For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Affect You?

Wessexman · 02-14-09, 08:51 PM

On the one hand I don't see why gays shouldn't eventually be able to marry, it may even marginally strengthen the family in our society. On the other hand I don't think we should be rushing to change our institutions and traditions rather than being cautious because a bunch of PC thugs decides gays deserve "equal rights", as they interpret this term, to the rest of society and their not having this is so grevious need instant recitification.

Let's calm down, apply caution and move in the right direction.

Bodhisattva · 02-14-09, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wessexman

Have you ever noticed that blacks aren't gay people? There not the same thing even if some gays are black and vice versa. You are making a rather silly comparison for politically correct reasons. This is typical liberal fare it seems, "whenever you disagree with someone try and label them a racist or at least imply it".

One could easily turn it around and pretend you want to allow marriages between men and little girls or people and animals. But that, like your tactics, is silly.

So why don't we try and discuss gay marriage rather than this sillyness.

I am the one that brought up this point...
I am a conservative...

This issue is about Civil Rights and analogies are not only logical, but paramount when discussing this issue with certain people that refuse to recognize it as such.

Now... about sillyness, did you notice how you told a person to talk about the issue and then you didn't do so yourself? They have a word to describe that type of action...

CaptainCourtesy · 02-14-09, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by walleye

Being gay does not give you a special right. That is what your argument is. Every American has to marry a person of the opposite sex. You are wanting a special right based on your sexual preference. That is not equal rights. That is special rights.

Being straight does not give you a special right. That is what your argument is. It is irrelevant as to whether it is already in place. You are wanting to deny an equal right based on sexual orientation. That is discrimination.

See? This is why the discrimination argument doesn't work for either side.

independent_thinker2002 · 02-14-09, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by walleye

Being gay does not give you a special right. That is what your argument is. Every American has to marry a person of the opposite sex. You are wanting a special right based on your sexual preference. That is not equal rights. That is special rights.

Heterosexuals have special rights then.

Wessexman · 02-14-09, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

I agree that the discrimination position, when it comes to marriage as opposed to civil unions is a weak one, which is why I do not argue it. However, how about dropping the silly partisan bs and try to stay focused on gay marriage.

I'm English, we are proud to be partisan. I attack liberalism when it deserves it, as it frequently does, and I have no shame in doing that. Liberals often try and imply racism and they seem to be doing that here.

walleye · 02-14-09, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

Source please?

Here is one. I can find more if you don't like this one.

‘Gay marriage’ and homosexuality: Some medical comments

Bodhisattva · 02-14-09, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by walleye

Being gay does not give you a special right. That is what your argument is. Every American has to marry a person of the opposite sex. You are wanting a special right based on your sexual preference. That is not equal rights. That is special rights.

Incorrect. Equal rights is not hi-jacking a term, for instance, and keeping it for one person or group and not another. As it is now, the hetero's have the "special rights" and you can't even back up marriage as being ONLY between a man and a woman to help your case. That is why I brought the definition into it, and you ignored the reality of the term and are sticking to what you want it to be instead. Logically, you have lost this debate and it is over unless you can introduce new information...

Wessexman · 02-14-09, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva

I am the one that brought up this point...
I am a conservative...

Really.....

Quote:

This issue is about Civil Rights and analogies are not only logical, but paramount when discussing this issue with certain people that refuse to recognize it as such.

Now... about sillyness, did you notice how you told a person to talk about the issue and then you didn't do so yourself? They have a word to describe that type of action...

The analogy is largely meaningless. Black is not a synonym for gay. Being gay and marrying who you want does not imply the exact same behaviour as being black and doing such. There are similarities between the issues but not enough for there to be real meaning in the analogy nor certainly enough to make up for the crude implication of racism which is not needed.

independent_thinker2002 · 02-14-09, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wessexman

I'm English, we are proud to be partisan. I attack liberalism when it deserves it, as it frequently does, and I have no shame in doing that. Liberals often try and imply racism and they seem to be doing that here.

I wasn't trying to imply racism. I was showing how fallacious arguments were tried before. They were as fallacious then as they are now.

CaptainCourtesy · 02-14-09, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wessexman

On the one hand I don't see why gays shouldn't eventually be able to marry, it may even marginally strengthen the family in our society. On the other hand I don't think we should be rushing to change our institutions and traditions rather than being cautious because a bunch of PC thugs decides gays deserve "equal rights", as they interpret this term, to the rest of society and their not having this is so grevious need instant recitification.

Let's calm down, apply caution and move in the right direction.

The first same-sex governmental recognized union was issued in Denmark in 1989. DOMA was enacted in 1996. This issue has been around and discussed for quite a while. There is no instancy going on.

02-14-09, 08:51 PM	#1011
Wessexman Dorset Patriot Join Date: Nov 2008 Last Seen: 10-04-09 10:07 AM Location: Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.) Posts: 6,008 Thanks: 1,164 Thanked 1,180 Times in 870 Posts Lean: Libertarian Gender:	Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Affect You On the one hand I don't see why gays shouldn't eventually be able to marry, it may even marginally strengthen the family in our society. On the other hand I don't think we should be rushing to change our institutions and traditions rather than being cautious because a bunch of PC thugs decides gays deserve "equal rights", as they interpret this term, to the rest of society and their not having this is so grevious need instant recitification. Let's calm down, apply caution and move in the right direction.
	__________________ The Wessex society. “I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I despise equality.” John Randolph of Roanoke.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCourtesy For This Useful Post:
Bodhisattva

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to independent_thinker2002 For This Useful Post:
Bodhisattva, CaptainCourtesy

The Following User Says Thank You to Wessexman For This Useful Post:
jamesrage

The Following User Says Thank You to independent_thinker2002 For This Useful Post:
Bodhisattva

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCourtesy For This Useful Post:
Bodhisattva, independent_thinker2002