Posted by DougOut on 2/13/2015 8:04:00 PM (view original):
This is turning into an epic.  Let's review.

You say marriage is any two people that hook up.

I say marriage is a man and a woman.

We both agree they should have the same rights.

We both agree they are different and only one specific couple can produce children.

I think I'm being generous.  I simply ask the word marriage be applied to a man and a woman. 

I only ask you to apply a word and definition that applies to gay couples.

What ever happened to reaching across the aisle?  

I guess that's a one way street.  

#1

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/15/2015 3:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by raucous on 2/14/2015 8:26:00 PM (view original):
The Government should not be allowed to marry anyone.  This is a church vs state issue.  Religions have been marrying people long before any of these governments existed.

The Government can feel free to create "Personal Partnerships" if they want to and everyone should have equal rights to obtain one.

Let the different religions use their own definition of marriage to marry people.

You can one, the other, or both.  This is the only way that it will truly work and not trample on people's beliefs or rights.

This is actually what I've always argued for.  The easiest way to make everybody happy is to just use a different word for everything.  Call it all civil unions for legal purposes.  I think both sides can live with that.

#2

DOUG DROPS ANOTHER DUECE

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/15/2015 3:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by DougOut on 2/14/2015 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/14/2015 1:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by DougOut on 2/13/2015 7:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/13/2015 7:32:00 PM (view original):
Except they are. Right now. Literally thousands of gay couples are, in fact, married.

No they are not.  They are living together.  They need a binding contract that keeps them together for life.

What should we call it?

They have binding contracts, issued by the government, that keep them together for life.  They're called marriages.  They have marriage licenses.  You can say we shouldn't call them married all you want, but they ARE, in fact, married.

Clearly you're not all that clear on how well "separate but equal" has worked out in the past.  I bet if there had been an internet in the '50s there would have been some dumbasses on it telling us how they had no problem with black people, and they thought they deserved rights, but we have a historical meaning for the word "citizen" and it referred to white people.

Well my friend, as much as you may not like it, I think I'll remind you it was the Republicans and the religious right who suffered over 500,000 souls to free the black man.  And they stood with us for 100 years.  And while the democrats in the north and south imposed jim crow it was the Republicans who provided the under ground railroad at the expense of their own life and property under existing law. And you'll remember it was the copperheads and unions in the north who revolted in the north in support of the south.  And then you dare to tell me "I bet" only whites are citizens? REALLY! Well let me tell you about binding contracts.

We got one.  It's called the Constitution.  And here is what creeps me out about you.  My bones get cold and my soul cries for justice and I shake to even think in this day and age you would even propose contracts or anything else are issued by the government.  It breaks my heart to see people even think that way.  

There is no government.  There are only the people.  We are the government.  We the people allow and pay and support a few worthy individuals to manage our affairs so we can work and build and protect our sweat equity and blood. Our families and traditions and everyone and thing that is dear to us.  The government doesn't issue or decree anything from some cell imbedded in the bureaucracy, unelected and protected by an elitist few more interested in their own self interest as opposed to the people and using them and living off them and standing on our backs to support themselves.  Except they do just that.  And you seem to support that archaic monarchial fascist socialist failed history in opposition to our unique Republic founded on liberty and the people.

The left never ceases to talk about compromise and reaching over the aisle.  Except they never do.  They take and they never give back.  Not recently.  The people have spoken but this regime refuses to compromise.  The democrat controlled Senate has refused to allow any bill on the floor, that doesn't suit them, for the last 6 years.  They called the Republicans the party of NO because they employed the filibuster.  And now your loyal opposition has employed the same tactic against the new majority.  Where is the outrage from you or the left now?  It's a one way street with you.  The minority Republicans were the party of NO and now the majority Republicans are the party of NO!  It's a one way street with you people.  Reaching across the aisle and compromise only goes from right to left.  Never from you to the majority.  That's bunk.

And so the majority of the people who are the government plead to the elected for mercy and compromise in an effort to move forward.  And you deny it.  You won't give an inch.  You won't give us a word or definition.  You insist 2 people of the same sex are exactly the same as a traditional marriage.  And our eyes betray us.  Everyone can see.  It's different.  And we say it's OK and you can get the same stuff and rights and everything but please allow us to acknowledge it is different.  And you won't even do that.  You are stiff necked and unrelenting. 

What would it hurt you to admit there is a difference between a man and a woman or two of the same sex?   The rights and privileges of all remain the same.  We simply admit the obvious.  There is a difference.  And you dare to bring up separate but equal?  That's been my whole point.  Except we're not separate.  We are joined together in this big melting pot.  We are all equal.  And we are all different.  FREE.  I don't want to live in a cookie cutter world where the government dictates to the people.   I refuse to devolve into the past.  I choose to keep and defend this Republic and our inherited Constitution.  

THAT is our binding contract.

I'm pretty sure you didn't say anything whatsoever that responded to my point.  All you ever do is spout bullshit right-wing drivel that, at best, you paraphrase from Rush.  You can't respond to something that Rush has never directly addressed because you have nothing to copy and paste, so you just go off-topic and try to change the subject.

As I've told you before, I'm not "the left."  I've been old enough to vote for 3 presidential elections, and I've voted Republican in each of them.  That doesn't mean I have to mindlessly follow the rhetoric of a couple of "conservative" talking heads.  Which party opposed segregation is completely irrelevant to this conversation, and even you are intelligent enough to recognize that.  This isn't a discussion of which political party has a better track record on social issues.  It's not supposed to be a discussion of politics at all.  It's supposed to be a discussion about gay marriage and the rights and privileges of same-sex couples.

Separate but equal IS NOT EQUAL.  Since you've obviously spent so much time studying the civil rights movement, you should be aware of that, too.  When large sectors of society have ingrown biases against a segment of society, they'll look for any margins to reduce the rights and privileges of that segment - marginalize them, as it were.  You have to know that this bit:

What would it hurt you to admit there is a difference between a man and a woman or two of the same sex?   The rights and privileges of all remain the same.  We simply admit the obvious.  There is a difference.  And you dare to bring up separate but equal?  That's been my whole point.  Except we're not separate.

doesn't make any sense.  There was also a difference between white people and black people, at least superficially.  And legally, the rights and privileges of each race were the same prior to the civil rights movement.  But we both know that's not true.  Yes I dare to bring up separate but equal.  It's exactly what you're arguing for.  You say "we're not separate," but then you say "we are all different," and you want to use rhetoric to allow for different terminology for different people you call equal.  That opens up room for inequality.  Of course it does, as much as you want to deny it.

You don't address this at all.  You just want to make it a political argument.  I don't agree with you, so I must be "the left," so you should just write paragraphs telling me how much of a hypocrite I am as a result of your misassigned political affiliation for me.  That's a clear sign you know you have no response to my actual argument.  Not that this surprises anyone.

Ooooooooohhhhhhhh  We start a little firestorm?  Read the above and go again.  I'm not gonna repost it.  TOO LONG.  Read it and get it.  I responded directly to your point.  

  Rush Limbaugh is a guy with a microphone.  He started as a dj then changed the face of talk radio.  Know why?  He's the first guy to say what we're all thinking.  Rush is just a guy like all of us but he's got the microphone.  I talk to Rush every day.  He's the guy I work with and my relative and the guy next door and some costumer or a girl behind the deli where I order a sandwich.  Rush is everywhere.  He always was.  But it's not Rush.  It's my dad.  My uncle.  It's tens of millions of people in my lifetime who were here long before Rush Limbaugh ever showed up.  Rush didn't make us.  We made him.  His dad. Good people all over the place. We were always together.  It's a family.  A national family.  An American family.  A family that cares and wants to fix things and move on.  And I know you don't listen to him or you wouldn't have said what you did.  Answer me this one question.  How many hours in your lifetime did you ever listen to him?  That'
s the answer. 

Separate is equal.  I can separate myself from the gay community and treat them equally.  I do it everyday.  But I don't push my agenda on them.  And they separate themselves from me.  And I work with people of different faith and color but we don't protest outside.  We work together.  And when we go home we are free to do what we want.  But people tell me I can't eat meat but I don't tell people they can't eat vegetables.  And they tell me the science and debate is over but don't tell them it's over.  

So there is a difference and you can accept jot or deny it.  And the differences should be superficial.  And equal.  And we should all be allowed our freedom to the point of law.  As long as the law allows equity without stepping on our freedoms.

Excuse me for a few days while I DO SOME RESEARCH.

Quote post by dahsdebater on 10/22/2012 10:01:00 PM:

Quote post by dahsdebater on 10/23/2012 5:38:00 PM:

And you think the other side is being entirely reasonable with its representation of Mitt Romney?  At least nobody officially associated with the Romney campaign - or, for that matter, the McCain campaign - ever publicly questioned Obama's citizenship or birth.  The Obama campaign won't stop harping on the fact that as a private businessman Romney invested in foreign competitors to US companies and companies that outsourced jobs.  They know this will resonate with the unemployed, but they also know that it's completely irrelevant.  He did those things as a private business person.  He had responsibilities to his investors; he had one job at that time, which was to protect the interests of those investors and make them money, and he attempted to do that.  That can absolutely involve outsourcing in today's economy.  That doesn't make him unpatriotic, it just makes him good at his job.  Would it look great for a presidential campaign if he'd refused to invest in foreign companies?  Maybe.  But if his job is protecting American interests, I see no reason to assume he won't do his best at that job.

The fact is that I'd rather have both campaigns spend at least 60% of advertising money on positive advertising, IE promotion of their proposed agendas and vision for America's future.  Instead we seem to be at about 80% attack ads from both sides, maybe even worse from the Romney campaign.  My whole point in the opening to this thread is that the Kerry campaign proved fairly clearly that even an unpopular president can maintain office if he isn't challenged by a clear, well-articulated plan and vision.  Romney should be spending a lot more time talking about a tangible vision.  Obama as well.  4 years ago Obama had a clear vision for this country and inspired a lot of people.  Now all he wants to do is suggest that the other guy would be worse than he is.  The 2008 Obama campaign was about as positive as any in recent memory.  Not that they didn't go after McCain and try to connect him to Bush, but that was definitely secondary.  I never liked most of Obama's plans, never thought he'd be effective until he learned to work within the system, and to some degree I was absolutely right about that.  But he's hit his stride now, and he's done a few things, and should emphasize those and how he plans to extend them.  He probably shouldn't talk about Obamacare, since most people don't really like it.