[ BILL COSBY ] Riiiiiiggggghhhhtttt… [ /BILL COSBY ]
[QUOTE=Jerry Falwell]
I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say “you helped [the 9-11 Massacre] happen”.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Pat Robertson]
It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians.
[/QUOTE]
There was once a time when being a childless couple carried a stigma, and it wasn’t that long ago.
There is nothing wrong with a person believing that the purpose of marriage is to provide a stable structure for the raising of a family. The fact that not all married couples start families does not mean that the view isn’t reasonable.
I’m not even religious, and even I find this idea that marriage is about the adults to be stupid and infantile, but why complain about it? Straight people devalued marriage to near worthlessness, long before gays wanted to get married. That’s just the “me” generation at work.
Since we’re comparing opposition to same sex marriage to opposition to interracial marriage, it’s quite on topic.
Unless you agree with me that such comparisons are ridiculous, of course. Which they are. There is no accepted definition of marriage that ever required a couple to be of the same race. The idea that marriage is between a man and a woman though, has existed for thousands of years.
Now maybe you think that our generation is oh so much wiser than ALL of the other ones that came before us, and what’s more, we’re so much more enlightened, but I think a little more humility is in order here. Marriage was established for a reason and it wasn’t so that two people could find happiness. Heck, real traditional marriage often had nothing to do with love at all!
I don’t recall there being any campaigns designed to limit the rights of couples that were childless by choice, so don’t even try to compare that with this.
And sometimes we just rode into the neighboring village, killed all the males and took the females. You’re right-we are no more enlightened nowadays. :dubious:
What we’re seeing here is the real proof that this debate is functionally over in the U.S. Instead of arguing against SSM, former/current SSM opponents are putting all their energy into arguments that boil down to ‘Don’t blame me for my actions and opinions. It wasn’t so obvious that I was wrong! Can’t we just forget this whole thing?’ If you were wrong, just admit you were wrong, learn, and move on. This is just whining.
Exactly. What we are seeing from Gallagher and the like isn’t an admission that they were wrong-it’s a realization that currently they don’t have the public support they crave.
That’s all well and good, but her legitimate reasons to believe marriage is between a man and a woman are not legitimate reasons to prevent same-sex couples from getting the right to marry.
Whether this is true or not, it’s irrelevant to the SSM debate.
Even people’s views and personal definitions of what marriage is really has nothing to do with the SSM debate. What matters is what the law allows, not what people believe. I don’t care if you don’t believe gay marriage is “real marriage”, as long as you don’t fight that it should be legal.
Who the hell knows what goes on inside anyone’s head. I try not to call people bigots or racists. But, just as opposing interracial marriage is a bigoted thing to do, opposing SSM is a bigoted thing to do. Gallagher, Douthat, and pre-2012 Obama all supported bigotry in their opposition to SSM.
I’m distinguishing between a legal framework and a cultural framework. In terms of legality, SSM is going to be a reality, perhaps through the judicial system, because marriage is what it is now and you’re right, it’s unfair to exclude gays given what marriage actually is in this day and age: an institution for the fulfillment of adults.
And yet in 1996 someone who voiced opposition to interracial marriage would have been (correctly) called a bigot. I don’t see how this helps your case.
Should SSM be legal? The consensus is now clearly yes. The anti side has lost. Most of them, like Gallagher and Douthat, know it.
When and how do we make SSM legal and how long should people be given to get on board? That debate is still in progress, given that in most states, SSM is not a reality. But within 10 years, I think it will be in all 50 states.
If you don’t support SSM, are you a Bad Person, as bad as a racist? That debate is just getting started, and I think that in the end the crazies will lose that one. SSM is NOT actually a civil rights issue, and if for no other reason than the sake of not pissing off the entire freaking world, it would be nice if we weren’t boycotting the 150 nations that do not have SSM. Or calling them “poopy-heads”.
I haven’t had any luck finding a Gallup poll that’s on-topic (i.e. specifically directed to the question of whether racial marriage should be illegal). I’ve found some more limited non-Gallup cases (e.g. the one where 46% of GOP voters in Mississippi express the view that interracial marriage ought to be banned).
Sorry, Maggie; sorry, adaher – I am not going to be “civil” and withhold my scorn and contempt for the people taking this view.
Having lost the substantive debate, their fallback position is an attempt to prevent the Overton Window from being shifted out from under them, to the point where their cause goes the way of Free Silver and Fifty-Four-Forty-Or-Fight.
Ah, so the second it becomes the majority view, the minority are bigoted? And not before?
Because that’s exactly what’s going on with the gay marriage issue. As soon as the polls hit 50% and the President got on the right side, the knives came out.
I wonder where all this self-righteous courage was back in 2004 or 2008? Strangely, it was nowhere to be seen. Probably because most of the people you would have liked and respected back then did not support SSM/=. Now that you’ll pay no price for being a dick to those who disagree with you, now you can get on your high horse.
BTW, when I"m saying, “you”, I’m not necessarily referring to you personally, just all those posters(and celebrities) who have seriously ramped up the hostile rhetoric since that magic moment in 2012.
