Senate officially opens debate on Gay Marriage Amendment.

[MrFun]

Some Republicans today are using homophobia and bigotry as baiting tactic in politics just as Democrats in antebellum and Civil War era United States used racism and bigotry as baiting tactic in politics.

[Ben Kenobi]

gay marriage only scared conservatives because of the fear of society collapsing, polyamory, bestiality, riots, plagues of locusts and whatnot. But gays have been getting married for months now and nothing's happened. Nobody cares, and the media had effectively forgotten about it.

Just because the media doesn't care says nothing about the conservatives.

And I really don't think all the conservatives expected plagues of locusts.

Some of the side-effects are longterm, and have already been going on for quite some time. Most conservatives that I know see this as an extension of a process, rather than a radical disassociation from previous events.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Elok
Hmm, to cover all bases you shoulda had, "yes, and it should," and "yes, sadly" options as well. But don't worry, Thorn. I'm pretty sure the GOP is shooting itself directly in the foot. They're only doing this as a rally for their voting bases. Like fat-free Pork. Problem is, gay marriage only scared conservatives because of the fear of society collapsing, polyamory, bestiality, riots, plagues of locusts and whatnot. But gays have been getting married for months now and nothing's happened. Nobody cares, and the media had effectively forgotten about it. This probably comes across as hatemonger politics, or divisive at best.

Actually, the locusts are scheduled for August.

[St Leo]

Will the locusts help Bush, Kerry, Nader, or the Green Candidate?

[Solly]

Vigilantism, can be defending the moral law as well as that in the books.

[Whaleboy]

Read up on the trial of Leo M. Frank, tried for the murder of Mary Phagen. Found guilty in a mob-influenced trial nevermind the weight of evidence showing innocence. Aquitted by the governer of Georgia (who subsequently became a target) and finally lynched by the mob defending the "moral law" on 16th Aug 1915. The mob was anti-semetic.

There is no "moral law" and no principle sufficient to enforce as a law. Would you advocate making someone suffer merely because they defy a sociological norm? You have previously made your position clear regarding your support of lynchings of black people in the American deep-South because it was a "norm".

[Solly]

Well, as I said to you before, there is no absolute morality, so we have to go with what the prevailing majority thought at the time. Of course, this can make some past moral judgments look wrong compared to our eyes, but who knows what our socieites do that will look wrong in generations to come. That's the way it is.

[Whaleboy]

so we have to go with what the prevailing majority thought at the time.

Moral subjectivism does not conclude to the democracy fallacy (popular = true). You'll note that for every "thats the way it is" argument there is a liberal argument seeking to change it. Furthermore, there are always certain philosophical/ethical principles that are objective in a humanistic context... utilitarianism for example, and as much as I hate to admit it, Kant's too, whimsical in their own context buts consistent in a human one.

[Solly]

You're only saying that because of the time period we're in right now.

[Whaleboy]

Socratic acrimony is timeless

If I was being purely affected by my sociological context I would be arguing for tolerance on the basis of political correctness, though I dare say also intolerance if I was from a different background. It's far too black and white. You'll note that society is not a coherent, continuous phenomenon... rather a collection of constituent parts of varying populations and ideas.

You can only argue something directly from your time frame if you are (a) a member of the mob or (b) a direct reactionary to that.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Vigilantism, can be defending the moral law as well as that in the books.

Then you're advocating the use of lynch mobs?

Well, as I said to you before, there is no absolute morality, so we have to go with what the prevailing majority thought at the time.

The majority opinion is that assault and murder are illegal, ergo, participating in or inciting a lynching is illegal.

[Last Conformist]

Gatekeeper

Are you saying that you're going to cheat on your spouse because there's a gay family in the neighborhood?

Yes. Is this a trick question?

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Gatekeeper

Are you saying that you're going to cheat on your spouse because there's a gay family in the neighborhood?

Yes. Is this a trick question?

Were you already cheating on your female spouse and just find the new neighbours a good scapegoat?

[Odin]

Originally posted by St Leo
Were you already cheating on your female spouse and just find the new neighbours a good scapegoat?

We have a winner!

And BK and PA can STFU now.

[Solly]

"The majority opinion is that assault and murder are illegal, ergo, participating in or inciting a lynching is illegal."

Majority of whom?

In a busy shopping centre, with families etc, the majority do not want to see gays touching. You need to talk within a context.