Posted on 02/17/2004 12:33:46 PM PST by You Dirty Rats
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:39:00 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
SAN FRANCISCO
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Marriage has always been defined as one man, one woman. Perverting the meaning now is no better than perverting the meaning then.
But your analogy fails on many bases, not just the above.
Homosexuals, as a group, have never been enslaved, lynched, equated to 3/5 of a human being or denied rights based on the color of their skin.
Homosexuals can do what they want, they can even marry as long as the marriage fits the definition of marriage. What they should not be allowed to do is use judicial oligarchs to make law and elected executives to interpret law.
....NO PROBLEM the ACLU will be there for them!!!!!!
Yikes. It's even worse than I thought. I just don't get it. How can anyone in a responsible political position allow a mayor to assume dictatorial control of a city? Lockyer's and Ahnold's inaction is mind-boggling to me.
I had no strong feelings either way during the Recall Election . . . but I'm certainly disappointed now.
I was making an analogy, not a deductive argument. No analogy is exact, but the more apt an analogy is, the more persuasive power it has. You'll have to make up your own mind how good my analogy was, but it followed very closely the form and substance of Spunky's statements.
As far as Ku Klux Klan members and shoplifting go, the issue of shoplifting is not a core part of the KKK's identity or beliefs. It would be much more relevant to note that the KKK was against blacks being able to vote or ride in the front of a bus, and the KKK was especially against black men having sexual intercourse (even if consensual) with white women. The latter constituted a beating/hanging/burning offense.
If someone were to argue that gays or Jews or Chinese should not be able to vote or ride in the front of a bus or have consensual sexual intercourse with those outside their groups, and that to do so merited beating/hanging/burning, it would be perfectly proper to analogize those attitudes with the KKK's attitude towards blacks, and thereby denigrate those attitudes.
Of course that approach only works if such attitudes are intrinsic to the nature of the Ku Klux Klan, and if one abhors the Klu Klux Klan...
Millions of people thought the Bible did forbid cross-race marriages, and they wrote their religious views into law. That's the problem you run up against when government has the power to enforce one religious group's beliefs on the rest of society: It works great when your beliefs are ascendant, but not so great when those with objectionable beliefs gain control of the levers of power.
First, your statement is a tautology. Since the defining characteristic of "homosexuals, as a group" is not the color of their skin but rather their sexual orientation, of course they have not been oppressed "based on the color of their skin".
I presume that the point you were really trying to get at is that blacks as a group have suffered enormous oppression and harm, unlike homosexuals as a group. I think it's indisputable that blacks have suffered far more harm overall than homosexuals (mostly because it was easier to identify blacks). Still, there have been a significant number of killings of homosexuals because they were discovered to be homosexual, and in the past they have been denied rights and sometimes thrown in jail merely for being homosexual.
Discrimination against homosexuals shares many similarities in kind if not in degree with past discrimination against blacks. (Discrimination has declined drastically for both groups, but blacks have generally been about two or three decades ahead.) And current attitudes about gay marriage can very definitely be analogized to past attitudes about interracial marriage. If that analogy makes you uncomfortable, maybe there's a good reason...
No, my statement was a factually accurate one in all of its components.
Self identified homosexuals are one of the wealthiest sub groups of Americans. They are hardly the "victims" of discrimination.
Now that may make you feel uncomfortable when making fallacious analogies but thats life weiner.
You failed to address my original thesis which succinctly stated id this: No matter what one does with ones genitals, one can get married as long as the marriage contains one from the male column and one from the female column. No discrimination.
You are lobbying for special privileges for a specific sub group of Americans based on what they do with their genitalia.
To be consistent you should, at least, expand your argument to include argue polyamory, polygamy, asexual marriage of convenience. Or do you support discrimination against those choices?
No, I don't think you want to go there either, because many of the KKK's "core beliefs" were pretty much standard, normal, typical "orthodox" mainstream American "core beliefs". If you want to claim that their outrageous "core beliefs" are to be condemned because they are their "core beliefs", then you'll have to condemn all of their core beliefs, and not restrict your condemnation to their despicable "core beliefs".
My logic stands.
Basically, the "core foundations" of American culture are burning down, and you're playing hair-splitting/angels-dancing-on-heads-of-pins word games. Find someone else to play with.
My guess would be a person who practices miscegenation. You know, like a physicist would practice physication . . .
Its a two-for-one deal; newly created law & freshly minted words. Hot off the Mayor's desk, timely and fresh as the new day. All that puttering with legislation is just so inconvenient. Why waste time on this silly concept of Rule of Law?
Only in Liberal land. Where is Arnold on this issue ? Hmmmm ?
The Mayor
Why stop there?
We should demand to be allowed to marry our imaginary friends, ghosts, comic book heroes, and space aliens.
And let's not stop there, either. There's still The Biggie. The Mother of All Discriminations.
Yes, that's right. We should demand to be allowed to marry those who don't want to marry us! That's the biggest social taboo remaining! They even have laws against it! They give this type of "forbidden love" mean-spirited names like "stalking." The bias is incredible!
The amount of bigotry and discrimination that remains unchallenged is intolerable!
We demand change!
Rule of law, law of rule, it's all the same thing, right?
No? It's not the same thing?
Well, would you settle for "might makes right"? (If it helps any, you don't have a choice.)
There, it's settled. We now live under the Law of Rule. So Mote it Be, etc.
I am indeed consistent; I would not discriminate (or more precisely I would not have the government discriminate) against any of those choices. As I stated in a previous post, I think marriage should be considered a private religious matter, and the government should butt out altogether.
The aspects of marriage which require government involvement are primarily contractual matters (e.g., property ownership while married or following a divorce). Those could all be handled by standardized or customized contracts between (or among) individuals (irrespective of gender). The government should not be granting special privileges or immunities or tax breaks or tax burdens based upon marital status.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.