given that the legal rights one is the only one that will realistically be addressed this century, it's as good as it's going to get
And I still feel like the reason marriage matters is right in front of our face - why would people fight so hard over the sanctity of marriage, to protect their culture from homosexuality, if it wasn't valuable for gay people to satisfy this internalized culture of marriage-sanctity? It's not even particularly a matter of man-handling the culture of society or trying to force tolerance on people in some kind of tyrannical liberal manner, but having at least the governments that observe legal marriage certificates participate in this cultural discourse that is already partially there. And I don't think making marriage a part of government is a radical progressive idea. Separating marriage from government, in my mind, would be the new, unusual idea.
Also, I'm not really familiar with the dangers of this more sinister fake progressivism, mainly because I don't see the slope in which giving marriage to gay couples results in couples that aren't married campaigning to get the same benefits. That's what a marriage, in the legal sense, is for, and the example is completely alien to me.
I very rarely stick to my guns in a debate on foreign matters anyway, which is why I said that I was 'deluded'. The fact is I'm a great big pacifist and it makes me sick to imagine anyone being killed, even a tyrant.
Last edited by CSolarstorm; 13th February 2013 at 9:35 AM.
Taking away a debate on whose idea for the economy was better, the point is that the economy should have been the issue that dominated the election more than any other. Instead we got a Romney smear campaign.
Calling something mental gymnastics doesn't make it so.
That's not my point though and your purposeful misrepresentation won't make it so.i guess we should never address any issue that doesn't affect absolutely everyone (or enough of everyone to get classed as a Snorunt Conservationist-Approved Big Issue) then, since apparently the federal government is completely incapable of addressing ALL OF THESE SIMULTANEOUSLY.
No liberal voted for Obama because Obama isn't a liberal and neither are his supporters.that's actually correct. they were about half self-identified moderates and about half self-identified liberals, with a very small proportion of self-identified conservatives. you're improving!
Well of course they are. One is located exclusively within the realm of what is a "gay issue" and the other encompasses politics as well. They may overlap but they're separate things.and sort of repeating that second to last note, i wasn't aware that "gay issues" and "homosexuality and politics" were mutually exclusive terms from one another, given that gay issues are only issues because of the interactions between the latter. you'll have to show me your mental gymnastics routine again.
Now, what forced me to have to point this out was that when I used the phrase "something like gay marriage", an individual (most likely purposefully) chose to interpret this as " gay marriage". This was wrong;. They then fell back onto the "oh but this is a gay issues" thread, which it is in part, but it is also a thread which encompasses politics. Gay marriage was a potential example related to wider political point. It was not the political point within itself.
Again, red herring mentions of "mental gymnastics" don't change anything.
Right, so a "war" which costs the West billions if not hundreds of billions a year (of taxpayer money), criminalises thousands and thousands of non-violent citizens, facilitates gang warfare (and the murders that go with it) and traps thousands of people within a criminal lifestyle is less important than gay marriage? Ok. Good to know.drugs lol
They affect everyone in America (and other laws in other countries affect civil liberties as well). If the government has a right to wiretap as they see fit, that affects everyone.civil liberty issues that actively affect a tiny minority of americans ps notice i am not saying they aren't issues lol
Debt isn't an issue? Ok then. That's good. Everyone can stop worrying then.economic issues that aren't really issues ps this is specifically referencing things like the debt and tax rates on top brackets lol
Last edited by Snorunt conservationist; 14th February 2013 at 2:32 PM.
Snorunt conservationist is probably right. We should just ignore the issue of gay marriage until we have fixed every other problem in the world.
This thread should be renamed to the Debt Debate.
I plan to give a more substantial post later, but I need to point out something:
Do you two really have to make this debate even more stuffed with straw men?
Sprites ripped by Yoshi Clone of spritersresource.com. Banner by my brother ShinySandshrew.
I mean I look at these polls and the ones that include Gay Marriage seem to get around 1 to 4% in terms of national interest, that just shows me that people do not really care right now.
Last edited by BigLutz; 14th February 2013 at 6:54 AM.
yes, those samples of 0.0005% of the american population are surely strong indicators
just because "most people don't care" doesn't make it a non-issue. i'm sure in the 1930s not many people would have cared about black people getting equal rights either, but that doesn't mean **** when they do deserve the same human rights as every straight, cis, white, middle class man
lose ourselvesalong the way
Last edited by BigLutz; 14th February 2013 at 7:25 AM.
of course it's not going to be a PRESSING ISSUE when less than 5% of the population is actively supporting it. they still deserve the rights, whether or not most people care about it shouldn't matter.
to be honest, it SHOULD be a non-issue and should just be allowed, the people who are so opposed to it are the ones kicking up a big fuss over something which doesn't affect them at all it's just so dumb why does anyone give a crap
lose ourselvesalong the way
But lets go at this from a different angle. Lets say the polls are wrong, politicians still live by polls and with no evidence to show that Americans see it as a top issue, then why is a Politician going to invest time into a issue that 50% of Americans oppose, that is going to cost a extreme amount of time and political capital in, and which has little chance of passing? Mind you the last time politicians did this, it was Obamacare, and the Democrats are still paying for it.
Last edited by BigLutz; 14th February 2013 at 6:01 PM.
Oh yeah, that post.
Or the other one where you point out just how much debt America is in? Really helped your argument. Of course, that isn't to mention the trillion dollar deficit at the heart of government.
I'm pro-abortion btw. Very much so.
A decent article that further highlights just how antipathetic most people are towards this non-entity.
Strawmen are par for the course in this debate, because people have trouble understanding each other and don't always make a big effort to.
Also, even though I am against gay marriage (as seen throughout the thread), I feel it should be noted that Christians, and other groups, shouldn't discriminate based on religion, tradition etc. I remember readin a bible verse to live in the world and not be of it. That means that as a Christian, we should realize that our values won't always match up with the values of society. Does that mean someone has to embrace it? No. But it does mean we need to be respectful.
As for the traditional aspect, tradition will always change between groups. There will always be those clingy to old ways, but I think everything will go for the best.
Interesting thought though: if gay marriage does become legal in the majority of the united states, after a while, those who oppose it would be defined as the liberals.
I honestly don't have a problem with Gay marriage. I think that no harm is committed to the couple because of a gay couple and it is unfair that we are holding them back