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 9 of 15
not personally looking to clean wulfenstar's clock for being a bigot. We're all suspicious of something, we all have our biases and our judgements about others,
and generally speaking, that comes from a lack of empathy which comes from a lack of connection, and I'm not really intersted in brow-beating anybody into believing what I do...trying to get them to look at things differently might be more effective,
but you can have your prejudices in this nation, and still believe enough in its principles to overlook those prejudices in favor of a greater good.
I got nothing good to say about the reverand phelps and company for example, but I was hard-pressed to find a legitimate reason why he should have been silenced, or as he was succesfully, sued. Maybe htere was a grey area there, but ultimately, freedom of speech is somethng I hold dear enough that just because I hate what hte man stands for, and his message, I'm not in favor of using the government to silence him.
I think Wulf came around on this issue, at least in the only area where I expect an American should have to, as it relates to the constitution.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not on this issue. But like I said, I know that many liberals try to hide it - it happens every time this topic comes up; but no matter how you play with the definition of liberal, Clinton, McCain and Obama are widely considered Liberals - and for that matter those presidents that you identified as liberals (“FDR, Johnson, Carter”), would have agreed with conservatives on this issue as well. This is not as much a Liberal/Conservative issue as it is a Mainstream America issue.
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Except that finn, I'd argue that you're playing games with the definition. Yes, the majority of Americans must have a problem with men and men getting married. People in both parties do. The parties aren't very different, either, when it comes to policy, in the end.
whereas conservative thinking versus liberal thinking is vastly different, in terms of philosophy.
Quote:Well to begin with, I reject the idea that gay marriage is a civil right. Laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman are not discriminatory - they are applied equally to everyone. Secondly, you don’t get away from this issue no matter who you vote for. Every president and every candidate with any real hope for the office of president has been firmly against the issue of same-sex marriage. The tide may be moving towards more open interpretation of marriage, but that’s a broad sweep across the mainstream, everyone is moving that direction, not just Liberals.
Originally posted by Righteous9:
not sure how, assuming you both did, you were willing to vote for an administration that used phobias about gay people as a wedge issue then. I appreciate that single issue politics is a little one-dimensional, and you were probably voting on alot of things, but they USED the issue...they intentionally targetted American Citizens in a discriminatory way for the sake of an election, and they were on the side of discrimination, of truncating civil rights.
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
*Sigh
Im not getting riled back up. Whether I agree or disagree with a particular lifestyle choice is really, in the grand scheme of things, very small potatoes.
However, when did it become ok to call someone a bigot just becuase they disagree with a liberal viewpoint? Thats like saying someone who doesn't agree with Israel is anti-semetic, or one who thinks black folk should be held accountable for their actions is racist, or someone who believes that illegals are ILLEGAl is likewise racist.
Its the worst kind of hypocrisy to scream, pule and whine about 'freedom of speech" and then when you meet someone with an opposing viewpoint, try and shut them up with political correctness. PC is just another form of tyranny.
You scream bigot until that word has lost all meaning. You scream racist ONLY at white people. Noone listens any longer.
I know Libs and Neo-cons can't usually see beyond the end of their noses, much less what the consequences of their actions could be, but C'Mon! You throw these things around and it becomes a joke.
What I am saying or have said does not earn the moniker of "bigot". Save that word and the others for those who really deserve it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good points both,finn
still for gays regarding marriage, there is no reason aside of a 'moral' one not to change it, and keeping hte law as is adversely affects a portion of our population, and does deny that portion a certain enfranchisement that the rest of us are entitled to.
Plus it becomes a civil rights issue when the very reason for opposing it so vehemently seems to be on prejudice, discriminatory, grounds..
Wulf,
agreed to some extent...like I said in my last post, I'm not sure how productive it is to yell 'bigot' at someone inspite of the fact that I myself am a little guilty of using the very word in one of my earlier posts. I don't think it should be off the table suggesting it, or trying to get "you"(whoever that is in a certain circumstance) to see how you might sound to people, but to chose the rant over a dialogue gets none of us anywhere....
so I'll try to refrain in the future
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
but C'Mon! You throw these things around and it becomes a joke.
What I am saying or have said does not earn the moniker of "bigot". Save that word and the others for those who really deserve it.
Sorry Wulf, I was goin' for the easy joke above.
(To be fair, your wording did make it not-hard)
I'm wet noodle-lashing myself as I type.
The all-too-eager Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I care, and so should you.
Why should I, it means nothing to me what other consenting adults do with their private time, lives and relationships, since none of it has any significant impact on mine.
Quote:
Im surprised that you are not with me on this one.
Imma Polyamorous Anarchist, and thus find the States involvement of any kind in peoples relationships invasive and offensive.
Fremgirl is not Poly, and didn't wanna share, so ya don't have to hide yer womenfolk - but I do flirt, mercilessly, with either sex despite being straight.
I just... don't have those kinds of hangups about this thing, hell, I barely even *comprehend* most folks viewpoints on it, so why would I share them ?
Quote:
I am against there being laws stating that I MUST recognize it as a "marriage".
That's because Government doesn't belong in this one whatever - would you accept it then if there were no laws stating that anyone must recognize your conventional marriage either ?
Call it what you will, a bonding of two (or more) individuals is quite properly none of the Governments damn business, were you to ask me.
Consider thus the definition of "Family" as practiced by me, which includes folk unrelated to me, and several non-humans (Feline in nature) but does NOT include some folk of blood relation - and yet the State's definition of such is a wholly different thing ?
Does it really make sense to have the Gov defining your life and relations that intimately for you ?
But thing is, Wulf - you can't have that both ways, you accept it for everyone, or you remove it for everyone, to do otherwise is to introduce an artificial "class" system and cause needless strife over a distinction that in my eyes is petty to begin with.
YOUR relationship is YOUR business - not mine, not the Governments, don't you want that basic level of respect to be given to everyone ?
Quote:
Personal, petty, hatreds? Such as? Please enlighten me.
You seem to not like gay people - it shows.
That's your option of course, and I will not gainsay your right to feel that way, but I just think it's silly, myself.
Quote:
Other than that, frak off. I don't care what people do in the privacy of their homes, to or with each other. Not my business.
Exactly, nor is it the Governments.
Quote:
I do care, however, when you try and push your shit on me. I don't have to believe or parrot what is "socially acceptable" or P.C.
And likewise, other people care when YOU try and "push your shit" on them, by handing the Government the power to define what a "Marriage" is, but only so long as it meets YOUR standards ?
Sorry dude, that's hypocrisy, and you know it - using the Government as a weapon to enforce your beliefs on others is the very essence of your bitch, but yet you don't seem to have any problem doing it yourself ?
Umm, no - that don't fly with me.
I say we cut the Government out of it completely, ain't their business or place to get that involved in our lives.
-Frem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I will chime in agreement with Frem. There is no reason for the government to care about marriage at all, since it is a philosophical and religious practice. I would be in favor of removing any legal reference to 'marriage' entirely from the books. We might keep Domestic Partnership in place for its significance to finances. It would become a business arrangement between two (or more) people, allowing them to share responsibility for, and entitlement to, property.
People can get married, or marry their dogs or their houseplants, or get divorced on odd numbered Tuesdays. The government shouldn't care about this in any way. Only property disputes should become the government's domain.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I wouldn’t be against this, except that I don’t want the government legitimizing stupid shit. I don’t care at all whether someone wants to “marry” their dog, but people like that are not rational, and there will be all kinds of stupid stuff that will emerge if the state start legitimizing stuff like that. Everything from animal cruelty to frivolous law suits. There’s just no reason to open that door. The desire to marry one’s dog at the very least is a pointless display, which does not require any kind of state protection or at worse it’s behavior that requires real psychological treatment. I have no problem at all with replacing the legal interpretation of marriage with ‘Domestic Partnerships’, but it’s something that has to be defined rationally to limit it use to those who will not abuse the concept.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
I will chime in agreement with Frem. There is no reason for the government to care about marriage at all, since it is a philosophical and religious practice. I would be in favor of removing any legal reference to 'marriage' entirely from the books. We might keep Domestic Partnership in place for its significance to finances. It would become a business arrangement between two (or more) people, allowing them to share responsibility for, and entitlement to, property.
People can get married, or marry their dogs or their houseplants, or get divorced on odd numbered Tuesdays. The government shouldn't care about this in any way. Only property disputes should become the government's domain.
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
Hello,
Finn, I think you missed the point. The government wouldn't be legitimizing anything. The government would have nothing more to do with marraige than with your errant fart.
Domestic Partnerships, or any other *business* contract, would of course have to be between people legally recognized as people. (Which is currently just human beings, until the chimps and dolphins step it up a notch.)
But marraige? Marry your belly lint in a Setanic ritual, if you want. Who cares?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well that is my point. I don’t want domestic partnerships to include plants and dogs.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Domestic Partnerships, or any other *business* contract, would of course have to be between people legally recognized as people. (Which is currently just human beings, until the chimps and dolphins step it up a notch.)
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