If he is, watching it won't help him calm down.

"Seperate but equal" is the position of bigots, no matter how calmly they articulate that position on forward thinking day time talk shows.

I did watch it.

The problem is - While Ellen is able to explain her position quite clearly and eloquently, the best that Mccain can come up with is: "I respectfully disagree". He is unable to give any reason why the President of the United States should discriminate against his own citizens.

The fact is - he can't explain why he's a bigot because either he doesn't know or he's just catering to his investors. Either way - Idiot.

Bottom line - he's a bigot. And I don't know how it can be any clearer.

I'd say it's more that McCain is just speaking for his constituents (which is a good thing because all people need to be represented).
But:

1. Those constituents don't want equality, and thus should be politically opposed, at least, by all those who do.
2. A president should do their best to represent the entire nation and not just one particular faction (or so I believe).

HOWEVER, McCain isn't president yet; he wants to be president. And he's the nominee of a party whose base has significant opposition to gay marriage. So he's not speaking for his constituents because he doesn't have any yet (outside of the people of Arizona). He's trying not to lose his base. Which is a totally different concern.

You can't shake hands with the Devil and say you're only kidding.
So yeah - I have no use for a Presidential Candidate who is a bigot. No matter how he wants to justify it.

EDIT: I guess I should amend my statement - America has no use for a Bigoted Presidential Candidate.
I feel entitled to "speak for America" because I am not advocating that anyone infringe on ANYBODY's.

The US has use for a bigoted presidential candidate when that significant a majority all becomes bigots, enough to remove constitutional protection of equal rights and privileges.

I understand he's trying to not lose his base. I just believe all candidates should try to act like President-for-Everyone and not just President-for-our-group, but maybe that's just me.

FYI I'm not saying it's a legitimate concern. In fact I think it's craven and self-motivated, and history will judge him as an enabler of discrimination, along with a lot of other people.

This is funny, if people aren't on the "gay" side of the issue they're bigots but thats okay to call them bigots because they don't agree with you. Maybe people on the non-gay side should just start calling gays "John Edwards" and then maybe it might be ok.

Maybe John Edwards are the bigots? Yeah sounds dumb does it not?

I thought McCain handled the issue very statesman like. I'm glad to see him have to balls to address it and stick to his guns with Ellen.

*Surprised Cheney's name hasn't been drugged into this yet*

No, it's okay to call them bigots because they are acting bigoted.

Take the sentence above and replace "gay" with "black" or "Jew" or "Irish" and tell me you don't see how this works.

What isn't bigoted about believing people don't deserve equal rights based solely on their sexual preference?

The word "bigot" isn't being used because there's a disagreement. It's being used because the position McCain holds to is a bigoted position.

Come on, dude. I've been where you are, I know exactly where you're coming from, despite you holding your cards as close to the vest as you do. But it's really a simple matter. There is a people group in this country that is being denied full rights, based on the fact that they're part of that people group. It's as simple as that.

You can disapprove of homosexuality all day long, and that's your right. But we're not talking about what churches have to do. We're talking about what the government has to do. And it has a responsibility to uphold equal rights for all of its citizens, and not make excuses for witholding them.

Thank you and Hallelujah!
Oh crap I forgot - thats actually a Dirge





















LMH will get it if no one else does.

The great thing about the overturn is that it forces any proposed constitutional amendments to admit the truth: that if you want marriage restricted to one group, you have to give up the pretense that you believe in equality anymore -- something the gay marriage opponents will never want to admit and will do everything in their power to kid themselves and the rest of the country about. This decision wasn't judicial activism. It was doing exactly their job: forcing proposed law to be consistent with our existing ones.

So again this is a "Right" because why?

I found this to be an interesting take:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/universal.html



Legal ways and writings have come up to deal with these "rights" and on top of that its still being worked out (see states that have banned gay marriage). This is just more of the "We want what you have but don't like playing by the rules/standards that have been laid out so change them for us".

Let us open the doors for polygamy and human-animal marriages while we're at it.

I'm down with the former, but not the latter. The line being drawn is "humans", in case anyone's curious.

Where is the hatred and intolerance at? McCain was not being hateful or intolerant.

Again if you're not on side "X" (better?) and don't agree with them you're a bigot? I think not. Hell everyone on this board...no wait, the world is a bigot then.

Nowhere is the concept of democracy dependent on "tradition".

I'm still waiting for a Non-religious reason why Roseydog and Mr.Mccain are advocating discrimination against upstanding citizens.

I am also confused why the idea of 2 people in a loving committed consensual relationship (emotional/physical/legal) offends you.

May I ask Roseydog to reread one of my earlier posts: Here

I think the discussion is different when you break away from the dogmatic, and the analysis of minutiea in this text or that text... and just look at it as a matter of treating people, ALL PEOPLE with respect.

You are intolerant when you do not let two people do what you will another two do just because of the way the first two were born.


You're only a bigot if you treat people differently based on circumstances beyond their control. If you think sexual preference is a circumstance within a person's control, you are uneducated.

I don't believe for a second that the real reason for people's opposition to gay marriage is a fear of legalized polygamy / bestiality. It's all a smokescreen.

The real reason is that people think homosexuality is wrong, period. And you know what?

That's their problem.

I've been a part of the right-wing evangelical church culture. I know how these arguments work. All of this stuff about what constitutes a right, what gay marriage may lead to, bla bla bla... it's all a bunch of red herrings. You and I both know what's at the core of this.

And it's certainly not my fault that people who have a problem with homosexuality because "the Bible tells them so" don't have the nuts to say so in public. I'm supposed to feel sorry for them? They're pussies. Why not just be honest, and then we can have an honest debate, instead of wasting time on all these distractions.

What's truly insidious about the opposition is that the higher-ups know they'd lose an honest debate. They know what the price of protecting their precious fantasy of "what marriage really means" is -- admitting that they don't believe in equality except for themselves. So their strategy is to just delay it as long as it they possibly can, for as many decades as they can, by padding courts with as many judges and justices who will look the other way or avoid facing the reality of their bigotry. All so their bigoted constituents can keep living in their little worlds a few years longer while some people will live and die without ever knowing what it was like to be treated just like everyone else.

And the tragic irony of this is that it's coming from the party of Lincoln. They find homosexuality despicable? Yeah, I find their political tactics pretty beneath contempt too.

Best.

Post.

Ever.

RDD, you're right. Marriage isn't a right. But you know what it is? Equal protection under the law.

If one group has access to certain procedures and priviledges then all groups must have access to those.

And this has NEVER been about making private groups (ie Churches) do that, it's just about the government treating everyone equally. So if you're absolutely opposed to gay marriage then you'd have to eliminate heterosexual marriage. I mean, what's the problem? It's not like marriage is a right or anything...

And the Bill O'Reilly "next someone will want to marry a goat!" argument is so full of it's barely worth addressing.

I'm sure there are some sad goats somewhere protesting with picket signs.

baaa....

oh FYI in that article that ROSEDD linked to, I roffled when the author suggested that non-monogamous same-sex marriages would give hetero couples the green light to start sleeping around.

cuz infidelity totally isn't an issue for straight couples at all, you know

Hear, hear!

goddamn i love you pete XD

and for the record, i also think we should legalize polygamy >_>



the sad thing is that i know this is going to come up and some church or minister is going to get sued for refusing to marry same sex couples and thats bullshot. i swear i farging hate america sometimes, we can't just mind our own goddamned business and let people live how they want.

farging hate laws are bullshot.

Normally, I hate that woman with a passion usually reserved for everything

wait, let's try that again.

Normally, I hate that woman with a passion usually reserved for anything i dislike

Ah, screw it.

seriously, though, I dislike that woman intensely, but she's right on the money here...

What? That argument makes no sense. You're saying that being gay defies the rules?

I'm sorry, but I seriously doubt the bible says "oh, hey discriminate against all sinners", as that would mean you'd have to discriminate against everyone. All sin is equal in the eyes of our Lord, so why treat homosexuality differently?

meh, i like her. she does alot of good for people, and is one of the most selfless celebrity i've ever seen.

>_>

what? the wife watches her all the time so i hve to watch it sometimes... i can't just change the channel on her <_<

nancy grace on the other hand....

I think some people are scared the gay married couples will have a lower divorce rate and make all us "breeders" look like fools.

btw - this has nothing to do with the bible. kthx.


Actually you guys are doing a wonderful job on your own in this regard.
(not Hobbes specifically)

dood.... this has everything to do with the bible. it's the only reason 90% of the people opposing gay marriage do so.

as for the second statement... i can't comment on gay men, but according to my wife and every lesbian she knows, lesbians are the worse when it comes to sexual promiscuity and infidelity.

It sure as hell does. It's a large part of why so many people have trouble with homosexuality...

From now on, every thread has to do with the Bible.

Mass market, readily available Classics Thundercrackers are a sign of the Apocalypse

that would be mass market, readily available Cartoon colors Classic Thundercrackers

Seperation of church and state'D

Unfortunately you are all are right - as is Madhammer.



Too bad most of the public (as is the president) are too stupid to know the difference.

It seems to be going that way

Sorry but that is one of the dumbest things I've heard. That's like saying girls should have the equal rig...um no...opportunity to join the Boyscouts because the boys can be in the Boyscouts if they choose to. It just doesn't work that way the rules have been laid out of course when the girls can't join, what do they do? Try sue... Does this mean the Boyscouts are bigots? No, it just means they have rules and if you want to be in their group you play by their rules. Don't like the rules make your group, don't try and make others bend to you. See where I'm going with this?

Marriage=Man & Woman
Civil Union=People of same sex

What's hard to understand about that?

Oh and Pete its not like polygamy has been in the news lately either...its just all smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors...you didn't see anything...

*girls can be in the scouts in Australia*
And, yet again, PRIVATE ORGANISATION =/= GOVERNMENT AND EQUAL LAWS AND STUFF

And the big thing about the crackdown on the LDS polygamists wasn't about the fact that they were marrying multiple women, it was that they were "marrying" and abusing underage girls.

Oh, BTW, a judge ruled that the Texas government fucked up by acting as fast as they did, and sent all the kids back home.

So, basically, because of haste, a whole bunch of kids who were abused are now back home with their abusers.

Uh.. Boy Scouts are not a civil contract between two people conferring legal rights and responsibilities. Although the argument of likening marriage to a private club is quite illuminating..

We've been through all this song an' dance already 40 years ago.


Red States = "Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions":
Click to view attachment
See where "separate but equal" already went? (because yeah, this is like the FIRST time we've ever seen this in the US ever)




Although to the bible-only argument, I will say that my mom (who is not religious at all) still "thinks it's unnatural" and she's lived here in the Bay Area in California for the last 40 years.

You still haven't acknowledged my point, RDD.

I feel I should point out that the biblical definition of marriage doesn't apply to a large amount of marriages nowadays as they do not happen before the Lord. What do you think being married by a judge is?

Blasphemy?

but really, RDD, You're right in that marriage as a judeo-christian institution is what you say, as outlined by that book we keep talking about in another thread.

however, marriage in the united states is a legal (read NOT RELIGIOUS) institution and falls under the governments jurisdiction as such. the govt has a responsibility to the CITIZENS in america to ensure civil liberties and equal rights AND treatment by the governing body.

I'll admit this is a personal topic for me. Although I'm not gay, I'm married to an Asian woman. In many states of America, miscegenation was illegal until about 40 years ago (Loving v. Virgina). In 1958, 96% of White Americans were opposed to interacial marriage. It was said that it would undermine American morality and values. The concept that my marriage to a woman that I deeply love could undermine the morality of a nation is deeply offensive, as it should be. I see parallels with what the Homosexual community are attempting to acheive and what was going on then.


So, I've explained both my personal feelings about this, and my logical feelings about this (equal rights for all adult citizens, etc.).


I'd like to know EXACTLY why RDD thinks gays shouldn't be allowed to marry someone they love.


No smokescreens about goats. No pointing to an equal yet seperate arrangement. Just a straight forward answer about why two committed loving adults should not be allowed to be legally married by a secular government to entitle them to all of the same legal rights and protections that any heterosexual couple can obtain.

RDD is on the losing side of the argument, as is everyone who has ever spoken out against equal treatment under the law. It's just a matter of time. Though as Haggisjin pointed out, it is interesting to see that the same arguments are being trotted out again, ones that have been used in the past to prohibit interracial marriage.

The only thing that is bad for the institution of marriage is people abusing the institution of marriage. So if you want to fix that, then you need to stop people from having affairs and getting divorces. But nobody cares about that really, because Jesus-loving church people have affairs and divorces, so that's more of a noble-sounding "struggle" that people go through rather than an actual slap in the face to the institution they pretend to love so much. It's all bullshit. People don't care when it comes to stuff that they find socially acceptable, just when it comes to stuff that they don't understand.

Okay, but why? Have you given a reason yet, or did I miss that? I ask, because I had an interesting convo the other day with a Christian, and it occurs to me that I've never heard an argument against homosexuality that didn't involve the Bible.

and you won't. by the biblical definition then...

anyone wed outside of church=civil union/legally wed

anyone wed by a recognized religion=religious marriage

my mother in law doesn't recognize my marriage to her daughter cuz it wasn't in church.
I'm ok with that. I don't believe in her church.

Of course, we all know that people still need to go to the county clerk when they get married b/c the religious ceremony doesn't mean dick from a legal standpoint.

But we still call it marriage. Maybe everyone should just have "civil unions"?

Again,