Check out some similar questions!

Synnen · May 7, 2009, 02:19 PM

No, I just used the "if one is okay and the other isn't, then you're a hypocrite" argument.

There's a difference between walking on a slippery slope and being a hypocrite.

NeedKarma · May 7, 2009, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Do rational people want to stick parts of their bodies into places they were never designed to go in your world?

You mean like married christian heterosexual couples do now? Then yes! Yes they do! Ever heard of oral sex?

speechlesstx · May 7, 2009, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Synnen

Why SHOULDN'T the starting point be gay marriage? Why shouldn't polygamy be allowed? There is precedent, at least for polygamy. Why does the "traditional" method of marriage have to stand?

Because it is not the centuries old commonly accepted tradition/definition. Sure there have been variations, but this is the most widely accepted and codified definition. You can't change the starting point, which for the sake of this discussion I've firmly established, into whatever you want.

So because I'm infertile, my husband and I shouldn't have been allowed to marry, either? We can't procreate, not without a LOT of medical help! And if adoption is not a "natural" method of fulfillment, why allow it at all? If two parents, regardless of gender, aren't better than being raised by the state, then let's outlaw adoption, too!

You've swerved completely off the path. Follow my argument and answer it, nowhere did it include infertility as invalidating that definition of marriage and nowhere does it say anything about adoption. Caring for children is a good thing, much better than aborting them and I have no problem with whoever of whatever persuasion doing so as long as they are competent and have the means and best interest of the child in mind.

The thing is this: Just because we already have a starting point doesn't mean that it can't be modified. And just because you have a starting point doesn't mean that it's a GOOD thing.

I think it's safe to say that historically marriage has not only been a good thing, it's been essential.

Slavery, after all, was justified by tradition and the Bible for YEARS. Inter-racial marriage was thought to be unnatural until very recently. Being a single mother out of wedlock was a source of shame until the last couple of decades.

Are you saying we should go back to what it was in 1950?

How did we get to slavery? I realize some marriages may seem like slavery but let's stick to the subject. As far as I know being a single mother wasn't illegal, and interracial marriages fit within the context of my last argument, which established the logic and rationality of Elliot's slippery slope argument.

excon · May 7, 2009, 02:41 PM

Hello:

I'd be happy if the state let you homophobes keep marriage. You may have it as a religious ceremony, with all the religious connotations you want to put upon it. Of course, anybody can get married in their own church or shule, and any church or shule can prevent anybody from getting married that they want.

If the state wants to give benefits to committed couples, they can, and they can call it anything they like, except marriage.

That should make you happy - but, it won't.

excon

speechlesstx · May 7, 2009, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello:

I'd be happy if the state let you homophobes keep marriage. You may have it as a religious ceremony, with all the religious connotations you want to put upon it. Of course, anybody can get married in their own church or shule, and any church or shule can prevent anybody from getting married that they want.

If the state wants to give benefits to committed couples, they can, and they can call it anything they like, except marriage.

That should make you happy - but, it won't.

excon

Nope, it won't. You know why it won't? Because a) I'm tired of the courts establishing the law and overruling the will of the people and b) the left's idea of compromise is pummeling your opponent into submission.

Take Carrie Prejean for instance, that poor woman only took a stand that 20 years ago was perfectly normal in a freakin' beauty contest and she's being crucified in the media. I'm not going to be steamrolled into accepting whatever societal norm of the day is by the most hateful, intolerant, bigots posing from their hypocritical moral high ground without a fight. I'm perfectly willing to not give a hoot what happens behind their closed doors and they can call it whatever they want. I've granted equal benefits under the law for gay unions, defended their right to adopt children, but there is only one traditional commonly accepted definition of marriage and it has a purpose that can only be fulfilled by a man and a woman. Stop trying to call everything else something it can never be.

Synnen · May 7, 2009, 03:15 PM

If you take away STATE benefits from ALL "marriage", and give benefits ONLY to "civil unions", then allow ALL churches to decide who can get "married" within their church---you meet both sides being fair.

MARRIAGE is a religious ceremony. A civil union is a STATE ceremony. If you want the benefits of both, then you have to GET both.

speechlesstx · May 7, 2009, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by Synnen

If you take away STATE benefits from ALL "marriage", and give benefits ONLY to "civil unions", then allow ALL churches to decide who can get "married" within their church---you meet both sides being fair.

MARRIAGE is a religious ceremony. A civil union is a STATE ceremony. If you want the benefits of both, then you have to GET both.

And my argument is the proponents on the left won't be satisfied with that compromise. Their idea of compromise is "you'll do it my way and like it."

Synnen · May 7, 2009, 09:43 PM

Funny---that's EXACTLY how I see the proponents on the left. Their attitude is "NO Change! We like it the way things are right now, and you'd better do it our way and like it!"

Skell · May 7, 2009, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by Synnen

Funny---that's EXACTLY how I see the proponents on the left. Their attitude is "NO Change! We like it the way things are right now, and you'd better do it our way and like it!"

You mean proponents on the right?

speechlesstx · May 8, 2009, 04:32 AM

Originally Posted by Synnen

Funny---that's EXACTLY how I see the proponents on the left. Their attitude is "NO Change! We like it the way things are right now, and you'd better do it our way and like it!"

I'm sure you meant the right also. I'm sure you also recall previous discussions here where some of us on the right have been willing to compromise. I just did for crying out loud. I also remember the reaction from the left was "not good enough" even though virtually all of there grievances were satisfied in the compromise.

Synnen · May 8, 2009, 04:57 AM

I did mean the right--thank you for taking that the way it was meant.

ETWolverine · May 8, 2009, 08:22 AM

Let's admit it, folks.

Both parties have their philosophies and ideals, and neither one of them is really willing to compromise those ideal and philosophies.

So when one side accuses the other of being unwilling to compromise... well, they're right. But they are also just as guilty. Otherwise they wouldn't be so interested in getting the other guy to change his stance.

I admit it. I am a conservative and I have absolutely no intention of compromising my positions. My goal is not to create unity, it is to convince those who are undicided on the issues to take the same stance I have. THAT is how one wins elections. That is how parties gain and maintain power. They convince people to vote for them based on self interest.

And Dems are no different from Reps in that.

So why don't we all agree to stop calling each other insulting names because we have stances that we don't compromise on. We ALL have stances we won't compromise on. We are all equally "guilty" of that, though I don't see it as a matter of guilt, but rather conviction. I happen to think that Dems' convictions are misplaced. Dems clearly feel the same regarding myself and other Reps. And we are not going to convince the others that we are right and they are wrong. We are not going to convince others to give up their convictions.

Let's just move on and stop pretending that OUR party has the bigger tent. We are both guilty of throwing those who disagree with us out of our tent. The Dems did it with Joe Lieberman. They are just as guilty of doing it as Reps.

Now... let's move on from there and stop the name-calling so that we can get back to the issues at hand.

excon · May 8, 2009, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Both parties have their philosophies and ideals, and neither one of them is really willing to compromise those ideal and philosophies.... Now... let's move on from there and stop the name-calling so that we can get back to the issues at hand.

Hello again, El:

Wow. I thought I missed a real knock down... But, couldn't find it. You righty's are too sensitive.

You keep on saying this has to do with philosophies and ideals, but it doesn't. YOUR argument does, but mine is based on the LAW. It comes straight from the Constitution, to wit:

The Ninth Amendment; "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people..."

And the Fourteenth Amendment which says,. "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..."

To me, it's clear as a bell, that if some group is given rights by the government, then ALL groups are eligible to receive those rights... It can't be read any other way. THIS issue is exactly why the Amendment says what it does.

excon

ETWolverine · May 8, 2009, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

Wow. I thought I missed a real knock down... But, couldn't find it. You righty's are too sensitive.

You keep on saying this has to do with philosophies and ideals, but it doesn't. YOUR argument does, but mine is based on the LAW. It comes straight from the Constitution, to wit:

The Ninth Amendment; "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people..."

And the Fourteenth Amendment which says, ... "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..."

To me, it's clear as a bell, that if some group is given rights by the government, then ALL groups are eligible to receive those rights... It can't be read any other way. THIS issue is exactly why the Amendment says what it does.

excon

You have a very bad habit of quoting only part of what is written and it constantly comes back to bite you. I recommend against that practice.

There is no "right" to gay marriage. Gay marriage is NOT marriage... or at least it hasn't been until legislators and the courts decided to redefine "marriage"... mostly against the will of the people who voted against it.

Marriage is a binding between a man and a woman. It always has been, and it always will be. The fact that gay people cannot have a "gay marriage" is not an abrogation of any rights, because straight people cannot have a gay marriage either. Furthermore, the granting of all the rights of heterosexual marriage to those who have gay civil unions means that there is no abbrogation of any rights. The 14th Amendment is satisfied.

You, however, are not. That is not based on the law. It's based on stubbornness. The law is perfectly satisfied.

Elliot

speechlesstx · May 8, 2009, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by excon

And the Fourteenth Amendment which says, ... "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..."

To me, it's clear as a bell, that if some group is given rights by the government, then ALL groups are eligible to receive those rights... It can't be read any other way. THIS issue is exactly why the Amendment says what it does.

Thanks for making our point that other whacked out groups - including NAMBLA and their perverted desire to legalize pedophilia - will expect equal treatment under the law.

Synnen · May 8, 2009, 09:01 AM

The problem is this: The state cannot give benefits to marriage (of ANY sort) if they are not available to ALL.

The compromise that comes up is this:

1. RELIGIOUS institutions (ANY religious institution recognized in the US) declare whether a couple is married, whether gay or straight.
2. EVERY couple, in order to get the LEGAL benefits, must have a civil union.

So... you can get married in the church, but have no legal rights to inherit, or you can get civil unionized by the state and have legal rights but no right to use the word "marriage". Or you can do both, and have both.

Again--MY religion has no problem with gay marriage or polygamy. I see a lot of converts coming in the future.

speechlesstx · May 26, 2009, 10:50 AM

California Supremes upheld Proposition 8...

The court said the people have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.

"In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.

Durn California bigots got their way...

tomder55 · May 26, 2009, 11:05 AM

Must be some of that conservative judicial activism... all that upholding of the law that the people passed. The Justices voted 6-1 to uphold the ban

I love that line about it's just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process.

Isn't that like ummm democracy ?

speechlesstx · May 26, 2009, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

I love that line about it's just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process.

Apparently we'll see how that argument pans out in the near future. "Gay rights activists immediately promised to resume their fight, saying they would go back to voters as early as next year in a bid to repeal Proposition 8."

Isn't that like ummm democracy ?

Only to be used as a last resort.