Bush to make homophobia a centerpiece of his campaign

The BBQ Pit
141

First a ‘generic’ answer.

Well, it looks that the point I am trying to make still eludes you all. My point is that if Guy A say ‘doing X is right’ and Guy B says ‘doing X is wrong’, who decides which one is right. In a secular country all ideas are confronted in the democratic arena. Since I can’t use God as my answer (Who for me is the source of all truth) why can someone else use ‘rationality’ or ‘logic’? Whose rationality and whose logic? What is rational for some is not rational for the other. Why is anyone’s rationality inherently better? Don’t tell me just because it complies with your own sense of logic and rationality, because that would make each of you the nexus of logic and rationality.

Who wrote the Bible of Objectivity?

Also, much has been made of the fact the I am Catholic and base my ideas on my religion. What if I thought gay marriage was wrong AND were an atheist? That would kill 99% of your arguments. There’s a thread about atheist anti-abortion people on the SDMB, take a look at it.

homebrew
And who decided that what it does to me is the basis for the right answer? E.g. People not wearing seatbelts doesn’t harm me at all, still I think it is a good idea to make it compulsory to wear them.

matt
You CAN marry according to your faith IN your faith (whichever it is), but [sarcasm]* don’t bring your faith into civil life*[/sarcasm].

If there were gay marriage, it wouldn’t be long until a judge would try to force the Catholics or Fundamentalists or Muslim or Orthodox Jews into accepting gay marriage. One can hope it would be overturned, but I wouldn’t be surprised it wouldn’t.

fessie
Separation of Church and State is NOT in the US constitution. It has a Non Establishment clause which prohibits the State from Establishing a Church. The first Amendment is as follows:

  • Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. *

So I can freely exercise my religion and have freedom of speech, so I can express my religious beliefs and hope they might make people think like me.

Don’t all people who disagree think their own position is better?

If all people are pushing their own agendas, why is your agenda better than mine? What law regulates where I can base my beliefs on? If I thought the Bible approved gay marriages, would you tell me to shut up. Why I think about the Bible is not regulated by law.

As far as I know infallibility is a Catholic thing, so that would live thousands of millions of people out of your loop. (Do you even know what infallibility means and how it is used?).

You kill the leviathannical straw man of religious wars. Let’s see….Atilla (religion not part of his wars, even if he was religious), Genghis Khan (idem), most wars within mediaeval Europe (Catholic against Catholic), Hilter (atheist), Mao (idem), Stalin (idem), Pol Pot (idem), French Revolution (idem), World War I (political), Iran-Iraq war (both Muslims)……shall I continue?

IWLN
You’re still trying to regulate my mental processes. Who’s the final judge? You have opinions on what should happen, so do I, even your opinions on what is justifiable are your own.

Of course my Mum is well aware that I’m a dumbass, but Mums always think their kids are great even if they are dumbasses, just ask your Mum.

elucidator
You’ve got a point there, even if I don’t completely agree. Bush ain’t never gonna say “all queers BURN IN HELL!!!” (even in he believed it), but if comments like ‘I favour straight marriage’ gets him 100 burly bearded 25-stone guys dressed like Dorothy and making out on CNN, his point would be made for him (in front of some voters) while taking away no votes.

Miller
Thanks for the grammar lesson. I say it because you said ‘* I’m not arguing that marriage is between two people of any gender. That is clearly not the case. I am arguing that it should be between two people of any gender*’, that’s where I fail to see the difference. You should read your own posts

Why is not depriving or not hurting INHERENTLY and OBJECTIVELY better as opposed to more convenient? On what do you base yourself to make not hurting and not depriving universal laws? It is still your opinion against mine, even if you think your opinion is better.

I never argued tradition alone, but tradition and other things.

Your best line is ‘* I, too, believe that harming people is wrong. And that’s all the rationale either of us need to not harm people.*. So your believing something is all we need to know something is right. Great.

Catholics are the largest religious group in the US. The majority of Americans don’t want gay marriage.

