Originally Posted By scottie DouglasDubh- Do you believe someone chooses to be gay? Do you believe it is immoral to be gay? Do you have a close friend or family member that is gay or may be gay? I'm hoping your answers to these questions will help me better understand your point of view.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Do you believe someone chooses to be gay?> That would depend on how you define gay. I look at sexuality as a spectrum in two dimensions, not a digital switch. Some people are born with a strong heterosexual attraction, some with a strong homosexual attraction, some are asexual. Most are in between, but tend toward heterosexuality. What actions they take about their attractions, however, is a choice. <Do you believe it is immoral to be gay?> No, but I understand the feelings of those that do. <Do you have a close friend or family member that is gay or may be gay?> Not that I know of.
Originally Posted By ecdc "I didn't ignore it. I labeled it as wishful thinking. You have no idea if any southern states would have voted to overturn segregation." Talk about wishful thinking. Yes, we do know that, Doug. It's not a coincidence that blacks were systematically denied their rights and that whites overwhelmingly supported this in the south. Whites supported housing discrimination because it meant they wouldn't have to live next to a black person. Do you know why Rosa Parks was told to move, Doug? It wasn't because there was no place for the white man to sit. It was because he would've had to sit next to her. There were seats on the bus, but Alabama's segregation law made it illegal for a black person to sit next to a white person. Whites supported this. But you'd have us believe they'd vote otherwise. I eagerly await your "Nuh uh" response. BTW, It'd be nice for you to actually respond to Dabob2 instead of just saying that you won't because he'll change the subject. It's the mating call of the defeated, Doug. He called you on your claim, it's time to pony up or admit you were as wrong as you really were.
Originally Posted By scottie <<What actions they take about their attractions, however, is a choice.>> I agree that we choose how we act on our attractions. But if we ban privledges from certain people, I think we're taking away the freedom to make that choice. <<No, but I understand the feelings of those that do.>> Me too, since I used to feel the same way. << <Do you have a close friend or family member that is gay or may be gay?> Not that I know of. >> Do you think maybe if you did you would have a different opinion? Thanks for responding to my questions.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>If we're talking about changing laws that could drastically affect society, we need to have some idea.<< That's not the point. I gave you two scenarios -- two out of many, I might add -- and asked you which of the two was better for society, according to your paradigm.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>If we're talking about changing laws that could drastically affect society, we need to have some idea. << It's not changing the law - it's applying it equally to all citizens.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Yes, we do know that, Doug.> No, we don't. You're extrapolating. <It'd be nice for you to actually respond to Dabob2 instead of just saying that you won't because he'll change the subject.> I didn't say he'd change the subject, I said he'd move the goalposts, which he did. I'll respond to everything Dabob posts as soon as he starts honestly responding to everything I post.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That's not the point. I gave you two scenarios -- two out of many, I might add -- and asked you which of the two was better for society, according to your paradigm.> Sure it's the point. When we looking at changing society's laws, we also need to look at how likely it is that either scenario occurs.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's not changing the law - it's applying it equally to all citizens.> So I assume you're in favor of a flat income tax?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>So I assume you're in favor of a flat income tax? << I would be, if all sources of income were treated equally. Earned wages should be taxed at the same rate as income from dividends, capital gains, or inheritance.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<dividends, capital gains, or inheritance.>> My God man, do you really expect the wealthy to have their income taxed at a rate just as high as us wage slaves? That will NEVER happen.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>Sure it's the point. When we looking at changing society's laws, we also need to look at how likely it is that either scenario occurs.<< Evade the question all you want, Douglas. You harp about how marriage exists to better society, and I gave you an an example of one that does and one that doesn't. The men in Scenario #2 are not able to formally and legally recognize their commitment to each other in the same manner a heterosexual couple does. A society can only be strengthened, not weakened, by allowing these guys to marry.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<BOY is that weak.>> <Erroneously characterizing my comments do not make them less valid.> Your only comment there was "wishful thinking is not an argument." Since I pointed out that my previous posts contained facts, and not wishful thinking, your statement was indeed weak, especially because you didn't respond to anything else therein. <<I challenged you to come up with some examples of significant blows against segregation coming at the polls... I don't think I'll hold my breath.>> <No, because we're both aware that if I found some, you'd just discount them by moving the goalposts.> Okay, you've reached a new low in basic discourse. I point out the fallacy of your argument, invite you to prove it by coming up with some examples... and then you refuse to because somehow you magically can predict what I WOULD do? (And then, later, responding to ecdc, you said I actually did). Neither is true, of course - that's your MO, not mine. And as attempted argument it's just unbelievably weak. So - again I challenge you - find some significant examples of segregation being ended by referendum at the polls. If you can, I'll acknowledge them. Face it, you overstated your case, you were simply wrong about segregation being dealt any major blows at the polls, and now you're trying to backtrack and distract. <<I pointed out that no southern state would have voted to end segregation at the polls - you ignore this because you know I'm right>> <I didn't ignore it. I labeled it as wishful thinking.> No, you labeled the latter part of my post as that. <You have no idea if any southern states would have voted to overturn segregation.> Of course we do. The polls at the time were clear on this. You're really grasping at straws here. <<and it makes my point that basic rights should not be up for popular vote.>> <But I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing that having the state recognize your marriage is not a basic right. I keep saying this, and you and several others keep ignoring this.> But you've already lost that argument. The Supreme Court made it very clear in Loving that it considers marriage to be a basic right. They say so in the decision. <<The numbers of people who used to oppose gay marriage but now support it completely DWARF the tiny numbers who once supported it and now oppose it.>> <Maybe,> Not maybe, definitely. <... but maybe it won't be that way in the future.> NOW who's wishful thinking? <<You're also proof-positive of my last point: we can't change everyone's heart.>> <You certainly can't by repeating the same erroneous arguments over and over.> Considering that millions of people who once opposed gay marriage now favor it, and very few people have moved the other way... I'd say that it is your erroneous arguments that are losing, no matter how many times you repeat them.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Since I pointed out that my previous posts contained facts, and not wishful thinking, your statement was indeed weak, especially because you didn't respond to anything else therein.> Erroneously characterizing my comments do not make them less valid. <Okay, you've reached a new low in basic discourse.> Hardly. <I point out the fallacy of your argument, invite you to prove it by coming up with some examples... and then you refuse to because somehow you magically can predict what I WOULD do?> I didn't magically predict what you would do, I saw it. First you implied that all segregation was overturned by the courts, and when I said that wasn't true, you started saying that the most significant blows against segregation were by the courts. You moved the goalposts. <Face it, you overstated your case, you were simply wrong about segregation being dealt any major blows at the polls, and now you're trying to backtrack and distract.> See, you're asking me to prove something I never claimed. <Of course we do. The polls at the time were clear on this.> No, they weren't. <The Supreme Court made it very clear in Loving that it considers marriage to be a basic right.> I've pointed out how the "right of marriage" that is discussed in the Loving decision is different than what you and other gay marriage advocates are talking about, but you've ignored those arguments. <NOW who's wishful thinking?> Still you. I don't claim to definitely know what the future holds. <Considering that millions of people who once opposed gay marriage now favor it, and very few people have moved the other way... I'd say that it is your erroneous arguments that are losing, no matter how many times you repeat them.> You may be right about fewer people opposing gay marriage, but it's not because my arguments are erroneous. The fact remains that when it's put to the vote, gay marriage still loses. Gay marriage advocates might do better if they argued with facts, rather than with emotion.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Gay marriage advocates might do better if they argued with facts, rather than with emotion." I'd suggest that's you to a "T". I've asked you and any number of people to cite me to some legal authority that backs up your position and you never have. You just re-framing the argument by asking if it benefits society. Somebody around here even asked you if you thought being gay was a choice but you neglected to answer that question. Here are my cites- The 14th Amendment, Section 1.- States can't enact laws that restrict rights already granted by the Consitution, they can only expand on them. Targeting a group of people, gays, makes them a "suspect class". One group cannot be singled out for the denial of rights. The right to marry a person of one's own choosing (Loving) is an inalienable right. It's called equal protection under the law. There is absolutely no caveat about that union benefitting society. Moreover, here's a dissent written by Justice John Harlan in 1896 in Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld the "separate but equal doctrine. "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law...In my opinion, the judgment this day rendered will, in time, prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott case...The present decision, it may well be apprehended, will not only stimulate aggressions, more or less brutal and irritating, upon the admitted rights of colored citizens, but will encourage the belief that it is possible, by means of state enactments, to defeat the beneficient purposes which the people of the United States had in view when they adopted the recent amendments of the Constitution." Substitute the word "gay" for "colored" in the above passage and you'd have exactly what is happening now. As we all know, it wasn't until 1964 in Brown v. the Board of Education that "separate but equal" was struck down. As applied to gay marriage, Brown stands for the premise that nothing short of marriage will suffice. "Civil unions" do not go far enough.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh If it's that cut and dry, STPH, why didn't advocates use a civil rights argument in the recent court case in Oregon? Why did they choose a much narrower argument, that the referendum was too broad? Could it be that it's quite likely a court will not buy the civil rights argument, thereby setting a precedenct?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Could it be that it's quite likely a court will not buy the civil rights argument, thereby setting a precedenct?<< Wishful thinking isn't an argument.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I'm not wishful thinking; I'm just asking a question. I admit I don't know the answer.
