This Is Very Important To Me

[Grakthis]

Oops. My bad.

Yeah.  Sorry I didn't make that clearer.  I left it intentionally ambigous.  Sometimes I use the writers "you" intentionally to get a reaction.

This is what I have a problem with. It's a straw man argument. You state dictatorially that everybody who supports the ammendment is motivated by a dislike for homosexuals because of their beliefs. With this in mind it follows that everybody who supports the ammendment is a bigot.

I would be in complete agreement with you if your statement above (bolded) was not a mis-representation of the pro-ammendment camp (I'm sure some are motivated by dislike (even hatred), but by no means all). For example, a typical attitude following from Christian beliefs might be that homosexual marriage is a sin, that all sin results in increased suffering and has a degenerative effect on the nation and even the world, which includes consiquences for the sinner in this life and the next which outweigh any loss of merriage rights. If anything, the motivation is love for the homosexual and the population in general. The only dislike is for the action and the consiquences, not the person. It's not about intolerance or hatred or bigotry, it's a position which follows sincerly from a persons beliefs.

Edit: Disclaimer: The ONLY thing this post is intended to say is that support for the ammendment is not necessarily born out of an attitude of homophobia or bigotry. Although I am sure that many are using this as an oppurtunity to punish homsoexuals and that attitude is beneath contempt.

-Kev

I would argue that even if your stance is that "gay marriage is a sin and sin creates unhappiness for the world" that this is still a biggotry.  Because any position that says "gay marriage is a sin" but "hetrosexual marriage is not" is a biggoted position.  Therefore, that fundamentally makes this hypothetical person a biggot.  Just because his or her biggotry is born out of his or her religion doesn't excuse it.

[rosieposy87]

Oops. My bad.

Oh scum scum sum, not only are you a fool- but you are turning american aswell.

Oh and The Economist's leader this week:

"SO AT last it is official: George Bush is in favour of unequal rights, big-government intrusiveness and federal power rather than devolution to the states. That is the implication of his announcement this week that he will support efforts to pass a constitutional amendment in America banning gay marriage. Some have sought to explain this action away simply as cynical politics, an effort to motivate his core conservative supporters to turn out to vote for him in November or to put his likely “Massachusetts liberal” opponent, John Kerry, in an awkward spot. Yet to call for a constitutional amendment is such a difficult, drastic and draconian move that cynicism is too weak an explanation. No, it must be worse than that: Mr Bush must actually believe in what he is doing."

http://www.economist.co.uk/printedition/displaystory.cfm?Story_ID=2459758

[keith]

Is all this aruging and bitching really neccesary? This thread started out as a plea to sign a petition--a petition that would have ultimately fallen on deaf ears--no matter how much people think they can change the government, they can't. I wish people would just realize that gay marriages ARE NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. At least not now.

And why does everyone jump on Bush? Because they just need someone to blame  :roll:  Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Congress make laws? People are blaming Bush like he made the law that bans gay marriages, newsflash, he only came into office in 2000, gay marriages were banned long before then.

If any gay people feel they need to get married so bad and they hate the way this country is ran, they can move to Canada where it's legal, otherwise they should just quit their damn bitching.

*gets off the soapbox*

[rosieposy87]

Is all this aruging and bitching really neccesary? This thread started out as a plea to sign a petition--a petition that would have ultimately fallen on deaf ears--no matter how much people think they can change the government, they can't. I wish people would just realize that gay marriages ARE NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. At least not now.

This thread was only ever going to end up in a debate- and as a result many more may have signed the petition. As far as i can see Keith you are only contributing to such 'bitching' but at the other end of the spectrum.

And why does everyone jump on Bush? Because they just need someone to blame  :roll:  Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Congress make laws? People are blaming Bush like he made the law that bans gay marriages, newsflash, he only came into office in 2000, gay marriages were banned long before then.

He's the one who proposed the constitutional ammendment, correct me if i'm wrong. So i would've thought Bush is the perfect person to blame since he's directly responsible.

If any gay people feel they need to get married so bad and they hate the way this country is ran, they can move to Canada where it's legal, otherwise they should just quit their damn bitching.

If someone said to you "get out of this country for being gay" you would be immensely offended and say that was discrimination- YOU demand equal rights. Now if you demand that sort of equality then gay people equally have the right to demand equality of rights with straight couples- so what you're essentially doing is saying the same: "get out of this country for demanding equality"- so you can quit your damn bitching.

[Will]

He's the one who proposed the constitutional ammendment, correct me if i'm wrong.

You are wrong, so I will correct you. As of now, nobody has actually proposed an amendment. There is talk of one, however. Bush only said that if such an amendment was proposed, he would support it.

So i would've thought Bush is the perfect person to blame since he's directly responsible.

Bush is not directly responsible. If you want to see who is directly responsible, try Gavin Newsome or the Mass. Supreme Court.

[rosieposy87]

He's the one who proposed the constitutional ammendment, correct me if i'm wrong.

You are wrong, so I will correct you. As of now, nobody has actually proposed an amendment. There is talk of one, however. Bush only said that if such an amendment was proposed, he would support it.

So i would've thought Bush is the perfect person to blame since he's directly responsible.

Bush is not directly responsible. If you want to see who is directly responsible, try Gavin Newsome or the Mass. Supreme Court.

Okay, i was wrong. But when a president of the country supports such a motion (ahhh talking in HofCs speak!) i would say that is a pretty strong statement- and message conveyed to the country. So yup, still blaming bush.

[keith]

This thread was only ever going to end up in a debate- and as a result many more may have signed the petition.

Yeah, but as I was saying in my original post, it's not going to change anything.

If someone said to you "get out of this country for being gay" you would be immensely offended and say that was discrimination- YOU demand equal rights. Now if you demand that sort of equality then gay people equally have the right to demand equality of rights with straight couples- so what you're essentially doing is saying the same: "get out of this country for demanding equality"- so you can quit your damn bitching.

I don't know who pissed in your cornflakes this morning, but whatever. Gays have been getting along just fine without marriage.

[rosieposy87]

This thread was only ever going to end up in a debate- and as a result many more may have signed the petition.

Yeah, but as I was saying in my original post, it's not going to change anything.

I'm sorry, but if people like Martin Luther King (sorry for the cliche!) had thought they weren't going to change anything, where would we be now? oh please, if thats the attitude you take-then i pity you.

Gays have been getting along just fine without marriage.

Thats not the point and you know it. Just because people have been 'getting along fine' does not mean they don't have a right to demand greater equality.

[Will]

I'm sorry, but if people like Martin Luther King (sorry for the cliche!) had thought they weren't going to change anything, where would we be now?

I know I'm gonna come off as a cynical bastard for saying this, but King's effects probably wouldn't be as profound if he wasn't murdered.

[rosieposy87]

I'm sorry, but if people like Martin Luther King (sorry for the cliche!) had thought they weren't going to change anything, where would we be now?

I know I'm gonna come off as a cynical bastard for saying this, but King's effects probably wouldn't be as profound if he wasn't murdered.

I don't see why that has any relevance here.

[Will]

I'm sorry, but if people like Martin Luther King (sorry for the cliche!) had thought they weren't going to change anything, where would we be now?

I know I'm gonna come off as a cynical bastard for saying this, but King's effects probably wouldn't be as profound if he wasn't murdered.

I don't see why that has any relevance here.

I shall explain myself further.

Think of the three most influental American civil rights figures. I would wager that most Americans would name King, Kennedy, and Lincoln. What do they have in common? They were martyrs for their causes. Sure, their attitudes were important, but it was only one part of the epoxy. A hardening agent was needed, namly their deaths. The attitude alone won't necessarily do much.

I guess you could cite Stanton and Anthony instead as counterexamples, but I digress.....

[rosieposy87]

I'm sorry, but if people like Martin Luther King (sorry for the cliche!) had thought they weren't going to change anything, where would we be now?

I know I'm gonna come off as a cynical bastard for saying this, but King's effects probably wouldn't be as profound if he wasn't murdered.

I don't see why that has any relevance here.

I shall explain myself further.

Think of the three most influental American civil rights figures. I would wager that most Americans would name King, Kennedy, and Lincoln. What do they have in common? They were martyrs for their causes. Sure, their attitudes were important, but it was only one part of the epoxy. A hardening agent was needed, namly their deaths. The attitude alone won't necessarily do much.

I guess you could cite Stanton and Anthony instead as counterexamples, but I digress.....

Its a pyschological factor in minority influence Will- its how it works. There are a certain key ingredients to minority influence being accepted by a wider population- showing dedication to the point of death is one of them.

Even if your point is that King's points were accepted and heightened as a result of him being murdered, i see no reason why that lessens my point. He still made some change while he was alive- and my point was that he saw an opportunity for change- something keith clearly does not.

[kev222]

Yeah. Sorry I didn't make that clearer. I left it intentionally ambigous. Sometimes I use the writers "you" intentionally to get a reaction.

It should have been obvious to me from the phrasing of your earlier posts. Even so, it matters no longer because during the course of this dicussion I have changed my position to that of the hypothetical person we are using.

I would argue that even if your stance is that "gay marriage is a sin and sin creates unhappiness for the world" that this is still a biggotry. Because any position that says "gay marriage is a sin" but "hetrosexual marriage is not" is a biggoted position. Therefore, that fundamentally makes this hypothetical person a biggot. Just because his or her biggotry is born out of his or her religion doesn't excuse it.

This 'bigotry' is not equivelent to "wanting to punish fags because of a person dislike of them and their beliefs". It's just a label that, at least as far as you're concerned, comes attached to Biblical Christian belief. I can accept this label if all it means is that I believe homosexual marriage is a sin and comes without accusations such as personal dislike, desire to punish or derogatory terms like fag.

-Kev

[kev222]

Oops. My bad.

Oh scum scum sum, not only are you a fool- but you are turning american aswell.

I thought about saying "my mistake", but I didn't know if Andrew's polluted US vocabulary would understand correct English, so I tried to translate it

-Kev

[Grakthis]

This thread was only ever going to end up in a debate- and as a result many more may have signed the petition.

Yeah, but as I was saying in my original post, it's not going to change anything.

If someone said to you "get out of this country for being gay" you would be immensely offended and say that was discrimination- YOU demand equal rights. Now if you demand that sort of equality then gay people equally have the right to demand equality of rights with straight couples- so what you're essentially doing is saying the same: "get out of this country for demanding equality"- so you can quit your damn bitching.

I don't know who pissed in your cornflakes this morning, but whatever. Gays have been getting along just fine without marriage.

Weather or not it will "change anything" has absolutly NO point in this conversation.  But nice derailment.  I mean, shit, is my 1 vote going to "change anything" in the upcoming election?  I mean, it's just one vote and we don't even elect our president by a majority popular vote.  So why bother voting?!?  amirite?!?!?111!1! lolz!!11!  D3|\/|0Cr4CY 4 L1F3!!1!! L33T!!!

If the gay community has been getting along so fucking well without gay marriage THEN WHY ARE THEY THE ONES ASKING FOR IT?!?!  Yeah.  They sure seem satisfied with their current status  :roll:

You make it sound like it is the liberal maintstream trying to FORCE gay marriage on the gay community.

It's good to see that some things remain constant.  You still have no fucking idea what you are talking about and yet you still feel the need to post your inane opinions willy-nilly about what was predominantly an intelligent discussion.