Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19Rich.html?_r=5" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04...tml?_r=5</a> By now most of you have probably seen the unintentionally hilarious anti-gay ad from the "National Organization for Marriage." And if you haven't, go watch it, then go watch Stephen Colbert's ingenious parody. Frank Rich has a great column on the turning tide against anti-gay marriage advocates. As more Americans become fine with civil unions and equal rights, younger people are fine with gay marriage. It's only a matter of time.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Unless, of course, those young people get a little older, have children, and change their minds. It happens, you know.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It hasn't happened with this issue to date. Each generation (and even sub-generation) has proven more in favor than the one before. In fact, what's more likely is that this generation of kids growing up with the idea that gay marriage is a fine idea for gay people will pass this idea on to THEIR kids. The tipping point generation, if you will, is people who today are, say, 30-65. They're the ones where you've seen literally millions of people who used to disfavor gay marriage now favor it, but very few going the other way. It's similar to integration/ending Jim Crow in the 60's; you had millions of people who once opposed it change their minds to favor it, while you had very few who ever opposed segregation turn around and later become segregationists. Sure, you could probably find a few anecdotal examples, but the trend couldn't have been clearer. And then you had a whole generation of kids who grew up with an attitude of black/white equality who passed that attitude on to their kids. The people who really believed that white people were superior died out. That's what's happening here. Sorry, Doug, but it is.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YGe8DwBs-s&feature=related" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...=related</a>
Originally Posted By Chris in Atlanta >>>That's what's happening here. Sorry, Doug, but it is.<<< Uh huh. Well your example Mr X, equates racial discrimination with Gay discrimination. As much as we all want them both to get the same attention and action, they just don't, not even by President Obama. I'd say there is quite a ways to go yet, as the vote in CA proved. As for me, I don't mind if gays marry. But I think it's a bit more uphill than you claim.
Originally Posted By Mr X I have no doubt it's an uphill battle, frankly gay discrimination is sort of the "last bastion" for the bigoted at heart largely due to heavy support from big religion. But let's not forget that Presidents and citizens in the past used to be a lot softer on racial bigotry (even the more tolerant ones) in the past compared to recently. We'll get there. And once that happens, it'll be an even bigger uphill climb to get the rest of the world onboard (gay intimacy is still a crime punishable by death in some countries today, isn't that unbelievable?).
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <We'll get there.> Maybe, maybe not. And even if you do, it might not be for the best.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Well your example Mr X*** By the way, that was Dabob's example, not mine.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***And even if you do, it might not be for the best.*** Equal rights is always for the best, Doug.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Equal rights is always for the best, Doug.> So you agree that everyone should pay the same percentage of income tax, right?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***So you agree that everyone should pay the same percentage of income tax, right?*** If that were also applied to capital gains and contained no other "I'm too rich to pay" loopholes, and also made reasonable allowances for the truly destitute (in other words, if a family makes only $100 per month and the tax rate was 35% for all, no I don't think it would be reasonable to take away $35 from them and leave them to starve), then yes..I wouldn't have a problem with a Steve Forbes style flat tax. It'll never happen though. The super rich enjoy paying a lower percentage way too much (just ask Warren Buffet..one of the few who will honestly discuss the unequal reality of the thing).
Originally Posted By Chris in Atlanta Doh! Doug! Another solid doulbe with post 10! What's gotten into you Doug? Way to step up to the plate.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Elton John, gay man, does not believe gay folks should be able to "marry" but he does believe they should be able to join in civil unions. I have gay friends who feel the same way. I feel similarly so I guess Elton and I are bigots.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <if a family makes only $100 per month and the tax rate was 35% for all, no I don't think it would be reasonable to take away $35 from them and leave them to starve> So in other words, you're sometimes okay with people receiving unequal treatment under the law.
Originally Posted By Mr X Interesting that you skipped quoting the beginning of my statement, which was "reasonable allowances for the truly destitute". But I'm not surprised you are trying to make an issue out of me basically agreeing with you. That's what you do.
Originally Posted By Mr X Even though I COULD argue that your response to my "equal rights is always for the best" comment is ridiculous. Equal rights could be looked at, in this context, as not so much "equivalent percentage" but rather "equality of burden". In which case, your argument would be shot to hell. But I didn't go there, did I? I actually tried to accommodate your ridiculous assertion. That was my mistake. I'll do better in the future.
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo >>>Elton and I are bigots.<<< Elton John being the concert that my wife and I never miss, and sometimes he's on more than once a year here in the ATL, and he being our favorite artist of all time (collectively speaking)... I can say that this quote pasted above is something that goes in the category as a phrase that I thought I would never ever hear.
Originally Posted By Mr X Obviously now you're going to bring up such silly non sequiturs as "oh, so you think a blind person has an equal right to drive a motor vehicle", "a polygamist has the right to marry his billy goat", or something similarly hyperbolic argument, so I'm just going to leave this conversation now. You're right Doug. Equal rights is a stupid thing to strive for, since it's impossible under every hypothetical permutation.
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo >>>"equality of burden". In which case, your argument would be shot to hell.<<< Atually the only thing that "shoots to hell" is your purpose for even saying it. Equality of burden...just what is that? Where were the vast majority of the people that Acorn bussed in to vote, when I was borrowing money, and working my way through college? No one paid for me to go, but me. It was my burden, which they didn't share. I think I'll stop right there with you X. The list begins to get really one sided discussing equality of burden as we continue recounting the time line. But suffice to say, when discussing "equality of burden, let's NOT limit that to TAX burden."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Equal rights is a stupid thing to strive for, since it's impossible under every hypothetical permutation.> That's not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that we need to be careful of what we call rights, or we will find we can't apply them equally without negative consequences. Before we apply them to recognition of same-sex marriage, we need to make sure that is truly what is best for society. So far that has not been done.
