Shifting the argument ( to inter-racial marriage) is a tactic used when someone can not win an argument on it's own merits. Homosexuality is NOT a race.
Second, I've never attempted to shift the argument. I've actually made extremely good arguments regarding why legalizing gay marriage is the right thing to do. If you follow the thread, you will see that.
Third, black, white, Asian... these are NOT races either. It is the HUMAN RACE. We are all part of the same species, with compatible DNA.
Finally, this is clearly not a racial issue. It is an issue on equality, because same but separate is not equal. We cannot all be created equal if we are not treated that way. It is also an issue on tolerance and understanding. The reason why ethnicity has come into the debate as a comparison is because with everything that's happened in history, you would think we would have learned by now. Homosexuality is not a race. Homosexuals are part of the SAME race.
We are your brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers. We are part of your lives and contribute to society as much as anyone. Sometimes you know we're there, but I suspect mostly you don't. Because for the most part, we are just like you. We don't all fit into the stereotype that exists for some of the people in this community. Pretending we don't exist with implementing stupid guidelines such as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or trying to not legitimize our love by not allowing us to marry in the way that heterosexual couple do will not make us go away. Saying that heterosexuals can marry for whatever reason they wish and then denying homosexuals the right to marry on the basis of "the sanctity of marriage" is hypocritical.
So, tell me again how there is no merit to our side of the argument. If you truly want a debate, debate all you want. I'll be here. If you want to dismiss the validity of our argument, you really need to try a bit harder. But if you just want to stay in your dark little room, closing off your minds to what we have to say, then please do so and stop pretending you have good arguments for your side because I have yet to hear of a single one. I'm glad to be vocal because there are actually people who are listening. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rfea...eature=related
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic
Shifting the argument ( to inter-racial marriage) is a tactic used when someone can not win an argument on it's own merits. Homosexuality is NOT a race.
Because these are two different issues, the arguments may be similar in some ways but are actually not the same. Also, the arguments to deny gay marriage have been used to deny blacks the ability to marry whites... but that too is a completely different issue so what would be your point?
We are debating the issue of gay marriage on its own merits. We are not talking about polygamy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality or any other issue that people against gay marriage would like to bring up to mask the debate.
We are talking about one person loving another and wanting to make a life-long commitment to that person. We are talking about equal rights for people who were given it and then had it taken away.
As far as your question. I am against polygamy in the sense that it is often, if not always, an unequal partnership, used in such a way that the man controls his wives, where fathers marry off daughters to men who already have wives. The man benefits more than the women and the women competing for his attention. The women often live in servitude. There are also other social consequences for polygamy (http://www.reason.com/news/show/117323.html) that I will not discuss because, as stated, polygamy is not the issue in question here.
Having said that, are you ready to continue to debate gay marriage or would you like to deflect further?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic
Every argument in favor of Gay Marriage can also be made for polygamy. Are you also in favor of polygamy?
Every argument in favor of Gay Marriage can also be made for polygamy. Are you also in favor of polygamy?
Those in support of gay marriage think that it should be okay just because they want it. They completely ignore the fact that the majority does not want it. Now, that they aren't getting their way, a great many of them are acting just like the spoiled little brats they are.
I guess everyone can be considered "spoiled little brats" when coming from someone such as yourself, and again, you resort to insults when you can't make your argument.
This issue, like so many others, cannot be simplified to one of "majority rules". We all know that the majority has been wrong before. The majority once thought the Earth was flat, that bathing causes disease, that epilepsy was the result of demonic possession, and that women did not have the capacity, let alone the right, to vote. Education has corrected these errors in understanding. Has there not been "spoiled little brats" proving otherwise, we'd still be living in the dark ages. It's called progress.
And I will ask the same question that I asked the last time you brought this up. If it's always majority rules, who will ever speak up for the minority?
The debate over gay marriage is an issue of equality - right and wrong. Now I know what people think is right or wrong is in conflict here, but what's interesting is that you don't have people who support gay marriage changing their minds but you DO have people who don't support gay marriage realize how unfair it is and decide to support it. This fact should indicate to Americans who support gay marriage that the issue is far from over and to keep fighting.
By the way, considering the hateful language used by some of the people who don't support gay marriage, including yourself, maturity is not something I would bring up in your arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella
Those in support of gay marriage think that it should be okay just because they want it. They completely ignore the fact that the majority does not want it. Now, that they aren't getting their way, a great many of them are acting just like the spoiled little brats they are.
