Barney B Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Polygamy has been accepted in many societies historically, and is even tolerated in the Bible. So the case against polygamy isn't a universal thing, and if we wanted to illustrate it here, we'd have some work to do. But if you wanted to explain why straights shouldn't be able to marry more than one person, and then explain how gays can't use the same reasoning, then that'd be a good place to start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney B Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 What ISN'T a good place to start is with the claim "Marriage is between a man and a woman." If you get to make that assumption, then gays get to claim that "Marriage is between two people." Neither is backed up with any reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Abortion is never on the ticket (at best partial birth abortions could be fixed) Immigration is never on the ticket (President Obama has already gotten the felony angle working well). Gay Union is already here. Marriage is a myth today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Hate to say it but "It's the economy, stupid" Truth is, abortion only matters in non issue years because in our hearts we know that neither Republicans nor Democrats will do anything about it, but try to pull puppet strings to make various segments dance. Dems had a supermajority and nothing was done. Bush had all three branches in majority control for several years and nothing was done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 What ISN'T a good place to start is with the claim "Marriage is between a man and a woman." If you get to make that assumption, then gays get to claim that "Marriage is between two people." Neither is backed up with any reasoning. Which is exactly my point. If homosexuals are opposed to other consenting adults that haven't been historically "accepted," then they're absolutely no better than straights doing the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 There's too much precedent now. It's been backed up too many times to be backed away from now, even on a far-right court. The same could've been said about segregation prior to Brown vs Topeka. Roe V Wade won't get overturned by the Supreme Court because neither party would allow a pro life majority to take over the SCOTUS - even the GOP leaders don't want it overturned because as long as it's in place, they can posture all they want and pass all the pro-life bills they need to win support knowing the courts will strike it down before they face any repercussions. The GOP screwed its Reaganite fiscal conservative base and tried to make up for it by sucking up to social conservative theocrats. Now they're stuck. They lost all credibilty and fiscal and economic policies, and any move towards Reaganist big tent Republicanism gets a candidate instantly marginalized by the religious right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 The Republicans should have this locked up. The economy sucks. The unemployment rate is terrible. The deficit is appalling.Yet, for some reason, the Republicans hitch their wagon to the most lost of causes. 1. Roe v Wade - it's NEVER getting overturned. Get over it. Most people don't want it overturned. I have no problem with liberals, adulterers, mentally challenged, or people too lazy to use birth control not polluting society with their offspring just pay for it yourself. Infanticide while disgusting is big business though to hear others POV you'd think every abortion is needed because its either a pregnancy by Rape, a threat to the mother's life or the Result of a West Virginian or Kentucky family get together. What is the big fear of Roe v Wade being overturned? The result would be the States making the decisions via the people in each state to say its legal or illegal. 2. Gay Marriage - look at the tides. gay marriage is going to be a part of the future. you cannot tell me it's somehow bad for the country or bad for your marriage to let two gay people who are in love get married. Everyone has their opinons. I disagree with deviant activity being considered normal. 3. Don't Ask, Don't Tell - this is the United States. Freedom of Speech is held above almost everything else. most people would say it's unconstitutional for the us government to tell a soldier that he may not speak about his sexuality. flies right in the face of everything american. It was the Log Cabin Republicans going to the 9th circuit court to push this and liberals will continue to ignore this. Liberals did learn from the Clinton years to not let the troops give honest answers without fear of reprisals, but whats done is done. I am laughing at the Army times report of two guys demanding to be allowed to crossdress. I am so glad I was able to retire before my military went thru more social re-engineering. The soldiers should only be a cog in the machine. why don't Republicans try to win on the real issues like the economy? as long as they hold backward, antiquated viewpoints about the above items, they'll continue to struggle against clearly failing leaders. Team Elephant win on the economy. The social issues will be taken care of after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney B Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 If homosexuals are opposed to other consenting adults that haven't been historically "accepted," then they're absolutely no better than straights doing the same. That's true, of course, but it's not a rational justification for denying gays a right that you grant to straights. It's more like a justification for denying both heterosexuals AND homosexuals the right to marry. Otherwise you're not being consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 I'm Pro Choice and my Choice is Life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePreciating Posted October 14, 2011 Author Share Posted October 14, 2011 This is softball city...I agree with the first part of this. Disagree with the second part. We're still 70% Christian as a nation. And most faiths are at least on some level anti-abortion. I'd venture to say we're still VERY close to a 50-50 split. The numbers don't support that. Do you support polygamy as well? They're consenting adults. no i don't support polygamy, and i still don't see why you can't marry any other individual you want to. the church doesn't have to marry any gay couples. the government has an existing policy in place where it marries couples, and there's simply no leg to stand on when you say the government should decide whether to grant the powers and protections of marriage based on the genders of the involved citizens. when you talk about polygamy, you're talking about a different entity entirely. i used to not support gay marriage, then i realized it really doesn't affect anybody. polygamy does affect people, as it is associated so often with underage wives and arranged marriages. There are MANY things soldiers aren't allowed to say. They're not allowed to criticize the President. They're not allowed to question the orders of their superiors, even if they think they're ridiculous. Should we throw those things out too? I mean, they're freedom of speech issues, right? I'm sure those things happen privately though. There are certainly conversations behind closed doors of barracks where the president and superiors are questioned all the time. However, let your sexuality slip, and you're out. Plus, your sexuality is one of the most fundamental parts of your existence, unlike those other things you mention. It is part and parcel to your very identity. It is patently un-American to ask another American to hide his sexual preference. Is the concern that suddenly the Army is going to be over-run with a bunch of Liberaces? The argument for don't ask don't tell is unbelievably thin and rooted in ignorance. ---------- Post added October-14th-2011 at 11:19 AM ---------- Everyone has their opinons. I disagree with deviant activity being considered normal. Homosexuality? Wow, I guess you don't have any gay friends. How do you feel about the blacks, do they bother you too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 That's true, of course, but it's not a rational justification for denying gays a right that you grant to straights.It's more like a justification for denying both heterosexuals AND homosexuals the right to marry. Otherwise you're not being consistent. Actually marriage traditionally was defined by gender, not by whom (or what) you choose to have sex with. In that respect it has been 100% consistent and not denying anyone a right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Homosexuality? Wow, I guess you don't have any gay friends. How do you feel about the blacks, do they bother you too? You fell into the trap, my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney B Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Actually marriage traditionally was defined by gender, not by whom (or what) you choose to have sex with. In that respect it has been 100% consistent... True, but tradition isn't the best tool available to base a system of laws on in the 21st century. Fairness and reason should always trump tradition. ...and not denying anyone a right. This part I have to disagree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 no i don't support polygamy, and i still don't see why you can't marry any other individual you want to. the church doesn't have to marry any gay couples. the government has an existing policy in place where it marries couples, and there's simply no leg to stand on when you say the government should decide whether to grant the powers and protections of marriage based on the genders of the involved citizens. when you talk about polygamy, you're talking about a different entity entirely. i used to not support gay marriage, then i realized it really doesn't affect anybody. polygamy does affect people, as it is associated so often with underage wives and arranged marriages. There are already laws against marrying minors. That's a separate issue entirely. And if you want to outlaw arranged marriages, you're putting the government squarely in the middle of deciding what people of some faiths can and cannot do. I'm sorry, but there's no way around this. If you say you don't support consenting polygamy, you're picking and choosing which consenting adults can get married, just like some straights do. If one is wrong, then most certainly, so is the other. FWIW, again, I used to be staunchy anti-gay marriage. I now support civil unions for any consenting adults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 I am so glad I was able to retire before my military went thru more social re-engineering. Would you say the same thing if you were (or wanted to be) in the military decades before you were and they didn't want blacks serving with whites? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Chang Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 You fell into the trap, my friend. :ols:Don't post much in these threads but I've read enough that I cringed when he said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Would you say the same thing if you were (or wanted to be) in the military decades before you were and they didn't want blacks serving with whites? Navy Dave Voice: "No, you see that was TOTALLY different because there is nothing wrong with black people but homos are gross! Even making the comparison between the two civil rights movements is an insult to black people." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Deviant ....gross is more subjective Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 If Romney is the candidate, I agree.Good luck with Pawlenty, Bachmann, Gingrich, or the other ideologues. Doneski after one debate with Obama. Actually, Gingrich would eat Obama's lunch,dinner,breakfast and late night snack in a debate. I think he would be pragmatic on most issues; though he's idiotic on some of them like the Republican party as a whole. He doesn't have a chance because he has baggage for several lifetimes. I think he would turn off alot of the swing voters. ---------- Post added October-15th-2011 at 10:39 AM ---------- Right now I don't see any of these fools beating President Obama.Mitt Romney might have an outside shot Romney has no real base of support, he would do about the same as Mccain. ---------- Post added October-15th-2011 at 10:40 AM ---------- I think Huntsman is a moderate that can get the the independent vote. The guy is broke and won't even be in the next debate. His candidacy is probably over. ---------- Post added October-15th-2011 at 10:42 AM ---------- Pawlenty dropped out long ago; why is he still being mentioned? ---------- Post added October-15th-2011 at 10:54 AM ---------- Obama is going to win because there is noone on the Republican side that can garner enough support in a national election to beat him; despite the economy. Romney would be the closest but he has no real base of support. The die hard right wing tea party person is all about ideology. There number one goal is to purify the Republican party so that the Republican party submits to the Tea Party ideology. If the nominee isn't someone they like; that nominee will get nothing from them. They will instead concentrate their efforts on trying to get supermajorities in the House and Senate so they can override Obama's veto. I don't think you see many tea partiers actively campaigning for Romney. If you don't think the tea party isn't about having people cow towing to their ideology; just watch how many incumbent republicans lose in primaries next year. Anyone else gets the nomination and they will be too extreme for the so called swing vote. I see Obama winning a very close election but he will win. The other possibility is that there will be third party candidate who will draw just enough support to tip the election to OBama. ---------- Post added October-15th-2011 at 10:55 AM ---------- Socials issues will not be a factor in the general election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Social issues will be an issue in the election w/o the Democrats even raising them. The Republicans just can't help themselves. For example: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/20/frontrunner-romney-takes-heat-over-abortion-stance/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Because we know Dems never raise them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Deviant ....gross is more subjective Actually, no, they aren't. You see, the difference between "minority" and labels like "deviant" or "abnormal" is that the latter are "minorities I don't like" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Obama is cooked. Liberals are clinging to the social issue theme because they still can't own up to how horrific Obama's 3 years have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Liberals are clinging to the social issue theme. Wouldn't get that feeling from the primary debates. Social issues are very much a part of the Tea Party and a still huge pull for some of the weaker Right wing candidates who are otherwise still staying afloat because of social issues.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Obama is cooked. Liberals are clinging to the social issue theme because they still can't own up to how horrific Obama's 3 years have been. If your definition of "horrific" is "hasn't magically fixed what he inherited"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.