the conservative case for same sex marriage

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is a strawman non-argument.

What you've effectively been advocating by your lack of argument is that the Left abandon centuries of established logic and reason necessary to formulate coherent debate, and to just let the Right make up whatever they want along the way that we must respect by some kind of ideological entitlement. That is, while the Left must produce objective data to back up their arguments, all the Right has to do is say anything at all and demand that it be taken as "Truth" without challenge; otherwise, of course, there's some sinister "leftist agenda" out there.

I'm very, very sorry, but it's logic, reason, and coherent argumentation that separates Western Civilization from arbitrary barbarism. There's no "leftist cabal" that's holding conservatism back; it's the incoherent babble coming from the mouths of conservatives themselves that's holding them back.
Western tradition and the First Amendment certainly guarantee that you can babble ad infinitum to your heart's content, but there is no way in hell I have to accept that nonsense.

If you want the "Conservative Worldview" to be legitimate, then--for the love of God--start making sense.

You realize the notion that marriage is between a male and a female, a bride and groom, a husband and wife... makes, and has for some time, perfect sense to a great many people.

Above you mention "logic, reason, and coherent argumentation." All certainly commendable attributes for intelligent thought but they can still lead one to the wrong conclusion without the one thing you didn't, and can't, mention.

Wisdom. It's what separates prudent change from radical change.

It occurs to me that the onus of debate falls on you to convince me that redefining marriage is a prudent rather than a radical change. Not on me to defend an institution that has been a pillar of Western civilization.
 
Wisdom. It's what separates prudent change from radical change. It occurs to me that the onus of debate falls on you to convince me that redefining marriage is a prudent rather than a radical change.

I would think that observing societies where gay marriage is legalized and has been so for a number of years would be helpful in getting you to see that the sky hasn't fallen in the meantime, that our straight couples are still bearing children, and that hetero marriage has been impacted in no discernible way.

But even this argument fails because we are told that it will take "two generations" or some such before we can make conclusions. So your gay citizens better sit back and chillax for 50+ years, maybe then we can revisit this. Of course then we'll be on to a different argument.
 
We have our cutesy one-liners and you have your "Racist, Sexist, Anti-Gay, Born-Again Bigot Go Away" chants.
Call it even.

You mean like the "Gay is the new black" argument for same-sex marriage which, as you know, is largely rejected by African-Americans.

A cutesy non-argument.

Next...

Tolerance doesn't mean checking one's beliefs at the door and condoning every practice, idea, trend, style
or new "right" that germinates in a free society. It does sometimes mean finding a compromise -- coexisting as it were. I have tried to do that.

An "appeal to tradition" logical fallacy.

Next...

And if cutesy one-liners is seen as bullying then what are you gonna call the Right when we are forced to unveil our Shock&awe/logic&reason/can't-be-disputed/final-word/checkmate/rip-your-heart-out-and-show-it-to-you/pickup-your-toys-and-go-home Conservative Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage?

And nonsense.

The entire summation of the right-wing case against gay rights.
 
Above you mention "logic, reason, and coherent argumentation." All certainly commendable attributes for intelligent thought but they can still lead one to the wrong conclusion without the one thing you didn't, and can't, mention.

Wisdom. It's what separates prudent change from radical change.

Wisdom. Indeed.

Over the past decade or so, divorce has gradually become more uncommon in the United States. Since 2003, however, the decline in divorce rates has been largely confined to states which have not passed a state constitutional ban on gay marriage. These states saw their divorce rates decrease by an average of 8 percent between 2003 and 2008. States which had passed a same-sex marriage ban as of January 1, 2008, however, saw their divorce rates rise by about 1 percent over the same period.

...

As is somewhat visually apparent, those states which have tended to take more liberal policies toward gay marriage have tended also to have larger declines in their divorce rates. In Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2004, the divorce rate has declined by 21 percent and is the lowest in the country by some margin. It is joined at the top of the list by Rhode Island and New Mexico, which do not perform same-sex marriages but idiosyncratically also have no statute or constitutional provision expressly forbidding them, as well as Maine, whose legislature approved same-sex marriage only to have it overturned (although not banned constitutionally) by its voters.

On the other hand, the seven states at the bottom of the chart all had constitutional prohibitions on same-sex marriage in place throughout 2008. The state which experienced the highest increase in its divorce rate over the period (Alaska, at 17.2 percent) also happens to be the first one to have altered its constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, in 1998.
 
And some of us are thinking about kids deprived of a mother or a father. *shrug*



so go bang on about gay adoption. we all know marriage has nothing to do with this. *shrug* (one that's just as smug)

i'd be happy for you to tell me about how my married lesbian friends who are trying to get pregnant are doing horrible societal harm by depriving their future child of a live-in biological father.
 
