Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 151

Thread: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriage

  1. #61
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:28 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,020

    Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

    Quote Originally Posted by ReformCollege View Post
    Well, I by no means am a homophobe, but I will say that whether his comment is a fact or fiction depends on its context. To say heterosexuality is socially normal, is in fact, an opinion.
    It's also a question of culture. It's treated as normal in many societies, and has certainly become normalized in many contemporary societies.

    Similarly, India had an extensive caste system for well over a thousand years, with very strict rules about social relations between castes. This was so "normal," that it was never even questioned. Does that prove the caste system is beneficial or "natural" or preferable?


    That is the theory of evolution. Considering homosexual couples cannot naturally conceive children with third party participants, it is fair game to say that heterosexuality is biologically necessary for survival while homosexuality is not. That would be a fact. Just something to think about.
    Or not.

    Homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom; it's been observed in over 1500 species already. Homosexuals can in fact reproduce, just not with a sexual partner of their preference (obviously). The plumbing still works, y'know.

    Social relations are extremely complex, and suggesting that one particular behavior is somehow a "problem" is somewhat naïve.

    In addition, the vast majority of human activities these days are not "necessary for survival." Including participating on web forums on the Internet.

  2. #62
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:28 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,020

    Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    There should be no precedence out there because the SCOTUS has absolutely zero authority over marriage...
    The SCOTUS does have jurisdiction, if the laws banning same-sex marriage run afoul of the Due Process and/or Equal Protection Clause.

  3. #63
    User MrLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    06-18-14 @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    31

    Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

    Actually the government has no need to be involved in marriage. They have no business to know who you are marrying. It's time to get the government out of our lives.
    Politics I supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.
    Ronald Reagan

  4. #64
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

    Quote Originally Posted by ReformCollege View Post
    Obviously, but I think you understand my point that being homosexual doesn't give one a different set of rules.
    No one is suggesting different rules. Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike will have the same access to same sex marriage. Or are you suggesting that the right to marry outside of your sexuality is meaningless and discriminatory without the corresponding right to marry your preferred gender partner?

    On the invoking of the 10th amendment...I always love when people make sweeping statements about how the government works that contradict 200 years of legal and political precedent. In order for Nick's (and plenty of other posters on this forum) position to be correct, basically the entirety of our legal system since before 1800 would have to be scrapped. Many of the liberties they enjoy would disappear overnight. And assertions that the supreme court has no jurisdiction over this or that topic that the person arguing about happens to have a problem with... Its jurisdiction extends to all cases under US law. It's in article 3, section 2. Only someone totally ignorant of the American judicial, political, and legal processes and whose understanding of the constitution amounts to little more than cherrypicking their favorite parts could make such an assertion.

    The whole "state's rights" argument only ever seems to argue for the right to discriminate. It was true in the 1850's and it's true now.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  5. #65
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    It's also a question of culture. It's treated as normal in many societies, and has certainly become normalized in many contemporary societies.

    Similarly, India had an extensive caste system for well over a thousand years, with very strict rules about social relations between castes. This was so "normal," that it was never even questioned. Does that prove the caste system is beneficial or "natural" or preferable?



    Or not.

    Homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom; it's been observed in over 1500 species already. Homosexuals can in fact reproduce, just not with a sexual partner of their preference (obviously). The plumbing still works, y'know.

    Social relations are extremely complex, and suggesting that one particular behavior is somehow a "problem" is somewhat naïve.

    In addition, the vast majority of human activities these days are not "necessary for survival." Including participating on web forums on the Internet.
    There is no such thing as a "normal" social structure. I think social structure is one of those things where you can judge it based on its stability, freedom, and productivity, but there is no "perfect" social structure. Also, if no one ever challenged the social structure in India, it would still be a caste system. Obviously, people did challenge it and it was overthrown and replaced. I would say that suppression of the freedom of exchange and freedom of choice in any way shape or form is tension on the stability of such a system. Or perhaps the caste system was a reflection of social values in India that eventually became dated. Who knows.


    Note, I did not say that it is "natural." I said it is not biologically necessary, while heterosexuality is. Major difference.

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    No one is suggesting different rules. Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike will have the same access to same sex marriage. Or are you suggesting that the right to marry outside of your sexuality is meaningless and discriminatory without the corresponding right to marry your preferred gender partner?

    On the invoking of the 10th amendment...I always love when people make sweeping statements about how the government works that contradict 200 years of legal and political precedent. In order for Nick's (and plenty of other posters on this forum) position to be correct, basically the entirety of our legal system since before 1800 would have to be scrapped. Many of the liberties they enjoy would disappear overnight. And assertions that the supreme court has no jurisdiction over this or that topic that the person arguing about happens to have a problem with... Its jurisdiction extends to all cases under US law. It's in article 3, section 2. Only someone totally ignorant of the American judicial, political, and legal processes and whose understanding of the constitution amounts to little more than cherrypicking their favorite parts could make such an assertion.

    The whole "state's rights" argument only ever seems to argue for the right to discriminate. It was true in the 1850's and it's true now.
    I'd appreciate if you didn't lecture me for comments you didn't understand the context of. I was referring to overt public displays of affection, where I find it socially unacceptable regardless of sexual orientation. That is what I was referring to about the separate set of rules.

  7. #67
    Elitist as Hell.
    Einzige's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-29-16 @ 02:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    2,655

    Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

    What this thread conclusively demonstrates:

    1. Right-wing 'libertarians' are political whores who will mouth any rhetorical point their socially conservative handlers tell them to.

    2. We cannot expect any sort of expansion of freedom from these "guardians of liberty".
    I dip my forefinger in the watery blood of your impotent mad-redeemer (your Divine Democrat — your Hebrew Madman) and write over his thorn-torn brow, “The true prince of Evil — the king of the Slaves!”
    - Ragnar Redbeard, Might Is Right, 1890

  8. #68
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

    I hope it happens.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #69
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,703

    Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

    You could allow the Presidential candidate to develop their own support for gay marriage. At this point, it would not be out of the question for a Republican candidate to resort to the notion that it should be determined by the states and that they support gay marriage conceptually.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  10. #70
    Elitist as Hell.
    Einzige's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-29-16 @ 02:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    2,655

    Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    You could allow the Presidential candidate to develop their own support for gay marriage. At this point, it would not be out of the question for a Republican candidate to resort to the notion that it should be determined by the states and that they support gay marriage conceptually.
    Formerly in American history Presidential nominees operated basically independently of their Party platform (the most famous example is probably that of the Democratic peace platform of 1864, which was unceremoniously ignored by the Democratic candidate, General George McClellan). That wouldn't fly today, because the political process has been altered to make a point of neutering nominees before they even get to the ballot.
    I dip my forefinger in the watery blood of your impotent mad-redeemer (your Divine Democrat — your Hebrew Madman) and write over his thorn-torn brow, “The true prince of Evil — the king of the Slaves!”
    - Ragnar Redbeard, Might Is Right, 1890

Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •