OCinBuffalo

It really has come all the way down to this, hasn't it? Ahh, I just keep thinking about what this board was like leading up to the 2006 elections...I remember stumbling into a bunch of political operatives in a bar in Center City, Philly around that time....all that hubris...could have mopped it up with a bucket... and to quote the Greatful Dead...Now? There is "nothing left to do but, smile, smile, smile".

As I said, no you cannot re-define marriage for all of the legal reasons I have described, never mind the bureaucratic nightmare, and general confusion it would cause. I think anybody who picks a fight with anybody else is an immoral person. Or, is at least being immoral at the time. I think anybody who picks a fight for political gain, gets owned, and then cries about it, is beneath our contempt. I think anybody who is willing to get violent over any political issue has already lost the argument. But, I also think there is a time to fight for what you believe in, provided that you have truly and completely exhausted every other possible option. Show me a terrorist who has personally exhausted every possible non-violent option. There has never been one, ever. Terrorists are simply pissants who can't gain power the hard way, so they try to take it the easy way.

Please provide evidence that those opposed to gay anything are morally inferior. Are you calling the Mother Teresa's of the Catholic church "immoral"? Are you calling those evangelists that just got killed in Afghanistan "immoral"? (Edit: Not so absolutely certain now, are we?) There is a fundamental difference between principles and values. We can all agree that murder is bad because it violates a universally accepted principle. We are having a hard time agreeing on gay marriage because that is based on values, not principles. If you want to make a moral argument, then it has to be based on principles, not values. Because I am not confused by the difference between the two concepts, I am saying that all people should have equal rights. I am NOT saying that all people have to right to acceptance. And I sure as hell am not saying that its ok for you to force your values on another, for no reason other than your confusion has caused you to believe your values are in fact principles.

If we did the GG/...lybob plan? Nothing. And it would count as a civil union if we added what I said. You could marry your dog too, if that was allowed by your religion. But, as far as the civil union part? You would be agreeing to divide community property evenly with your dog if it decided to run away.

For the 5th time, going all the way back to GG's post in the beginning , the big mistake was institutionalizing a religious sacrament, instead of creating a separate civil union law. I agree with GG, and ..lybob for that matter. We could solve this by relegating all marriage to being defined by religions. And, instead, replace it with a universal legal civil union that is used for all legal/tax matters. I added the concept of making religiously defined marriages able to "count" as civil unions, mostly to avoid annoyance. This way, you keep the traditional definition as it is with no real changes(makes the right happy), and, at the same time, you allow alternative definitions of marriage to be legally equitable(makes the rational left happy). What you can't do is take the existing definition of marriage and modify it. That causes all the trouble I have described above. The problem is: instead of making a compromise, we have tools still, inexplicably, after getting their asses kicked, trying to score political points/foist their values on others. This thread is a prime example of this immaturity.

Only from you. Only you. You spent an entire thread arguing with a person who agrees with you in principle, and when finally conceding the point I have been arguing, not the one's I haven't, you still want to pretend that you are more moral than I am? What other conclusion can we draw than: you have some weird need to convince yourself and others of your moral superiority, to the point of irrationality? As evidenced by this:

Sorry, in all this emotional blustering, I honestly missed your post...and I had a call I had to get on, you know, actual work. Regarding #2, since apparently everyone has now stipulated #1 .... It's not the same, but it is linked and I can prove it using the contrapositive: if everyone has a right to define marriage individually then, no one has a right to deny an individual's definition of marriage. If the first is true, then the second also has to be true, or it's a no go. Logic is a B word, huh? If you decide that a Catholic wedding is defined narrowly as: in a Catholic church only, without all the religious machinations that Catholic priests require, they would be violating your civil rights by denying your definition of marriage. So, as a consequence, they would in fact be forced to allow you get married per your definition....but that violates the 1st Amendment...so...we are still nowhere on this. Marriage is not currently a right. Passing a Federal law(and it has to be Federal), of any kind, that makes it a right changes the status of marriage from an option, to a right, for everybody, in all circumstances, or it fails the "equal protection under the law" thing. Somehow the Feds would have to be able to prove that gay people are inherently gay, and therefore, this is a civil rights issue. But, that's awfully difficult when you have so many bi-sexual people. Ultimately, if you are going to allow one group to do things their way, you have to let every other group do things their way, as opposed to the clearly defined man/woman marriage. This is why I view NEW civil union law as the only rational, legal, and viable option to get this done. You can't get what we are all after without considering the unintended consequences. We have done that far too often, and that is how you end up with things like Medicare.

Absolutely. I would get the same lawyers who did the immigration law in Arizona, which is constitutionally air tight, and who just got done winning the first round on the big issues, and set them to work on this. The left would never see it coming, and if the right went out of their way to be conciliatory, and kept it straightforward... .....it would be the right thing to do. Forget the political points. That's what started this mess in the first place. That would be an example of politicians doing what they we pay them for: solving problems as rationally as possible. That in and of itself would be rewarded politically, but still, like I said, the fact that it is the right thing to do outweighs that by miles.

Do you really think that anybody believes this crap? Do you really think that people will be looking at what happens on an am radio show, or what some questionable poll says, instead of Obama's performance in office? These things don't even qualify as straws to grasp at. More like, impressions of straws. Yes, that's it! This is an impressionist's view of grasping at straws. This abstract painting also has Biden's head up Hillary's ass, but his lips are stretching out far away from this grotesque construct, as a representation of his usual form of speech: talking out other people's asses. Meanwhile, poor old Leon Panetta sits in the corner in abject sorrow, wondering how he has gone from re-election in 1996 to this surrealistic existence.

Clearly. And this is also a case of liberals being liberals. Liberals thought they saw an opportunity to attack religious people and the right in general. So, this went from a small civil issue to be solved by a few obscure lawyers in the back rooms of state houses, to an all out war started by cynical, political hacks. They severely miscalculated, if you want to call it that. It seems clear that not a lot of actual, rational calculation went into this. Hmm. Anybody else see a pattern? How much "calculation" went into the stimulus bill? Health Care? The year spent "engaging" Iran? Instead, we had the emoting we see in this thread, and the rush to call everyone, even people that were unsure of the issue, a bigot if they didn't fall into absolute lock step immediately. Look how casually that word has been thrown around in this thread. These fools counted on people being afraid to be called names. The problem is: nobody cares if the name caller is doing so as an obvious political ploy. You don't see me being afraid, because I am not afraid of political hacks, or the fools they have conned into believing their propaganda.

So did they use good political judgment or bad political judgment? Make up your mind. Personally, I don't want a guy who has a record of 1-45 representing my views that gay people deserve the same rights as everybody else there, counselor. Might be time to get a new advocate. Hell, given this thread, I am beginning to think I could do a far better job representing the rights of gay people than you have. But yeah, keep telling yourself that reasonable people are morally inferior to you because they cling to their logic and reject your emoting based on immature absolute certainty.

Almost unbelievably, given 2008, it's becoming clear that the Republicans have a better than average chance of taking the House and Senate. There is a going to be a slaughter in the Governor's races. Same with State legislatures, and this is bigger than most elections because of census redistricting. Right or wrong, the rules are that the party in power, in most states, gets to determine the Congressional districts, which sets up Republican control of Congress for the next 10 years. All of this is available at any political site, so feel free to look it up, and don't pester me with link requests. Yes, it is common knowledge, and 5 minutes at RCP confirms this. My questions are: 1. It's up for debate as to whether the Republicans should be old school conservative or try another round of neo-conservatism. To define it simply: an old school conservative would never have supported the Iraq War, while a neo-con sees nation building as a tool to protect/advance American interests. Which do you think is better for the country? 2. It seems clear that social issues only come to the forefront when the economy, etc. are doing so well that nobody has anything else to talk about(read: start trouble with if you are the minority party). Should the Republicans bow to the religious....um, fervent people, and spend any time on their social issues, or, should they focus like a laser on the economy and the wars, and ignore them, even if the economy/wars get better? 3. Should there be a new "Contract with America", as in, a specifically defined document that outlines exactly what they propose to do, and, that serves as a performance indicator? 4. Should Republicans take a "Bushido" approach when it comes to Federal entitlement programs? As in, should they simply say "we are going to fix/reform/remove these programs for the good of the country, even if it costs us our careers"? Would that approach be as suicidal as it seems, or, would it be accepted, an even admired, by the people? 5. Can the Republicans define themselves, as they did so effectively in 1980-87 and 1994-2002 as the party of common sense solutions and rational approaches? What would you have to see to believe that about them? Or, is the "class warfare" argument still too strong? It comes down to Introspection. This is a word that is foreign to most liberals. Only a few good ones, like James Carville/Paul Begala, actually know what it means, never mind bothering to actually spend any effort on it. Will the Republicans admit their mistakes and learn from them? Or, will things actually be as Obama would have us believe, and will it be the same thing all over again?

