Page 27 of 45 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 443

Thread: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

  1. #261
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Loving vs Virginia was a SCOTUS case.
    As was Brown v Board, Browder v Gayle, so sure, there were court cases...but the Little Rock Nine, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Marchs on Selma, on Birmingham, on Washington... the list goes on and on... non violence in the face of beatings, clubbings, dogs and fire hoses... they worked it hard, earned everyone's respect. African Americans did not just insinuate themselves into society through the courtroom doors and smoke filled congressional closed meetings.

  2. #262
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Verthaine View Post
    Snip
    Why Are you quoting me here? I didn't say any of these things.

  3. #263
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    As was Brown v Board, Browder v Gayle, so sure, there were court cases...but the Little Rock Nine, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Marchs on Selma, on Birmingham, on Washington... the list goes on and on... non violence in the face of beatings, clubbings, dogs and fire hoses... they worked it hard, earned everyone's respect. African Americans did not just insinuate themselves into society through the courtroom doors and smoke filled congressional closed meetings.
    So you are basing something being legal by how they worked at getting it to be legal? That's just silly.

    fact is gays have worked hard in today's society. If you are basing gays on gay pride parades, you are sadly not only mistaken but ignorant as well.

  4. #264
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,121

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    A. Yes. The state has the legitimate mission of continuance, survival. A nation achieves this promoting those policies which best achieve that end, discouraging that which detracts.

    WE, the people, desire to survive as a strong nation. Promoting strong families, the building blocks of any strong nation wanting to continue past more than a few generations, is a compelling state interest. We can easily view Europe and its demographics crisis due, in large part, to liberal policies put in place there within just the last three generations... it is more and more imperative that we do the right things. We have been so mired in going in the wrong direction, and now more than ever, need to come to that realization.
    You are making a strong argument FOR same sex marriage. Canada, for example, did not legalize same sex marriage as just a liberal principle. It did so largely as a conservative and moral principle because the institution regulates the sexual behavior of homosexuals and provides additional stable homes for children. Trying to compare same sex marriage to no fault divorce is ridiculous and a large part of the reason your side has been losing this debate. Extending marriage to same sex couples leads to MORE people marrying, not less.

    Our government does not prohibit private unions of same sex couples, we are a tolerant nation, so acceptance in many situations has been accomplished. But to press this, forcing society to fundamentally change into something that brings with it no particular benefit, thus no compelling state interest, for the benefit of less than 4% of the population, a population that is not replacing itself but must rely, and actually draw upon the others, seems more of a burden, most certainly does not promote the general welfare. With no definitive proof as to whether sexual orientation is due to nature or to nurture or any combination of the two, and as it could very well be heavily influenced through nurture, the state interest being survival and maintaining its vitality, why should the state promote policies that are determined in all probability to be in conflict with one of its primary missions of long term survival?
    Since 2003. That was when Lawrence versus Texas struck down sodomy laws. The "tolerance" of our nation is a decade old.

    You argue that the whole "nature v. nurture" debate has not been settled while arguing that gays recruit people to homosexuality. That is intellectually dishonest. You made up your mind, and the science has shown pretty strong evidence that homosexuality is based on combination of factors, biology being a large part of it.

    Answer: there is no compelling interest in so doing and many reasons not to do so.
    Same sex marriage does serve a state interest. Hundreds of thousands of children in this country are raised by gay parents. They deserve the same benefits of marriage as children being raised by opposite sex parents get to enjoy. The fact that you ignore this is further evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.

    B. You do not base policy on the exception, you base it on the rule [the majority]. Only opposite sex couplings, egg and sperm, produce offspring. While there are the few same sex parented families, in comparison to the whole, indeed out there, we must base policies on the majority. We allow this rarity in society, yet we have no reason to promote nor encourage this type of family unit. Demanding more, demanding equal status when such couplings are not the same, are not inherently equal and do not perform anywhere near the optimal for long term health of a society... that becomes a selfish need at the expense of the whole.
    Promote? Are you kidding? So when gays practice promiscuous sex outside of committed relationships then that is acceptable? But we would not want to promote that they practice committed, monogamous relationships the way we do for heterosexuals...with marriage? Social conservatism is a walking contradiction.

    C. Slippery slopes can slope either way. We have thousands of years of study of traditional marriage to show what works, what does not. We have no studies of existing same sex cultures as none have survived. It is difficult to see how one, could, in fact, survive very long. But tell me, since you do not attempt to even address the major question, upon what legal basis will we deny anybody from marrying anybody or anything? After we fundamentally change society? And do you deny that allowing everybody to do whatever they want will only lead to chaos? Whether you do or not, it would... and most people given a proper understanding that our laws will not allow you to just open the door a crack, to allow just what "you" want to come in, once open you let it ALL in.
    Society will always have that conversation and it will be based on what is best for society, not the interest of the few. I am confident that same sex marriage will prove to be best for society as a whole. Whether or not it can be extended beyond same sex marriage is a different debate and one we will have as a society regardless of whether or not same sex marriage is made legal. Trying to conflate the issue by turning to an appeal to consequences fallacy is not very convincing nor rational.

    As you know, regarding divorce same sex states blah blah, correlation is not equivalent to causation. Could be all myriad reasons for that stat, probably not underrepresented is that many people might be giving up on marriage as a whole, it being seen to be of less and less worth with dilution and ease of divorce.
    Apply that same reasoning to the argument you made above.

    D. Again, you have nothing to trump tradition, experimental societies come and go, seldom even noticed, often unheard of and forgotten to history. We have a proven system. Often smart/best to go home with the one that brought you to the dance. Again, you go with the rarities [Slavery], the exception upon which to base policy? We have the incubators of democracy with states, take it as far as you can go in the states, let the people there decide, then watch, see what happens... but to force everyone, whether they/we like it, believe in it, or not, that we must do as the minority says, would that not be rather totalitarian and a tyranny of the minority?
    Innovation and reason trump tradition. We have no progressed as a society by always doing things the same way simply because they appeared to work well in the past. We question our assumptions and challenge ourselves to look for better ways. Your appeal to tradition fallacy and slippery slope fallacy are as stale as always. For somebody who promised me an "educated" debate you rely quite a bit on logical fallacies and a lack of evidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  5. #265
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    As was Brown v Board, Browder v Gayle, so sure, there were court cases...but the Little Rock Nine, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Marchs on Selma, on Birmingham, on Washington... the list goes on and on... non violence in the face of beatings, clubbings, dogs and fire hoses... they worked it hard, earned everyone's respect. African Americans did not just insinuate themselves into society through the courtroom doors and smoke filled congressional closed meetings.
    So you are trying to tell us that in order for gays to get marriage rights they should be put through horrible abuses first. Somehow i think that even after they do that it still won't be good enough for you.

  6. #266
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Jredbaron96 View Post

    1. What?



    2. you have a loose definition of 'stable'. The last few thousand years were pretty hectic.



    3. I'm not arguing that gay marriages are better.



    4. 'Course it is. No other explanation.



    5. Not bad, except, wrong on every count. Legalizing SSM does not let hell loose. That is a fantasy for the bible thumpers.



    6. I have a mountain of supporting data and a clean conscience. I am confident in my position.
    1. I am paid to teach, I do this as recreation... if you cannot understand what is being said, maybe you should ask someone for some assistance?

    2. All life is hectic, where ones sees stability is where there is civilization, civilizations are built upon the family as the most basic unit, families are created by opposite sex couplings...where do you see same sex unions civilizations... or even sex sex communities that have survived any length of time at all? With, like as in opposite sex families, an uninterrupted history from as far back in recorded history as we can go?

    You cannot, never wondered why, I am guessing.

    3. You could not argue that in any event. I am also arguing that this is a great risk as we have nothing upon which to base a successful outcome of the implementation of such a foreign policy into the social make up of this country that the whole world depends upon to remain strong. That should help you as a hint to figuring out number 1 above, though.

    4. Don't believe me? Look it up. Maybe you will prove me wrong on this one point at least. You won't, but...

    5. Nice fake to the left there...how about answering the question instead of calling people names, like that is a real answer... the question again: upon what legal basis would you stop anybody/anything from getting married? We have the 14th Amendment, equal protection under the law, once you start giving certain groups special privileges, what will be the basis to deny any other groups... the liberal "D" word, discrimination will be tossed everywhere... how will you counter that... let's say I want to marry my adult sister... what is your basis of denial in the law?

    6. Well lets all hear that mountain sing, don't keep it to yourself man, I am sure it is utterly fascinating fiction, yet persuasive, right...?

  7. #267
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    So you think civil unions would have been legal in Texas by now? Which of the 20 states do you think this would be the case? Support for SSM has gone way up despite your warnings that it has backfired. The only change I've noticed since the court case is like 2% went from indifferent to against in polls. Who cares?
    Perhaps, perhaps not, we'll never know now. The pooch has been screwed and the pendulum swung. And no, in recent years support for homosexual marriage has not increased other than a few spurious and obviously inaccurate polls. In real life, at the voting booth it's getting defeated in the large majority of cases.

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    Also, please explain how civil unions, even if DOMA is struck down, will grant the same 1000 rights reserved for married couples. No joint tax return, as in France no adoption in most states, power of attorney needed for hospital visitation, joint benefits in my state are for *married couples only and the civil union couples do NOT get them*...You get the point I hope.
    Easy, if a state or the feds want civil unions to be equivilent to marriage, it's a simple bill to author. But that's probably not going to happen now. In going for the gold ring you may have missed the brass one. It could go your way, we'll find out if the court is going to help you sidestep the people again soon.

  8. #268
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    I would have hoped for better from a country that invented Freedom Fries.

    Tsk.


    You got that right.

    Sometimes I like the French, and sometimes I don't.




    "If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there." ~ Lewis Carroll

  9. #269
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Perhaps it's a case of liking some of the French, some of the time.


    Quote Originally Posted by shrubnose View Post
    You got that right.

    Sometimes I like the French, and sometimes I don't.




    "If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there." ~ Lewis Carroll

  10. #270
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    I'm gay. I don't want marriage for "equality". I want it for the rights and protections it would afford my family. If there had ever been a viable alternative I would have been fine with it. However, between the federal government not recognizing civil unions and states passing bans on them, that has never been an option I could even entertain. If you want to argue that gay rights advocates are to blame because they sought the "marriage" title then fine. The reality is that your side criminalized my relationship with sodomy laws and has NEVER put forth a civil union bill or came to the table seeking a compromise. Until that happens you have no ground to stand on. To the contrary, there have been many, many gay rights advocates who have pushed for civil unions in the past, and many were even OPPOSED to same sex marriage.
    Sounds like a pity party where you want to blame everyone else because you won't get off you own ass. If you want "the rights and protections it would afford my family" that IS equality. And I've never been called to the table period, so compromise with what? The folks who want something from the political system generally work for it from the local upward. Heck, CA and many states have the initiative process. The so-called bluest state and not once was there an initiative for civil unions. If you can't even collect enough signatures in the blue state of CA then it's time to hang up your spurs.

Page 27 of 45 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... 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
  •