Gay Rights Rating in U.S. Political Issues (rated by importance) by SilverFox

EschewObfuscation commented 298 days ago.

Everyone on this site agrees with these words. Restating them does not strengthen the cause of dissolution of the traditional, existing definition of marriage in a way that assists gay men or women from inclusion inder it, unless they marry someone of the opposite gender.

SilverFox commented 298 days ago.

If you prefer the original wording, it's:
"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."

Sounds like you really don't agree that all men/women are created equal, at least not gays, nor that the right to the pursuit of happiness is unalienable, since you favor denying them the right to marry anyone of their choosing, as Calif's. Prop. 8 purports to do (I predict the Calif. Supreme Court won't allow it).

Where does one draw the line, and who decides where the line is to be drawn? It's a slippery slope once you start down it. The beauty of our Constitution is that it guarantees protection of rights for minorities from the tyranny of majority rule. At some future time our courts will recognize that gays have rights equal with everyone else, just as happened with blacks. In the meantime, why not try to be empathetic and apply the Golden Rule?

Victor83 commented 298 days ago.

The bottom line is that gays do in fact have all of those rights. They have the right to life, they have the same liberties the rest of us do, and they are free to pursue happiness. The "pursuit of happiness" however does not mean that one is free to do anything one wants and do so with state sanctioned approval.
This is a tired argument. Gays marry every day in this country. None have been arrested, fined, or harassed; nor have any of the priests or ministers who performed the ceremonies.

SilverFox commented 297 days ago.

You're being misleading by saying that "gays marry every day in this country." The problem is, as I'm sure you know, those marriages aren't legal in many states, aren't recorded in official state records, are not legally recognized, and the death of one does not allow the other to inherit the other's property or receive benefits. That currently includes CA, which passed Prop. 8, which prohibits gays from marrying persons of the same sex.

How's your imagination? Are you willing to imagine yourself as someone else, someone who had no control over how they turned out, perhaps with a skin color other than white, or someone who is attracted only to others of the same sex? Can you imagine that person's feelings? Can you imagine how you would like to be treated by other people?

It's sad that most people are unwilling to do that imagining and to treat others as they would like to be treated.

Are you willing to consent to rights for others only if they are like you, have the same beliefs you do, the same morals, the same religion, the same skin color? Why aren't you willing to concede them rights equal to yours if they were born here like you were and are U.S. and state citizens just like you are? But you're willing to take their tax dollars, aren't you.

Victor83 commented 297 days ago.

1) I am not being "misleading"- I stated an irrefutable fact. 2) I can leave my property to anyone I choose. So can they. 3) Being gay is not the same thing as skin color. I am white...I cannot choose to act or refrain from acting on that. 4) I stated b4 that they have the same rights I do. It was true then...it is true now.

SilverFox commented 297 days ago.

1) It is not an irrefutable fact that gays LEGALLY "marry every day in this country." By leaving out the word "legally" you are being misleading and are avoiding the point I made.

2) If you're married and die without a will, your spouse will automatically, by operation of law (intestate succession), inherit your property. Unmarried spouses can leave property to their "partners" only if they so direct in a will. The partners cannot inherit under the law of intestate [i.e., without a will] succession.

3) It's spurious to imply that gays can "choose to act or refrain from acting on" their attraction to members of the same gender. While theoretically anyone CAN refrain from acting upon any attraction, society has no problem when straight people do so, whereas homophobes (as you appear to be), i.e. those who have contempt for homosexuals, want to deny that to gays and insist that they not act upon their attraction, because you don't approve.

4) You (and everyone else) have the right to marry anyone of your choosing except a member of the same gender. But that's irrelevant, since straight people by definition want only members of the opposite gender. You would deny gay people the right to marry anyone of their choosing.

You're trying to be clever with your wording, but you end up being only cunning and deceptive, a trait I don't admire.

You haven't answered my question as to whether you are willing to imagine yourself as a gay man and how you would like to be treated by other people. Are you avoiding that issue? Or are you willing to admit that you don't believe in following the Golden Rule?

Lena commented 297 days ago.

In addition to the things noted by Silverfox, there are also implications in medical emergencies, with respect to custody of children, ability to adopt, and a number of other things that vary on a state-by-state basis, all stemming from the fact that gay couples are not legally able to marry. It may be convenient to maintain the delusion that rights are not being infringed upon here, but that doesn't make it true.

Victor83 commented 296 days ago.

