OCinBuffalo Posted December 8, 2009 Posted December 8, 2009 Why is it so hard to say that the NYS senate has spoken and move on? You mean how like how the Democrats who started "MoveOn.org" wanted to Move On from Bill Clinton's stupidity? No, sorry, like I said above, this was never about Gay Rights or common decency or people minding their own business or religion or Donald's wife turning into gay pumpkin if Bob and Steve get married. The far left got caught up in the arrogance(= audacity) of their agenda(= hope), the far-right saw it coming and beat them at their own game, soundly.(44 states with anti-gay marriage laws is a beating, period) Now, the far left is trying to act like the loser of a fight the day after...and deny, deny, deny, talk about how it wasn't fair, how evil the other guy is, deny, deny, deny. Look at this thread: half of it is devoted to people working out the solution that almost all can agree with. If the far left was REALLY concerned about Gay Rights, they could have easily worked out something similar, if not the same, as what John Adams, GG, Chef Jim, etc. have been proposing here. Then they could have sold it in the media, and it would be an easy sell, as demonstrated by this thread, as long as "real" marriage was respected and left unscathed. 6 months of that, and you have 85% approval of the idea, the laws get passed and we all, for once, get to feel good about coming together on something and working it out. Instead, the low lifes decided that they were gonna intimidate/sue/attack/name call into getting their way, and the American people, who especially hate being told what to do by the weakest in this country, told them to shove it. Unfortunately, instead of of the idiots who played this game and lost paying for it, gays nationwide have. If I was gay, I wouldn't be very happy with the people supposedly representing me right now. It is about what should be defined as normal or not. Again, life simply can't be a free-for-all no matter how much you wish it to be. You cannot legislate normality any more than you can legislate morality. Laws are one thing, morals are another. What is "normal" for you is based solely on your perception. Both sides are confounded by the reality that no matter what, "normal" means something different to each individual person. However, we can all agree on how to define traditional marriage, hence, we can make laws about it. We can never agree on what defines "alternative" marriage, so equity cannot be established, and therefore, laws that define it become impossible to create PROPERLY. i don't know exiled... what i know is that there is much more than one dimension on the political societal spectrum , people tends to see themselves somewhere on a left (equality) to right (freedom) line (where i'm quite on the left in the US, quite on the right in France) while there's in fact at least an other dimension to position yourself, what i'd call the tolerance to conformity line (and i'm all "tolerance" there) one line (or is it an other one?) that sometimes is seen as the individual to nation line ... and i can see a new political dimension becoming important something like a Man to Nature line on environmental issues (and i'm on the man side there) Just like you cannot legislate normality, and morality, you cannot enforce economic equality. Why? Because after birth, human beings stop being equal, period. One person will always have more ability than another, and for REAL progress to occur, the person with more ability has to be allowed to use it for his/her own personal gain. The rest of us almost always benefit from that as well. Louis Pasteur didn't die a poor man, did he? Stifling that, and trying to make one set of people do all the work for another set of people, is always a bad idea and will lead to big trouble...in fact didn't you have a Revolution over this in France? I believe the people who thought it was a good idea to sit around telling themselves they were "entitled", while others did all the work, got their heads chopped off, didn't they?
Adam Posted December 8, 2009 Posted December 8, 2009 Why are people even arguing about this? It has been taken to a vote and most people don't like gay marriage. Isn't this all about social norms and rules that people set forth?. Right now most people don't find it normal and don't want gay marriage recognized. Thems the rules... What is the big deal. Sure, I don't like the speed limit being 55, I wish it was 105, but I understand the speed limit is the limit... Anything over is breaking the rules. What so hard to understand? Hetero-marriage = Normal, recognized. Homo-marriage = Not normal, not recognized. This is very much a state issue. Geographical region and culture should play much into defining said marriage rules. Again, for now... Thems the rules... Maybe they will change someday... Quit whining, get people to think differently, mayebt eh culture and the rules will change someday. This is laughable that this should be a right or a pursuit of happiness issue... If it can, then ANYTHING can be. I have to disagree- by that logic, we could bring back slavery with a vote (not a reference to Reid's ridiculous comment). Our representative republic is not set up to bring about oppression by the majority. So if you believe that gays should be able to marry why shouldn't adult brothers and sisters be able to marry then? How about a parent marrying their adult child. They're consenting adults right? Not a valid comparison. Marriage between immediate family members can lead to genetically compromised children (assuming sexual relations). Homosexual marriage can't lead to that.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 Look at this thread: half of it is devoted to people working out the solution that almost all can agree with. If the far left was REALLY concerned about Gay Rights, they could have easily worked out something similar, if not the same, as what John Adams, GG, Chef Jim, etc. have been proposing here. Then they could have sold it in the media, and it would be an easy sell, as demonstrated by this thread, as long as "real" marriage was respected and left unscathed. 6 months of that, and you have 85% approval of the idea, the laws get passed and we all, for once, get to feel good about coming together on something and working it out. Nope. There is no moving on this line IMO.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 I have to disagree- by that logic, we could bring back slavery with a vote (not a reference to Reid's ridiculous comment). Our representative republic is not set up to bring about oppression by the majority. Nope. This is not oppression, it is a societal rule, a limit. Like I said, it can't be a free-for-all. This isn't about freedom. People still have the freedom to be gay and do what they want, just not get married. Just like you may not go down the road doing 85 when the speed limit is 55. Rules my friend. Social mores... Without them there is chaos. From Wiki: Mores (singular mos) is the Latin term for societal norms, customs, virtues or values. Gay marriage is not the norm and should not be recognized. People not states set these values and a bulk of the people in the US agree with my take... That it should not be recognized. Again, I am not closeminded to say things will never change, but not the way people seem to be going about it.
DC Tom Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 So if you believe that gays should be able to marry why shouldn't adult brothers and sisters be able to marry then? Because they end up with offspring like you.
Adam Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 It is not a societal issue at all. It is completely a religious issue and it looks like NY is a Catholic State. Sad thing is that they should have abolished marriage entirely, it really has no use
Booster4324 Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 Nope. This is not oppression, it is a societal rule, a limit. Like I said, it can't be a free-for-all. This isn't about freedom. People still have the freedom to be gay and do what they want, just not get married. Just like you may not go down the road doing 85 when the speed limit is 55. Rules my friend. Social mores... Without them there is chaos. From Wiki: Mores (singular mos) is the Latin term for societal norms, customs, virtues or values. Gay marriage is not the norm and should not be recognized. People not states set these values and a bulk of the people in the US agree with my take... That it should not be recognized. Again, I am not closeminded to say things will never change, but not the way people seem to be going about it. :thumbsup:
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 :thumbsup: Laugh all you want. I like having defined limits on what is recognized just as the majority of our society does. Now, don't get me wrong, if those limits do get redefined and society changes, I will be openminded enough to rethink my position. Right now I am for limits.
Andrew in CA Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 Laugh all you want. I like having defined limits on what is recognized just as the majority of our society does. Now, don't get me wrong, if those limits do get redefined and society changes, I will be openminded enough to rethink my position. Right now I am for limits. So what you're essentially saying is you're a cow in a herd of cattle when it comes to what is socially acceptable. If gay marriage is not socially acceptable, fine; if it becomes such, whatever, just as good. Is this correct? If so, this is even worse then the foolish "it ruins all marriage," or "it's against God" reasons out there. At least those are based on arguably self-determined principles (as misguided as they are). You're saying that what you consider OK is determined by what everyone else says?
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 So what you're essentially saying is you're a cow in a herd of cattle when it comes to what is socially acceptable. If gay marriage is not socially acceptable, fine; if it becomes such, whatever, just as good. Is this correct? If so, this is even worse then the foolish "it ruins all marriage," or "it's against God" reasons out there. At least those are based on arguably self-determined principles (as misguided as they are). You're saying that what you consider OK is determined by what everyone else says? I said I would rethink my position. That is, one would have to see where society is at that point. Call it what you want, herd mentality or what not... So be it. Mores are very important in society. Back to the issue: For me the issue is about defining limits and norms and what is recognized. You have all these gay people saying they want to be recognized while most others say no they won't recognize a gay marriage. What is really the point? Exceptance I guess. Again, people can still can be gay or live a gay lifestyle. IMO, there still has to be limits on exceptance.
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 Tonight the over venomous Dykster Rachael Madcow had this dude Richard Cohen on her show. He wrote "Coming Out Straight". Apparently he saved alot of homosexuals from ruin and she did what she could do to try to marginalize him. It was interesting to watch her get offended while not directly showing her gaydom. (is gaydom a word )
Typical TBD Guy Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 Nope. This is not oppression, it is a societal rule, a limit. Like I said, it can't be a free-for-all. This isn't about freedom. People still have the freedom to be gay and do what they want, just not get married. Just like you may not go down the road doing 85 when the speed limit is 55. Rules my friend. Social mores... Without them there is chaos. From Wiki: Mores (singular mos) is the Latin term for societal norms, customs, virtues or values. Gay marriage is not the norm and should not be recognized. People not states set these values and a bulk of the people in the US agree with my take... That it should not be recognized. Again, I am not closeminded to say things will never change, but not the way people seem to be going about it. Your highway speeding example is not at all analogous to gay marriage. The former is a legitimate safety threat to others; the latter has absolutely zero bearing on the lives of those not getting married. The United States should not be a country where laws are set according to social mores, but rather according to what prevents individuals from encroaching on the life/liberty/happiness pursuit of other individuals. And I'm still waiting for one of you redneck bigots to explain how exactly letting gays marry will ruin the marriages of heterosexuals...
Typical TBD Guy Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 Tonight the over venomous Dykster Rachael Madcow had this dude Richard Cohen on her show. He wrote "Coming Out Straight". Apparently he saved alot of homosexuals from ruin and she did what she could do to try to marginalize him. It was interesting to watch her get offended while not directly showing her gaydom. (is gaydom a word ) That "venomous dykster" marginalized Cohen because the idea that humans willingly choose their sexual orientation is preposterous. Anyone with a rudimentary science background (or just plain common sense) could debunk such a claim. Science and logic, however, are generally beyond the scope of low-IQ redneck bigots like yourself.
Andrew in CA Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 I said I would rethink my position. That is, one would have to see where society is at that point. Call it what you want, herd mentality or what not... So be it. Mores are very important in society. Back to the issue: For me the issue is about defining limits and norms and what is recognized. You have all these gay people saying they want to be recognized while most others say no they won't recognize a gay marriage. What is really the point? Exceptance I guess. Again, people can still can be gay or live a gay lifestyle. IMO, there still has to be limits on exceptance. I guess I'm just astonished that someone would admit they don't form their own opinions on issues. Well, at least you know you're incapable justifying your irrational position.
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 Your highway speeding example is not at all analogous to gay marriage. The former is a legitimate safety threat to others; the latter has absolutely zero bearing on the lives of those not getting married. The United States should not be a country where laws are set according to social mores, but rather according to what prevents individuals from encroaching on the life/liberty/happiness pursuit of other individuals. And I'm still waiting for one of you redneck bigots to explain how exactly letting gays marry will ruin the marriages of heterosexuals... So when do we get to walk around buck naked?
Magox Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 venomous Dykster Rachael Madcow gaydom. (is gaydom a word ) Venomous Dykster, I like it! That sounds about right Gaydom? umm, sure, I get what you mean
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 I guess I'm just astonished that someone would admit they don't form their own opinions on issues. Well, at least you know you're incapable justifying your irrational position. I do have my opinion on it and gay marriage should not be accepted within the norm of defining what marriage is. It is not irrational. Irrational is trying to force a norm on people. There is nothing normal about gay marriage right now. Like I said... Life can't be a free-for-all. There are limits on on everyting in life and a lot of people believe in these limits. Why does this even bother people... The want the state and government to define what a marriage is. That is not the role of gov't. That is the role for the majority of people in society to define that.
DC Tom Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 Tonight the over venomous Dykster Rachael Madcow had this dude Richard Cohen on her show. He wrote "Coming Out Straight". Apparently he saved alot of homosexuals from ruin and she did what she could do to try to marginalize him. It was interesting to watch her get offended while not directly showing her gaydom. (is gaydom a word ) Cohen's a !@#$ing jackass; if he's ever "saved" anyone from anything, it's despite himself. Anyone who considers "unresolved family problems" stemming from adoption a hereditary issue either should be beaten about the head with a baseball bat, or already has been.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 Your highway speeding example is not at all analogous to gay marriage. The former is a legitimate safety threat to others; the latter has absolutely zero bearing on the lives of those not getting married. The United States should not be a country where laws are set according to social mores, but rather according to what prevents individuals from encroaching on the life/liberty/happiness pursuit of other individuals. And I'm still waiting for one of you redneck bigots to explain how exactly letting gays marry will ruin the marriages of heterosexuals... Some believe differently (bold). So it should be a free-for-all, no limits. What about plural marriage and incest laws, should those be wiped off the books?
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 Cohen's a !@#$ing jackass; if he's ever "saved" anyone from anything, it's despite himself. Anyone who considers "unresolved family problems" stemming from adoption a hereditary issue either should be beaten about the head with a baseball bat, or already has been. Yeah I don't no anything about him but he did seem like the A typical con artist.
Recommended Posts