Palin breaks with McCain on gay marriage amendment

[Minstrel]

Everyone can claim some rights they should have. I don't agree that homosexuals should be able to get married, personally.

Sure. The same argument could have been made by a racist about blacks voting: "Everyone can claim some rights they should have. I don't agree blacks should be allowed to vote, personally." I'm not sure how that's an argument. I realize your belief is that homosexuals should be restricted from marriage.

I believe in things being allowed by default, and only made illegal if they cause harm to others.

All four of the presidential and vice presidential candidates agree with me. What's the difference between the four of them and these "lowly religious bible thumpers?"

I didn't say anything about "lowly bible-thumpers." The difference between Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin is that Obama and Biden believe in the same rights for homosexuals and heterosexuals, even if the unions are called different things. McCain and Palin don't believe in giving homosexual unions the same rights, by any name.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Is too.

100% pure bigotry.

No it isn't. Bigotry has a component of HATE within it.

Opposing gay marriage is separate from hating gay people. Its a disagreement with their lifestyle and a definition of what they feel marriage should be defined as.

 

[barfo]

No it isn't. Bigotry has a component of HATE within it.

Nope...

big·ot·ry /ˈbɪgətri/
–noun, plural -ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

barfo

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Nope...

big·ot·ry /ˈbɪgətri/
–noun, plural -ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

barfo

so everyone's bigoted. When people disagree with me, they are bigots?

I'm using my definition of bigotry, and I believe it has a component of hate within it.

 

[barfo]

so everyone's bigoted. When people disagree with me, they are bigots?

Intolerance is different than disagreement.

I'm using my definition of bigotry, and I believe it has a component of hate within it.

Using your own definition of words tends to make it difficult to discuss things.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

No it isn't. Bigotry has a component of HATE within it.

Opposing gay marriage is separate from hating gay people. Its a disagreement with their lifestyle and a definition of what they feel marriage should be defined as.

Nonsense.

Having spoken with dozens of people who oppose gay marriage, the universal commonality they have with each other is a seething hatred for gays.

 

[MARIS61]

so everyone's bigoted. When people disagree with me, they are bigots?

If they disagree with YOU, they're most likely NOT.

 

[MARIS61]

Using your own definition of words tends to make it difficult to discuss things.

barfo

Nicely stated.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Nonsense.

Having spoken with dozens of people who oppose gay marriage, the universal commonality they have with each other is a seething hatred for gays.

I don't know who you speak with or the circles you keep to have that kind of %'s. I oppose gay marriage. I don't have hatred for gays.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Obama opposes gay marriage. Does he have hatred for gays? Is he a bigot?

 

[Haakzilla]

Obama opposes gay marriage.

link?

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

link?

[video=youtube;l73BT6TWGj8]

 

[MARIS61]

I oppose gay marriage. I don't have hatred for gays.

How do you reconcile those opposing statements?

If you don't hate them, why do you want to control them like they were slaves or your dog?

Let them live their lives, just as they let you live yours.

This is what I mean by cowardly.

You hate gays. Be man enough to admit it.

 

[MAS RipCity]

If you don't support gay marriage then DONT HAVE ONE!
Seriously, why are gays and lesbians so segregated against?
I wish more people lived life with an open mind and just went about their business.
I am a believer in Christ, but am not one who thinks homosexuality is wrong (i don't care what anything says, it is my personal beliefs, God loves all)
The world would be such a better place if we were all hippies(which pretty much describes me outside of the smokin mary jane part)..just relax and enjoy life instead of getting hung up on the most minuscule things.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

How do you reconcile those opposing statements?

If you don't hate them, why do you want to control them like they were slaves or your dog?

Let them live their lives, just as they let you live yours.

This is what I mean by cowardly.

You hate gays. Be man enough to admit it.

Nope. See that is the crux here. They are NOT opposing statements. I do not wish to control them. Like I said earlier, I support civil unions with all the rights and benefits of marriage. However, I also support defining the term MARRIAGE as being between one man and one woman. I am just a traditionalist (in my own DEFINITION AGAIN) in this regard.

To me, its a matter of semantics and definition.

 

[julius]

If you don't support gay marriage then DONT HAVE ONE!
Seriously, why are gays and lesbians so segregated against?
I wish more people lived life with an open mind and just went about their business.
I am a believer in Christ, but am not one who thinks homosexuality is wrong (i don't care what anything says, it is my personal beliefs, God loves all)
The world would be such a better place if we were all hippies(which pretty much describes me outside of the smokin mary jane part)..just relax and enjoy life instead of getting hung up on the most minuscule things.

well said (the last part esp). I don't understand why it is so many people allow such trivial things as what two consenting adults do to each other, fill their lives with such hate.

I just don't get it. No gay or lesbian person has ever done anything to me, so why should I be a part of a group that segregates them from something that I, as a straight male, am allowed to do?

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

So you think Obama and Biden are filled with hate?

 

[Denny Crane]

Actually I'm pretty sure that common law is an option that comes up when two people have been living together for a long time. And no it does not apply to gay couples. If it did then two straight males (or females) who live together for years because they are great friends would be able to receive the same tax and medical benefits that common law marriage provides.

But a man and a woman who live together for years because they are great friends should? Makes no sense.

The point being that common law marriage fits what gay people have been doing (living together as though married) for generations.

 

[MAS RipCity]

“Who are you to judge the life I live? I know I'm not perfect and I don't live to be. But, before you start pointing fingers, make sure your hands are clean.” - Bob Marley
Pretty much a motto I like to live by..don't judge, God is the only one who can judge us, who knows everything that goes on.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Shit, historically all marriage was, is a contract between two men exchanging property rights, with the daughter of one man being offered to the other man as a means of completing the transaction -- which partially explains why sons were usually more coveted than daughters. The groom's obligation was to provide materially for the bride, relieving that father of the burden of having to care for her. The idea of marrying or cohabiting for "love" is a pretty new concept.

 

[BrianFromWA]

If a woman wants to marry a woman, then they're married. They aren't civilly unionized. They are married.

BS. Marriage is a religious sacrament. If you choose not to involve God, that's your call, and I have absolutely zero problem with it. You can go to a Justice of the Peace. States have allowed JP (heterosexual) unions to be called "marriages", and the next slide on the slope is to allow homosexual unions to be called "marriages". That's why "lowly religious bible thumpers" generally try make their stand here.

Some will say it's semantic. Fine. Why is it that a gay person wants it called "marriage"? Is there something wrong with "civil union"? They aren't discriminated against for having a civil union. Health insurance benefits, etc (as I recall) are exactly the same. If they aren't I'm happy to be educated on that, for I do not think it is right for that to happen.

 

[Minstrel]

Some will say it's semantic. Fine. Why is it that a gay person wants it called "marriage"? Is there something wrong with "civil union"? They aren't discriminated against for having a civil union.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that "separate but equal" is a form of discrimination.

Marriage has not been a religious sacrament ever since it became a legal entity with legal rights. Since then, marriage has been primarily a civil arrangement, with religious aspects for those who are religious. Homosexuals should also be allowed to enter into the civil arrangement of marriage. Churches can still decide for whom they will provide the religious ceremonies.

 

[Ed O]

As a libertarian, my view is that people have the right to pursue happiness. If it means polygamy or same sex marriages, I'm fine with it. The line is where it's not a voluntary contract between consenting adults.

I have strong libertarian tendencies myself, but an issue here is that the state will necessarily impose requirements on businesses and other entities to support homosexual lifestyles by making marriage more open.

Personally, I'd vote for gay marriage. I have no problem with it at all. I understand, though, and don't feel it's illegal or immoral for people to believe, that treating homosexual relationships at the same level with heterosexual ones is morally repugnant to some people, and I think that until/unless the issue is resolved democratically it won't be resolved at all.

Ed O.

 

[BrianFromWA]

But isn't it separate? I'm trying to understand Minstrel...really I am. I have no animosity toward people who can choose to do whatever they like in their bedrooms at night. Marriage is defined (these are all Wester's...I don't have legal dictionaries): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

Common-law:
1 : a marriage recognized in some jurisdictions and based on the parties' agreement to consider themselves married and sometimes also on their cohabitation

So what they're doing is not "marriage". It probably fits closer to the definition of "common law" marriage, but it seems they are trying to have it "recognized" as marriage, which seems like it's "separate". Again, I'm not trying to discriminate against what they can do, but to redefine something in your own words (to use barfo's great line), and then attempt to make it national, makes it difficult for people to agree.

Poor analogy, I'm sure: my aunt doesn't have children. She dotes on her dog more than many parents dote on their children. There is a real bond and dependency there, and the dogs seem to love her right back, but of course they aren't "able to consent". Should she be able to petition the government to have dogs recognized as "children below the age of consent", so that she can claim dependency credit for hers on her taxes, and have it added to her health insurance? By the way, she lives with my grandmother, and they both care for and love each other very much. My aunt cannot carry my grandmother on her health insurance, or (though I'm quoting her here, I have no idea of the rules myself) have even basic common-law rights as two women living in the same home in Portland.

 

[Denny Crane]

I have strong libertarian tendencies myself, but an issue here is that the state will necessarily impose requirements on businesses and other entities to support homosexual lifestyles by making marriage more open.

Personally, I'd vote for gay marriage. I have no problem with it at all. I understand, though, and don't feel it's illegal or immoral for people to believe, that treating homosexual relationships at the same level with heterosexual ones is morally repugnant to some people, and I think that until/unless the issue is resolved democratically it won't be resolved at all.

Ed O.

I still don't see the problem. We're asking of businesses and other entities nothing more than we do to support any other form of marriage.

Everyone has their own slightly variant form of moral standards. It's a significant Natural Right that nobody else imposes their standards on me.

 

[Minstrel]

But isn't it separate? I'm trying to understand Minstrel...really I am. I have no animosity toward people who can choose to do whatever they like in their bedrooms at night. Marriage is defined (these are all Wester's...I don't have legal dictionaries): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

As you can see by "contractual relationship recognized by law," the dictionary definition is relating the legal/civil entity of marriage that I was talking about. Therefore, its definition is not illustrating some deep, objective Truth, simply reflecting what is legally considered marrage: being united to a person of the opposite sex. The whole point of this discussion is that the legal definition of marriage should be changed...so relating the current legal concept of marriage isn't that useful.

What is useful about the definition you provided is that it is clearly defined as primarily a legal/civil thing, not as primarily a religious sacrament. Therefore, changing its legal definition isn't impinging on religion at all.

Marriage should be thought of as having two aspects: a civil aspect and a religious one. The civil aspect should include homosexuals and heterosexuals. Any adults who want to willingly join themselves in marriage should be allowed to, in the eyes of the law. The religious aspect should be up to each church.

As long as homosexual couples are viewed as married by the state, it's not a problem if they are not viewed as married by any or all churches.

 

[Nikolokolus]

BS. Marriage is a religious sacrament. If you choose not to involve God, that's your call, and I have absolutely zero problem with it. You can go to a Justice of the Peace. States have allowed JP (heterosexual) unions to be called "marriages", and the next slide on the slope is to allow homosexual unions to be called "marriages". That's why "lowly religious bible thumpers" generally try make their stand here.

The history of Western civilization tells a different story? With the fall of Rome and the breakdown of civil society the Christian church moved in to fill a void vacated by the preexisting legal authority. If anything the Church inserted itself into the mix by becoming the arbiter of contracts and disputes until such time as secular government began to re-emerge at the end of the Feudal era and with the dawning of the Enlightenment period.

Put it this way, if you get married in a church but don't apply for a marriage license are you legally married? The answer is no, because pastors and churches don't have the legal authority to complete that contract. This issue is as fundamental to the founders notion "of the people, by the people and for the people," as you can get and forms a clear break from the notion that states receive authority from the church.

 

[BrianFromWA]

States don't receive authority from the church -- I agree. I agree that that would be contradictory to the founders' intent.

I guess I lose this round. I won't attempt to impose my moral/spiritual views on anyone, yet I don't think that you can understand where I am coming from without understanding why I believe in it. So I'll sit down.