[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
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).
[/QUOTE]
Fear, actually. Fear of gays. Fear of Muslims. Fear of Terrorism. Fear of Mexicans. Fear of taxes. Fear of communism. Fear of secularism. Fear of Palestinians. Fear of Saddam. Fear of Iran.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
I guess we have different definitions of “well thought out”, if that passes muster with you.
[QUOTE=Me]
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.
[/QUOTE]
(bolding mine)
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Does anyone happen to know how Mexicans generally vote? Republican, Democrat?
[/QUOTE]
If they’re Mexicans, presumably they vote for other Mexicans. In Mexican elections. In Mexico. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Does anyone happen to know how Mexicans generally vote? Republican, Democrat?
[/QUOTE]
PRI.
Oh right. We have to stick a -American on the end of everything now.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
(bolding mine)
[/QUOTE]
Any secular argument based on religion is by definition not a well thought out argument. Some poor benighted nation who foolishly based their secular laws on religion or who adopted a state religion has not advanced a well thought out argument. I note for the record that Great Britain, which has a state religion which AFAIK officially condemns homosexuality, has adopted a civil partnership law that allows same-sex couples all the secular legal rights of marriage and, to date, that island nation has not been sunk into the sea by God.
[QUOTE=jayjay]
Fear, actually. Fear of gays. Fear of Muslims. Fear of Terrorism. Fear of Mexicans. Fear of taxes. Fear of communism. Fear of secularism. Fear of Palestinians. Fear of Saddam. Fear of Iran.
[/QUOTE]
To paraphrase, “We have nothing to fear, but Republicanism itself.”
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Oh right. We have to stick a -American on the end of everything now.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, otherwise your rant would only be half right.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Does anyone happen to know how Mexicans generally vote? Republican, Democrat? I really do think the Republicans see Mexicans as a safer target then going after gays and reminding everyone about all the recent Republican boy-twiddler/airport restroom scandals, etc.
[/QUOTE]
Republicans have been wooing Latino voters with some success since at least 2000. They are a growing voting bloc and are particularly important is certain states (Florida, California, Texas). The recent rehotoric coming from the Republican party has undermined some of their gains with Latino voters. Here is a story.
[QUOTE=Otto]
Any secular argument based on religion is by definition not a well thought out argument. Some poor benighted nation who foolishly based their secular laws on religion or who adopted a state religion has not advanced a well thought out argument. I note for the record that Great Britain, which has a state religion which AFAIK officially condemns homosexuality, has adopted a civil partnership law that allows same-sex couples all the secular legal rights of marriage and, to date, that island nation has not been sunk into the sea by God.
[/QUOTE]
Only because God hates the French.
A state whose laws are based on religion, or adopted a state religon, may indeed be foolish; however, that’s a different debate.
If you, as a poor benighted population of wherever, have chosen to embrace natural-law principles, as opposed to positivism, when writing your constitution and/or statutes, you have something of an obligation to stick with it afterward.
You can’t couch the debate over gay marriage as a choice between rebellion and the status quo.
EDIT: As mentioned above, and about a zillion times on the boards, I’m entirely pro-gay-marriage. I merely disagree with the idea that just because an entirely logic-based argument can’t be made against legalization of SSM, no good argument can be made against it.
Laws, good or otherwise, are rarely based on reason.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Only because God hates the French.
[/quote]
You mean the French who legally recognize same-sex unions (although unions which do nt grant all the rights and privileges of marriage)?
Arguments with no basis in logic do not qualify as “good” arguments. Arguments that rely in any way on invisible creatures who live in the sky have no basis in logic.
[QUOTE=Otto]
You mean the French who legally recognize same-sex unions (although unions which do nt grant all the rights and privileges of marriage)?
[/QUOTE]
That was a joke. I mean the French who smoke Rizlas and drive Peugeots, yes.
I notice you didn’t address my point that under a system of government ordered around a belief system which demonizes homosexuality, forbidding SSM would be expected, and even, in a twisted sense, logical.
Again, as to whether or not a system of government should be thus orderered, if you’re going to grant people the right of self-determination, you have to accept that sometimes they’re going to do something silly with it.
Doesn’t that force gay people to remain single?
Of course, the standard conservative response is that gay people can get married - they just can’t get married to each other. I used to think that was just a joke but now we’ve seen how many conservative gay men actually do go out and marry women before running for office.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
I notice you didn’t address my point that under a system of government ordered around a belief system which demonizes homosexuality, forbidding SSM would be expected, and even, in a twisted sense, logical.
[/QUOTE]
I do address your point. Any system that is based on the demonization of a sexual orientation is fundamentally illogical. There is no sense under which such demonization is in any way logical.
Hmm. That makes me wonder something: you know that notion that homosexuality is a freely chosen lifestyle bereft of real love or emotion, revolving only around constant, violent, meaningless sex, and that it actively recruits people (especially kids) into the “cause” – when I look at it, it doesn’t SEEM like there’s necessarily anything about it that specifically requires one to be religious to believe it.
Yet there’s no such thing as Atheists for Family Values or whatever buzzwords those folks are being used these days. I wonder why that is.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
That was a joke. I mean the French who smoke Rizlas…
[/QUOTE]
Huh? Rizlas are cigarette *papers * - my Dad used to hand-roll with them, but now dope has given them a whole new lease of life and they do extra-large sizes for people who want to build really phat joints - and they’re English.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
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.
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..
[/QUOTE]
Give it up, my friend. In the SDMB, unless you pledge allegiance to the Rainbow Flag, you’re a “gay-basher”. It’s just a given.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Give it up, my friend. In the SDMB, unless you pledge allegiance to the Rainbow Flag, you’re a “gay-basher”. It’s just a given.
[/QUOTE]
Boo-hoo, Christian persecution, boo-hoo!
When you have a valid reason for denying me my rights as a citizen of this nation, OTHER than your completely-irrelevant religious beliefs or some grandiose and delusional image of yourself as the Grand Defender of All Tradition, then we can talk. But if you’re just going to whine at every defense of our rights and every attempt to stave off second-class citizenship under the boots of the “poor, persecuted Christians”, then you can fuck off. Most of the time I consider you a reasonable person. This post somewhat surprised me. Well, fool me twice and all that…
[QUOTE=InLucemEdita]
So why no Gay Bashing in this election so far?
It worked so well last time to bring people together on a position.
Too busy Mexican bashing maybe?
[/QUOTE]
Probably because they’re soft-pedaling their idiotic demand for same-sex marriage this time around.
And nobody’s bashing Mexicans. Many people are deeply concerned that uncontrolled immigration will destabilize our nation. That’s not bashing, that a legitimate and valid concern. Calling it “racism” or “xenophobia” is bashing.