So, religious beliefs are discriminated; interesting words for a guy who doesn’t want to hurt with his beliefs. You want to regulate my mental processes. You want to deprive ME of the right to make up my mind as I please. In a democratic country I don’t have to show HOW I reached my conclusion, I present my opinion and the people decide.

I won’t refresh your mind if you won’t even do a simple search.

Diogenes
It may be a practical decision (for you), but that: a) doesn’t make it right, b) doesn’t make it inherently better (as opposed to you liking or agreeing with it) than mine.

142

Just like all those judges have forced the Catholic Church to marry divorcees!

Wait, you mean it hasn’t?

And yet it’s legal to get married again after you’ve been divorced?

Perhaps if you wanted a slippery slope, you should have brought some grease?

143

No I’m not trying to regulate your mental process. I told you before, think what you like and live your life as you wish. Nobody’s going to make you marry a man. Our laws need to represent our population, equally. If by law two people are allowed to legally marry, there can’t be stipulations on sex, IQ, or whether or not they can have children. Suppose they made a law that only men went to prison for murder? What if only women are allowed by law to drive cars. Men have more car accidents and commit more murders. Those laws would correctly represent justice most of the time. Sounds fine to me. You have to see that laws that discriminate against certain people are wrong. Tell me how a LAW that only covers part of the people can be acceptable. Again, what entitles you to a benefit under our laws that should not be available to all couples?

I did. My mom thinks you’re a dumbass too.

I have a video taken at a Bob Dillon concert Bush would probably pay good money for.:wink:

At one time the majority of Americans did not want integration. The majority can’t always decide the law. How do you even know the majority don’t want gay marriage. We haven’t been allowed to vote on it. Even the priest at my husband’s RCC church said people are just going to have to get used to the idea, that the world didn’t belong to the church. I am sure the Pope didn’t direct that statement though.

144

*IWLN
Law regulates (and/or prohibits) underage marriage. Law does regulate (and/or prohibit) marriage for people with mental disabilities.

Law doesn’t say that two people can legally marry, it says (be it implicitly or explicitly) that one man and one woman can marry, so you’rw wrong. Can the law change? Sure. Should it change? Methinks no.

Wow! Gigantic man-eating fire-breathing strawmen with the whole driving and murder thing!!

There are laws regulating working pregnant women. These laws cover only apart of the people. They are acceptable.

If the majority can’t decide, who does? Whatever the answer I’d like to know who gave that person or those people the power to decide.
There are polls, you know. I’ll give you a couple of urls.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/19/opinion/polls/main589551.shtml

145

Rodrigo, you’re still not getting it. An action doesn’t have to be “right” to be permitted, it just can’t interfere with anyone else’s civil rights. In order to restrict another person’s actions it is incumbent on you to show that those actions are harmful to other people or interfere with someone else’s rights. there is no rational reason to withhold civil marriage contracts from same-sex couple. The fact that you are offended by it has no relevance. You don’t have a right to not be offended. It’s not a moral issue, it’s a civil rights issue. Everything is permitted unless it hurts somebody else. “Right and wrong” have nothing to do with it. Your objection to homosexuality amounts to an attempt to force other people to conform to your religious believes. The legalization of same-sex marriages does not impose upon you in any way or take away a single right.

Let me say it one more time because I know you still don’t get it. The legalization of gay marriage would not be a moral judgement by the government. It would simply recognize that the gocernment has no compelling reason to forbid it.
I’m going to put this as simply as I can now. Individuals do not have to prove to you that their actions are “moral” in order for them to be legal. You must show that they are somehow harmful in order to forbid them.
By the way, did you actually say that homosexuality is “evil” if acted upon? Are you fucking serious? Would you care to explain why?

146

These are not laws that discriminate against gender. They address competency to make a decision like marriage.

They were very appropriate examples, not strawmen by intent. I was trying to simplify what injustice is, since you don’t seem to get it. If the government tried to pass any other law that discriminated against gender, the outrage would be enormous. The only reason they’re able to get away with this is that most people don’t care whether the gay population has equal rights and other’s don’t want them to have equal rights. What we want doesn’t matter. Injustice doesn’t hold a candle to hate, fear and apathy. Pretty sad.

A law regarding a pregnant person only needs to cover all pregnant people equally. The day men can get pregnant, the law will be re-written.

So integration shouldn’t have happened? Doesn’t our Constitution guarantee equal rights? Btw, I have seen the different polls. I don’t know if I trust them, but regardless of whether or not a majority is determined to deny rights to a minority; it should not be allowed to happen. As far as who decides, I am not very informed on the law, so I could be wrong; but doesn’t the 14th Ammendment address the issue of equal rights. It appears it was decided a long time ago, but never enforced. Feel free to correct me if I’m misinformed. Why would there be talk of changing the Constitution if it wasn’t a threat to the legality of what’s being inforced. Anyway, the point is a law that is written to include you, shouldn’t be used to exclude another man. You have never really explained why legally this should be unequal. You have explained from a religious perspective, tradition, majority rules, did I miss anything?

This isn’t at all about you being Catholic. If you were an atheist, and opposed gay marriage without good legal justification, it would be the same. Oh btw, stick with your god, the atheist’s don’t want you.

147

I think I’m in love.

148

“The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.” — Thomas Jefferson, 1816

149

I started a thread in GREAT DEBATES asking why Bush, if he’s so concerned about marriage, doesn’t recommend the illegalization of divorce and adultery and have been surprised by
1- people who think it’s a good idea (really, not ironically)
2- those who take the question literally

I’m wondering exactly what the $1.5 billion is going to go for. Counselling? China patterns? Extra TV sets so poor people don’t fight over what to watch and get divorced? I do know that I want some of it. If you really want to “promote the family” while throwing shitloads of money we as a nation can’t afford at something, how about government checks for women on maternity leave or free vaesectomies to married men who ask for them?

150

Diogenes
Now you’re arguing semantics, that’s usually the last step before four-letter words… wait… we’ve already been down to them, this IS your last argument, of course aside from dodging my questions.

You’re so hang-up on my being Catholic it’s amazing. By “right” I mean “correct”, “legal”, “convenient”, “agreed-upon”, not “God-approved”.

You have a[n] (ethical?, moral?, philosophical?personal?) standard “Do no harm”. Why is it better, more opportune, more compelling, more convenient, more appropriate per se than any other.? I’m not trying to make a MORAL argument. I want you to justify why your ethos is objectively superior than mine or anyone else’s. That’s what you’ve been avoiding to answer. Why do I have to show it is (or isn’t) harmful?, who said that? By whose authority?

Your answer has been “You’re Catholic, don’t impose”, why is it better than my saying “You’re atheist, don’t impose”? In a debate with no external referee, whose choice is judge better?

One more thing. Who gets to decide what harm is? (which is another question you’ve been dodging).

You don’t bloody understand, I’ll bloody teach you. If I want to gang-rape you and your family and keep it to my private thoughts, it is not a crime. If I actually gang-rape you and your family it is a crime, that’s the difference.

You want to sidetrack me into explaining why Catholics think it is a sin or why God permits evil. I just take it as a desperate attempt on your part to get off a debate you have seen you can’t win.

IWNL
Title IX says (implicitly) that men can’t participate in women’s sports. Gender discrimination.
Men can’t get into women’s toilets. Gender discrimination
There can e good reasons for it, but it is still discrimination.

It is injustice according to you.

Study the amendment and then we talk.

Libertarian

[cheap shot]Did he say that before of after raping his slave[/cheap shot]
He’s right, of course, in the context he intended it. But all laws force people into doing or not doing things against their will.

Authority, people, authority, Who decides and who gave him that right?

151

Rodrigo, here’s one answer.

I am on the brink of falling in love. Because the person in question is a man, I am a woman, and we are both full, responsible adults who have never married, this is considered a good thing by almost everyone in the country and I doubt there’s a church in the United States which would deny us the privilege of marrying there if it comes to that, although some might ask us to convert to their denomination first. If the situation were identical in every regard except that we were both of the same sex, many people in this country, including you, would call this a bad or evil thing and deny us the ability to spend the rest of our lives together. One detail would change this from a situation in which I can reasonably expect people to rejoice and be happy for me into one in which I might disgust or offend people.

