David Tyree is a moron

[ESTONES6]

Fair enough. I apologize. Let me rephrase it; your argument has elements that are hauntingly similar to the argument that was used against the civil rights movement. Better?

Hahahaha I guess? The point I was getting at is... comparing the definition of marriage to slavery and genocide is really THAT "hauntingly similar"?

Its lose-lose. Agree to disagree. *insert another cliche* I think marriage and genocide are 2 different worlds... you find them similar. There is no point in belaboring the point.

[IceCap]

In the case of this debate you're still advocating that a minority be denied a right open to the majority. It's not "worse" then genocide or slavery, but it's still a violation of this minority's civil rights.

[ESTONES6]

In the case of this debate you're still advocating that a minority be denied a right open to the majority. It's not "worse" then genocide or slavery, but it's still a violation of this minority's civil rights.

I'm not sure now. I'm re-evaluating. I try to avoid making knee-jerk reactions with any topic... same goes for this one. You have pointed out fairly clearly that it is unconstitutional. I think its hypocrisy to protect the rights of one group of people and not the other, despite our laws stating protection of both groups. I don't think its right.

I'm not going to say I'm for or against it right now because I still want to learn more on the topic. I want to further educate myself. But as it is stated now, I can say yes, according to the Constitution and our laws... its unfair and in violation of civil rights.

[infrared41]

Fair enough. I apologize. Let me rephrase it; your argument has elements that are hauntingly similar to the argument that was used against the civil rights movement. Better?

Hahahaha I guess? The point I was getting at is... comparing definition of marriage to slavery and genocide is really "hauntingly similar."

Its lose-lose. Agree to disagree. *insert another cliche* I think marriage and genocide are 2 different worlds... you find them similar. There is no point in belaboring the point.

First off, there was no "genocide" during the civil rights movement. Second, stop blaming everyone else for the fact that you sound like an intolerant bigot when it comes to gay marriage. Either find a way to better phrase your argument or deal with the fallout from it. I don't know what to tell you.

[ESTONES6]

Fair enough. I apologize. Let me rephrase it; your argument has elements that are hauntingly similar to the argument that was used against the civil rights movement. Better?

Hahahaha I guess? The point I was getting at is... comparing definition of marriage to slavery and genocide is really "hauntingly similar."

Its lose-lose. Agree to disagree. *insert another cliche* I think marriage and genocide are 2 different worlds... you find them similar. There is no point in belaboring the point.

First off, there was no "genocide" during the civil rights movement. Second, stop blaming everyone else for the fact that you sound like an intolerant bigot when it comes to gay marriage. Either find a way to better phrase your argument or deal with the fallout from it. I don't know what to tell you.

Genocide is the killing of people based on a characteristic. That occurred during the Civil Rights Movement. It may not have been on a massive level, but it was still a genocide. It also occurred during the Nazi occupation of Germany, which has also been referenced in this discussion.

Reality is perception. Even though I have continually wrote my support of homosexuals, my understanding of homosexuals (not just tolerance OF them), people perceived me as an intolerant bigot, just because, at the time, I thought marriage should be between male and female. Personally, I wouldn't have labeled someone that, because I would have read what they were typing, and tried to be understanding of their opinion. I don't think 1 opinion should over shadow the majority of other opinions.

If I worded things poorly, that's my fault... but people also attacked me on things I never said, quoting my on things I never said.

[Gothamite]

I think its hypocrisy to protect the rights of one group of people and not the other, despite our laws stating protection of both groups. I don't think its right.

I agree.

Which is why I am 100% in favor of marriage equality.

[Cosmic]

Tolerance. I will certainly be tolerant of others' viewpoints, but there are limits. There's a famous saying along the lines of "my rights end where the other person's nose begins." I respect people's right to think that homosexuals should not marry. I would say most anti gay marriage folks have been taught that it's against their religion, although that does not seem to be the bend in this thread. That's fine; you can think that. The validity of those thoughts, however, does not justify depriving people of their rights. I was raised as a Roman Catholic; the Catholic Church is against divorce just like it is against homosexual marriage (interesting tangent: I believe that the Catholic Church is OK with homosexuality as long as you never act on your feelings ). The religious morals some people possess are different than the morals that are codified into law.

The Constitution. If we're talking about trying to reach the "American ideal", think about the Constitution this way: the People possess all the rights in the world, surrendering only a small few in order to "form a more perfect society". Somewhere along the way, we decided that I should not be able to, for example, blow someone away because they looked at me funny. One of the arguments against the Bill of Rights was that a list of specific rights could be construed as an all-inclusive list. That is why we have the 9th amendment, and it is beautifully simple:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Founders never intended to put into the Constitution a list of all rights that the People possess. Remember that the Constitution does not grant us rights, they were ours all along.

[uSA] [/uSA]

[Gothamite]

Well put.

The 9th Amendment is one of the most important, and the most misunderstood.

The number of times I've heard people complain about courts "creating a right" or that a right is "not in the Constitution."

[Dexter Morgan]

Tolerance. I will certainly be tolerant of others' viewpoints, but there are limits. There's a famous saying along the lines of "my rights end where the other person's nose begins." I respect people's right to think that homosexuals should not marry. I would say most anti gay marriage folks have been taught that it's against their religion, although that does not seem to be the bend in this thread. That's fine; you can think that. The validity of those thoughts, however, does not justify depriving people of their rights. I was raised as a Roman Catholic; the Catholic Church is against divorce just like it is against homosexual marriage (interesting tangent: I believe that the Catholic Church is OK with homosexuality as long as you never act on your feelings ). The religious morals some people possess are different than the morals that are codified into law.

The Constitution. If we're talking about trying to reach the "American ideal", think about the Constitution this way: the People possess all the rights in the world, surrendering only a small few in order to "form a more perfect society". Somewhere along the way, we decided that I should not be able to, for example, blow someone away because they looked at me funny. One of the arguments against the Bill of Rights was that a list of specific rights could be construed as an all-inclusive list. That is why we have the 9th amendment, and it is beautifully simple:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Founders never intended to put into the Constitution a list of all rights that the People possess. Remember that the Constitution does not grant us rights, they were ours all along.

[uSA] [/uSA]

[infrared41]

First off, there was no "genocide" during the civil rights movement. Second, stop blaming everyone else for the fact that you sound like an intolerant bigot when it comes to gay marriage. Either find a way to better phrase your argument or deal with the fallout from it. I don't know what to tell you.

Genocide is the killing of people based on a characteristic. That occurred during the Civil Rights Movement. It may not have been on a massive level, but it was still a genocide. It also occurred during the Nazi occupation of Germany, which has also been referenced in this discussion.

Reality is perception. Even though I have continually wrote my support of homosexuals, my understanding of homosexuals (not just tolerance OF them), people perceived me as an intolerant bigot, just because, at the time, I thought marriage should be between male and female. Personally, I wouldn't have labeled someone that, because I would have read what they were typing, and tried to be understanding of their opinion. I don't think 1 opinion should over shadow the majority of other opinions.

If I worded things poorly, that's my fault... but people also attacked me on things I never said, quoting my on things I never said.

1. There was no deliberate and/or systematic killing of anyone during the civil rights movement. Were there murders? Yes. That aside, at no point did anything that happened during the civil rights movement qualify as what most any reasonable person would describe as "genocide." To compare the isolated murders that took place during the civil rights movement to the holocaust is not only grossly exaggerating the point, it's just plain stupid. No offense.

2. At no point has anyone said you aren't entitled to your opinion. You're certainly allowed to believe what you want to believe. That said, when your opinion can reasonably be compared to that of an intolerant bigot, it might be a bit much on your part to ask for "understanding." This is the thing that comes to mind for me when I try describe what's going on here. You're using what amounts to cultural relativism to defend your opposition to something that many feel is essentially a moral absolute. (And before anyone goes there, I'm not saying gay marriage is a moral absolute. I'm simply trying to address his request for "understanding.")

In other words, you feel that in your world your opinion is perfectly valid. As a result, you believe that your opinion should carry the same weight as any and every opinion that opposes yours; no matter how far off the mark your opinion may seem to those that don't share your view of the situation. As I'm sure you are now painfully aware, it just doesn't work that way. As I said, you are certainly entitled to your beliefs. Just don't be surprised when you catch a bunch of flack for those beliefs.

3. When it has your name stamped on it and it reposts exactly what you wrote, you haven't been misquoted.

[Gothamite]

I'll say it - gay marriage is a moral absolute. That some couples are prohibited their right to marry is an injustice that can't be rectified soon enough.

It was a witness for Proposition 8 in the recent trial who said "We would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were on the day before."

Our children's children will look back at this the way we now look on interracial marriage bans: with a combination of disbelief and horror.

[infrared41]

I'll say it - gay marriage is a moral absolute. That some couples are prohibited their right to marry is an injustice that can't be rectified soon enough.

I agree. I was just doing my best to avoid the inevitable tangent that is sure to follow.

[Gothamite]

Oh, why stop now?

[infrared41]

Oh, why stop now?

Good point. Forget I mentioned it.

[Dexter Morgan]

I'll say it - gay marriage is a moral absolute. That some couples are prohibited their right to marry is an injustice that can't be rectified soon enough.

It was a witness for Proposition 8 in the recent trial who said "We would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were on the day before."

Our children's children will look back at this the way we now look on interracial marriage bans: with a combination of disbelief and horror.

[Lights Out]

I'll say it - gay marriage is a moral absolute. That some couples are prohibited their right to marry is an injustice that can't be rectified soon enough.

It was a witness for Proposition 8 in the recent trial who said "We would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were on the day before."

Our children's children will look back at this the way we now look on interracial marriage bans: with a combination of disbelief and horror.

Well said. I agree completely.

[Sterling84]

Step 1 - Return to boards after long absence. Check

Step 2 - Offend someone I geniunely like. Check

Ugh.. This has reminded me why I hardly ever come here anymore. Not the controversy, but the lack of time. Without my 9-5 anymore I don't have enough hours to follow along. In the old days I could have gotten back to this thread and set the record straight on my comments a lot sooner. Almost impossible nowadays.

Anyway, -Cap? I don't think you're close-minded. Not at all. I am. ON this anyway. My bad for making that unclear. You are one of the many open-minded ones because you've opened up the dogma and decided to not follow those parts of it which are not applicable to your ethics. And I think that is admirable and would describe most people of faith today. The close-minded ones are clearly the fundamentalists who take those dusty old books literally and there isn't much to be said to those folks. I hope that clears up the major afront between us. Still, with that said I hold to what I meant. From my perspective it is frustrating to see those people...you people...SMART people.. work through; pick apart the scriptures ala carte and then circle back to defend against the notion that religion is causing these problems in the first place just because for you in particular it hasn't. Smoking causes cancer. "Nuh uh...my dad smoked for 40 years and never got cancer." Ummm, good for him,..but it still does. Now, on gay marriage? You've made it clear you DO blame religion so as for this topic....we are in agreement. BTW, I give churches who are now willing to marry gays VERY little credit for coming around. Churches are businesses and they are just filling a void. That's all churches do...make rules that one day your very soul depends on....and then the next day when the donation plate is empty, they change them.

Surprised you said you can't take Hitchens seriously. The dude's like...brilliant (as you said) and a very critical thinker and just reading anything he writes often makes my head hurt. Sure, He's surly, he mumbles, he's confrontational, bombastic and always looks drunk. But I've never heard anyone ipso facto that into "he's not qualified to weigh in". People resent the atheist movement because 1) the key figures in it (Dawkins etc) seem to have cultivated an almost...religious following and 2) atheists tend to think and act like they are smarter than everyone else. Both valid reasons to be turned off. Granted. However, I would say to that..."He's mean" vs "I believe in magic" are not equal indictments. If the only thing to be said negatively of an atheist is that they will not draw poeple to their cause by mocking their beliefs...then that isn't so bad. I tend to think the time for placating nonsense and giving it equal billing is long passed. Please don't misunderstand. I would never tell you what to believe. I would not see the world without faith even if it were within my power to do so. It is a right. But I WOULD see it kept more personal and when used in government or debates see it relegated to its proper place; roughly equivalent to the status of believing in Big Foot or UFOs.

And if he (Hitch) was the lame-o atheist (actually antitheist...much better) crutch I leaned in my opinion does that mean you think Pascal is the same from your side (lame?) or are you actually down with that whole thing? Funny you bring him up. I pretty much used my own (less in depth) version of the wager to get myself through adolescence in a highly religious/ridiculous upbringing. I called it more of a "better safe than sorry" take on G-d or a Salvation Hedge. I never even heard of the real thing til much later. And now I feel it to be one of the most contemptable and cowardly and embarrassing things I ever espoused...so I guess for that reason alone you are right. I would throw out his theological opinions yes. But the dude was a genious and much smarter people than me have already torn the wager down. Has anyone taken apart Hitch or Dawkins similarly? Sincerlely asking. I don't think there is anything TO tear down other than their smugness.

Back to gay marriage. You guys have torn it up for like 9 more pages since I was here so no need to pile on in any greater detail. Suffice it to say it doesn't matter. This war of hate is already over. There are battles to fight yet...don't get me wrong. And there will be setbacks, we have to be vigilant. But we've reached the tipping point like we did with women's rights and minority rights before this. Legislation unfortunately takes longer to shift than public sentiment. Wanna take the contrary opinion?...have fun. It's all over but the crying. YOu've already lost. DADT is gone and by the time the Boomers are all dead this'll be nothing more than an embarrassing little footnote in the proud tale of progress. The only thing left to do will be to watch folks like Tyree (and McCain) scramble and backtrack.

[slapshot]

Difficult as it is to quantify, the best estimates say about 3% of the population identify themselves as something in the LGBT spectrum.

I know this was a few pages back, but I just read this one.

I thought the LGBT stats made up about 10% of the population. There was (maybe still is) a radio call-in show in Boston called "One in Ten" that caters to an LGBT audience, and the name came about because that's the ratio of gay-to-straight people in the general population.

Link: http://www.10percent.com/

an online retailer catering to gay men. So I guess the 10% number is pretty much accepted for statistical purposes.

/carry on

[infrared41]

Step 1 - Return to boards after long absence. Check

Step 2 - Offend someone I geniunely like. Check

(Note: to save space, I didn't quote his entire post but I highly recommend going back and reading it. Sterling and Ice_Cap gave us all a clinic on how to have a discussion here.)

Is it just me, or does this guy's return make up for the rash of idiot rookies we've had to endure for the past few months?

Sterling, I have no idea who you are. As I said in an earlier post, you must be from way back because I've been here six years and I don't recall ever seeing one of your posts. That said, restraints on your time or not, you absolutely have to stick around. It's refreshing to see a new face that isn't some blabbering moron.

Welcome back, again.

[slapshot]

Sterling designed the Manitoba Moose logo. He also did some excellent work for the Buffalo Stampede, a proposed franchise for a hockey league that was later determined to be run by a crook.

/carry on, part deux