almost inclined to say it's more likely that your emotion is clouding your reason, making you fight against something you already know you can't win against.

And WTF, saying "Why can't they wait then?" Well sorry, no, why should they wait for your convenience? I mean, seriously, screw long term in this case, some things can't wait. Gay marriage is a trend that will prevail in the long term in any case, but the people want and should have equal rights now.

Seekster:

Comando96:

Seekster:
You see, I don't have to win hearts and minds, YOU do.

No... all that needs to happen is to wait 30-40 years for the old generation to die off, who looking back in history will be viewed in a similar light to those who fought against the abolition of Slavery and those against the Civil Rights Movement.

Lets be honest... these people will be viewed as monsters one day... (lest we nuke each other)

You are the monster if you truly believe that. How dare you compare the opposition to the legal recognition of same-sex marriage to those who were on board with slavery. The ignorance people have about history is very troubling to me and this post is a perfect example of the false equivalencies that ignorance of history can create.

Oh please I know my history from Uruk to Tyre to Athens to Babylon to Rome To Constantinople to Jerusalem to Telato to Paris to London then to the good ol USA. (then to China)

I also know how people will think.
The Romans are viewed more than often as blood thirsty people who wanted to watch people die in the Arena for their entertainment... this is not true, gladiators often survived and its was more of a blood sport where athletic skill was praised and the guy only died if he took an unfortunate injury going deep, or they were so pathetic the audience believed their deserved death.

Now most people in America view those who opposed the abolition of Slavery and the Civil Rights movement in a negative light (to put it lightly) due to the way they think now. However there are still a severe minority who believe in the White Supreme race and that blacks... and every other race is inferior (as they sit on their sofa thats on their lawn, pissed and high getting a blowjob off of their sister/daughter). They are not viewed in a good light are they?

Now in the future when perspectives change of the now... the younger generations believe that homosexuality is ok, but the older generations don't... err... and when more and more people think like this, as the trend is showing... laws will be passed, equality will be introduced and then the people who opposed such a basic human right as this is seen to be in the future... those individuals will be viewed as such.

Its about the way people think.

Will Rick Perry be viewed in a worse light than the slave traders? NO!
Will Rick Perry be viewed in a worse light than those opposing the abolition of Slavery? No...
Will Rick Perry be viewed in a worse light than those opposing the Civil Rights Movement... a few... but it will be relative as he's a politician, not someone who beats gays or even kills them (few do thankfully). Those who opposed legislation... Peacefully... oh yeah, that's his level. He'll be up there with George Wallace

cobra_ky:
i'm not sure how you can possibly say this when a federal definition of marriage is already on the books.

Fat lot of good that has done from having several states recognize it, correct? That was more my point, my friend.

Vegosiux:

Seekster:

They are letting emotion cloud their reason and its going to hurt their own cause, at least in the short term. In the long term you are probably right and if you are I will accept it.

No, their emotion isn't "clouding" anything. They're being very reasonable. I'm almost inclined to say it's more likely that your emotion is clouding your reason, making you fight against something you already know you can't win against.

And WTF, saying "Why can't they wait then?" Well sorry, no, why should they wait for your convenience? I mean, seriously, screw long term in this case, some things can't wait. Gay marriage is a trend that will prevail in the long term in any case, but the people want and should have equal rights now.

I love how the first paragraph disagrees with my point about emotion clouding judgement while your second paragraph basically supports my point.

Are we talking about equal rights or same-sex marriage? I thought we were talking about same-sex marriage because if we were talking about equal rights we would be in agreement.

Comando96:

Seekster:

Comando96:

No... all that needs to happen is to wait 30-40 years for the old generation to die off, who looking back in history will be viewed in a similar light to those who fought against the abolition of Slavery and those against the Civil Rights Movement.

Lets be honest... these people will be viewed as monsters one day... (lest we nuke each other)

You are the monster if you truly believe that. How dare you compare the opposition to the legal recognition of same-sex marriage to those who were on board with slavery. The ignorance people have about history is very troubling to me and this post is a perfect example of the false equivalencies that ignorance of history can create.

Oh please I know my history from Uruk to Tyre to Athens to Babylon to Rome To Constantinople to Jerusalem to Telato to Paris to London then to the good ol USA. (then to China)

I also know how people will think.
The Romans are viewed more than often as blood thirsty people who wanted to watch people die in the Arena for their entertainment... this is not true, gladiators often survived and its was more of a blood sport where athletic skill was praised and the guy only died if he took an unfortunate injury going deep, or they were so pathetic the audience believed their deserved death.

Now most people in America view those who opposed the abolition of Slavery and the Civil Rights movement in a negative light (to put it lightly) due to the way they think now. However there are still a severe minority who believe in the White Supreme race and that blacks... and every other race is inferior (as they sit on their sofa thats on their lawn, pissed and high getting a blowjob off of their sister/daughter). They are not viewed in a good light are they?

Now in the future when perspectives change of the now... the younger generations believe that homosexuality is ok, but the older generations don't... err... and when more and more people think like this, as the trend is showing... laws will be passed, equality will be introduced and then the people who opposed such a basic human right as this is seen to be in the future... those individuals will be viewed as such.

Its about the way people think.

Will Rick Perry be viewed in a worse light than the slave traders? NO!
Will Rick Perry be viewed in a worse light than those opposing the abolition of Slavery? No...
Will Rick Perry be viewed in a worse light than those opposing the Civil Rights Movement... a few... but it will be relative as he's a politician, not someone who beats gays or even kills them (few do thankfully). Those who opposed legislation... Peacefully... oh yeah, that's his level. He'll be up there with George Wallace

"Oh please I know my history from Uruk to Tyre to Athens to Babylon to Rome To Constantinople to Jerusalem to Telato to Paris to London then to the good ol USA. (then to China)"

Most of that is geography btw but I digress.

To summarize my thoughts, it is folly to be overly concerned with how people who have not been born yet will view your views and actions in the present. Do what you think is right and do not let how others view you decide how you believe and what you believe. A wise man will do what he thinks is right and let others judge him accordingly however they wish.

Seekster:

Vegosiux:

Seekster:

They are letting emotion cloud their reason and its going to hurt their own cause, at least in the short term. In the long term you are probably right and if you are I will accept it.

No, their emotion isn't "clouding" anything. They're being very reasonable. I'm almost inclined to say it's more likely that your emotion is clouding your reason, making you fight against something you already know you can't win against.

And WTF, saying "Why can't they wait then?" Well sorry, no, why should they wait for your convenience? I mean, seriously, screw long term in this case, some things can't wait. Gay marriage is a trend that will prevail in the long term in any case, but the people want and should have equal rights now.

I love how the first paragraph disagrees with my point about emotion clouding judgement while your second paragraph basically supports my point.

Are we talking about equal rights or same-sex marriage? I thought we were talking about same-sex marriage because if we were talking about equal rights we would be in agreement.

Yes, I am sorry.

I did not realize that "equal rights" doesn't include "marry who you want."

Vegosiux:

Seekster:

Vegosiux:

No, their emotion isn't "clouding" anything. They're being very reasonable. I'm almost inclined to say it's more likely that your emotion is clouding your reason, making you fight against something you already know you can't win against.

And WTF, saying "Why can't they wait then?" Well sorry, no, why should they wait for your convenience? I mean, seriously, screw long term in this case, some things can't wait. Gay marriage is a trend that will prevail in the long term in any case, but the people want and should have equal rights now.

I love how the first paragraph disagrees with my point about emotion clouding judgement while your second paragraph basically supports my point.

Are we talking about equal rights or same-sex marriage? I thought we were talking about same-sex marriage because if we were talking about equal rights we would be in agreement.

Yes, I am sorry.

I did not realize that "equal rights" doesn't include "marry who you want."

It kind of doesnt because you can't marry who you want. Why? Because "marriage" has a definition and since it has a definition it has meaning and thus not everything has the same meaning of marriage. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Words have meaning.

Seekster:

It kind of doesnt because you can't marry who you want. Why? Because "marriage" has a definition and since it has a definition it has meaning and thus not everything has the same meaning of marriage. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Words have meaning.

Clear this up for me. To marry someone is not a right, but a privilege, is that what you're saying? Also, "kind of" isn't very convincing.

And by the way. There's a saying about what starting to nit-pick semantics means in an argument, I think.

Seekster:

It kind of doesnt because you can't marry who you want. Why? Because "marriage" has a definition and since it has a definition it has meaning and thus not everything has the same meaning of marriage. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Words have meaning.

You never seem to adhere to that yourself though Seekster.

The etymological origins of any given word can't change but the idea those words represent can and does throughout history. Marriage itself has changed numerous times and will continue to change numerous times again. That you can't accept that it will change to something that is different than your own meaning speaks more to your character and person than I think you realise.

Seekster:
They are letting emotion cloud their reason and its going to hurt their own cause, at least in the short term. In the long term you are probably right and if you are I will accept it.

If there were discriminatory laws being put in place that were aimed against you, skin colour, gender, anything take your pick, how would you feel? For instance, nobody is allowed to give you a job because of who you are.

Would you want it changed today, or in 30-40 years when it's too late for you?

Vegosiux:

Seekster:

It kind of doesnt because you can't marry who you want. Why? Because "marriage" has a definition and since it has a definition it has meaning and thus not everything has the same meaning of marriage. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Words have meaning.

Clear this up for me. To marry someone is not a right, but a privilege, is that what you're saying? Also, "kind of" isn't very convincing.

And by the way. There's a saying about what starting to nit-pick semantics means in an argument, I think.

You can remove the "kind of" then, it was written in the sense of saying "yeah it kind of does", but didnt come across the way I would have said it out loud.

Marriage is a social contract. There are rights that go along with it in this and most countries but there is no right to have the government legally recognize your union as a marriage.

To help you understand, consider this. There is no such thing as a literal "ban on gay marriage" in the United States. You can't stop people from marrying. Police cant raid a gay wedding ceremony and haul people off to jail or anything. Marriage is primarily a social contract and there is nothing the government can do to stop you entering into that social contract but they do not have to recognize it as marriage if it doesnt fit the legal definition of marriage.

There is a strong argument (which I agree with) that same-sex couples are entitled to the rights the the government gives to a marriage but marriage itself is not a right and there is no entitlement for the government to recognize a union as a marriage if it does not like the legal definition of a marriage. If you want to change how your state legally defines a marriage you are of course able to follow the Democratic process and get it to do so, you are not however entitled to win that. That is all I am saying.

Seekster:

marriage itself is not a right

Loving v. Virginia says "LOL!"

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival"

You merely saying it does not make it so. That court ruling, however, does.

brotherofaguy:

Seekster:

It kind of doesnt because you can't marry who you want. Why? Because "marriage" has a definition and since it has a definition it has meaning and thus not everything has the same meaning of marriage. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Words have meaning.

You never seem to adhere to that yourself though Seekster.

The etymological origins of any given word can't change but the idea those words represent can and does throughout history. Marriage itself has changed numerous times and will continue to change numerous times again. That you can't accept that it will change to something that is different than your own meaning speaks more to your character and person than I think you realise.

The meanings of word can change, they do not always do so. If the social definition of marriage has changed as you seem to believe it has then let the laws be changed to bring the legal definition in line with the social definition of marriage. If the social definition of marriage has not changed then the legal definition should not change first against the will of the people (now this would be different if rights actually were being violated but I have pointed out repeatedly that this is not the case with the same-sex marriage debate).

Blablahb:

Seekster:
They are letting emotion cloud their reason and its going to hurt their own cause, at least in the short term. In the long term you are probably right and if you are I will accept it.

If there were discriminatory laws being put in place that were aimed against you, skin colour, gender, anything take your pick, how would you feel? For instance, nobody is allowed to give you a job because of who you are.

Would you want it changed today, or in 30-40 years when it's too late for you?

The traditional definition of marriage is not aimed at discriminating against gays.

In your question, do you mean would I want the law changed or should I want the law changed against the will of the people when my rights are not being violated?

Also the job comparison is flawed but it does work in one way, people have no right to a job, they have to apply for it, just as one might apply for a marriage license.

Seekster, if I may, this battle is not just fought in the United States, but around the world.
My own nation, the Netherlands, was the first to completeley legalize same-sex marriage, and the majority of the people, with the exception of the religious right (So not even the religious centrists are against).

Other countries that made same-sex marriage lawful are Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden. This has all happened in the past ten years.

The world is changing, and I have faith in the American people that they eventually come to their sences and do the more humane thing. Kindness to your fellow man, even if he's different, is more important then so-called piousness.

Bassik:
My own nation, the Netherlands, was the first to completeley legalize same-sex marriage, and the majority of the people, with the exception of the religious right (So not even the religious centrists are against).

That's incorrect. The main opponents are the left-wing Christenunie party, and the extremists SGP, of which any economic orientation is secondary to their silly clinging to biblical teachings. And the CDA party may have allowed legalisation, but is still a fierce proponent of discriminating homosexuals. The socialist PVDA party is against discrimination, in theory, but they wholeheartedly supported all the discriminatory measures of Balkenende IV and themselves made racist policies.

They are joined in this by the strongly socialist SP party. Basically it's 1917 all over again. Christians and socialist collaborators being pro-discrimination, and the liberals fighting it.

The only left wing party opposed to homophobia is Groenlinks.

So, Mitt Romney believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what he believes. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. That's what freedom is all about.

What's your point?

I think someone is trolling.

Hop-along Nussbaum:
So, Mitt Romney believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what he believes. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. That's what freedom is all about.

This argument is turned around so easily I'm not even going to bother. It'll happen on its own soon, I think.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked