A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage - Promoting American Values

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
Yurt said:
freedom of speech not a democratic issue?

and watermark....pssssssssst, its not a statute, its a constitutional amendment
Click to expand...

I think he means it is not a position of one of our two parties alone... democratic or republican.

Freedom of speech is something that crosses party lines. As does gay marriage.

That said, the opposition to gay marriage also crosses party lines... which I think adds to his point.
 
Superfreak said:
I think he means it is not a position of one of our two parties alone... democratic or republican.

Freedom of speech is something that crosses party lines. As does gay marriage.

That said, the opposition to gay marriage also crosses party lines... which I think adds to his point.
Click to expand...

The above is all true, however a much greater percentage of Conservatives are against gay marriage than liberals.
 
Jarod said:
The above is all true, however a much greater percentage of Conservatives are against gay marriage than liberals.
Click to expand...

So you agree with the above and then try to turn it into a 'your guys are worse than our guys' argument?

Tell that to the gay population of CA.
 
WinterBorn said:
Your argument is the same drivel as could have been used in civil rights cases. Interracial marriages were illegal and the same argument could have been used then. "No one is being denied equal rights, because blacks can't marry whites and whites can't marry blacks". Its not about sex. It is about who they love. Just as I cannot fall in love with a man, gays cannot fall in love with someone of the opposite gender. So they are being denied equal rights.

As for those of us being pro gay marriage being against democracy, there are times when the majority is wrong. In the south, the majority was against integration. But the beauty of our constitution is that it protects the minority against tyranny by the majority.
Click to expand...

No, it's not the same as civil rights or interracial marriage, where a right was being denied based on color of skin. The same argument doesn't apply for that very reason.

If people are in love, what difference does a piece of paper from the state make? No one (as far as I am aware) is suggesting we prohibit gay people from loving other gay people! If THAT were the issue here, I would agree with you, but it's NOT!

No one is being denied any right that others have! It's just not the case here, as much as you want to make that the case! You have inferred your own meaning onto marriage, and based your entire argument on this. What if I defined marriage as being a union between two religious people, sanctioned by a church? Couldn't I make an argument that we should ban all marriage between non-religious people? Most certainly I could, because I have redefined marriage to mean something it simply doesn't mean, and can argue from that perspective! That is what you are doing! Marriage is the union of a man and woman, it ceases to be "marriage" if the union is not between a man and woman.
 
Yurt said:
so freedom of speech has no place in democracies or republics like ours....why do you hate the constitution? why do you hate freedom? is it because you know your ideas won't stand chance in the market place of free ideas.



no, you said that CA needs to have its statute overturned, prop 8 amended the CA constitution, so its not a statute that needs overturning....do keep up

i have no doubt if this issue is presented before scotus that scotus will rule in favor of gay marriage, unless the government gets out of marriage first
Click to expand...
Don't be obtuse, that is not what he is saying at all. He saying what some of our founders said in The Federalist Papers, individual liberties should not be left to the whims of majoritarianism. We don't let majorities decide what speech will be protected, or what Religious beliefs will enjoy freedom. Those things are created to protect the minority and should never be subject to a vote. If we did, then Satanists and Nazi's would not enjoy the same freedoms in this country that they do now because the majority would vote to remove them from the protections. That is all Water was saying.
 
Dixie said:
No, it's not the same as civil rights or interracial marriage, where a right was being denied based on color of skin. The same argument doesn't apply for that very reason.

If people are in love, what difference does a piece of paper from the state make? No one (as far as I am aware) is suggesting we prohibit gay people from loving other gay people! If THAT were the issue here, I would agree with you, but it's NOT!

No one is being denied any right that others have! It's just not the case here, as much as you want to make that the case! You have inferred your own meaning onto marriage, and based your entire argument on this. What if I defined marriage as being a union between two religious people, sanctioned by a church? Couldn't I make an argument that we should ban all marriage between non-religious people? Most certainly I could, because I have redefined marriage to mean something it simply doesn't mean, and can argue from that perspective! That is what you are doing! Marriage is the union of a man and woman, it ceases to be "marriage" if the union is not between a man and woman.
Click to expand...

Gay people are being denied the +/- 1,400 benefits bestowed on straights when they get married.

You want to define marriage by who they fuck. Is that how you define your marriage? I didn't get married for sex, but because I love my wife. Your claim that gay marriage is defined by sex is bogus. It is about the monogamous relationship. No one is stopping them from being in love, but they are being denied benefits that the gov't gives to married straights.

There is no reason for gays to be denied the ability to marry. It has no effect on you or your marriage.

It has the same positive effects on society that straight marriages do.
 
High fives on a good post winterborn. I'm afraid your effort is mostly wasted on the rightwing, but we shall see. Without a doubt, history is going to judge harshly the people who either worked against, or were enablers of discrimination of their fellow americans.
 
Cypress said:
High fives on a good post winterborn. I'm afraid your effort is mostly wasted on the rightwing, but we shall see. Without a doubt, history is going to judge harshly the people who either worked against, or were enablers of discrimination of their fellow americans.
Click to expand...

The most encouraging thing about this topic is the number of conservatives on this board who support gay marriage.

They may argue with you on matters fiscal or party politics, but they stand with you on this topic.
 
WinterBorn said:
The most encouraging thing about this topic is the number of conservatives on this board who support gay marriage.

They may argue with you on matters fiscal or party politics, but they stand with you on this topic.
Click to expand...

Nah... I would still throw him under an oncoming bus... just for shits and giggles.

:cool:
 
Socrtease said:
Don't be obtuse, that is not what he is saying at all. He saying what some of our founders said in The Federalist Papers, individual liberties should not be left to the whims of majoritarianism. We don't let majorities decide what speech will be protected, or what Religious beliefs will enjoy freedom. Those things are created to protect the minority and should never be subject to a vote. If we did, then Satanists and Nazi's would not enjoy the same freedoms in this country that they do now because the majority would vote to remove them from the protections. That is all Water was saying.
Click to expand...

you really had to reach into that didn't you? i had no clue he was talking about that. he rants and raves so often about getting rid of freedoms i believed that it was he talking about.
 
Superfreak said:
I think he means it is not a position of one of our two parties alone... democratic or republican.

Freedom of speech is something that crosses party lines. As does gay marriage.

That said, the opposition to gay marriage also crosses party lines... which I think adds to his point.
Click to expand...

i have two different posters who had two different understandings of what watermark said....

see...wasn't being obtuse soc....i don't think he even understands what he was talking about
 
Yurt said:
i have two different posters who had two different understandings of what watermark said....

see...wasn't being obtuse soc....i don't think he even understands what he was talking about
Click to expand...
Ok, fair enough, I have no reason to doubt you.
 
Superfreak said:
It is abnormal given that the majority are heterosexual.

It is only immoral to YOU and those who think like YOU. You do not have the right to dictate YOUR moralities on others, just as a gay person does not have the right to force you to believe that 'gay is ok'.

It is not unnatural. It occurs in numerous species on this planet. If it were 'choice' then this would not occur. Too many species that exhibit gay behavior do not possess the cognitive ability to 'choose' to be gay.

It is no more unhealthy than heterosexuality.
Click to expand...

i think the argument re: it occurs in nature is weak

i've seen countless dogs start humping people's legs, stuff toys, the cat....does that mean its natural for us to start humping people's legs, stuffed animals and the cat?
 
its abnormal and unhealthy is not good enough...

if that was the case, we should ban people with STD's from getting married, we should ban marylin manson from getting married....or someone with a flu should call off their wedding day....hetrosexual couples who swing should not be allowed to marry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top