The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

I was originally adressing GeorgeOb1.

I think that you and I have made our differences clear on this thread, Bill, so I don't want to snipe back and forth...

I'm going to keep bringing this up every time someone changes the subject until it is answered.

Hi BPB!

That is an asinine position to take. Why not get your off topic question answered on it's own thread, before insisting this one play along with your attempt at hijacking?

Dude, good to see you back... was it the Avatar?... Don't answer if you're not supposed to. :razz:

Howard Stern isn't the only one who can get mileage out of the term. :wink:

Quote:

That is an asinine position to take. Why not get your off topic question answered on it's own thread, before insisting this one play along with your attempt at hijacking?

Because this question is the absolute cornerstone of this whole freaking discussion. I still can't get a straight (heh, heh) answer out of anyone.

Your failure to realize the fact that people's intolerance of gays (and especially Republicans' intolerance) is the true reason this is an issue at all sort of disqualifies you from making accurate judgements about it; you're so far off-base that we can't have substantive discussion.

I could care less if you think it's off-topic.

Though my otherquestion still stands for you; you've posted something like 5 times as much in this thread as any other over the last week.


Is this a personal issue for you, or what?

Cycloptichorn

blatham wrote:

Poor taste versus virulent activist homophobia.

You guys certainly are focused on the important stuff here.

Take notice of the thread's title and see if you can figure out why it keeps going back there.

And btw, your "two wrongs must make a right" argument is as weak now as it was earlier... but still better than that denial you were suffering with. :wink:


Care to quote us some of that homophobia PDiddie?

blatham wrote:

Poor taste versus virulent activist homophobia.

Where is the "virulent activist homophobia"?? Do you believe that opposing gay marriage constitutes virulent activist homophobia? I can think of several reasons on which to oppose it, which do not involve systematic dislike or fear of homosexuals. Accepting the equal value of all individuals does not itself constitute a sufficient argument for gay marriage - though evidently the Supreme Court of Mass. thinks so.

Does opposing gay marriage constitute virulent activist homophobia? Yes, of course it does.

And what agenda is construed? My agenda is forwarding of the principles of equality and fairness and inclusion. What other agenda do you think is going on here fox?

For those who wish to make this a debate about "gay marriage" -

Marriage is a contract entered into by two people, almost always male and female, in which they commit to certain mutual restrictions on their sexual relations and to provide mutual support and usually responsibility for the children that might be the result of their union. Historically the contract was between the parties and sanctioned by tribe, or church or community. Or by no one at all, other than the two individuals, as was the case in much of early America. In five provinces here in Canada, homosexual marriages are validated by the state as being precisely equal to heterosexual marriage. Sure, but there is the matter of adoption, or of heterosexual marriages where no children are planned.

There has, over the last few decades been a substantial erosion of the quality and quantity of these benefits - crime is more ubiquitous false, crime statistics are down almost universally and the freedoms parents can safely grant their children much less; the quality of primary and secondary education in most communities is much less than what? how measured? and, given the increased central control of the process by unions and government, what period of time are you speaking of here? you've had universal education there for how long now? educational standards two hundred years ago were very poor - see Hofstadter there is less that local communities can do about it; the intrusiveness and increased vulgarization of the media makes it much more difficult for parents to limit or control the influences bombarding their children; yes, that happens when communities get larger, more complex, more diverse finally our contemporary economic system makes it necessary for both parents in almost all families to seek employment, denying them much of the time once spent on the rearing of children. true - hello consumer culture
We all grew up in an era of continued concern about overpopulation and its effects. The fact is a demographic shift of enormous impact has occurred over the last few decades. Female fertility in the developed world has fallen to levels about 25% below what is required for equilibrium. In most of the developing world it is also falling fast, and in most cases it is also below the equilibrium level (including China, where fertility is about the same as the UK). The bottom line is that the current prediction of demographers is that the earth's population will peak in just a few decades and enter a fairly steep decline after that. It is just as erroneous to rely on this long-term forecast as it was to rely on the old ones (remember Earlich's "Population Bomb"?). However it is worth noting that some assumptions often implicit in our thinking are becoming false, and we must adjust our conclusions accordingly. But how does this relate? Are you suggesting homosexuality is a threat to the continuance of the race? Human depopulation from accepting homos as equals is rather less likely a danger than environmental issues

So how does this apply to the question at hand? "Gay marriage" is OK by me as long as the manner in which it is carried out does not further dilute the already badly eroded structure that sustains parents and their children. That homosexuality diultes marriage is not an empirical claim, it is a supposition with no basis in fact. Further I don't want to see any compulsory indoctrination of the population about the right or wrong in these behaviors and lifestyles. Non-judgmental tolerance is fine by me as long as government is not brought in to the indoctrination of the public (on either side) with respect to what is still an open social and scientific question. Indoctrination does not have to be compulsory, and very often isn't. I was not told by my parents or by my school when I was a child that homos were perverse and unnatural. These are cultural biases that we assimilate and don't question until some event or idea propels such reflection. Of course, the government has a role in protecting those who are the target of injustices and bias, just as they had in ensuring that African Americans could sit anywhere on the bus they wished. The possibility that gay marriage MIGHT have some measureable negative consequence is, of course, no justification for disallowing equality, just as it wasn't a valid justification for disallowing interracial marriage.