OT – Gay Marriage. Divisive or Non-Issue? Evolution or Intelligent Design?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=ctr70]Gay Marriage = Non-issue. Should be legalized IMO.

I get so frustrated when the media & candidates waste so much time and energy on non-issues and get diverted off the real stuff that matters. Um Duh, can the candidates and the country talk about real sh*t that matters like the economy? Jobs? Quality of our schools?[/quote]

No, they can’t. That would require actually having some semblance of a plan, or admitting the shit poor situation we’re in right now.

Nope. Far easier to divert attention to nonsensical wedge issues and fan the flames to fire up their respective bases.

When’s the last time you heard a politician with an actual plan step forth? The closest thing to a plan I’ve heard recently has been Paul Ryan and even I’m loathe to bring that up for the vitriol it’s bound to inspire. We haven’t had a realistic budget put forth in over three years and I ain’t exactly holding my breath that there will be one soon.

In California, we’re getting ready to sail off into oblivion and all Gov. Moonbeam can think of is to raise taxes in order to further chase people and businesses out of state. Heaven forfend he take on the CTA and CCPOA; he’ll get his ass handed to him.

So, you’re right. We shouldn’t give a rat’s ass about gay marriage (and, yeah, I think we should legalize it, too; why let us breeders screw up the institution all on our own), but God help you if you think we’ll be discussing anything serious this election cycle.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]When’s the last time you heard a politician with an actual plan step forth?[/quote]

You mean like healthcare reform?

By the way, did the other side have a plan for fixing healthcare?

Both parties are the same, huh?

[quote]The closest thing to a plan I’ve heard recently has been Paul Ryan […][/quote]

Nonsense. We have Simpson-Bowles and its derivatives. A plan based on sensible compromises developed by bipartisan committees that most independent analysts agreed would be effective toward reducing the national debt.

A plan that has been consistently rejected en masse by Republicans because of their fanatic loyalty to Grover Norquist.

Both parties are the same, huh?

http://economy.money.cnn.com/2012/03/28/the-return-of-simpson-bowles/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577307710169626858.html

[Anonymous]

Yes, we’ve got better things to talk about right now:

1858: “Of course slavery is cruel, but we’ve got a continent to tame, railroads to build, and we are right in the midst of an economic panic…”

1918: “Sorry ladies, I agree you should be allowed to vote, but we’re right in the middle of this Great War and this flu pandemic …”

1963: “Yes, Civil Rights are important, but the Soviet threat is looming, our president has just been assassinated, and we’ve got a war brewing in Southeast Asia…”

There’s always a better time to help the people who don’t really matter anyway.

[blahblahblah]

[quote=harvey]Yes, we’ve got better things to talk about right now:

1858: “Of course slavery is cruel, but we’ve got a continent to tame, railroads to build, and we are right in the midst of an economic panic…”

1918: “Sorry ladies, I agree you should be allowed to vote, but we’re right in the middle of this Great War and this flu pandemic …”

1963: “Yes, Civil Rights are important, but the Soviet threat is looming, our president has just been assassinated, and we’ve got a war brewing in Southeast Asia…”

There’s always a better time to help the people who don’t really matter anyway.[/quote]

FWIW I support the right of gay couples to marry. However, comparing this issue to slavery, women’s suffrage, or civil rights belittles the severity and importance of those issues in American history.

Gay marriage affects a very small minority of people. To them it is very serious, and we all understand that and I believe most of us support the right for all to marry. But let’s get real, we are not talking wholesale deprivation of personal liberty (slavery), voting rights (Jim Crow/women’s suffrage), or civil rights here.

I wonder if MLK would have been a gay marriage supporter? He was a Baptist minister, after all — I’m guessing probably not.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CONCHO][…] comparing this issue to slavery, women’s suffrage, or civil rights belittles the severity and importance of those issues in American history.[/quote]

Yes and no. Although women and blacks are much bigger percentages of the population than gays, gays are hardly an insignificant fringe group. Their numbers are probably in the millions.

And what is the threshold for being “so insignificant relative to other issues that we shouldn’t be talking about this now.”

World War I was a helluva lot more significant that today’s “great recession” and yet we still managed to win the war and grant women’s suffrage.

[quote]But let’s get real, we are not talking wholesale deprivation of personal liberty (slavery), voting rights (Jim Crow/women’s suffrage), or civil rights here.[/quote]

We probably are reaching a point of “diminishing returns” in the progression of universal rights for all. But my marriage is pretty darned important to me, so I can certainly understand why marriage would be important to others.

But do your really think there will be a “better” time in the future to take this issue on? There will always be a something “more important.”

And is it possible that this issue tells us something more about the candidates than just where they stand? Is it not also a reflection of their personal character as well of their understanding of the character of America at this point in history?

[quote]I wonder if MLK would have been a gay marriage supporter? He was a Baptist minister, after all — I’m guessing probably not.[/quote]

I agree. I would also guess that Abraham Lincoln and all the Founding Fathers would be against gay marriage also. Which is a good example of why we should not blindly apply the positions of historical figures to current policy.

The important point is that if we stop talking about it, then we maintain the status quo. Which is exactly what one side wants (well, except when they want to score political points by talking about it…)

[blahblahblah]

[quote=harvey][quote=CONCHO][…] comparing this issue to slavery, women’s suffrage, or civil rights belittles the severity and importance of those issues in American history.[/quote]

Yes and no. Although women and blacks are much bigger percentages of the population than gays, gays are hardly an insignificant fringe group. Their numbers are probably in the millions. [/quote]

Dude, I agree with you on the issue but again — slavery was the systematic deprivation of human rights of innocent people. MILLIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE WERE TORTURED, WORKED TO DEATH, AND MURDERED.

Gay marriage allows couples to ensure orderly transfer of property ownership upon a partner’s death, the ability for partners to make medical decisions, parental decisions, etc… Important stuff, yes! But equating the lack of these rights to something as serious and horrific as slavery is just silly.

Once again, I agree with you on this issue but if you want to make an argument to try to sway people’s opinion, do not bring up slavery, suffrage, etc… because it’s not a good argument. There are plenty of good arguments in support of gay marriage.

[Hobie]

As mentioned, marriage is religious ceremony. Civil unions bridge the gap for those not wishing to comply with religious requirements but want the legal benefits.

Gay marriage will eventually be voted in. Not because of equality, no difference as man/women union, etc, but simply that they gay activists will have worn down their opponents to the point of, screw it, let’s move on.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=harvey]Nonsense. We have Simpson-Bowles and its derivatives. A plan based on sensible compromises developed by bipartisan committees that most independent analysts agreed would be effective toward reducing the national debt.

A plan that has been consistently rejected en masse by Republicans because of their fanatic loyalty to Grover Norquist.

Both parties are the same, huh?

http://economy.money.cnn.com/2012/03/28/the-return-of-simpson-bowles/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577307710169626858.html%5B/quote%5D
Reinstating Simpson-Bowles should be the most important issue this campaign. We need to ensure another financial meltdown of the kind that created this recession can’t happen again. Unfortunately, the majority of voters either can’t understand or don’t care enough to understand Simpson-Bowles, or are rich enough to personally benefit from a system that lets them gamble with taxpayer money.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CONCHO]Once again, I agree with you on this issue but if you want to make an argument to try to sway people’s opinion, do not bring up slavery, suffrage, etc… because it’s not a good argument. There are plenty of good arguments in support of gay marriage.[/quote]

I get it.

I’m not commenting specifically on gay marriage.

I’m commenting on the “aren’t there better things to talk about?” arguments. There’s a difference.

In 1857, in the midst of an economic downturn, it was probably easy to say the same things we hear today:

“The plight of negros – who are perhaps only 10% of the population – who are not even full citizens as they are God’s lesser creations – certainly are not as important as putting food on our table. Of course they deserve, freedom … someday, but my brother has lost his farm and my employer is struggling…”

Any social issue, big or small, can always be put off for something else, especially the economy.

If it is important, we should be talking about it, right now.

[Navydoc]

[quote=markmax33®]Parents with no $50K to deposit can have the pregnancy terminated or suspended until they prove their fitness.[/quote]

Just how does one “suspend” a pegnancy exactly? By the way, inbreeding doesn’t just concentrate the bad qualities, but the good traits as well. Something to consider before dismissing consanguinous unions. (just kidding-but it is true)

[all]

[quote=Navydoc][quote=markmax33®]Parents with no $50K to deposit can have the pregnancy terminated or suspended until they prove their fitness.[/quote]

Just how does one “suspend” a pegnancy exactly? [/quote]

My making it a constitutional right. It would require an amendment or more creative interpretation of 2nd amendment.

[an]

[quote=Navydoc]Just how does one “suspend” a pegnancy exactly? By the way, inbreeding doesn’t just concentrate the bad qualities, but the good traits as well. Something to consider before dismissing consanguinous unions. (just kidding-but it is true)[/quote]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/male-birth-control-reversible_n_1400708.html

100 percent effective & reversible.

[Navydoc]

That’s for prevention, which we have many effective ways. Markmax implied suspension of an existing pregnancy, which would be news to me.

By the way, I love all the methods that claim to be 100% effective. Only one method is 100% effective that I know of. Well, it’s only failed once in 2000 years, and many people don’t even believe that. Problem is, nobody wants to do that method.

On a related note, you’d be amazed how many times I’ve delivered Jesus in the Navy.

[scaredyclassic]

Oral sex is very effective

[scaredyclassic]

Also gay sex.

[Author]

Posts