you are allowing same sex marriage but not gay marriage. or did i miss something.
allowing "same sex", ...... you can stop right there. the discrimination just accorded.
What's Wrong With Civil Unions?
- Thread starter RickWhite
- Start date
allowing "same sex", ...... you can stop right there. the discrimination just accorded.
ancap
Active Member
Same sex marriage and gay marriage are the same thing.
Good point, but allowing legal same sex marriage does not descriminate against anyone, so using the government to vote their freedom back is a perfectly valid option and does not impose anything on any other party. Prohibitionists could say that allowing legal pot smoking is an affront to their values, but that would be false. It would only be an affront to their values if we used the government to force everyone to smoke pot... which may not be so bad now that I think about it.
If gays have an ethical freedom to enter into a voluntary social contract like everyone else, then legislating that right away from them is using the government to initiate force on those people to enforce the will of the immoral majority.
i'm gonna back up so we don't keep going in circles.
allowing "same sex" marriage discriminates AGAINST gays.
ancap
Active Member
i'm gonna back up so we don't keep going in circles.
allowing "same sex" marriage discriminates AGAINST gays.
Sorry, Im trying to understand where you are coming from, but saying "allowing same sex marriage descriminates against gays" is equivalent to saying "allowing gay people to get married descriminates against gay people". I'm not following you, and that's definitely not what I was trying to say.
Let me hit this from another angle...
Prohibitionists say that allowing legal pot smoking would be an affront to their values, much like the family values lobby claims that allowing gay marriage would be an affront to their values. However, offending someone's values is MUCH different than limiting someone's choices and freedoms. It is OK to offend peoples values in this country!!! Going back to the prohibitionists, it would only be an affront to the their choices and freedoms if we used the government to force them to smoke pot. With the family values lobby, by allowing gays to be married, it only serves to offend them, but it DOES NOT limit their choices and freedoms.
See what I'm saying?
one more time.
'
you have separated gays from straights by making this statement. that is discrimination.
that is ALL i am trying to say.
ancap
Active Member
one more time.
'
you have separated gays from straights by making this statement. that is discrimination.
that is ALL i am trying to say.
Actually, I'm the one wanting to call marriage, marriage and not trying to have a seperate category for gays, which is descriminatory.
Are you saying I shouldn't use the phrases "same sex marriage" or "gay marriage" in the context of a debate that explicitly is about one group's attempt to create two categories of marriage??? THEY created the two categories! In the same way I don't think spanish people should have to get a "spanish marriage", I also don't think gay people should have to get a "gay marriage." I'm only using the term in the context of the discussion. If I didn't use the phrase gay marriage, we would have no universal terms on which to base a discussion. I think you are really splitting hairs here.
Would it be less distracting for you if I instead used the phrase, "homosexuals who marry each other"? It just seems a little clumbsy, and I'm not sure what value that brings to the table.
if you would stop attacking and step back and look for a second, ...
remove the term and give everyone equal rights.
Green Cross
Well-Known Member
Why not just call it what it is "homosexuality", or is "gay" offensive now too?
"The "good-natured word 'gay'" has been leading a double life. Although many people believe "gay" simply meant lighthearted or cheerful until it was shanghaied by the preverts, the truth is the word has long had a secondary connotation of sexual licentiousness. As early as 1637 the Oxford English Dictionary gives one meaning as "addicted to social pleasures and dissipations. Often euphemistically: Of loose and immoral life"--whence, presumably, the term "gay blade." In the 1800s the term was used to refer to female prostitutes; to "gay it" meant "to copulate."
And you can forget about removing the word marriage from the english vocabulary too.
ancap
Active Member
Are you reading what I'm writing?if you would stop attacking and step back and look for a second, ...
remove the term and give everyone equal rights.
1. I did not attack you anywhere in anything I've written. I'm just patiently examining your points. Don't look for personal attacks where there are none. No need to be defensive when someone is questioning your position.
2. You brought me a long way on this tangent just to say you agree with me. Yes, remove the term "civil union" and "gay marriage" from the law books and treat everyone equally. Don't differentiate marriage as if one group has more rights than the other. Agreed.
ancap
Active Member
1. Sorry, where did you see that I don't want to use the term homosexuality?
2. You expressed nothing here but bigoted opinions which you are entitled to have. You have not answered any of my criticisms because I don't believe you are equipped to do so.
3. I never advocated removing the word "marriage" from the dictionary.
4. If you cannot debate rationally and reason through a logical discussion insteading of hurling around your wild opinions which I've already admitted you are entitled to have, I will not engage in a conversation with you.
Are you reading what I'm writing?
1. I did not attack you anywhere in anything I've written. I'm just patiently examining your points. Don't look for personal attacks where there are none. No need to be defensive when someone is questioning your position.
2. You brought me a long way on this tangent just to say you agree with me. Yes, remove the term "civil union" and "gay marriage" from the law books and treat everyone equally. Don't differentiate marriage as if one group has more rights than the other. Agreed.
you brought yourself here. i was simply trying to point out your verbiage. took me 5 posts to get you to get it. you were coming back at me in an argumentative fashion. wasn't me at all.
ancap
Active Member
Being argumentative is not attacking. You're allowed to be argumentative in a debate which is essentially... an argument. Im sorry that you interpreted that as me attacking you, which is certainly not the direction I was trying to go.you brought yourself here. i was simply trying to point out your verbiage. took me 5 posts to get you to get it. you were coming back at me in an argumentative fashion. wasn't me at all.
You were not really communicating your point very effectively in my opinion which is why it took me some time to understand. Honestly, I'm still not 100% sure why you made the same point I was making, but framed it as if I was the one actually doing the descriminating.
Just a discussion bro. No hostility toward you intended.
Being argumentative is not attacking. You're allowed to be argumentative in a debate which is essentially... an argument. Im sorry that you interpreted that as me attacking you, which is certainly not the direction I was trying to go.
You were not really communicating your point very effectively in my opinion which is why it took me some time to understand. Honestly, I'm still not 100% sure why you made the same point I was making, but framed it as if I was the one actually doing the descriminating.
Just a discussion bro. No hostility toward you intended.
you still do not understand.
by you saying "same sex" you have made a separation. your statement that same sex marriage does NOT discriminate is NOT a true statement. this is NOT an opinion, this is just they way you have worded it.
you can't put a qualification on something and then say it does not discriminate. by saying you have to be of the "same sex" you are discriminating. this is all i keep saying. i have not changed my angle, i have no political opinion on this post. i am simply saying your statement contradicts itself.
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
Public infrastructure is something we all use and is a legitimate reason to force everyone to pony up. Redistribution of wealth is a completely different story.
As for promoting the general welfare, you ought to read what the framers have written on that subject. You might be surprised
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
Does the IRS come to your house and beat you with a stick until you pay your taxes?Do you think that there is a possibility that a better way exists to manage these essential social services in the absense of a centralized government that uses violent force to extract its revenue? If another way was possible that did not necessitate violence, do you think it would be worth exploring? Its cool if you haven't really given that much thought. Most people haven't. Just wondering...
No? Then where's the "violent force"?
Just wondering...
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
the poor should get a fucking job.
So everyone who lives under the poverty line is unemployed?
I'd like to see your source to back up this claim.
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
It is the "but" in your sentence that I think hints at the problem. There is nothing wrong with upholding and advocating for ALL the values that are important to you. We all should do that. Just pretty please don't use the government to legislate your values!
Man, there are so many children in need of a loving home. It seems like you would rather them be raised in a transitional and in some cases broken foster care system where they have NO mother or father. It seems like you sorta make up these gay parenting disadvantages in your head and then present them as fact.
Here's why I believe what I believe, backed by sources...
1. According to the American Psychological Association Policy Statement on Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children, "there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning. Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation.
2. The American Psychological Association also states "Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents".
3. There is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is linked to one's environment. In other words, growing up in a gay couple household will not "make" a child gay. Read Nature vs. Nurture: Born or Made Gay.
All of the research to date has reached the same unequivocal conclusion about gay parenting: the children of lesbian and gay parents grow up as successfully as the children of heterosexual parents. In fact, not a single study has found the children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged because of their parents' sexual orientation.
See Bailey, J.M., Bobrow, D., Wolfe, M. & Mikach, S. (1995), Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers, Developmental Psychology, 31, 124-129; Bozett, F.W. (1987). Children of gay fathers, F.W. Bozett (Ed.), Gay and Lesbian Parents (pp. 39-57), New York: Praeger; Gottman, J.S. (1991), Children of gay and lesbian parents, F.W. Bozett & M.B. Sussman, (Eds.), Homosexuality and Family Relations (pp. 177-196), New York: Harrington Park Press; Golombok, S., Spencer, A., & Rutter, M. (1983), Children in lesbian and single-parent households: psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, 551-572; Green, R. (197, Sexual identity of 37 children raised by homosexual or transsexual parents, American Journal of Psychiatry, 135, 692-697; Huggins, S.L.
I can tell you what RickWhite is going to say about your sources.
"The APA is a left-wing organization pushing a liberal agenda".
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
You know full well I don't take issue with ponying up for public infrastructure. Redistribution of wealth on the other hand is stealing. If you are going to talk about the general welfare you ought to read up on the subject.
Here is a comment about exaggerating the general welfare clause by James Madison.
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."
And another.
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...."
-- James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
ancap
Active Member
Yes fdd2blk, saying "same sex marriage" is in itself discriminatory because it excludes "opposite sex marriage" in strict semantic terms. My beef with your criticism is... Given the context of everything I stated on this topic, do you really believe I was advocating for two seperate standards of marriage (same sex unions and traditional unions) or were you just trying to playfully nit pick me to death?you still do not understand.
you can't put a qualification on something and then say it does not discriminate. by saying you have to be of the "same sex" you are discriminating. this is all i keep saying. i have not changed my angle, i have no political opinion on this post. i am simply saying your statement contradicts itself.
If you believe that I was advocating for exclusive "same sex marriage" and NOT a contract called marriage that applies equally to everyone whether your straight or gay, then you completely missed my entire point.
If you look at the entirety of what I wrote (which now is quite a bit on this thread), I cannot fathom how you can take ONE phrase and come to such a conclusion about view. However, if you were just trying to nit pick for argument sake... you got me.
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
I'm a guy who has worked hard and earned everything I have. I also provide jobs for others which puts food on their table and a roof over their head. What do you contribute to society?