Ah, so now you admit it? Christ, we could have saved how many pages of this thread? (Booster: looks like your goofy little link wasn't necessary, huh?) Honestly, it's nice to see that you can at least fess up. Guess they didn't take the upstate NY out of you after all. Well, that's step 1 out of the way, admitting the mistake. Now, let's work on step 2. Spend 1 minute and think about how this could have been done differently. It's called: introspection. And, I assure you, it has nothing to do with talking about me.

Try to pay attention. I am not insisting I won an internet argument. I am insisting that those seeking to enforce gay marriage lost 45 times out of 50 in the real world because they took the worst possible approach, and let their unabashed immaturity run wild. Are you still confused?

So you are down to babble, eh? In addition to misquoting me, you still can't accept that those who share your views got their ass kicked. And, like a little b_tch, you are still running your mouth after your beating. None of this has anything to do with me. As I have said countless times, I was and continue to be for an equitable solution to the problem. I am not, and never will be, supporting immature little tools who seek to start schit with people, and then cry when they get beaten soundly. Your attitude, and the attitude of gay marriage "enforcers" is the problem, and it's YOUR problem, not mine. If you want gay marriage to be legal, that is problem #1, is up to you to solve, and also has nothing to do with me.

You really have a tin ear, huh?

At this point? Defending Barack Obama is like defending Dick Jauron. If you do it, you keep finding yourself trapped by saying "it can't get worse, he's hit rock bottom, he knows he needs to do things to improve the offense, and he's doing them", and then it gets worse...in some way you never saw coming, or thought was remotely possible. It's not the fact that there are modicums of truth in the pre-fabricated crap they spew out in press conferences. It's the fact that both idiots knew those things were true BEFORE they took the job, and so did we. Telling us that you performed poorly because you couldn't deal with the requirements of the job....means you suck at the job, regardless of how many marketing tested, "words that sell", you infuse into your "statement". I would feel pity for the people whose lot in life is to defend this dolt, if it wasn't for the fact that these are the same people who CHOSE to define their credibility based on their ability to attack the previous dolt. BushBad '= ObamaGood. It's not a 0 sum thing. Hopefully some liberals have gained some wisdom from this, that is about the best we can expect....unless Obama finally gets real about governing, and does what Clinton did.

It's the same old story. Obama will fail, not because the policy is bad, but because he didn't implement it "properly". Jackass Premise #1 regarding the "success" of socialism: "Socialism is not wrong, it's just that THOSE people in that fool of a country, or that one leader, didn't implement it properly. Now if WE did it, of course, it would be done correctly, and of course then it would be successful." If you look at history, you will find this statement over and over again, usually being said by the very same college professors Nanker is talking about, right after ridiculous leftist policies fail, again. Nanker's Is right on the spot. It is any wonder that Romer, after failing abysmally in the real world, returned to academic Disneyland?

You and your friend are walking through the woods when you come upon a sleeping bear. Your friend decides to deal with that situation by taking a stick and poking the bear, not once, but over and over. When you ask why, he tells you that the bear has been a source of fear for years and "his kind" are responsible for countless deaths, and therefore he has every right to poke the bear, since the bear deserves it. Now the bear has awoken, and as you run away, who are you more pissed at? The bear, or, the idiot who provoked it? This thread is rife with "pokers", who, in their inexplicable need for phony "moral superiority", have "justified" taking out their stick(literal translation for idiots: calling people bigot, and telling them they are haters, when that is simply not true) and insist on poking the bear. What's worse? Now they are trying to tell us that they have no responsibility for the outcome, as everybody "runs away", nothing gets solved, and reasonable resolution of this issue gets set back 10-15 years. And of course, they have to attack those who are simply relating the facts as they are. God forbid anyone hold those responsible for this buffoonery accountable. God forbid that anyone expose this jackass, "we're allowed to call you bigot, because you don't agree with us, and because we said so" attitude. I really have no idea what it will take for these same people to realize that it is their very attitude that is the problem. I really have no idea where in the hell these people get the nerve, after going 1-45 on this issue, to blame anybody else, under any circumstance, for the dismal failure that they started, propagated, continued without any modification, and absolutely f'ed up. The arrogance and affectation that requires is astounding.

