Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Republicans really do hate gay people

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wow, I guess we're all barbaric and backwards.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DinoDoc View Post
      Obama is doing just that wrt Europe.
      I thought we were still waiting on severe, economy crippling austerity.
      “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
      "Capitalism ho!"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
        To my knowledge, no. I think the burden is on you to show otherwise.


        The Roman Empire even passed a law against same sex marriage when it was taken over by Christians. Earlier you cited a lack of laws against same-sex marriage as evidence that there was no such thing.

        Comment


        • I guess this is a step up from the "Marriage is only a Christian institution" argument.
          “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
          "Capitalism ho!"

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
            MrFun, I think you may just not be intellectually equipped for this discussion.
            Disregarding your trolling . . . .

            My question was legitimate. If gay people are citizens of the United States as covered in the Fourteenth Amendment, then my next question is:
            Is marriage a right?

            You have said earlier, that homophobes are not arguing that marriage is not a right. So, given that marriage is a right, and that gay people are citizens of the United States, it's irrational to deny American citizens the right that other citizens enjoy, on the grounds that marriage is traditionally conceived/understood as between two people of opposite genders.

            Otherwise, tradition can be used to deny certain groups of American citizens other rights. For instance, before slavery was abolished in United States, pro-slavery advocates could have argued that slavery as a system had been traditionally accepted for thousands of years in civilization throughout the world. Another example, before 1920, women did not have the right to vote on the national level; tradition would have dictated that women should never have been granted suffrage.
            A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by gribbler View Post
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#History

              The Roman Empire even passed a law against same sex marriage when it was taken over by Christians. Earlier you cited a lack of laws against same-sex marriage as evidence that there was no such thing.
              From the same section:

              The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[55] For instance, Emperor Nero is reported to have engaged in a marriage ceremony with one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus "married" a Carian slave named Hierocles.[56] It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a so-called marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).

              Comment


              • MrFun, just for the sake of argument try to actually see the other side for a moment. Fix in your head the notion "marriage is defined as between a man and a woman". Fix in your head the notion that "lifelong monogamous relationship between a man and a woman" is what marriage means. And then ask yourself, are gay people free to be married? The answer, of course, is yes.

                Comment


                • Another quote, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

                  Some early Western societies integrated same-sex relationships. The practice of same-sex love in ancient Greece often took the form of pederasty, which was limited in duration and in many cases co-existed with marriage.[5] Documented cases in this region claimed these unions were temporary pederastic relationships.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] These unions created a moral dilemma for the Greeks and were not universally accepted.[13] There may[14] have been, at least among the Romans, marriage between men as evidenced by emperors Nero[15] and Elagabalus[citation needed] who married men, and by its outlaw in 342 AD in the Theodosian Code,[16] but the exact intent of the law and its relation to social practice is unclear, as only a few examples of same-sex marriage in that culture exist.[17]

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MrFun View Post
                    Disregarding your trolling . . . .

                    My question was legitimate. If gay people are citizens of the United States as covered in the Fourteenth Amendment, then my next question is:
                    Is marriage a right?

                    You have said earlier, that homophobes are not arguing that marriage is not a right. So, given that marriage is a right, and that gay people are citizens of the United States, it's irrational to deny American citizens the right that other citizens enjoy, on the grounds that marriage is traditionally conceived/understood as between two people of opposite genders.

                    Otherwise, tradition can be used to deny certain groups of American citizens other rights. For instance, before slavery was abolished in United States, pro-slavery advocates could have argued that slavery as a system had been traditionally accepted for thousands of years in civilization throughout the world. Another example, before 1920, women did not have the right to vote on the national level; tradition would have dictated that women should never have been granted suffrage.
                    Newsflash, idiot, we have protected classes in this country, so women and blacks are hard to discriminate against. Queers are not a protected class, so any "rational basis" suffices to discriminate against them, and 2,000 years of fairly consistent history and a concern for the development of kids is considered rational by most courts. It's certainly considered rational by most citizens.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
                      From the same section:

                      The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[55] For instance, Emperor Nero is reported to have engaged in a marriage ceremony with one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus "married" a Carian slave named Hierocles.[56] It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a so-called marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).
                      Lacking legal recognition doesn't make something a four-sided triangle. Performing marriage ceremonies for two men would seem to contradict the notion that everyone in western civilization always thought marriage was always between a man and a woman.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
                        MrFun, just for the sake of argument try to actually see the other side for a moment. Fix in your head the notion "marriage is defined as between a man and a woman". Fix in your head the notion that "lifelong monogamous relationship between a man and a woman" is what marriage means. And then ask yourself, are gay people free to be married? The answer, of course, is yes.
                        No, gay people are not free to marry to marry one another. As I've said before, saying that gay people are free to marry someone of the opposite gender makes no sense, since the idea is that you marry someone you want to marry, who also wants to marry you.
                        A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Wiglaf View Post
                          Newsflash, idiot, we have protected classes in this country, so women and blacks are hard to discriminate against. Queers are not a protected class, so any "rational basis" suffices to discriminate against them, and 2,000 years of fairly consistent history and a concern for the development of kids is considered rational by most courts. It's certainly considered rational by most citizens.
                          There is no rational reason to think that removing the societal convention that gives homosexuals unequal status will have a significant effect on fertility. It would only increase the number of couples that are eligible to adopt children if the need arises.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by MrFun View Post
                            No, gay people are not free to marry to marry one another. As I've said before, saying that gay people are free to marry someone of the opposite gender makes no sense, since the idea is that you marry someone you want to marry, who also wants to marry you.
                            My god. I want to know if you're being deliberately obtuse or you simply aren't smart enough to understand what Kuci is saying.

                            In the hypothetical Kuci is postulating, gay people marrying each other is as sensible as male pregnancy. It doesn't even exist. So gay people are as free to marry (i.e. MARRY WOMEN) as everyone else.
                            If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
                            ){ :|:& };:

                            Comment


                            • I understand what he is saying, HC. That's why I argued that it does not make sense, in my reply to him above. Take two gay men who are attracted to one another, and are in love with one another, so they want to marry one another. But they are denied the right to marry, because they cannot marry one another.

                              Kuci's so-called "reasoning" denies gay people the right to marry one another, because in the Western world, people tend to marry one another out of mutual romantic love. Saying that a gay man is free to marry a woman denies the gay man the freedom to marry the gay man he is in love with.
                              A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by gribbler View Post
                                Lacking legal recognition doesn't make something a four-sided triangle. Performing marriage ceremonies for two men would seem to contradict the notion that everyone in western civilization always thought marriage was always between a man and a woman.
                                No it wouldn't. It is entirely consistent with the notion that there is an easy metaphor in the use of the word marriage to describe same-sex unions.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X