If I were homosexual, you, who have never met me and upon whose life I have only the most trivial effect, would deny me the right to have the person I love at my bedside in case of accident or illness, the right to make decisions for me, should I become incapacitated, and the right to inherit such worldly goods as I have, were I foolish enough not to make a will.

The very love I hope you feel for your spouse, some would call a “perversion” when Mr. Visible speaks of it for his partner. The joy of coming home to a smile from someone you love is called a thing of evil. You, if you had your way, “would actively” prevent Mr. Visible and others from marrying, even though you don’t know them and their lives can have little effect on yours, because it offends you.

Oh, as to where “Do no harm” comes from, in my case, it comes from my understanding of something you might have read:

A carpenter’s son from Nazareth who went by the name of “Jesus” said those words. I understand you’ve heard of Him. If I, given the background I’ve described, say this first bloom of love I’m starting to feel is holy, and I do regard love and marriage as sacred indeed, then turn to, say, Mr. Visible and tell him that it is unholy for him to feel that same emotion for someone who is equally capable of returning that emotion, then I am failing in the commandment Christ, Himself, gave us, and, instead of reading my church’s Penitential Order, perhaps I’d be better off arranging to participate in one.

There are so many sins which Christ condemned in clear, explicit terms, yet for this one, ambiguously phrased by Christ, and no other, as far as I know, some people would condemn others to a life of involuntary celibacy. It’s my understanding that prisoners in the United States have been granted conjugal visits because to do otherwise would be cruel and unusual punishment. Certainly, as far as I know, there’s no law prohibiting people convicted of any number of crimes, including rape, theft, and murder from marrying, even if the murder in question is that of one’s spouse. Yet, it is seen as acceptable to deny law-abiding citizens the right to marry because the people they could honorably and ethically marry are of the same sex of them.

I’m not going to convince you I’m right. Quite frankly, if you were to tell me I am leading people to hell because of my beliefs, you wouldn’t be the first, although I would take offense, as I’ve done in the past. I might well even break that commandment I mentioned. I am just trying to fathom how it is that a lady falling in love with a gentleman is considered good, acceptable, and holy, yet a gentleman falling in love with a gentleman or a lady falling in love with a lady is considered immoral, evil, and perverse.

CJ

152

Someone’s logic and rationality is inherently better when they can outline their premises and show how they lead to their conclusion, and their opponent cannot. Having done the grammar lesson, it appears we need to move on to some basic forensics.

Here are our premises. If you, Rodrigo, personally disagree with a premise, please say which ones and why, and we can debate the appropriateness of the premise. Please do not argue hypotheticals, like, “Why is it wrong to harm people?” If you think it is right to harm people, say so, and we can debate that issue. If you do not think it is right to harm people, stop arguing in favor of harm.

[list=number]It is wrong to cause harm to another person. Do you agree with this premise?

[li]It is generally wrong to allow harm to another person to continue if by acting we can prevent that harm, especially when said action comes at little or no cost to the actor. Do you agree with this premise?[/li]
[li]The government should not be in the business of endorsing any one religion above any other religion. Do you agree with this premise?[/li]
[li]Homosexuals argue, almost universally, that not being allow to marry causes real, lasting, and continual harm to themselves in terms economic (inheritance and next of kin laws) physical (next of kin laws as applied to medical care) and emotional (denial of marriage rights as a symbol of their status as second class citizens). Among other reasons. Do you agree with this premise? And, since I have a feeling that you do, why?[/li]
[li]Granting gays the same rights to marry as those enjoyed by heterosexuals would alleviate many of the above enumerated wrongs, and would do so at practically no cost to the heterosexual population. Do you agree with that premise?[/list][/li]
Unless you can argue convincingly against at least one of the above premises, then there is no rational, moral reason to argue against gay marriage.

Then we would be having this exact same argument, except we wouldn’t need to bother with arguing about God. And you would be losing just as badly.

Well, you’re wrong about that, too. Mostly because you don’t understand the rationale behind the seatbelt laws, which was that the more severe injuries that come from not wearing a seatbelt are a drain on our health care system, which makes it harder for everyone else to get adequate health care. In addition, they cause additional expenses for health insurers, forcing them to raise everyone’s rates in order to cover the costs of people who weren’t smart enough to buckle up.

Gay marriage, as has been pointed out time and again, would effect you not one whit. And yet you continue to be opposed to it out of nothing more than spite, as near as I can tell.

On what do you base this supposition? Can you point to another example in the history of our nation where the courts have so flagrantly violated the first amendment? If you can’t, than this argument is baseless fear-mongering.

If you want to convince people that your position on gay marriage is better than ours, you’re going to need some actual arguments to back up your position. As of yet, you haven’t provided any.

For the answer to this question, please refer to every other post in this thread not made by you.

And no one is trying to use the law to regulate how you worship. We’re just asking that you extend us the same courtesy: don’t try to use the law to force us to worship in the way that you do.

No, she’s not. No one is demanding you change how you think, we’re asking that you change how you act so that your actions stop hurting innocent people. You think whatever the hell you want.

The difference is between an argument that is a tautology and one that isn’t. However, I despair of ever getting you to understand what a tautology is, so let’s just drop that for now.

I base my argument on a very simple idea. One you might be familiar with: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Do you want people dictating your private life? Do you want people forcing you to follow the prohibitions and requirements of their religion, wether you believe in it or not? Then why are you doing that to other people?

Name one other argument you’ve used against gay marriage that wasn’t “Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and therefore should always be between a man and a woman.” Which, incidentally, is not true, not even in the most strictly Christian definition of the word “marriage.”

No, the fact that we both believe it is all we need to know. Assuming, of course, that you are opposed to hurting people as a general principle. If you think its okay to hurt other people, then we need to redirect the argument to your apparent psychopathy.

Having numbers on your side doesn’t make your position any less untenable.

No, I don’t. If you want to argue that allowing gays to marry is an infringement on your freedom of religion, you need to show how allowing gays to marry prevents you from doing something, or takes something away from you that you would have had if gays couldn’t marry.

And yes, you DO need to show how you arrived at your opinions if you expect anyone to take your opinions seriously. All opinions are not equal: if you cannot defend your opinion, then it is worthless.

I did search for it. I couldn’t find the post you referred to. If you’d rather act like a dick than try to stage a convincing argument, fine. That’s only going to work to my advantage.

153

Now listen very carefully. Because this is what you’re missing in every argument I’ve made. When Title IX says that men can’t participate in women’s sports, they are referring to ALL MEN. They are not saying Mr Visible CAN’T and Rodrigo CAN. This law is equal for MEN. Read it again. This can be a REVELATION to you. (Mr Visible, sorry to use you in so many examples.:))

Actually there are exceptions to this, handicaps, etc. This rule is equal though, because in normal circumstances, this applies to all men. Again, no group is singled out.

No, it’s not.

Bite me! And then we’ll talk.

154

Now that George W. Bush is making passes at men, can we expect his political position on gay marriage to change? :smiley:

On a more serious note, I would like to report that gay marriage has been legalized in two provinces up here for quite some time now. Society is intact. Civilization has not unravelled. Toronto is not in a state of anarchy. No one in Vancouver is marrying their sister or their dog. I suspect the Netherlands and Belgium are equally unscathed.

Since religious conservatives know that arguing from their religion is not likely to convince the citizens of a secular society, they have threatened us with this nebulous “breakdown of society” that is supposed to occur with legalization of gay marriage. Well, now we have three laboratories, and the early results are not showing any evidence of a “breakdown of society.”

It seems to me that the onus is on conservatives to prove that disrimination is necessary in this case – that there is a pressing reason that justifies it. Vague soothsaying is not enough.

155

First of all. If everyone is going to answer the questions I give to each person, it’ll become impossible to even hint at an answer.

Second, it’s nice to see that, even if I am a dumbass, so many people have taken the time to enlighten me.

Here’s a link to gay marriage in Scandinavian countries:

http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3651&R=9CBE22D7D

Siege

We’ve over the ‘perversion’ thing a zillion times, there’s no point in still going over it.
Christ didn’t mention homosexuality nor abortion, they were not only “givens” they were specifically things Jews had hated about the Hellenistic culture that had invaded them.
You can’t love God by doing things He doesn’t like, no matter how much you like them. Your question of ‘why if they’re both men…’ is a little like ‘why if I am married, can I not marry a second wife….?’

As for your not getting why….if the Bible wasn’t clear enough, I can’t beat It. (Gen 1:27-28, 2:20-24); man was made for woman, woman was made for man.

Miller

  1. Yes, provided we could agree on what exactly is harm (I think abortion is harm, for instance)
  2. Generally yes.
  3. If endorsing is ‘All the people of the country must believe that X is true because divinity R said it’, then No. If endorsing means agreeing with something that some religions also believe, then Yes, on a case-by-case scenario.
  4. First you premise is flawed in believing that even an important minority (not to say majority) of homosexuals want to get married. As to the rest, I’ve been told that MY personal feelings are of no importance in the political debate that I can’t see why others’ are.
  5. No, for two reasons. a) See #4 and b) you’re wrong in that it doesn’t affect straights.

Who says I’m losing? Who elected that person as judge for this debate?

There ARE laws forcing (or trying to) Catholic institutions to pay for contraceptives for their employees.

When I mentioned numbers was in answer to numbers argues against me.

IWLN

Why is it different to discriminate against ALL men as to ALL blacks?
One group is singled out: MEN, just for being men, not even for doing anything.

Hamish

Well, Canada’s too cold for society to unravel, it’s frozen stiff.

156

Well if you weren’t being a dumbass, we wouldn’t need to try. We treat all dumbass’ equally. :slight_smile:

The link didn’t work, at least for me.

This is a gender issue, not a race issue. Men can’t nurse babies either. I would be willing to share the bathroom if it ever made men feel like their rights were being violated. As for sports, size and ability and safety are a big factor, but if it bothered enough men, it would be fair to take this to court also. This is getting too silly. Since you don’t think discrimination against gays is cruel, should be illegal and is immoral, then you should continue to do exactly what you’re doing. Denying human rights could backfire on your rights one day, if you’re ever unlucky enough to be a minority. Peace be with you.

157

Gay marriage would indeed have an effect on this heterosexual.

If it existed, I would no longer be forced to deal with the rather disgusting fact that the people who think that they’re protecting my marriage’s “sanctity” are doing so because of prurient interest in my possession of a cunt.

158

It’s probably the article discussed in this Great Debates thread. Something seems to have happened to the original article; a search of the parent website didn’t find it. But there are a few replies that quote from the original article and discuss it at length, so you’ll probably get an idea of what it was all about…

159

I really, really don’t want to get into abortion in this thread, but I suspect that our differing position on the subject doesn’t stem from a difference in our definition of harm. I’m going to operate on the assumption that, at least on this point, we are largely in agreement.

Great! We agree about two things. We’re making some real progress here.

Okay, I’m not sure what you mean by this. Could you rephrase it so your intent is clearer?

Well, gosh, this seems like an awful lot of fuss to go through for such a tiny fraction, doesn’t it? The president apparently feels that the number of gays who want to get married is important enough to rewrite the Consitution just to make sure they can’t get hitched. On what basis do you think that the number of gays who want to marry is such a small percentage of the gay population in general? My experiences, both in debates on this board and in talking to gay people in real life, has been uniform in that every gay I’ve ever met has wanted the right to marry, even if they weren’t in a relationship at that moment.

All that aside, you didn’t address the substance of the point, which is that many gays feel that the inability to marry is having a measurable detrimental effect on their quality of life. I can provide plenty of quotes directly from the archives of the SDMB, if you need them. Do you think these people are lying, mistaken, or simply not deserving of a better life?

Okay, first, your answer to #4 doesn’t answer question #5. For that matter, it didn’t really answer question #4, did it? And secondly, how does allowing gays to marry effect your life in any way? I’ve lost count of how many times this question has been put to you in this thread, and you still haven’t responded. If you want me to take your opinion on gay marriage seriously, show me where it’s any of your business in the first place.

160

So you’d support gay marriage in Alaska?