SEN. OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, August 25, 2008 13:24
VIEWED: 10943
PAGE 2 of 15
I am telling you that unless you are a mainstream liberal, you have no authority to speak to what they think. So stick to facts that you personally know.
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
FORSAKEN original
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And while we're at it, can someone explain to me the argument that same-sex marriage could possibly demean or devalue heterosexual marriage? I hear that claim all the time, but not the 'logic' behind it.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Really? You can tell me that all you want, but lots of people are familiar with facts concerning issues they don't actually support.
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
I am telling you that unless you are a mainstream liberal, you have no authority to speak to what they think. So stick to facts that you personally know.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There’s logic behind it? I thought it was just something you said to mean that same-sex marriage violates a certain moral or ethical code.
Originally posted by Geezer:
And while we're at it, can someone explain to me the argument that same-sex marriage could possibly demean or devalue heterosexual marriage? I hear that claim all the time, but not the 'logic' behind it.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
And while we're at it, can someone explain to me the argument that same-sex marriage could possibly demean or devalue heterosexual marriage? I hear that claim all the time, but not the 'logic' behind it.
I second this, I'd like to hear it too, I could use a good laugh.
Not like I care who someones humping anyway, long as it ain't me.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not really sure about liberals believing the same as consevatives on marriage, finn,
mostly because for goddsakes, could we please stop calling the Clinton's liberals?
Seriously,
aside of Hillary's abandoned plan to revamp health-care to something universal eons ago, they just don't have a liberal record, at all.
Compare them to liberals in our past, FDR, Johnson, Carter, etc.
They are, and have been since Clinton's Presidential bid, centrists. If their hearts are more liberal than their legislation, their legislation has still spoken louder, and so have their words.
My intention isn't neccesarily to knock them for not being liberal either, but they are firmly rooted in the right-wing of the left, the DLC, brokers of most of the power in the party, and it has been pulling right for years.(I think that it has lost some of its grip on the party in the last 4 years though)
So yes, the Clinton's past actions speak for the Democratic Party, but I wouldn't say they spoke for liberals.
The thing is that half of the democratic base isn't liberal. More liberal than the right, sure. But I think we should keep a historic reference to the term for political context.
It's kind of odd as an example, to listen to people on the radio calling Obama an ultra-left wing radical liberal when we've had main-stream presidents tied to far more liberal rhettoric and records.
Obama is left leaning, he seems to 'get' stuff in a way that makes sense to me, and that much I appreciate...i'll even accept the term 'liberal' for him, but I think that he walks a fine line.
...............
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Basically, it sounds to me like you agree with me. You’re just playing games with definitions -- trying to define “liberal” to get away from the fact that in mainstream thought a majority of both liberals and conservatives Iwhatever you want to call them) tend to see marriage as an opposite-sex institution.
People aren’t always going to agree on everything, even when they see the world in the same set of colors, so just because a person's views are defined as liberal doesn't mean they will always agree with someone else who defines as liberal.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:Quote:
And while we're at it, can someone explain to me the argument that same-sex marriage could possibly demean or devalue heterosexual marriage? I hear that claim all the time, but not the 'logic' behind it.
I second this, I'd like to hear it too, I could use a good laugh.
Not like I care who someones humping anyway, long as it ain't me.
-F
So marriage can be reduced to a person and their pet ? Or between two siblings ? Father daughter ?
Are you going to force your morality on those situations as well?
Just askin'.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
So marriage can be reduced to a person and their pet ? Or between two siblings ? Father daughter ?
Are you going to force your morality on those situations as well?
Just askin'.
Inter-species isn't quite same-sex, so not the point of this thread. The prohibition on incest originates in practical genetics, and has just had a layer of 'morality' stuck on top as an enforcement mechanism. Besides, I'm not requiring guys to marry their brothers, or moms to marry their sons, so I'm not 'forcing' my morality on anyone.
But back to the original question in more direct form. How can Ellen DeGeneres marrying Portia de Rossi possibly demean or devalue my marriage, or yours?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Forcing various religions to perform gay "marriage" usurps religious freedom. The government does NOT have the right to meddle that way. Remember your Constituion?
No more than the government have the right to force churches to declare Bush the new Messiah, does it have the right to force so-called gay "marriage".
The line has to be drawn somewhere. (It was drawn back in 1776, but since the 60's that lines has been pushed back).
Also, is it really such a stretch to see (if we allow it), 100 years in the future, inter-species "marriage" or family "union-love"?
All they would have to do is use the same arguments that the gays are using right now.
If you want to argue that the social stigma of "marrying" you dog would stop folks, remember that there used to be a stigma aginst being gay.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME