Obama '08?

@okie,

okie, What exactly are those "unintended consequences?"

@cicerone imposter,

I just told you. But maybe you can't figure it out?

In any case, as I said, I think this debate is better left to some other thread and I would rather agree to disagree for now, if you are capable of doing that.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I will mention one problem with your scenario. Once the militant gay community has its way, discrimination against gay marriage can become a crime.

No. This is false. The state is the only one being asked to perform marriages. Private entities like churches can continue to deny gay couples wedding ceremonies.

Beyond that, your ability to express yourself is protected, not your ability to discriminate. What possible crime are you talking about?

okie wrote:

That would be fine except for the fact that many people, and most traditional Christians, and perhaps Jews and Muslims as well, I don't know about that, believe it is wrong, thus forcing anyone to accept this behavior as a civil right is at cross purposes to religious freedom. Do you understand that?

They aren't forced to accept it. They (you) will still have the right to consider homosexuals as being inferior to them (you) and the right to express it in public.

The defamation of character, and moral subjugation can continue as normal.

okie wrote:

Most people, including myself, are not going to care much about what two people do in private and the way they act. However, they have no right to force me to accept that behavior as normal and force me to put my stamp of approval upon it, because I don't believe it is.

You aren't being forced to do anything. Stamp of approval? You're nobody. I'm sure gay couples would let you put the stamp of disapproval right on their left ring finger next to their wedding band.

Hell, I bet they'd even write it into their wedding vows.

"...I do take this man to be my lawfully wedded husband, before our families, our friends, our god, and sadly without Okie's approval..."

okie wrote:

I happen to think I have rights too.

You think you have more rights than you do, and you think others have less rights than they actually do.

Your rights are in now way threatened or challenged by gays marrying.

okie wrote:

I don't want to fight over it, but I just don't want it rammed down my throat. Not as a civil right.

You're such a drama queen Okie. What exactly is being rammed down your throat?

As for what is or is not a civil right, it is. You however seem to know that it's not popular to speak against them. It's just easier for you to deny that it is a civil right than to defend what you believe. Juxtaposed with your rant about not being politically correct, it's irony so thick we could all choke.

okie wrote:

And I believe it is an insult to other legitimate civil rights to push this issue as a civil right.

You don't get to decide what is legitimate okie. How is it not a civil rights issue? The violence towards gays alone qualifies it. Perhaps the mentality of the opposition is more telling of the qualification though: fearful, and insecure.

Majority oppression of a gays hurts all civil rights efforts because it reinforces the idea that minorities of any type must earn the approval of the majority to have their rights.

okie wrote:

Once that should occur, there will be all kinds of unintended consequences, more than we have now, concerning hiring laws, school curriculum, religious freedom, etc.

Hiring laws? Gays with jobs? Can't have that.

School curriculum? Gays exist? They get married? Knowledge like this is learned no matter what. I guess you just want to be the first one there to make sure the kids don't get confused into thinking that they are people too.

Religious freedom? You'll still have the right to curse them, hex them, speak in tongue at them. You'll be able to ra ra ra the crowd at church and speak poetically about lakes of fire. You're right to express condemnation to gays will continue. I mean, what is it that you can do now, that you won't be able to do if gays can marry? What RIGHT do gay-condemning churches loose?

Because I've seen the Westborough Baptist Church, and they are as extreme as they come. What one thing, will change with their rights?

okie wrote:

What seems like granting rights will in fact lead to the curtailment of rights for many people, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and so on.

False on all accounts. Granting gays equal rights enhances every one of these.

okie wrote:

I realize the libs will jump all over me here, and I am not politically correct. I don't care. I am not here to be politically correct, I am here to express my honest and valid opinion.

It's not that you're politically incorrect. It's that, you're just not correct. I have no hope or desire for that matter for you to be politically correct, just intellectually honest. Your conclusions about civil rights, gays, and what the legal implications are based on false premises. That is why your opinion is neither honest nor valid.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

It's cool man; you're just a one trick pony. No biggie.

Why are you never on the threads where I post about animals or music or substance abuse recovery or...?

If I post something about race on a thread about Obama it will be relevant because Obama has something to do with race, you abysmmal idiot.

I certainly would treasure the opportunity to explain this very clearly to you face-to-face, in which case I am certain you would be ever so much more friendly.

1 Reply

@snood,

Are you threatenng me snood? With actual physical bodily harm? On an Internet message board? LOL!

1 Reply

Chia Obama Handmade Decorative Planter, Happy Pose (Amazon)

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/5135/featuredproductimagelg.png

Citing Racism, Walgreens Pulls 'Chia Obama' (WIRED)

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche, Snood has made no physical threat, but you interpret it as if it does. That's what you conservatives do well; you use fear that doesn't exist to drive your agenda.

Do you guys look under your bed before you go to sleep every night? LOL

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

You don't get to decide what is legitimate okie. How is it not a civil rights issue?
T
K
O

Nor do you get to decide legitimacy. Second question, I don't think behaviors should be instituted as a civil right.

Look, I have no interest in running around noticing what people are doing, nor do I hate anyone, not even you, Diest, but I do have an interest in what my tax dollars are doing, such as paying teachers what to teach, just one example. I just do not believe gay marriage rises to the level of deserving legitimacy. I realize the world is slippery sloping into all kinds of things, and I am probably on the losing side for a time, I accept that, but nevertheless I have a right to my opinion, okay. Get over it. You cannot force every person to agree with you, Diest, although you may want to. But your rights end at the tip of my nose, and laws legitimizing behaviors are part of the tip of my nose, okay. If society goes another way, then it will have to happen, and I will not cause you any trouble, or march in the streets as the malcontents do, that is not my style.

But I am just telling you it won't be good for society as a whole. You probably call it enlightenment. I call it cloudy days ahead.

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Nor do you get to decide legitimacy.

You know who does get to decide? The courts. And they are consistently deciding the same way: that it IS a civil rights issue.

The thing about gay rights, is that they don't affect your nose at all. They don't affect you at all. It has nothing to do with you whatsoever. But you wish to limit them, because the very thought of their equality gets your britches in a twist.

Laws legitimizing behaviors which don't affect you, are not the part of the tip of your nose.

Quote:

But I am just telling you it won't be good for society as a whole. You probably call it enlightenment. I call it cloudy days ahead.

You really have no clue what is and isn't good for society, and attitudes like yours were quite wrong in the past.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

You cannot force every person to agree with you, Diest, although you may want to. But your rights end at the tip of my nose, and laws legitimizing behaviors are part of the tip of my nose, okay.

I don't think legalizing gay marriage would force you to marry a man. I don't see where allowing people of the same sex to get married would take away any of your rights or freedoms.

I also don't think this has anything to do with forcing every person to agree with a certain position. Interracial marriage is legal, no matter whether everyone agrees with it.

So if you say that your rights are being curtailed, that the "tip of your nose" gets hurt by allowing same sex couples to get married, you'll have to point out which freedoms and rights you would lose.

This should be interesting.

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
You cannot force every person to agree with you, Diest, although you may want to. But your rights end at the tip of my nose, and laws legitimizing behaviors are part of the tip of my nose, okay.

I don't think legalizing gay marriage would force you to marry a man. I don't see where allowing people of the same sex to get married would take away any of your rights or freedoms.

It forces me to recognize those marriages as a civil right, thus it may affect all kinds of laws and practices in education, in the work place, and in government, just to name a few. But again, as I have said, this is my opinion that I think this is the wrong way to go, and I am looking at it as how it will affect the country in many different ways.

Quote:

I also don't think this has anything to do with forcing every person to agree with a certain position. Interracial marriage is legal, no matter whether everyone agrees with it.

Fine, but I think interracial marriage is fine, even a good thing, although in the older days it may have caused some cultural hardships for the people involved. I know of inter racial marriages, good ones, I am in favor, so your example is a poor one.

Quote:

So if you say that your rights are being curtailed, that the "tip of your nose" gets hurt by allowing same sex couples to get married, you'll have to point out which freedoms and rights you would lose.

This should be interesting.

As I have said, it may affect how our children are educated, it will probably affect how people are employed, the benefits that have to be given and paid for, and it may legitimize behaviors in school, in the workplace, and in churches. You do realize that once something is considered a civil right, not simply a behavior, you may not be able to discriminated against that behavior, even if your religious views and beliefs tell you otherwise.

Bottom line, I believe homosexual behavior is a behavior, plain and simple, and I do not believe it will be advantageous to elevate such to a civil right. Societies encourage many different kinds of behaviors, due to many reasons and motivations. After all, why have marriage at all, and why not have polygamy. I do not think you guys understand the ramifications here. But again, this is my opinion, and whatever society decides to do, it will happen, but that doesn't mean it will be wise or beneficial.

2 Replies

On the subject of Obama, when is he going to quit making a fool of himself all over the world, and quit saying stupid stuff? Just wondering if anyone else was wondering that?

2 Replies

@okie,

No, but I've often wondered about what you say which is without common sense or reality.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

On the subject of Obama, when is he going to quit making a fool of himself all over the world, and quit saying stupid stuff? Just wondering if anyone else was wondering that?

No, not wondering that. And I wonder what you think he's saying which is so stupid?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

okie from phanokie wrote:

Quote:

It forces me to recognize those marriages as a civil right, thus it may affect all kinds of laws and practices in education, in the work place, and in government, just to name a few. But again, as I have said, this is my opinion that I think this is the wrong way to go, and I am looking at it as how it will affect the country in many different ways.

"...forces me to recognize those marriages as a civil right..."
Is that what you do for all marriages that occur? How about those that are outside the US?

"...thus it may affect all kinds of laws and practices in education, in the work place, and in government..."
How so? Please explain this to us, and how it will affect you personally?

"...this is my opinion that I think this is the wrong way to go..."
Your opinions are usually bigoted and small-minded. What are your fears?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

You can't figure out the answer to all of that, ci. And you ask for so many explanations, but you are clueless about Obama's 10 year energy plan?
Actually, I am pretty weary of even talking to you at all.

1 Reply

@okie,

Don't like challenges? Quit making stupid, ignorant, assumptions.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

It forces me to recognize those marriages as a civil right,

Doesn't answer the question. How would forcing you to recognize those marriages as a civil right take away any of your rights or freedoms? Wouldn't you still be allowed to state "I don't recognize those marriages as a civil right", even if gay marriage would become possible? Wouldn't you still be allowed to believe whatever you wanted, even if gay marriage would become legal?

okie wrote:

thus it may affect all kinds of laws and practices in education, in the work place, and in government, just to name a few.

Care to point out a couple of those possible effects that would take away any of your rights or freedoms? Or are you just engaging in general fear-mongering?

Quote:

I also don't think this has anything to do with forcing every person to agree with a certain position. Interracial marriage is legal, no matter whether everyone agrees with it.

Fine, but I think interracial marriage is fine, even a good thing, although in the older days it may have caused some cultural hardships for the people involved. I know of inter racial marriages, good ones, I am in favor, so your example is a poor one.

okie wrote:

old europe wrote:
So if you say that your rights are being curtailed, that the "tip of your nose" gets hurt by allowing same sex couples to get married, you'll have to point out which freedoms and rights you would lose.

This should be interesting.

As I have said, it may affect how our children are educated, it will probably affect how people are employed, the benefits that have to be given and paid for, and it may legitimize behaviors in school, in the workplace, and in churches. You do realize that once something is considered a civil right, not simply a behavior, you may not be able to discriminated against that behavior, even if your religious views and beliefs tell you otherwise.

Why would you want to discriminate against someone for being homosexual?

Should you be allowed to discriminate against women, because your religious views and beliefs tell you women are worth less than men? Should you be allowed to discriminate against people with a different skin colour, because your religion tells you so?

Isn't mingling with people of a different race simply a behaviour, too? Should people have less rights if they choose to date somebody of a different race?

okie wrote:

Bottom line, I believe homosexual behavior is a behavior, plain and simple,

You may choose to believe that. However, if that is your sincere belief, you'll have to acknowledge that "interracial behaviour" is simply a behaviour, too. The exact same points you're making against same sex marriage - particularly if you see homosexuality only as a choice - are true for interracial relationships and marriages, too.

okie wrote:

and I do not believe it will be advantageous to elevate such to a civil right.

But you're denying a group of people certain rights, without being able to point out what negative consequences it would have to simply grant them a right that you and other people already enjoy.

You claimed that granting them this right would hurt the tip of your nose, but so far you've been unable to show how that would possibly happen.

okie wrote:

Societies encourage many different kinds of behaviors, due to many reasons and motivations. After all, why have marriage at all, and why not have polygamy.

Or, on the other hand, why not only outlaw gay marriage, but also interracial marriage?

okie wrote:

I do not think you guys understand the ramifications here.

Well, assuming you're talking about negative consequences, then you have so far completely failed to point them out.

1 Reply

okie, Read this:

Quote:

Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override
By DAVE GRAM, Associated Press Writer Dave Gram, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 30 mins ago

MONTPELIER, Vt. " Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage " and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.

The House recorded a dramatic 100-49 vote, the minimum needed, to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto. Its vote followed a much easier override vote in the Senate, which rebuffed the Republican governor with a vote of 23-5.

Vermont was the first state to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples and joins Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa in giving gays the right to marry. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.

How threatened do you feel?

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:

Meanwhile, PrezBO's popularity here in the states continues to slide down hill.
People are removing Obama stickers from their personal cars... this is a good sign.

I realize it is futile to ask for a reputable source for the claim of a slide in popularity.
Sadly, NIMH doesn't hang out on A2K much anymore. I look at Rasmussen, which does a daily poll.
One thing they do is take the % of people who STRONGLY APPROVE of President Obama's performance and subtract the % who STRONGLY DISAPPROVE. The result is an approval INDEX. Here is how that number goes since 1/21 in 2-week increments:
1/21: +28
2/1: +21
2/15: +11
3/1: +8
3/15: +6
4/1: +5
4/7: +8

They also report the more common APPROVE/DISAPPROVE % (ie going beyond just those folks who STRONGLY approve/disapprove). Those numbers:
1/21: 65%-30%
2/1: 63%-34%
2/15: 60%-39%
3/1: 58%-40%
3/15: 56%-43%
4/1: 56%-44%
4/7: 58%-41%

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know