Question: Now that expensive militaristic fascism is going out, will these boards still retain their vitriol?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, September 19, 2025 19:30
VIEWED: 17791
PAGE 18 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The argument is fallacious on its face. To say that just b/c a law applies equally to all it's not discriminatory - is wrong. One example: slavery. If there were laws allowing slaves to own slaves I could make the same argument. See - the law doesn't discriminate between slaves and non-slaves for the purpose of owning slaves, and that makes it non-discriminatory. I hope you can see the issue.
Your confusing the political and legal arguments.
Slavery was wrong...but entirely legal and constitutional (until they amended it).
Gay marriage bans are generally legal and constitutional (it varies by state). The question of rightness or wrongness is a political question which is ultimately decided by a moral judgement.
Just because you can point to something like slavery, which was changed because it was wrong, does not mean that this is wrong or that it should be changed. What about the right to own property...thats right and constitutional. Does that make my argument any stronger? No. Every issue needs to be decided on its own merits.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I was pointing out that the arguments are the same, not the issues.
The overarching standard to apply is 'equal protection under the law'.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero, You're a lawyer and it's probably quite easy to out-lawyer most of us. I could probably run circles around you if we were speaking of substance abuse counseling.
Don't you ever feel like the lawyer who is defending the KKK? Instead of the Southern Poverty Law Center? Or less extreme, do you feel like the lawyer who was trying to keep inter racial couples from marrying in the 1960's?
It's fine for you to find solace and authority in the decision of the law and courts...or do you think that there is a man, called God, in heavan, who believes that gay people are not quite deserving a full set of human rights. Lesser human beings? Or maybe humans who made bad choices and need to be punished with the denial of a full set of human rights.
Gays will be marrying nationwide in 10 years tops Hero...so it matters very little what the courts think now. I would have wanted to be dilligent in making sure I was on the side of logical fairness, instead of religious hocus pocus which is fading through time for a good reason.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Gays will be marrying nationwide in 10 years tops Hero...so it matters very little what the courts think now. I would have wanted to be dilligent in making sure I was on the side of logical fairness, instead of religious hocus pocus which is fading through time for a good reason."
Gays cannot "marry" as defined by any religious instituition. Nor can the government force the churches to marry them.
They may get civil unions...but at this point? Who knows. Gays may have pushed it too much.
People are sick of being compared to (for example) the KKK, just because they don't believe 2 men or 2 women should have the "right" to "marry:
Polygamy, pediophilia, bestiality ect...you can make the same arguments for them that are being made for gay marriage.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Thems are some extremely fragile minds right there...See...I can actualy distinguish humans from animals. I learnt me that in fancy pants college boy school.
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
In many peoples minds...
Gays marrying is the equivilant of a brother and sister getting married, or little Johnny "marrying" the family dog.
I doubt that idea is going to change any time soon.
Although church going people in the south have been marrying thier cousins and brothers since time and memorial, I guess it doesn't matter because they all go to church together and it's the Preacher who is marrying his niece...who happens to be the daughter of his brother, the Sherriff.
Yet they oppose gay marriage. The Lord must think incest is okee dokee.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Debase the South all you want. Crack redneck jokes, and the like, as much as will make you feel better.
Doesnt change things.
However, it does make you look like a spoiled brat, who just got through Sociology 101 on Daddys dime.
Grow up.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"You seem like a smart fella, Hero."
Well, I hope he replies,
Well, I guess we're both dissapointed, then.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oooops! Let me guess...you're from the south.
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Debase the South all you want. Crack redneck jokes, and the like, as much as will make you feel better. Doesnt change things. However, it does make you look like a spoiled brat, who just got through Sociology 101 on Daddys dime.Grow up.
I thought you were joking! I'm sorry Wulf.Anyway...no more than ten years, gay marriage will be legal, the last ballot measure passed by 20 points, 8 passed by 4. As soon as the voodoo chicken leg wavers realize they've become bigots everything will be ok. The Liberal press is saying 5-10 years. The sexist christian redneck press says they'll always want to marry donkeys and God loves it when we hate and oppress gays. Cuz it's fun...cousin
Oh yeah! I'm 44 year old with a degree in Anthropology, got a scholarship, just like Obama.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
Don't you ever feel like the lawyer who is defending the KKK? Instead of the Southern Poverty Law Center? Or less extreme, do you feel like the lawyer who was trying to keep inter racial couples from marrying in the 1960's?
Nope. Don't feel that way at all. I don't support the political positions of the KKK, although I believe they have a legal right to peaceful association and speech. I support interacial marriages and likewise support Constitutional bans on race based discrimination (and I note the interacial marriage is as much a white issue as it is black or hispanic or asian).
I support same sex couples rights to have relationships, sex, children, etc. I do not support the redefinition of marriage on either political or legal grounds.
Quote:
Gays will be marrying nationwide in 10 years tops Hero...so it matters very little what the courts think now.
Perhaps. Such an occurrance would require either all fifty states to undergo drastic changes to their laws, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act to be repealed or thrown out as unconstitutional, or a landmark decision by a conservative/moderate Supreme Court.
Any or all of those things make little difference. Much like Roe v. Wade the fight continues regardless of whether we're the ones fighting to keep things the way they are or to change them to what we think they should be. (Thats a bad example, since unlike most Pro Lifers I read Roe v. Wade and find it to be a pro life decision).
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Can the definition of marriage be amended? Yes. That is the role of the legislature. But in that sense this becomes a political question, not a legal one. Legally the definition is well settled and absent Constitutional conflict, there is no basis for revision.
Fair enough.
Quote:Quote:
And should that REALLY be up to the people to decide, when the values upon which they decide are not necessarily rational?
They are rational. For most folks is a religeous issue...just like polygamy and pedophilia (and murder and theft and right and wrong). God says "man and woman". Thats rational because God also says "pay taxes" and "love thy neighbor". Sure God also said "don't eat pork" but faith is subject to revision, just like marriage is.
Polygamy and pedophilia? Where in the Bible is either condemned?? They married them REALLY young back in the day and I believe I recall a good many instances of polygamy in the most important figures of the old testament.
(Just an aside-rant: So why is it, I wonder, that people find it so easy to scrap the pork rules or ignore what Jesus says about wealth and keep a few vague mentions about certain sexual acts? In particular if those actrs are based on love? I find it so hypocritical, aaaaaaargh!)
Quote:
And if you want a rational Godless argument...
In the interest of separating church and state, yes I do, thank you.
Quote:
then polygamy and pedophilia both lend themselves to the issue. The same argument in favor of gay marriage applies to polygamy and consential underage marriages as well (and PN... we've seen you looking fondly at your neighbor's dog).
But very good, logical arguments can be made against consentual underage marriage and bestiality. (For all I care, polygamy is up for grabs the same way gay marriage is.)
There aren't really logical, "godless" arguments to be made against gay marriage.
You can't just pretend that homosexuality and exploitative relationships are one and the same. They are not and it can be logically proven.
Quote:
And should any of that REALLY be up to the people? Thats the same question asked by King George, my friend...its kind of what we do here. Our whole way of life is based on the idea that people can decide for themselves what should be REALLY up to the people.
Oh, I guess that's why minorities are always treated fairly by the law when it's up to the majory..
Quote:Quote:
Moral - I am hesitant to ask why. You do not say religious, you say moral. What is immoral about gay marriage or homosexuality that is not defined to be so by religion?
What is immoral about ANYTHING that is not defined to be so by religion.
Do you really think that the entirety of human morality is based on the Bible? That empathy and fairness are not values that can be felt and justified without religion?
Quote:
Along the way we generally decided bacon was ok and being gay was a choice and not some satanic compulsion.
I don't think the gays decided that being gay was a choice, exactly.
Why do you think it is?
Quote:
Even if you are choosing to reject faith and still live a good life...religion still helps you figure out that "a good life" does not include child rape and having improper tags on your car.
Nah, actually religion is not helping me figure that out, no. Empathy does. Reason does.
I never "rejected" faith, as I never had it. I have respect for people who practice what they preach, religion-wise, but I feel it's quite arrogant of you to claim that my morality is the product of your faith. Or that it's absence would lead people to rape children or improperly tag their car because they wouldn't be able to consider it wrong.
Also, I consider many of the morality displayed in the Bible really horrifyingly cruel. Much of the old testament I wouldn't want my childre
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME