Where the conservatives at? [Archive]

Bhodi_Li

03-20-2004, 10:33 PM

pssh whatever, this is about as moderate as it comes when it comes to AA forums
Damn liberal hippies! LOL, J/K.

My job makes me more of a conservative since they are the ones that will make sure we have enough money and manpower to properly prepare for what we need to do. Former-President Clinton decimated the military with the manpower and funding reductions. I saw tank company's train with HMMWV's because they didn't have enough money for tank fuel and parts. This was in 3d ACR, which is considered one of the elite armor units. There is a requirement for well-trainined, well-prepared armed forces, and that requires revenue. Failure to ensure this will result in needless deaths of soldiers and that is unacceptable.

At times the liberal nature of these forums frustrates me because there is a requirement for a global presence by the US. I'm not saying that it is necessarily a global military presence, but as the lone superpower we have an obligation to try to make the world a better place. Now, unfortunately, that can be taken the wrong way and result in a heavy-handed foreign policy, which I believe is currently the case. Having studied and been a part of, the US foreign policy, I have come to the conclussion that the US is extrememly manipulative politcally, economically, and militarily. As the executor of policy, this has always been one of my greatest concerns. That being my soldiers would perish for a policy that is immoral or at the very least questionable. The world that we live in has become extremely complex (wasn't it always?) and the right answers seem to be only right based on the position or perspective that you have.

actually i was a republican until bush came to office.
So your political views have changed or your opinion of the party has changed?

mr. x

03-20-2004, 10:37 PM

heres how i see myself

when i was a kid i used to say shit like "kill all iraqis, nuke em etc" and these days i know thats just not the way to go, and im hearing howard stern on the radio talking about wanting to blow some burqa's head off and im thinking "you got it all wrong man burqa's are what afghan women wear"

and then i remember its howard stern

Bhodi_Li

03-20-2004, 10:42 PM

i used to say shit like "kill all iraqis, nuke em etc" and these days i know thats just not the way to go
Most of us don't want to kill all Iraqi's, just the ones that keep shooting at us :wink: They make us angry.

Question on this thread..... Once you say "I'm a conservative," where does the thread go after that?

rice cracker

03-20-2004, 11:17 PM

Fuck it, I was a liberal before I knew what YW was. You can't be a colored person and be a republican. That's been the philosophy since I was a toddler.

Mr.Lum

03-20-2004, 11:21 PM

Craig

03-20-2004, 11:25 PM

Most of us don't want to kill all Iraqi's, just the ones that keep shooting at us :wink: They make us angry.

Question on this thread..... Once you say "I'm a conservative," where does the thread go after that?Do you really expect all Iraqis to just stand by after their country has been invaded ? Should they be welcoming the US soldiers with open arms ? At least some of them know if they cause enough trouble locally with the US soldiers, it has the potential to delay the US from invading the next country.

Kuchana

03-20-2004, 11:29 PM

Do you really expect all Iraqis to just stand by after their country has been invaded ? Should they be welcoming the US soldiers with open arms ? At least some of them know if they cause enough trouble locally with the US soldiers, it has the potential to delay the US from invading the next country.

I don't think that Bhodi was implying that all Iraqis would welcome the U.S. with open arms.

And as a matter of fact, I believe that it isn't a delay that the Iraqis want but to rule their own country.

To the topic, I consider myself a moderate Republican.

Yeahman

03-20-2004, 11:44 PM

umm.... OK why do you think this forum is so liberal?

I don't know where I stand, myself. I guess I'm a conservative Democrat but conservative in the exact opposite way that Joe Lieberman is, if that makes sense. Take Lieberman and replace all this liberal positions with the opposite conservative positions and all his conservative positions with the opposite liberal postions and that's pretty much were I stand.

I read an article somewhere a couple of days ago that used a term that I think fits me; a post-liberal.

I was a far-left liberal throughout college. I don't think I held a conservative position on anything. Maybe it was just getting older or something but I slowly became more and more conservative. Me now, would be frustrated at me then, and vice-versa in a debate on the issues.

Bhodi_Li

03-20-2004, 11:46 PM

Do you really expect all Iraqis to just stand by after their country has been invaded ? Should they be welcoming the US soldiers with open arms ? At least some of them know if they cause enough trouble locally with the US soldiers, it has the potential to delay the US from invading the next country.
Ahhh at least we know where the conservatives are NOT at. I'm not going to derail this thread. Let's find a different one to discuss this. For the record, you're generalizing all Iraqi's as resistance fighters. Over here it's not that way. The lines are as gray as you can get them.

AngryABCGirl

03-21-2004, 12:55 AM

Fuck it, I was a liberal before I knew what YW was. You can't be a colored person and be a republican. That's been the philosophy since I was a toddler.

Yeah that's my philosophy. I'm more liberal in the cultural sense of with gay marriage and abortion but you might consider me more conservative fiscally. Personally I'd like to a belong in a party that ephasizes not trying to beat each other into ambigious moral pulps and just do what works with least suffering, but that's too simple and perhaps logical to come true.

Jeff Yu :)

03-21-2004, 01:45 AM

I think I'm somewhat of a moderate, on things like foreign and domestic policy, and economics. However, I can't see myself voting for the Republican party anytime soon. Too many things about them piss me off. The Bush administration has been shamefully lying since they came into office, trying to sell a war in Iraq based on non-existent WMDs, and they've led more than half of America to believe that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks.

I'm no fervent democratic supporter, and I agree on a sound and somewhat conservative fiscal policy, but honestly Republican support base on the "flyover states" just scares me. I get a daily dose of conservative news from www.freerepublic.com and www.nationalreview.com just to see what differing opinions are. Just head there and take a look to see what I mean. I have no problem with moderate Republicans, but the following categories of Republican supporters scare me.

1) Religious right ie the "I hate gay people crowd": These people are constantly trying to enforce their religion on others. They preach damnation and hellfire on Muslims, atheists, and gays, and if they're extreme enough, Catholics too. They're the ones who don't believe in seperation of church and state, and that children in schools should be indoctinated with the Ten Commandments. And of course, science and evolution are EVIIIIIIIIIL works of Satan. Any woman who gets an abortion is a gleeful baby killer. And these idiots also oppose sex education and condom distribution, which contributes to teen pregnancy and STDs. Of course, they're also likely to oppose programs for helping teenage parents, too. We saw how influential they are when they collectively shat themselves and screamed for blood over a boob being shown at the Super Bowl. For examples, www.godhatesfags.com and www.chick.com

2) Neoconservatives ie the "I hate brown people" crowd: Neoconservatives are the ones who want a heavy-handed foreign policy, and want to bitchslap any country that so much as even blinks at the US. I'm all for peace and justice and the American way, but not manipulation of foreign governments, and advancing US interests at the expense of lesser powers. An example is Ann Coulter, who believes we should invade all Muslim countries, kill their leaders, and convert them all to Christianity. Of course, this can lead to crossovers with the previous category, who believes that the Crusades were good things and that we should start new ones. Many are also hostile to India, a democracy, because it's a developing economy "stealing" US jobs, while these same people may regard Pakistan, a dictatorship, as stout allies on the war on terror. In general these guys are constantly shitting themselves on China, see the European Union as socialist and enemies, virulently hate France and Germany, regard Canada as traitors, and are vehement supporters of Israel (of the kind that believe ethnically cleansing Palestine and creating a Greater Israel is a Good Thing). For example, look at http://www.newamericancentury.org/

3) Economic libertarians, ie the "I hate poor people" crowd: The extreme people who beleive that all government taxation is stealing, and that income tax should be at a flat rate, or completely abolished. May also be violently opposed to illegal immigration. I've heard some extremists advocating land mines on the Mexican border. They believe slashing all government spending except on military, and are virulently opposed to government spending of any type. For example, check the News forum for the new bill that would deny medical treatment to illegal immigrants. This is generally the same crowd that believes environmental laws, workplace safety laws, health care, minimum wage, and anti-discrmination laws are hindrances to economic growth and should be eliminated. For examples, see Pat Buchanan, or Harry Browne.
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/ExportingJobs.htm

4) Southerners, ie the "I hate black people" crowd: How many Republican supporing idiots in the south do we still have who proudly wave Confederate flags? Once in a while, we still hear about them, like the Georgian high school that held it's first interracial prom in 2001 and then promptly resegregated again in 2002. Remember, the Republican party gained the allegiance of the deep south when Nixon made race an issue. More of a dying breed nowadays (hopefully), or overlapping with the religious conservatives, but as we saw with Trent Lott, they still exist, and they vote Republican.

Before any conservatives start huffing and puffing and getting mad, I realize I don't represent the majority of conservative opinions out there, and that these are extremist views, and also that extremists exist on the left, too. HOWEVER, the right-wing extremists scare me far more than the left-wing ones, and in my opinion, hold more political power than any kind of left-wing people, especially the religious conservatives. Any politician must cater to his support base, or he won't stay in office for long and when a large portion of their support base consists of these people, they WILL respond, and appease them to get their votes. That's why I can't see myself ever voting for the same candidates as these people.

Maybe in ten years I'll feel different, but for now, these are opinions I believe pretty strongly in.

Holy crap, upon seeing this post, I just suddenly went and posted a spontaneous rant. Well, this is bound to generate some controversy :)

ModernLogic

03-21-2004, 03:56 AM

I think I'm probably the most conservative on this forum. By the way, liberalism/conservativism are ideologically irrelevant to Democrat/Republican. Lyndon Johnson was a liberal Republican.

Jeff Yu :)

03-21-2004, 07:13 AM

What the heck are you talking about? Lyndon Johnson was JFK's vice-president, and inherited after he got shot.

Nadjanema

03-21-2004, 07:19 AM

Hello??? So are Democrats :rolleyes:

I never said they weren't. :biggrin:

VV o n g B a

03-21-2004, 07:47 AM

So your political views have changed or your opinion of the party has changed?
my views had changed some, but my party affiliation had not. but upon taking office, bush pushed so many things that i disagreed with strongly that i really started regretting his election. the republican party backed his proposals and so i basically said to myself, "screw these assholes." i'm not a democrat right now either. i don't like their protectionist bent at all.

Yeahman

03-21-2004, 08:04 AM

LBJ was a Democrat.

Liberalism/conservatism are loosely related to Democrat/Republican parties. You don't find ultra-liberals in the Republican party and you don't find ultra-conservatives in the Democratic party.

Over the last 4 years it seems like the 2 parties have been pushed to the extremes. The Democratic party is so liberal that on many of the issues (ie. partial-birth abortion) the majority of Democratic voters think the party's too liberal. The Republican party is so neo-conservative that even traditional conservative Republicans have critisized the administration.

As I developed my ideology more and more over the years, I found that I don't fit into a neat little box. I think that because of our 2-party system, too many people are forced into little boxes at both extremes. It would be nice to have a 3rd party (probably ultra-liberal) so that one of the parties (probably the Democratic) would be forced toward the center. Still no party would be totally in tune with my views but they would get closer.

What is fiscal liberalism/conservatism? Those definitions have been blurred over the years. On the non-social issues Howard Dean was my man. I agreed with his fiscal policy, trade policy, foreign policy, healthcare policy, and even gun policy. He was moderate-to-conservative on those issues.

Socially, I don't think there is a politican out there who shares my views. I'm pro-life in all its forms (against abortion, capital punishment, and the war). Kucinich shared my views until he turned pro-choice. I am against gay marriage but strongly in favor of more gay rights (just don't think marriage is one of them). I hate how nudity is still taboo in the US but I also hate how religion is becoming increasing taboo too. I'm for the free expression of body and soul, even in government buildings. I hate how Bush uses religion as a political tool but I also hate how the Democrats try to be as religious ambiguous as possible.

i'm not a democrat right now either. i don't like their protectionist bent at all.
Oh I hate protectionism. That's why I liked Dean and why I thought that Kucinich may have made a worse president than Bush.
Paul Krugman on free trade and John Kerry...
http://www.iht.com/articles/131693.html

Mo'Taka

03-21-2004, 09:16 AM

I'm a little on the conservative side. Except I do believe that you can't rely on the democrat or the republicans on race issues. Both parties suck. But maybe it's because I'm economically conservative while socially liberal.
I have no home with these ideologies. :frown:

AliBabaIncorporated

03-21-2004, 09:49 AM

3) Economic libertarians, ie the "I hate poor people" crowd: <SNIP> For examples, see Pat Buchanan
Uh, if you think Pat Buchanan is a libertarian, it's clear you're highly confused either about libertarianism or about Pat Buchanan. Harry Browne is diametrically opposed to him.

Also, plenty, probably most libertarians are in favor of unlimited immigration, or of using market mechanisms to allocate work visas (e.g. if an immigrant can find a job and there's a company willing to pay his catastrophic expensies, let him in). I'm one of the rare ones who is opposed to unlimited immigration. Contrary to your fanciful image, there are no libertarian extremists planting mines on the Mexican border. That would be people like http://www.vdare.com/, who with the exception of maybe one or two authors, are firmly in the Buchanan, anti-libertarian camp. Interestingly enough, some VDARE authors have been leaning towards supporting Ralph Nader recently ...

Finally, libertarians are moving away from the Republican party because of two reasons:
1) Republicans claim to want smaller government, but they really only want less government spending in areas which support the Democrats, like the Department of Education or welfare. Conversely, the Democrats don't even try to claim to be for smaller government, but they'd also love to take an axe to some parts of the budget, e.g. the military.
2) Republicans claim to be pro-market, but they don't understand the difference between that concept and "What's good for General Motors is good for America" (e.g. they'll impose tariffs to protect GM's lazy ass and subsidize them out of consumer pocketbooks).

not even gonna respond to lame insults like "the i hate poor people crowd" ...

Faithless

03-21-2004, 09:53 AM

I'm no conservative, but yellow world looks like far-left world to me. Anybody here not a tree-hugger?
Well, how do you want YW to be?

Maybe there can be an accomodation.

Should YW just accept everything in the Bible and be happy with that?

Should YW just accept Mr. Bush as the savior of the American people?

Yeahman

03-21-2004, 10:12 AM

^ Thanks for proving my point.
You guys really do live in another world.

Tao

03-21-2004, 10:54 AM

^ Thanks for proving my point.
You guys really do live in another world.
i'm too lazy to look up your previous posts in other threads. what is it exactly that you so vehemently disagree on?

Chester

03-21-2004, 11:01 AM

^ Thanks for proving my point.
You guys really do live in another world.What is your point?

Yeahman

03-21-2004, 11:19 AM

missmeow

03-21-2004, 11:26 AM

I am not a liberal. I am not a tree hugger. I don't want Spanish as the nation's second language. I don't think everyone has a right to put their hands in the government pocketbook. I don't think we have the right to happiness.

Does it make me a conservative? I don't know.

I do know that I am liberal in certain respects, mostly social issues such as gay marriage/abortion/legalization. But in other social issues, immigration/welfare, I am very conservative. Fiscally, I am middle of the road.

Craig

03-21-2004, 11:30 AM

To make this fair an balanced:rolleyes: Just noticed you are explicitly stating your calling card and source of indoctrination.

Yeahman

03-21-2004, 11:53 AM

What is your point?
That the predominate views of this forum are liberal at least socially. And there are even elements of ultra-liberalism like ChottoMatte.

One may argue that a forum such as this which encourages social change, is necessarily liberal. The people of this forum would be expected to be for looser restrictions on immigration and for affirmative action. But does that mean that they must also be for gay marriage and abortion? I don't think so. The leaders of the civil rights movement of the 60's were conservatives. They were the religious right. I doubt that Martin Luther King Jr would be pro-choice today and I doubt that Malcolm X would be for gay marriage today.

:rolleyes: Just noticed you are explicitly stating your calling card and source of indoctrination.
It was meant as as subtle joke.
My calling card is Comedy Central. The Daily Show with John Stewart is my source of indoctrination.
I watch Fox News on occasion for laughs.

>:^|

03-21-2004, 12:39 PM

Yellowworld visitors abound
Who seem to give us the perpetual :mad:.
I find it really ironic and striking
That so many stay when it's not to their liking
It must have to do with achtung's great renown. :biggrin:

Nadjanema

03-21-2004, 01:31 PM

oh please, yw is only somewhat left liberal - it just might seem as though we're these radical terrorists because we never talk about anything conservative. if anything, it's moderate on most of the issues because you all make it moderate.

if it went to my liking, we'd be talking about killing white people, assasinating bush, and how dumb hapas really are (syke).

love,
prof. frink

KILL WHITEY! Er... I mean, yeah, people don't seem to be that radical.

yoMAMA

03-21-2004, 01:41 PM

I dispise both the republicans and democrats, and if i vote for anybody, it would be for the green party.

And oh yeah, Ralph Nader is a grumpy old man!

:tongue:

When you are young and conservative, you have no heart.

When you are old and liberal, you have no brain.

-Winson Churchill

missmeow

03-21-2004, 01:49 PM

I can't give frink anymore karmas, but I just gotta Bettie Page girls unite :D

Faithless

03-21-2004, 03:36 PM

^ Thanks for proving my point.
You guys really do live in another world.
We certainly do.

Aint it grand.

Chester

03-21-2004, 04:22 PM

That the predominate views of this forum are liberal at least socially. And there are even elements of ultra-liberalism like ChottoMatte.Maybe not, maybe so.

But, fundamentally, YW is not some organization that has the responsibility to represent all points along the spectrum with equanimity.

Certainly not in the Forums, which are composed of disparate individuals. If said individuals, as a group, are far-left or far-right, politically, then that's just the way it is.
The people of this forum would be expected to be for looser restrictions on immigration and for affirmative action. But does that mean that they must also be for gay marriage and abortion? I don't think so.What you think is largely irrelevant when it comes to how I arrive at my personal beliefs. I imagine this is the case for most people here.
The leaders of the civil rights movement of the 60's were conservatives. They were the religious right. I doubt that Martin Luther King Jr would be pro-choice today and I doubt that Malcolm X would be for gay marriage today.First: this is, again, irrelevant. Just because I agree with some or most of what MLK thought doesn't mean that I have to agree with everything he thought, or agree with his decision to not believe in certain things.

Secondly: your personal definition of how MLK would feel about current events is your own personal definition and is hardly definitive. I think, if MLK were alive today, he would support gay marriage. And I think that believing in civil rights for blacks goes hand-in-hand with believing in civil rights for homosexuals.

I won't speak for the others, but my belief that homosexuals deserve full civil rights on par with heterosexuals is based on my personal beliefs and are not some knee-jerk acceptance of "The Liberal Agenda."

Anyway...what are you proposing -- that the liberals in the Forums censor themselves or adopt rightist views just so that there's "equal time"? Should the moderators limit posts coming from certain viewpoints if that viewpoint is already overrepresented in relation to the contrary viewpoint?

I think people on YW lean to the left, with some leaning far-left. But...
1) I don't have a personal problem with this.
2) I don't see any way that this can be changed, nor do I see any need to change this.

So if your point is that YW is left-leaning/lurching, then I agree with you. But I don't see what that point has any bearing on.

Jeff Yu :)

03-21-2004, 05:04 PM

To make this fair an balanced, I am going to mirror Jeff Yu's list.

1) Secular left ie the "I hate religious people crowd": Constantly trying to deny the religious from expressing their religion freely. They'd love to have every mention of faith stricken from public sight. They want seperation of church and state to go beyond the constitution to mean that church is not allowed to be mentioned in any function or facility of the state. These people want not only to allow the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion, but they want the government to pay for it with taxpayer money despite the fact that the majority of taxpayers are opposed to it.

2. Peaceniks ie the "I hate guns" crowd: These people not only opposed the war in Iraq which I agreed with but they opposed the war in Afghanistan. They want to pull our troops out completely without securing Iraq. These are people like Dennis Kucinich who wants to reduce the Pentagon to a cubical and destroy our military capabilities.

3. Protectionists/Socialists ie the "I hate Wal-mart and the WTO" crowd: These guys are possibly the worst because they hurt ALL Americans. They want an infinately progressive income tax which is not only unfair but economically unsound. They want to pull out of the WTO and NAFTA raise tarrifs. This of course, is the voodoo economics of trade. It makes goods more expensive, companies less competitive, foreign nations poorer, lowers quality, etc... They want to keep social security at the current low yields because they have a fundamental distrust of the markets (they are socialists afterall). They want to cut into the R&D spending of the pharmaceutical companies and will do everything they can to hurt big business.

4. San Franciscans ie the "I hate the law and order" crowd: The mayor is breaking the law, and nobody is doing anything about it. Far from it, people are supporting him. These people think that everything should be permissible. They'd legalize narcotics and polygamy if they could.

You know, I think you've just summarized European political attitudes in four simple points! :-) I'll try to address your points:

1) In general, I find that debating religion is useless because no one ever changes their opinion after a lot of headbutting, so I'll just state my views and leave it. I believe in seperation of church and state being enforced. If you're a Buddhist or atheist (or whatever): school prayer, banning evolution, teaching the ten commandments, means that you or your kids are being taught opposing religious values by the state. Abortion is opening a whole other can of worms, but the religious lobby has successfully halted other stuff, like unrestricted stem cell research, which holds the key to future medical research.

2) I don't agree with the extremists as I believe that the war was just, but I think they're important. They're the ones that are constantly reminding us of the need to be humane in war, of human rights, and whether our wars are justified. I don't believe that we should excercise our military power irresponsibly, and thanks to this crowd, someone will always point out if we do.

3) This crowd barely exists if at all in American politics. Socialism may be exclusive to the left, but protectionism isn't. Protectionists exist on both sides of the political spectrum.

4) The mayor is practicing civil disobedience, breaking a law to protest what he feels is unjust, accepting whatever punishment will come, and then attempting to challenge it in court. I find nothing wrong with this. Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement practiced mass civil disobedience to secure our rights. I find that in general, people diagree with civil obedience only when they advocate political opinions they disagree with, so I'll ask you: What's your opinion on Judge Roy Moore, who defied a court order to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama courthouse? Is he too an honorary San Francisco of the "I hate law and order crowd" despite being conservative? Or is he different because he's defending religion?

Kuchana

03-21-2004, 07:17 PM

I didn't see this thread for the sake of nothing. In fact I think it was an informative one where ye110man was curious to see who the conservatives were. I've also observed that the majority of the views represented here lean to the left but do I have a problem with it? No, being that it's their views and they're perfectly entitled to it just as I am to mine.

ellsworth81

03-21-2004, 08:45 PM

the question is who doesn't adhere to any of these bs political labels.

Yeahman

03-21-2004, 09:56 PM

First I want to say to everyone that I don't have a problem with the left lean of yw. I was making a simple observation and want to find out what the opinions of others were.

1) In general, I find that debating religion is useless because no one ever changes their opinion after a lot of headbutting, so I'll just state my views and leave it. I believe in seperation of church and state being enforced. If you're a Buddhist or atheist (or whatever): school prayer, banning evolution, teaching the ten commandments, means that you or your kids are being taught opposing religious values by the state. Abortion is opening a whole other can of worms, but the religious lobby has successfully halted other stuff, like unrestricted stem cell research, which holds the key to future medical research.
I'll agree with you somewhat. But I was just saying how the secular left wasn't much better than the religious right. Evolution should be taught in schools. The ten commandments should be taught in schools (in a world history class). That's what most moderates both religious and secular want. The extremists on both sides what something else.
The religious lobby don't oppose stem cell research. They oppose stem cell harvesting from the aborted. It isn't "other stuff." It's the same issue.

3) This crowd barely exists if at all in American politics. Socialism may be exclusive to the left, but protectionism isn't. Protectionists exist on both sides of the political spectrum.
Are you saying that the "I hate Wal-mart" and "I hate the WTO" crowd barely exists in American politics? They're very popular positions on the far-left.
You're right that protectionism exists on both sides. It's a great way to win voters at the cost of the common good. And the Democratic party does hold a stronger protectionist view which is why they are supported by the unions.

4) The mayor is practicing civil disobedience, breaking a law to protest what he feels is unjust, accepting whatever punishment will come, and then attempting to challenge it in court. I find nothing wrong with this. Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement practiced mass civil disobedience to secure our rights. I find that in general, people diagree with civil obedience only when they advocate political opinions they disagree with, so I'll ask you: What's your opinion on Judge Roy Moore, who defied a court order to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama courthouse? Is he too an honorary San Francisco of the "I hate law and order crowd" despite being conservative? Or is he different because he's defending religion?
No, the difference is that MLK and Judge Moore faced disciplinary action. The mayor of San Fran did not. The mayor of New Paltz in New York was charged for doing the same thing. You break the law, you gotta pay for it. I didn't think the 10 commandments should have been removed from Judge Moore's courthouse. But when he was suspended I also agreed with that decision. The law is the law regardless of whether or not you agree with it.
Upon charging the mayor of New Paltz, NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said "I personally would like to see the law changed, but must respect the law as it now stands."

Secondly: your personal definition of how MLK would feel about current events is your own personal definition and is hardly definitive.
Granted.

I think, if MLK were alive today, he would support gay marriage. And I think that believing in civil rights for blacks goes hand-in-hand with believing in civil rights for homosexuals.
I highly doubt MLK would be for gay marriage. Despite being liberal on most social issues, blacks today are opposed to gay marriage. Many black ministers have spoken against it. Jesse Jackson has said that gay rights is not civil rights.
I agree with you that gays deserve all the rights of heterosexuals. But marriage has been defined as being between one man and one woman. This is the law and the American people have spoken. Yet a small minority of America basically wants to change the English language.
Let me ask you, do you also support polygamy?

AngryABCGirl

03-21-2004, 10:54 PM

I agree with you that gays deserve all the rights of heterosexuals. But marriage has been defined as being between one man and one woman. This is the law and the American people have spoken. Yet a small minority of America basically wants to change the English language.
Let me ask you, do you also support polygamy?

Aww shit man, I was totally gonna respect your post, but you had to pull out the irrelevant polygamy agrument.

Yeah I guess this means I lean left, but for civil rights I'd say hell yes.

Yeahman

03-21-2004, 11:29 PM

I don't see how polygamy is any less relevant to gay marriage than black civil rights.

kitty

03-21-2004, 11:34 PM

I don't see how polygamy is any less relevant to gay marriage than black civil rights.

Because the slippery slope argument is more of a scare tactic than anything else.

I mean -- giving civil rights to blacks!! What's next? Giving civil rights to pets?
Let's let Asians into the country?? How about letting sheep get visas? Any law, under the slippery slope argument, could be used in a 'what-if' argument to scare people into not passing it for fear of the 'next step'.

It's pointless and doesn't address the actual merits of the actual topic at hand. If you disagree with gay marriage, argue about why you disagree, not try to talk about how scary the 'next step' is. If you can't put forth an argument based on its own merits, then one must assume that you have none.

Chester

03-22-2004, 12:00 AM

I highly doubt MLK would be for gay marriage.Your authoritative evaluation on MLK's hypothetical views are duly noted...and rejected.
Despite being liberal on most social issues, blacks today are opposed to gay marriage. MLK was not and is not "blacks today."
Many black ministers have spoken against it. MLK was not and is not today's black ministers.

Jesse Jackson has said that gay rights is not civil rights.
MLK was not and is not Jesse Jackson.

Furthermore, Jesse Jackson is not the grand arbiter of what does or does not constitute a valid civil rights struggle.
But marriage has been defined as being between one man and one woman. This is the law and the American people have spoken. ...in some states. And, I might add, unconstitutionally.
Yet a small minority of America basically wants to change the English language.If you're referring to the supporters of gay marriage, then a large minority of America supports gay marriage.

When people campaigned for the civil and human rights of minorities, a large minority of America supported a change in the English language to include blacks within the definition of "human."

And, in terms of the current struggle for the civil rights of homosexuals, a sizeable majority of Americans support unconstitutional exclusion of homosexuals. Perhaps that's what you're referring to.
Let me ask you, do you also support polygamy?Let me ask you: what does polygamy have to do with marriage between two men or two women?

Let me ask you: is your ostensible argument against gay marriage so barren and empty that you have to resort to the cheap, rhetorical tactic of changing the argument to mask your position's deficiencies?

sageb1

03-22-2004, 02:29 AM

I'm no conservative, but yellow world looks like far-left world to me. Anybody here not a tree-hugger? Actually, I like to be a *little bit* of BOTH, because of this yen to balance out.

It may not be realistic but in a far-left world I'll be left; in a conservative world, i'll be right.

I don't see how polygamy is any less relevant to gay marriage than black civil rights. Black civil rights isn't relevant to gay marriage.

Polygamy is relevant to countries where it may be the rule. Polyandry should also be considered, in light of traditional Tibetan marriages.

Yet polymorphous marriage overall is relevant to gay marriage.

As well, heterosexual marriage is relevant though since gay relationships may reflect straight relationships in ways that go beyond it i.e. neither female nor male aspects of the personality dominate.

My conclusion is that men and women would benefit from learning how to ensure that neither their female nor male traits dominate their personality.

I think it's called metrosexual.:biggrin: It might be called politically, equalitarian.

Yeahman

03-22-2004, 02:53 AM

Because the slippery slope argument is more of a scare tactic than anything else.

I mean -- giving civil rights to blacks!! What's next? Giving civil rights to pets?
Let's let Asians into the country?? How about letting sheep get visas? Any law, under the slippery slope argument, could be used in a 'what-if' argument to scare people into not passing it for fear of the 'next step'.

It's pointless and doesn't address the actual merits of the actual topic at hand. If you disagree with gay marriage, argue about why you disagree, not try to talk about how scary the 'next step' is. If you can't put forth an argument based on its own merits, then one must assume that you have none.
We're talking about consenting adult humans here. Hardly comparable to pets and sheep.

Mr.Lum

03-22-2004, 03:00 AM

I think conservatiives are pigs, and they are usually white. some asian and some black and some latino. usually white. I usually think of a crusty white man and grey hair.

if gays can marry, Mormons and Muslims and hindus should be able to have multiple wives. discrimination. its part of our religion eh? dont marry gays. thats bs. marriage is man and woman, everywhere always. give them a different name. then unite them and give them rights. but out of the respect for our civilization do not call it a "marriage".

Yeahman

03-22-2004, 03:08 AM

When people campaigned for the civil and human rights of minorities, a large minority of America supported a change in the English language to include blacks within the definition of "human."
Which edition of which dictionary excluded blacks from the definition of "human"?

Let me ask you: what does polygamy have to do with marriage between two men or two women?

Let me ask you: is your ostensible argument against gay marriage so barren and empty that you have to resort to the cheap, rhetorical tactic of changing the argument to mask your position's deficiencies?
That was weak. Just answer the question.

sageb1

03-22-2004, 03:09 AM

I think conservatives are pigs, and they are usually white. ... usually white. I usually think of a crusty white man and grey hair.
I recall once when I picketed Esso for Greenpeace along with a half dozen other people, this white guy matching your vague description come up and say he was choked we were picketing his friend's station, and that the employees needed to eat etc.

This guy even wanted to debate with us - I had a deja vue of a street preacher except this guy was more of a street politicker.

Here in British Columbia, Canada, is a 99% majority of conservative BC Liberals declaring war on "welfare bums", the homeless and the disabled.

I'm pretty sure conservatives when they get rabid veer into despotism, both in local government and federally.

kitty

03-22-2004, 05:52 AM

We're talking about consenting adult humans here. Hardly comparable to pets and sheep.

Agreed. We are talking about consenting adult humans.

We're also talking about the inapplicability and general weakness of the 'slippery slope' argument.

Which edition of which dictionary excluded blacks from the definition of "human"?

the editions that came out prior to civil rights and the end of slavery. it was in our Constitution that blacks were 7/8ths of a man.

Yeahman

03-22-2004, 10:22 AM

Agreed. We are talking about consenting adult humans.

We're also talking about the inapplicability and general weakness of the 'slippery slope' argument.
How come nobody in support of gay marriage wants to touch the polygamy question? Is it because you know you'll slip?

the editions that came out prior to civil rights and the end of slavery. it was in our Constitution that blacks were 7/8ths of a man.
I'm having trouble finding any dictionary from the 19th century. I would appreciate it if you could provide us with the definition of "human" from a pre-abolition dicitonary.

US Constitution Article I, Section 2.
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

They were full fledged "Persons" but only 3/5ths of them would be included in calculating the number of representatives and amount of direct taxes.

The definition of "person" did not change. The rights of certain persons changed. Let's work for gay rights not for editing dictionaries, especially against the will of the people who use them.

yoMAMA

03-22-2004, 10:29 AM

I really don't see why gays can't marry, just like straight people can.

Why is discrimination right?

Yeahman

03-22-2004, 10:48 AM

I really don't see why gays can't marry, just like straight people can.

Why is discrimination right?
Marriage: The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
That's why. Gay marriage is an oxymoron. It's like asking why dwarfs can't be tall. A dwarf should have the rights of a tall person, but he can't be called a "tall person"! And no it's not discrimination to deny a dwarf the "right" to legally be considered "tall."

Chester

03-22-2004, 11:08 AM

Which edition of which dictionary excluded blacks from the definition of "human"?
The Constitution used to define blacks as being 3/5ths of a person with regards to population counts and taxation. And because blacks were not afforded the full rights of other citizens, the Constitution's denial of their full human status was more than implicit.

But blacks are obviously humans, as are homosexuals. And because they are humans just like everyone else, they deserve full protection of the Constitution, just like everyone else. And because of this, they deserve the right to marry, just like everyone else. Quite simple.

And insofar as this tired talk of dictionary definitions: the last time I checked, neither Mr. Merriam, nor Mr. Webster, nor the editors of the OED were ever U.S. legislators and have no role in the formulation of our laws.

I don't consider authors of dictionaries to be experts on either the topic of jurisprudence or morality, and don't look to dictionaries in order to find answers about what is right or wrong for society.

Society changes over time, as do words, their definitions, and how we use them in our lives. The limits of our society are not defined by the short-sightedness of our forebears. This could be labeled "evolution" or perhaps "progress."

If you're unfamiliar with either term, you can always consult a dictionary.
That was weak. Just answer the question.
I don't answer questions that are obvious, weak attempts to divert the conversation onto irrelevant tangents.

kitty

03-22-2004, 02:11 PM

my bad, it was 3/5ths, not 7/8ths. moral of the story - jenn needs more than 3hrs a sleep a night.

and yell0man, contrary to your anachronistic interpretation of the text, the only interpretation taht matters is the one that was actually used in history. that being the one were each black person was counted as 3/5ths of a human.

>:^|

03-22-2004, 02:17 PM

I think we identified where the conservatives at.
Yanked them all out of the woodwork to combat.
Found some liberals too
And a leftist or two
Why don't we just leave it at that?

Jeff Yu :)

03-22-2004, 04:46 PM

Uh, if you think Pat Buchanan is a libertarian, it's clear you're highly confused either about libertarianism or about Pat Buchanan. Harry Browne is diametrically opposed to him.

Also, plenty, probably most libertarians are in favor of unlimited immigration, or of using market mechanisms to allocate work visas (e.g. if an immigrant can find a job and there's a company willing to pay his catastrophic expensies, let him in). I'm one of the rare ones who is opposed to unlimited immigration. Contrary to your fanciful image, there are no libertarian extremists planting mines on the Mexican border. That would be people like http://www.vdare.com/, who with the exception of maybe one or two authors, are firmly in the Buchanan, anti-libertarian camp. Interestingly enough, some VDARE authors have been leaning towards supporting Ralph Nader recently ...

Finally, libertarians are moving away from the Republican party because of two reasons:
1) Republicans claim to want smaller government, but they really only want less government spending in areas which support the Democrats, like the Department of Education or welfare. Conversely, the Democrats don't even try to claim to be for smaller government, but they'd also love to take an axe to some parts of the budget, e.g. the military.
2) Republicans claim to be pro-market, but they don't understand the difference between that concept and "What's good for General Motors is good for America" (e.g. they'll impose tariffs to protect GM's lazy ass and subsidize them out of consumer pocketbooks).

not even gonna respond to lame insults like "the i hate poor people crowd" ...

Ok, to respond, I have in fact seen opinions that advocated both extreme libertarianism, AND international isolationism, ie Browne in regards to domestic issues, Buchanan in regard to foreign policy. I realize that these are extremists, and thus don't represent mainstream libertarian opinion, and I don't mean to say as such. If that's what you interpreted, I'm sorry.

Man, fighting off the forces of evil is such a hard job sometimes.........

First I want to say to everyone that I don't have a problem with the left lean of yw. I was making a simple observation and want to find out what the opinions of others were.

Ok, to respond to your points again. I'll leave the abortion issue again since I don't want to go off-topic.

Are you saying that the "I hate Wal-mart" and "I hate the WTO" crowd barely exists in American politics? They're very popular positions on the far-left.
You're right that protectionism exists on both sides. It's a great way to win voters at the cost of the common good. And the Democratic party does hold a stronger protectionist view which is why they are supported by the unions.

What I meant was that socialists are almost non-existant in US politics. You'll find just as many "I hate Walmart" people in the right as on the left. The left hates Walmart for sweatshops and third-world exploitation; the right hates China and the US's huge trade deficit with them. The "I hate WTO" crowd barely exists as a political entity. By that I mean they're capable of drawing huge crowds, but don't exist as a united voting bloc. Go to any WTO protest, and you'll find it's a smattering of environmentalists, feminists, union groups, hippies, third-world advocates, promoters of cultural diversity, organic farmers, anarchists, socialists, communists, Wiccans, and more. On any issue other than anti-WTO, you'll find that they hold absolutely no political power.

No, the difference is that MLK and Judge Moore faced disciplinary action. The mayor of San Fran did not. The mayor of New Paltz in New York was charged for doing the same thing. You break the law, you gotta pay for it. I didn't think the 10 commandments should have been removed from Judge Moore's courthouse. But when he was suspended I also agreed with that decision. The law is the law regardless of whether or not you agree with it.
Upon charging the mayor of New Paltz, NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said "I personally would like to see the law changed, but must respect the law as it now stands."

The fact that mayor Gavin Newsome wasn't punished was the decision of the court, not his, probably because punishing him could have led to a court case where he could attempt to challenge the no-gay marriage law. Instead, the court just ordered him to stop, which he did. So I don't find anything wrong with what he did.

As for gay marriage, I'm very liberal on social issues, and I think it should be allowed. Canada and Massachussets haven't burned up in hellfire and brimstone yet for allowing gay marriages, and I don't understand the sanctity of marriage argument. How will two guys marrying make you enjoy fucking your wife any less? There was never any solid dictionary definition of marriage. Marriage differs from culture to culture. Different cultures may practice monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, may allow divorce, may prohibit it, may accept arranged marriages, or may have different customs and ages for marriage. I don't feel it's my place to judge. I don't see how a wedding in Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire is more sacrad and blessed than two men marrying. The fact that the religious lobby is attempting to pass a Constitution amendment to ban gay marriage means that gay marriage is constitutional.

mr. x

03-22-2004, 09:22 PM

again im gonna say it, ye110 you are NOT gonna find a more moderate asian forum than this one. everyone else is even lefter

Bhodi_Li

03-22-2004, 09:26 PM

even lefter
That's not even a word!!!! LOL

mr. x

03-22-2004, 09:39 PM

That's not even a word!!!! LOL

guess that makes me bush :rolleyes:

>:^|

03-22-2004, 09:42 PM

That's not even a word!!!! LOL

Sure it is. It's the perfect answer to the question What the conservative do with his liberal Asian girlfriend? :biggrin:

myself808

03-24-2004, 07:19 PM

myself thinks Mr Lum got it right in that most conservatives are white, and minorities tend to be moderate to left leaning, so on a board consisting of mostly minorities.....

Oh and using the dictionary to justify arguments against gay marriage is incorrect. the English language constantly evolves. it reflects societal usage, it does not define society. thirty years ago the word "party" was not a verb, a mouse was only an rodent, and the word byte was non-existant.

When there is a large enough support for polygamy as there is today for gay marriage then we can take the slippery slope argument seriously.

justchris

03-25-2004, 02:48 PM

Hello??? So are Democrats :rolleyes:

yeah, i think both groups can be pretty evil.
word up.

so i was wondering, what kind of "values" determines your political inclinations? what makes you conservate? is it belief in a more individual, self-deterministic view, and that's why people are in their respective situations? what kind of experiences have you had to lead you to your conclusions and ideals?

Emperor_Mike

03-29-2004, 06:51 AM

Not exactly a full Conservative, but more of a Centrist with Conservative leanings when it comes to non-social issues.

Pragmatist, really.

Yeahman

03-29-2004, 11:01 AM

myself thinks Mr Lum got it right in that most conservatives are white, and minorities tend to be moderate to left leaning, so on a board consisting of mostly minorities.....
I wouldn't say minorities. Hispanics tend to be conservative. Asians (outside of this forum) are fairly moderate.

When there is a large enough support for polygamy as there is today for gay marriage then we can take the slippery slope argument seriously.
So something has to have large enough support to be a civil rights issue?

kimpossible

03-29-2004, 11:28 AM

hooligan

03-29-2004, 11:29 AM

I'm part of the "I hate people who come on and post dumb sweeping assumptions about everyone's political affiliation that usually reinforces bi-partisan bullshit" crowd.

I swear you're absolutely fucked in this country if you're liberal on personal freedoms but conservative on fiscal issues or foreign policy. Well, I am an ardent supporter of gay marriage AND the right to bear arms AND a supporter of US troops AND think the troops need to come back home. Fuckin' A, this two party either/or system sucks ass.
word. : \

kimpossible

03-29-2004, 03:11 PM

To restate something similar to what mr. x said in another thread why is that if you don't like Bush Jr. and/or a strong supporter of the Republican party, you're like this leftist pinko commie tree-hugger all of a sudden? I can think of two recent threads started: this one and another by David Joo.

If you like Bush and you are a diehard Republican, just vote! I don't think most of us give a shit, it's not like we're not aware that there's an election this year. I personally don't see how you can look at the guy (Dubya) and think "Ah, a competent leader." But hey, I'm not you and you have the right to vote. Vote for your candidate and I'll vote for mine. I could care less if you don't like Kerry, I'm not a big supporter either but I'm scared shitless of four more years of Bush.

mr. x

03-29-2004, 03:13 PM

i think a lot of people even just casual republicans or conservatives are afraid of radicalism of any nature cuz it shakes up their black and white, good vs. evil simplistic universe. like i get this certain reaction when i hear words like zionist (coming from a leftist) and its probly cuz i grew up not caring much for israel vs. palestine and i still to this day no little about what goes on there other than the back and forth killings. i guess its cuz i feel like im being accused of helping israel commit crimes i dont know about nor really care for

mr. x

03-29-2004, 03:17 PM

lol - you are silly. you go to de anza community college, of whom the administration sends over funds to israel.

fucked up, yes, can you do something about it.........(?) but you're moderate, so it's all good. :wink:
love,
prof. frink

how so? like a "visit israel" sorta thing? whattaya want me to do about it.

and thats the thing frink obviously its hard to get guys like me to care so much cuz i didnt grow up with the israel = evil mindset and when im told im sleeping with them and aiding/abetting and im like "whats this got to do with me"

kimpossible

03-29-2004, 03:34 PM

^ Thanks for proving my point.
You guys really do live in another world.

One guy's answer didn't prove anything for all of us. You said yourself in another post that you had moderate political views, many of us said the same thing.

how so? like a "visit israel" sorta thing? whattaya want me to do about it.

and thats the thing frink obviously its hard to get guys like me to care so much cuz i didnt grow up with the israel = evil mindset and when im told im sleeping with them and aiding/abetting and im like "whats this got to do with me"

well the greater point here is that if you truly don't understand the nature of the relationship between the US and Israel, the bilateral funding, the special tariff reductions or outright eliminations, the arms sales, the purpose of the US in supporting Israel as a strategic proxy presence, these are the type of things that have the US as the ultimate responsible party or at least partner in what Israel does militarily.

just because one person or another paints you in ignorance unfairly without actually explaining some background or pointing you in the right direction really shouldn't dissuade you from looking into it. beyond that even, it's really worth it to start looking into the history of the region and i'd venture perhaps examining the history of the Crusades isn't out of line.

Yeahman

03-29-2004, 04:05 PM

and thats the thing frink obviously its hard to get guys like me to care so much cuz i didnt grow up with the israel = evil mindset and when im told im sleeping with them and aiding/abetting and im like "whats this got to do with me"
Nice to know that you don't care about human life.

To restate something similar to what mr. x said in another thread why is that if you don't like Bush Jr. and/or a strong supporter of the Republican party, you're like this leftist pinko commie tree-hugger all of a sudden?
I'm no fan of Bush. I am voting for Kerry in November. Most Democrats are not leftist pinko commie tree-huggers. But that doesn't mean that leftist pinko commie tree-huggers don't exist, even in this forum.

kitty

03-29-2004, 04:07 PM

why not embrace the leftist pinko commie tree-huggers? there's nothing but hate in this thread.

kimpossible

03-29-2004, 04:34 PM

I'm no fan of Bush. I am voting for Kerry in November. Most Democrats are not leftist pinko commie tree-huggers. But that doesn't mean that leftist pinko commie tree-huggers don't exist, even in this forum.

I'm no conservative, but yellow world looks like far-left world to me. Anybody here not a tree-hugger?

^That sounds accusatory to me. And I think we run the gamut of political stances, far right, far left and many in between. Of course they exist on the forum and in this thread. We don't dole out membership based on political stance and since this is the Rant Room it's the perfect place to air political stances and debate. I'm happy we have a variety, that way I can consider points of view I wouldn't normally have.

edit: but I am sorry if I misunderstood your point which I first interpreted as leftist=bad and should be labeled a silly name like treehugger which is meant to be a cheap shot at a pro-environmental stance.

why not embrace the leftist pinko commie tree-huggers? there's nothing but hate in this thread.

Because it's a juvenile attempt to render valid and serious political stances (questioning military involvment, imperialism, arms sales and the war on terrorism, taking a pro-environmentalist stance) invalid and I think I'm taking it more seriously because it's a Presidential election year.

nonamerasian

03-29-2004, 04:40 PM

I wouldn't say minorities. Hispanics tend to be conservative.

It's divided amongst the different nationalities.

For example, I believe people of a Cuban background have a reputation for voting Republican, especially if living in Cuban communities, such as those in Florida.

Hispanics with background in the other countries in the Caribbean, people of Central American descent and Mexicans tend to vote less Republican as a whole and individually are perhaps more diverse in voting patterns than Cubans.

At least those were the stats I learned in h.s.

I don’t remember where people of South American descent stand.

Yeahman

03-29-2004, 04:56 PM

why not embrace the leftist pinko commie tree-huggers? there's nothing but hate in this thread.
Would you embrace a right-wing Bible-thumping neo-con?

And I think we run the gamut of political stances, far right, far left and many in between. Of course they exist on the forum and in this thread. We don't dole out membership based on political stance and since this is the Rant Room it's the perfect place to air political stances and debate. I'm happy we have a variety, that way I can consider points of view I wouldn't normally have.
I have not seen anyone here who is a social moderate, let alone social conservative.

Chester

03-29-2004, 05:27 PM

they're are
Hah.

hooligan

03-29-2004, 05:30 PM

and sigh - get over it - so what if they're are [somewhat :rolleyes: ] politically left thinkers here. just start a conservative people of color club (now is that contridictory!)

love,
prof. frink
what exactly do you want to accomplish with this thread yellow?

Yeahman

03-29-2004, 05:52 PM

what exactly do you want to accomplish with this thread yellow?
I answered that question at least one other time a few pages ago.

I wanted to discuss an observation. There is nothing for me to "get over." There is nothing for me to "accomplish." I'm not a part of the right-wing conspiracy. Why is it that any moderate-to-conservative opinions are automatically thought to have a political agenda?

hooligan

03-29-2004, 05:55 PM

I answered that question at least one other time a few pages ago.

I wanted to discuss an observation. There is nothing for me to "get over." There is nothing for me to "accomplish." I'm not a part of the right-wing conspiracy. Why is it that any moderate-to-conservative opinions are automatically thought to have a political agenda?
haha. sorry, i should have read the rest of the thread, but that's like 100 posts. you're pretty moderate actually. this board veers to the left, but we've got conservatives here, those who don't go to the left are few in number. i was talking to andy about this and due to the lack of conservative voices this board just looks radically left-leaning. that's all right though, as long as we keep it professional and not resort to personal attacks, i think we can all get along. :)

Yeahman

03-29-2004, 05:57 PM

oh please - if there are some democrats that are pinko commie tree-huggers, they wouldn't be democrats. hmm - i must be a pinko commie tree-hugger!
Geez. Obviously it was not meant as a serious characterization.
By far-left I mean people like the presidental candidate Dennis Kucinich (as opposed to the pre-presidental candidate Dennis Kucinich who was a moderate).

hooligan

03-29-2004, 06:01 PM

Geez. Obviously it was not meant as a serious characterization.
By far-left I mean people like the presidental candidate Dennis Kucinich (as opposed to the pre-presidental candidate Dennis Kucinich who was a moderate).
i was thinking, but being a minority and left leaning is really different than being white and left leaning. being conservative and minority, where does that put your stance?

Yeahman

03-29-2004, 06:25 PM

The Republican party may have had a history of racism in the 60's but there is nothing inherent in conservatism that is anti-minority.

hooligan

03-29-2004, 06:36 PM

you can also say that some of the democratic party is anti minority as well. it's not a party issue, it's a people issue.

kimpossible

03-29-2004, 06:50 PM

lol.

he said people (multiple) had told him that. i don't see how that should deter him from learning regardless. he's of voting and tax paying age.

I have not seen anyone here who is a social moderate, let alone social conservative.

But why do we need to prove our political views to you? And let's say for the sake of argument that everything you just said is true. Where would the bad be in that?

Yeahman

03-29-2004, 07:08 PM

But why do we need to prove our political views to you?
You don't. It was a harmless query.

And let's say for the sake of argument that everything you just said is true. Where would the bad be in that?
Never said it was bad.
Unless, maybe you consider underrepresentation of social conservatism, a negative.

sageb1

03-29-2004, 07:48 PM

Supposedly because spirituality instantly appeals to me until the endorphins wear off I'm considered to be a fringe conservative.:confused:

No no! Mostly I am more harmless than Mormons objecting to a white guy who is a Buddhist. Honest!

From what I have been told, my claims of being a moderate (the ideal from the Buddhist standpoint) is entirely a delusion.:tongue:

Regarding Bush, if he can allocate money to Christian groups to look after the homeless and the needy, then why isn't any money forthcoming to the Buddhist community in America who are also contributing to looking after the needy within their own community? :confused:

Oh wait! I'm a naive Canadian and don't realize that the Buddhist community prides itself in looking after its own. Also I made the mistake of mixing religion and politics. :redface:

Um, hello!? A great man named Gandhi once said that people who believe that religion has nothing to do with politics, don't know what religion is.

Personally though I think the Clintons are cool since the Democrats have had a womanizer for president and a closet bisexual woman who thinks New York is one helluva town!:biggrin:

kitty

03-29-2004, 09:04 PM

Would you embrace a right-wing Bible-thumping neo-con?

All night, if I have to, to get that Bible-thumpin' juuuust right :biggrin:
(okay... bad joke. it was funny when I thought of it)

Seriously, I have. In fact one of the reasons I was well-liked among the campus politicos was because I made a concerted effort to outreach to the conservatives as much as the liberals.

A lot of my good friends are Bible-thumping neo-cons -- and I make fun of them for voting Bush all the damn time :)

Make love, baby. Make love, not war.

I have not seen anyone here who is a social moderate, let alone social conservative.

Well, YW is a voluntary forum -- and has only so much control (or should have only so much control) on the political ideologies represented here. If you feel like the lone conservative (which you're not, believe me) then you could try recommending the site to fellow conservatives.

Geez. Obviously it was not meant as a serious characterization.
By far-left I mean people like the presidental candidate Dennis Kucinich (as opposed to the pre-presidental candidate Dennis Kucinich who was a moderate).

kucinich is crazy. I think that would be obvious, since the gnome-like creature hasn't gotten more than like a fraction of a percent of the vote...

MellowDrama

03-29-2004, 09:12 PM

I was a card-carrying member of the RNC until 2002. Now I'm independent.

Yeahman

03-29-2004, 09:27 PM

I was a card-carrying member of the RNC until 2002. Now I'm independent.
Bill O'Reilly, is that you?

mr. x

03-29-2004, 11:18 PM

ye110 im curious about you, i mean sure there are conservative minorities, hell at one point i was saying we should kill all iraqis back in elementary school, but i wonder what your background is and stuff

hooligan

03-29-2004, 11:39 PM

Yeahman

03-30-2004, 12:25 AM

Background? I'm a post-liberal moderate Democrat. You can see my age and location. I was once just as liberal as all of you. My parents are moderate-to-conservative Democrats. In the voting booth I just pick Democrats down the line. The 2 exceptions were in the last NY governor's race (I voted independent but only because the top Democratic contender dropped out) and the last NY senator's race (I vote against Hilary, the tourist).

I'm not exactly sure why I became more conservative. I guess it's just age. I've become more set in my ideology. I realized that the world isn't grey. There is pleny of black and white. I may also have been the disillusionment due to my party moving to farther to the left. I'm not too happy with a lot of people within my own party.

My positions on the issues...
For the war in Afghanistan, against the war in Iraq (from the very beginning).
I do not want to pull out of Iraq until we get the UN in.
Very opposed to the barbaric death penalty.
I'm a Keynesian. I like government spending. Reducing unemployment should be the focus of fiscal policy.
Universal healthcare but kept in private hands if possible.
For helping big business. If I had my way I'd get rid of corporate income tax altogether.
I'm a flat-taxer but with an exemption on say, the first $15,000 for single filers with no dependents.
Against letting individuals invest their social security but for having the government invest it in the stock market.
I'm against the importation of generic drugs. Fix the laws here with shorter patent lives and matching government R&D funds.
I'm against government subsidies.
I'm for free trade.
I'm for school vouchers.
I don't believe in global warming and I believe we should be drilling in Alaska.
I'm for affirmative action based on economic status not race.
I'm against gay marriage but for gays in the military. If I had my way I'd get rid of civil marriage altogether.
I'm for the legalization of prostitution with certain limitations.
I'm against the decriminalization of drugs but I'm against the Rockafeller laws and other over-the-top laws. You should be fined. It would save the states billions.
I'm against taking "under God" out of the pledge.
I'm for malpractice payout caps and for a special court for malpractice suits. Jurers from the general population are too sympathic towards the victim.
I'm for strict gun control but against a ban on concealed weapons.
I'm pro-life but know that I cannot impose my views on others so if I had my way I would do everything in my power to stop abortions short of denying women the choice. I was for the ban on that barbaric partial-birth abortion. In fact I've been pretty satisfied with Bush on this issue and pretty disappointed with Kerry.
And I think Israel needs to get out of occupied territory and reimburse the Palestinian refugees and the US should deny aid if they do not comply. Granting the right to return is unrealistic. Once all that is accomplished the UN should personally go after Palestinian terrorists.

hooligan

03-30-2004, 12:30 AM

what are you views on race? and the positions that asian americans hold in relation to african americans and latino/a americans?

Yeahman

03-30-2004, 12:39 AM

what are you views on race? and the positions that asian americans hold in relation to african americans and latino/a americans?
I'm not sure what you mean.

myself808

03-30-2004, 01:04 AM

I wouldn't say minorities. Hispanics tend to be conservative. Asians (outside of this forum) are fairly moderate. hispanics being conservative is debatable. but what about asains and blacks? myself would say not a lot of conservatives there.
So something has to have large enough support to be a civil rights issue?yes for enough popular support for the public to take it seriously, and not laugh at it on the news as wackos or extrremeists, (slippery slope arguments aside of course).

Yeahman

03-30-2004, 01:52 AM

What constitues large enough support? Gay marriage doesn't have majority support in any party.

Hispanics are more socially conservative then the general population. Asians are fairly evenly divided. Blacks are socially liberal.

>:^|

03-30-2004, 05:12 AM

I highly doubt MLK would be for gay marriage. Despite being liberal on most social issues, blacks today are opposed to gay marriage. Many black ministers have spoken against it. Jesse Jackson has said that gay rights is not civil rights.

Many White ministers have spoken against it.

Here's what Coretta Scott King has to say:

Civil rights leader Coretta Scott King denounced the proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage during a speech on Tuesday, saying, "Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union."

The widow of slain civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. has often spoken against discrimination based on sexual orientation during the last 10 years.

kitty

03-30-2004, 07:10 AM

Many White ministers have spoken against it.

Here's what Coretta Scott King has to say:

The widow of slain civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. has often spoken against discrimination based on sexual orientation during the last 10 years.

agreed. people get the 60's all messed up. MLK wasn't for 'black civil rights'... he was for 'CIVIL RIGHTS'. period. He would be completely for civil rights for the LGBTQ community because he was all about civil rights for every citizen.

It was only later that people started describing it as 'black civil rights'... almost as it's own form of racism.

Yeahman

03-30-2004, 04:52 PM

agreed. people get the 60's all messed up. MLK wasn't for 'black civil rights'... he was for 'CIVIL RIGHTS'. period. He would be completely for civil rights for the LGBTQ community because he was all about civil rights for every citizen.

It was only later that people started describing it as 'black civil rights'... almost as it's own form of racism.
But as Jesse Jackson has said, gay marriage isn't about civil rights! Fighting for something like serving in the military, would be a civil rights issue. Fighting to be considered a man and a woman is not. Not every ban of a class of people is a civil rights issue! I cannot go into a woman's restroom. You think MLK would have fought for desegregation of the bathrooms?

During the civil rights movement of the 60's a large portion of the religious right was active in supporting the movement. On this issue of gay marriage, the religious right are absent. Besides the gay community, no cross-section of America supports gay marriage. Not blacks, Hispanics, Asians, whites, men, women, the young, the elderly, Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, immigrants... Nobody.

You really think that REVEREND King would have supported it? BTW if you read his sermons, you will see that he was no Al Sharpton. He was a real minister of a very conservative denomination. There is no doubt that he would have disapproved of homosexuality on religious grounds.

maxwell

03-30-2004, 04:56 PM

People from the far right and the far left rub me the wrong way equally. The issue I care most about is taxes. Republicans are more likely to lower capital gain tax and I'd like that very much.

Yeahman

03-30-2004, 05:03 PM

The widow of slain civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. has often spoken against discrimination based on sexual orientation during the last 10 years.
"To equate homosexuality with race is to give a death sentence to civil rights." - Alveda Celeste King, niece of MLK

African Americans Offended By Comparison Made By Gay Marriage Activists
By Jimmy Moore
Talon News
March 8, 2004

Many African Americans have become increasingly offended by the comparison made by gay marriage activists to the struggle blacks went through to obtain civil rights in the United States.

Jason West, the young mayor of New Paltz, New York, who continued to perform weddings for homosexual couples over the weekend despite facing 19 criminal counts last week for allowing gays to get married, remarked that the gay marriage movement is simply "the flowering of the largest civil rights movement the country's had in a generation."

He added, "The people who would forbid gays from marrying in this country are those who would have made Rosa Parks sit in the back of the bus."

Similarly, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who has allowed nearly 4,000 gay marriages to take place in his city since February 12, used a civil rights comparison as justification for allowing same-sex weddings to take place.

"Rosa Parks didn't wait for the courts to tell her it was all right to ride in the front of the bus," Gavin told Newsweek.

However, many civil rights leaders are not pleased with the comparison.

Rev. Gene Rivers, president of the National Ten-Point Leadership Foundation and a minister in Boston, said gay activists have no right to compare their struggle with what blacks went through in the 1950s and 1960s.

"The gay community is pimping the civil rights movement and the history," Rivers told the Associated Press. "In the view of many, it's racist at worst, cynical at best."

Bishop Andrew Merritt, head of Straight Gate Ministries in Detroit, joined several other local pastors recently to support traditional marriage and denounce these comparisons to black civil rights.

"We find the gay community's attempt to tie their pursuit of special rights based on their behavior to the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s abhorrent," Merritt told the AP. "Being black is not a lifestyle choice."

Even Rev. Jesse Jackson, an icon of the civil rights struggle, has stated gay rights cannot be equated with civil rights for blacks.

"The comparison with slavery is a stretch in that some slave masters were gay, in that gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution ... and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the rights to vote," Jackson recently stated in a speech he made in Boston.

Rev. Joseph Lowery, who supports gay rights, said he is disturbed that gay activists try to compare their struggle with what blacks went through.

"Homosexuals as people have never been enslaved because of their sexual orientation," he told the AP.

Star Parker, a conservative black leader in California, said black Americans may be liberal on many social issues, but "not this one," referring to gay marriage.

Rev. Jeffrey Brown, a Massachusetts pastor who has joined with others in the Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston, said he is joining the effort against gay marriage because "there is something to this that is not right."

While some blacks may not agree with the comparison, the issue is a reminder to many of them of the struggles they went through for rights.

Yet, despite the attempt by gay activists to find empathy for their cause from black Americans, several conservative groups are encouraging black churches to outright deny the erroneous comparison.

"We oppose attempts to equate homosexuality with civil rights or compare it to benign characteristics such as skin color or place of origin," states the Family Research Council on its website.

Matt Daniels, executive director for the Alliance for Marriage, argues "communities of color" strongly support traditional marriage and a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Interestingly, black Americans, who have traditionally voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, are torn between supporting Republicans, the party that opposes gay marriage or the Democrats, who are leading the effort to give marriage rights to homosexuals.

As previously reported by Talon News, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies found that black support for the Democratic Party fell sharply from 74 percent to 63 percent from the 2000 election to the 2002 election.

nonamerasian

03-30-2004, 05:08 PM

Besides the gay community, no cross-section of America supports gay marriage. Not blacks, Hispanics, Asians, whites, men, women, the young, the elderly, Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, immigrants... Nobody.

I support gay marriage.

I'm a young, Black, Protestant, woman and I support gay marriage. Clearly, many other people do, too.

A whole group, for example, all youth, all Blacks, or all Protestants shouldn't have to agree for the individuals of each group to be listened to.

Yeahman

03-30-2004, 06:10 PM

A whole group, for example, all youth, all Blacks, or all Protestants shouldn't have to agree for the individuals of each group to be listened to.
Not a whole. The majority of each other those groups oppose gay marriage. I forgot to include Democrats and Republicans.

Sure you can listen to them. I was just trying to show how this is totally different from the civil rights movement of the 60's.

>:^|

03-30-2004, 06:12 PM

You really think that REVEREND King would have supported it? BTW if you read his sermons, you will see that he was no Al Sharpton. He was a real minister of a very conservative denomination. There is no doubt that he would have disapproved of homosexuality on religious grounds.

Why are you so insistent on this point? Do you know who Bayard Rustin is? And what the heck does this have to do with Where the conservatives at? anyway?

God is not just interested in the freedom of Black men, God is interested in the freedom of the whole human race. All life is interrelated. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. The Negro’s primary aim is to be the white man’s brother, not his brother-in-law. God is love. Death is not the ultimate evil, the ultimate evil is to be outside God’s love. The trailblazers in human, academic, and religious freedom have always been in the minority. Evil never voluntarily relinquishes its head, short of a persistent, almost fanatical resistance.

Can you hear me singing We shall overcome? :wink:

kitty

03-30-2004, 06:37 PM

A) Dr. King is dead. What he would or would not say about gay marriage is really, irrelevant because we don't really know. That being said, he was not only fighting for *black* civil fights but ALL civil rights for all American citizens.

B) The black protestant ministers in African American churches are not now and have not been even during the heyday of the civil rights movement the main pulse of black political thought. In fact, most ministers were very wary of being so publicly outspoken about civil rights and were against the way Dr. King led the civil rights mvmnt -- so what a few black ministers say now is in no way representative of all of black culture, especially today.

C) Why does what Alveda King have to say about this issue matter? <sarcasm>Oh wait, a member of the King family said it! It must be right!!</> :rolleyes: Black folk don't believe that shit.

Emperor_Mike

03-30-2004, 08:35 PM

I completely disagree with all who say that the fight for gay marriages is not a civil rights initiative. No one ever said that civil rights is limited to race alone. The issue of homosexual marriages is one that lies clearly within the realm of the fundamental right to pursue whatever course an individual sees fit so long that it does not cause real and tangible detriment to others. To think otherwise would require a very precise and logical explanation of why it would not fall within the category of basic social liberties. As such, I'd like to hear from those of you who don't think that gay marriage is a civil rights issue. After all, if this is your view on it surely you can provide a good explanation on the matter, right?

Yeahman

03-30-2004, 09:00 PM

Why are you so insistent on this point? Do you know who Bayard Rustin is? And what the heck does this have to do with Where the conservatives at? anyway?
You're the one that brought it up again!!! Geez! Is your position that weak that once I point out the fallacies of your claim, you have to act like you didn't really care?

To Kittygirl, please be consistant and critisize >:^| in the same matter. He's the one that brought it up. Or is it just conservative opinions that are irrelevant?

I completely disagree with all who say that the fight for gay marriages is not a civil rights initiative. No one ever said that civil rights is limited to race alone. The issue of homosexual marriages is one that lies clearly within the realm of the fundamental right to pursue whatever course an individual sees fit so long that it does not cause real and tangible detriment to others. To think otherwise would require a very precise and logical explanation of why it would not fall within the category of basic social liberties. As such, I'd like to hear from those of you who don't think that gay marriage is a civil rights issue. After all, if this is your view on it surely you can provide a good explanation on the matter, right?
Civil rights is not limited to race alone. It extends to homosexuals. But the definition of marriage is not a civil rights issue. A homosexual man can marry a woman if he wants. Nobody is stoping him.

I'm sure I'll be accused of raising another "slippery slope" question that the gay-marriage supporters here will refuse to answer on the basis of "principle" (see Conie Rice and 9/11 Commission) but I will ask it anyway. Hopefully someone here will step up and not hide behind the curtains whenever an arguement works against them.
Should blood brothers be allowed to marry? According to logic of the supporters of gay marriage, this would also be a civil rights issue.

kitty

03-30-2004, 09:58 PM

You're the one that brought it up again!!! Geez! Is your position that weak that once I point out the fallacies of your claim, you have to act like you didn't really care?

To Kittygirl, please be consistant and critisize >:^| in the same matter. He's the one that brought it up. Or is it just conservative opinions that are irrelevant?

why should i criticize visage? I merely said that it doesn't matter who in who's family said what -- I make my own decisions on this issue, so telling me what corretta or alveda king said doesn't matter one iota to me.

Yeahman

03-30-2004, 10:07 PM

why should i criticize visage? I merely said that it doesn't matter who in who's family said what -- I make my own decisions on this issue, so telling me what corretta or alveda king said doesn't matter one iota to me.
Oh OK so...
"<sarcasm>Oh wait, a member of the King family said it! It must be right!!</> :rolleyes: Black folk don't believe that shit."
...was directed at >:^| ?

kitty

03-30-2004, 10:14 PM

Oh OK so...
"<sarcasm>Oh wait, a member of the King family said it! It must be right!!</> :rolleyes: Black folk don't believe that shit."
...was directed at >:^| ?

no, it was directed at you. but as i said in my most recent post, I don't care who said what in the king family -- it shouldn't make the issue less wrong or right.

it was directed towards your earlier post because you countered some argument with a quote from alveda king...

Yeahman

03-30-2004, 10:33 PM

kitty

03-30-2004, 10:45 PM

But >:^| is the one who brought it up. I mearly responded in kind with a quote from another MLK relative. I agree with you that it doesn't matter. But what I want to know is why you would direct your sarcastic comments towards me and not >:^| who is the one who obviously thought that it did matter.

His quote supports gay marriage. And my response did not. You say it doesn't matter but only mock the later when the same exact charge can be applied to the former. That is what's called a liberal bias. Hell, I'd even call it discrimination in this case.

well, i think he was responding to your charge that reverand king would've been against gay marriage -- which is personally what I'm really against. I don't see why it matters what Rev. King would be supportive of or not.

But yes, I also felt that visage's bringing up of coretta was also irrelevant. but if it makes you feel better, you can call me liberally biased. I am a progressive after all.

Yeahman

03-30-2004, 11:20 PM

I don't see why it matters what Rev. King would be supportive of or not.
It matters only in the sense that a definitive 'no' answer would take away the left's habit of likening gay marriage to the civil rights movement of the 60's.

But yes, I also felt that visage's bringing up of coretta was also irrelevant. but if it makes you feel better, you can call me liberally biased. I am a progressive after all.
Progressive is good so long as it doesn't cloud your objectivity.

Chester

03-31-2004, 12:23 AM

It matters only in the sense that a definitive 'no' answer would take away the left's habit of likening gay marriage to the civil rights movement of the 60's.No...it wouldn't...because, as we've discussed before, you are hardly a definitive expert on what Martin Luther King, Jr. would or would not believe if he had lived till today.

If you disagree with same-sex marriages, fine. If you want to debate the issue, fine. But if you debate the issue with real, substantive points and quit pretending that you're some occult medium who can channel the thoughts of the dead, you might find that you'll receive a greater amount of intellectual respect.

(And, really...if you stop two seconds to think about the issue, you're arguing that MLK would have had less capacity for moral growth than Strom fucking Thurmond, who managed to grow a bit along with society, as time progressed. But, then again...maybe your elevation of someone like Thurmond over someone like King isn't entirely unintentional...)

Yeahman

03-31-2004, 01:06 AM

You completely misunderstood. I didn't say that "no" was the definitive answer. I mearly stated what the effects of a definitive "no" would be. So you can quit it with the arrogant accusations.

It'll take you more than 2 seconds for you to convince me that moral growth leads to support of gay marriage any more than it leads to support of polygamy.

Emperor_Mike

03-31-2004, 02:57 AM

Civil rights is not limited to race alone. It extends to homosexuals. But the definition of marriage is not a civil rights issue. A homosexual man can marry a woman if he wants. Nobody is stoping him.

I'm sure I'll be accused of raising another "slippery slope" question that the gay-marriage supporters here will refuse to answer on the basis of "principle" (see Conie Rice and 9/11 Commission) but I will ask it anyway. Hopefully someone here will step up and not hide behind the curtains whenever an arguement works against them.
Should blood brothers be allowed to marry? According to logic of the supporters of gay marriage, this would also be a civil rights issue.

How is limiting the scope of the term "marriage" to cover only a union between a man and a woman by way of constitutional amendments not limiting the civil rights of homosexual partners to get married and as a result reap the social and financial benefits of being in that status? I'm still not convinced of your views. Do try and help me see the well reasoned logic behind your opinions and I shall respect them for that they are.

Where is the difficulty in answering the blood brothers question? That goes far beyond gay marriages, you know. That's incest and it belongs in a category of its own. You might as well insert "brother and sister" in place of "blood brothers" and nothing really changes. All the question is doing is taking an existing issue and putting a contemporary gay spin on it with no discernible reason or intelligence about it. Besides, the medical ills of incestous relationships have long been proven. Even if society decides to nod their heads to inter-family unions and overnight the social stigma vanishes there will still be a perfect scientific reason why such arrangements can never and indeed should never come to pass.

I do, however, agree that prima facie it is a civil rights issue. But the main difficulty here is that such relationships will in all likelihood have the effect of causing some sort of harm (to the offspring.) Granted, it may never happen and the children could very well turn out healthy, but there is a risk. And even if there is a slim chance (e.g. less than 0.000001%) that harm can come to another party by such circumstances the matter altogether ceases to be a legitimate civil rights subject. For once you start granting rights with inherent risks of harm involved you're playing Russian roulette. True social, political, and economic liberties to be argued in favour of should never stand to cause another person or group of people grief. Does this answer suit your enquiry? If not, throw some more questions at me.

All in all, I think arguments by both sides on a variety of issues are often severely lacking in common sense and intelligence. There's is only so much free will you can allow in society and only so much you can withhold. Why do people find it hard to view things from a position of reason?

>:^|

03-31-2004, 05:27 AM

I think we already know where the conservative at. :wink:

kitty

03-31-2004, 06:35 AM

It matters only in the sense that a definitive 'no' answer would take away the left's habit of likening gay marriage to the civil rights movement of the 60's.

Why? Reverand King wasn't the only person in the civil rights movement. While a very influential figure, he didn't encompass in and of himself what the civil rights movement was about.

Civil rights isn't about carrying out what one man wanted -- it's about taking a germ of an idea that he believed in and making it a reality. To that end, Reverand King believed in civil rights for all people, but was never challenged with gay marriage. How would he have felt? We don't honestly know -- what we do know is that his message was simply that ALL people should have EQUAL rights on the basis of sex, color and creed. Any conjecture on whether or not he would have then appended sexual orientation to that list is just that -- conjecture, and frankly meaningless.

If you think that civil rights is all about pleasing some ghost of Reverand King, than I think you've missed what the point of the whole struggle is, in the first place.

Progressive is good so long as it doesn't cloud your objectivity.

It don't cloud my judgement. But I think it's funny you should be writing this, since you seem to be fixating on Reverand King, as if this will solve all the holes in your argument.

You completely misunderstood. I didn't say that "no" was the definitive answer. I mearly stated what the effects of a definitive "no" would be. So you can quit it with the arrogant accusations.

It'll take you more than 2 seconds for you to convince me that moral growth leads to support of gay marriage any more than it leads to support of polygamy.

well we're talking logic here. Reverand King was never challenged with gay issues... but who's to say that he wouldn't have evolved to see them as a struggling community looking for civil rights?

Near the end of his life, he began arguing for the civil rights of the poor -- against the preference of the black community (because this was talking about poor whites as well as poor blacks). It's highly likely that he would've recognized the gay community as a group in a similar vein.

But argh! this is so moot!

Chester

03-31-2004, 09:22 AM

You completely misunderstood. I didn't say that "no" was the definitive answer. I mearly stated what the effects of a definitive "no" would be. So you can quit it with the arrogant accusations.You can quit with the disingenuous backpedaling.

Yes, you have tried to explain what effects a "no" would have, but you have, multiple times, tried to definitively state that MLK would have been against gay rights. You have brought up quotes from Jesse Jackson and relatives of King in order to bolster your hypothesis, which you pass off as a fact.

And so, no, I did not misunderstand. You misrepresented.

The civil rights movement of blacks in the 60s is a fantastic analogy for the gay rights movement of today. Both are struggles of people who are discriminated against by mainstream society. Both are groups who are guaranteed full protection of the law by the Constitution of our country but who are not given this protection in practice.

If you want to dispute that, you're going to have to do something more substantial than hypothesize about what MLK would or would not have though, had he lived until today. If he were alive today, his opinion would not determine the validity of the gay rights movement. And your opinion of what his opinion would have been is dramatically less relevant...to the point that it is utterly immaterial.
It'll take you more than 2 seconds for you to convince me that moral growth leads to support of gay marriage any more than it leads to support of polygamy.I have no doubt that it would take much longer than 2 seconds to explain something so elementary to you.

But lets try terms you can agree with: you are positing that MLK was incapable of having his mind changed, when even someone like Strom Thurmond had his mind changed (publicly, at least).

Let me spell it out clearly and succinctly for you: if you want to argue against gay marriage you have to present reasons why gay marriage would be bad for society. Like...you have to explain why it would be bad.

Talking about whether or not MLK would approve is not explaining why gay marriage would be bad. Talking about marriage between siblings does not explain why gay marriage would be bad.

You need to detail why. it. would. be. bad.

VV o n g B a

03-31-2004, 09:55 AM

It'll take you more than 2 seconds for you to convince me that moral growth leads to support of gay marriage any more than it leads to support of polygamy.
what's so wrong w/ polygamy if it is between consenting adults? as long as there's some kind of vetting process where the ppl are of legal age and understand what they are doing, then what's the harm? its not like everyone in the country is going to start marrying multiple ppl. its not like it will lead to a breakdown in society cuz different societies have handled the situation for millenia. even king solomon and king david. it's distasteful to me personally so i won't participate, but what gives u the right to tell ppl they shouldn't if they are fully aware of the situation? what of all the swingers clubs that exist b/c ppl are bored? will u then go and outlaw adultery? or sodomy or blowjobs? as long as it doesn't hurt anyone in the public, who are u to tell them how to act?

and if u wanna tackle incest then here's my view: incest ought to be illegal as long as both partners is fertile, but if they can't produce a baby, who are u to tell them they shouldn't have sex (given both are of legal age)? who gave u the moral authority? what consequence would it have on greater society if it was allowed? would every son/mother and father/daughter in society suddenly go out and start having sex? i think not.

Yeahman

03-31-2004, 05:56 PM

How is limiting the scope of the term "marriage" to cover only a union between a man and a woman by way of constitutional amendments not limiting the civil rights of homosexual partners to get married and as a result reap the social and financial benefits of being in that status? I'm still not convinced of your views. Do try and help me see the well reasoned logic behind your opinions and I shall respect them for that they are.
By all means homosexuals should fight for financial equality. And any other quantifiable discrimination.
But using the traditional definition of marriage does not discriminate against men or women. A homosexual man can marry a woman just as a heterosexual man can.

Where is the difficulty in answering the blood brothers question? That goes far beyond gay marriages, you know. That's incest and it belongs in a category of its own. You might as well insert "brother and sister" in place of "blood brothers" and nothing really changes. All the question is doing is taking an existing issue and putting a contemporary gay spin on it with no discernible reason or intelligence about it. Besides, the medical ills of incestous relationships have long been proven. Even if society decides to nod their heads to inter-family unions and overnight the social stigma vanishes there will still be a perfect scientific reason why such arrangements can never and indeed should never come to pass.

I do, however, agree that prima facie it is a civil rights issue. But the main difficulty here is that such relationships will in all likelihood have the effect of causing some sort of harm (to the offspring.) Granted, it may never happen and the children could very well turn out healthy, but there is a risk. And even if there is a slim chance (e.g. less than 0.000001%) that harm can come to another party by such circumstances the matter altogether ceases to be a legitimate civil rights subject. For once you start granting rights with inherent risks of harm involved you're playing Russian roulette. True social, political, and economic liberties to be argued in favour of should never stand to cause another person or group of people grief. Does this answer suit your enquiry? If not, throw some more questions at me.
Why are you assuming that marriage has anything to do with procreation? That's a liberal no-no. Don't tell me you buy that conservative nonsense that children are the fruit of marriage.
Besides, I said "blood BROTHERS" for a reason. We can't make a person out of 2 sperms, yet.

I think we already know where the conservative at. :wink:
That's the funny thing. I'm not a conservative. I'm presenting the views of moderate America. I'm presenting of the view of John Kerry.
The far-left is so out-of-touch that they assume that only the right opposes gay marriage.

Chester

03-31-2004, 06:09 PM

Yeahman

03-31-2004, 06:19 PM

It don't cloud my judgement. But I think it's funny you should be writing this, since you seem to be fixating on Reverand King, as if this will solve all the holes in your argument.
Sure it clouded your judgement.

Here's what Coretta Scott King has to say:

Civil rights leader Coretta Scott King denounced the proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage during a speech on Tuesday, saying, "Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union."

The widow of slain civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. has often spoken against discrimination based on sexual orientation during the last 10 years.
To which I responded with...
"To equate homosexuality with race is to give a death sentence to civil rights." - Alveda Celeste King, niece of MLK
To which you responded...
Why does what Alveda King have to say about this issue matter? <sarcasm>Oh wait, a member of the King family said it! It must be right!!</> :rolleyes: Black folk don't believe that shit.
And I said...
To Kittygirl, please be consistant and critisize >:^| in the same matter. He's the one that brought it up. Or is it just conservative opinions that are irrelevant?
And finally you said...
why should i criticize visage?

That's ideological discrimination.

But argh! this is so moot!
I agreed a long time ago.

Yes, you have tried to explain what effects a "no" would have, but you have, multiple times, tried to definitively state that MLK would have been against gay rights. You have brought up quotes from Jesse Jackson and relatives of King in order to bolster your hypothesis, which you pass off as a fact.
I aknowledged that it was hypothetical a long time ago. I brought up a quote from one relative of King in response to your liberal friend >:^| who is the one who thought that quotes from King relatives would bolster his arguement.

The rest of your juvenile post is undeserving of a reponse.

kitty

03-31-2004, 06:21 PM

i don't care if you think i'm liberally biased... i'll be the first to admit that i favour visage over your arguments anyday. in this case, i was making light of this quote-throwing because frankly I don't think any of it means a damn.

it's funny, though, how you dismiss the actual substance of my post as 'juvenile' -- perhaps you have no way of arguing back against the points i was actually making about MLK...?

Chester

03-31-2004, 06:30 PM

I aknowledged that it was hypothetical a long time ago.
And kept using it to support your "argument." The point isn't simply whether or not it's hypothetical, but that it's irrelevant, period.
The rest of your juvenile post is undeserving of a reponse.
Mm, yeah. In other words, you have no basis to stand on and are too...juvenile to admit it.

One more time in case you missed it: are you ever going to make an actual argument against same-sex marriage or are you just going to spew transparent rhetorical ploys?

In all these pages, you have yet to actually demonstrate or argue why legalizing same-sex marriage would have a detrimental effect on our nation.

it's funny, though, how you dismiss the actual substance of my post as 'juvenile'
He was referring to my post. Apparently he's not only incapable of making a point, he's also unable to discern the difference between "juvenile" and "disdainful."

Yeahman

03-31-2004, 06:37 PM

1. Being denied the right to marry is "quantifiable discrimination."
Homosexuals are not denied the right to marry.

2. The issue at hand isn't merely about one's right to marry, but one's right to marry a person of the same sex.
I have the right to go to a public restroom. I don't have the right to walk into a woman's restroom.
These aren't civil rights issues at all.

Believing in school segregation was once a "moderate" view. Believing in denying blacks and women the right to vote was once a moderate view. Believing in the justness of slavery was once a moderate view. You keep yourself in great company.
Liberals believed all those too at one point.
In all those things you mentioned, they came to an end with support from the right. That is not the case today with gay marriage.

i don't care if you think i'm liberally biased... i'll be the first to admit that i favour visage over your arguments anyday. in this case, i was making light of this quote-throwing because frankly I don't think any of it means a damn.

it's funny, though, how you dismiss the actual substance of my post as 'juvenile' -- perhaps you have no way of arguing back against the points i was actually making about MLK...?
That comment wasn't direct at you. I was talking to Chester. Double posts are merged so it showed up in the same post.

>:^|

03-31-2004, 06:46 PM

I agreed a long time but people continue to shame the good name of MLK and the civil rights movement by using it in the context of gay marriage.

Well, I frankly think that Coretta Scott King is probably the person most likely to know what Martin Luther King would have thought. Over the years, she has repeatedly affirmed that MLK believed "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" applied to rights for the GLBT population.

I brought up Coretta Scott King because I believed you were using MLK's name with very little knowledge of who he was or what he stood for. Does Bayard Rustin ring any bells?

In any event, perhaps this is moot. The civil rights movement does not belong exclusively to the African American community. What some black ministers have to say about whether the GLBT population's struggle mirrors the struggle of African Americans doesn't hold a lot of weight with me. And just because Martin Luther King was black or a minister doesn't mean that he would side with other black ministers.

Additionally, any argument against same-sex marriage based on "tradition" is inherently flawed. You might also argue that interracial couples should not marry, or that African Americans should be enslaved, or that women should not be allowed the right to vote. When the founders of our country wrote "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," don't forget that they meant specifically free White men.

... your liberal friend >:^| ...

I HAS BEEN SLANDERED!

CHESTER is not considered my friend.
He once threatened my pitiful life to end.
And we are so rarely civil
Yet we rarely resort to drivel
Instead we both prefer to condescend. :tongue:

Yeahman

03-31-2004, 06:48 PM

Apparently he's not only incapable of making a point, he's also unable to discern the difference between "juvenile" and "disdainful."
I have no doubt that it would take much longer than 2 seconds to explain something so elementary to you.
Your freedom of speech here on yellowworld.org is absolutely contingent on the assumption that you practice responsible speech. Therefore no personal attacks, obviously demeaning posts, or posts that serve no purpose other than arouse angry reactions from other members will be allowed.
Please respect the rules of the forum, Chester. You ability to post here is a privilege. Not a civil right. Try to stick to the subject at hand and keep the personal attacks off the forum.

Chester

03-31-2004, 07:32 PM

Homosexuals are not denied the right to marry.
They do not have the right to marry a person of the same sex. That is the crux of the argument. Your pretending that the argument is different doesn't make it so.
I have the right to go to a public restroom. I don't have the right to walk into a woman's restroom.
How is this an analogy for people not having the right to marry someone of the same sex?

(So, I take this as your way of saying that you'd rather stick to shoddy rhetoric rather than make an actual argument.)
Liberals believed all those too at one point.
In all those things you mentioned, they came to an end with support from the right. That is not the case today with gay marriage.
"Today" is the operative word.

I don't know why you're so stuck on the liberal/conservative dichotomy. This isn't an issue of spots along the political spectrum. This is an issue of staying true to the tenets of the Constitution, which is the law that binds both liberals and conservatives. Stopping same-sex couples from marrying is unconstitutional.

But that apparently doesn't matter much to you, as you're far more interested in talking about polygamy, incest, and your theories on Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please respect the rules of the forum, Chester. You ability to post here is a privilege. Not a civil right. Try to stick to the subject at hand and keep the personal attacks off the forum.
Those are personal attacks because I believe that you, personally, are wrong not only on the topic at hand, but in how you choose to discuss the topic. Do not confuse "personal" with "ad hominem."

I have repeatedly pointed out that you have consistently failed to make any substantive arguments against same-sex marriage. I have repeatedly pointed out that all you post are specious slippery-slope arguments, empty syllogisms, and bad analogies.

Yet...you persist in posting slipper-slope arguments, empty syllogisms, bad analogies, and fail to bring up any logical points against same-sex marriage. Perhaps a moderator will tell me to make my posts more friendly, but, frankly, your rhetorical running-in-circles is annoying and my annoyance has come through in my posts.

But I still stand by everything I've written. They may be disdainful or even condescending, but you have done nothing to controvert the points I made in the two statements you quoted.

1. You still haven't made any points against same-sex marriage.
2. You still apparently haven't comprehended that you have to demonstrate how same-sex marriage would be bad in order to argue that same-sex marriage is bad.

I wasn't making baseless ad hominem remarks. I was pointing out your consistent failure to make any actual arguments against same-sex marriage. An ad hominem attack would be me calling you a moron or an idiot or a dimwit or a retard. I haven't done that. I have merely detailed how you have presented nothing but shoddy arguments, a glaring lack of logic, and an inability to respond to intellectual questioning.

If you continue to fail to see the difference between a personal attack and an exposition of your weaknesses, then I would submit that my point has been made.

kitty

03-31-2004, 08:38 PM

for the record, i think unisex bathrooms are a good thing. (i.e., no male and female segregation)

That comment wasn't direct at you. I was talking to Chester. Double posts are merged so it showed up in the same post.

Okay... then what are your responses to my MLK diatribe?

Yeahman

03-31-2004, 10:49 PM

Those are personal attacks because I believe that you, personally, are wrong not only on the topic at hand, but in how you choose to discuss the topic.
If you continue to fail to see the difference between a personal attack and an exposition of your weaknesses, then I would submit that my point has been made.
You obviously believe them to be one and the same.

By popular demand, Ye110man's exposition against same-sex marriage:

Let's start from the beginning. The Bible tells us that God created Adam and Eve.

J/P. Freaked you out for a sec didn't I? :tongue:

OK, seriously, originally I wrote out a loooong ass explination but I'll simplify it; Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.

First my views stated more clearly... I want the government to get out of marriage together. It's none of their business. We can dish out the legal benefits of marriage in other ways. It doesn't look like that is going to happen anytime soon. So gays and lesbians should be fighting for those legal benefits. I'm all for more gay rights. But marriage is not a right. It's more like a rite.

Homosexuals should be treated exactly the same as heterosexuals. They shouldn't be denied anything that isn't denied to a heterosexual. But the very definition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman. It's our nation's tradition, it's our English language, it's America's culture. You can't change that with a court decision. You can't change black to mean white because a minority thinks it should be. I can't fight to be classified as a female WASP. That goes against the accepted definitions of the words.

So I support the gay community's fight for equality. But just because I can't be legally classified as a female WASP doesn't mean I'm not an equal to female WASPs. Likewise a homosexual can have equal rights without a legal status of "married."

Okay... then what are your responses to my MLK diatribe?
My response is that it is moot. :tongue:
If I continue and give you a real response, I'll be accused again for bringing dead people into this debate. Apparently only liberals are free to talk about it.

Kuchana

03-31-2004, 10:52 PM

No no! Mostly I am more harmless than Mormons objecting to a white guy who is a Buddhist. Honest!

And why did you have to bring up a joke about Mormons? I fail to see the humor in that.

To ye110man, I admire your fortitude.

Chester

03-31-2004, 11:06 PM

You obviously believe them to be one and the same.Only if you were to continue to make that the case.

Anyway, I'm glad that, with this message, we're finally talking about significant aspects of the issue...
First my views stated more clearly... I want the government to get out of marriage together. It's none of their business. We can dish out the legal benefits of marriage in other ways. I wouldn't argue with that. I assume you're talking about government not performing marriages, but only performing "civil unions" or whatever they end up being labeled.

That would be perfectly fine with me.
It doesn't look like that is going to happen anytime soon. So gays and lesbians should be fighting for those legal benefits. I'm all for more gay rights. But marriage is not a right. It's more like a rite.
I don't necessarily disagree with that. The whole point is equal protection under the law. If the law only provides civil unions to heterosexuals, then that's all that's entitled to homosexuals.

However, unless civil marriages are revoked as a right of heterosexual couples, then denying them to homosexuals is unjust and unconstitutional. And, therefore, so long as civil marriages are performed, it is a civil rights issue.

But the very definition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman. It's our nation's tradition, it's our English language, it's America's culture. You can't change that with a court decision. Yes you can. And simply because your conception of the word "marriage" is limited and unmalleable doesn't mean that this is the case for other people. Your conception -- and even that of "the majority" -- does not stand in the way of societal evolution and an eventual redefinition of words and cultural concepts.
Likewise a homosexual can have equal rights without a legal status of "married."The problem is that the political segment who is anti same-sex marriage is generally against extending equal rights to homosexuals, period. It's not as if they're in any hurry to extend all rights to homosexuals under "civil unions." And, if so, it's only in a last-ditch effort to maintain their stranglehold on the definition of "marriage."

Anyway, if your solution is to have governments perform nothing but secular unions, I would have no opposition to that. (Though, there is an argument for not allowing only religious institutions to own "marriage.") The problem is...good luck trying to "take away" marriage from the people who are currently trying to "protect" it from homosexuals. That would take forever to happen, if it ever happened.

In the meantime, attaining the right to marry is part and parcel to gaining equal protection under the law for homosexuals. And so long as that's the case, same-sex marriages are a civil rights issue.

Emperor_Mike

03-31-2004, 11:48 PM

By all means homosexuals should fight for financial equality. And any other quantifiable discrimination.
But using the traditional definition of marriage does not discriminate against men or women. A homosexual man can marry a woman just as a heterosexual man can.

Yes, but that's not the crux of the matter. We're talking about homosexual unions. I didn't think I'd have to explain, but here goes: it's about a man or a woman wanting to marry a partner of the same sex. We're not talking about homosexuals marrying heterosexuals. Having said that, take your time to think it over, reference my earlier post and reply.

Why are you assuming that marriage has anything to do with procreation? That's a liberal no-no. Don't tell me you buy that conservative nonsense that children are the fruit of marriage.
Besides, I said "blood BROTHERS" for a reason. We can't make a person out of 2 sperms, yet.

Yes, but that's still incest, which was the point of your question. Incest and homosexual unions are different subjects and what you posted seemed an awful lot like a dodgy attempt to mix two issues and make it into one. If you were trying to confuse me and evade the subject then shame on you. You won't find many village idiots here on YW let alone yours truly. :rolleyes: :biggrin:

Look at the question in its entirety and respond in kind with something that addresses the issue. Forgive me, but I don't want to recap everything again on the account that you didn't understand the message in its entirety. Read. Carefully.

That's the funny thing. I'm not a conservative. I'm presenting the views of moderate America. I'm presenting of the view of John Kerry. The far-left is so out-of-touch that they assume that only the right opposes gay marriage.

I'm neither Right or Left. What I stand for is common sense and civil rights. To date I've never met opponents of homosexual marriages who have given me a concrete reason why they oppose the matter. Quite frankly, I don't care about what the Bible says or what the priest/pastor preached on the pulpit. What I want is a logical reason for the stance others take. It doesn't take much to make me stop with the questioning. Just give me a valid reply. It'll be a learning experience. Hell, you might even succeed in convincing me why I *shouldn't* support homosexual marriages. Ideology is crap. Common sense and reason make better counsels.

And you still haven't told me why you don't think homosexual marriages is a civil rights issue. Care to enlighten us? And don't try to dodge the issue.

Yeahman

04-01-2004, 12:08 AM

Yes, but that's still incest, which was the point of your question. Incest and homosexual unions are different subjects and what you posted seemed an awful lot like a dodgy attempt to mix two issues and make it into one. If you were trying to confuse me and evade the subject then shame on you. You won't find many village idiots here on YW let alone yours truly. :rolleyes: :biggrin:
If you support gay marriage you can't stop short of incest. Why shouldn't 2 brothers be allowed to get married? Supporters of gay marriage have a hard time answering that question. But fear not. I'm going to answer it for them.

In our culture marriage is the union of a man and a woman. People, even many supporters of gay marriage, are reluctant to turn the tradition of marriage upside-down. Scroll up to see my arguements on why I believe definitions matter and do not constitute discrimination.

And you still haven't told me why you don't think homosexual marriages is a civil rights issue. Care to enlighten us? And don't try to dodge the issue.
Scroll up about 4 posts.

hooligan

04-01-2004, 12:18 AM

say you took out the definition of marriage and defined it as an union between a person and another person. and the argument does not extend into the incest and polygamous "snowball" argument. give me one good reason that a homosexual couple can't marry?

the only argument you have for not letting homosexual couples marry is by the definition of marriage, aren't laws race and gender neutral (ideally?).

Yeahman

04-01-2004, 12:21 AM

say you took out the definition of marriage and defined it as an union between a person and another person. and the argument does not extend into the incest and polygamous "snowball" argument. give me one good reason that a homosexual couple can't marry?
So disregarding the reasons why I oppose same-sex marriage, you want me to tell you the reasons why I oppose same-sex marriage? Uh... you win. I can't.

hooligan

04-01-2004, 12:23 AM

So disregarding the reasons why I oppose same-sex marriage, you want me to tell you the reasons why I oppose same-sex marriage? Uh... you win. I can't. well definitions can be changed and incest and polygamy are separate issues. what's a good reason?

i guess that's why we're progressives? we want change? :rolleyes::tongue:

Emperor_Mike

04-01-2004, 12:35 AM

If you support gay marriage you can't stop short of incest. Why shouldn't 2 brothers be allowed to get married? Supporters of gay marriage have a hard time answering that question. But fear not. I'm going to answer it for them.

In our culture marriage is the union of a man and a woman. People, even many supporters of gay marriage, are reluctant to turn the tradition of marriage upside-down. Scroll up to see my arguements on why I believe definitions matter and do not constitute discrimination.

So you believe that it's not discrimination on the account that we're only dealing with a definition and that the act of denying homosexual couples the ability to get married (in whatever traditional sense you can think of it) is not an affront to civil rights? Try to clarify and try again.

...

Scroll up about 4 posts.

What, that's it? If you support the notion of gay marriages and only oppose the wording then this discussion is pretty much pointless. Either you're one of those pedantic types or you've just backtracked on the issue to draw away the fire. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former. The issue at hand is not only about the definition of marriages, it's about the rights and advantages given to married heterosexual couples. If you're all for equality then we're on the same playing field that's all that needs to be mentioned. You should've said so earlier on (if this truly is what you believe) and saved me the inconvenience of having to decipher just what it was you were trying to get it. Talk about embarking on a four week trip to the corner-store only to end up not going anywhere at all. :rolleyes:

Nevertheless, the position you've taken is more or less a hollow one - without substance. The opponents of gay marriages want to deny homosexual couples the same rights given to heterosexual partners and you're arguing for a definition? Might as well say, "I don't support blue cars because I don't like the colour." Useless position, same effect as the dictionary definition you're going on about.

Craig

04-01-2004, 01:04 AM

Why are you so insistent on this point? Do you know who Bayard Rustin is? And what the heck does this have to do with Where the conservatives at? anyway?

Can you hear me singing We shall overcome? :wink: Nice thread title.

Welcome to the mafia.

Bhodi_Li

04-01-2004, 01:34 AM

I haven't been keeping up on this thread, but this one seems to have gotten quite ugly. What are we still talking about?

Emperor_Mike

04-01-2004, 01:44 AM

I haven't been keeping up on this thread, but this one seems to have gotten quite ugly. What are we still talking about?

We were debating on gay marriages and ye110man said he was opposed to it and all this time he actually supported giving equal rights to homosexual couples (which is really what the whole matter is about) but didn't say it before hand. In other words, it was the definition he was opposed to. As far as I can tell, KittyGirl and Chester and a few others have indulged in some Q&A and up until now it's all "Qs" and very few "As" coming from ye110man. However, we now have an answer and that answer more or less puts the topic on a hiatus. Something about polygamy and incest as well. That's the abridged version.

All that fire and fury only to find that the person who was against gay marriages had a spot of trouble with the word. Feh. I want back the ten minutes I spent on typing my responses.

Bhodi_Li

04-01-2004, 04:30 AM

All that fire and fury only to find that the person who was against gay marriages had a spot of trouble with the word. I see. Well, to restate, I consider myself a moderate-conservative. Who wants a piece of me? Let's get it on! LOL.

kitty

04-01-2004, 05:57 AM

Homosexuals should be treated exactly the same as heterosexuals. They shouldn't be denied anything that isn't denied to a heterosexual. But the very definition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

Those are two contradictory statements. If you don't call what you give gays a 'marriage', than they are inherently different. There is no such thing as different but equal. Civil unions do not carry the same social weight as marriages.

It's our nation's tradition, it's our English language, it's America's culture. You can't change that with a court decision. You can't change black to mean white because a minority thinks it should be. I can't fight to be classified as a female WASP. That goes against the accepted definitions of the words.

America was also based upon a history of slavery, genocide, and sexism.

All that stuff got changed with laws. So... try again.

ChinaLama

04-01-2004, 09:17 AM

I'm an independent with view all over the spectrum. I don't think YW is really "tree-huggy;" liberals just tend to be more vocal, I think.

ellsworth81

04-01-2004, 10:02 AM

I'm an independent with view all over the spectrum. I don't think YW is really "tree-huggy;" liberals just tend to be more vocal, I think.
I agree. this liberal/conservative label is way too constricting.

on another note, i so wanted to make an asinine comment. damn my conscience.

Chester

04-01-2004, 11:03 AM

If you support gay marriage you can't stop short of incest. Why shouldn't 2 brothers be allowed to get married? Supporters of gay marriage have a hard time answering that question.
Opponents of same-sex marriage have a hard time letting go of the question, not realizing that it's irrelevant.

If you want to make a slippery slope argument, you have to demonstrate how Event A will irrevocably lead to Event B. You can't just simply assume that it will happen and assume that we all agree with your rationale.

Until you can make the connection, issues such as incest are totally and utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

And before you dispense a lot of your time trying to figure out ways that you can fabricate connections between same-sex marriage and marriage between two brothers, ask yourself why heterosexual marriage has never led to marriage between a brother and a sister.

Since I last posted, this thread has grown by a page.

And you still have yet to make any concrete argument as to how same-sex marriage would harm our society.

hooligan

04-01-2004, 11:09 AM

Those are two contradictory statements. If you don't call what you give gays a 'marriage', than they are inherently different. There is no such thing as different but equal. Civil unions do not carry the same social weight as marriages.

America was also based upon a history of slavery, genocide, and sexism.

All that stuff got changed with laws. So... try again.
there were anti-miscengenation laws that prevented black men from marrying white women and vice versa. chinese men from marrying white women and vice versa. just because the law defines marriage one way doesn't make it right.

Napoleon Chynamite

04-01-2004, 11:09 AM

And before you dispense a lot of your time trying to figure out ways that you can fabricate connections between same-sex marriage and marriage between two brothers, ask yourself why heterosexual marriage has never led to marriage between a brother and a sister.

Isn't marriage to your sister or brother illegal in the first place? That might have something to do with it. Gay and incestual marriages are both pretty taboo (incestual marriage being even more taboo) in the eyes of mainstream society. I don't believe the law says that you are allowed to marry your sister/brother, so it doesn't even give people the option to consider it, not to mention being taught from the get-go that if you feel any type of attraction towards anyone related to you in the first place, you are one sick f*ck.

Although I am still somewhat split or undecided on this issue, I believe that the opponents of same-sex-marriage argue that the legalization of gay marriage will essentially alter the institution of marriage, shake the foundation(s) upon which the U.S. was built to its core, and neglect the decades and decades of legislation or concurrence from the general public to keep banning gay marriage (in Bush's case, due to the result of a single or few interest gruops). The proponents of gay marriage, of course, say that change in the foundation is not something to be afraid of, and often is crucial or necessary for progress or improvement. Both these arguments leave aside the obvious moral beliefs of both sides regarding whether or not same-sex-marriages or 'gayness' is inherently wrong/evil etc.

Chester

04-01-2004, 11:25 AM

Isn't marriage to your sister or brother illegal in the first place?
Of course. The point is that homosexual marriage will not lead to homosexual incestuous marriage just like heterosexual marraige will not lead to heterosexual incestuous marriage. And, thus, Yelloman's "what about marriage between two blood brothers?" slippery-slope argument is a sloppy slippery-slope argument.
I believe that the opponents of same-sex-marriage argue that the legalization of gay marriage will essentially alter the institution of marriage, shake the foundation(s) upon which the U.S. was built to its core
...and thus open up all sorts of deviations from the norm such as incestuous marriage, polygamous marriage, and maybe marriage between men and donkeys.

I understand the logic behind that argument, but disagree with it. It's a standard-issue slippery-slope argument with just as little merit as most slippery-slope arguments have. Every step along that slope is separate. One does not lead naturally into the other. In order to argue for a progression as an eventuality, you need to show how each individual step will lead into the other. You can't just assume it as an a priori fact.

So until the connection can be made, issues such as incest and polygamy are moot, irrelevant arguments.

Napoleon Chynamite

04-01-2004, 11:31 AM

Of course. The point is that homosexual marriage will not lead to homosexual incestuous marriage just like heterosexual marraige will not lead to heterosexual incestuous marriage. And, thus, Yelloman's "what about marriage between two blood brothers?" slippery-slope argument is a sloppy slippery-slope argument.

...and thus open up all sorts of deviations from the norm such as incestuous marriage, polygamous marriage, and maybe marriage between men and donkeys.

I understand the logic behind that argument, but disagree with it. It's a standard-issue slippery-slope argument with just as little merit as most slippery-slope arguments have. Every step along that slope is separate. One does not lead naturally into the other. In order to argue for a progression as an eventuality, you need to show how each individual step will lead into the other. You can't just assume it as an a priori fact.

So until the connection can be made, issues such as incest and polygamy are moot, irrelevant arguments.

Hmm. Well regarding 'incest' or 'polygamy' in relation to this issue, I was thinking that opponents are also saying that if you are so willing to upheave 100 years of legislation which has ultimately decided that same-sex-marriage is wrong, immoral, and/or damaging, what's next, legalization of incest and polygamy? This is what they supposedly fear in terms of the shaking of the institutional foundation(s). They fear and oppose a society in which the effects of such a legalization extend to children in day-care facilities and grade schools, books and lesson plans would have to be altered completely over time as a result of such ripples. This is, once again, obviously in tandem with their already biased opinions towards homosexuality or bisexuality in the first place as a result of religion, upbringing, experiences, etc.

I guess to elaborate...whether or not incest, polygamy, or same-sex marriage should be allowed is arguably always up to the individual's moral framework as well as the moral influence placed upon us by the power structure. The argument is, if we choose to question years and years of perhaps Judeo-Christian taboo-ist ideas towards gay marriage, why don't we also question the deeming of incest or polygamy as immoral as well? Can anyone give an argument as to why same-sex marriage should be any more acceptable than polygamy or incest without using Judeo-Christian beliefs or citing scripture as support (to me, that would be like trying to kill an enemy with his own weapon)? To me, the immorality or morality assigned is simply a matter of degree or severity.

Kuchana

04-01-2004, 12:24 PM

I'm an independent with view all over the spectrum. I don't think YW is really "tree-huggy;" liberals just tend to be more vocal, I think.

I disagree. One can't forget those extreme conservatives who are quite vocal about their opinion. Can't count 'em out.

And to end this on a note, who the heck cares what freaking party you represent??? So stop bickering.

Chester

04-01-2004, 12:32 PM

Hmm. Well regarding 'incest' or 'polygamy' in relation to this issue, I was thinking that opponents are also saying that if you are so willing to upheave 100 years of legislation which has ultimately decided that same-sex-marriage is wrong, immoral, and/or damaging, what's next, legalization of incest and polygamy?
That's probably what they fear (in addition to same-sex marriage and same-sex secular unions, in general), but they consistently fail to show how all these things are supposed to inexorably lead from one to the other, ignoring how the present discussion is about same-sex marriages and nobody is necessarily arguing for the legalization of incestuous or polygamous marriages. Totally different arguments...though it's unsurprising that opponents of same-sex marriages would, off-handedly, lump same-sex marriage into a generalized basket along with incest or polygamy or bestiality or whatever.

ChinaLama

04-01-2004, 12:35 PM

I disagree. One can't forget those extreme conservatives who are quite vocal about their opinion. Can't count 'em out.

And to end this on a note, who the heck cares what freaking party you represent??? So stop bickering.

sorry, i mean, liberals on YW. I don't think there are any really hardcore right-wingers on YW that are very vocal for a long period of time. Well, then again, I don't even like really hardcore rightwingers because they're often living in denial. In denial that Asian Americans don't have equal opportunity in the workplace; in denial that "Chinaman" is a derogatory term; in denial that Asian American organizations can do good and are just as patriotic and NON-divisive as any other organizations.

Emperor_Mike

04-01-2004, 12:53 PM

I see. Well, to restate, I consider myself a moderate-conservative. Who wants a piece of me? Let's get it on! LOL.

Be an advocate of something unreasonable and fail to give me a concrete reason why I shouldn't rip your opinions to pieces and I'm game. :wink:

kitty

04-01-2004, 01:02 PM

The problem with incest is that it gives a high probability of genetic defects in children that result from this marriage. That is, (IMO) fundamentally, the ONLY problem with incest.

Here's how it works:

If man A is related to woman B and say man A is woman B's brother.

If their mother, for example, carried a recessive gene x (a mutation of normal gene X) that causes mental retardation (you need two copies of x to get mental retardation, if you have one copy of x and one copy of the normal gene X, you're a carrier).

so the parents mated to create man A and woman B

mom + dad = xX + XX

each child, has a probability of one in two of being a carrier for that recessive gene. So there's a relatively high probability that man A and woman B are xX and xX.

If they went off and mated with other people, they similarly would have a 50% chance of passing on the recessive gene to their children, making them carriers, but none of their children would actually be retarded, since their spouses would be XX.

HOWEVER, if man A and woman B were to mate one another, they have a one in four chance of creating a baby with xx genes, creating a mentally retarded child, as well as the 50/50 chance of passing on the gene making their child a carrier.

Basically, with incestuous relationships, the probability of manifesting dangerous, sometimes lethal genes is much higher, and only gets worse if incest continues for multiple generations. This is the basic problem with inbreeding, and why breeding requires a constant replenishing of outsider genes to stave off the manifestation of genetic defects.

Since my belief is that most of the decrees from the Bible originated way back when when they needed some sort of law to protect the civilians from dangerous behaviour, (i.e., the Bible as a means of control and protecting order, rather than a decree from some deity), than most likely the people writing the bible (or appending to it) noticed how incestuous relationships produced more stillborn children, or children with birthdefects, and decreed that incestuous relationships be 'a sin'... thereby making it taboo.

Oh, and incidentally, wasn't it alright a century or two ago to marry one's cousin? (the more closely related you are, the higher probability you have of producing a child with birth defects)

>:^|

04-01-2004, 01:09 PM

Be an advocate of something unreasonable and fail to give me a concrete reason why I shouldn't rip your opinions to pieces and I'm game. :wink:

He carries a gun. 'Nuff said.

As to the incest and polygamy arguments: I think it could be said that either incest or polygamy would be more threatening to the institution of marriage, would more drastically alter the conception of marriage and would be more likely to undermine the family unit. You wouldn't necessarily want to endorse the view of family members (who may be living together) as potential sexual partners. Polygamy also seems more likely to alter the state of marriage than same-sex unions would.

But in any event, I channelled Martin Luther King late last night, and he said that he didn't support same-sex marriage, and as a result I have completely decided to give up my fight for civil rights and my mistaken belief that as a human being, I am entitled to equal rights under the law.

BigLew

04-01-2004, 01:25 PM

I hate trees, oh wait what was this about again? :P

>:^|

04-01-2004, 01:35 PM

Oh, and incidentally, wasn't it alright a century or two ago to marry one's cousin? (the more closely related you are, the higher probability you have of producing a child with birth defects)

It's still legal in about half the states, although some states have qualifiers (must prove you're sterile, must be over X years). I think it's legal in Canada.

Emperor_Mike

04-01-2004, 03:31 PM

He carries a gun. 'Nuff said.
...

Sure fire way to win a debate: kill your opponent.

Yeahman

04-01-2004, 05:28 PM

OK all this is going to take a while to respond to.

What, that's it? If you support the notion of gay marriages and only oppose the wording then this discussion is pretty much pointless. Either you're one of those pedantic types or you've just backtracked on the issue to draw away the fire. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former. The issue at hand is not only about the definition of marriages, it's about the rights and advantages given to married heterosexual couples. If you're all for equality then we're on the same playing field that's all that needs to be mentioned. You should've said so earlier on (if this truly is what you believe) and saved me the inconvenience of having to decipher just what it was you were trying to get it. Talk about embarking on a four week trip to the corner-store only to end up not going anywhere at all. :rolleyes:
If you don't read my posts, that's your problem. I said many pages ago that I support more gay rights.

Nevertheless, the position you've taken is more or less a hollow one - without substance. The opponents of gay marriages want to deny homosexual couples the same rights given to heterosexual partners and you're arguing for a definition? Might as well say, "I don't support blue cars because I don't like the colour." Useless position, same effect as the dictionary definition you're going on about.
It doesn't matter what I like or don't like. I don't support blue reds because blue is blue and red is red. Let's call it what it is.

I haven't been keeping up on this thread, but this one seems to have gotten quite ugly. What are we still talking about?
The ultra-liberals want to abandon the English langauge and use their language that they just created. They want us all to throw out our accepted definition of the rite of marriage which stood for 6000 years or something like that and use their minority definition invented a few years ago. Not only do they want this to happen (which isn't necessarily bad) but they want the courts to force it upon us. They want to force us to believe that the black that we see is actually white.

Chester

04-01-2004, 05:34 PM

They want to force us to believe that the black that we see is actually white.
So, basically, you're saying that you'd rather take a moral/ethical/legal situation and boil it down to semantics?

As I said before, the dictionary definition of "marriage" is irrelevant. Words and their definitions are not immutable. Only the profoundly unimaginative would constrict their world-view to dictionary definitions of a particular time and place. When issues of constitutional law come up, I suggest you turn to the Constitution, rather than a dictionary.

And as I said before, many times, you still have failed to come up with a single compelling reason why same-sex marriages would be harmful to society.

I'll say it again, because you constantly ignore it: in order to argue against same-sex marriages, you have to show how same-sex marriages would be harmful to society.

Yeahman

04-01-2004, 05:35 PM

Those are two contradictory statements. If you don't call what you give gays a 'marriage', than they are inherently different. There is no such thing as different but equal. Civil unions do not carry the same social weight as marriages.
Come on kittygirl. You can find the answer to this in the next paragraph of that post. I have a feeling you're replying while reading my posts instead of reading first then replying.

America was also based upon a history of slavery, genocide, and sexism.

All that stuff got changed with laws. So... try again.
The definitions did not change. So... try again.
Besides there is quantifiable detriment with slavery, genocide, and sexism. That isn't the case with gay marriage.

Chester

04-01-2004, 05:36 PM

Besides there is quantifiable detriment with slavery, genocide, and sexism. That isn't the case with gay marriage.
You have yet to demonstrate that "quantifiable detriment." You've meandered through a dozen pages and have yet to make a single argument for your point.

Yeahman

04-01-2004, 05:43 PM

Opponents of same-sex marriage have a hard time letting go of the question, not realizing that it's irrelevant.

If you want to make a slippery slope argument, you have to demonstrate how Event A will irrevocably lead to Event B. You can't just simply assume that it will happen and assume that we all agree with your rationale.
I need to do no such thing. I ask question A and you answer question A. That's it. What is happening is that I am asking question A and you are refusing to answer it.

And before you dispense a lot of your time trying to figure out ways that you can fabricate connections between same-sex marriage and marriage between two brothers, ask yourself why heterosexual marriage has never led to marriage between a brother and a sister.
Because of our cultural understanding of marriage which you want to now change. If you are going to change it, tell me where you draw the line and why. You want marrige to a union between any 2 non-related individuals. Tell me why.

And you still have yet to make any concrete argument as to how same-sex marriage would harm our society.
A horse by any other name doesn't harm society. It's just stupid.

Napoleon Chynamite

04-01-2004, 05:46 PM

That's probably what they fear (in addition to same-sex marriage and same-sex secular unions, in general), but they consistently fail to show how all these things are supposed to inexorably lead from one to the other, ignoring how the present discussion is about same-sex marriages and nobody is necessarily arguing for the legalization of incestuous or polygamous marriages. Totally different arguments...though it's unsurprising that opponents of same-sex marriages would, off-handedly, lump same-sex marriage into a generalized basket along with incest or polygamy or bestiality or whatever.

I don't think it's about lumping incest or polygamy into the same generalized basket. It's about finding no more reason or justification to legalize gay-marriage than there is to legalize incest or polygamy. Regarding polygamy, who is to say that the practice of devoting oneself to more than one spouse is any worse or more harmful than gay-marriage? Both polygamy and gay-marriage are seen as immoral often under those who embrace Judeo-Christian values, and since these values obviously played a huge part in the establishment of our societal base, it's not surprising that a majority would view both homosexuality or polygamy as a negative practice. As for the genetic or scientifically proven detrimental effects of incest, socially negative effects of gay marriage can also be presented as argument in addition to the fact that the institutional structure of the family unit being threatened (man + woman giving offspring to children). No one is saying that the legalization of gay marriage is going to make more people prone to incest or partial to polygamy.

hooligan

04-01-2004, 05:46 PM

Because of our cultural understanding of marriage which you want to now change. If you are going to change it, tell me where you draw the line and why. You want marrige to a union between any 2 non-related individuals. Tell me why.
it denies two individuals who have every right to be married, marriage. now tell me why it shouldn't change?

quit using the snowball argument, give us something concrete.

Yeahman

04-01-2004, 05:51 PM

But in any event, I channelled Martin Luther King late last night, and he said that he didn't support same-sex marriage, and as a result I have completely decided to give up my fight for civil rights and my mistaken belief that as a human being, I am entitled to equal rights under the law.
Then you completely misunderstood the ghost of MLK. Give up your fight for the ludacris same-sex marriage. Do not waiver in you fight for civil rights and equality.

it denies two individuals who have every right to be married, marriage. now tell me why it shouldn't change?

quit using the snowball argument, give us something concrete.
If you want to redine marriage, you need to provide me with your reason as to where you will draw the line and why.

hooligan

04-01-2004, 05:53 PM

Then you completely misunderstood the ghost of MLK. Give up your fight for the ludacris same-sex marriage. Do not waiver in you fight for civil rights and equality.

If you want to redine marriage, you need to provide me with your reason as to where you will draw the line and why.
read through the half-dozen posts by chester, the visage, kittygrl. please, why don't we allow gays and lesbians the same rights as other individuals and allow them to marry. it wasn't 100 years ago that the us government banned interracial marriage, by law, it was defined as illegal. that changed, why can't we extend that right to lesbians and gays?

>:^|

04-01-2004, 05:57 PM

Last night I was channeling G_d
And he told me with a wink and a nod,
"Martin says that injustice anywhere
Is really unfair
So forward! You must continue to plod."

Yeahman

04-01-2004, 06:07 PM

read through the half-dozen posts by chester, the visage, kittygrl. please, why don't we allow gays and lesbians the same rights as other individuals and allow them to marry. it wasn't 100 years ago that the us government banned interracial marriage, by law, it was defined as illegal. that changed, why can't we extend that right to lesbians and gays?
Nobody has said where they would draw the line and why. They want to change marriage but dunno to what.

Race never had anything to do with the validity of marriage regardless of what the law says. This goes beyond the law. If the law says tomorrow that Asians aren't humans then Asians truely cease to be humans? No. But if 1000 years from now, the word "Asian" means "Oriental" then it would be true that Asians will not be humans.

hooligan

04-01-2004, 06:10 PM

Nobody has said where they would draw the line and why. They want to change marriage but dunno to what.

Race never had anything to do with the validity of marriage regardless of what the law says. This goes beyond the law. If the law says tomorrow that Asians aren't humans then Asians truely cease to be humans? No. But if 1000 years from now, the word "Asian" means "Oriental" then it would be true that Asians will not be humans.
a union of two persons. there you go. now, tell us why it shouldn't be changed?

Napoleon Chynamite

04-01-2004, 06:16 PM

a union of two persons. there you go. now, tell us why it shouldn't be changed?

You mean the union of two unrelated persons :tongue:

Yeahman

04-01-2004, 06:17 PM

a union of two persons. there you go. now, tell us why it shouldn't be changed?
You didn't explain why.

>:^|

04-01-2004, 06:23 PM

Race never had anything to do with the validity of marriage regardless of what the law says. This goes beyond the law. If the law says tomorrow that Asians aren't humans then Asians truely cease to be humans? No. But if 1000 years from now, the word "Asian" means "Oriental" then it would be true that Asians will not be humans.

Well, Asians weren't considered humans with full rights throughout American history. Alien land laws. People v. Hall. Gong Lum v. Rice. Asian exclusion acts.

Sexual orientation never had anything to do with the validity of marriage regardless of what the law says. This goes beyond the law. If the law says tomorrow that homosexuals aren't humans then do homosexuals truely cease to be humans? No.

The anomalous spectacle of a distinct people, living in our community, recognizing no laws of this State, except through necessity, bringing with them their prejudices and national feuds, in which they indulge in open violation of law; whose medacity is proverbial; a race of people whom nature has marked as inferior, and who are incapable of progress or intellectual development beyond a certain point, as their history has shown; differing in language, opinions, color, and physical conformation; between whom and ourselves nature has placed an impassable difference, is now presented, and for them is claims, not only the right to swear away the life of a citizen, but the further privilege of participating with us in administering the affairs of our Government.

Yeahman

04-01-2004, 06:34 PM

What are you trying to argue? That Asians aren't human?

And sex has everything to do with marriage by virtue of the very definition of marriage! This is truely ludacris. We can't get anywhere if we aren't using the same language! Let's use accepted English deinfitions for this debate.

Chester

04-01-2004, 06:37 PM

I need to do no such thing. I ask question A and you answer question A. That's it. What is happening is that I am asking question A and you are refusing to answer it.
Because your question is irrelevant. You're asking about oranges when we're talking about apples. If you want to bring things out into a tangent, you have to pre-qualify why the tangent is relevant. That's it.
Because of our cultural understanding of marriage which you want to now change.If you are going to change it, tell me where you draw the line and why. You want marrige to a union between any 2 non-related individuals. Tell me why.
Because your cultural understanding marriage versus my cultural understanding is a moot point in the face of the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection. Currently, heterosexuals have the right to marry and we are Constitutionally-bound to extend the same right to homosexuals.
A horse by any other name doesn't harm society. It's just stupid.
I'm struggling to understand what you're trying to say here.

I'll repeat: you have yet to make any sort of concrete argument as to how same-sex marriages would be harmful to society.

Instead of basing all your arguments in frivolous semantic points, try actually describing how society will change for the worse if we allow same-sex marriages.

Yeahman

04-01-2004, 06:47 PM

This is getting really repetitive.

Because your question is irrelevant. You're asking about oranges when we're talking about apples. If you want to bring things out into a tangent, you have to pre-qualify why the tangent is relevant. That's it.
OK I want to talk about oranges now. So answer the question.

Because your cultural understanding marriage versus my cultural understanding is a moot point in the face of the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection. Currently, heterosexuals have the right to marry and we are Constitutionally-bound to extend the same right to homosexuals.
Currently women have the right to be legally considered "females." Are we Consitutionally bound to extend the same "right" to men?

That is why cultural context is relevant.

I'm struggling to understand what you're trying to say here.

I'll repeat: you have yet to make any sort of concrete argument as to how same-sex marriages would be harmful to society.

Instead of basing all your arguments in frivolous semantic points, try actually describing how society will change for the worse if we allow same-sex marriages.
Let me repeat in simplier terms: It doesn't have to be harmful to be a ridiculous proposal. The government can call horses, cows. No harm is done to society by such a law. It's a different story if citizens vote for such a change. But to allow the courts to force it upon all Americans, is wrong.

hooligan

04-01-2004, 06:57 PM

You mean the union of two unrelated persons :tongue:
HAHA. damnit, stop being yell0man and trying to cloud the issue.

rice cracker

04-01-2004, 06:58 PM

The last time I checked gays were human AND American.

But just to make it easy for everyone, here's a list of reasons why gay marriage is bad:

Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.

Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.

Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.

Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.

Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.

Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior.
People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.

Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

Chester

04-01-2004, 07:04 PM

This is getting really repetitive.
My thoughts exactly. You should probably stop repeating the same irrelevant points/questions so that I don't have to repeatedly point out how your points/questions are irrelevant.
OK I want to talk about oranges now. So answer the question.
Explain why oranges are relevant to the discussion.

In other words: I think your tangent is a complete waste of time. So now you have to explain why your tangent isn't a complete waste of time if you want to include it in the discussion.

If you don't adhere to this sort of basic obligation, then we'll slide down a slippery, precipitous slope, and the next thing you know, we'll be talking about Beanie Babies and the whole country will go down the toilet.
Currently women have the right to be legally considered "females." Are we Consitutionally bound to extend the same "right" to men? That is why cultural context is relevant.
Making sense is relevant. You have failed to make sense.

What is your point?
Let me repeat in simplier terms: It doesn't have to be harmful to be a ridiculous proposal.
So you think that same-sex marriages are harmless to society?
It's a different story if citizens vote for such a change.
So you would support this being run along a referendum basis?

In San Francisco, at least, a referendum in support of same-sex marriages would pass.

I would be happy with individual counties making this decision as an initial step of progress.
But to allow the courts to force it upon all Americans, is wrong.
Was it wrong for the courts to force de-segregation and equal rights for blacks upon America?

Often times, when there are localities or states that are dominated by a majority that believes in exclusion and discrimination, it takes extra-territorial action to make things fair. In the 60s, this meant the U.S. Supreme Court forcing fairness upon the states. Perhaps the same thing will ultimately be required with same-sex marriage.

You're stuck in semantic issues again. The issue at hand isn't whether judicial or legislative or electoral mechanisms bring about same-sex marriages.
The government can call horses, cows.
Nobody is proposing that the government call horses "cows." Nobody is actually talking about horses or cows. At this point, it seems reasonable to assume that you keep pulling tangential, sloppy analogies out of the air because you don't have any concrete point to make.

If I'm mistaken, then please. make. an. actual. point. that's. relevant.

kitty

04-01-2004, 08:56 PM

Come on kittygirl. You can find the answer to this in the next paragraph of that post. I have a feeling you're replying while reading my posts instead of reading first then replying.

I do in fact take the time to read what you have to say. And you said pretty much that you support gay rights, but don't support marriage. And I said, you can't look for equality for gays and then turn around and say that you dont' support gay marriage.

Civil unions are not equal to gay marriages. You cannot have two different but equal things.

The definitions did not change. So... try again.
Besides there is quantifiable detriment with slavery, genocide, and sexism. That isn't the case with gay marriage.

america was founded upon the belief that blacks were inferior ... i.e., the dictionary definition of black was 'a slave' and 'not quite full human'. It was also founded upon the belief that women could not bear the responsibility of the vote.

Funny how that changed later. The stuff that America was based upon is malleable and can (and should) be changed. In science, something that is pliable is stronger than something rigid -- something pliable can adapt to carrying a heavier load while something rigid will just break.

Apply that concept to politics -- the Founding Fathers (why are they so deified, btw?) didn't live in the 21st century, so a lot of what they based America on is no longer an issue today, and a lot of the issues we deal with now they couldn't conceive of then. So yes, traditinoally, marriage has been between a man and a woman... that doesn't mean that it's the right way to do things now. There is such a thing as the evolution of an idea.

And, uhm, if there is no quantifialbe detriment against gay marriage... then why not allow it?

Give up your fight for the ludacris same-sex marriage.

Is that a gay man who has ho's in different area codes?

What are you trying to argue? That Asians aren't human?

And sex has everything to do with marriage by virtue of the very definition of marriage! This is truely ludacris. We can't get anywhere if we aren't using the same language! Let's use accepted English deinfitions for this debate.

No, he's trying to argue that history has already had several precedences for changing languages and changing laws to adapt to the times. So saying things like 'it's the foundation of America!' means jackshit, because the America of today sure isn't the suger-caning, cotton-picking, Native-American-killing America of yesteryear.

Yeahman

04-01-2004, 10:08 PM

That was very disappointing, chester. Don't tell me the pro-gay-marriage position is really that weak.

My thoughts exactly. You should probably stop repeating the same irrelevant points/questions so that I don't have to repeatedly point out how your points/questions are irrelevant.

Explain why oranges are relevant to the discussion.

In other words: I think your tangent is a complete waste of time. So now you have to explain why your tangent isn't a complete waste of time if you want to include it in the discussion.

If you don't adhere to this sort of basic obligation, then we'll slide down a slippery, precipitous slope, and the next thing you know, we'll be talking about Beanie Babies and the whole country will go down the toilet.
You could have saved a lot of time and trouble by just answering the question. If you asked me a question about Beanie Babies, I would answer it even if it was irrelevant.

But the reason why my quesiton is relevant is because a large number of gay-marriage supporters do not have the moral conviction to defend their position from all sides. They have a fundamental flaw in their view that they do not wish to discuss so they brush it off as "irrelevant." I love watching pro-gay marriage guests on news talk shows stumble over their words when asked about incest or polygamy. That's what I'm seeing from you right now.

If I asked you a question about Beanie Babies, you probably would have answered it by now. But I asked a question you are not comfortable with so instead of confronting it head on, you take the easy route that allows you to stand by your indefensible position.

Making sense is relevant. You have failed to make sense.

What is your point?
Same strategy as above huh? This is getting tiring. I know you must understand by now since I explained it half a dozen times. Come on chester, you can do it! Just put your mind to it!
Here we go. One more time.
I cannot be legally classified as a female. Yet there is still legal parity between males and females.
A homosexual cannot be legally classified as married. Yet it's fine as long as there is still legal parity between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Is there legal parity at the moment? No. And I support their fight for it, but that does not include marriage.

So you think that same-sex marriages are harmless to society?

So you would support this being run along a referendum basis?

In San Francisco, at least, a referendum in support of same-sex marriages would pass.

I would be happy with individual counties making this decision as an initial step of progress.
So long as other states are not required to recognize it, I'm fine with it.

Was it wrong for the courts to force de-segregation and equal rights for blacks upon America?
Operative phrase being "equal rights" which gay marriage does not fall under for reasons I have outlined numerous times.

Often times, when there are localities or states that are dominated by a majority that believes in exclusion and discrimination, it takes extra-territorial action to make things fair. In the 60s, this meant the U.S. Supreme Court forcing fairness upon the states. Perhaps the same thing will ultimately be required with same-sex marriage.
If a homosexual is denied his civil rights then yes the federal government can and should step in if the state will not.
I believe that a homosexual should have all the rights of a heterosexual. I also believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Those are not contradictory positions. A gay man may enter into a marriage contract so long as it is will a woman. The gay man is not bering considered inferior, is not being discriminated against, and is not being excluded from anything that a heterosexual isn't also excluded from.
There is complete equality.

I do in fact take the time to read what you have to say. And you said pretty much that you support gay rights, but don't support marriage. And I said, you can't look for equality for gays and then turn around and say that you dont' support gay marriage.

Civil unions are not equal to gay marriages. You cannot have two different but equal things.
Your'e damn right they aren't equal. But they can be equal legally. Just as men are not equal to women but can still have equal rights.
You CAN have 2 different but equal things. What is different in this case between civil unions and gay marriage assuming that they include the same legal benefits/restrictions? The words! That's it! Why is semantics so important to you? The irony...

america was founded upon the belief that blacks were inferior ... i.e., the dictionary definition of black was 'a slave' and 'not quite full human'. It was also founded upon the belief that women could not bear the responsibility of the vote.
Exaggeration doesn't help your arguement.

Funny how that changed later. The stuff that America was based upon is malleable and can (and should) be changed. In science, something that is pliable is stronger than something rigid -- something pliable can adapt to carrying a heavier load while something rigid will just break.

Apply that concept to politics -- the Founding Fathers (why are they so deified, btw?) didn't live in the 21st century, so a lot of what they based America on is no longer an issue today, and a lot of the issues we deal with now they couldn't conceive of then. So yes, traditinoally, marriage has been between a man and a woman... that doesn't mean that it's the right way to do things now. There is such a thing as the evolution of an idea.
The Founding Fathers are deified because they founded the government who's countless benefits you now take for granted.

There is such thing as the evolution of an idea. The social evolution of an idea cannot be forced upon society by a court. If 5000 years from now marriage is understood in its social context as the union between ONLY members of the same sex, then so be it. But we live in 2004. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The people have decreed it so.

And, uhm, if there is no quantifialbe detriment against gay marriage... then why not allow it?
Why not keep it the way it is?
I am against it because I don't believe it's the place of the courts to redefine majority-accepted non-discriminatory social rites.

Is that a gay man who has ho's in different area codes?
har har har I would give you karma points for that one if you didn't give me so much negative karma.

kitty

04-01-2004, 10:27 PM

Your'e damn right they aren't equal. But they can be equal legally. Just as men are not equal to women but can still have equal rights.
You CAN have 2 different but equal things. What is different in this case between civil unions and gay marriage assuming that they include the same legal benefits/restrictions? The words! That's it! Why is semantics so important to you? The irony...

So they *aren't* equal... but they *do* deserve equal rights...

If the only difference between marriage and civil unions are the words, than why not just call it all marriage?

Because it's not the same. They aren't equal. You just can't escape that.

Exaggeration doesn't help your arguement.

Who was exaggerating. Blacks were slaves, were they not? They were defined as 3/5ths of a human, were they not? Women could not vote, could they? Where's the exaggeration. You need to check your history books.

The Founding Fathers are deified because they founded the government who's countless benefits you now take for granted.

And Jefferson owned slaves. Why must people invoke the fuckin' founding fathers every time they want to take the moral high ground? They had a great idea -- that's it. America is more than just what a couple of dead guys thought up.

There is such thing as the evolution of an idea. The social evolution of an idea cannot be forced upon society by a court. If 5000 years from now marriage is understood in its social context as the union between ONLY members of the same sex, then so be it. But we live in 2004. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The people have decreed it so.

It's not like suffrage came about spontaneously. It's not like abolition evolved on it's own. All of these things happened because the laws changed the definitions of 'givens' ... and those absolutes are no longer around.

Not the other way around.

Why not keep it the way it is?
I am against it because I don't believe it's the place of the courts to redefine majority-accepted non-discriminatory social rites.

... liiiike... slavery? (If you don't think of a black man as fully human, then slavery would be non-discriminatory).

har har har I would give you karma points for that one if you didn't give me so much negative karma.

oh no! whatever shall I do?? I shall have many a sleepless night pining over that loss of positive karma.
*sob*

Chester

04-01-2004, 10:47 PM

You could have saved a lot of time and trouble by just answering the question. If you asked me a question about Beanie Babies, I would answer it even if it was irrelevant.Of course you would. You would welcome a tangent as any time spent on tangents helps to hide the fact that you have no point.
But the reason why my quesiton is relevant is because a large number of gay-marriage supporters do not have the moral conviction to defend their position from all sides. ...et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Again: you have failed to make any causal connection between same-sex marriage and the topics of incest and polygamy. Well...at least you're consistent.

I cannot be legally classified as a female. Yet there is still legal parity between males and females.
A homosexual cannot be legally classified as married. Yet it's fine as long as there is still legal parity between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Is there legal parity at the moment? No. And I support their fight for it, but that does not include marriage.
It does include marriage because, with marriage, comes certain rights. And because they are denied these rights due to being homosexual, there is no legal parity between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

A homosexual can be married in every sense of the word. The fact that you fail to agree with this simply reflects your narrow-mindedness. Apparently you first look to a dictionary when considering legal issues. If you don't mind, I'll look to the Constitution first.
Operative phrase being "equal rights" which gay marriage does not fall under for reasons I have outlined numerous times.If by "outline," you mean "poorly analogized" and "sloppily argued," then, sure...you've outlined it abundantly.

If a homosexual is denied his civil rights then yes the federal government can and should step in if the state will not.
Then the federal government should step in and force all states to legalize same-sex marriages because, as it currently stands, homosexuals are denied the right to marry and therefore denied equal rights.

If and when the government stops certifying marriages, then homosexuals do not need to get married in order to enjoy equal rights. But, until that point, the right to marry is part and parcel to the right to full protection under the law. I don't think I can explain it any more clearly or simple.

Your only objection to same-sex marriage seems to be tied to your semantic myopia and strangely slavish devotion to dictionaries. It's your right to have pithy, inconsequential rationale behind your beliefs, but you really should come to realize that, for most people, the side you present is pretty uncompelling.

I mean...at least the homophobic bigots have actual reasons for what they believe, rather than relying on lame semantic analysis and exalting dictionaries as idols of jurispredence. But they have their scriptures and you have your dictionaries. They have their God and you apparently have Noah Webster.
You CAN have 2 different but equal thingsKind of like uh..."separate but equal"?

You consistently fail to come up with any reason why same-sex marriages would be bad for our society.

You never, however, fail to amuse.

Yeahman

04-01-2004, 11:17 PM

So they *aren't* equal... but they *do* deserve equal rights...

If the only difference between marriage and civil unions are the words, than why not just call it all marriage?

Because it's not the same. They aren't equal. You just can't escape that.
They are not the same, but they are legally equal. They have equal rights. Just not equal terminology which is not a civil rights issue.

Who was exaggerating. Blacks were slaves, were they not? They were defined as 3/5ths of a human, were they not? Women could not vote, could they? Where's the exaggeration. You need to check your history books.
the dictionary definition of black was 'a slave' and 'not quite full human'.
Which edition of which dictionary?

And Jefferson owned slaves. Why must people invoke the fuckin' founding fathers every time they want to take the moral high ground? They had a great idea -- that's it. America is more than just what a couple of dead guys thought up.
I don't disagree. But give credit where credit is due. They didn't just have a good idea like soap on a rope. They sparked a revolution. They founded a nation based on a creed. They set the course for the great American empire. What they did will echo for eternity.

It's not like suffrage came about spontaneously. It's not like abolition evolved on it's own. All of these things happened because the laws changed the definitions of 'givens' ... and those absolutes are no longer around.

Not the other way around.
Abolition gave blacks the same freedoms of whites. It did not attempt to call blacks, white.

... liiiike... slavery? (If you don't think of a black man as fully human, then slavery would be non-discriminatory).
Of couse I think black men are fully human. Homosexuals are fully human too.

oh no! whatever shall I do?? I shall have many a sleepless night pining over that loss of positive karma.
*sob*
I know I know. You gotta move on though. Stay strong.

It does include marriage because, with marriage, comes certain rights. And because they are denied these rights due to being homosexual, there is no legal parity between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
They should fight for those rights. They can do that without marriage.

A homosexual can be married in every sense of the word. The fact that you fail to agree with this simply reflects your narrow-mindedness. Apparently you first look to a dictionary when considering legal issues. If you don't mind, I'll look to the Constitution first.
Last time I check the Constitution was written in English. In English married homosexual is an oxymoron.
Besides limiting marriage to the proper definition of marriage is not unconstitutional.

You consistently fail to come up with any reason why same-sex marriages would be bad for our society.
You consistently fail to read.

hooligan

04-01-2004, 11:35 PM

You consistently fail to read.
no, you really haven't given us a reason.

Chester

04-01-2004, 11:36 PM

They should fight for those rights. They can do that without marriage.Not unless they fight for revocation of civil marriages.
Last time I check the Constitution was written in English. In English married homosexual is an oxymoron.It is an oxymoron to those who have very limited and stunted understandings of how words, along with the social entities they represent, change over time. Which would explain why the Constitution is amendable and laws are changeable.
Besides limiting marriage to the proper definition of marriage is not unconstitutional.Yes it is, given how your "proper definition" of marriage is, in itself, unconstitutional.

I think we're pretty much at the end of the line. You don't understand that words and their definitions change over time, and without that very basic grasp of reality, we really don't have much of a discussion, as the past thirteen or so pages of futility have quite verbosely illustrated.

I'll leave you with one example of how you will eventually find yourself watching progress pass you by:
Main Entry: mar·riage
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=married) persons : WEDLOCK (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=wedlock) c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
When you learn to separate vocabulary from morality and constitutional law, let me know and perhaps we can have a discussion.

Yeahman

04-01-2004, 11:44 PM

hooligan

04-01-2004, 11:48 PM

When you learn to debate with accepted definitions, are willing to answer my questions, and are cured of your amnesia, let me know so we can have a discussion in English where I'm the only one answering questions over and over again.
it's kind of moot because we're not willing to live with a sad, discriminatory definition. we think it's time for change, you have yet to provide us a reason for why this isn't fair.

Yeahman

04-01-2004, 11:49 PM

no, you really haven't given us a reason.
I actually did more than once.
Let me repeat in simplier terms: It doesn't have to be harmful to be a ridiculous proposal. The government can call horses, cows. No harm is done to society by such a law. It's a different story if citizens vote for such a change. But to allow the courts to force it upon all Americans, is wrong.

Chester

04-02-2004, 12:00 AM

But just to make it easy for everyone, here's a list of reasons why gay marriage is bad...Sarcasm, when in the right hands, is such a fun thing.

When you learn to debate with accepted definitionsYou mean debate with your definitions.

Because my definition is accepted...
the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage. You might want to pay attention to the wording of that second definition.

So now that we have invalidated your "dictionary defense," let's move on...
are willing to answer my questionsI don't answer off-topic questions that are a waste of my time. But you go ahead and feel free to answer irrelevant questions. If you like, you could even ask yourself irrelevant questions and then answer them for the amusement of others. You seem to enjoy recursive conversation, so it would only be fitting for you to have such conversations with yourself.
and are cured of your amnesiaNo pun intended but...huh? What amnesia?
let me know so we can have a discussion in English where I'm the only one answering questions over and over again.The irony of this sentence did not fail to amuse.

And with that, I'll cease picking on easy targets. Have fun with him, folks.

hooligan

04-02-2004, 12:01 AM

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html

Yeahman

04-02-2004, 12:10 AM

it's kind of moot because we're not willing to live with a sad, discriminatory definition. we think it's time for change, you have yet to provide us a reason for why this isn't fair.
Forcing us all to call black, white, is fundamentally unfair. In fact that's discrimination. Discrimination against the majority.
So long as they have equal rights, there is no discrimination.
Tell me, shouldn't I have to right to be legally considered any gender I want? I am being denied my "right" to be legally classified as a woman. Isn't that discrimination?

So long as men and women has equal rights, they don't need to called the same thing. Men are not women.

Brown vs. Board of Ed came down against segregation because seperation in the case of education based on race makes the assumption that the minority is inferior.

That's not the case with marriage. There is absolutely no assumption of inferiority when marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman. If anything it is the recognition of the obvious, that the social ritual of marriage requires one member of each gender. No individual is deemed inferior. Any human can participate in marriage.

the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

I am repeating myself again but...
Yes definitions change. More the reason to leave it to the people of each state.
Because this has nothing to do with civil rights and is really a matter of semantics, leaving it up to the people is the most logical course of action.

Emperor_Mike

04-02-2004, 01:20 AM

If you don't read my posts, that's your problem. I said many pages ago that I support more gay rights.

Then why all this discussion? You can't be so ridiculously picky on the matter unless there's something else you're trying to say but cannot do so either because you simply can't express yourself or have an inability to wrap your brain around the issue or any of the questions or replies that may surface on the topic. You support gay marriages yet you do not support it on the account that you have a problem with the word "marriage" being used. So which is it? You've placed yourself in a situation where you either support it or you don't. You can't very well say "I'll only support it if the dictionaries don't change." Why? Because, bluntly put, that's plain stupid and is an insult to common sense. What if we stick to "civil unions" then while giving equal rights to homosexual couples? The whole point of the matter is the rights and not the wording. How will it affect the heterosexual elements of the population if "marriage" is changed to include homosexual partners? Won't affect me one bit so why should it bother you? Come on now, if you have to be opposed to something on gay marriages at least make sure it's viable and not so thoroughly obtuse like wording and definitions. That you've managed to engage several YW members with your cloudy "logic" shows that you must have *some* idea what's going on. No one can be that clueless. Still, by your reasoning it seems likely that if for some reason this comes to a vote you'd be against gay marriages on the account that it "sullies" the definition of marriage. How then would you reconcile this with your supposed support for the movement?

Alright, I'll tell you what, let's make this simple on everyone and we can save you the time required to come up with evasive statements that take up a few paragraphs but really accomplishes nothing but place letters on the screen. Answer the following concisely and let's put this issue to rest. There's no need to run around in circles.

1) Do you support equal rights for homosexual and heterosexual partners?
2) Would you support gay marriages if the word marriage is altered?
3) If you answered "No" to the above, how would you reconcile this with the supposed support you're giving to the movement?
4) Do you think it fair to deny rights to homosexual partners if the only point of contention is a word?

Answer away. At the end of the day, however, your opinions won't matter and neither will most of ours. It will be for the courts to decide if it should come to that. God knows a vast portion of the masses on both sides of the political spectrum can't handle something like this without their brains overheating.

It's a shame. I thought I'd be in for a nice challenging debate on a controversial issue but instead I'm left dealing with dictionary definitions. Laughable, really. :rolleyes:

Bhodi_Li

04-02-2004, 02:25 AM

oh no! whatever shall I do?? I shall have many a sleepless night pining over that loss of positive karma.*sob*Wow! Negative karma is being shot out on this thread. Sweet! This thread has really moved from identifying who's conservative to a gay-marriage thread.

Adaon

04-02-2004, 02:57 AM

Um. I'm a conservative. Hi. I gotta take a break and re read some of these posts before posting a more intelligent response to some of the other posts here.

>:^|

04-02-2004, 05:19 AM

A circular argument, which is of reason devoid
Is something that we all should avoid
Because it just goes around and around
No sound argument, but a whole lot of sound
Despite the thoughtful reasoning others have employed.

BigLew

04-02-2004, 05:47 AM

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.htmlHAHA that was funny.

Yeahman

04-02-2004, 06:20 AM

1) Do you support equal rights for homosexual and heterosexual partners?
Homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are fundamentally unequal. I support equal rights for homosexuals and heterosexuals.

2) Would you support gay marriages if the word marriage is altered?
So long as it deemed an accepted definition by society and not just that of rouge judges.

4) Do you think it fair to deny rights to homosexual partners if the only point of contention is a word?
The word is important in this case for a number of reasons.
The word is a 6000 year old rite. Its definition depends on number and gender. It is inseperable. To change the definition is to destroy the rite and create a new one. I'm not saying that that's a bad thing. Just not a job of the courts.
If you want to make the case that marriage is really the union between 2 persons then it is your job to explain why you redrew the boundries to 2 persons rather than 2 persons of the opposite gender or 3 persons or...
You cannot make the case that the generally accepted definition has already change because it obviously hasn't.

We start with the accepted definition and you make the case why it is unacceptable. The civil rights arguement is no arguement at all since I want homosexuals to have all there civil rights and this can be achieved without marriage.

It's a shame. I thought I'd be in for a nice challenging debate on a controversial issue but instead I'm left dealing with dictionary definitions. Laughable, really. :rolleyes:
It really is impossible to debate when you insist on changing the definitions of the very subject of the debate.

kitty

04-02-2004, 10:27 AM

They are not the same, but they are legally equal. They have equal rights. Just not equal terminology which is not a civil rights issue.

A marriage and a civil union are not fundamentally equal though. It's not just a terminology issue. It's an acceptance factor.

Which edition of which dictionary?

The Constitution and ... any history book.

I don't disagree. But give credit where credit is due. They didn't just have a good idea like soap on a rope. They sparked a revolution. They founded a nation based on a creed. They set the course for the great American empire. What they did will echo for eternity.

All I heard was 'blahblahblah'. They had a good idea -- they weren't gods.

Abolition gave blacks the same freedoms of whites. It did not attempt to call blacks, white.

Actually you're right. They called blacks 3/5ths of a white.

Of couse I think black men are fully human. Homosexuals are fully human too.

According to the Constitution all humans should have EQUAL rights. Not being able to share marriage is not an equal right.

Incidentally, if you're so big on semantics, what do you think of crack vs. coke? They are the same drug (so like your belief that civil unions are 'legally equal' to marriage) and yet one, associated with the poor black community, is prosecuted much more heavily than the other, which is associated with wealthy whites.

There is a case where 'mere semantics' creates an actual difference.

When you learn to debate with accepted definitions, are willing to answer my questions, and are cured of your amnesia, let me know so we can have a discussion in English where I'm the only one answering questions over and over again.

accepted definitions? or do you merely mean your definitions?

Let me repeat in simplier terms: It doesn't have to be harmful to be a ridiculous proposal. The government can call horses, cows. No harm is done to society by such a law. It's a different story if citizens vote for such a change. But to allow the courts to force it upon all Americans, is wrong.

They forced segregation, abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, and changes in immigration laws throughout history. It's kind of how the government works... 'cuz you can't exactly have homosexual marriages and than have the law change to make it legal.

Tell me, shouldn't I have to right to be legally considered any gender I want? I am being denied my "right" to be legally classified as a woman. Isn't that discrimination?

You are correct. You've stumbled upon a constitutional problem plaguing transsexuals.

Napoleon Chynamite

04-02-2004, 10:28 AM

All I heard was 'blahblahblah'. They had a good idea -- they weren't gods.

I'm not ignorant of the hypocracy and racist ideology harbored by our country's forefathers, but I do feel they did accomplish much and in that sense of course they were not God, they were full of flaws and weaknesses just like any other man, but to me that did much more than 'come up with a good idea'.

According to the Constitution all humans should have EQUAL rights. Not being able to share marriage is not an equal right.

I think one of yellowman's points, I'm not quite sure, is that the difference between the labels of "homosexual/gay" and "heterosexual/straight" is just as significant as the difference between the labels of "woman" and "man". Men and women of all races, ethnicities, background, creed/religion etc. under the Constitution are stated as entitled to having "equal rights", however clearly past legislation has shown that policy has been enacted to target (even with the sheer purpose of) certain groups or to give privilege to certain groups over others. If anything, nothing in our history has shown that technically women have equal access to all the same advantages (or burdens and hardships) as men, and vice versa. Labels are important because obviously there are regulations and bills passed simply to target the welfare of certain sections of society (and in turn perhaps to also harm other sections). One could argue that (it probably already has been argued) that whites not being able receive acceptance into universities based on their race (while other groups have this arguably labeled "privilege") means they do not share an equal right with others, even if the others are labeled by sociologists as minority/subordiante groups.

Keep in mind I am still undecided on this issue, despite my belief system and despite the ability to understand both sides of the argument.

kitty

04-02-2004, 10:35 AM

Homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are fundamentally unequal. I support equal rights for homosexuals and heterosexuals.

You believe that homosexual couples are unequal but are deserving of equal rights? That is so incredibly contradictory I wonder how you can say that with a straight face.

Napoleon Chynamite

04-02-2004, 10:39 AM

You believe that homosexual couples are unequal but are deserving of equal rights? That is so incredibly contradictory I wonder how you can say that with a straight face.

To me that's not contradictory, if he means it in the way I think he does. He says that 'homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are unequal'. An analogy would be to say that men and women are different and not equal in that sense, yet deserve equal rights. What constitutes "equal rights", however, is a lot more complicated from how I see it. I don't see how if men and women are fundamentally different, that they should be entitled to the same rights and held responsible for the exact same expectations, standards, rules, and regulations. And the reality of it, of course, is that they aren't. Not today and not in previous times.

kitty

04-02-2004, 10:44 AM

Emperor_Mike

04-02-2004, 10:54 AM

Homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are fundamentally unequal. I support equal rights for homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Fair enough.

So long as it deemed an accepted definition by society and not just that of rouge judges.

That's a bit waffly isn't it? You've gone from saying that you don't support gay marriages because of the wording to saying that you'll support it only if society gives the OK. Quite the hallmark of indecision and fence sitting. That or you've changed your story once more. But don't try anymore for my sake. I think I've seen enough.

The word is important in this case for a number of reasons.
The word is a 6000 year old rite. Its definition depends on number and gender. It is inseperable. To change the definition is to destroy the rite and create a new one. I'm not saying that that's a bad thing. Just not a job of the courts.
If you want to make the case that marriage is really the union between 2 persons then it is your job to explain why you redrew the boundries to 2 persons rather than 2 persons of the opposite gender or 3 persons or...
You cannot make the case that the generally accepted definition has already change because it obviously hasn't.

We start with the accepted definition and you make the case why it is unacceptable. The civil rights arguement is no arguement at all since I want homosexuals to have all there civil rights and this can be achieved without marriage.

There's nothing inherent in the word "marriage" that should indicate that it ought only to cover a union between a man and a woman. The kind of case you're suggesting that needs to be proven is an impossible task which leads me to believe that it's an altogether convenient way of shielding another reason why gay marriages should not allowed. All signs either point to that or to a very indecisive and/or confused individual.

It really is impossible to debate when you insist on changing the definitions of the very subject of the debate.

Hardly. Debates are only debates when the opponent has a firm stance that can be defeated or won by logic. What we have here is jumble of nonsense, a severe case of "I-don't-know-what-I'm-talking-about-itis" or simply extreme incoherence. If you're going to pull a politician's hat-trick of evading the topic you should at least try to make it less obvious.

In any case, I'm finished here. If you apparently support equal rights then there really is nothing for me to consider any further. At the end of the day it's not the definition that matters but the substance and if you're in agreement with me on the rights portion of the issue then that's good enough. I can only hope that other YW members who have been drawn into this discussion will come to realise what a pointless endeavour this is.

Napoleon Chynamite

04-02-2004, 10:56 AM

but if you consider them different, than why support equal rights?

like if you think men and women are fundamentally different than what *is* the point of feminism? after all, they have boobies and more body fat... let's have the laws reflect their genetic predisposition for reproduction by discouraging them from work and the military.

On average, minority groups have different experiences, different hardships, different advantages (yes I believe there are advantages), and different lifestyles altogether from the white majority (as a whole and in general, of course) not to mention from each other. To consider everyone the same is ridiculous, don't you think? Yet the Constitution treats them as all the same when obviously they're not. My point was merely to state that due to differences among sections of the population, it's obvious that the laws placed upon us are going to affect different people in different ways, and furthermore it is obvious that the government targets legislation to benefit certain groups perhaps at the expense of others. Therefore, the Constitutional declaration of "equal right" seems kinda moot to me, since if it was so cut and dry there would be a lot less debate. Everyone under written law is entitled to the exact same opportunities, but the fact is that they don't, because they are different, they are seen as different, and they are labeled as different. Yellowman's point is/was that gays and straights should be (and are?) seen as being as different as men and women, or blacks and whites.

That's not equality...

Black people or Asian people being able to gain acceptance into universities on basis of their race in present day while white people do not have this advantage is not equality either, regardless of past oppression, slavery, and the existing oppressive apparatus. I believe that affirmative action is necessary to 'even out the playing field', but I wouldn't carry it out under the name of 'equality' cause frankly it's not. Part of yellowman's argument (just trying to rephrase for him) is that gays are different from straights, and marriage was/is an institution designed and built for straight people. How is this different from affirmative action being a set of initiatives designed for the benefit of minorities? The difference here, of course, is the obvious discrimination and stigma attached to homosexuals/bisexuals in our communities, which makes most or many a lot more sympathetic to the argument(s) of the proponents of gay marriage and affirmative action (in this case, due to the existing discrimination and oppression towards minorities).

I'm actually still doing a lot of reading on this topic. I read from a source that the ulterior and final motive of many of the interest groups (admitted by the organization leaders themselves) pushing for the legalization of gay marriage is not so much the marriage itself, but actually in hopes that the legalization of gay marriage would facilitate a higher level of gay-acceptance overall.