Support for gay marriage may be leveling off

[Moonbeam]

One thing I particularly admire TH threads for is that he has such an extreme case of the CBD that even some conservatives can see it. This is what it looks like when reality and the egotistical delusions of how they think the world should look collide.

 

[nehalem256]

And you're smart enough to know that the morals people hold via their religion have no place in the creation/enforcement of laws in this country.

You can call it bullying if it makes you feel better but really all it is is having the government provide equal rights and protections to all citizens of this country.

Gays are all for same-sex marriage until straight people starting getting them:

Bob McCoskrie, director of the conservative NZ lobby group Family First, said condemnation of the radio stunt by gay rights groups was ironic.

"This competition makes a mockery of marriage, but so did the redefining of marriage," he said. He described gay matrimony as "an arrogant act of cultural vandalism".

http://www.smh.com.au/world/gay-gro...-marry-to-win-rugby-trip-20140912-10fu3t.html

 

[Texashiker]

Let up on the poor strawman, you've beat the crap out of him enough for one day.

Am I wrong in that post?

If gay rights is a civil and privacy issue, what about my privacy concerns?

Why can't I do certain things in my bedroom with consenting adults? If my wife and I want to pay a guy off craigslist $50 to spend the night with us, what business is it of the governments?

One thing I particularly admire TH threads for is that he has such an extreme case of the CBD that even some conservatives can see it. This is what it looks like when reality and the egotistical delusions of how they think the world should look collide.

Why did you wait 4 pages?

<cyber hug> Oh I have missed you moonbeam.

 

[smackababy]

You're smarter than this...I know you are.

Don't drop down to obvious stupidity and hyperbole to make your point.

Makes it look as if you have no real, legit objection to my post...so you have to cite extreme examples.

Stop, please...you're smarter than this.

Okay, I view it as morally sound to own slaves, so long as they are of a different race than I identify as superior. Society doesn't agree with this, so am I courageous by continuing my efforts to allow slavery?

Or, beat my wife.

Or, deny people access to public services based on any arbitrary preference they happen to be born with. Don't like the taste of sour over sweet? Banned. Don't happen to be of the same complexion, height, facial bone structure, hair type, whatever? Banned.

 

[SlickSnake]

Really?

Tell me again why it is illegal to have a prostitute over and share some homemade whiskey?

If I want to pick up a $20 whore, bring her home, have her give me a blowjob while I sip on homemade moonshine, what business is it of the government?

But yet such activity is illegal.

Is it funny or ironic how you use as an example 2 religiously motivated laws?

But baby Jesus loving bigoted hypocrites like you are funny like that when it comes to whimsical religious laws passed just to appease their imaginary angry deities wrath while forcing their insane beliefs on everyone else who isn't also brainwashed and braindead to either comply or get fined and thrown in jail.

Just like the farcical religiously inspired Texas Blue Laws, where you can buy pants on a Sunday, but not a belt to hold the pants up. Loony conservative religious fundies like yourself and politics are a bad mix, and always have been.

And what's weirder still, is when Texas finally wised up and entered a more enlightened age, the lawmakers decided to pick and choose what Blue Laws to keep and trash. So a car dealer still can't sell a car on a Saturday and a Sunday, they have to pick one or the other to be open, because baby Jesus says so.

 

[Texashiker]

Is it funny or ironic how you use as an example 2 religiously motivated laws?

As long as you bring religion into this debate I will refuse to address your post.

I leave religion out of my post, I would like you do do the same when addressing my post.

 

[nehalem256]

Okay, I view it as morally sound to own slaves, so long as they are of a different race than I identify as superior. Society doesn't agree with this, so am I courageous by continuing my efforts to allow slavery?

Or, beat my wife.

Or, deny people access to public services based on any arbitrary preference they happen to be born with. Don't like the taste of sour over sweet? Banned. Don't happen to be of the same complexion, height, facial bone structure, hair type, whatever? Banned.

Yes yes. Not allowing special recognition of same-sex relationships is exactly the same as beating your wife or forcing someone to pick your cotton

You want to know what the obvious difference is? You don't die if you don't get special recognition of your relationship.

 

[SlickSnake]

Thank you, but I stopped reading when you mentioned religion.

See post 55 above.

If what adults do in their bedroom is none of my business, why can't I bring a $20 whore home and share some homemade whiskey?

There are all kinds of laws that invade upon our privacy. But yet gays want special treatment?

Yet in every post and thread you start about gay bashing, your baby Jesus fixation is your primary motivation for posting. You simply cannot seperate that fact from your hateful vitriol.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Thank you, but I stopped reading when you mentioned religion.

See post 55 above.

If what adults do in their bedroom is none of my business, why can't I bring a $20 whore home and share some homemade whiskey?

There are all kinds of laws that invade upon our privacy. But yet gays want special treatment?

Wish you would have read the rest, only a few sentences. You should be able to buy a hooker, I have no problem with that. I have no problem with you making homemade whiskey (which I thought was legal as long as you're not selling it as Uncle Sam wants his tax money, could be wrong).

The logic that since you can't have what you feel should be your rights other groups shouldn't be able to have freedoms either is very odd to me. If we wait until one day an all encompassing law can be passed that makes everything perfect, we'll be waiting for a very long time. I'm sorry you can't buy a $20 hooker legally. I'm sorry I can't buy some things I enjoy and feel is a benefit to society legally in my state. :awe: () But just because I can't get what I want doesn't mean I need to hate other groups that are finally getting their way. That's childish.

 

[MrPickins]

That is what gays want, right? They want their own rights but screw everyone else.

No, that's not what they want.

Moron.

 

[Texashiker]

Wish you would have read the rest, only a few sentences. You should be able to buy a hooker, I have no problem with that. I have no problem with you making homemade whiskey (which I thought was legal as long as you're not selling it as Uncle Sam wants his tax money, could be wrong).

The logic that since you can't have what you feel should be your rights other groups shouldn't be able to have freedoms either is very odd to me. If we wait until one day an all encompassing law can be passed that makes everything perfect, we'll be waiting for a very long time. I'm sorry you can't buy a $20 hooker legally. I'm sorry I can't buy some things I enjoy and feel is a benefit to society legally in my state. :awe: () But just because I can't get what I want doesn't mean I need to hate other groups that are finally getting their way. That's childish.

Thank you for the thoughtful post. And I am not being sarcastic either.

By not supporting everyones right to privacy we are discriminating against other groups.

 

[werepossum]

and yet regardless, here we are.

I can understand (if disagree with) why someone raised to by anti-gay marriage would still be anti gay marriage today... but I don't see the thought process where a 30 year-old today who supports gay marriage would find themselves at 50 being like "you know what, on second thought -- fuck those gay people. no more marriage for them."

we're on an inexorable slide toward support and normalcy of gay marriage. the more commonplace it becomes, the less reasons for kids brought up in that society to think of is as immoral like you do. the horse has left the barn.

Amen. Anything bad one can imagine from gay people is already here - it's no longer closeted behavior. It's like people who used to be outraged about gay people not being like straight people are now even more outraged that many gay people are more or less exactly like straight people, wanting the same things out of life.

This is exactly like segregation and laws against interracial marriage; once people grow up with it, it's nigh impossible to understand why it was ever illegal.

that's true... just the other day I walked past a barren woman who was shunned by the whole village for her failure to bear children. they say a witch put a curse on her.

+1

I'm confused as to exactly what you're advocating get marriage rights. Is that a sloth, or some sort of lemur?

 

[smackababy]

Yes yes. Not allowing special recognition of same-sex relationships is exactly the same as beating your wife or forcing someone to pick your cotton

You want to know what the obvious difference is? You don't die if you don't get special recognition of your relationship.

You mean allowing exclusion of same-sex relationships? And, this was about what you find morally acceptable VS what society as a whole finds acceptable. One can find it morally corrupt to consume ketchup past the age of 8, but they don't go around trying to masquerade it as not being ketchup bias and they sure don't try and make it a law to not consume it. We can't have adults eating what was traditionally created as a sweet condiment to coerce children into eating things! What's next? Adults eating popsicles?


You want to know the difference? One group gets to visit their loved ones, whom they've spent their entire life with, in dying in the hospital. The other does not. One group gets to adopt and raise kids without parents. The other, nope.

And, you still haven't produced a single, logical reason why same sex marriage is bad for society.

 

[Retro Rob]

Okay, I view it as morally sound to own slaves, so long as they are of a different race than I identify as superior. Society doesn't agree with this, so am I courageous by continuing my efforts to allow slavery?

Or, beat my wife.

Like I said, this shows why you have no logical, legit rebuttal. Saying that people who see marriage as only between as man and woman is the same as saying owning humans and raping children are ok is why you're looking silly.

Well, I see promoting SSM is the same as allowing pedo's to marry their 13 male victims?

Yeah, though not.

This is precisely what you're doing...making bad apple to asteroids comparisons.

 

[werepossum]

Wish you would have read the rest, only a few sentences. You should be able to buy a hooker, I have no problem with that. I have no problem with you making homemade whiskey (which I thought was legal as long as you're not selling it as Uncle Sam wants his tax money, could be wrong).

The logic that since you can't have what you feel should be your rights other groups shouldn't be able to have freedoms either is very odd to me. If we wait until one day an all encompassing law can be passed that makes everything perfect, we'll be waiting for a very long time. I'm sorry you can't buy a $20 hooker legally. I'm sorry I can't buy some things I enjoy and feel is a benefit to society legally in my state. :awe: () But just because I can't get what I want doesn't mean I need to hate other groups that are finally getting their way. That's childish.

Well said. The world will never be perfect, but that doesn't mean it can't get better.

 

[Texashiker]

No, that's not what they want.

Moron.

Bull crap.

Gays want to be able to do what they want in the privacy of their homes.

But if my wife and I want to make some extra money off craigs list, we are out of luck. What about our privacy?

 

[smackababy]

Like I said, this shows why you have no logical, legit rebuttal. Saying that people who see marriage as only between as man and woman is the same as saying owning humans and raping children are ok is why you're looking silly.

Well, I see promoting SSM is the same as allowing pedo's to marry their 13 male victims?

Yeah, though not.

This is precisely what you're doing...making bad apple to asteroids comparisons.

Nobody is equating the examples, except you. I am equating the moral stances you have that are against societies moral stances (and, all of them were stances that have changed to from what I said, to what they are now).

As society advances, we advance the rights of the people of that society. All of them, not just who we deem "worthy". We've evolved past the "morals" of having slaves and using human as property. We've evolved past marriage and sex before the age of majority (another societal concept!). We've evolved past the idea that wives are property of their husbands.

And, as a society, the majority of us have evolved past "but, Jesus said!" logic when it comes to recognizing and receiving benefits as a union between people of any sex. The only ones that haven't are those clinging to their old world "values". The very same values that condone slavery and spousal abuse.

 

[SlickSnake]

As long as you bring religion into this debate I will refuse to address your post.

I leave religion out of my post, I would like you do do the same when addressing my post.

You only become a raving lunatic online when you willfully choose to post hateful nonsense and make a concerted public effort to make damn sure everyone else knows how completely screwed up you are.

We all get it, you don't like the gays (well, just male gays, lesbos are HOT), abortion, Democrats, 95% of the population of planet Earth that isn't white in your view, and all the rest of your rambling BS you go on and on and post about.

And yet bizzarrely, you are an admitted conservative Christian who is in public denile about that fact. You are your own worst enemy, and an evil pox on Christianity since you also refuse to acknowledge that fact as your obvious twisted motivation for your ranting and raving.

You simply can't distance yourself from what is motivating your posts and then expect people to take you seriously at all.

You make even the bigoted toaster lover seem sane. Or a lot saner, at any rate.

 

[Texashiker]

<nice rant>

You make even the bigoted toaster lover seem sane. Or a lot saner, at any rate.

What about my privacy rights? Don't you care about my rights?

If you do not respect and uphold my privacy rights, why should I respect and uphold yours?

 

[nehalem256]

You mean allowing exclusion of same-sex relationships? And, this was about what you find morally acceptable VS what society as a whole finds acceptable. One can find it morally corrupt to consume ketchup past the age of 8, but they don't go around trying to masquerade it as not being ketchup bias and they sure don't try and make it a law to not consume it. We can't have adults eating what was traditionally created as a sweet condiment to coerce children into eating things! What's next? Adults eating popsicles?

I most certainly do not. Your statement only makes sense if you assume that all relationships are marriage and society then goes around excluding which one it doesn't want to recognize as marriage.

That is like saying that at the start of the NFL season all teams are Super Bowl winners and then the rest of the season goes about excluding teams from being the Super Bowl winner.

In other words its completely backwards from what happens.

You want to know the difference? One group gets to visit their loved ones, whom they've spent their entire life with, in dying in the hospital. The other does not. One group gets to adopt and raise kids without parents. The other, nope.

So again no one is dying because their relationship doesn't get special recognition.

Also marriage is a pretty shitty way to accomplish that. Why should someone be allowed only one loved one to visit them in the hospital?

Why should 2 gay men who have known each other for a year be allowed to visit each other in the hospital while 2 straight men that have been bffs for 50 are not?

And, you still haven't produced a single, logical reason why same sex marriage is bad for society.

Sure I did.

Just because I don’t agree with an argument, however, doesn’t mean it’s irrational. Marriage has historically been a sexual institution. A rational person can maintain that a relationship between two people categorically incapable of producing children together—that is, two people of the same sex—can’t be a marriage. That argument doesn’t justify denying them the right to love one another openly, nor does it justify denying them the benefits and honors we bestow on couples for making lifetime commitments. But it can justify a person’s refusal to accept a same-sex relationship as a marriage.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/...e_and_interracial_marriage_are_different.html

There is you rational reason for opposing same-sex marriage provided by someone who in fact supports same-sex marriage.

 

[smackababy]

If you do not respect and uphold my privacy rights, why should I respect and uphold yours?

This is exactly where the problem in TH's stems from. He believes that since a right of his is being violated, it is fine to violate other's rights.

And, not be a stickler, but gay people aren't fighting for the right to be gay in their own homes. They already have that; and trust me, they are enjoying it right as you read this. They are fighting to the rights afforded in marriage, to which they are banned from for simply being gay.


If you want to argue that issue of the legality of prostitution or distilling your own grain alcohol, that has nothing to do with same sex marriage. Nor, does it have any bearing on if they (same sex couples) deserve the rights afforded with marriage.

So, how about you respect your right to remain silent, until someone less ignorant can come out of your mouth.

 

[Retro Rob]

Nobody is equating the examples, except you. I am equating the moral stances you have that are against societies moral stances (and, all of them were stances that have changed to from what I said, to what they are now).

All moral stances aren't correct, and I never said they are. I should have called you on that strawman some posts ago.

But common sense should tell you that all moral stances aren't correct.

If I needed to tell you that, you need a reality check.

I simply don't champion the cause of SSM -- nothing "immoral" about that.

Get a reality check.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Bull crap.

Gays want to be able to do what they want in the privacy of their homes.

But if my wife and I want to make some extra money off craigs list, we are out of luck. What about our privacy?

Not championing a cause is not the same as opposing it. There are advocacy groups dedicated to the very topics you talk about, but expecting every group to champion every causes is somewhat ridiculous. I've never heard of a SSM advocacy group come out directly opposing any of the things you are talking about, but even if they did being wrong about one topic does not make them wrong about another.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Living an immoral lifestyle should not be a civil right. This is something you decide to do.

In fact it is the only real reason to have civil rights. If everyone could agree on what is 'moral' we would not need rights.

 

[nehalem256]

And, not be a stickler, but gay people aren't fighting for the right to be gay in their own homes. They already have that; and trust me, they are enjoying it right as you read this. They are fighting to the rights afforded in marriage, to which they are banned from for simply being gay.

Outright lie.

Many gay people have gotten married in history.