Excerpts from Romney's speech about his religion - Page 19 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-09-2007, 12:12 AM   #271
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 10:09 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan
Now if the USSR banned homosexuality, much less gay marriage perhaps the reasons were totally secular but to use this as a platform to state the legitimacy of secular opposition is pretty hideous.

Now, you aren't endorsing that train of thought but you are propping up an argument based on it. Perhaps you could just admit that using the USSR as an example of what a legitimate secular viewpoint might look like, was a bad idea. You may not mean to say that but you are absolutely implying it.

Here is an idea, lets forget about communist governments that tried to squash freedoms and talk about democracies who actually want to extend all personal liberties to the individual.

So, we have the United States. We have opposition to basic freedoms to one particular group. Gay marriage. Yeah. the faggies, the last bastion of whipping post bigotry.
I ask you, what is the legitimate secular argument against it?
And when you can't come up with one, don't feel bad, neither can Mitt or anyone else.

This is the point where the wall of separation is supposed to stand up for basic freedoms extended out to everyone. If you don't believe they are equal, because of religous dogma or socialist tyranny, it hardly matters. You're painfully wrong.
Exactly.

The bottom line is this:

I don't know any secular who is against gay marriage.

I don't know anyone who is against gay marriage who isn't against it on anything other than religious grounds.
__________________

__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-09-2007, 12:15 AM   #272
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan


Homosexuality itself was considered illegal in the USSR.

The Soviet Union believed in sacrificing personal liberty for the collective good. They did not extend human rights to everyone and certainly weren't a model for a moral secular government.

Now if the USSR banned homosexuality, much less gay marriage perhaps the reasons were totally secular but to use this as a platform to state the legitimacy of secular opposition is pretty hideous.

Now, you aren't endorsing that train of thought but you are propping up an argument based on it. Perhaps you could just admit that using the USSR as an example of what a legitimate secular viewpoint might look like, was a bad idea. You may not mean to say that but you are absolutely implying it.

Here is an idea, lets forget about communist governments that tried to squash freedoms and talk about democracies who actually want to extend all personal liberties to the individual.

So, we have the United States. We have opposition to basic freedoms to one particular group. Gay marriage. Yeah. the "fags", the last bastion of whipping post bigotry.
I ask you, what is the legitimate secular argument against it?
And when you can't come up with one, don't feel bad, neither can Mitt or anyone else.

This is the point where the wall of separation is supposed to stand up for basic freedoms extended out to everyone. If you don't believe they are equal, because of religous dogma or socialist tyranny, it hardly matters. You're painfully wrong.
Someone claimed that opposition to gay marriage could only come from a religious point of view. All I did was point out that was not true, with the example of the USSR and you confirmed that.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-09-2007, 12:16 AM   #273
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26


Exactly.

The bottom line is this:

I don't know any secular who is against gay marriage.

I don't know anyone who is against gay marriage who isn't against it on anything other than religious grounds.
Well, then how would explain opposition to it in the USSR?
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-09-2007, 12:18 AM   #274
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 09:09 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
Not any different than what your doing from the other end of the table.
What am I (or what are those who agree with me) doing ?

Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
Again, it does not mean he believes non-religious people are not Americans.
No. But he doesn't seem to think their views on keeping religion and politics separate are worth noting.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 12-09-2007, 12:20 AM   #275
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 10:09 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
Well, then how would explain opposition to it in the USSR?


You're missing the point entirely.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-09-2007, 12:56 AM   #276
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 09:09 PM
By the way, best thread in weeks and weeks.

Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


Someone claimed that opposition to gay marriage could only come from a religious point of view. All I did was point out that was not true, with the example of the USSR and you confirmed that.
I know Strongbow, my point was that you are implying that this is a legitimate viewpoint or argument.

Not "legitimate" in that you endorse it, "legitimate" as in, "hey, they were secular and they thought XYZ so clearly there is an argument to be made" It's like saying the moon doesn't cause tides because it's made of spare ribs. It's an argument, sure. How legitimate is it? It's not.

The original poster (who said opposition to gay marriage was faith-based) probably thought it was implied that we are having a discussion about legit points of view.

To answer your second question: "Well, then how would explain opposition to it in the USSR?" I think they thought that homosexuals were basically subhuman. That's not the kind of secular arguments we should be talking about. That's all I wanted to say.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 12-09-2007, 12:58 AM   #277
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 10:09 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan
Not "legitimate" in that you endorse it, "legitimate" as in, "hey, they were secular and they thought XYZ so clearly there is an argument to be made" It's like saying the moon doesn't cause tides because it's made of spare ribs. It's an argument, sure. How legitimate is it? It's not.

The original poster probably thought it was implied, that we are having a discussion about legit points of view. You found one example, possible there are others. Find one that is legit and I think it's easier to say that there is a standard for secular opposition to gay marriage.

To answer your second question: "Well, then how would explain opposition to it in the USSR?" I think they thought that homosexuals were basically subhuman. That's not the kind of secular arguments we should be talking about. That's all I wanted to say.
Yes, I did assume it was implied that I meant legitimate arguments.

Everything you said here pretty much sums up my thoughts.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-09-2007, 01:09 AM   #278
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 09:09 PM


Wow, I don't know if we've ever had anyone talk AROUND the subject this much ever.

Strongbow, I don't even know if you have a true stance about anything in this discussion.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-09-2007, 03:09 AM   #279
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan
By the way, best thread in weeks and weeks.



I know Strongbow, my point was that you are implying that this is a legitimate viewpoint or argument.

Not "legitimate" in that you endorse it, "legitimate" as in, "hey, they were secular and they thought XYZ so clearly there is an argument to be made" It's like saying the moon doesn't cause tides because it's made of spare ribs. It's an argument, sure. How legitimate is it? It's not.

The original poster (who said opposition to gay marriage was faith-based) probably thought it was implied that we are having a discussion about legit points of view.

To answer your second question: "Well, then how would explain opposition to it in the USSR?" I think they thought that homosexuals were basically subhuman. That's not the kind of secular arguments we should be talking about. That's all I wanted to say.
No, all I was saying was that opposition to gay marriage was not something that only came out of religion. I have no idea what a secular arguement against gay marriage would be, but the Soviets obviously had one.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-09-2007, 03:12 AM   #280
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26




You're missing the point entirely.
You said the following:

Quote:
I don't know anyone who is against gay marriage who isn't against it on anything other than religious grounds.
Since the Soviets did not have any religion, what grounds did they oppose gay marriage on?
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-09-2007, 03:16 AM   #281
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Wow, I don't know if we've ever had anyone talk AROUND the subject this much ever.

Strongbow, I don't even know if you have a true stance about anything in this discussion.
hmmmm......Its ok, have a good time, try a pint of snakebite.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-09-2007, 03:19 AM   #282
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 10:09 PM
What Strongbow needs is Financeguy. (Isn't he atheist but opposed to gay marriage or does my memory fail me?)

I think it's needlessly simplistic to insist that only religious people could possibly be opposed to gay marriage. There are "secular" people who are opposed to gay marriage; secular people "opposed" to homosexuality. The reasons they have? Pretty weak I'd guess (and probably appealing to a vague sense of what's "traditional" and "normal.") But the root for their stance is the same as the root for religious folks' opposition--good old fashioned prejudice. It's clumsy and ugly but at bottom for all opponents of gay marriage is this unpleasant "argument": "It's just WEIRD"

As for Romney, I don't think he "truly" hates secular people anymore than I think he's "truly" an evangelical at heart. (If he has any real beliefs at all--which I wonder about sometimes--it's that the evangelicals are all wrong and would be better off as Mormons). His speech was POLITICAL! He was wooing a particular group of people, trying to make them feel comfortable with him and willing to say whatever he needed to say to reach that end.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 12-09-2007, 03:40 AM   #283
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 09:09 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


No, all I was saying was that opposition to gay marriage was not something that only came out of religion. I have no idea what a secular arguement against gay marriage would be, but the Soviets obviously had one.
You do realize their system failed? Right? So there were issues with their system. The fact that you bring it up is astonishing...

All societies thought that minorities were somehow inferior at once(religious or secular). Be it left handed people, dwarfs, etc...

But we are talking about the year 2007 and we are talking about a democracy. Show me one, just one secular argument in todays time that isn't religious that says gay marriage is worthy of a ban... Just one. I dare you!!!
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-09-2007, 03:51 AM   #284
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


You do realize their system failed? Right? So there were issues with their system. The fact that you bring it up is astonishing...

All societies thought that minorities were somehow inferior at once(religious or secular). Be it left handed people, dwarfs, etc...

But we are talking about the year 2007 and we are talking about a democracy. Show me one, just one secular argument in todays time that isn't religious that says gay marriage is worthy of a ban... Just one. I dare you!!!
I can't show any arguement, securlar, religious, alien, drunk, etc. against gay marriage. All I was saying was that opposition to gay marriage could come from something other than religion. It has nothing to do with democracy or systems of government or what year it is.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-09-2007, 03:51 AM   #285
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 09:09 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
What Strongbow needs is Financeguy. (Isn't he atheist but opposed to gay marriage or does my memory fail me?)
I can't remember this person's paticular stance, but yes there have been athiest that have been opposed, but it always came down to status quo and bigotry. I have never seen one logical athiest view on the ban.

Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean

I think it's needlessly simplistic to insist that only religious people could possibly be opposed to gay marriage. There are "secular" people who are opposed to gay marriage; secular people "opposed" to homosexuality. The reasons they have? Pretty weak I'd guess (and probably appealing to a vague sense of what's "traditional" and "normal.") But the root for their stance is the same as the root for religious folks' opposition--good old fashioned prejudice. It's clumsy and ugly but at bottom for all opponents of gay marriage is this unpleasant "argument": "It's just WEIRD"
But the overall point being made in this thread, is not whether there are non-religious arguments being made for the issue, it's what points are CONSTITUTIONAL!!! This is something many in this thread don't get.


Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean

As for Romney, I don't think he "truly" hates secular people anymore than I think he's "truly" an evangelical at heart. (If he has any real beliefs at all--which I wonder about sometimes--it's that the evangelicals are all wrong and would be better off as Mormons). His speech was POLITICAL! He was wooing a particular group of people, trying to make them feel comfortable with him and willing to say whatever he needed to say to reach that end.
Well I agree and disagree to a point. I think this speech was to prove to the religious right that he was CC as anyone else. That's all, he was trying to prove that a Mormon could be like Bush.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com