David Tyree is a moron

[DEAD!]

I believe Hamilton was also overlooked by Gary Bettman...

[Gothamite]

Hamilton is overlooked, but he got on the 10. Jefferson had to settle for the 2

Seriously though, Hamilton is awesome. The man was nothing short of centuries ahead of his time. And you're 100% right, he's pretty relevant to the proceedings here. You don't trust the unruly mob with the civil liberties of a minority. Mobs tend to hate minorities.

As he well knew.

Hamilton's influence on the United States cannot be overestimated. To contrast him with his $2 bill brother, Jefferson dreamed up a great nation, but only Hamilton could figure out a way to make that nation actually work.

He's loathed by many conservatives (those who bother to know who he was) in part because he was the architect of a truly United States, with a strong federal government supreme over weaker state governments subject to it. Somehow they can't bring themselves to hate George Washington, so they take it out on his surrogate son.

All reasons to resist the Reagan-worshippers' attempts to put the Gipper on the $10 instead of ol' Alex.

[BlueSky]

Empathy is more than mere understanding. It connotes a certain sharing of those feelings in response, however fleeting.

I understand bigotry. I cannot, however, fully empathize with bigots.

You're just wrong and trying to spin that to your advantage. See what you made me do again?

em·pa·thy   

[em-puh-thee]

–noun

1.

the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

Not emotional and not agreement with and not endorsement of etc. and so on. It simply means you understand.

I equally understand those who believe an enlightened, progressive society should be concerning itself with solving poverty, finding alternative energy sources, and so on

And that can't be done at the same time as granting equality to homosexuals?

You're not the troll type, so why did you cut the end of that line off, the part that says "...as opposed to who wants to marry who." You take the exact point I was making and twist it up? Nice.

This thread is nothing more than people wanting to hear themselves talk (or see themselves type I suppose). Few are interested in trying to see all sides.

One question for Gothamite - where does government imposition end? Say for argument's sake you're right - the government should impose gay marriage rights regardless of its popularity. Is that the end of it, or should that just be the way things work, that Washington tells us what's best for us?

[Gothamite]

Empathy is more than mere understanding. It connotes a certain sharing of those feelings in response, however fleeting.

I understand bigotry. I cannot, however, fully empathize with bigots.

You're just wrong and trying to spin that to your advantage. See what you made me do again?

em·pa·thy   

[em-puh-thee]

–noun

1.

the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

Not emotional and not agreement with and not endorsement of etc. and so on. It simply means you understand.

No, no, no.

I see your online dictionary definition and raise you one:

empathy

(em|pathy)

(mass noun)

the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

and another

em·pa·thy noun \ˈem-pə-thē\

Definition of EMPATHY

1: the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it

2: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this

Empathy is much more than mere understanding.

I was wrong on one count; I said empathy "connotes a certain sharing of those feelings in response, however fleeting", when I should have written "denotes". After all, it's right there in the definition.

Even using the definition most sympathetic to the point you're trying to make, empathy requires an identification and/or sharing on some level, so no, no, no.

As I said before I understand where bigotry comes from, but I cannot fully empathize with it.

Now, you can continue to argue semantics all you want, but that reveals a lack of substantive argument.

One question for Gothamite - where does government imposition end? Say for argument's sake you're right - the government should impose gay marriage rights regardless of its popularity. Is that the end of it, or should that just be the way things work, that Washington tells us what's best for us?

Simple. Find me another established fundamental right that is currently being denied a selective group of citizens without valid Constitutional reason. That's where "imposition" begins and ends.

[Lights Out]

I wasn't trying to twist your words by quoting part of your sentence, BlueSky. I was just making the point that the government doesn't work on one thing at a time. They can give homosexuals the right to marry without sacrificing work on the things you feel a progressive society should be focused on.

[OnWis97]

One question for Gothamite - where does government imposition end? Say for argument's sake you're right - the government should impose gay marriage rights regardless of its popularity. Is that the end of it, or should that just be the way things work, that Washington tells us what's best for us?

He's right on this. Washington shamefully told some states what was best for them when they shoved integration down their throats. This was totally against the will of the people. In fact in many of those states, so was ending slavery. Further I don't remember there being a vote (by men, the only people with the right to vote) on whether women can vote either. These "equal" rights were all imposed, regardless of their popularity.

[Dexter Morgan]

Talk about enforcing the ideas of the few upon all.

Yes. It is. If the government listened to the will of the people segregation would still be the law of the land in the American south. The will of the people in Germany in 1933 was for Hitler to be Chancellor. The civil rights of a minority should NEVER depend on the approval of the majority.

And you know what? Your own Constitution agrees with me. Alexander Hamilton, who's ideas formed the ideological backbone of the Constitution, wrote about the "tyranny of the majority" and that a republic should strive to protect the rights of minorities from the will of the majority. Hamilton, one of the Constitution's key framers, argued that the mass of people are ignorant, and thus cannot be trusted to influence such important decisions as civil liberties.

Or if you want something more contemporary, I'll use a Tommy Lee Jones quote from Men in Black.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky animals and you know it."

You just don't trust the mob ("majority rule") with the rights of minorities.

[IceCap]

This thread is nothing more than people wanting to hear themselves talk (or see themselves type I suppose). Few are interested in trying to see all sides.

I understand the various anti-gay marriage sides well enough, I just find them all equally abhorrent in their attempts to deny a basic right to a select minority of the citizenry. So I understand them. I also reject them. And I don't feel I'll lose any sleep over rejecting a bigoted point of view.

Talk about enforcing the ideas of the few upon all.

Yes. It is. If the government listened to the will of the people segregation would still be the law of the land in the American south. The will of the people in Germany in 1933 was for Hitler to be Chancellor. The civil rights of a minority should NEVER depend on the approval of the majority.

And you know what? Your own Constitution agrees with me. Alexander Hamilton, who's ideas formed the ideological backbone of the Constitution, wrote about the "tyranny of the majority" and that a republic should strive to protect the rights of minorities from the will of the majority. Hamilton, one of the Constitution's key framers, argued that the mass of people are ignorant, and thus cannot be trusted to influence such important decisions as civil liberties.

Or if you want something more contemporary, I'll use a Tommy Lee Jones quote from Men in Black.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky animals and you know it."

You just don't trust the mob ("majority rule") with the rights of minorities.

I don't know why, but the guy in the front row, far right cracks me up

[Gothamite]

Monocle. Comedy gold.

Almost as inherently funny as sock garters.

[DrAwesomeberry]

Leave the word "marriage" to the religions. Everybody, gay or straight, can get a civil union with the same rights. That's probably the simplest way to achieve equality.

[Gothamite]

Leave the word "marriage" to the religions. Everybody, gay or straight, can get a civil union with the same rights. That's probably the simplest way to achieve equality.

Too late - marriage is already a civil institution, not a religious one.

What you're suggesting is a far more significant overhaul of our society than marriage equality could ever conceive.

So that's not the simplest way to achieve equality. The simplest way to achieve equality is to require that states treat all couples, you know, equally.

[illwauk]

Leave the word "marriage" to the religions. Everybody, gay or straight, can get a civil union with the same rights. That's probably the simplest way to achieve equality.

I pitched this awhile back and no one got on board then, yet suddenly it seems to be rather popular with the anti-marriage equality crowd... hmmmm...

[Gothamite]

Hey, their ship is sinking. There's bound to be a little desperation.

[IceCap]

Leave the word "marriage" to the religions. Everybody, gay or straight, can get a civil union with the same rights. That's probably the simplest way to achieve equality.

I pitched this awhile back and no one got on board then, yet suddenly it seems to be rather popular with the anti-marriage equality crowd... hmmmm...

The problem is that this is what they do in France. And there's no way Americans will be ok with taking pointers from the French.

[DrAwesomeberry]

Leave the word "marriage" to the religions. Everybody, gay or straight, can get a civil union with the same rights. That's probably the simplest way to achieve equality.

I pitched this awhile back and no one got on board then, yet suddenly it seems to be rather popular with the anti-marriage equality crowd... hmmmm...

I'm pro-gay marriage. It just seems that the biggest obstacle to its passage are the "sanctity of marriage" "family values" nitwits who associate civil marriage with their religion's idea of marriage. Breaking the association between the civil and religious institutions makes gay marriage easier to swallow for those people.

[Gothamite]

Why make it easier for bigots to swallow?

Seriously, why?

[BlueSky]

Empathy is more than mere understanding. It connotes a certain sharing of those feelings in response, however fleeting.

I understand bigotry. I cannot, however, fully empathize with bigots.

You're just wrong and trying to spin that to your advantage. See what you made me do again?

em·pa·thy   

[em-puh-thee]

–noun

1.

the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

Not emotional and not agreement with and not endorsement of etc. and so on. It simply means you understand.

No, no, no.

I see your online dictionary definition and raise you one:

empathy

(em|pathy)

(mass noun)

the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

and another

em·pa·thy noun \ˈem-pə-thē\

Definition of EMPATHY

1: the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it

2: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this

Empathy is much more than mere understanding.

I was wrong on one count; I said empathy "connotes a certain sharing of those feelings in response, however fleeting", when I should have written "denotes". After all, it's right there in the definition.

Even using the definition most sympathetic to the point you're trying to make, empathy requires an identification and/or sharing on some level, so no, no, no.

As I said before I understand where bigotry comes from, but I cannot fully empathize with it.

Now, you can continue to argue semantics all you want, but that reveals a lack of substantive argument.

One question for Gothamite - where does government imposition end? Say for argument's sake you're right - the government should impose gay marriage rights regardless of its popularity. Is that the end of it, or should that just be the way things work, that Washington tells us what's best for us?

Simple. Find me another established fundamental right that is currently being denied a selective group of citizens without valid Constitutional reason. That's where "imposition" begins and ends.

1. It's not semantics, it's what the word means and doesn't mean. "Identifying with" and "sharing the feelings of" doesn't mean you agree. What if there's no issue involved? Can you imagine what it would be like to be strapped to a gurney, knowing you were about to be executed? If you can, it doesn't mean you're a killer, want to be, or have ever thought about killing anyone. It doesn't mean you're for capital punishment or against it. It simply means you're able to place yourself in that situation and imagine what it must feel like.

Opposing something, even gay marriage, doesn't make someone a bigot. On this issue, it conflicts with many people's beliefs, and that's their right. It's NOT your right to judge whether their beliefs are right or wrong. I happen to believe Americans should - with more restrictions frankly than exist now - be able to own weapons. I disagree, however, with those who say the 2nd Amendment guarantees that right to anyone. It clearly states "a well-regulated militia," which I interpret to mean the Minutemen back then and members of some kind of government-sanctioned organization today (National Guard, etc.). But I'm not a Constitutional scholar, and I may be wrong (unlike some, I'm willing to entertain that possibility). But hey, that's what the document says.

My point being things aren't as black and white as you would like, even when it comes to what are considered "fundamental rights."

You're a skilled online debater, using those clever but false little digs like "that reveals a lack of substantive argument" to try and chip away at people's credibility and calling people bigots because they oppose something you support. Just because you disagree doesn't mean a point lacks substance. No offense intended, just wanted you to know some of us see through it.

On the other thing, I sure hope it's limited to fundamental rights because there are some nuts in this country who'd cheer if Washington forced us all to drive Smart Cars.

I wasn't trying to twist your words by quoting part of your sentence, BlueSky. I was just making the point that the government doesn't work on one thing at a time. They can give homosexuals the right to marry without sacrificing work on the things you feel a progressive society should be focused on.

Yes, exactly. In other words, they shouldn't be concerning themselves about who wants to marry who. Which is what I said.

[trekbkr]

Empathy is more than mere understanding. It connotes a certain sharing of those feelings in response, however fleeting.

I understand bigotry. I cannot, however, fully empathize with bigots.

You're just wrong and trying to spin that to your advantage. See what you made me do again?

em·pa·thy   

[em-puh-thee]

?noun

1.

the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

Not emotional and not agreement with and not endorsement of etc. and so on. It simply means you understand.

You offered your own contradiction to your own argument here, Blue. "Vicarious experiencing of" is a lot more than mere understanding.

As to the debate herein, it's quite simple: No argument made either against or in favor of allowing gay marriage can be valid if it's based on religion. The government cannot take religious or even vaguely moral approaches into account when confronting the issue. As far as Uncle Sam is concerned, only one filter applies: constitutionality. Is it unconstitutional to deny gay marriage? As Gothamite has correctly pointed out in this thread over ... and over ... and over ... and over again (surely his arms must be tired from all the dead horse beating), YES, it is unconstitutional to deny gay marriage. It frankly boggles my mind that some find it's even debatable.

[BlueSky]

One question for Gothamite - where does government imposition end? Say for argument's sake you're right - the government should impose gay marriage rights regardless of its popularity. Is that the end of it, or should that just be the way things work, that Washington tells us what's best for us?

He's right on this. Washington shamefully told some states what was best for them when they shoved integration down their throats. This was totally against the will of the people. In fact in many of those states, so was ending slavery. Further I don't remember there being a vote (by men, the only people with the right to vote) on whether women can vote either. These "equal" rights were all imposed, regardless of their popularity.

Yeah, great. You know, it's funny. Because sometimes I think they SHOULD be able to force people to do things. Like wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets, or go outside (and far away I hope) to smoke or pay more for health coverage if they smoke. Hell, I wouldn't blame an insurance company for refusing to cover a motorcyclist who chooses to ride without a helmet because with choice comes accountability and with accountability comes consequences. So in other words, sure, make the choice to not wear a helmet, but don't then expect someone else to pay when your stupid choice leads to a need to learn to walk again. Harsh perhaps, but I'm sick of people demanding their "rights" without the first thought about their responsibility as citizens or the consequences of their choices.

All these people who "can't afford their mortgage"? Not all...let me be clear about that...but for some, the truth is they can't afford the lifestyle they desire. Quit the smokes, liquor, cell phone, satellite TV and expensive car payment and I'll bet that mortgage would be more affordable, wouldn't it? Maybe anyone wanting welfare or mortgage assistance should have to be approved by a Consumer Credit Counseling-style financial analyst. Why not? That'll create some jobs!

But see, though all that stuff makes sense to me, I also don't like the idea of government as Big Brother and I'm reluctant to appoint myself (as some here do) as arbiter of all that's right and wrong in the world. I'm also smart enough to know it's a slippery slope and after the smokers, are they going after the overweight people next? By whose standard would they judge? And then who, those who don't exercise "enough"?

I guess what I'm saying is that beliefs don't equal answers and there's a lot a gray in the world.

[illwauk]

As long as same-sex marriage is explicitly banned by the government, it IS concerning itself with who's marrying who and Lights Out's point still stands.