Jimmie Walker and Ann Coulter!?!

The Repubs are a political party that doesn't serve my interests, not my country, get it right.

 

So are you actually saying you base your opinions about what should be legal or not on Scripture? You've made many references to the constitution, talked about the civil rights movement and liberty. Are you unwilling to take a stand about why gay rights specifically are different from other rights, or are you simply saying that your religion requires it, and using that as your sole argument?

Should we base civil rights legislation entirely upon interpretations of scripture? If so, what is to prevent those whose interpretation is "wrong", like that of the majority of Americans several decades ago, from interpreting it in a way that removes rights you wish to have?

 

I am simply saying that my opinions are based on scripture, I want the right to VOTE about legislative changes. That is states rights. I personally believe the Constitution in based on Scripture too. But that can be argued. If the majority of people feel they want a law to be, then it should be, as long as it is constitutional. END of story.

 

Is that what the parties are supposed to do? I don't see the democratic party doing that for me, but I'm not complaining, I voted, and I will vote again next chance I get. The majority of America has spoken, and if I want the majority to change it's opinion then I have to speak up and educate others.

And I imagine you got and spent that rebate stimulus check that Bush had sent out to millions of Americans, same as the rest of us did.

 

It's not the end, you're still avoiding the basic question.

Americans never got the right to vote on whether white women could legally marry black men. It was decided by the Supreme Court, against the wishes of a huge number of Americans, and overriding a number of State's laws.

Why is that okay? Because you personally believe the ends justified the means? Because it benefited you? Because the outcome was "right"?


Loving v Virginia overrode the will of the people, took away their right to vote, and changed many state's definition of marriage. Why were the methods there justifiable in your opinion?

 

Just as you enjoyed the eight years of peace and economic prosperity under Clinton (I know you're old enough to have been there)

If anything you conservatives know how to hang onto a losing argument.

 

As someone without a dog in this race, I hope to make one point which, hopefully, will be palatable for those involved in this particular debate.

It seems that the areas in which you could agree have been clouded by the areas in which you do not. While there are legitimate differences of opinion, there are also some broad generalizations going on here that are not really legitimate contextually.

I can see good points made by the main few posters on this thread, yes, ALL of the posters. However, you have all entrenched so far in your foxholes that you cannot see the intellect and concern for our country across the neutral zone as you lob what you perceive as "zingers" back and forth.

I have come up with a phrase that describes this phenomenon, "Windmills Built by Strawmen™." That is what you are mostly jousting in here; Not the true position of the person, but a caricature of both the person and their position that has been polluted with the prejudices in your own mind, your own egos, and your own need to feel victorious.

Come to the middle side..we have cake.

 

For what it's worth, I don't know if I was included in that (n00b that I be), but I do see that happening a lot in debate, but I'm not trying to argue with my perceptions of a Tinkerbell caricature .

I'm absolutely trying to understand where she's coming from, and how she views what to me appears to be an inconsistency in her position. Ideally, of course, I'd like to use pointing out that discrepancy to persuade her to take a different position. I know such things rarely happen, but one has hope. Failing that, I hope to add a new, or at least alternate, perspective.

 

....And there's cake on the left, too. FREE cake.

 

:smt108 :smt007 Pray erudite maiden, but wilst thou conceive of mine offspring? :smt047

 

If that is indeed your intent and how you are truly conducting yourself then I can't say that you are included in my little "generalization".

I would only make a tiny suggestion, in case you haven't already thought of it, which is to add evaluation of your own perspective (helped by the awareness of perceived discrepancies in them by others) as well.

Trying to persuade others is cool, but I was more addressing the seemingly utterly rigid postures of everyone which prevents any pliability of thought.

If we keep trying to defend our favorite tree by lobbing fire at everyone else's, we're gonna burn the whole damn forest down.

Happily divorced...blissfully Independent..beholden to no man or party.

 

My bad.

 

Does this mean we won't be making any babies?

 

Only if during the act, thou wilst speaketh to me as thou doth posteth, o erudite one.:smt047

 

If indeed the above statement is true, you should have already seen it, but I will restate it differently so as to hopefully get you to understand why I agree that the supreme court made the correct interpretation of the constitution and did not legislate from the bench in this case.

Let me explain - Marriage, between one man and one woman has been a basic part of our heritage, history, and culture and has been considered a basic civil right by most of humanity for all of human history. When the issue was finally settled in America, that all races had the same basic human rights and that our constitution guaranteed that to persons of all colors, then the issue of who one chose to marry could no longer legally be discriminated against based on color or race.

However, the issue of gay marriage, is not, and has not been considered a basic human right, by any stretch of the imagination, and in my opinion should not ever be.

As to your persuading me to change my mind, uh... I doubt it.... I don't think you can find scripture and verse for that. And that is the code of ethics I chose to live by. You see, I don't think right and wrong, and truth, and lies are relative, I believe them to be absolute.

On the right we like to make our own cake, but thanks y'all!! Come on over and get some.

 

okay, fair enough. If I'm going to go poking holes in other people's positions, it's only fair to post my own for similar analysis.

I feel sort of a moral obligation to support gay rights. I see perfect parallels between gay rights being fought for today, and the struggles of interracial couples in the past. I feel like people fought for my right to marry interracially before I was around, and now its my turn to fight for others.

I look at what young gay couples go through today, and to me it looks exactly like me in an interracial relationship 17 years ago (same one I'm in now). I've talked about it with gay & lesbian friends, and much of the hostility and bs is the same. God forbid a couple outside the mainstream hold hands in public, for instance. As a teenager, my mom told me my boyfriend & I came across like Narcs, because we were so careful of PDA. Today, I see a lot of gay & lesbian "Narcs".

I have yet to come across a single argument against gay rights that hasn't ever been used against interracial couples. And I'm argumentative, so I've heard alot of arguments, lol.

The biggest argument I hear is just that gay marriage is fundamentally different from straight marriage. Again, that sounds to me exactly like what people said about interracial marriage, but I do tend to find some common ground with people calling for civil unions (although I don't think that's enough). I think that when you get to know gay couples, what they have together doesn't seem that different at all.

I should mention that I label myself as bisexual. I'm a little shy about stating it, but it is a part of me and it wouldn't be fair not to mention it.

I'm hard core for abortion rights. I don't think the government has any business making what to me is a woman's decision. I am much more pro-choice than the average pro-choicer. Part of this is because of women I've talked to throughout my life who have faced this choice. Part of it is just because I'm a hippie liberal commie feminazi

I completely understand that people opposed to abortion think it is murder, and focus upon the rights of the fetus. I don't agree, obviously, but I would argue that god & science & the universe & all of history has put *all* responsibility for the health of a fetus into the hands of the mother, and I don't like the idea of using the government to override that.

I realize I have a tendency to fall into feminist hyperbole when it comes to abortion rights, and I need to work on that.

I usually consider myself an independent, because there are issues where I'm sympathetic to the conservative side of things, and the same for libertarians. Mostly tho, I'm liberal. And this election cycle, I was all democrat (just got back from the Inauguration on Wednesday. I was the 1 millionth waving flag to the right, right in the middle of the crowd, lol).

If anyone sees some discrepencies here, I'd love to learn more. My views have certainly refined over the years, and I'm all for self analysis.

My positions are pretty rigid. I'm pretty political, and I tend to have strong opinions. I have, however, been persuaded to different positions before, even via debate online (usually takes me an extra week or two to admit it, tho, lol )

 

But marriage between different races simply wasn't considered a civil right for most of American history.

Yet Loving V Virginia was only like 40 years ago. It was decided that all races had the same human rights long before, depending upon where you'd draw that line.

And haven't we come to a point in America where people of all sexual orientations deserve the same human rights? I realize you disagree with rules against discriminating against gay people, but they're there. Most of the country accepts gay people as deserving of human rights. To most young people, it's not even an issue.

I guess my problem is that I don't see the difference between gay marriage and straight marriage.

 

Regarding scripture, what do you think of this article (purely out of curiosity):

http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653/page/1

 

I'm sure that's it, but I do. So that's where we differ.

 

If you don't mind my asking... where is the difference, to you? What about same sex marriage stands out as making it unique & different from straight marriage? Is it sex? Gender roles?

Just wondering.