Fox, you say that I am trying to be "clever". This was after calling me a homophobe. Why don't you try being clever? it would beat your normal tactic, which is to be insulting and denegrating in an attempt to demonize those with whom you debate. Is that really the best you've got? You claim to be a lawyer?
I debate with facts. You resort to thinly veiled personal attacks after your sad attempt at tripping someone up falls short.
I refuted your sad attempt to drag the words of our founders into this. Now you try to hit me with the Golden Rule. Who is trying to be..um.."clever" here? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you does not mean giving tacit approval to any and every behavior. You know this.
Nice try fox. Get back to me when (or if) you want to discuss things intelligently.

SilverFox commented 296 days ago.

Victor -- I didn't mean to be insulting to you when I suggested that you appear to have contempt for homosexuals, which is the definition of a homophobe, along with fearing them. But you do indeed appear, to me at least, to have contempt for them, which if true makes you a homophobe. That's not demonizing, it's calling a spade a spade. In the words of the immortal Popeye, "you is what you is."

You say you debate with facts. Problem is, you state your "facts" in a clever way that is misleading and deceptive and avoids the real issues. You think you are scoring points with that style, but you're not, you're just coming off as cunning and untrustworthy. I can't ever take your "facts" at face value, because you try to make them into something they're not.

I do of course agree that "do unto others as you would have them do unto you does not mean giving tacit approval to any and every behavior." But that's not the point I was making. Instead, my point was that we should try to imagine the feelings of others and then try to imagine how we would like it if someone behaved toward us the way we behave toward them. Again, you've slanted your response so as to be misleading, since my statements did not imply that the Golden Rule means "giving tacit approval to any and every behavior," which would be ludicrous. The Golden Rule advocates being empathetic to others, i.e., understanding their perspective, and treating them, even if disagreeing with them, in a manner we would like to be treated if we walked in their shoes for a day.

FranksWildYears commented 296 days ago.

Fox, when you refer to calling a spade a spade, are you referring to the suit in a deck of playing cards, or the sharp tipped variety of shovel or the pejorative term for people of dark skin colour? Somehow I think that clarification of that issue will be called for at some later stage in this discussion.

Victor83 commented 296 days ago.

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"...a tactic used by Bush and loathed here on RIA- except when it is convenient. That is your strategy fox...to discredit me by painting me as a (gasp!) homophobe. It's funny that you seek to refute my point by proving it. I do not have contempt for homosexuals. If you choose to believe otherwise, that is your choice. To suggest that someone either agrees with you on the issue of redifining the institution of marriage, or they have contempt is in and of itself contemptible.
I state facts in a "clever" way? Thanks for the compliment. That beats twisting them until they are either a joke or an outright lie. I originally stated the truth. That truth was inconvenient to your argument; so you have attacked me- RIA style.
And nice try by the way...your attempt at back peddling on your Golden Rule argument. That is precisely why you brought it up. The Golden Rule does not advocate empathy. It is impossible for one to empathize regarding a place in existence they have never been. I think you meant to say "sympathize", and that I can do. Sure, we all want our way all the time. I wish more people held my conservative values, but I recognize the fact that I have no right to force those values on you, through the courts or otherwise. That is what the minority of a minority is seeking to accomplish. You seem to view yourself as some sort of Ghandi or Marting Luther King-esque RIA champion of this cause. That is your choice. However, I might suggest that you consider dropping the demonization strategy. It only serves to weaken your position.

SilverFox commented 296 days ago.

Frank, you never fail me. You always bring a new and humorous slant to a discussion. Not to kiss your ass too much, but as I've said before, I think that not only are you the funniest reviewer here, you have a unique knack for combining your humor with cogent, perceptive underlying comment. Now that I have a very brown nose, I turn to your point, such as it is.

First, I am not referring to the idiomatic expression "in spades," meaning "plenty" or "to a considerable degree," as in: You have humor in spades.

Instead, I use the expression "call a spade a spade" as meaning "to speak plainly and frankly," as in: honestly, sincerely, truthfully, candidly, openly, freely, directly, straight, plainly, bluntly, without reserve, straight from the shoulder.

Perhaps I call a spade a spade too often, which offends some people when I'm being blunt about how I perceive them. On the other hand, in the immortal words of Clark Gable in "Gone With the Wind" : "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." I shall continue to speak candidly, freely, directly, plainly, and bluntly as if this were a website that permits such opinions.

FranksWildYears commented 296 days ago.

Thanks, and I agree, in spades.

Victor83 commented 296 days ago.

Gotta love a drama that ends with a big kiss.

CanadaSucks commented 296 days ago.

Closeted republicans, whacked-out evangelicals, and yes. . .the brother-Obamatons in CA. constitute much of the minority opinion on this issue that still elicits eye-rolling from our allies in many first-world nations. "Ah dunt want 'dem kweers tuh have rites!. . .but eets not dat ah dunt like 'em." Feel free to rock your kids to sleep with that bedtime story but enough Americans want all citizens to have rights. . .geez, so faggoty and lee-brul of me. . .

SilverFox commented 296 days ago.

Actually, Victor, when I said "empathize," I used exactly the word I intended to use. To empathize is to sense and understand someone else's feelings as if they were one's own. You can look it up.

It's a more exact word than "sympathize," which both means to understand the feelings or ideas of another, and to feel compassion, as for another's suffering.

Thus, the Golden Rule does in fact advocate empathy, contrary to your assertion. I disagree that "it is impossible for one to empathize regarding a place in existence they have never been." One can imagine almost anything if you put your mind to it. If after trying you can't imagine what it would be like to be a homosexual, you should at least be able to imagine their feelings about the way they're treated.

I'm glad to hear that you don't consider yourself a homophobe, and I take you at your word. My apologies for branding you with a label that now you don't appear to deserve.

We apparently will have to agree to disagree as to whether you "originally stated the truth." My prior comments about the way you state "facts" and "truth" stand.

As to your comment that I seem to view myself "as some sort of Ghandi or Martin Luther King-esque RIA champion of this cause": This being a website on which to express one's opinions, I do in fact choose to express my opinions in no uncertain terms. I hold some opinions particularly strongly and express them often when happenings in society repeatedly prod particular sore spots. So it is with the way that society treats gays, and happenings in society often remind me of how the majority treats them. Obviously I feel strongly about it, as I do about most instances of discrimination and mistreatment that results from excessive and outmoded, perhaps Puritanical, moralism. When society attempts to force the cultural morals of the majority upon a minority that doesn't see things the same way, I bridle and become angry and indignant, even if it doesn't directly affect me.

Our country was formed as an angry reaction to being forced to do things the way England insisted, and much blood was shed in a successful effort to resist having things crammed down our throats. As I've said before, one of the beauties of the resulting Constitution our founders created is that minorities are protected from the tyranny of majority rule through legal recognition of fundamental rights. The Cal. Supreme Court previously ruled that the right to marriage is a fundamental right. I don't believe majority rule can take away a fundamental right from a minority, and thus predict the CA Court will overturn Prop. 8. When this multi-state issue reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, I predict the same result.

I consider myself a true patriot, because I support all of the Constitution, not just those parts of it I happen to agree with. I do my best to defend the Constitution here on RIA by speaking out.

EschewObfuscation commented 296 days ago.

What is most comical and intellect-stunting is the presumption that those who (intellectually, thoughtfully, without homophobic leanings) believe that "marriage" consists of one man and one woman, somehow hate gays. The argument isn't about how it would feel to be gay and be denied rights. The argument is about laws made, many years ago, regarding the safeguarding of the public good. Marriage, between one man and one woman, has been regarded as in keeping with the public good for centuries. Focusing on the abstract imagined "rights" of a small minority usually doesn't carry enough weight to change a basic societal mechanism enacted for the public good, particularly when it has been in place for centuries. What interest of the public good is served by two guys "marrying" each other? I see why they want it, that's clear. How does it serve the public good, is it simply about uniformity of rights regardless of its impact on the society at large?

sperryc commented 296 days ago.

"What interest of the public good is served by two guys 'marrying' each other?"

I'm pretty sure marriage is the same civilizing, and socially stabilizing force for same-sex couples that it is for mixed-gender couples. I'd like to know how allowing homosexuals to marry harms or impedes the public good.

FranksWildYears commented 296 days ago.

Laws made, many years ago, regarding the safeguarding of the public good have included denial of voting rights for women, and denial of property rights for blacks and a host of things that society has come to rethink. Or some of society has anyway.

magellan commented 296 days ago.

Second that. If you believe that marriage is a stabilizing, positive force for hetero couples, it seems odd to me that you would not think the same thing for homosexual couples.

I also think it serves the public good to provide equal protection under the law for all tax paying Americans.

EschewObfuscation commented 296 days ago.

Any proof to back up your belief regarding the "marrying" of two men inures benefit to society in the aggregate? By now, there nust be hundreds of examples of societies which have benefitted from this law change. Certainly, it's not asking too much to ask of someone advocating for a change in the law, to cite a number of representative examples? How have those societies which have legalized "gay marriage" benefitted? If it is so clearly true? It's not asking too much, is it?Rattle off a few of the benefits for all to peruse.

sperryc commented 296 days ago.

It's legal in Norway, Spain, the Netherlands, and several 1st-world countries. I'm still waiting to hear how the public good will be harmed by legalizing same-sex marriage. I refuse to be sarcastic about this. I'm genuinely curious.

EschewObfuscation commented 296 days ago.

I'll try to make this point one more time in reponse to mag's comment. It's not that there might be some stabilizing, positive effect that inures to the couple. I assume it would be good for the very, very few who would participate in a marital situation. It is about the benefit of that union inuring to the societal good in the aggregate. Kind of like society saying, "OK, you want this, but what's in it for me? "

SilverFox commented 296 days ago.

EO, first, recent state laws defining marriage as only between a man and woman took away a fundamental right gays had, as the Cal. Supreme Court had ruled prior to the passage of Prop. 8. That should have put the burden of proof on those who initiated such laws to prove that the change was necessary for the public good. Gays shouldn't have the negative burden of proving that allowing same-sex marriage benefits the public good.

Second, you condemn my assumption that those who support an opposite-sex definition of marriage are homophobes. You claim you have arrived at your opposition to same-sex marriage "intellectually, thoughtfully, without homophobic leanings." Please explain your intellectual, thoughtful reasoning for your opposition to same-sex marriage. If it's a cultural moral, who declared same-sex marriage to be immoral? Is it based on a religious belief? Who says your religious belief is the only correct one? Do you allow the possibility that other religions might be correct and yours wrong? If not, then it's a matter of personal faith, and that's not subject to empirical evidence; it's a "gut reaction" that isn't based on intellect. Maybe your feelings about gays don't amount to hate, just a dislike, but dislike of gays is still homophobic.

Third, what's your evidence that opposite-sex marriage "has been regarded as in keeping with the public good for centuries," that such laws were "made, many years ago [for] the safeguarding of the public good?" Or is it just your assumption or supposition?

Finally, what's your evidence that allowing same-sex marriage is against the public good and that allowing only opposite-sex marriage "safeguards the public good?"

magellan commented 296 days ago.

I think that's a very limited, cynical view of marriage. Just as the State benefits from more homeowners and fewer renters, so does it benefit from more committed, long term relationships. Would AIDS be the epidemic it is if the US provided equal protection under the law to its gay citizens? Who knows, but you can make a credible case that by doing what it could to promote long term relationships, the State could do much to slow the spread of the disease.

EschewObfuscation commented 296 days ago.

Foxy, the burden of proof and persuasion is on you. What good would it do society to allow this? I'm against it mostly because I see it as eroding societal mores and customs. But, I'm willing to entertain your argument, sans shrill finger waggling and name-calling. I just haven't heard anyone, present company INCLUDED, make that case. And, mag, saying that more guy/guy committed, long-term relationships is good for society doesn't make it so. I don't believe it would. Nothing anyone has posited here makes even the most minute case of that. Believe what you want to believe, assume anything you want. You're just re-convincing yourself that you're right. I (still) don't see any benefit.

SilverFox commented 296 days ago.

EO, right back at you: what harm would it do society to allow this?

Many societal mores and customs need not only eroding but complete abolition and replacement. Societal mores and customs should change to fit the times, not continue to exist just because they have existed for a long time.

Right now our country has a sizable minority population of tax-paying homosexual citizens who feel discriminated against and don't feel they have rights equal to straights. My opinion is that harmony in our society would promoted if they felt included equally.

If there's no benefit from having committed, long-term relationships, then there's also no benefit from having marriage of any kind. Let's just do away with marriage altogether. It would cut way down on the divorce rate.

magellan commented 296 days ago.

I guess I have a bit more respect for the institution of marriage than you do EO.

EschewObfuscation commented 296 days ago.

No, mag, you just accord it much more holistic cultural influence than I do. Fox, your anarchistic over-reaction wins no hearts. The benefits of stable hetero marriages is well chronicled through time and experience. All I'm asking for is some similar tetimony to the benefit of society from having males "marry" each other. There is none. And a sizable minority? Between 1% and 2%, most of whom have no interest and desire to "marry" anyone is not a sizable minority. It is a minute but very loud sliver of political activists.

sperryc commented 295 days ago.

It is common knowledge that married people are, on average, healthier, happier, and more productive than their unmarried counterparts. They hold onto jobs longer, they break fewer laws... The list goes on. Married people pose less of a burden on society than single people. It's a fact. There's your public good.

The argument that there aren't many gays out there who would want to marry, even if true, is completely irrelevant. If you pay taxes and you are an American, I don't care how small your group is, and neither should the law.

twansalem commented 295 days ago.

Magellan, I know you own the site and all, but I would consider your comment of "I guess I have a bit more respect for the institution of marriage than you do EO. " to be unnecessary, unfounded, and mean-spirited. To everyone who has been commenting above, I've stayed out of this conversation until now, even though I have been following it, because I've found that nothing productive ever seems to come out of these conversations, neither side can ever make the other understand their point of view. I just so happen to agree with Victor and EO here, but I'm not going to bother stating why. This conversation has descended to the point of only being a step above name calling and statments of "I'm right and you're wrong." Let it go.

sperryc commented 295 days ago.

I know people think this string is unproductive but I disagree. This site is for airing opinions, not for convincing the other side.

Twan, I'd be curious to hear why you side with EO / Vic. I respect EO for taking on people he surely views as liberal dingbats in a very controversial subject area. I don't yet understand why he believes what he does, but I respect him for challenging proponents of gay marriage to justify their positions.

I still would love to hear a rational argument against gay marriage.

magellan commented 295 days ago.

Twan, my comment was directed solely at EO's point that he doesn't think that the institution of marriage benefits society - that he believes that the benefits are one way, for the couple only.

I find that disrespectful to the institution of marriage, and I'm serious about that.

SilverFox commented 295 days ago.

EO, you lost me with your claim that I had an "anarchistic over-reaction." Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. Please clarify.

As to your statements:
"All I'm asking for is some similar tetimony to the benefit of society from having males "marry" each other. There is none. And a sizable minority? Between 1% and 2%, most of whom have no interest and desire to "marry" anyone is not a sizable minority."

You've just done what you've accused others on this thread of doing, making bald-faced statements not backed up by evidence.

What's your evidence that "there is no evidence" of benefit to society from having males 'marry' each other." Did you simply Google it and get nothing on it, or some other methodology? I'm willing to bet you didn't look very hard for studies.

What's your evidence that "most [gays] have no interest and desire to 'marry' anyone"? How do you know that? Have you read any surveys or other data on the gay community's views on this? Again, I'll bet you haven't and that you haven't looked for any.

EschewObfuscation commented 295 days ago.

This gets complicated arguing with two of you at once. Regarding mag's canard that he has more respect for marriage than I do because I don't think that the institution of marriage benefits society (I really should be used to that type of obfuscation, by now, particularly here) my statement is about the benefit to society of having more guy/guy committed relationships and whether THAT might be of benefit to society or not. I guess I'm a bit rusty. Anyway, go back and read my comment again. I do not think that an increase in guy/guy committed relationships would be (let's face it, WILL BE) a benefit to society. If you can somehow twist that into ALL MARRIAGES not being beneficial to society, you belong in the democrat party, probably in Washington. Fox's anarchistic over-reaction, to me, was, "Societal customs and mores need not only eroding but complete abolishment and replacement" sounded anarchistic to me. Call me crazy. Anyway, the other elusive discussion is the total gay population as a percentage of US population. It seems to me that in large cities other than San Francisco the gay population is estimated between 2 and 8 percent. That leaves flyover country where I think the percentage is much smaller, making 2% seem optimistic, on their part. I do acknowledge that with gays being depicted much more favorable lately in sitcoms and movies (as they have a good friend in Hollywood) the percentage is likely to ebb up.

SilverFox commented 295 days ago.

EO, you left out an important qualifier in my "anarchistic" statement, and by doing so created the implication that I advocate changing everything. I said MANY -- not all: "Many societal mores and customs need not only eroding but complete abolition and replacement. Societal mores and customs should change to fit the times, not continue to exist just because they have existed for a long time."