You realize the notion that marriage is between a male and a female, a bride and groom, a husband and wife... makes, and has for some time, perfect sense to a great many people.

"Perfect sense"--that is, a subjective emotion grounded in no factual, rational, nor observable evidence. That is, it made "perfect sense to a great many people" to put Jews in ghettos for centuries.

That's not how civil rights work.

Above you mention "logic, reason, and coherent argumentation." All certainly commendable attributes for intelligent thought but they can still lead one to the wrong conclusion without the one thing you didn't, and can't, mention.

Wisdom. It's what separates prudent change from radical change.

Again, "wisdom" as (in this circumstance) a subjective emotion grounded in no factual, rational, nor observable evidence. That is...

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Such "wisdom" rings hollow when it cannot withstand scrutiny.

It occurs to me that the onus of debate falls on you to convince me that redefining marriage is a prudent rather than a radical change. Not on me to defend an institution that has been a pillar of Western civilization.

It occurs to me that there have been numerous arguments made--including that by Theodore Olsen in the first post of this thread--as to why gays should be granted equality. And it equally occurs to me that not one single argument opponents have made in opposition to this notion has withstood scrutiny.

The best the Right can offer is an appeal to tradition and fear based on falsehoods. Can you see why anti-Semitism, racism, and misogyny all inevitably collapsed? Because none of this "traditional wisdom" that had made "perfect sense" to millennia of cultures could withstand the test of reason. And I do not know what the outcome of this specific challenge to Prop. 8 will be, as court cases of this nature can go one way or another, but the momentum of logic is in our favour.
 
3 weeks after gay marriage law, NH takes up repeal

CONCORD, N.H. -- Three weeks after the state legalized gay marriage, opponents on Wednesday asked a House committee to repeal the law.

Gay marriage opponents want the law repealed and also want to change the state constitution to ban the unions.

In recent weeks, opponents began a grass-roots effort to challenge the law indirectly by suggesting New Hampshire's 400 House members and 24 senators aren't representative of the people's wishes. They point out that in the 31 states where voters have had a say, gay marriage has been rejected.

I admit to being torn on this one. We have a representative democracy which means we don't vote directly on everything. If same-sex marriage is to become law this is the "legitimate" route in my opinion. Yet as the Democrats in D.C. are learning, you can't govern against the will of the people either.
 

PH2010012005143-300x300.jpg


I agree

and there is this man

SandersDaughter.jpg


GOP Mayor Sanders and gay daughter Lisa talk to reporters after mayor's Prop 8 trial appearance | San Diego Gay & Lesbian News
 
Prop 8 supporters please read

does this make you, perhaps reconsider your position?


Official Prop. 8 proponent claims same-sex marriage can harm children

William Tam testifies at the federal trial that he told voters in the 2008 campaign that a gay agenda includes legalizing sex with children.

By Maura Dolan
6:52 PM PST, January 21, 2010
Reporting from San Francisco


An official proponent of Proposition 8 testified at a federal trial Thursday that he was involved in disseminating claims that same-sex marriage could cause children to become gay and spark legalization of sex with children, incest and polygamy.

William Tam, one of five official proponents for the 2008 ballot initiative, also testified about his personal views toward same-sex marriage.

"It is very important that our children won't grow up to fantasize or think about, 'Should I marry Jane or John?' " testified Tam, a chemical engineer and evangelical Christian who lives in San Francisco.

As an official proponent, Tam was one of those who formally asked the state to pave the way for the measure's signature gathering. He also intervened in the federal challenge against Proposition 8 to defend the measure.

Just before trial started last week, Tam asked to be removed as a defendant, saying he feared for his and his family's safety. A ruling on his petition is pending.

Tam was asked Thursday about statements that the gay agenda includes legalizing sex with children.

"And that is what you told people to try to convince them to vote yes on Proposition 8, correct?" asked David Boies, a lawyer for two same-sex couples who are trying to overturn the measure on federal constitutional grounds.

"Yes," Tam replied.


Tam said he participated in weekly campaign conference calls run by the official campaign for grass-roots organizers. He said he also played a large role in the campaign to get the measure qualified for the ballot.

Under questioning by Boies, Tam said he was secretary of an anti-gay marriage website that carried a statement that homosexuals were 12 times more likely than heterosexuals to molest children. Tam said he agreed with the statement "based on different literature I have read." He was unable to recall where he read it.

He also testified that a flier for Proposition 8 predicted dire results if gays were given civil rights.

"If sexual orientation is characterized as a civil right, so would pedophilia, polygamy and incest," read the flier.

"That is what you were telling people to convince them to vote for Proposition 8, correct?" Boies asked.

"Yes," replied Tam.


A lawyer defending Proposition 8 tried to distance Tam from the campaign, eliciting statements from him that his words were not approved by the campaign and that he had no role in devising strategy.

Boies, on redirect, noted that Tam, a Chinese American, had described himself as a minority. Boies asked if he would be aggrieved if he were forbidden to marry the person he loved. Tam said yes.

In other testimony Thursday, a Stanford political scientist said gays were politically vulnerable, particularly at the ballot box.

Gary M. Segura, a Stanford professor of American political science, testified that voters have supported 70% of ballot measures to strip gays of rights during elections in the last 15 years.

He said there was no other group that has been so targeted by voters.

Segura also testified that FBI statistics showed hate crimes against gays and lesbians have held steady during the last five years and even rose in 2008. He cited opinion surveys that he said show that many people hold gays in low regard.

"Gays and lesbians lack the power necessary to protect themselves in the political system," Segura concluded.

In a lengthy cross-examination, a lawyer for Proposition 8 emphasized the gains gays have made, their support by Hollywood and the value of their endorsements in political races.
 
Just thought this was interesting, from a professional athlete and I was impressed


Solid backing by Saint

Fujita unafraid to support gay rights

By Adam Kilgore, Boston Globe Staff | February 3, 2010

MIAMI GARDENS, Fla. - When the request arrived in an e-mail last fall, Scott Fujita replied immediately and without reservation. A friend had asked him his opinion. He answered. That was how Fujita looked at it.

The swiftness and certitude of Fujita’s reply stunned Dave Zirin, the friend who sent the e-mail. Zirin had not made a typical request, not for an NFL linebacker. He was looking for a professional athlete to lend his name to the National Equality March, a rally in Washington for gay rights.

On Sunday, Fujita will reach the pinnacle of his football career, playing linebacker for the New Orleans Saints in the Super Bowl. Fujita describes it as “this small moment in time where you have a platform to do some good things.’’ Last fall, that included speaking out in support of gay rights, a rare step in a professional sporting culture that often turns social stances into landmines.

Fujita, who is married, the father of twin daughters, and straight, pushes against the rising trend in sports to remain mum on cultural and political touchstones. His boldness, shaped by his unusual upbringing, makes him an uncommon and effective advocate for what he believes in.

“People asked me a question and I gave my opinion,’’ Fujita said. “People say, ‘That’s so courageous of you.’ To me, it’s not that courageous to have an opinion, especially if you wholeheartedly think it’s the right thing. For me, standing up for equal rights is the right thing to do.’’

Fujita’s show of support for gay rights began in the fall with Zirin, a Sirius radio show host, sports correspondent for The Nation magazine, and author of edgeofsports.com, a website dedicated to the intersection of sports and politics.

Before reaching out to Fujita, Zirin had e-mailed several dozen professional athletes asking them to endorse the march. Each one, even players Zirin knew supported it, declined to publicly stand behind it. “They didn’t want to go near this,’’ Zirin said. “It was too third-rail.’’

In his support of gay rights, Zirin wanted to tap into the sports world, which he said is often regarded as “the last hamlet of homophobia.’’

Zirin believed that dissolving that stereotype could empower the campaign.

Zirin had befriended Fujita while working with him on a column, and Fujita struck him as a man unafraid to speak his mind. He hoped Fujita would help but assumed he at least would waffle. But there was the e-mailed response: “Absolutely.’’

Now Zirin worried. Didn’t Fujita want to at least discuss the implications of an endorsement? Fujita told Zirin they could talk if he wanted, but nothing would change his mind.

“The only pressure that Scott feels,’’ Zirin said, “is the pressure to be true to his conscience.’’

Fujita was adopted by a third-generation Japanese-American man named Rodney and a Caucasian woman named Helen. He feels he owes his life to them. In some states, there have been laws proposed that would allow only married couples to adopt. This deeply bothered Fujita; he interpreted the proposals as an attempt to block foster children from being adopted into loving homes.

“To me, the right to marry is a right that all men should have,’’ Fujita said. “To me, it’s more a human issue than just a gay/straight/political issue.’’

On Oct. 6, Fujita outlined his position in an interview by Zirin posted on the Huffington Post. The piece pinballed around the Internet days before an estimated 200,000 people attended the National Equality March.

Zirin believed Fujita’s public stance - along with a column posted in April on the Huffington Post by Ravens linebacker Brandon Ayanbadejo championing gay marriage - reached a swath of Americans who otherwise may have been unmoved.

“It’s important any time we have the ability to break free from stereotypes,’’ Zirin said. “You have to get your head around the idea that Scott is a bad-ass linebacker for the New Orleans Saints and that he speaks his mind in support of gay rights.’’

Football locker rooms are not generally considered hotbeds of progressive thought. But Fujita said players are “more tolerant than they get credit for. It’s not a big issue.’’

The absence of conflict owes partly to Fujita’s personality. He is one of the most respected leaders and well-liked people on the Saints.

“He’s flexible enough and he’s a good guy,’’ linebacker Scott Shanle said. “We all like when he brings out his opinions. Debates get started. You end up with two or three people in an argument, then you’ve got 10 to 20 people that are in an argument. It’s good just to get everyone together.’’

In 2006, Fujita left the Dallas Cowboys to play for the Saints. People asked him why. The Cowboys were a marquee NFL franchise. Devastation had engulfed New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Fujita chose New Orleans because he told himself, “This could be bigger than football.’’ Fujita wanted to help the ravaged city. He devotes time to adoption, breast cancer awareness (his mother is a two-time survivor), wetlands restoration, and other causes. This season, the Saints nominated him as their Walter Payton Man of the Year.

In 2007, Fujita started working with Covenant House, a shelter for homeless children aged 16 to 21 that also provides health clinics and various other services. Once every couple weeks, he drops off clothes and toys his 2-year-old daughters have outgrown. He visits with children and signs autographs in the cafeteria. Several of those kids have been failed by the foster care system.

“That is partly why Scott has taken us under his wing,’’ said Renee Blance, director of development at Covenant House. “I think he knows he could have been in their position if he had not been adopted by such a great family.’’

Fujita was born in 1979 to a teenaged mother who decided she did not have the means or the will to raise a son. She put him up for adoption, and Rodney and Helen Fujita adopted him when he was 6 months old. They ate rice with chopsticks and celebrated Japanese holidays. Fujita, who is white, embraced Japanese culture. From childhood, he considered himself Japanese.

“I have no Japanese blood in my body,’’ he said. “I have a Japanese heart.’’

In 1943, Nagao Fujita was fighting in Italy with the 442d Regimental Combat Team while his wife Lillie was living in an internment camp. While Nagao fought in World War II, Lillie gave birth to Rodney Fujita in the Arizona desert.

As he grew older, Scott Fujita asked his grandmother about her experience. Nagao died long ago, but Lillie is still alive, and Scott still speaks with her.

“I didn’t hear any sense of resentment at all in her voice,’’ Fujita said. “I never have. To be able to not just deal with it, but to become better from it, I always say, ‘What do I have to complain about?’ ’’

Fujita received a degree at Cal-Berkeley in political science and later earned a master’s in education. When he is done playing football, he plans on maintaining his platform. He wants to become a public school teacher, and he will still be a man who gives his opinion when he is asked.

“I know there’s a certain stigma that comes from being from Berkeley,’’ Fujita said. “And I’m proud of that stigma, to tell you the truth. I never claim to have all of the answers. I don’t know someone who does have all the answers. I just have opinions.’
 
Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell has reversed an executive order that protected gay state employees from discrimination, the Washington Post reported.

An executive order signed by McDonnell on February 5 includes protections for race, sex, religion and age, but not sexual orientation. It replaces orders by Virginia's last two Democratic governors which included protections for gay and lesbian workers.

McDonnell had criticized his predecessors for protecting gay workers in their similar executive orders. As attorney general, McDonnell said the inclusion exceeded the authority of the governor's office and that only the General Assembly could enact such anti-discrimination measures.

In a historic first, the Virginia Senate approved such a bill last week, but the measure faces a nearly insurmountable incline in the Republican-controlled House.

Upon taking office on January 16, McDonnell said the previous order signed by Democrat Tim Kaine remained in effect, with the exception of the portions on sexual orientation.

McDonnell spokeswoman Stacey Johnson said in a statement that the new order was necessary “to ensure compliance with state law.”

Johnson said the governor strongly opposes discrimination and pointed to a recent memo distributed to staffers that says the McDonnell administration prohibits discrimination “for any reason.”

“Hiring, promotion, discipline and termination of employees shall be based on qualifications, performance and results,” the memo says in part.
Purple State fading into Red.
 
Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell has reversed an executive order that protected gay state employees from discrimination, the Washington Post reported.

Oh yeah, but it's about the sanctity of marriage. Not bigotry or treating gays and lesbians like second class citizens AT ALL.

Shame on anyone who votes for this man in the future.
 
If a couple were in a UFO cult and worshipped an EBE, would their marriage still be considered legal?

If so, then marriage is a legal definition.

If not, then marriage is more/less religious definition.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom