Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

obama takes a step in the right direction


  • Please log in to reply
177 replies to this topic

#121 Chimera

Chimera

    Membrane

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,009 posts

Posted 26 February 2011 - 12:30 AM

post 88

some of the arguments used for miscegenation:


the only difference today is "marriage is between a man and a woman!"

even though you can get a sex change to get around that

so much for "god's will" ....


Oh.. THAT image.
Look, I don't want to get involved in a racial debate, but I will say this: it ain't the Conservatives who shout "Uncle Tom!" when a black person steps outside the established norm.

If you want any debate on gay marriage to be taken seriously, leave race out. It takes removes all credibility from your argument. Bring up equal protection under the law or anything relevant. Race isn't relevant.

If you're just trying to troll, then use a picture of an interracial gay couple.

#122 Matt Moore

Matt Moore

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 26 February 2011 - 12:52 AM

Oh.. THAT image.
Look, I don't want to get involved in a racial debate, but I will say this: it ain't the Conservatives who shout "Uncle Tom!" when a black person steps outside the established norm.

If you want any debate on gay marriage to be taken seriously, leave race out. It takes removes all credibility from your argument. Bring up equal protection under the law or anything relevant. Race isn't relevant.

If you're just trying to troll, then use a picture of an interracial gay couple.


the arguments are the same for both and in hindsight it will look just as stupid

if you wanna ignore the similarities, fine by me

pretending they don't exist won't make them go away

#123 Matt Moore

Matt Moore

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 26 February 2011 - 12:57 AM

"this isn't about our discrimination against blacks

just the homos!"

#124 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 26 February 2011 - 06:07 AM

Oh.. THAT image.
Look, I don't want to get involved in a racial debate, but I will say this: it ain't the Conservatives who shout "Uncle Tom!" when a black person steps outside the established norm.

If you want any debate on gay marriage to be taken seriously, leave race out. It takes removes all credibility from your argument. Bring up equal protection under the law or anything relevant. Race isn't relevant.

If you're just trying to troll, then use a picture of an interracial gay couple.


Rep. Fug Matt Moore and his lack of morals.

#125 Chimera

Chimera

    Membrane

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,009 posts

Posted 26 February 2011 - 10:01 AM

the arguments are the same for both and in hindsight it will look just as stupid

if you wanna ignore the similarities, fine by me

pretending they don't exist won't make them go away


Are gay people denied a worthy education? Or is the problem that they can't have a wedding in class? Can they not eat in exclusive restaurants or pay too much for clothes at the same mall? Do police not respond to calls at a gay couple's house? Honestly, you're trying to use parallels that do not exist.

#126 neverlosethefeeling

neverlosethefeeling

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,358 posts

Posted 26 February 2011 - 02:29 PM

"Mr. Obama, who opposes same-sex marriage but has said repeatedly that his views are “evolving,”

Sorry but my feelings will never "evolve" when it comes to this subject. IMO Some things just aren't meant to be modified or tweaked (for lack of better expressions) and this to me goes against nature. Not a hater, just not my style. Then again just my own personal opinion... :rolleyes5:


I'm gonna stop you right there.

I'm not telling anyone who can get married or who can't.

I don't believe the DOMA is telling anyone who CAN or CAN'T get married.

The question is what is considered a "marriage" legally.

Since the concept of marriage is a social invention, the answer to that question is a social one, not an aspect of someone's inherent sexual preference.

Because we live in a diverse culture, there will either be two possible answers:
A: We accept the majority accepted definition of marriage.
B: We abandon a legal concept of marriage and leave it up to the individuals.

If two men came up to me and said, "We're married!", I'd say "Congratulations!". If two men came up to a Devout muslim, or Christian, and said "We're married", they would be met with skepticism because of values they have.

It's bigoted and arrogant to say all people have to accept all definitions of marriage. It ignores the basic teachings of those people's concepts of marriage and imposes your values on them.

SO, I'm for option "B". And being a married man, I can tell you, that I'd give up any modicum of "benefits" it might bring, because they really are that limited and inconsequential, just to end this debate and ridiculousness on both sides of the argument.


I'm not sure how the two bolded statements can be reconciled. And yes, I realize you didn't make the first one. But how can something be both a social construct, and a function of "nature?" The obvious answer for the "marriage is natural only between a man and a woman" argument is the (inherently religious) view that marriage's purpose is procreation. Gays and lesbians can't naturally procreate, thus, not natural. I don't know that the two ideas aren't mutually exclusive, though. (The two ideas being that marriage is something natural vs. marriage being a social construct.)


Also don't get you saying "It's bigoted and arrogant to say all people have to accept all definitions of marriage. It ignores the basic teachings of those people's concepts of marriage and imposes your values on them." To me, the reverse is bigoted or arrogant--not accepting people's concepts of marriage as it goes against your basic teachings. I am allowed to be Jewish, though my religious views may be (and actually are) markedly different than those who are Hindu. Hindu people essentially allow me to be Jewish, though it's obviously not a religious school to which they subscribe. So, if I'm allowed to be Jewish though not everyone agrees with what I believe (pretty much everyone in the continental US, as it happens), then why can't two people get married, even though there are people who disagree with it? Furthermore, does my being Jewish (arguably a larger concept than that of marriage) mean that I impose my beliefs on those who don't agree with me? Most certainly not.

Edited by neverlosethefeeling, 26 February 2011 - 02:31 PM.


#127 Matt Moore

Matt Moore

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 26 February 2011 - 03:17 PM

Are gay people denied a worthy education? Or is the problem that they can't have a wedding in class? Can they not eat in exclusive restaurants or pay too much for clothes at the same mall? Do police not respond to calls at a gay couple's house? Honestly, you're trying to use parallels that do not exist.


the arguments against miscegenation were the same and it was the very last thing to be overturned from racial segregation. so yeah, black people actually could go to school and all that sh*t by then so really i guess we had nothing to bitch about.

goddamn you're retarded.

oh and meat, u mad cuz i f*cked your sister

#128 blackcatgrowl

blackcatgrowl

    Trolls live here

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,944 posts

Posted 26 February 2011 - 04:19 PM

I'm not sure how the two bolded statements can be reconciled. And yes, I realize you didn't make the first one. But how can something be both a social construct, and a function of "nature?" The obvious answer for the "marriage is natural only between a man and a woman" argument is the (inherently religious) view that marriage's purpose is procreation. Gays and lesbians can't naturally procreate, thus, not natural. I don't know that the two ideas aren't mutually exclusive, though. (The two ideas being that marriage is something natural vs. marriage being a social construct.)


Also don't get you saying "It's bigoted and arrogant to say all people have to accept all definitions of marriage. It ignores the basic teachings of those people's concepts of marriage and imposes your values on them." To me, the reverse is bigoted or arrogant--not accepting people's concepts of marriage as it goes against your basic teachings. I am allowed to be Jewish, though my religious views may be (and actually are) markedly different than those who are Hindu. Hindu people essentially allow me to be Jewish, though it's obviously not a religious school to which they subscribe. So, if I'm allowed to be Jewish though not everyone agrees with what I believe (pretty much everyone in the continental US, as it happens), then why can't two people get married, even though there are people who disagree with it? Furthermore, does my being Jewish (arguably a larger concept than that of marriage) mean that I impose my beliefs on those who don't agree with me? Most certainly not.


I wouldn't try and reconcile those two statements. The only way it could possibly have a connection is the if you feel that marriage was a social invention for controlling a natural reproductive process.

But that's not true either... as marriage was also used for property exchanges, territory rights, peace offerings, and a slew of other non-natural purposes.

This just further supports the fact that marriage IS just a concept. And thats why it's bigoted for one person to assume everyone has to accept the same definition of marriage. People will have different concepts. If there HAS to be a legal definition, then it should be the most commonly accepted definition. I don't believe there HAS to be though since this has become such a ridiculously argued topic.

Again... why is bigamy illegal? Because people in this country WILLED it to be, out of a rejection of multiple partner marriages.

Edited by blackcatgrowl, 26 February 2011 - 04:21 PM.


#129 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,003 posts

Posted 26 February 2011 - 04:43 PM

marriage is and always has been a financial arrangement. anything beyond that is psychological and something YOU bring to the table.

Edited by mmmbeans, 26 February 2011 - 05:22 PM.


#130 Chimera

Chimera

    Membrane

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,009 posts

Posted 26 February 2011 - 05:16 PM

the arguments against miscegenation were the same and it was the very last thing to be overturned from racial segregation. so yeah, black people actually could go to school and all that sh*t by then so really i guess we had nothing to bitch about.

goddamn you're retarded.

oh and meat, u mad cuz i f*cked your sister


Maybe thats why I said keep the race to the race threads. Because it doesn't apply here.
Then you call me retarded for pointing out what it was about.

#131 neverlosethefeeling

neverlosethefeeling

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,358 posts

Posted 26 February 2011 - 05:27 PM

I wouldn't try and reconcile those two statements. The only way it could possibly have a connection is the if you feel that marriage was a social invention for controlling a natural reproductive process.

But that's not true either... as marriage was also used for property exchanges, territory rights, peace offerings, and a slew of other non-natural purposes.

This just further supports the fact that marriage IS just a concept. And thats why it's bigoted for one person to assume everyone has to accept the same definition of marriage. People will have different concepts. If there HAS to be a legal definition, then it should be the most commonly accepted definition. I don't believe there HAS to be though since this has become such a ridiculously argued topic.

Again... why is bigamy illegal? Because people in this country WILLED it to be, out of a rejection of multiple partner marriages.


If marriage is a legal concept (and in this case, it is, so it is nonsensical to say it shouldn't be, and there stops the debate) then bigotry only comes into play when groups of people are alienated because their ideas do not conform to that of the majority. What's bigoted about a law that says any two people are allowed to be married regardless of race, sex, gender, religion, class, ethinicity, or sexual orientation? Bigotry is only seen in a law that says two people may not be married based race, religion, class, ethinicity, gender, sex, or sexual orientation.

Have you ever heard of tyranny of the majority? And that's what any law is that seeks only to placate the most widely accepted view.
And that's what this is, and what your argument assumes.

#132 Matt Moore

Matt Moore

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 26 February 2011 - 06:11 PM

Maybe thats why I said keep the race to the race threads. Because it doesn't apply here.
Then you call me retarded for pointing out what it was about.


if you can point out one fuging difference between the arguments then and the arguments being used now, i'll admit that it's not relevant

i'll save you the time. there is no difference.

read up on interracial marriage in america, yo. then maybe you'll catch on.

Retard.

#133 Matt Moore

Matt Moore

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 26 February 2011 - 06:13 PM

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

2) Second, they began to define and label all *** relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

3) Third, they insisted that *** marriage was contrary to God's will, and

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that *** marriage was somehow "unnatural."


no, not relevant in this issue

#134 Matt Moore

Matt Moore

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 26 February 2011 - 06:20 PM

If marriage is a legal concept (and in this case, it is, so it is nonsensical to say it shouldn't be, and there stops the debate) then bigotry only comes into play when groups of people are alienated because their ideas do not conform to that of the majority. What's bigoted about a law that says any two people are allowed to be married regardless of race, sex, gender, religion, class, ethinicity, or sexual orientation? Bigotry is only seen in a law that says two people may not be married based race, religion, class, ethinicity, gender, sex, or sexual orientation.

Have you ever heard of tyranny of the majority? And that's what any law is that seeks only to placate the most widely accepted view.
And that's what this is, and what your argument assumes.


yeah but obviously the next step would be granting rights to pedophiles and normalizing their behavior

I WILL HAVE NONE OF IT

#135 Chimera

Chimera

    Membrane

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,009 posts

Posted 26 February 2011 - 06:48 PM

if you can point out one fuging difference between the arguments then and the arguments being used now, i'll admit that it's not relevant

Difference #1: Gay is not a race.
Difference #2: Interracial marriage is between a man and a woman.

i'll save you the time. there is no difference.

read up on interracial marriage in america, yo. then maybe you'll catch on.


What for? Several of us, myself included, who have posted against gay marriage on this board are in interracial marriages. Guess what? We're married to the opposite sex.
Again... relevance = none.

Retard.


If all else fails.... go to the name calling. Oh wait, you did that in your very first response to me.

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.


They do.

2) Second, they began to define and label all *** relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.


According to which case?

3) Third, they insisted that *** marriage was contrary to God's will, and


..as described in what ruling?

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that *** marriage was somehow "unnatural."


...any quotes from the actual judge?


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com