Why no Gay Bashing this time?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Otto

There is no such thing as a “well-thought out” opinion in opposition to same-sex marriage that includes the phrase “morally opposed.”

Not, perhaps, in the United States, with its vaunted Wall of Separation TM Betwixt Church and State, but I think you can make a valid argument that same-sex marriage ought to be prohibited in states which observe a state religion.

I might still think that denying gays the right to marry is fucking stupid, but it doesn’t mean a well-thought-out argument doesn’t exist.

[UltraVires]

@jayjay

Y’know what? You can be morally opposed to anything you want to, and nobody else has the right to make you change your mind. But when you start trying to put that moral belief into legal practice to perpetuate second-class citizenship, then you’re doing something that the people you’re throwing the lid down on have the right to oppose.

Go believe whatever the hell you want. Just don’t force ME to also act as if I believe it.

It’s already into “legal practice” and has been since the foundation of the country. Who is trying to change things here? I could equally say that anyone for gay marriage is trying to “force ME to also act as if I believe it”.

I didn’t mean for this to turn into a gay marriage debate. All I said was that people who are opposed to gay marriage, moral or otherwise, are not bashing all gay people.

[InLucemEdita]

@athelas

“I’m disgusted that someone always has to get bashed. Why isn’t anyone getting bashed this time?”

Not exactly…but accepting your characterization, what don’t you get?

The sarcasm?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Really Not All That Bright

I might still think that denying gays the right to marry is fucking stupid, but it doesn’t mean a well-thought-out argument doesn’t exist.

Please, do share.

[jayjay]

@jtgain

It’s already into “legal practice” and has been since the foundation of the country. Who is trying to change things here? I could equally say that anyone for gay marriage is trying to “force ME to also act as if I believe it”.

And when they come to make you marry someone of your own sex, I will defend you with my life.

I didn’t mean for this to turn into a gay marriage debate. All I said was that people who are opposed to gay marriage, moral or otherwise, are not bashing all gay people.

Sorry, but you can’t just throw something like that out there and say “no discussion of this” anymore than you can throw an argument against legalizing “miscegenation” and say “no discussion of this”.

[ElvisL1ves]

More precisely, Huckabee has raised the spectre of *Pakistani * terrorists crossing over the border from Mexico. Two panders and a bonus fearmongering all in one.

[UltraVires]

@jayjay

And when they come to make you marry someone of your own sex, I will defend you with my life.

Sorry, but you can’t just throw something like that out there and say “no discussion of this” anymore than you can throw an argument against legalizing “miscegenation” and say “no discussion of this”.

1. I’m not sure I understand your point, but I don’t think that the current law forces you to marry a person of the opposite sex. You have a choice not to marry. You can live with your same sex partner; just no marriage tag applied to it. No force anywhere that I can see.

2. I just meant I didn’t want to hijack the thread. There are/have been plenty of gay marriage threads that doesn’t stifle the discussion. The OP here was talking about GOP candidates’ lack of “gay bashing” and I simply pointed out my thoughts on that. I didn’t want to hijack it into a gay marriage thing…

[Voyager]

To get back to the OP, I think that first of all it wouldn’t be a differentiator with other Pubbie candidates, and second it would bring back unpleasant memories of Larry Craig and the like.

[jayjay]

@jtgain

1. I’m not sure I understand your point, but I don’t think that the current law forces you to marry a person of the opposite sex. You have a choice not to marry. You can live with your same sex partner; just no marriage tag applied to it. No force anywhere that I can see.

Oh, yes! That’s EXACTLY the same thing! Why have I never seen it before and been satisfied with the crumbs the Straight People have let fall to we dogs waiting patiently under the table?!

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bryan Ekers

Please, do share.

Biblical arguments - Leviticus 18:22 (Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.)

Again, I didn’t say the arguments weren’t fucking stupid, merely that they aren’t necessarily poorly thought out.

[Squink]

@ElvisL1ves

More precisely, Huckabee has raised the spectre of *Pakistani * terrorists crossing over the border from Mexico.

660 of them over the last year to be precise. I was surprised he didn’t exaggerate a little, and claim 666.

[InLucemEdita]

@jtgain

All I said was that people who are opposed to gay marriage, moral or otherwise, are not bashing all gay people.

Yeah, since this is the pit I’m going to go ahead and spit out that I think the use of the police powers of the government as a club to enforce laws that restrict the rights of a specific group of citizens to enter into a personal contract that has absolutely no negative impact whatsoever on anyone else is the legal version of gay bashing.

And yeah, regarding my OP, I hadn’t considered the Larry Craig effect. It just seemed so EASY the last time they did it, I presumed they’d pick it up again immediately.

[jayjay]

@jtgain

people who are opposed to gay marriage, moral or otherwise, are not bashing all gay people.

And people who are opposed to integration aren’t bashing all black people, either.

[DMC]

@Really Not All That Bright

Biblical arguments - Leviticus 18:22 (Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.)

Again, I didn’t say the arguments weren’t fucking stupid, merely that they aren’t necessarily poorly thought out.

Of course, said arguers would necessarily have to avoid eating pork and shellfish, avoid going to church shortly after childbirth, take a lamb and bird with them when they do go to church, have their priests look at any burns or mildewed clothing that they may have, stay away from cross-pollination, avoid clothing with blended fabrics, never trim their beards, treat immigrants as if they are native born, and skip sleeping with the wife during her period, etc.

I’d love to hear their well thought out arguments for any of those they don’t obey. That whole new covenant thing falls apart when one looks to the Old Testament for their justification.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@DMC

Of course, said arguers would necessarily have to avoid eating pork and shellfish, avoid going to church shortly after childbirth, take a lamb and bird with them when they do go to church, have their priests look at any burns or mildewed clothing that they may have, stay away from cross-pollination, avoid clothing with blended fabrics, never trim their beards, treat immigrants as if they are native born, and skip sleeping with the wife during her period, etc.

I’d love to hear their well thought out arguments for any of those they don’t obey. That whole new covenant thing falls apart when one looks to the Old Testament for their justification.

A powerful counter-argument.

I suppose since legislation based on b(B?)iblical principles is only allowed if you’re consistent about it, we can go ahead and legalize murder…

[Othar_the_Tooth_Collector]

@DMC

Of course, said arguers would necessarily have to avoid eating pork and shellfish, avoid going to church shortly after childbirth, take a lamb and bird with them when they do go to church, have their priests look at any burns or mildewed clothing that they may have, stay away from cross-pollination, avoid clothing with blended fabrics, never trim their beards, treat immigrants as if they are native born, and skip sleeping with the wife during her period, etc.

I’d love to hear their well thought out arguments for any of those they don’t obey. That whole new covenant thing falls apart when one looks to the Old Testament for their justification.

I can’t remember the chapters/verses, but there is stuff in the New Testament against homosexuality as well. Supposedly Jesus nullified a lot of the Old Testament rules, but it was made clear (by Paul, maybe?) that the homosexuality rules still stood.

[Otto]

@Really Not All That Bright

Biblical arguments - Leviticus 18:22 (Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.)

Again, I didn’t say the arguments weren’t fucking stupid, merely that they aren’t necessarily poorly thought out.

Given that the Constitution of the United States of America mandates that bible verses may not serve as the basis of laws any argument based on translations of translations of translations of some made-up book from thousands of years ago is not a well thought out argument. “The Bible says…” is by definition not a well thought argument when it comes to the law of the United States because anyone who actually thought about the law of the United States would understand that it can’t be based on the bible.

[jayjay]

@Othar the Tooth Collector

I can’t remember the chapters/verses, but there is stuff in the New Testament against homosexuality as well. Supposedly Jesus nullified a lot of the Old Testament rules, but it was made clear (by Paul, maybe?) that the homosexuality rules still stood.

See Otto’s (entirely correct) argument below your post…

In other words, even if every verse of the Bible said that homosexuality was the only sin and must be pulled up, root and branch, US law could NOT be based on that. All Biblical and religious arguments are moot.

[Onomatopoeia]

@jtgain

1. I’m not sure I understand your point, but I don’t think that the current law forces you to marry a person of the opposite sex. You have a choice not to marry. You can live with your same sex partner; just no marriage tag applied to it. No force anywhere that I can see.

2. I just meant I didn’t want to hijack the thread. There are/have been plenty of gay marriage threads that doesn’t stifle the discussion. The OP here was talking about GOP candidates’ lack of “gay bashing” and I simply pointed out my thoughts on that. I didn’t want to hijack it into a gay marriage thing…

jtgain, are you serious? You don’t see that forcing a discriminatory practice on someone is akin to bashing them? Disallowing two people of the same sex, who love each other, to marry impacts your life, either positively or negatively, how?

And why do you feel it’s in any way okay that the best same-sex couples who want to be married can hope for is to be reminded every damned day of their lives that they’ll never be considered better than second-class citizens? Because that’s precisely what Civil Partnership does. I know you don’t want to get into all this, but you brought it up.

Do you also believe blacks and whites shouldn’t marry each other?

To answer the OP, the only arrow in the republican’s quiver that mobilizes their base every time is hatred (or demonization, if you prefer a softer term). 4 years ago it was gay marriage. This cycle, once they have their ducks in a row, it’ll be Mexican immigration. They’ve already seen positive results so my estimation is you’ll see a ratcheting up of the racist rhetoric once either McCain, Romney or Giuliani become the party’s official nominee.

[Polycarp]

@jtgain

It’s already into “legal practice” and has been since the foundation of the country. Who is trying to change things here? I could equally say that anyone for gay marriage is trying to “force ME to also act as if I believe it”.

I didn’t mean for this to turn into a gay marriage debate. All I said was that people who are opposed to gay marriage, moral or otherwise, are not bashing all gay people.

Are you now married? Do you wish to marry? Would you kindly indicate your state legislators, so that we can all write them to ensure that the next anti-gay-marriage law Florida passes includes a clause that any present “marriage” you may be in is dissolved and you are forbidden by law from marrying.

And yes, I have moral grounds for wanting to do so. John 7:2, to be specific.