You missed it again. Taking a rational issue, that nobody has a problem with -> gays getting the same rights as straight people but instead of stopping there, and arguing the problem at hand, turning the issue into something completely different and (I will change words just for you) bastardizing it for perceived political gain, is the height of irrationality. And the results speak for themselves. Is this really that hard to comprehend? They made a choice, and they chose poorly.

Yeah, having people on every news show all day all the time calling church people bigots and hate mongers is the height of rationality. Thanks for the help!

All of this is fine, but you forgot: if gay marriage is defined as a "right", then a church refusing to perform a gay marriage is illegal. At the very least, it is something that would open the door to a mountain of civil lawsuits. What is to stop 2 gay Catholics from demanding that they be married in a Catholic church? The church has no standing to deny them their newly legislated, not inherent, rights. And, therefore, the church could be sued civilly and brought up on civil rights violations. Denying a service, marriage, based on sexual preference would be discrimination, and subject to prosecution. And, the same goes for straight people. IF you give gays the "right" to "marriage", then you give it to straight people, then, straight people can go into a Catholic church and say "F off, we aren't going through all that crap" marry us now! Since marriage is now a right, and not merely a option, that can of worms is now open as well. Unintended consequences are b_tch, huh? Per Darin's request from 3 threads ago, I am not going to bring up the other "alternative" marriages. Which is pretty much what everyone has been saying in this thread. We all agree, something like this needed to, and should have happened Unfortunately, the John Adam's of the world decided to play the punk, started schit in the bar, got beat down, and now is outside....still running his mouth and saying he didn't lose, and he didn't start the trouble.

Love it when people misquote me. I said the weaponization was 100% motivated, NOT gay marriage itself. Re-read it. Words mean things, and mine were specifically chosen.

Same old crap with you. Let's be clear: it's not that you won't engage, it's that you can't engage. As evidenced by the fact that you guessed what I posted, bungled it, and now are trying to play it off. Ah, so now you are engaging? You like #s? Ok how about these #s: 100% of 45 state legislatures passed anti-gay marriage laws, because people like you can't get over yourselves, and thought it was a good idea to antagonize religious people, of which I AM NOT ONE...so far....so stop trying to make this about me. The very attitude you are exhibiting here is why gay rights got the shaft. But, go ahead and blame me. Agreed, and, they shouldn't pass laws forcing religions to marry people they don't want to, just because some of their members think its a good idea. We can do this all day, you can't argue one side without the other, and unless you are a complete idiot, you know that, so quit wasting my time with this.

No problem. Ask yourself: what was the goal here? 1. To gain equitable treatment for our gay citizens? or was it: 2. Attempt to score points on Republicans and Relgious people by attacking them over something, it was thought, they couldn't fight back on? I am certain that this started out as #1, because I have been to Ithaca, NY, which was holding gay marriages as legal since I was in high school. I am certain that nobody, especially me, cared one way or the other. I am certain that the original approach was about slow, but consistent, change, a matter of explanation, and convincing argument. When Massachusetts passed its law, we heard #1....for about 2 weeks. Suddenly? Out of nowhere, #2 showed up, and was all we heard, day and night. A few misguided D-bags thought they saw a political opportunity, and, a few more insecure D-bags who are always looking for ways to point out that they are better than religious people(see this thread), were all too happy to pile on. So, no, 100% hatred of religion is not accurate. In fact it started with 0% hatred of religion. But, when the D-bags started showing up? Yeah, suddenly it went from 0 to 90%? And gay rights became the 10% afterthought.