Those in support of gay marriage think that it should be okay just because they want it. They completely ignore the fact that the majority does not want it. Now, that they aren't getting their way, a great many of them are acting just like the spoiled little brats they are.
The majority didn't want interracial marriages in many states, but the Supreme Court ruled in favour of it as a civil right. The South didn't want the North pushing their evil, liberal viewpoints about "negros" being free and having rights.
You keep saying that the situations aren't similar, yet you keep on making the exact same arguments that the bigots before you made about non-whites.
PS: Where do you live, I want to come to your next Klan meeting? (It's a joke, take it as such)
The homosexual population is trying to change the definition of the word "marriage" If Homosexuals can change the definition of the word "marriage then any other group should be able to as well. The word "marriage" has a specific definition. If it is changeable (at the wim of a minority) then it is changeable to anything. How about incest? The same arguments can be made for incest.
The homosexual population is trying to change the definition of the word "marriage"
If heterosexuals have redefining marriage for thousands of years to suit their needs, why can't others. But your argument is weak and your argument for incest even weaker, though I do commend you for not using the typical bigoted, sensationalist reply, "if gays can marry then pedophilia and bestiality will be next!"
If you had read the links that I posted on the 19th, you'd know the answer.
That's a lie.
You did not answer the question.
Did you support mixed-race marriage when it was an issue?
Also, there is a huge strawman being thrown out here, in your links and elsewhere. It is saying that by comparing the same-sex MARRIAGE issue to the interracial MARRIAGE issue, we are comparing the right to same-sex marriage to the entire civil rights movement. It's not even close to what we're comparing. We're not comparing this to the entire civil issue. We're saying...
1. "Marriage" was once defined by the majority in many states as being between two white people. That "definition" was discriminatory, so the definition had to change.
2. Once again the "definition" of marriage is discriminatory. Once again it needs to change.
Now, I'd still like to know the answer to the question about your support for interracial marriage. Don't sidestep and say "that is not the issue here". I think it's important to know where you're coming from to understand the psychology of someone who opposes an obvious civil right.
Those in support of gay marriage think that it should be okay just because they want it. They completely ignore the fact that the majority does not want it. Now, that they aren't getting their way, a great many of them are acting just like the spoiled little brats they are.
We're going in circles here.
Once again, since you've ignored the fact 100 times, Civil rights is not about "the majority". It is about equal treatment under the law.
If you want to, I have no problem with that. If you want to marry your sister, though, I'd suggest no reproducing, as there are some problems genetically. And, though I agree with the person who said that quite often polygamy is about sexual slavery, one of the best relationships I ever had was when I spent two years living with two wonderful women. We all had separate work rooms in our house, but we all shared the same master bedroom. It was one of the least stressful relationships, too; as if one person were having a bad day, they didn't just take it out on the other person (as in a two-person relationship); and if two people were having a bad day, there was always one person to play referee (which doesn't happen in a two-person relationship, either); and if all three of us were in a crappy mood, it was usually so funny, we all got in better moods. If we could have married, we probably would have.
I really could care less what people want to do with each other (as long as it's agreeable to them); and if they want to call it marriage, and for all legal purposes it acts as marriage, go right ahead. With something like 50% of all marriages ending in divorce, and crack ho's and physical abusers having full leeway to marry (and reproduce), what's a bit more going to bother anyone? And how could it ever threaten or take away from someone with a "good" marriage?
Did you support mixed-race marriage when it was an issue?
Also, there is a huge strawman being thrown out here, in your links and elsewhere. It is saying that by comparing the same-sex MARRIAGE issue to the interracial MARRIAGE issue, we are comparing the right to same-sex marriage to the entire civil rights movement. It's not even close to what we're comparing. We're not comparing this to the entire civil issue. We're saying...
1. "Marriage" was once defined by the majority in many states as being between two white people. That "definition" was discriminatory, so the definition had to change.
2. Once again the "definition" of marriage is discriminatory. Once again it needs to change.
Now, I'd still like to know the answer to the question about your support for interracial marriage. Don't sidestep and say "that is not the issue here". I think it's important to know where you're coming from to understand the psychology of someone who opposes an obvious civil right.
Lie? Is English your second, or maybe third language?
I dare ya to go up to Magic Johnson and tell him he's gay. I dare ya.
[AIDS was first reported June 5, 1981, when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded a cluster of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (now still classified as PCP but known to be caused by Pneumocystis jirovecii) in five homosexual men in Los Angeles.[127] In the beginning, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not have an official name for the disease, often referring to it by way of the diseases that were associated with it, for example, lymphadenopathy, the disease after which the discoverers of HIV originally named the virus.[66][67] They also used Kaposi's Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections, the name by which a task force had been set up in 1981.[128] In the general press, the term GRID, which stood for Gay-related immune deficiency, had been coined.[129] The CDC, in search of a name, and looking at the infected communities coined ?the 4H disease,? as it seemed to single out Haitians, homosexuals, hemophiliacs, and heroin users.[130] However, after determining that AIDS was not isolated to the homosexual community,[128] the term GRID became misleading and AIDS was introduced at a meeting in July 1982.[131] By September 1982 the CDC started using the name AIDS, and properly defined the illness.[132]
[AIDS was first reported June 5, 1981, when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded a cluster of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (now still classified as PCP but known to be caused by Pneumocystis jirovecii) in five homosexual men in Los Angeles.[127] In the beginning, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not have an official name for the disease, often referring to it by way of the diseases that were associated with it, for example, lymphadenopathy, the disease after which the discoverers of HIV originally named the virus.[66][67] They also used Kaposi's Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections, the name by which a task force had been set up in 1981.[128] In the general press, the term GRID, which stood for Gay-related immune deficiency, had been coined.[129] The CDC, in search of a name, and looking at the infected communities coined ?the 4H disease,? as it seemed to single out Haitians, homosexuals, hemophiliacs, and heroin users.[130] However, after determining that AIDS was not isolated to the homosexual community,[128] the term GRID became misleading and AIDS was introduced at a meeting in July 1982.[131] By September 1982 the CDC started using the name AIDS, and properly defined the illness.[132]
So you're agreeing that AIDS/HIV is not just a homosexual disease, right?
Also, there seems to be some credence that it had been spreading before that, and that the increase in non-stop trans-oceanic flying (starting particularly in the mid-70's), coupled with the increased sexual partners of both those pilots and the attendants may have had been a variable in the vectoring. (Seeing as how the first verified case of AIDS is from 1959.)
Comments
Second, I've never attempted to shift the argument. I've actually made extremely good arguments regarding why legalizing gay marriage is the right thing to do. If you follow the thread, you will see that.
Third, black, white, Asian... these are NOT races either. It is the HUMAN RACE. We are all part of the same species, with compatible DNA.
Finally, this is clearly not a racial issue. It is an issue on equality, because same but separate is not equal. We cannot all be created equal if we are not treated that way. It is also an issue on tolerance and understanding. The reason why ethnicity has come into the debate as a comparison is because with everything that's happened in history, you would think we would have learned by now. Homosexuality is not a race. Homosexuals are part of the SAME race.
We are your brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers. We are part of your lives and contribute to society as much as anyone. Sometimes you know we're there, but I suspect mostly you don't. Because for the most part, we are just like you. We don't all fit into the stereotype that exists for some of the people in this community. Pretending we don't exist with implementing stupid guidelines such as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or trying to not legitimize our love by not allowing us to marry in the way that heterosexual couple do will not make us go away. Saying that heterosexuals can marry for whatever reason they wish and then denying homosexuals the right to marry on the basis of "the sanctity of marriage" is hypocritical.
So, tell me again how there is no merit to our side of the argument. If you truly want a debate, debate all you want. I'll be here. If you want to dismiss the validity of our argument, you really need to try a bit harder. But if you just want to stay in your dark little room, closing off your minds to what we have to say, then please do so and stop pretending you have good arguments for your side because I have yet to hear of a single one. I'm glad to be vocal because there are actually people who are listening. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rfea...eature=related
Shifting the argument ( to inter-racial marriage) is a tactic used when someone can not win an argument on it's own merits. Homosexuality is NOT a race.
We are debating the issue of gay marriage on its own merits. We are not talking about polygamy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality or any other issue that people against gay marriage would like to bring up to mask the debate.
We are talking about one person loving another and wanting to make a life-long commitment to that person. We are talking about equal rights for people who were given it and then had it taken away.
As far as your question. I am against polygamy in the sense that it is often, if not always, an unequal partnership, used in such a way that the man controls his wives, where fathers marry off daughters to men who already have wives. The man benefits more than the women and the women competing for his attention. The women often live in servitude. There are also other social consequences for polygamy (http://www.reason.com/news/show/117323.html) that I will not discuss because, as stated, polygamy is not the issue in question here.
Having said that, are you ready to continue to debate gay marriage or would you like to deflect further?
Every argument in favor of Gay Marriage can also be made for polygamy. Are you also in favor of polygamy?
Every argument in favor of Gay Marriage can also be made for polygamy. Are you also in favor of polygamy?
Those in support of gay marriage think that it should be okay just because they want it. They completely ignore the fact that the majority does not want it. Now, that they aren't getting their way, a great many of them are acting just like the spoiled little brats they are.
This issue, like so many others, cannot be simplified to one of "majority rules". We all know that the majority has been wrong before. The majority once thought the Earth was flat, that bathing causes disease, that epilepsy was the result of demonic possession, and that women did not have the capacity, let alone the right, to vote. Education has corrected these errors in understanding. Has there not been "spoiled little brats" proving otherwise, we'd still be living in the dark ages. It's called progress.
And I will ask the same question that I asked the last time you brought this up. If it's always majority rules, who will ever speak up for the minority?
The debate over gay marriage is an issue of equality - right and wrong. Now I know what people think is right or wrong is in conflict here, but what's interesting is that you don't have people who support gay marriage changing their minds but you DO have people who don't support gay marriage realize how unfair it is and decide to support it. This fact should indicate to Americans who support gay marriage that the issue is far from over and to keep fighting.
By the way, considering the hateful language used by some of the people who don't support gay marriage, including yourself, maturity is not something I would bring up in your arguments.
Those in support of gay marriage think that it should be okay just because they want it. They completely ignore the fact that the majority does not want it. Now, that they aren't getting their way, a great many of them are acting just like the spoiled little brats they are.
Those in support of gay marriage think that it should be okay just because they want it. They completely ignore the fact that the majority does not want it. Now, that they aren't getting their way, a great many of them are acting just like the spoiled little brats they are.
The majority didn't want interracial marriages in many states, but the Supreme Court ruled in favour of it as a civil right. The South didn't want the North pushing their evil, liberal viewpoints about "negros" being free and having rights.
You keep saying that the situations aren't similar, yet you keep on making the exact same arguments that the bigots before you made about non-whites.
PS: Where do you live, I want to come to your next Klan meeting?
The homosexual population is trying to change the definition of the word "marriage"
If heterosexuals have redefining marriage for thousands of years to suit their needs, why can't others. But your argument is weak and your argument for incest even weaker, though I do commend you for not using the typical bigoted, sensationalist reply, "if gays can marry then pedophilia and bestiality will be next!"
If you had read the links that I posted on the 19th, you'd know the answer.
That's a lie.
You did not answer the question.
Did you support mixed-race marriage when it was an issue?
Also, there is a huge strawman being thrown out here, in your links and elsewhere. It is saying that by comparing the same-sex MARRIAGE issue to the interracial MARRIAGE issue, we are comparing the right to same-sex marriage to the entire civil rights movement. It's not even close to what we're comparing. We're not comparing this to the entire civil issue. We're saying...
1. "Marriage" was once defined by the majority in many states as being between two white people. That "definition" was discriminatory, so the definition had to change.
2. Once again the "definition" of marriage is discriminatory. Once again it needs to change.
Now, I'd still like to know the answer to the question about your support for interracial marriage. Don't sidestep and say "that is not the issue here". I think it's important to know where you're coming from to understand the psychology of someone who opposes an obvious civil right.
Those in support of gay marriage think that it should be okay just because they want it. They completely ignore the fact that the majority does not want it. Now, that they aren't getting their way, a great many of them are acting just like the spoiled little brats they are.
We're going in circles here.
Once again, since you've ignored the fact 100 times, Civil rights is not about "the majority". It is about equal treatment under the law.
A straight person can marry the person they love.
A gay person cannot.
That is unequal and discriminatory.
We're going in circles here.
Once again, since you've ignored the fact 100 times, Civil rights is not about "the majority". It is about equal treatment under the law.
A straight person can marry the person they love.
A gay person cannot.
That is unequal and discriminatory.
I can't marry my brother.
That is unequal and discriminatory too.
I can't marry my brother.
That is unequal and discriminatory too.
If you want to, I have no problem with that. If you want to marry your sister, though, I'd suggest no reproducing, as there are some problems genetically. And, though I agree with the person who said that quite often polygamy is about sexual slavery, one of the best relationships I ever had was when I spent two years living with two wonderful women. We all had separate work rooms in our house, but we all shared the same master bedroom. It was one of the least stressful relationships, too; as if one person were having a bad day, they didn't just take it out on the other person (as in a two-person relationship); and if two people were having a bad day, there was always one person to play referee (which doesn't happen in a two-person relationship, either); and if all three of us were in a crappy mood, it was usually so funny, we all got in better moods. If we could have married, we probably would have.
I really could care less what people want to do with each other (as long as it's agreeable to them); and if they want to call it marriage, and for all legal purposes it acts as marriage, go right ahead. With something like 50% of all marriages ending in divorce, and crack ho's and physical abusers having full leeway to marry (and reproduce), what's a bit more going to bother anyone? And how could it ever threaten or take away from someone with a "good" marriage?
I can't marry my brother.
That is unequal and discriminatory too.
Oh, get off it.
There are unarguable, specific, non-biblical, physical and sociological health issues regarding incest.
There are no such issues regarding homosexuality.
There are unarguable issues of consent regarding bestiality and pedophilia.
There are no such issues regarding homosexuality.
There are arguable issues of equality regarding polygamy.
There are no such issues regarding homosexuality.
To compare homosexuality to any of the above simply drives home the point that opponents to homosexual rights are willfully ignorant.
Oh, get off it.
There are unarguable, specific, non-biblical, physical and sociological health issues regarding incest.
There are no such issues regarding homosexuality.
There are unarguable issues of consent regarding bestiality and pedophilia.
There are no such issues regarding homosexuality.
not in all cultures
There are arguable issues of equality regarding polygamy.
There are no such issues regarding homosexuality.
You obviously don't know anything about Polygamy
To compare homosexuality to any of the above simply drives home the point that opponents to homosexual rights are willfully ignorant.
engaging in deviant sexual practices is not a right.
I dare ya to go up to Magic Johnson and tell him he's gay. I dare ya.
That's a lie.
You did not answer the question.
Did you support mixed-race marriage when it was an issue?
Also, there is a huge strawman being thrown out here, in your links and elsewhere. It is saying that by comparing the same-sex MARRIAGE issue to the interracial MARRIAGE issue, we are comparing the right to same-sex marriage to the entire civil rights movement. It's not even close to what we're comparing. We're not comparing this to the entire civil issue. We're saying...
1. "Marriage" was once defined by the majority in many states as being between two white people. That "definition" was discriminatory, so the definition had to change.
2. Once again the "definition" of marriage is discriminatory. Once again it needs to change.
Now, I'd still like to know the answer to the question about your support for interracial marriage. Don't sidestep and say "that is not the issue here". I think it's important to know where you're coming from to understand the psychology of someone who opposes an obvious civil right.
Lie? Is English your second, or maybe third language?
I dare ya to go up to Magic Johnson and tell him he's gay. I dare ya.
[AIDS was first reported June 5, 1981, when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded a cluster of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (now still classified as PCP but known to be caused by Pneumocystis jirovecii) in five homosexual men in Los Angeles.[127] In the beginning, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not have an official name for the disease, often referring to it by way of the diseases that were associated with it, for example, lymphadenopathy, the disease after which the discoverers of HIV originally named the virus.[66][67] They also used Kaposi's Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections, the name by which a task force had been set up in 1981.[128] In the general press, the term GRID, which stood for Gay-related immune deficiency, had been coined.[129] The CDC, in search of a name, and looking at the infected communities coined ?the 4H disease,? as it seemed to single out Haitians, homosexuals, hemophiliacs, and heroin users.[130] However, after determining that AIDS was not isolated to the homosexual community,[128] the term GRID became misleading and AIDS was introduced at a meeting in July 1982.[131] By September 1982 the CDC started using the name AIDS, and properly defined the illness.[132]
[AIDS was first reported June 5, 1981, when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded a cluster of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (now still classified as PCP but known to be caused by Pneumocystis jirovecii) in five homosexual men in Los Angeles.[127] In the beginning, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not have an official name for the disease, often referring to it by way of the diseases that were associated with it, for example, lymphadenopathy, the disease after which the discoverers of HIV originally named the virus.[66][67] They also used Kaposi's Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections, the name by which a task force had been set up in 1981.[128] In the general press, the term GRID, which stood for Gay-related immune deficiency, had been coined.[129] The CDC, in search of a name, and looking at the infected communities coined ?the 4H disease,? as it seemed to single out Haitians, homosexuals, hemophiliacs, and heroin users.[130] However, after determining that AIDS was not isolated to the homosexual community,[128] the term GRID became misleading and AIDS was introduced at a meeting in July 1982.[131] By September 1982 the CDC started using the name AIDS, and properly defined the illness.[132]
So you're agreeing that AIDS/HIV is not just a homosexual disease, right?
Also, there seems to be some credence that it had been spreading before that, and that the increase in non-stop trans-oceanic flying (starting particularly in the mid-70's), coupled with the increased sexual partners of both those pilots and the attendants may have had been a variable in the vectoring. (Seeing as how the first verified case of AIDS is from 1959.)