Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

[Mdougie]

Blacks were told to vote against civil rights in church. They can be bigots too. Being black doesn't mean you can't be a bigot.

Also, we have forgotten to mention a big group of the most ardent anti gay bigots. Latent homosexuals themselves. Granted they seem to be right wing heros or preachers that get caught, but many of the meanest and loudest are just self hating gays. I guess if they can hate themselves so much it must not be hard to hate others.

[JimJones8934]

That would be something to debate about. It isn't my argument. The question is whether you know how to have a civil debate.

And I think I've been very respectful of individual religious beliefs. That I think they have no place in this discussion is the most I've said.

Yet, your claim is that being against gay marriage is some right wing, bigoted position.

No, my claim is that it is a social conservative position and that politically, it is a right wing policy.

Let me quote you one more time before you attempt to dissociate yourself from the statement you made:

The quote stands since I believe all anti gay politicians and legislation comes from the right. Just because black people have voted for a position held by the right (and not the left wing politicians) it doesn't make them republicans.

So, your theory that social conservatives are exclusively on the right of the political aisle is simply not a factual claim.

It's not the claim I'm making though - you're ignoring I made the distinction between voters and politicians. The former fall into the social conservative group but the latter are the right wing politicians and their policies.

It is just your broad, overly simplisitic, ideological ad hom, which you use to try to demean those whose views differ from your own. It is intellectually lazy. It is beyond ignorant. It is this sort of argumentation ineptitude which I was attempting to quell before it ever began, but alas, with simpleton arguments all the rage among some liberal posters, my attempts doomed for failure.

I have nothing more to say. I think your argumentation pretty much locked up my point.

I don't think you really had much to contribute anyway other than showing you ignore explicitly laid out distinctions. It is always nice to see you rant at something, it shows passion. But as per usual, you are off the mark and ignoring where the policies are coming from and it's the details is typically careless of you which is why you always get angry so much. Read then understand and then question people's positions. It is good to pay at least those basic respects when trying to have a sensible debate.

[Ibelsd]

Blacks were told to vote against civil rights in church. They can be bigots too. Being black doesn't mean you can't be a bigot.

Also, we have forgotten to mention a big group of the most ardent anti gay bigots. Latent homosexuals themselves. Granted they seem to be right wing heros or preachers that get caught, but many of the meanest and loudest are just self hating gays. I guess if they can hate themselves so much it must not be hard to hate others.

Man, this is like discussing a topic with my nine year old. No one claimed blacks couldn't be bigots. JJ (and yourself) posited that those against marriage are right wingers. I was providing evidence that you are both wrong. But, I finally see the comparison between blacks and gays. Blacks who are liberal Democrats are Uncle Toms and gays who may not condone same-sex marriage are self-haters. lol. You guys are hilarious. Before I get taken literally here and you claim I conceded my argument, let's be perfectly clear... I am speaking tongue in cheek.

---------- Post added at 11:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 PM ----------

And I think I've been very respectful of individual religious beliefs. That I think they have no place in this discussion is the most I've said.


No, my claim is that it is a social conservative position and that politically, it is a right wing policy.


The quote stands since I believe all anti gay politicians and legislation comes from the right. Just because black people have voted for a position held by the right (and not the left wing politicians) it doesn't make them republicans.


It's not the claim I'm making though - you're ignoring I made the distinction between voters and politicians. The former fall into the social conservative group but the latter are the right wing politicians and their policies.



I don't think you really had much to contribute anyway other than showing you ignore explicitly laid out distinctions. It is always nice to see you rant at something, it shows passion. But as per usual, you are off the mark and ignoring where the policies are coming from and it's the details is typically careless of you which is why you always get angry so much. Read then understand and then question people's positions. It is good to pay at least those basic respects when trying to have a sensible debate.

Now, you are just pulling arguments out of your arse. Nowhere in this thread did you make a distinction between right wing voters and right wing politicians. You guys are just too funny.

[JimJones8934]

JJ (and yourself) posited that those against marriage are right wingers.

Yes, but who said exclusively right-wingers? You ignore the most important distinction that it is right-wing politics at play. And you ignore the explicit term social conservatives being used in this thread (and also by Talthas in his responses earlier). And you also ignore that religion has a huge role to play here too. So we have identified the voting group and the political group but you keep failing to make the distinction.

I know it may be hard to understand that people may have different and overlapping views hence your weird 'victory' lap that we seemed to have missed your prop-8 point, but the more substantive discussion is around the political choices: and the anti-gay choices are wholly on one side of the political aisle - the right wing politicians.

I know it feels nice to sometimes win an argument but you've proven nothing nor have you disputed the substantive point that it is a majority Republican political position to hold that marriage is between a man and a woman. You do know that GOProud founder has actually left the party for what he describes as 'a tolerance of bigotry'? So the point stands that anti-gay political policies are largely the remit of the right.

You have failed to counter this point and instead exaggerate a single vote to prove largely nothing that is already known - that Black people that are against gay marriage exist: shocking! Your apparent glee at scoring a point misses the larger, and more important picture at play, and is rather at odds with your original plea for a properly held debate.

Now that you've lost on the 'right-wingers are bigot' issue, your fallback position that the political right isn't responsible for probably all the anti-gay marriage positions is baffling. Next, you'll be saying that the Republican party has always supported gay marriage.

[Ibelsd]

Yes, but who said exclusively right-wingers? You ignore the most important distinction that it is right-wing politics at play. And you ignore the explicit term social conservatives being used in this thread (and also by Talthas in his responses earlier). And you also ignore that religion has a huge role to play here too. So we have identified the voting group and the political group but you keep failing to make the distinction.

I know it may be hard to understand that people may have different and overlapping views hence your weird 'victory' lap that we seemed to have missed your prop-8 point, but the more substantive discussion is around the political choices: and the anti-gay choices are wholly on one side of the political aisle - the right wing politicians.

I know it feels nice to sometimes win an argument but you've proven nothing nor have you disputed the substantive point that it is a majority Republican political position to hold that marriage is between a man and a woman. You do know that GOProud founder has actually left the party for what he describes as 'a tolerance of bigotry'? So the point stands that anti-gay political policies are largely the remit of the right.

You have failed to counter this point and instead exaggerate a single vote to prove largely nothing that is already known - that Black people that are against gay marriage exist: shocking! Your apparent glee at scoring a point misses the larger, and more important picture at play, and is rather at odds with your original plea for a properly held debate.

Now that you've lost on the 'right-wingers are bigot' issue, your fallback position that the political right isn't responsible for probably all the anti-gay marriage positions is baffling. Next, you'll be saying that the Republican party has always supported gay marriage.

I understand people are complex. I am not the one throwing around generalizations like bigot and right winger. That is the whole point I am making. Share and enjoy.

[JimJones8934]

I understand people are complex. I am not the one throwing around generalizations like bigot and right winger. That is the whole point I am making. Share and enjoy.

I'm not generalizing. Are you denying the fact that nearly all policies are solely from right wing politicians?

[Talthas]

I'm not generalizing. Are you denying the fact that nearly all policies are solely from right wing politicians?

I am.

Most of the bigoted policies in America come from the Liberal establishment. Hate crime and hate speech laws, Affirmative Action, policies regarding preferential grants and scholarships for minorities, and other policies that base their calculus upon racial or gender identity as a primary qualifying factor are all racist. These are all solely liberal policies.

[JimJones8934]

I am.

Most of the bigoted policies in America come from the Liberal establishment. Hate crime and hate speech laws, Affirmative Action, policies regarding preferential grants and scholarships for minorities, and other policies that base their calculus upon racial or gender identity as a primary qualifying factor are all racist. These are all solely liberal policies.

That may well be but we're not talking about racial or gender identity laws - we're talking about anti-gay marriage laws here. (You still have two more of my previous responses to follow up BTW).

[mican333]

Most of the bigoted policies in America come from the Liberal establishment. Hate crime and hate speech laws, Affirmative Action, policies regarding preferential grants and scholarships for minorities, and other policies that base their calculus upon racial or gender identity as a primary qualifying factor are all racist. These are all solely liberal policies.

But I wouldn't call them racist. Racism, as I understand it, has at its core the belief that one race is inherently superior to the other. If you think whites are inherently better than blacks, or vice versa, then you are a racist.

And it's by no means been proven that these "liberal" policies are based on that notion. As I understand it, Affirmative action's primary motivation is to help counter-balance some of the disadvantages that people of certain races experience in our culture, either due to past racism and/or current racism but it's not necessarily based on either race being superior to the other.

[CowboyX]

I am.

Most of the bigoted policies in America come from the Liberal establishment. Hate crime and hate speech laws, Affirmative Action, policies regarding preferential grants and scholarships for minorities, and other policies that base their calculus upon racial or gender identity as a primary qualifying factor are all racist. These are all solely liberal policies.

True, if you blatantly ignore the historic inequities all of those policies are based upon and are designed to prevent, discontinue, and/or rectify.

[JimJones8934]

True, if you blatantly ignore the historic inequities all of those policies are based upon and are designed to prevent, discontinue, and/or rectify.

Don't forget in right wing land, that Christian social conservatives believe their religious liberty is being infringed upon because they cannot deny gay partners visitation rights or marriage or cakes.

It's how we know we are winning the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans and certainly, increasingly, the young who have had the opportunity to see both sides of these arguments. It's little wonder the 'persecution' card is being played - it's all that is left.

[JimJones8934]

If there is still any confusion or disagreement about the linking of anti-gay policies with religious right-wing politicians:

Republican House Candidate Who Said Autism Was the Result of God’s Anger Over Gay Marriage Just Won Her Primary
Susanne Atanus, the 55-year-old Republican who told a local newspaper that God put autism and dementia on Earth as punishment for marriage equality and abortion, just won her primary for a seat in the House of representatives.

You're welcome.

[mican333]

Yes, you are.

No, I'm not. Here's the definition of "proper".

prop·er [prop-er]
adjective
1.
adapted or appropriate to the purpose or circumstances; fit; suitable: the proper time to plant strawberries.
2.
conforming to established standards of behavior or manners; correct or decorous: a very proper young man.
3.
fitting; right: It was only proper to bring a gift.
4.
strictly belonging or applicable: the proper place for a stove.
5.
belonging or pertaining exclusively or distinctly to a person, thing, or group.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proper

As far as I can tell, you are using definition 2 - primarily "conforming to established standards of behavior or manners" but then I don't know what standard you are referring to or your basis for determining that it is the appropriate standard.

I'm kind of getting the impression that you are more interested in annoying me than debating me so I'm not really expecting a good debate response (by choice) and instead some kind of personal comment and if your next post proves me wrong, I will apologize for my assumptions. And I guess I'm giving you some credit by even bothering to respond. So I guess I'll see what's to come.

[JimJones8934]

One more, this time from a gay GOP candidate who says that "Republicans are stuck in the 19th century on the issue":

In his speech at the Northeast Republican Leadership Conference in Nashua, N.H., on Saturday, Tisei said young voters and those who want smaller government should be drawn to the GOP.
"But they’re not. And do you know why? It's because we'll never be a 21st Century party if our platform is stuck in the 19th Century," Tisei said.
Tisei went on to argue that Republicans should be the party of gay rights. He suggested that the party's embrace of legislation to prevent gay marriage actually runs counter to its founding principles.

[cstamford]

No, I'm not. Here's the definition of "proper".

This is probably going to come as a shock to you, but I chose the word for a reason; and the reason was it's meaning. This entails that I know the definition of the word, which hardly singles me out as having an exceptional vocabulary. I'm confident every regular member of ODN is well aware of proper's definition.

I get warned for "not advancing the debate", and you get to open with this as a member of staff?

As far as I can tell, you are using definition 2 - primarily "conforming to established standards of behavior or manners" but then I don't know what standard you are referring to or your basis for determining that it is the appropriate standard.

I've made clear to you how I'm using the word. The context in which I used the word makes clear how I used the word. Do you need a map and compass? A translator? I'm not going to respond to your obtuseness, feigned or real, by pretending I need to clarify for you what "proper" means as I used it.

I'm kind of getting the impression that you are more interested in annoying me than debating me...

Then let me set you straight on that score. The correct impression is I'm no longer going to take you by the hand, as I've done entirely too often in the past, pretending your inability to comprehend extremely simple and clearly stated propositions that happen to be inconvenient for your personal biases, is real. And in this new paradigm I'm definitely not going to engage you over the definition of a word as simple as "proper"!!

You clearly want to have your debates with me in a sandbox. I'm requiring that you sit at the grownup's table if you want to debate me.

Prime evidence of what I'm no longer going to tolerate from you:

...so I'm not really expecting a good debate response (by choice) and instead some kind of personal comment and if your next post proves me wrong, I will apologize for my assumptions. And I guess I'm giving you some credit by even bothering to respond. So I guess I'll see what's to come.

None of the above blather does anything for our debate. It's just you rambling on, trying to make yourself feel better about you. I mean, do I really need to read that you "guess" you'll see "what's to come"? Is that information anyone needs? Doesn't everyone who isn't dead get to see "what's to come"?

Same with giving me credit by responding to me. Information you clearly think needs to be shared that everyone above the age of six already knows. And yet, here you are, saying it.

The credit I give you is my belief you're playing a game; that you're not actually as child-like as you make yourself out to be in our debates. I think you adopt this facade as an argumentative labor saving affectation. Therefore, my new goal with you is goading you into dropping the role playing.

[mican333]

I've made clear to you how I'm using the word. The context in which I used the word makes clear how I used the word. Do you need a map and compass? A translator? I'm not going to respond to your obtuseness, feigned or real, by pretending I need to clarify for you what "proper" means as I used it.

I know how you are using the word. What I don't know is how you are reaching the conclusion that it's not proper.

Let me put it this way - SUPPORT OR RETRACT that homosexual relationships are not proper.

[cstamford]

I know how you are using the word. What I don't know is how you are reaching the conclusion that it's not proper.

Let me put it this way - SUPPORT OR RETRACT that homosexual relationships are not proper.

In Post 111 the context, and therefore the meaning is clear. So I will do neither for you.

[mican333]

No that's not all, or even what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is no such thing as a biologically "proper" homosexual sexual relationship. That is not an opinion. It's a fact.

Support or retract.

If you feel required to use explicit sexual detail make your case, feel free to use letters to represent the relevant body parts (like "P" for Penis). I'm sure I'll understand what you mean if you do that.

[cstamford]

Support or retract.

Facts don't need support.

[mican333]

Facts don't need support.

But arguments do.

So SUPPORT OR RETRACT your argument that it's a fact that there is no such thing as a biologically "proper" homosexual sexual relationship.