Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 9
Senate rejects gay marriage ban
Topic Started: Jun 7 2006, 08:07 AM (2,306 Views)
OperaTenor
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
One of my sisters gave us a copy of Dobson's Dare to Discipline. I don't know what cereal box he got his credentials out of, but he doesn't have a clue. Even his theology is corrupt and perverse.

He needs to focus on reality.

Nothing but another divisive, faux-Christian puny reactionary.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Steve Miller
Jun 7 2006, 07:44 PM
The 89th Key
Jun 7 2006, 06:40 PM
not only stay together, but grow in Christ.

Also to persecute gay people.

I don't know where he stands on feminists and the ACLU; I think they're more Falwell's gig.

The same way you persecuted those poor, starving librarians in California, just this very week.

How can you hold your head up, when you are ripping books out of the hands of poor children, children who's only avenue to a better, more productive life, is through the education efforts of the public school system, and the public library.

And about that public school system...as these poor young misfortunates try to climb the economic ladder, to live a better life than their undocumented parents, you have the audacity, nay, the venemous bigotry to oppose these poor children starting kindergarten just one year - one measly year - earlier than is currently mandated.

You have denied these children a place at a bountiful table called America, only to keep your place in society, to perpetuate your fiscal lordship over those less fortunate, simply because they are majority hispanic.

Simply put, racial and economic bigotry.

(Now, the above is written tongue-in-cheek, but it bears just about as much truth to reality as Steve's comments about Dobson, and his bigotry. This country has determined that the nuclear weapons of politcs are the words bigotry and racism, therefore when you don't have any ideas to defend your position in the world of public debate, you immediately fall back to the nuclear option.)
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Quote:
 
(Now, the above is written tongue-in-cheek, but it bears just about as much truth to reality as Steve's comments about Dobson, and his bigotry. This country has determined that the nuclear weapons of politcs are the words bigotry and racism, therefore when you don't have any ideas to defend your position in the world of public debate, you immediately fall back to the nuclear option.)


I see you're not keen on the word "persecute". It has to be that, because I know you are no bigger fan of government waste or the teachers union than I am. Not too keen on "bigot" either, or "intolerant". I don't recall where you come down on "homophobic", but you have weighed in on "God Hates Fags" (which might more accurately be stated "Paul Hates Fags") and you're not comfortable with that, either. You're not alone - 89K doesn't like the word "persecute", and neither does IT.

Fair enough.

Pick a word. Pick a word to describe they denial of a basic freedom - the freedom to marry. It's a subset of the "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" thing.

Pick a word and I'll use it.
Wag more
Bark less
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Nobody sees hate in himself, only in others.
Nobody sees bigotry in himself, only in others.

Everyone feels they have good reasons for their perspectives.

I guess that means hatred and bigotry do not exist.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Steve Miller
Jun 8 2006, 11:49 AM
Quote:
 
(Now, the above is written tongue-in-cheek, but it bears just about as much truth to reality as Steve's comments about Dobson, and his bigotry. This country has determined that the nuclear weapons of politcs are the words bigotry and racism, therefore when you don't have any ideas to defend your position in the world of public debate, you immediately fall back to the nuclear option.)


I see you're not keen on the word "persecute". It has to be that, because I know you are no bigger fan of government waste or the teachers union than I am. Not too keen on "bigot" either, or "intolerant". I don't recall where you come down on "homophobic", but you have weighed in on "God Hates Fags" (which might more accurately be stated "Paul Hates Fags") and you're not comfortable with that, either. You're not alone - 89K doesn't like the word "persecute", and neither does IT.

Fair enough.

Pick a word. Pick a word to describe they denial of a basic freedom - the freedom to marry. It's a subset of the "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" thing.

Pick a word and I'll use it.

Steve, you can pick the word. For example (and NOT to get into a debate, but the ultimate word would be the same), what word would you use for denying a brother and sister from "their right" to get married?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
What do you know. A thread about homosexuality and their rights, and 89th starts talking about incest, polygamy, and/or beastiality. I never thought I'd see that coming.

Because, you know, they're all the same.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
The 89th Key
Jun 8 2006, 08:09 AM
Steve Miller
Jun 8 2006, 11:49 AM
Quote:
 
(Now, the above is written tongue-in-cheek, but it bears just about as much truth to reality as Steve's comments about Dobson, and his bigotry. This country has determined that the nuclear weapons of politcs are the words bigotry and racism, therefore when you don't have any ideas to defend your position in the world of public debate, you immediately fall back to the nuclear option.)


I see you're not keen on the word "persecute". It has to be that, because I know you are no bigger fan of government waste or the teachers union than I am. Not too keen on "bigot" either, or "intolerant". I don't recall where you come down on "homophobic", but you have weighed in on "God Hates Fags" (which might more accurately be stated "Paul Hates Fags") and you're not comfortable with that, either. You're not alone - 89K doesn't like the word "persecute", and neither does IT.

Fair enough.

Pick a word. Pick a word to describe they denial of a basic freedom - the freedom to marry. It's a subset of the "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" thing.

Pick a word and I'll use it.

Steve, you can pick the word. For example (and NOT to get into a debate, but the ultimate word would be the same), what word would you use for denying a brother and sister from "their right" to get married?

How bout "Birth defect prevention"?

Excellent analogy 89, considering that gay people don't even reproduce.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Christopher T
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
Aqua Letifer
Jun 8 2006, 12:11 PM
What do you know. A thread about homosexuality and their rights, and 89th starts talking about incest, polygamy, and/or beastiality. I never thought I'd see that coming.

Because, you know, they're all the same.

:thumb: :D :wink: :clap:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
kenny
Jun 8 2006, 09:11 AM

How bout "Birth defect prevention"?

Excellent analogy 89, considering that gay people don't even reproduce.

Nice point, Kenny -- see! The state's interest in the regulation of marriage really is centrally about children. That is the point I've been making all along, and the point that virtually everyone else on the board denies.

If it weren't for children, the state would not have nearly as much at stake in the regulation of marriage -- inheritence, tax status, a few other minor considerations -- but nothing of the magnitude of future generations.

And I am glad to see you understand that since gays can't reproduce within the confines of the relationship, that marriage is not the nature of the relationship. No bigotry, no hatred, no persecution, no religion, just basic biology....
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Jun 8 2006, 08:28 AM
kenny
Jun 8 2006, 09:11 AM

How bout "Birth defect prevention"?

Excellent analogy 89, considering that gay people don't even reproduce.

Nice point, Kenny -- see! The state's interest in the regulation of marriage really is centrally about children. That is the point I've been making all along, and the point that virtually everyone else on the board denies.

If it weren't for children, the state would not have nearly as much at stake in the regulation of marriage -- inheritence, tax status, a few other minor considerations -- but nothing of the magnitude of future generations.

And I am glad to see you understand that since gays can't reproduce within the confines of the relationship, that marriage is not the nature of the relationship. No bigotry, no hatred, no persecution, no religion, just basic biology....

I am being denied equality IT.

Straight people who can't make babies can marry.

Here we go again. :rolleyes:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Steve Miller
Jun 8 2006, 09:49 AM
Quote:
 
(Now, the above is written tongue-in-cheek, but it bears just about as much truth to reality as Steve's comments about Dobson, and his bigotry. This country has determined that the nuclear weapons of politcs are the words bigotry and racism, therefore when you don't have any ideas to defend your position in the world of public debate, you immediately fall back to the nuclear option.)


I see you're not keen on the word "persecute". It has to be that, because I know you are no bigger fan of government waste or the teachers union than I am. Not too keen on "bigot" either, or "intolerant". I don't recall where you come down on "homophobic", but you have weighed in on "God Hates Fags" (which might more accurately be stated "Paul Hates Fags") and you're not comfortable with that, either. You're not alone - 89K doesn't like the word "persecute", and neither does IT.

Fair enough.

Pick a word. Pick a word to describe they denial of a basic freedom - the freedom to marry. It's a subset of the "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" thing.

Pick a word and I'll use it.

Obtaining a license to drive an automobile is a privledge granted by the State, it is not a right. Neither is the ability to marry a right (we are speaking in secular terms here), it is a privledge granted by the State. Sanctioning bodies can also grant you the privledge of adopting a child, or issuing a certificate of licensure for vocations, such as electricians.

The Supreme Court has held that people have the right to procreate eithout intervention by the State, but they have not meddled into whom the states may grant marriage licenses.

Is it persecution to lobby against people obtaining electrician licenses, when they have not been trained through an apprenticeship program, or other accredited educational body? Or is it just wise to grant license to those people who are most qualified to wire your house without it burning down?

Marriage is the glue that holds successful societies together. Look at what is happening in the black community today, where an entire segment of the population is not sharing in the success of the country, mostly because they lack the education, training and motivation afforded by two parents constantly trying to move their children forward.

Most Americans are fair people, they are willing to work together to solve the problems of inequity, if the solution does not hurt society as a whole, or if the solution does not infringe on the civil rights of others. Dobson (or Falwell for that matter) AFAIK, does not stand against laws that grant homosexuals the ability to serve as next-of-kin, the ability to share in health insurance, the ability to designate who may inherit estate assets. They do, however, oppose legislation or judicial fiat that codifies gay marriage.

And that, to put it bluntly, is what many of you can't get through your thick skulls.

To not give a person everything he wants is not to persecute him. To oppose is not bigotry. To advocate is not intolerant.

We have a group of people who cannot even adequately define who is, or is not, within the confines of the supposedly afflicted class. Why change much of the very fabric of our society, one that we know is a successful weave of organizational tapestry?

Why so much hatred for those who would oppose gay marriage? Google up the term, and dodge the venom that vomits from the screen as website after website screams how biased, bigoted and idiotic anybody must be who does not agree with the idea of gay marriage. Sure, the nuts of the opposition such as Phelps exist, but he is by far the exception, not the norm.

Reasonable people can disagree. But that takes reasonable people on both sides.

To do otherwise is to engage in verbal civil war. The problem with national discourse of that level is that words are often followed by bullets, and although Franklin thought a little revolution is sometimes beneficial, the emotional and physical casualties may disagree.

Is the issue of opposition to gay marriage one of those issues, (to borrow a phrase from Dewey) that I'd dig a ditch and die in? Yes, it is. Myself, and if the ballot box can be believed, many others.

But that does not equate to hate.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
kenny
Jun 8 2006, 09:30 AM

I am being denied equality IT.

Straight people who can't make babies can marry.

Here we go again. :rolleyes:

Kenny: It doesn't matter if you are gay or straight.

Any two heterosexuals are potentially capable of engendering a child.

No two heterosexuals are potentially capable of engendering a child.

Blame nature or emergence or evolution or the cosmos for that inequality, but not religion or society or bigoted homophobes. Your anger is misdirected.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Aqua Letifer
Jun 8 2006, 10:11 AM
What do you know. A thread about homosexuality and their rights, and 89th starts talking about incest, polygamy, and/or beastiality. I never thought I'd see that coming.

Because, you know, they're all the same.

89th has a point, which is why he keeps bringing it up.

Did you not follow some of the recent threads on polygamy, and how the proponents have been emboldened by the gay rights movement?

After all, it's just sexual preference - right? Doesn't hurt anybody -right?

And the same argument is being made by people who want to lower the age of consent...after all, if a 12 year-old child enjoys sex with an adult, why not let them have some fun?

At what point do you define deviance? And why?
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jolly
Jun 8 2006, 09:44 AM

And that, to put it bluntly, is what many of you can't get through your thick skulls.

Now, now, Jolly -- play nice.

(Just trying to keep the discourse civil and defend the liberals). :wink:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jolly
 
... Marriage is the glue that holds successful societies together. ...
Cool! Let's grant the gay societies the right to same-sex marriage so they too can become successful. Then every one wins, right? :thumb:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Axtremus
Jun 8 2006, 11:01 AM
Jolly
 
... Marriage is the glue that holds successful societies together. ...
Cool! Let's grant the gay societies the right to same-sex marriage so they too can become successful. Then every one wins, right? :thumb:

If discourse were an ocean, that comment would be stuck in a backyard kiddie pool.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
And, Jeff Jacoby's column from the Boston Globe:


In a statement opposing the Marriage Protection Amendment debated in Congress this week, Senator Edward Kennedy said that "gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights as married couples under state law" and dismissed the amendment as "a wholly inappropriate effort to override state courts and to intrude into individuals' private lives."

How should those who disagree with Kennedy's position react to it? By explaining on the merits why they believe he's wrong? Or by calling him names -- a "gay-loving fanatic," say, or an "immoral pervert"?

It's a no-brainer. Only a demagogue believes that the controversy over same-sex marriage can be improved by hurling insults at those who radically want to change the meaning of matrimony. Even if you think they are wrong, there is no reason to doubt that most Americans who favor legalizing gay and lesbian marriages consider it an issue of fairness and tolerance. Their arguments should be challenged with facts and logic, not vitriol. Anyone who slandered Kennedy with slurs like those above would be considered contemptible, and rightly so.

It is just as contemptible when the slurs and slander are hurled in the other direction.

"A vote for this amendment," Kennedy has said repeatedly, "is a vote for bigotry, pure and simple." Like so many on his side of the debate, he insists that supporters of the marriage amendment are fanatics and haters -- knuckle-draggers from "the rabid reactionary right" who want to "stain the Constitution with their language of bigotry," as he put it the last time the Senate took up the issue. If you are strongly committed to the traditional understanding of marriage as the union of husband and wife, in other words, you aren't just wrong -- you're evil. You aren't fit to debate with, only to demonize. Kennedy and his allies don't want to consider your point of view, and they don't want anyone else considering it either. And they know that there is no better way to make a viewpoint so toxic that decent Americans shun it than to portray it as the equivalent of racism and prejudice.

But if it's "bigotry, pure and simple" not to want same-sex marriage to be forced on American society by a handful of crusading courts, then among the bigots must be the large congressional majority -- 85 senators, 342 representatives -- who passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, confirming that marriage in the United States is between members of the opposite sex only and allowing states to deny recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. Former President Bill Clinton must be a bigot too: He signed the bill into law.

The bigots must also include the dozens of American religious leaders who signed the Religious Coalition for Marriage statement endorsing the marriage amendment. The list of signatories is remarkably ecumenical -- Roman Catholic cardinals, Greek and Russian Orthodox primates, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Jewish rabbis, an apostle of the Mormon church, the president of the Coalition of African-American Pastors, the editor of Christianity Today, and many others. Bigots all, apparently.

Vastly more numerous are voters in the 19 states where constitutional amendments securing the definition of marriage have been put on the ballot. "In every case," as President Bush observed this week, "the amendments were approved by decisive majorities, with an average of 71 percent." All told, 45 of the 50 states either have adopted constitutional amendments or enacted laws meant to keep the timeless meaning of marriage from being undone. If Kennedy is right, all those states, all those lawmakers, all those voters should be despised as bigots.

But Kennedy isn't right.

It is not bigotry to insist that there is a good reason why marriage has existed in every known human society, and why it has always involved the uniting of men and women. It is not bigotry to acknowledge what reams of scholarship confirm: Family structure matters, and children are more likely to suffer problems when they are not raised by their married mothers and fathers. It is not bigotry to resist the dishonest comparison of same-sex marriage to interracial marriage -- skin color has nothing to do with wedlock, while sex is fundamental to it. And it is not bigotry to fear that a social change as radical as same-sex marriage could lead to grave and unintended consequences, from the persecution of religious institutions to a growing clamor for legalizing polygamy.

Pro, con, or undecided, Americans should be able to discuss something as serious as redefining marriage without resorting to slander and ad hominem attacks. There are sincere, compassionate, and thoughtful people on both sides of this issue. How can you tell who they are? They aren't the ones calling people bigots.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Quote:
 
Dobson (or Falwell for that matter) AFAIK, does not stand against laws that grant homosexuals the ability to serve as next-of-kin, the ability to share in health insurance, the ability to designate who may inherit estate assets.


Aha! Middle ground, perhaps?

I don't know their positions on those issues, but if I may assume for a moment that you are correct then the middle ground becomes clear. There is of course, the unpleasant specter of the revival of sodomy laws once the dust settles, but that's a different discussion.

Nobody talks about this, and perhaps it's time we started.

Marriage is a word heavily steeped in religious tradition. I have no problem with churches refusing to marry gay couples and will defend their right to do so. The only thing worse than churches intruding in the affairs of government is government intruding in the affairs of churches.

But what of civil unions? Same rights of cohabitation etc. as a marriage but within a non-religious framework? Would you support such an arrangement were it to appear on a ballot in Louisiana, Jolly? Kenny, could you live with something like this? IT has weighed in previously on the issue, and I can't recall anyone being dead-set against it.

It would certainly be nice to settle this and get on with it.
Wag more
Bark less
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jolly
Jun 8 2006, 01:03 PM
Axtremus
Jun 8 2006, 11:01 AM
Jolly
 
... Marriage is the glue that holds successful societies together. ...
Cool! Let's grant the gay societies the right to same-sex marriage so they too can become successful. Then every one wins, right? :thumb:

If discourse were an ocean, that comment would be stuck in a backyard kiddie pool.

What? You have anything against backyard or kiddie pool? Or do you just hate children?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Jolly
Jun 8 2006, 08:44 AM
Most Americans are fair people, they are willing to work together to solve the problems of inequity, if the solution does not hurt society as a whole, or if the solution does not infringe on the civil rights of others. Dobson (or Falwell for that matter) AFAIK, does not stand against laws that grant homosexuals the ability to serve as next-of-kin, the ability to share in health insurance, the ability to designate who may inherit estate assets. They do, however, oppose legislation or judicial fiat that codifies gay marriage.


I think that is the most reasonable argument against a pressing need to accomodate same sex marriage I have read.

Still, I favour abolishing any role of government in the institution altogether.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Jolly
 
Did you not follow some of the recent threads on polygamy, and how the proponents have been emboldened by the gay rights movement?

After all, it's just sexual preference - right? Doesn't hurt anybody -right?


I follow some of it, yes. However, I have not yet seen any compelling evidence to suggest these other "acts" will be pushed into legality if homosexuals are allowed to marry. Sure it's possible, but by no means will it be a sure thing.

This is a classic slippery slope argument, because one cannot guarentee that this will "pave the way" for polygamy, incest marriages, or anything of the sort. It's supposition at best.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Root cause analysis:

If there is indeed a slippery slope leading from gay marriage to polygamy and bestiality, then we should ban marriage altogether, since hetereosexual marriage is what has led to homosexuals wanting to marry. We should also ban gay sex, and while we're at it, we should ban heterosexual sex, too.

The slippery slope argument in this case is bogus. It almost always is.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
John D'Oh
Jun 8 2006, 09:42 AM
Root cause analysis:

If there is indeed a slippery slope leading from gay marriage to polygamy and bestiality, then we should ban marriage altogether, since hetereosexual marriage is what has led to homosexuals wanting to marry. We should also ban gay sex, and while we're at it, we should ban heterosexual sex, too.

The slippery slope argument in this case is bogus. It almost always is.

:thumb:
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Aqua Letifer
Jun 8 2006, 12:11 PM
What do you know. A thread about homosexuality and their rights, and 89th starts talking about incest, polygamy, and/or beastiality. I never thought I'd see that coming.

Because, you know, they're all the same.

When did I say they were all the same? When did I compare the two?

All I said was his word for that, would be my word for my stance against gay marriage. The word is the only thing they have in common.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Christopher T
Jun 8 2006, 12:15 PM
Aqua Letifer
Jun 8 2006, 12:11 PM
What do you know.  A thread about homosexuality and their rights, and 89th starts talking about incest, polygamy, and/or beastiality.  I never thought I'd see that coming.

Because, you know, they're all the same.

:thumb: :D :wink: :clap:

See above.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 9