I understand that but if you are against constitutional amendments banning gay marriage I presume you are against them state by state. I don't have any difficulty perceiving why people want to preserve a distinction. I perceive that what to be based on bigotry and it is the bigot, and not somebody free of that bigotry, that is able to see and not the other way round. The bigot is totally blind to the fact that he is a bigot. He would drop his bigotry otherwise. The bigot lives in the unexamined and unconscious assumption that his bigotry is good and that feeling that what he believes is good colors all aspects of his thoughts and rationalizations around the subject matter of his bigotry.
If you believe that black people are evil and should not be allowed to vote you view giving blacks equal rights to be giving them a chance to do evil. That is the bias and what is invisible to the bigot. The certain feeling that his assumption is right causes it to be unexamined and just a natural given.
why do we give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this?
his own congressional black caucus is pretty clear on their stand, calling including gays in the DNC platform on affirmative action "an affront to the civil rights movement."
his own congressional black caucus is pretty clear on their stand, calling including gays in the DNC platform on affirmative action "an affront to the civil rights movement."
How did we go fro Obama to the DNC? His own? Haha, he is an individual. Where in his positions do you see bigotry?
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
If you weren't so blinded by partisanship, you would have realized that 'people who are pro-life love kids' is a better analogue.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
:roll:
You guys are so dense at times.
You can oppose gay marriage on the principle that marriage is an act between a man and a woman and sanctioned by God. Doing so does not mean that you hate gay people.
You can also support a woman's right to choose aka have control over her own body. Having that opinion does mean that you hate kids.
Or the other way of looking at it is that one was a political party looked down upon by many parts of the world, looking to impose its morality from their belief in a higher power, restricting the rights of women, leading their country into a disasterous military confrontation in 2001...
And the other is the Taliban.
That you can replace that "punchline" with "and the other is the Republican party" without losing too much impact is what makes the original statement of "American equivalent of the Taliban" not totally off base. Note that "equivalent" does not = "equal".
Remember that the Taliban ruled most of Afghanistan for half a decade. They were recognized diplomatically as the legitimate government of that nation by one of our strongest allies in the region, Saudi Arabia.
Clearly God intended marriage to include homosexual marriage since all marriage was originally homosexual anyway. God made Eve from Adam's rib so sex with women is sex with a man.
I'm personally relieved that we are continuing the tradition of biblical marriages.
You know, the ones that states that the woman is subjected to her husband for punishment of committing original sin. And the one that states her husband is her owner and she is his possession. Where you obtained your wife in the "traditional" way....you bought them.
Where the wife is unable to own property. Where the woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives or she becomes an adulteress.
That the only reason at all for divorce is marital unfaithfulness.
C'mon all you good, moral people....let's truly preserve the "sanctity of marriage". Oh, what's that...you mean the definition of marriage that you have changed it to today and not the actual traditions? Oh. My bad.
You know, the ones that states that the woman is subjected to her husband for punishment of committing original sin. And the one that states her husband is her owner and she is his possession. Where you obtained your wife in the "traditional" way....you bought them.
Where the wife is unable to own property. Where the woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives or she becomes an adulteress.
That the only reason at all for divorce is marital unfaithfulness.
C'mon all you good, moral people....let's truly preserve the "sanctity of marriage". Oh, what's that...you mean the definition of marriage that you have changed it to today and not the actual traditions? Oh. My bad.
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
So you've done a survey of every culture and every religion, and can say with certainty that not one of them has ever defined marriage as between a couple other than a man and a woman?
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
You fabricate an elaborate strawman and denigrate those who have a different opinion than you. Why is it so difficult for you to accept that many people want marriage to be defined as a man/woman relationship? I'm not talking about civil unions...I'm talking about marriage that some want to perserve without being labeled, personally insulted, or having their views exagerated and falsely depicted.
Can't you even muster the slightest bit of tolerance for those that see this issue differently than you? Can you not fathom why this issue may be important to others ? Should we expect only others to be accepting and tolerant human beings and not ourselves?
Please elaborate on this strawman that you speak of.
Those that are whining about the "Sanctity of Marriage" completely ignore all of the facts associated with the institution. Citing those facts to show that they only are interested in preserving the bastardized version of the institution that they believe it to be does not negate the fact that they are completely ignorant to the actual history.
Oh, one other...should we also go back less than a generation and preserve the sanctity that marriage is only between like races too?
I know...another strawman because even though it is 100% accurate and a lot of the same people that are crowing about it being between a man and woman today conveniently forget that they or their parents were against that "version" of marriage just a few decades ago.
If you truly want to preserve the sanctity and traditions of the institution, then you need to preserve them all or STFU.
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2007
- 16,432
- 1
- 81
Absolutely not. I can accept heterosexual couples who want to get married; more power to them. Go forth and multiply! But if that couple's happiness is dependent solely on homosexuals not being able to use that same word to describe their relationship, I cannot support that. I will not "tolerate" your bigotry just because you believe the nature of tolerance to be accepting every viewpoint no matter how hurtful it is to others. If this were the 1950s, I wouldn't accept laws about miscegenation because it unfairly denies consenting adults the same rights as other consenting adults based on an arbitrary and bigoted definition. Same tune, different verse.
I was raised by lesbian mothers. In 2001, one of my mothers was very sick with breast cancer. The hospital she went to was filled with some of the best doctors I've met; sweet, caring individuals. But at one point, hospital administration denied my other mother visitation because those rights were limited to "immediate family." Never mind they'd been partners for over 20 years; because they were not legally able to be married, the only way my mother could visit her dying partner in the hospital was to obtain power of attorney.
Now, you can pass it off and say that hospital visitation is different, or tax breaks are different, or wills, or contracts, or any of the other benefits the state allows married couples could be given to gays without the use of that pesky word "marriage." That's true. But if you're willing to give gay couples every single conceivable benefit that the state offers with marriage, why deny them the word? There is no answer but bigotry, pure and simple. You don't want the queers to enjoy the "sanctity" of marriage because that would cheapen the experience for you? You had better come up with a better answer than that; that's the exact argument they used against interracial marriages 60 years ago.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
Your argument is so lame on so many levels that I don't know where to start. But bottom line...it's apparent that you can't see how totally illogical you are...so I guess I'll just STFU. There's no point in continuing this "discussion" for either of us. Peace.
Then why don't you try to answer/respond to Atomic Playboy's post. Here, I'll even quote the primary argument presented in it:
TRENDING THREADS
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 199
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter