Originally posted by: EXman
Ok I think Liberals need to understand that life is not fair and we don't get everything you want. I don't and you don't. This isn't a Utopia. You all talk of logic and the funny thing is that liberals see thier logic and somehow that superceedes my right to have an opinion.
That is bullsh!t. It is un American any way you slice it to say your logic trumps my right to free speech.
I'm stating my opinion which happens to be the majority opinion. You have not fully listened to what I have to say so why bother. If you want to analyze what I'm saying to get some sort of nasty hatefilled BS crap out of it fine. Your wasting your time. The funny thing here is that it seems to be perfectly ok to discriminate if it meets a liberal's agenda. I see see hatered and vitriol spewed about Christians 24/7 and it seems commonplace and if you really and truly want liberty for all think again you don't, you just want it for those you see fit to have it by your standards. And by that regard you are no better than me so get off your pseudo high horse Libs and smell what you are shoveling.
btw SMOGZINN I think you do argue well and make good points from your prospective I was more addressing Liberals in general.
lil addition--
oh one last thing... You can be against something like gay marriage and NOT BE hatefilled non sensical homophobes. The way liberals start calling names like that is childish, un imaginative, and it is an illogical emotion filled arguement at best. To say that ALL people are XYZ if they oppose your viewpoint is rather silly. I laugh everytime I see someone post an arguement like this with more of the same vitriol. It seems Libs have just a hard of time taking the emotion out of this arguement and then claim to be logical. Nice.
One thing I think you need to understand. When you begin your argument by denigrating an entire group of people (in this case "liberals"), you pretty much undermine any point you might be attempting to make. You're no better than the people your vitriol is directed at; I don't care what you're saying, if you're up on your soapbox raving about how "all them stupid liberals, you're all on your high horse, calling people names, being unAmerican!" That's not a good tone to set in an argument; it comes off as abrasive, petulant, petty, vindictive ad hominem attacks, and adds nothing to the discussion besides establishing that you, in fact, don't like liberals. Great. But it's not a good argumentative tactic.
Now then, on to the next point: two phrases that you use that highlight an incongruity in your thinking. Namely, "life is not fair and we don't get everything you want," and "It is un American any way you slice it..." Seems to me America was founded on the following principle: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. All men are created equal. All men are endowed with certain rights, including the pursuit of happiness. Huh. It says it right there, in the Declaration of Independence, the document that kick-started this little country of ours. If we're all equal, why can straight people marry, but not gays? If we have the inalienable right to pursue happiness, why can straight people marry, but not gays (yes, I know the jokes, marriage leads to suffering, ha ha ha)? Seems to me that denying gays the right to marry is inherently unequal, inherently against the cause of their pursuit of happiness, and distinctly unAmerican.
"Oh, but that's the Declaration of Independence, it has no legal bearing on the Country," you counter. Well, that's true. So let's turn to the US Constitution, which contains the 14th Amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. No state shall enforce laws which abridge the privileges of citizens... like saying an entire group isn't entitled to get married. No state shall deny equal protection to its citizens... that sounds an awful lot like "you can't deny equal protection for both straight marriage and gay marriage." So when a state makes special provisions for straight marriages, by treating the couple as a single legal entity, they are Constitutionally required to extend those same protections to gay marriage... and yet not? I don't get it...
"Oh, but really it's a religious issue." Fine, but that's easy to brush aside with the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. We know there are religions that endorse gay marriage, so the government recognizing some marriages legally but not others seems to be an establishment of one particular religion's view of marriage but not another. And if it's strictly religious, the government has zero reason to be involved anyway.
So now that we've done our daily civics drill, let me address the last point you made. "You can be against something like gay marriage and NOT BE hatefilled non sensical homophobes." Well, since being gay is as much a choice as the color of one's skin, I'm going to flip this into a racial argument. Can you make an argument that black people should not be allowed to marry without being racist? You can try... but let's face it, there's just no way to argue that an entire race should be banned from marriage without being racist. There's just no way to argue that an entire sexual orientation should be banned from marriage without being a bigot. It's homophobia. That's just what it is. You don't want to think of yourself as a bigot; no one does. But there is not a single justification for denying marriage to an entire class of people for a trait they were born with outside of bigotry.
And just so it's all out there, I'll lay my bias on the line. I was adopted and raised by lesbian mothers. They raised two sons. I'm a successful heterosexual college graduate with a good job. My brother is in an upper management position at the largest zoo in Oregon, married (to a woman), and raising two children (in my defense, he is significantly older than me, so I still have some catching up to do). Our mothers were together for over 20 years until one died of breast cancer. There is no way that you will ever be able to convince me that those two women did not love each other, that they were not good mothers, that they were not capable of raising a family, or that their being allowed to marry each other would have in any way, shape or form damaged the sanctity of marriage. You can have whatever opinion you want. But it was bigotry, pure and simple, that saw my mothers live a life together without ever having the option of marriage available to them.
Facebook
Twitter