Forum puts Democrats in hot seat over gay issues

[Winslowalrob]

Yes, to change a existing dynamic you must either change public perceptions(which will allow the law to change) or have the courts change the laws(which would result in another mess like Roe vs Wade imo).

Rights not granted under the constitution need public approval.

Historically speaking then slavery and suffrage lean towards the latter. Though the courts did not change things, the federal government did ram unpopular legislature down the throats of Americans. Americans as a majority were not clamoring for either...

[AsburySkinsFan]

You must have missed my earlier statement that, IMO, if two brothers wanted to get married, I'd say they've got a case. (Just like I'd be in favor of waiving the blood-test requirement if the couple applying for marriage are over 65.)

Indeed I must have missed that post lets just say that such legislation would do more to harm the GLBT agenda than it would help it. The key to their victory is to win by inches, much the same way you boil a frog.

The funniest part is that the more the GLBT community resists Civil Unions the harder it will be for them to gain the ability to receive the coveted "marriage" which is ironic because the "boiling frog" tactic is the exact thing that has gotten them this far and now they want to abandon it at their most crucial moment.

[Winslowalrob]

Civil Union as opposed to marriage is discrimination and denies them access to the benefits of society? Oh, and this whole separate but equal, George Wallace stuff really does fall far short of two people with a chosen lifestyle wanting the State and Feds to not only acknowledge their choice, but also legislate their choice.

This is not a racial thing, because race is not a choice and this is.

Ok, so you just do not want church marraiges, but civil unions would be fine by you? You said that you do not want a law that perpetuates an immoral lifestyle, but we already have tons of gays already without such a law in place, so are you worried that there will be more gay people if civil unions were made legal (not church marraiges mind you). In essence, if being gay is a choice, and if not being allowed to have civil unions makes people choose to not be gay, then allowing civil unions would open the floodgates, so to speak?

[Larry]

Yes, to change a existing dynamic you must either change public perceptions(which will allow the law to change) or have the courts change the laws(which would result in another mess like Roe vs Wade imo).

Now, if your contention is that "discrimination will continue until society decides that it's wrong", then I'd agree with you.

IMO, for example, it's debatable whether MLK did more to end racism than Archie Bunker did. MLK may have gotten a lot of discriminatory laws changed, but Archie Bunker made racism socially unacceptable.

After Archie Bunker, racial bigots found that if they expressed their bigotry in public, people didn't agree with them any more. After Archie, people who told black jokes in public got looked at funny, like "what's wrong with you?"

I'd certainly agree that it would be much preferable if government discrimination against gays ended because the public came to the consensus that government discrimination against gays was wrong.

I'd really prefer if the government followed the people, rather than the other way around.

[twa]

Historically speaking then slavery and suffrage lean towards the latter. Though the courts did not change things, the federal government did ram unpopular legislature down the throats of Americans. Americans as a majority were not clamoring for either...

The elected representatives"rammed" the legislation?

A bit more complex than that ,but obviously for a politician to vote for anything there must have been some serious support and compelling reasons.

Unless they made politicians differently in those days. :laugh:

[Winslowalrob]

The elected representatives"rammed" the legislation?

A bit more complex than that ,but obviously for a politician to vote for anything there must have been some serious support and compelling reasons.

Unless they made politicians differently in those days. :laugh:

Sadly, people do not vote because "it is the right thing to do" but compelling reasons does not always = popular support. Thank god for liberal courts though!

[Larry]

Civil Union as opposed to marriage is discrimination and denies them access to the benefits of society? Oh, and this whole separate but equal, George Wallace stuff really does fall far short of two people with a chosen lifestyle wanting the State and Feds to not only acknowledge their choice, but also legislate their choice.

Which doesn't prevent you from claiming that "separate but equal" is a morally acceptable "compromise", if the uppity gays aren't happy with simply being excluded from a large chunk of the legal system entirely.

And again: Not one person is asking the government to either endorse, acknowledge, or legislate homosexuality.

One group is asking the government to not only endorse, but to mandate bigotry.

Not one person is trying to force you to marry a guy. One side is asking the government to prohibit it.

Not one person (in this thread. maybe elsewhere, though) is asking the government to punish people for disliking gays. One side is asking the government to punish people for being gay.

This is not a racial thing, because race is not a choice and this is.

I never said it was (a racial thing).

I said it is a bigotry thing. Because it is.

Here's one litmus test: If the statement "a black can't marry a white" is discrimination, then the statement "A man can't marry a man" is, too.

They may be different kinds of discrimination (one's racial and one's sexual), but either they're both discrimination, or neither is.

"It's a choice" is simply the first half of the sentence "It's a choice, and therefore it's OK for me to demand that the government mandate discrimination against a group of people who's only crime is that a bigger group of people don't like them."

[twa]

Now, if your contention is that "discrimination will continue until society decides that it's wrong", then I'd agree with you.

I'd certainly agree that it would be much preferable if government discrimination against gays ended because the public came to the consensus that government discrimination against gays was wrong.

I'd really prefer if the government followed the people, rather than the other way around.

Aside from not viewing it as discrimination(in the classical sense) but rather society rewarding a behavior/lifestyle, that is indeed my point.

Unless the courts change the laws,the public must be persuaded to see it as a need.

I freely admit on religious grounds I will never approve of same sex marriage or even same sex relationships,However my personal approval is not really a requirement in this or many other issues.

I have no trouble allowing others to make their own choices in life,even if I don't approve of them.

[Winslowalrob]

Which doesn't prevent you from claiming that "separate but equal" is a morally acceptable "compromise", if the uppity gays aren't happy with simply being excluded from a large chunk of the legal system entirely.

And again: Not one person is asking the government to either endorse, acknowledge, or legislate homosexuality.

One group is asking the government to not only endorse, but to mandate bigotry.

Not one person is trying to force you to marry a guy. One side is asking the government to prohibit it.

Not one person (in this thread. maybe elsewhere, though) is asking the government to punish people for disliking gays. One side is asking the government to punish people for being gay.

I never said it was (a racial thing).

I said it is a bigotry[/u] thing. Because it is.

Here's one litmus test: If the statement "a black can't marry a white" is discrimination, then the statement "A man can't marry a man" is, too.

They may be different kinds of discrimination (one's racial and one's sexual), but either they're both discrimination, or neither is.

"It's a choice" is simply the first half of the sentence "It's a choice, and therefore it's OK for me to demand that the government mandate discrimination against a group of people who's only crime is that a bigger group of people don't like them."

Larry you as always make very good points but stop being quite so prickish towards Asbury, who is a decent guy.

[Larry]

Aside from not viewing it as discrimination(in the classical sense) but rather society rewarding a behavior/lifestyle, that is indeed my point.

Ah, the old "the 'whites only' drinking fountain isn't discrimination against blacks, it's a special reward for being white" argument.

Only trouble is: Creating a "special reward" which is open to all members of society except despised minority group X, is still discrimination.

[Larry]

Larry you as always make very good points but stop being quite so prickish towards Asbury, who is a decent guy.

Oh, I assume he is. (I don't know him, but I always assume that. In fact, the only reason I'm in this discussion is because I assume that at least some of the audience is rational, and is capable of listening to, and being persuaded by, reason.)

My only problem is his continued declaration that it's the government's job to punish people simply because he dislikes one aspect of their personality. (And his continued attempts to claim his position is rational by assigning false statements and objectives to "my side".)

Ant I'll thank you to leave my prick out of this discussion, thank you very much.

[twa]

I wish I could strangle you at times :laugh:

It IS a reward to the family that benefits society.

IF you wish to argue that extending that benefit to gay couples that raise kids I would listen.

Strengthening the family unit is a compelling reason :slap:

And before you start with childless couples

THEY already have the benefit,you want to take it away ?.....Slamming head into keyboard.

[81artmonk]

Then quit sticking out your foot, in public, and demonstrating how well the shoe fits.

Which is an excuse for why, in your opinion bigotry is OK. It doesn't make it any less bigotry.

Here's a hint:

If it's bigotry to say "A black can't marry a white", then it's bigotry to say "A man can't marry a man". They may be different kinds of bigotry (one's racial and one's sexual). But either they're both bigotry, or neither is.

No, you just don't think the government should treat them the same as their betters (you).

Wow, did you just think of those yourself? (Or have you forgotten the last 100 times bigots have tried to use them, and the responses to them?)

Please show me the part of the Constitution that guarantees that horses are entitled to be treated the same as other citizens. Or, for that matter, show me the horse that's considered legally competent to make an informed consent to enter into a lifetime contract?

Children can't legally enter into a contract to get a credit card. Maybe it's just me, but I think marriage should be a bit of a bigger commitment than applying for a credit card.

And society has a good, compelling reason to prevent cousins from marrying: They tend to have FLKs. (Funny-looking kids.) (Now, show me two brothers who want to marry, and I'd say they've got a case.)

Well, now, there's certainly a good reason for the government to be mandating nationwide, legally required creation of second-class citizens: The government's Constitutional power to enforce religion.

(Wondering if I'll live long enough for you to be out there supporting the mandatory-burkha laws. After all, the Koran says so.)

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.

The origin of the word bigot in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of "religious hypocrite", especially a woman. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false.

Hey larry, this would make you a bigot also. along with the gay community.

[Larry]

And before you start with childless couples

Actually, my standard response to the "they can't have kids (therefore it's OK to discriminate against them)" "reasoning" is a personal anecdote.

My Grandfather died at age 72. About a year later, Grandma married her then-divorced High School sweetheart. He kept her happy (which I'm sure wasn't easy, since she was a cast-iron biatch) for 13 years, until she died (after smoking several packs a day for her entire life).

Here I had no idea that my Grandmother, of Mountain View, Oklahoma, was a social radical who was undermining the fabric of society, the morals of America, and the institution of marriage with her shoving the homosexual agenda down society's throats.

Here I thought that she was making a commitment to share the rest of her life with a person she loved.

Obviously, there needs to be a Constitutional Amendment to prevent America-hating people like my grandmother from doing any further harm to our country's morals by engaging in a mockery of marriage like that. How dare she scam the system like that?

[twa]

Tear jerker of a story Larry...not sure what the hell it has to do with extending the benefits of marriage though.

Unless you disagree with society allowing them to marry or wish to propose that :laugh:

[81artmonk]

Larry, you keep comparing gays to blacks and their plight. The two are completely different. Blacks can't help being black. They were born that way. You said, if I am wrong, I apologize, that gays don't wake up and decide to be gay, well, they aren't born that way either. Homosexuality is a LIFESTYLE. No science has ever proven otherwise and to say it as if it is a fact, that gays are born gay is irresponsible. Merely an opinion.

I personally think your take on why they should have rights is off. I agree that all humans have rights. Some a given others provided by our laws. Just becuase you live a certian lifestyle doesn't automatically entitle you to something new.

[ACW]

Strengthening the family unit is a compelling reason :slap:

The hell it is! Where in the Constitution does it say Government should strengthen the family unit. And how is forbidding gay marriage strengthening said family unit. I think my parents will be fine if gays can marry; somehow I don't think they'll divorce.

EDIT: 81, the APA disagrees: http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#choice

[twa]

The hell it is! Where in the Constitution does it say Government should strengthen the family unit. And how is forbidding gay marriage strengthening said family unit. I think my parents will be fine if gays can marry; somehow I don't think they'll divorce.

EDIT: 81, the APA disagrees: http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#choice

Read the courts decisions

Review the Legislatures efforts over the years

Hell look at the history of mankind

The building block of civilization is the family and it has been supported by law and custom even before the constitution.

I SAID it IS a compelling reason FOR extending the benefits of marriage to gay couples with children.

Is that part clear now??

[Larry]

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.

The origin of the word bigot in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of "religious hypocrite", especially a woman. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false.

Hey larry, this would make you a bigot also. along with the gay community.

1) One difference is that I'm neither claiming that you don't have a right to your prejudices, nor demanding that you be punished for them. Although I think bigots are evil personified, I'm not demanding that the government pass special laws to keep them out of my sight.

2) Allow me to point out to you the highlighted portion of your quote.

And then allow me to point out that our discussion in this thread has consisted of:

• You spout a line from The Great Book of Excuses For Bigotry (2 pages, published 1962), which was shown to be irrelevant about 10 minutes after the first time somebody tried to use it to justify bigotry.
  
• I point out why that "argument" is invalid.
  
• You abandon that "argument", and move to the next menu item from The Great Book of Excuses For Bigotry.
  
• I respond with the same information that's proven the irrelevance of that argument, once a month for the last 10 years.
  
• You abandon that argument, and move on to . . .
  

There are only about 6 excuses in the bigot's playbook. And any person with half a brain can figure out what's wrong with them, and can disprove them logically, in just a few sentences.

Which is why the bigot's standard tactic is to cycle thorough the menu, sound bite to sound bite, and never actually even attempt to pretend that their "argument" has any rational basis whatsoever. Just keep cycling from one long-disposed-of argument to the next, and hope the other side goes away.

(And hope that nobody will notice that the real reason for their position is "I don't like gays", and that all of the rest is just feeble excuses.)

(I'm firmly convinced that the reason for this is because, frankly, the bigots know they're wrong to begin with. They're not trying to convince other people with their logic. They're trying to make themselves feel less guilty about the absolute contemptability of the things they're saying and doing. But that's just a personal theory.)

[81artmonk]

The hell it is! Where in the Constitution does it say Government should strengthen the family unit. And how is forbidding gay marriage strengthening said family unit. I think my parents will be fine if gays can marry; somehow I don't think they'll divorce.

EDIT: 81, the APA disagrees: http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#choice

Ok, I disagree with them. There is no, none, nada proof in science that tells us it's biological. Just like many things, it's likely and we think this may be the case, but there isn't anything pointing us in the face telling us, yeah this is certianly for sure the way things are. Until they do find that "missing link" than it's a lifestyle. Look, if there were so much compelling evidence that it was biological, don't you think more people and laws would be changed. It would be easier to get gay marriage accepted??

Honestly what I read that you provided, sounds alot like what experts say about pediphiles. Early childhood experiences, ect.. Why not allow them their behavior based on that?? Why should we condem them and say homosexuality is ok?? Your article basically stated that they do not choose this way of life, they can't help it, it is just who they are. What's the difference?? Why allow one and not the other??

[Winslowalrob]

Read the courts decisions

Review the Legislatures efforts over the years

Hell look at the history of mankind

The building block of civilization is the family and it has been supported by law and custom even before the constitution.

I SAID it IS a compelling reason FOR extending the benefits of marriage to gay couples with children.

Is that part clear now??

The building block of mankind is food production and cities. Families... not so much.

[Winslowalrob]

1) One difference is that I'm neither claiming that you don't have a right to your prejudices, nor demanding that you be punished for them. Although I think bigots are evil personified, I'm not demanding that the government pass special laws to keep them out of my sight.

2) Allow me to point out to you the highlighted portion of your quote.

And then allow me to point out that our discussion in this thread has consisted of:

• You spout a line from The Great Book of Excuses For Bigotry (2 pages, published 1962), which was shown to be irrelevant about 10 minutes after the first time somebody tried to use it to justify bigotry.
  
• I point out why that "argument" is invalid.
  
• You abandon that "argument", and move to the next menu item from The Great Book of Excuses For Bigotry.
  
• I respond with the same information that's proven the irrelevance of that argument, once a month for the last 10 years.
  
• You abandon that argument, and move on to . . .
  

There are only about 6 excuses in the bigot's playbook. And any person with half a brain can figure out what's wrong with them, and can disprove them logically, in just a few sentences.

Which is why the bigot's standard tactic is to cycle thorough the menu, sound bite to sound bite, and never actually even attempt to pretend that their "argument" has any rational basis whatsoever. Just keep cycling from one long-disposed-of argument to the next, and hope the other side goes away.

(And hope that nobody will notice that the real reason for their position is "I don't like gays", and that all of the rest is just feeble excuses.)

(I'm firmly convinced that the reason for this is because, frankly, the bigots know they're wrong to begin with. They're not trying to convince other people with their logic. They're trying to make themselves feel less guilty about the absolute contemptability of the things they're saying and doing. But that's just a personal theory.)

I read the bigots playbook many a time. My favorite line:

I am not a racist but... (then proceed to say something REALLY racist)

[81artmonk]

1) One difference is that I'm neither claiming that you don't have a right to your prejudices, nor demanding that you be punished for them. Although I think bigots are evil personified, I'm not demanding that the government pass special laws to keep them out of my sight.

2) Allow me to point out to you the highlighted portion of your quote.

And then allow me to point out that our discussion in this thread has consisted of:

• You spout a line from The Great Book of Excuses For Bigotry (2 pages, published 1962), which was shown to be irrelevant about 10 minutes after the first time somebody tried to use it to justify bigotry.
  
• I point out why that "argument" is invalid.
  
• You abandon that "argument", and move to the next menu item from The Great Book of Excuses For Bigotry.
  
• I respond with the same information that's proven the irrelevance of that argument, once a month for the last 10 years.
  
• You abandon that argument, and move on to . . .
  

There are only about 6 excuses in the bigot's playbook. And any person with half a brain can figure out what's wrong with them, and can disprove them logically, in just a few sentences.

Which is why the bigot's standard tactic is to cycle thorough the menu, sound bite to sound bite, and never actually even attempt to pretend that their "argument" has any rational basis whatsoever. Just keep cycling from one long-disposed-of argument to the next, and hope the other side goes away.

(And hope that nobody will notice that the real reason for their position is "I don't like gays", and that all of the rest is just feeble excuses.)

(I'm firmly convinced that the reason for this is because, frankly, the bigots know they're wrong to begin with. They're not trying to convince other people with their logic. They're trying to make themselves feel less guilty about the absolute contemptability of the things they're saying and doing. But that's just a personal theory.)

Wow, you are so full of yourself and.... it isn't even funny. I was simpley argueing all the points you brought up as I read them. Second, according the definition of the word Bigot, you are one too. Which I might add you skimmed over as well, which is what you accuse me of doing!!

use every tactic from the other side as well. Making me look like I hate them. Which makes you righteous and me the bad guy. You claim that you don't want to deny me the right to my predudices yet tell me that having them is wrong, which basically the samething as denying.

You and others like you do the same thing too, is to vilify those share the opposing opinions, which as per the definition makes you a BIGOT just like me!!

You can search other posts I have, I have never said I don't like gays. Just like I don't don't like other people who are immoral. You and others like you seem to miss the fact it's not the person we dislike but the act, the lifestyle what they do that we don't like.

I have people I work with who are sexually active with numerous parteners. I don't hate them. I dislike the behavior. But people like you who want people to share your point often vilify the opposite opinion in order to make yourself look better and your point more revelant.

You on a consistant basis, never argue your opinion, but put down others opinions as if they are stupid. And then you come back with, "I'm not saying you can't have that opinion", while in a roundabout way saying their opinions are stupid! Which again based on the definition of the word BIGOT make you one too.

[Larry]

Tear jerker of a story Larry...not sure what the hell it has to do with extending the benefits of marriage though.

Unless you disagree with society allowing them to marry or wish to propose that :laugh:

As I stated, it's my standard response to the "gays can't have children (and therefore must be prohibited from marriage" "argument".

[twa]

The building block of mankind is food production and cities. Families... not so much.

What unit was primarily responsible for food production and the building of cities?

Even evolutionist agree it was the family structure.

It sure as hell wasn't a bunch of bachelors.