Not really a pitting per se; just a request for a little discussion and clarification and I put it here since most of the discussion has been here in the Pit.
However, I’ve also seen in other threads where you have been rejoicing over the deaths of various anti-gay rights advocates, most recently the death of Senator Pete Knight . Now it seems to me that you can’t one hand say that we should defend the rights of people who we disagree with and at the same time celebrate the silencing of those people because of those very ideas. So perhaps you could give us a little clarification of this seeming paradox?
Huh. Nametag beat me to it. I think everyone has the right to think and say (for the most part, fire in a theatre and all that) what they want. I will defend that right viehamently. However, if one uses that freedom to advocate things that I think are wrong, shameful, immoral and vile, when that one shuffles off this mortal coil, well, I might just smile and say “good”. Just because I support the right, dosen’t mean I support how some people chose to exercize it.
I’ve noticed this a lot lately on these boards. Many people seem to think that if you feel X sucks, then you, by default, also feel that X should be illegal. Not true at all.
I see no contradiction in what Dave said in the threads listed in the OP.
So anyone opposed to gay marriage can come here and celebrate when Barney Frank dies? As one opposed to gay marriage, I’d be first in line to hammer anyone popping the cork over a death. The reason I didn’t jump on Otto is that I prefer the left to sink their own ship. Saves my ammo.
There’s no equivalence here. Barney Frank isn’t even a major proponent of gay marriage (he told gay activists to shut up about the issue so as not to give the Right any ammo to use in the election), but even if he were, how does that harm you.
Gay marriage does not affect straight people–it does not restrict your rights, it does not raise your taxes, it does nothing to you.
Antigay activists want to do far more than prevent gay marriage. We have the example of Rhea County, TN, where they made merely being gay illegal (since rescinded due to popular outrage). The forces of repression seek to actively harm gay people by taking away their rights as citizens, making it legal to discriminate against us not merely in marriage, but in our jobs and our homes. I do not see any gay people popping champagne bottles to celebrate Knight’s death, but asking us to mourn him is beyond reason and shows that you genuinely do not understand the depths of our outrage.
Duffer, you are a bigot and you should be ashamed of yourself.
gobear I’ve already said in other threads I’m trying to be with you on your arguments, calling me a bigot is making me think I should just abandon it. I’ll try to “explain” myself to you one more time.
First paragraph of reply, Barney Frank is exactly why I’ll listen to his side of it. He isn’t cheering the death of a political opponent. My reference to him was to show it’s wrong to cheer a death because you disagree. There are many things I disagree with regarding Frank, but I sure as hell don’t hope he dies.
Second paragraph, not yet. If 2 men or 2 women get married, it doesn’t affect my marriage, until my tax dollars go to benefits for same-sex couples. Then, by default, it does raise my taxes. I’m not sure how the Fed benefits are set to be (which affect all of us) but I know in Minnesota all state employees are entitles to share same-sex benefits. If you can show me how state employee benefits don’t affect taxes, I’d love to know.
Since you’re so wrapped up in these issues, I trust you already know these? I can find MN sites to show it. But, since you’re calling me out, I leave it to you.
Ashamed? Only that I tried to understand someone that couldn’t care less what I think if I didn’t agree with him lockstep.
Quick economics question, and maybe it’s overly reaching, but maybe it’s worth asking. What with the marriage penalty, wouldn’t it be possible for taxes to decrease if married gay couples were also being penalized as married het couples are? More money for the government, less need to tax, all that sort…assuming, of course, that the government said (and not just/primarily to the upper crust) “No, we don’t need that much money, we’ll reduce taxes.”
Meanwhile, gay folk who aren’t allowed to get married are paying for benefits for het couples. Yay. By extension of your argument, there should be no marriage because it raises taxes for everyone.
Freedom comes with a price. Unfortunately, right now one price (among others) is no gay marriage in most places. When freedom comes with the price of having to pay for others’ marriages (which we’ve been doing for how long now?), why will you protest it? Are you currently protesting benefits extended to het couples?
Yay! Let’s give the benefits to all unmarried couples! Let’s just make marriage meaningless! You want to include boyfriends and girlfriends in the people you can include on your health plan? OK. Yay! Want to include b/f g/f 's included in municipal/state/federal life insurances/pensions/tax benefits? Yay!