So I don't think my statement qualifies as "anarchistic," as might have been the case had I said ALL. Maybe you still think it's anarchistic. It doesn't matter, because I certainly do think the societal mores regarding homosexuality need replacing, and that, of course, is the issue on this thread.

You didn't answer my two questions but just repeated your assertions. You said (again) "I do not think that an increase in guy/guy committed relationships would be . . . a benefit to society." My question (again) is: what's your evidence for the claim that there is no benefit to society?

My 2nd question above wasn't about the percentage of gays. It was:
"What's your evidence that "most [gays] have no interest and desire to 'marry' anyone"?

EschewObfuscation commented 294 days ago.

Oh, sure. This is anecdotal but lesbians are twice as likely to seek a marital partner than are gay men. I suspect that fewer than half of lesbians are interested in being married, leaving a smaller percentage of men interested. So, if they have grown substantially recently to 2% of the overall US population, I think that represents a small but inordinately loud and influential minority of citizens advocating a change in the Common Law which has existed beneficially to society in the aggregate for around a thousand years. Regarding the "benefit" of more committed gay couples (men), hetero couples tend to stay at jobs longer, are generally happier, are less likely to commit crimes and are busy raising children and participating in healthy activities like youth sports and academic curricula, resulting in a societal stability where the status quo is seen as generally a good thing, I don't know if gay men in a committed relationship show the same tendencies. I guess that's what I thought would be your point in rebuttal. Since I've done the heavy lifting for you and teed the ball up, your research might or might not show similar benefits. I have not seen a study that says so. Is that clear and clinical enough, or am I still a hateful homophobe?

magellan commented 294 days ago.

EO, I don't want to fight with you. I know that you're just doing that thing that you do.

But I'm not sure how far you'll get with the argument that stable, State recognized hetero relationships are good for society, but stable, State recognized homosexual relationships are not good for society.

EschewObfuscation commented 294 days ago.

Is that a rebuttal or just an emotional attack that villainizes one point? I'll assume that there is no such empirical indication of the societal benefit.

magellan commented 294 days ago.

ok :)

EschewObfuscation commented 293 days ago.

OK, we're evidetly no longer arguing. It's an excellet discussion, forcing everyone to evaluate the strength of his/her stance. Several people have expressed outrage how anyone can believe what I believe. Is that still the case? The majority of neanderthal Americans, who also have the right to vote, are with me. Are we all hateful homophobes or are our opinions, while wrong by the standards of the intelligentsia, legitimate?

SilverFox commented 291 days ago.

I don't think either of us has convinced the other. It's a discussion that should continue. In the meantime, I urge you and others who have a similar view to attempt to be empathetic, to stand in their shoes a while.

EschewObfuscation commented 290 days ago.

I haven't been trying to convince you that I'm right about this. There is an intellectual legitimacy to the "anti-gay marriage" argument that is not explained away by my/our narrow-minded hatred. The argument is so ugly because of the name-calling and negative characterizations by both sides. My intention is to re-frame the argument, but it isn't possible. The viewpoint I am always met with is a condescending moral or intellectual superiority from the pro side, which it portrays because the anti side is never able to get its point across without hearing, "you're a homophobe" or "you just hate gays. " It isn't fair or true but it denegrates every argument to "you just can't talk to those people. " Both ways. When you do articulate your view it is not even acknowledged. My question always returns to, "are you trying to convince me how right you are or are you just flogging me with your opinion? "

Wiseguy commented 290 days ago.

The idea that we have to be gay to understand their polite is simply bogus. I grew up with a brother who happens to be gay. I can tell you that he is not down with what Liberals call gay rights. What would Fox say to him?...or call him?

magellan commented 290 days ago.

Stop being a victim EO. I'm not trying to flog you. I'm just trying to get my head around why stable hetero relationships are good for society but why stable homo relationships are not.

I'm not calling you a homophobe. I'm not saying you hate gay people.

I'm just saying you're not making any sense.

Wiseguy commented 290 days ago.

I don't totally disagree with gays being able to join in a civil union. More and more company's are allowing their gay employees to extend health care coverage to their partner. Gay partners can create a living trust that will ensure that their wishes are taken care of. I think progress is being made, but like anything, there are going to be setbacks. In my opinion, marriage has changed over time, societies evolve, we become more tolerant. Adult men could marry a twelve year old girl at one time. In some societies, the parents still arrange the marriage, and decide who the mate will be. Indeed, we have come a ways, but there will be many many churches that will refuse to conduct gay marriages, should the government force them to change? The question EO poses is legitimate and debatable, issues between church and state and what is beneficial to society is very complicated, but it makes perfect sense to me.

magellan commented 290 days ago.

Wiseguy, you probably have more direct, personal experience with this issue than most, and I admit, it's a complicated one. My problem with EO's take on this issue (and many others issues) is that he won't admit complexities. It's only black and white. Republicans and liberal dingbats who hate America.

I see this style of arguing as childish, destructive, divisive, and bad for the country. I see his refusal to even acknowledge the possibility that stable gay relationships might be good for society as either idiotic or untruthful - I'm guessing the second, as I think he's a bright guy. And if someone is going to repeatedly take an untruthful argument style on the site, I'm going to go hard on them.

EschewObfuscation commented 290 days ago.

mag, try not to confuse me with a liberal. I'm no victim, your odd remaining question in its comical narrowness notwithstanding. Is it really so difficult to get your head around an opinion that more gay relationships might not be beneficial for a society like ours, or are you just scoring obstinate points by picking up on one obscure facet of the argument and filibustering with it? The US is a country based on Judeo Christian morality, for the past 200 or so years, which regards homosexuality as wrong. Is it changing? Sure. Gradually, for better or worse. If the question were pertinent, or had any bearing on the discussion, it would be asked of your side to attempt to change the majority of minds to vote "yes" to change the fundamental legal definition of marriage in our culture. You don't seem able to answer it except to say "how ridiculous, you don't agree with me. You're obviously not making sense. " I don't see the benefit, there is no empirical evidence that there is any noticeable benefit to a sudden substantial increase to society of gay guys being married. If there is, cite it. If there is no evidence, you're left with peoples' opinions, which they derive based on their own combination of experience and anecdotal knowledge. Hey, I thought it was an opinion network.

Wiseguy commented 290 days ago.

The style of arguing (debating) is irrelevant. If you're convinced EO is full of shit, put forward a counter point. Calling him a victim and saying he doesn't make sense isn't a counter argument. It makes your position look weak, i'm serious about that. State that you don't agree. Make a counter argument, or simply move on. The side bars about what is childish, destructive, divisive, and bad for the country cause others here to deviate from the main topic. Just so you know, I disagree with you on all that, but I digress.

Victor83 commented 288 days ago.

Sperry respects EO for taking this on when outnumbered, but not me? I am deeply hurt. Wise, can I borrow your car?

James76255 commented 284 days ago.

It's also amazing how Liberals are quick to say the Declaration of Independence is nothing more than a "laundry list of complaints", until they try to use it for their own benefit. It's also amazing that you magically know why people disagree with something. If anything the disagrees stem from this tired attempt. Everyone has the same rights as everyone else, what you don't seem to realize is that it's life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as it pertains to the law.

Victor83 commented 284 days ago.

Well said, James.

fitman commented 284 days ago.

Those who believe freedom means the right of the majority to oppress minorities will insist on obfuscating by calling basic human rights, "gay rights".

The rest of us know better.

SilverFox commented 284 days ago.

James, I've never heard anyone -- liberal or conservative -- say the Declaration of Independence is nothing more than a "laundry list of complaints." Where have you heard it? As to disagreements with my comment, what "tired attempt" are you referring to? Attempt to what? As to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness "as it pertains to the law": If you mean that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have to be within the law, well, duh!! Of course they have to be within the law. No one has the freedom to act outside the law. What you don't seem to realize is that this discussion is about why we shouldn't enact laws that discriminate against any U.S. citizens. By the way, enacting discriminatory statutes throws the burden to the courts to decide whether the statutes are unconstitutional, since the Constitution always trumps statutes. Both are "the law," but the Constitution is the supreme law of the U.S.

fitman commented 284 days ago.

Wingers seem to be extremely fond of the strawman debating tactic.

I too have never heard anyone say, "... the Declaration of Independence is nothing more than a 'laundry list of complaints'."

However, I am reminded of the fact that George W. Bush (former winger hero) "called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

http://www.democrats.com/node/7110

Victor83 commented 283 days ago.

Gays have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness- as I said at the outset of this nonsense.
Thank God fit posted a link. There's an end to it!

Gay Rights

email friends

SilverFox

By the Numbers

My RateItAll!

Take-Out

How It Works

Explore

Get In Touch

Popular Topics:

Other Topics:

Major Cities: