Here we go again (gay marriage)

[Riggen]

And dehumanize...you mean like when someone I knew from high school sees me walking, and throws beer cans at me from their car window while screaming "fag"? ... You think calling someone a bigot is dehumanizing? When was the last time a group of fags went out and beat the shit out of someone for being straight?

I am not one of those people and clearly this is not that kind of setting, so unless you're actually trying to use that as some kind of justification it's not really germane. Yes, I do think incorrectly referring to someone as a bigot so you can dismiss their position is belittling their humanity. It's the same kind of thing as referring to an unborn fetus as a parasite to make the notion of abortion more palatable, or propagandizing the enemy in war as monsters so that it's easier to kill them without remorse. And in stating that it's impossible to disagree with you for any reason without being a bigot, you're doing it.

Now, tired as the expression might be, this is rants. That tactic is to be expected here a lot from everyone. But you sir are employing it in all seriousness and self-righteousness on the side of a topic where it's not really appropriate. "It's ok to be different, unless you differ from me," is not the message you want to be sending, I'm sure.

Would you care to elaborate on the discriminations you mentioned, and why they need to be fixed before any other change to the system? Until I know what you're talking about, I really can't comment.

In my advancing years I find myself less inclined to repeat myself every time someone can't be bothered to read what's already been said. Aside from reasons I've given in virtually every past thread on this topic, there's a relevant link to an article that should give you an idea or two in my first post in this thread. Look it up.

PS -- Regarding my use of "liberal" when referring to you: no insult was intended. The bite was supposed to be in "closed-minded." You hold a liberal-leaning stance here and in a couple of other topics I've noted previously, so it was an easy assumption to make.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

The funny thing about bigotry is that I've seen it from people who absolutely 100% believed they weren't bigoted or prejudiced. Perhaps that's beside the point. I would be a fool to not admit that there are exceptions, but I will stand by the belief that the vast majority of those who oppose gay mairrage are doing so out of some measure of bigotry, wether they're aware of it or not. I'll go check out your link, probably tomorrow since I won't have time to tonight before my shift ends. Something did occur to me. I recall someone in previous thread(s) purporting that taxes for single people would undoubtedly be raised to offset any tax breaks that the new surplus of gay mairrages would recieve. If that was you, I suppose this is relevant. If it wasn't you, I suppose it's still relevant but not quite as much. Either way, a tax increase (For anyone of any marital status) would be a completely seperate issue. Unless a state specifically wrote such an increase into the language of their legalized unisex mairrage laws, the two aren't directly linked and the tax changes proposed would need to be dealt with seperately and appropriately. And I can honestly say that if an attempt was made in Nebraska to legalize same-sex mairrage while simultaneously raising taxes for anyone filing single, I would adamantly oppose it. Not just because I'm single and will be for a while, but because it's unnecessary as far as I'm concerned. Not only that, single people need more of their income, since they have only one income. Either way, I doubt it matters since Nebraska was one of the first states to amend it's constitution to outlaw any type of legally recognized gay union.

"It's ok to be different, unless you differ from me," is not the message you want to be sending, I'm sure.

It's not the message I'm sending. If it's the message you're recieving, I'm afraid you've misunderstood something. What I'm saying is "it's ok to be different, as long as you keep your nose out of everyone else's business." The only times I'm especially vocal about something is when it's an issue of someone needlessly interfering or attempting to alter the lifestyle or private environment of someone else. "Love and do what you will, but harm ye none."

As for my liberal lean in this topic, what do you expect? This is something that hits closer to home for me than just about any issue currently in polotics. Obviously, I'm not going to be opposed to gay mairrage, and from my perspective, anyone who is has placed a mark on me saying "you're not good enough, and I have no valid reason to think that way." It's frustrating. It's infuriating. The only thing more infuriating is when they excuse their behavior with quotes from some ancient, outdated, poorly translated book about an entity that no one can prove exists.
Clearly, you have social and financial concerns about the repercussions of legalized gay mairrage. Specifically, you're concerned about those of us who are single being fucked over somehow. Like I said, I'll check out what you linked (I thought I'd already read everything linked, but appearantly not), but I can't imagine anything coming from unisex unions that couldn't be fought or otherwise struck down. Unless the bills are written as one, they're seperate issues, no?

And I know it doesn't show here nearly as much, but I do have a distinctively conservative lean on several issues (I'm extremely iffy on the subject of gays in the military, for example. As it stands, I'm actually slightly opposed). I refuse to categorize myself as liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. I'm something in the middle, but to me it's always about the issue, not the party's collective opinion of the issue. I have my own thoughts about the items up for debate, and keep an open mind while taking in as much information as possible. Personally, I'd love to see the two-party system eliminated altogether in favor of a no-party system, but I seriously doubt that will ever happen.

[Saevrok]

Fuck it, if gays want to marry let them, they deserve to be as miserable as every other son of a bitch gets married.

[Relbeek Einre]

Though Jarochai's language is inflammatory, he is to a degree correct. If you feel heterosexual couples should receive a governmental recognition that homosexual couples should not, that's by definition discrimination.

[Aabe]

Jarochai,

Psst. Note to Aabe. This is a single issue. At least it was, until gay mairrage opponents made it into a plethora of issues, most of which are slippery slope, idiotic bitch fits. The rest are nonissues. I have yet to see a valid concern regarding legalization of gay mairrage. Not one. Present any you want, and I'm all but certain I can point out how it's either completely unrelated, or completely moot. I've been able to reliably do so for every single concern I've seen put on the table to date.
.

You missed the point completely.

Your statement that it is a single issue is a lie. Most everyone knows that and will quit listening to you after those words pass your lips. Now it may well be true all the other issues have been shown to be unconcerning. (Gay adoptions are healthy not harmful for example) BUT it was a serious issue to be considered. To those that don't know gay adoption is proven healthy, it is a far more important issue than gay peoples rights to marriage. Turns out the gay adoption issue can be shown to be a separate issue all together, but to sway the public that feel they are related, you must deal with their perceptions not just raw facts.

I never questioned your facts, I never challenged your statement, and I never even claimed the arguments against your stand had any fact or truth behind them.

Let me try something simpler you can understand. I'll even repeat it a few times; I understand some people are slow learners. You apparently haven’t read all the posts on this thread or they were too deep for you.

Even if every argument against you is false and you can slam every one of the arguments as baseless and ignorant, your approach to this problem will not work.

To the people holding these opposing views, they think they are right. And to them their concerns have nothing to do with whose rights are being stepped on. If they truly believe children will be hurt by this, gay rights take a back seat. If they truly believe that the fabric of society will be torn a sunder, gay peoples rights takes a back seat. In other words, they can accept as truth your point that gay peoples rights are being stepped on (many would feel it is a bad thing to step on rights), but most would choose to do that if they thought the choice was 1) gay rights or 2) children’s safety and security.

I choose only one of the major points that for many it is a choice between, gay rights would loose. There are probably at least 2 other big ones.

Your approach that "this issue is a single issue", without addressing and belaying the fears of these people will be seen as "You mean they are so self serving as to be willing to see our children suffer so they can have a "right"? It makes the gay marriage movement look pretty petty and selfish to them.

Given your argument is true, by treating this as a single issue you will loose, even when you are right.

Now take a bigot that "just hates fags". He sees how this is going, sees your moronic approach to this argument and that it is not addressing the fears of others. It's a piece of cake for him to further stir the pot, add a few lies and "poof" you have the majority against you. Even though all the facts may be on your side, you loose big time.

Lets call it bad marketing on your part.

Oh, calling people bigots and idiotic, that just were uneducated (or were told wrong things by a few bigots) and never really felt one way or the other toward your cause before, causes them to jump to the opposing side and now they have generated an emotional barrier. So once you finally get intelligent about your argument and try to education them, they will resist anything you have to say (why do they now want to listen to anyone that just called them a moron, bigot or idiotic bitches) and your job is even harder.

I used some sarcasm on you for my previous post. That only works on people that are smart enough to grasp it. My apologies.

So you can keep ranting about abuse and stepped on rights. Accomplish nothing for your cause. In fact you hurt your cause, by driving people to the other side, now angry at your cause that they didn't care about before. (Your argument in fact has now hurt the cause you were trying to champion) OR you can figure out an argument or approach to this that will yield some results. I laid one out earlier in this post, up to you to find it.

Persuasive speech 101: Make a claim that requires a fair amount of research to justify, call it simple and obvious, call anyone else a moron that doesn't see it as obvious or opposes you and threaten to blow them out of the water with facts they are unaware of if they try.

Can you win ANY argument if you use the above approach?

<beating the dead horse one last time> Your points MAY be true and your cause just. Your argument sucks.

[Relbeek Einre]

Persuasive speech 101: Make a claim that requires a fair amount of research to justify, call it simple and obvious, call anyone else a moron that doesn't see it as obvious or opposes you and threaten to blow them out of the water with facts they are unaware of if they try.

Can you win ANY argument if you use the above approach?

The Republicans have won two elections on that tactic.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Persuasive speech 101: Make a claim that requires a fair amount of research to justify, call it simple and obvious, call anyone else a moron that doesn't see it as obvious or opposes you and threaten to blow them out of the water with facts they are unaware of if they try.

Can you win ANY argument if you use the above approach?

The Republicans have won two elections on that tactic.

Whcih calls in question the intelligence of the Democrats, since that kind of tactic is easy to negate.

[Partha]

Not when your opponent has an entire media machine devoted exclusively to pushing his agenda and demonizing you.

[Aabe]

Not when your opponent has an entire media machine devoted exclusively to pushing his agenda and demonizing you.

it's been a while since I listened to radio, seems a lot of the talk shows are conservative leaning. Tinfoil hat arguments aside why is that?

I know that any good radio show left or right will succeed, because I am confident in the "greedy bastard" theory of business, that if it makes money or provieds a wanted service, it will do well.

I havn't heard a good argument why there are not more left leaning talk shows out there.

[Kulaf]

"Though Jarochai's language is inflammatory, he is to a degree correct. If you feel heterosexual couples should receive a governmental recognition that homosexual couples should not, that's by definition discrimination."

Yeah but....who in this thread has said that homosexual couples shouldn't receive said benefits?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Not when your opponent has an entire media machine devoted exclusively to pushing his agenda and demonizing you.

Are you saying the media was more favorable to the Republicans last election? Or is this just more blame that the Dems like to throw around, instead of taking responsibility for their loss.

That 'ol personal responsibilty thing... Dems just don't seem to get it.

[Relbeek Einre]

Mm. Embar's trolling again.

Are you saying the media was more favorable to the Republicans last election?

All trolls aside, do you mean the news media or the news + opinion media?

[Rsak]

Relbeek,

Depsite my better judgement I have to ask the question. What 3 statements in that post shown falsehood in beliefs or virtues that I have claimed to possess in the past?

[Kulaf]

Ohh I see.....and your shot at Repulicans was what?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Not when your opponent has an entire media machine devoted exclusively to pushing his agenda and demonizing you.

it's been a while since I listened to radio, seems a lot of the talk shows are conservative leaning. Tinfoil hat arguments aside why is that?

I know that any good radio show left or right will succeed, because I am confident in the "greedy bastard" theory of business, that if it makes money or provieds a wanted service, it will do well.

I havn't heard a good argument why there are not more left leaning talk shows out there.

There are both left and right leaning radio stations. Depends on what part of the country you're in. Radio stations are businesses, and put on programming that people will listen to. If people don't listen to the program, then the radio station can't sell the advertising. If they don't sell advertising, they go out of business.

So really, the programming is a direct reflection of what people WANT to hear. If the leftists bitch about some right-wing media machine, they are dodging the real issue. The real issue is framed in the question: If there is some disparity (and Im not sure there is), why do more people prefer conservative leaning talk shows?

[Aabe]

Not when your opponent has an entire media machine devoted exclusively to pushing his agenda and demonizing you.

Are you saying the media was more favorable to the Republicans last election? Or is this just more blame that the Dems like to throw around, instead of taking responsibility for their loss.

That 'ol personal responsibilty thing... Dems just don't seem to get it.

Interesting point, even if one could prove that the media was slanted. It's not the only game in town.

Many grass roots movements and creative internet usages were successful on both sides this last time.

Like dad used to say, "Life ain't fair". Plan on it not being fair and your chances of winning are a lot better.

[Relbeek Einre]

Tough question Embar - it just happened to be the case that nobody'd really tried left-leaning syndicated talk shows before. Now that Ed Schultz and Al Franken are on the airwaves, and kicking the ass of staples like Limbaugh and Hannity in many markets, perhaps that's not the case that people prefer the righties.

It also happens that listening to someone doesn't mean you agree with him. I'd listen to the brownshirt hatemongering radio stations ("The Patriot" and its sister "Muslims raise their children to hate Christians and Americans" Christian talk station), or Rush, just to hear the shit they spewed. One survey done many years ago showed more of Rush's listeners disagreed than agreed with him.

Of course, the media don't necessarily reflect their audiences. The Kerry-Bush split among the electorate was 49/51, yet newspapers endorsed Bush two to one, reflecting nearly three-quarters of national circulation.

[Kulaf]

"One survey done many years ago showed more of Rush's listeners disagreed than agreed with him. "

Same thing with Stern.

[Riggen]

Jarochai, you're on the right track, but the issue transcends mere taxation and covers all (or at least most where practical) of the issues that gays themselves are concerned with. Take spousal visitation rights at hospitals as an example that's been used a lot. Why should marriage even enter into that? In the case of married couples it could default to the spouse, but wouldn't it be better if everybody could grant that right to a person of their choice?

Though Jarochai's language is inflammatory, he is to a degree correct. If you feel heterosexual couples should receive a governmental recognition that homosexual couples should not, that's by definition discrimination.

Only with a little semantic twisting in this case. But we've been through that.

A little bit of lateral thinking takes me to the conclusion that gay marriage is the wrong answer (at least while rights are still centered on marriage) because defining rights around marital status is the wrong answer. To my thinking, "gay" doesn't really enter the picture because that's not the issue around which the larger problem revolves. Thus I am opposed to gaining rights through marriage for anyone including gays, because those rights should belong to everyone in the first place.

So I stand in opposition to gay marriage on the grounds that if you're going to fix something, you should fix it right instead of just making it your neighbor's problem. Yet there's no discrimination against gays in that opposition because the problem is with marriage rather than with gays.

Right now gay marriage has a lot of momentum. What I fear is that once gays "get theirs" things will settle down and the opportunity to implement change in a more constructive direction will be lost.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Of course, the media don't necessarily reflect their audiences. The Kerry-Bush split among the electorate was 49/51, yet newspapers endorsed Bush two to one, reflecting nearly three-quarters of national circulation.

Non-sequiter. Not each newspaper has the same circulation.

The disparity in percentage of editorials versus the percentege of the electorate is easily explained when you look at big-city/small-city demographics. Places like Los Angeles, San Jose, San Francisco, New York, Boston, Portland, Minneapolis, Seattle, etc all have huge populations, and the papers published there have huge circulations. And most of those papers endorsed Kerry.

Other cities like Wichita, Bakersfield, Oklahoma City, Sioux Falls, Omaha, etc, have papers that have smaller circulations, but were most likely conservative.

Because of the smaller cities in the midwest, there are simply more papers published. But it doesn't mean that Wichita's paper circulation is equal to San Jose's. I think if you compare the collective paper's circulations, you'll get a number much closer to how the electorate voted.