The defence of marriage issue: my take

Post Reply New Topic

Orwell is going off topic.

Since Inuyasha has already lost the debate, the current topic is whether Republicans are more honest than Democrats.

Hmmm.... Let me see.....

Richard Nixon? Bombing Cambodia? Watergate?

Ronald Reagan? Iran-Contra-gate?

George Bush, Sr? Mr. "Read my Lips"

George Bush, Jr.? Mr. "Stay the Course?"

Nope. Republicans are a pack of liars.

NO! NO! You fell into his trap! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGHHHHH!! !! !! !

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

But that's still a semi-sh&* outcome for all involved, that's why I'd rather prop a different idea - because this isn't the Supreme Court or house/senate where we're stuck with that, its WP PPR, so we aren't wasting time discussing higher ideals, better solutions, or at least ruminating over em long enough to realize they exist.

Well, look at it this way. Say you want something; something most everyone else has access to. But for whatever reason, you don't, based purely on who you are and how you choose to live your life. Establishing a whole new system to cater exclusively to you and people like you, isn't solving the problem- it's shoving it aside, and in the process, creating even more work than just giving in and expanding on a currently functional system.

In context: Gay marriage. All these people want to do is form an official legal and social bond with a partner; and they want the right to do so through the same institution as everyone else; not necessarily have an entirely new one created just for them. Yeah, creating a whole new one solves the debate, but it can easily be taken as an affront to their person. Creating a new institution just for a different demographic is like saying you're different, so we're going to treat you differently, even if all you want is to be treated just like everyone else.

Separate but equal doesn't necessarily mean true equality. If groups were truly equal, there wouldn't be any reason to have to separate them.

We're getting into a half-full or half-empty glass scenario, because it could just as easily be debated that uniqueness should be celebrated and that having to stifle yourself to fit what's traditionally been the mold (or, being an atheist and having to mouth the motions and go to church when you don't believe just to have a decent wedding - same deal).

I get what you're saying though, and like I said in the OP - that's the first knee jerk retort I get from people; separate but equal. I think that's highly dependent on who engages that separating - whether its whites telling blacks what they can and can't do, as in Southern de jure, or whether its exclusively black fraternities/sororities - formed out of personal desire to do so (again, just flowing with the given historical comparison).

I guess I won't say either that this is the optimal solution for all there are the gay religious as well as the straight religious who are very much for legalizing gay marriage in their parish. At the same time though I don't think, if any cultural specialization comes into being as time goes on, that it will be a bad thing. Some pressure to hold standards obviously is needed for people to be happy with themselves and their lives but, I'd also think they'd even be happier if their own peer group or the best of their peer group in their books helped to mentor and forge those standards and those standards received positive reinforcement rather than dumfounded 'You don't wear my stereotype of you therefore you don't exist' type looks.

Marriage should be disposed as a legal figure. Legally only civil unions should exist and between any sorts and quantities of consenting adults.

Churches are free to give rituals that are called "marriage" with no real civil significance and they can choose whatever they like as rules for these marriages. This way, if X church is bigoted and doesn't want to marry a pair of gay/multiracial guys, it will be easier for us to find out about them and filter out the bigot churches.

I support seperation of marriage and state. Anyone can marry who they want but the government has nothing to do with it.

They once did that in Texas. It's probably gone now.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2009/11/18/1340136/texas-gay-marriage-ban-may-have.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3I6iRikL2w

Son-of-a-gun......He's brilliant at that, isn't he?

There is no evidence that proves Reagan knew anything about Iran-Contra, I would further point out that blabbing about an active CIA Operation where our operatives' lives were in harms way, would be tantamount to treason.

George H.W. Bush's statement and not keeping his word on that, arguably cost him his re-election.

George W. Bush may have in fact not been the one who lied, it is just as likely he was lied to. You can't claim is an incompetient idiot and a lying weasel at the same time.


Further how about Bill Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman."

How about Turbo Tax Cheat Tim Geitner. Rahm Rambo Deadfish Emanuel (whom is now mayor of Chicago).

How about Charley Rangel.

Because there is no such thing as a stupid liar?

Kinda odd, since you make those same accusations against Obama.

Of course Reagan knew about Iran-Contra. It would have all come out in the trial but George HW Bush pardoned the lot of them. Several before trial including the Secretary of Defense whose notebooks directly implicated Reagan.

The lot of them weren't shredding documents and playing mum for kicks.

How about getting back to the topic of gay marriage?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Ronald Reagan was the first president who was a serial polygamist.

He violated his marriage vows to his first wife, Jane Wyman.

Hence, he was an atrocious liar, even as he lied about selling arms to Iran to fund murderers in Central America.

In fact, In 1969, Ronald Reagan, as Governor of California, signed the Family Law Act which was the first no fault divorce legislation in the United States.

What a damned closet Liberal this jerk was!

Anyways my point is that anyone whom thinks that New York State will honestly continue to protect the rights of people whom have religious objections to homosexuality, and thus won't marry homosexuals, is quite frankly naive.

I think you've been listening way too much to Beck, Limbaugh, and the rest who talk about hows the poor conservatives are set upon by the evil, evil liberals, for the sake of "over privileged" groups like gays, blacks, the disabled, etc.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Hate to break it to you, but there is a reason why politicians are typically considered to be untrustworthy.