David Tyree is a moron

[Lights Out]

Bottom line: attacking our character is unproductive and adds nothing to the conversation. Also, writing gay marriage off as a "contentious issue" that can't be rectified only serves to lend credibility to bigots who wish to discriminate against gays.

[BlueSky]

If we did BlueSky's strategy (shut up and wait for people to come around) back in the '60s, interracial marriage would probably still be illegal. Just like how there are still racists who oppose interracial marriage, there will always be evangelicals who oppose gay marriage. Why kowtow to those freaks and bigots when they're a small minority?

You're showing your true colors here, man. Never did I say or advocate anything of the sort and I think you know it. You should really be re-examining either your integrity or your reading comprehension.

Anybody with an IQ over 80 is seeing right through your smear campaign.

How is it a smear campaign when you have spent the entire thread arguing that we can't do anything about gay marriage yet because it's "a contentious issue"?

Because I never said that. I said I could understand why some people oppose it. If you can quote one post of mine where I said "we can't do anything about it", go for it.

If it wasn't contentious, why hasn't it happened? Because those with the power to change this are elected and concerned about re-election, and a lot of people oppose it. What's insane about you guys is that when someone states a simple fact like that, you twist it up and claim the person said "we can't do anything about it." No, they just stated this crazy thing called reality. I agree gays should be able to marry, and that's what I meant way back when I said the government shouldn't concern itself with who marries who.

That's maybe the funniest thing about this whole ridiculous exchange. "Live and let live" sums up my attitude towards other people. Couldn't care less what they do in their private lives as long as it's legal and doesn't adversely affect others. If two people of whatever race or gender love each other, who am I to say, "No, sorry, you can't be married." But...I do understand (not agree with, support, or endorse) why some who have been raised to believe a certain way see marriage as between a man and a woman. If my understanding of that is a problem for you or Gothamite or whoever else, if that means my white horse isn't as white as yours...oh well.

[BlueSky]

I'm not a Constitutional scholar, neither are you and, I assume, neither is Gothamite. So as I've said before, I know what it says in general, but would be reluctant to argue details without doing some research. How many people think it mandates separation of church and state? It doesn't.

Wouldn't it be simple enough for the government to just add "sexual preference" to the list of things covered by anti-discrimination laws? Why haven't they done that?

I've also explained in detail why just because there's no Constitutionally valid reason not to allow it, it doesn't make it a slam dunk. Whether you guys like it or not, whether you're right or wrong, it's a contentious issue. That's just reality.

Publicly, it is a contentious issue. As all civil rights are.

Legally, not so much. Judge Walker's ruling in the Prop 8 case destroyed the very fragile legal cheesecloth the bigots had tried to shield themselves with. And yes, I can say "bigots" in this case because Judge Walker ruled, that the Prop 8 supporters couldn't offer any "rational basis" for the law. He called it "bigotry" in his decision, quite correctly.

Even Justice Scalia, who is no fan of gay rights, admitted in his dissent to Lawrence that there is no Constitutionally valid reason for denying gay couples their right to marry. Again, that pretty much destroyed any legal claims to the contrary, and the Lawrence decision was a major underpinning of Walker's ruling.

But really, my question asked a little more than you answered. And that's my fault. But here's the response to your response: If, as you admit, there's no Constitutionally valid reason to deny gay couples their fundamental rights, why exactly should we care how "contentious" the issue is? People opposed will just have to suck it up, as opponents of interracial marriage did in 1967, because waiting even one day for them to come around is an injustice to their fellow citizens.

Fair enough (the bolded question). My response: How many letters have you written to Congress demanding action? To the President? Why aren't you railing at those who have, and have had, the power to make this change with one stroke of a pen (my previous suggestion to just add "sexual preference" to those items already forbidden as a basis for discrimination)? If it's as clear and obvious and right as you make it out to be, why has our government failed so miserably to act and what have you done in protest?

The government has failed so miserably because the government is made up of people. We like to talk about "the government" as though it is some monolithic entity with its own mind and agenda, but it isn't. It's a collection of hundreds of thousands of citizens being lobbied by hundreds of thousands of different citizens, all of whom have their own competing beliefs and agendas.

"The government" failed to defend the rights of interracial couples, as well. That's why we need a court system. Because the general public is notoriously slow to recognize the civil rights of minority groups. And the government, being made up of members of the general public, needs to be prodded to do the right thing.

As for the rest, you presume that I haven't done anything. I did, especially these last two weeks as the state senators in Albany had an opportunity to right an historic injustice. I have donated money to lobbying groups, I have written and called my legislators. But again, you're trying to make this personal. It shouldn't be about you personally, and it shouldn't be about me personally. It should be about the law.

Bottom line: attacking our character is unproductive and adds nothing to the conversation. Also, writing gay marriage off as a "contentious issue" that can't be rectified only serves to lend credibility to bigots who wish to discriminate against gays.

You have the balls to scold me for doing exactly who you two have been doing through this entire thread? It's okay for you to say or imply I (and others who disagree with you) are bigots? Rich, guys...so very rich.

[Lights Out]

Apparently you missed Gothamite's post about the court system and how civil rights often fail at the polls?

Again, back in the '60s, there were plenty of politicians who opposed racial equality due to public pressure. If we had waited for those people to come around before finally granting equality, would we have racial equality today? Absolutely not. As long as we keep giving bigotry power by excusing it as necessary for re-election, it won't stop appearing in our legislation and lack of legislation until its power is taken away.

[Lights Out]

Considering the opposition to gay marriage is comprised entirely of personal disdain for homosexuals' lifestyle choice and religious babble, with no Constitutional basis whatsoever for denying homosexual couples the priveleges that they are entitled to under the law, I feel completely justified in branding people who are against gay marriage as bigots.

By the way, I have not implied that you are a bigot, BlueSky. After all, you have mentioned that you support gay marriage. My main point is that not taking action because a civil rights issue is "contentious" is a big mistake.

[BlueSky]

Apparently you missed Gothamite's post about the court system and how civil rights often fail at the polls?

Again, back in the '60s, there were plenty of politicians who opposed racial equality due to public pressure. If we had waited for those people to come around before finally granting equality, would we have racial equality today? Absolutely not. As long as we keep giving bigotry power by excusing it as necessary for re-election, it won't stop appearing in our legislation and lack of legislation until its power is taken away.

In other words, it was a contentious issue. That's all I ever said, not that "we shouldn't do anything about it".

[BlueSky]

Considering the opposition to gay marriage is comprised entirely of personal disdain for homosexuals' lifestyle choice and religious babble, with no Constitutional basis whatsoever for denying homosexual couples the priveleges that they are entitled to under the law, I feel completely justified in branding people who are against gay marriage as bigots.

By the way, I have not implied that you are a bigot, BlueSky. After all, you have mentioned that you support gay marriage. My main point is that not taking action because a civil rights issue is "contentious" is a big mistake.

Really?

It's only a contentious issue because bigots are being taken seriously and others are "empathizing" with them.

Since I brought up the whole empathy thing, and since Gothamite and I got into a whole thing over that, and since you seem to be his wingman in this debate, forgive me for assuming the above was a shot at me.

[BlueSky]

DP

[Lights Out]

Well, "empathy" was a poor word choice on your part. Sorry.

[BlueSky]

Well, "empathy" was a poor word choice on your part. Sorry.

So it was a personal attack, the kind that don't belong in a serious discussion and contribute nothing to the thread, the kind you just had the stones to try and scold me about?

All that AND you don't understand the word empathy.

[Lights Out]

Really? Can you point out in that post where I called you a bigot or insulted you personally? Read back through the argument and you'll find that while everyone else has been calm and reasoned, you've posted pictures of hyenas and accused us of calling anyone who we disagree with a bigot.

[BlueSky]

Really? Can you point out in that post where I called you a bigot or insulted you personally? Read back through the argument and you'll find that while everyone else has been calm and reasoned, you've posted pictures of hyenas and accused us of calling anyone who we disagree with a bigot.

So I posted a pic of hyenas in response to calm and reasoned discussion? One of us is delusional, and when I have some time with nothing better to do, we'll take a look at which one of us it is.

[Gothamite]

Well, "empathy" was a poor word choice on your part. Sorry.

So it was a personal attack,

No. It was an attack on your argument.

The distinction may appear small, but it is actually enormous.

[Gothamite]

Now, can we get back to the actual topic at hand? We actually had a nice conversation going there for a few minutes.

Here's where we left off: If, as you admit, there's no Constitutionally valid reason to deny gay couples their fundamental rights, why exactly should we care how "contentious" the issue is?

[BlueSky]

Now, can we get back to the actual topic at hand? We actually had a nice conversation going there for a few minutes.

Here's where we left off: If, as you admit, there's no Constitutionally valid reason to deny gay couples their fundamental rights, why exactly should we care how "contentious" the issue is?

We shouldn't. Stating that it is contentious is not the same as saying we should care about it being contentious. But why should I have to tell you that?

Next bolded question?

[Lights Out]

Really? Can you point out in that post where I called you a bigot or insulted you personally? Read back through the argument and you'll find that while everyone else has been calm and reasoned, you've posted pictures of hyenas and accused us of calling anyone who we disagree with a bigot.

So I posted a pic of hyenas in response to calm and reasoned discussion? One of us is delusional, and when I have some time with nothing better to do, we'll take a look at which one of us it is.

Hmm... isn't this the same kind of cherrypicking you accuse Ice_Cap of doing?

[Gothamite]

Now, can we get back to the actual topic at hand? We actually had a nice conversation going there for a few minutes.

Here's where we left off: If, as you admit, there's no Constitutionally valid reason to deny gay couples their fundamental rights, why exactly should we care how "contentious" the issue is?

We shouldn't. Stating that it is contentious is not the same as saying we should care about it being contentious. But why should I have to tell you that?

Next bolded question?

Thank you.

So why do you keep bringing it up, if you understand that legally it doesn't matter and practically we shouldn't care?

[BlueSky]

Well, "empathy" was a poor word choice on your part. Sorry.

So it was a personal attack,

No. It was an attack on your argument.

The distinction may appear small, but it is actually enormous.

He said I empathize with bigots. Your definition of the word would mean that I support their point of view. That's not a personal attack?

You guys are positively Clintonesque. Words mean whatever you want them to mean at the time, whatever fits the point you're trying to make.

[Lights Out]

No, you said you empathized with bigots.

[BlueSky]

No, you said you empathized with bigots.

And you don't know the difference between empathy and sympathy. Besides, why is it wrong to understand another's point of view even if you disagree with it?