Yes, freedom does come with a price. It’s paid with the blood of soldiers over the last 250 years. Nice try.
You say you don’t know how it works in the US, and give what it’s like in Canada. Then seem to refer to Canada as “there” and the US as “here”. Not quite sure what you mean.
The biggest difference is Canada and the US are seperate countries. Unless you know something I don’t (Excuse me while I load my rifle )
Co-habitation happens legally in the US, but mostly it’s just to determine who can kick who out of the house. Now if you mean “common-law” marriage, that’s an issue each state is entitled to determine. However, none of the states, as of now, have any provisions in state law that recognizes same-sex couples.
And lower my tax burden? I need a cite on that pile of horseshit.
Everyone has their right to their opinion and the voicing of that opinion. If someone who vocalizes in a way that is prejudicial to minorities, and that person happens to meet an early demise, I don’t need to dance in the street about it, but I will feel that the world, in general, is probably a better place for it.
you already expressed your opposition to gay marriage, so you are not “trying to be with me on my arguments.”
Same here. I don’t hope Pat Robertson dies, either.
[/quote]
Second paragraph, not yet. If 2 men or 2 women get married, it doesn’t affect my marriage, until my tax dollars go to benefits for same-sex couples. Then, by default, it does raise my taxes. I’m not sure how the Fed benefits are set to be (which affect all of us) but I know in Minnesota all state employees are entitles to share same-sex benefits. If you can show me how state employee benefits don’t affect taxes, I’d love to know.
[/quote]
As pointed out already, my taxes go to pay benefits for hetero couples, you know, schools, VA State and Federal employee benefits (and there are no same-sex partner benefits for eithe Va or Federal employees).
Nice for MN, but VA is an entirely different story, and the Feds under Bush are adamantly opposed to any recognition of same-sex couples.
Agree with me in lockstep? Dude, you OPPOSE gay marriage. That’s called "disagreement, " so, yes, i’m going to argue with you.
gobear, apparently if I don’t agree with you on all points of your arguments, we’ll forever be adversaries. I thought we had some views that meshed, but since I don’t agree with you whole-heartedly, you think I’m against your lifestyle. Fine. Case closed. Let’s get on with life and get back to the OP? (That I suspect I hijacked to begin with).
Damn, forgot this line. I oppose it if it directly affects my wife and I. Or anyone else that hopes the marriage “penalty” tax is repealed. You love your man? Great. What the hell is so important about a piece of paper? You want the bennies, that’s what. Otherwise, you are fully allowed to persue whatever love you want.
OK, now I’m really going to leave this to the OP, no…really. I am!
Duffer, your marriage arguement makes no sense. You claim that recognizing gay marriage will cost you extra money, yet the only way this is true is if you count the money that is currently being exploited from gay folks as somehow rightfully yours.
If the state of Mn provides, say, 100 jobs, jobs with spousal benefits, then it does so with the expectation that 100 people are going to take those jobs, and 100 spouses will be provided benefits. If roughly 5% of the population is gay, then currently the only money that you, the citizen of Minnesota, are “saving” is the cost of benefits for those 5 spouses. In point of fact, those gay folks are being exploited big time. Not only is the state not providing them with services that every other employee gets, it requires them to go out and spend more money to provide for themself the benefits that everyone else they work with is entitled to, and all because you don’t happen to like the people that the gay folks are in love with. In what way does this strike you as fair and equitable? How can you justify feeling entitled to the economic exploitation of a section of the population, so much so that when someone proposes equality, you scream that it’s going to “cost you money”. I am sure that it cost society lots of money when the slaves were freed, but so what? Shall we go back to enslaving a portion of the population just for the economic benefits to the rest of us?
Thanks for explaining this so it makes any fucking sense whatsoever. I definitely see how allowing gay people to marry makes marriage meaningless.
't ain’t the only price some of us pay, duffer. Your example of soldiers is ironic enough given this country’s stance (though in the past 15 years it’s gotten “better”) on gay soldiers.
Nice try.
So you oppose the election this coming November, right? After all, whoever’s voted in, it’ll affect your wife and you.
