Palin breaks with McCain on gay marriage

[RickinNYC]

Thanks for keeping us on track...

It's what I do.

 

[Master Mason]

Then pray tell, where do you find the inherent difference between Joe and I getting legally married/civil unioned and a black man/white woman or vice versa?

Well, first off, I think that you and Joe should be allowed to form a civil union. So in a way this whole discussion is sort of funny. We both want to get to the same place, we just have a differnce of opinion on how to get there.

But to answer your question as to why it is different IMO. Men and women are currently allowed to marry, to say that you can marry a woman of another race is basing it on race. To say that you can't marry Joe is basing it on sexuality.

 

[Anewman]

Not unless they could get a majority of a super majority of the states to agree. Guns are protected by the constitution.

And so is freedom of religion...You said it yourself, marriage is a religious issue.

 

[Master Mason]

What constitution?

It's clear that you don't believe in the constitution, else how could you have just given your okay to ban interracial marriage with a mere 50% voting majority?

Can you please show me the words in the constituion that refer to marriage?

 

[RickinNYC]

Well, first off, I think that you and Joe should be allowed to form a civil union. So in a way this whole discussion is sort of funny. We both want to get to the same place, we just have a differnce of opinion on how to get there.

But to answer your question as to why it is different IMO. Men and women are currently allowed to marry, to say that you can marry a woman of another race is basing it on race. To say that you can't marry Joe is basing it on sexuality.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Again, half a decade ago, they said you couldn't marry based upon race. Today they say you can't marry based upon sexuality. I still don't see where there's a difference beyond genetics.

 

[RickinNYC]

Hey. Quit that. You sidetracked me.

Palin is an idiot. Discuss.

 

[Master Mason]

With a ban on smoking, it's not really an issue of the majority feeling something is wrong. It's a matter of the majority feeling that the smoker's right to smoke in a public place is infringing on the rights of the people around them to breathe healthy, less poluted air. When your rights begin to infringe on my health and well-being, then it becomes a matter of public opinion. When my rights have absolutely no bearing on you whatsoever, how is that subject to public scrutiny? You can feel what you want to feel about my relationship and my right to marry. But until it impacts your life or well-being in any way, you don't get a say in whether or not is should be legal.

And again, your agueing with me like I disagree with you.

 

[Master Mason]

And so is freedom of religion...You said it yourself, marriage is a religious issue.

And there are a bunch of churches out there that will marry a gay couple right now, but the state doesn't recognize it. So what is important is not the religious aspect, but the legal aspect.

 

[Master Mason]

That makes no sense whatsoever. Again, half a decade ago, they said you couldn't marry based upon race. Today they say you can't marry based upon sexuality. I still don't see where there's a difference beyond genetics.

well just have to agree to disagree then. If you feel that race equals sexuality there isn't anything I can say to convince you otherwise.

 

[Master Mason]

Hey. Quit that. You sidetracked me.

Palin is an idiot. Discuss.

ok, I'll discuss. I do not think she is an idiot, I think she has some misguided ideas, but that doesn't make one an idiot.

 

[ChrizJen]

And again, your agueing with me like I disagree with you.

Because you're playing devil's advocate.
And I guess I should say that the "you" and "your" in my post don't refer directly to you per se. It's more directed at the hypothetical "you"s out there.

ETA: And to make it clear, I get that you agree that everyone should have equal partnership under the law. But what we're saying is that while your solution is good in theory, we have a MUCH better chance getting equal rights by inclusion than we do by changing the entire structure of heterosexual marriage.

 

[soupy11]

well just have to agree to disagree then. If you feel that race equals sexuality there isn't anything I can say to convince you otherwise.

I think the confusion comes from the fact that you agree that gays do not choose their lifestyle. Therefore it is the same as far as not being able to choose a race. This is creating a schism here.

 

[Kath2003]

I just feel sorry for Sarah Palin. She's an easily led woman who has been thrust into the limelight in a poor attempt to win over the fundamentalist vote that the Republican party HAS to rely on without the experience or understanding of the situation to make an accurate judgement. She's just doesn't seem to have realised that she's pretty gullible, that she's having her ambitions exploited by the party to whom she is loyal and is being used as nothing more than a political pawn.

 

[Master Mason]

Because you're playing devil's advocate.
And I guess I should say that the "you" and "your" in my post don't refer directly to you per se. It's more directed at the hypothetical "you"s out there.

Ok then I'll play along. If I choose to in the privacy of my own home smoke a joint. I am not hurting anyone else, I am not effecting anyone else, and yet according the the majority I have commited a crime.

 

[RickinNYC]

And there are a bunch of churches out there that will marry a gay couple right now, but the state doesn't recognize it. So what is important is not the religious aspect, but the legal aspect.

Yup. But tell that the the self righteous, chicken little, the-sky-is-falling, it's the end of all morality, someone else save my marriage because I can't seem to handle it in my own family, OH MY GOD THE GAYS ARE GETTING MARRIED! people out there.

I say, if your marriage to your husband or wife is so weak and brittle and your own ability to maintain your relationship is so incapable of lasting 'till death do you part, then you have a lot more problems than my marrying a dude.

I have a healthy respect for those that have a strong belief system. I don't shun Christians or any other religion. I have a deep belief in God and Jesus myself. But I do have a huge problem with those that have mutated the Word of God to the point that they have hatred in their hearts for "the gays". I see very little difference in that type of American and as I do those from the Mideast that use the Qur'an to their own ends. And those are the ones that scare me because they'll smile with their faces, yet use the Bible as a weapon.

Hence one of many reasons why Palin disgusts me.

Now... see how I brought it all back to the original post?

 

[smartestnumber5]

Can you please show me the words in the constituion that refer to marriage?

It doesn't. It does mention "equal protection." What exactly do you take the 14th amendment to mean if it doesn't mean that the government cannot ban interracial marriage with the goal of keeping the white race pure from tainting by ****** blood?

It sounds as if you against ALL court cases that understand the equal protection clause in any substantive way? I assume, then athat you think Plessy v. Ferguson should still be standing law, and that the post-Plessy decisions of the civil rights era was judicial activism?

It sounds like you are placing yourself just about just one step to the left of George Wallace (surely you haven't said segregation and oppression of blacks is a good thing--just that there are absolutely no constitutional protections whatsoever to prevent it).

I don't know if you call yourself a conservative or not, but if I were a fellow conservative on the DIS, I would be trying to put as much distance as possible between myself and you since I'm guessing that the contemporary conservative party doesn't want to be known as the party who STILL thinks Plessy v. Ferguson was a great decision.

 

[vt_disney_fan]

That makes no sense whatsoever. Again, half a decade ago, they said you couldn't marry based upon race. Today they say you can't marry based upon sexuality. I still don't see where there's a difference beyond genetics.

Your opinion, Rick. There are many others, including myself, of the opinion that sexual orientation is NOT based on genetics, but based on choice (DESPITE what those who may be of a different sexual orientation have to say). And many of those, including myself, would base that not just on their own feelings, but upon religious beliefs, among other things.

Palin's stance regarding gay marriage, which I happen to agree completely with, is but one facet of her many views. Would I expect gay couples to like her views? Nope. Would I expect die-hard Democrats, or even moderate or left-leaning Republicans to like her views? Nope. Will all conservatives even like her views? Nope. But that doesn't mean that ALL people dislike her views. It will all be evident in the election. Will Bush/Palin win? I hope so, but I'm doubting it. Do I think that's a bad thing? Personally, I do, but I just represent 1 vote. And if Obama is elected, it won't change my views on anything; for that matter, a McCain victory wouldn't change my views on anything either.

I don't hope to change anyone's mind - heck, most of them are made up already - just giving my opinions.

 

[Anewman]

Ok then I'll play along. If I choose to in the privacy of my own home smoke a joint. I am not hurting anyone else, I am not effecting anyone else, and yet according the the majority I have commited a crime.

Well if you are going to be sequestered until the effects of said joint wear off, you dont know if you will be hurting anyone.

Again, if it was based on popularity...

 

[RickinNYC]

Your opinion, Rick. There are many others, including myself, of the opinion that sexual orientation is NOT based on genetics, but based on choice (DESPITE what those who may be of a different sexual orientation have to say). And many of those, including myself, would base that not just on their own feelings, but upon religious beliefs, among other things.

Palin's stance regarding gay marriage, which I happen to agree completely with, is but one facet of her many views. Would I expect gay couples to like her views? Nope. Would I expect die-hard Democrats, or even moderate or left-leaning Republicans to like her views? Nope. Will all conservatives even like her views? Nope. But that doesn't mean that ALL people dislike her views. It will all be evident in the election. Will Bush/Palin win? I hope so, but I'm doubting it. Do I think that's a bad thing? Personally, I do, but I just represent 1 vote. And if Obama is elected, it won't change my views on anything; for that matter, a McCain victory wouldn't change my views on anything either.

I don't hope to change anyone's mind - heck, most of them are made up already - just giving my opinions.

And my opinion is that you must know from personal experience and have had to intentionally choose your sexual orientation. Carry on.

 

[ChrizJen]

Ok then I'll play along. If I choose to in the privacy of my own home smoke a joint. I am not hurting anyone else, I am not effecting anyone else, and yet according the the majority I have commited a crime.

To be honest, that's one of those things that I think should be legal. I don't want to partake, but you should be allowed to in the privacy of your own home.