Nonsense, we fathom ignorance just fine. It’s ostensibly why we’re here.
Many issues have two sides. Want to argue with me about the death penalty? Gun control? Tax exemption for religious institutions? Deficit spending? The war in Afghanistan? The estate tax? Public service unions? There are two respectable sides to any of these issues.
But if you want to defend anti-miscegenation laws, or forcing women to wear burqas, or denying the vote to black people, or requiring Jews to wear yellow stars (as they did in Taliban-Afghanistan–no Godwinizing here!), or not allowing gay people to form the families they want, then you’re defending the indefensible, and no, you can’t expect to be free from disrespect. In such cases, you’re starting from a position of fundamental disrespect for folks with less power than you, so you’ve already ceded your own right to respect.
I’m still trying to work out how my (m-f) marriage is devalued if m-m and f-f marriages become universally allowed. I honestly don’t understand the reasons against. I’ve yet to hear one that doesn’t boil down to bigotry.
Please show where anyone demonstrates, anywhere, anytime, an inability to ‘fathom’ there are two sides for this debate? I’m not seeing it. Anywhere but your projection, of course.
How is it not a taunt again? You take no position just a jab at the left. Then claim your position is ‘evolving’. Seems kinda lame, don’tcha think?
Hard facts are you can’t turn back time. And the times, they are a changin’. I know it, you know it, the writing is on the wall. Drag their heals all they want, even the right can see it coming. What you are witnessing is the last throes of those stuck in a past, already gone.
It’s sad more than anything. And everyone can smell it.
I see the other side of the debate. It’s wrong, hateful, ignorant, and despite the religious cloth it wraps itself in goes against the very basic tenets of the teachings of Jesus Christ (a man, who if existed, I don’t believe was divine, but had some good ideas and it would be great if many Christians started following them).
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
See Exhibits A, B, and C above. That’s why I have no interest in debating this. The other side has no interest in a debate, but simply resorts to name calling or a Pit thread.
Yes. I agree with that too, but that’s not the reality of the situation, unfortunately.
Firstly, nothing you’ve quoted demonstrates that people can’t ‘fathom’ there are two sides to the debate. Next time read for comprehension. It just proves that they think the other side is wrongheaded. Isn’t acknowledging their right to their opinion, what ‘fathoming’, there are two sides, really means, after all?
Secondly, you start with a taunt and then use the responses as proof the other side doesn’t want to debate, just call you names?
Really? And you expect us to take you seriously?
There’s a lot of unaffiliated voters in North Carolina who had their choice of four different ballots for the primary. I wouldn’t read a lot into this.
Hell, I’ll go on record to say there isn’t two reasonable sides.
If a same sex marriage had some negative effect on the people not in the marriage, besides “ew gross!”, then there would be two reasonable sides to the issue.
It is actually less reasonable than denying women or blacks the right to vote. The people who were against those civil rights at least had the self serving goal of not wanting to give up some political power. The anti SSM marriage people cannot even claim that type of slimy self-interest.
Well at least on this you’re in good company. The President’s position is evolving as well (to his shame, IMO).
As to this result - it was painfully obvious what was going to happen. I’m just glad they did it now instead of in November. Gives the religious right one less reason to come out to vote for the Mormon, and makes Obama’s job of holding the state easier.
Yes, I just can’t understand why people can’t see there are two sides to child molestation, or wife beating, or lynching.
Some things there just aren’t two sides to, or at least there aren’t two sides that both have respectability, in the “opinions can differ among good-hearted people on this” sense. If you are in favor of preventing two non-related consenting adults who happen to both be the same gender from forming a family with the same protections that two non-related consenting adults who happen to be two different gender have, you’re wrong. Period. There is no “other side” to that. In 25 years, you’re going to be seen the same way that Bull Connor, George Wallace, and Orval Faubus, who were that “honorable other side” of the Civil Rights Movement, are today.
This is rich. You equate someone not advocating SSM with murder and two clear crimes, yet when the debate about SSM even touches on the slipper slope of polygamy or bestiality being next (and not equating anything), you have your hissy fit.
Thanks for the laugh.
An analogy isn’t a slippery slope argument.
Question for President Obama, who opposes SSM. If his state were to put a vote to legalizing SSM, would he vote against it, so long as it allowed Civil Unions?
I hope he’s asked something like that in the debates. This “evolving” crap should be beneath him.
As for NC, I don’t think anyone is surprised. The anti-civil unions clause takes this to a new low, though.
I didn’t say it did. My point was that jay jay was analogizing, while the mention of polygamy and bestiality in the slippery slope argument is not equating SSM with either. The comical part is that he and others of his opinion get apoplectic when the slippery slope argument is explored but it’s just fine and dandy for him to compare being against SSM to being for child molesting, wife beating, and lynching.
I agree that that would be a great question. I also agree that the anti-civil unions clause sucks. That’s why I’m torn on this result. But, as I have been advocating for years on these boards, I think the SS couples should be arguing for Civil Unions, as that route has a much better chance of gaining them the rights and privileges married couples enjoy and SS couples deserve. It’s an argument that takes the moral high-ground and would have MUCH less opposition. But when that side INSISTS on “marriage”, this is the kind of push back that is going to happen.
Then there is no irony in jayjay’s post. A slippery slope argument and an analogy are two different things; objecting to a particular stupid slippery slope argument does not mean you can’t use an analogy.
This is where I should be saying “Thanks for the laugh.” In an argument where one group of people wants to be allowed to marry as they wish and another group says “You can’t,” the moral high ground is not up for grabs.
I disagree with this on every point. Legally, marriage is so entwined with our laws and customs that trying to define civil unions as having the same rights and privileges would be a logistic nightmare. Morally, it would give total permission for those who insist upon marriage as a moral union that overrides all other considerations to continue to look down from a superior moral position. Logically, marriage is already completely secular in the U.S., so the proper course if this is wanted would be to eliminate marriage entirely and replace it with civil unions, obviously a untenable position for the moralists.
Marriage is marriage precisely because our history of religiously-imposed morality has made it so. Separating some marriages from marriages because of religiously-imposed objections is the worst possible solution.
Fortunately, as others have said, this is a meaningless argument for the long term. SSM is the future and the future always happens.
Well, you see, if a same-sex couple get married they will be able to avail themselves of a tax-break, and if there’s one thing conservatives hate it’s when people pay less in taxes. Causes deficits, don’t you know.