Previous 21 - 30 Next
In response to:

Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition

du2 Wrote: Aug 31, 2014 12:12 PM
When people marry, they aren't just marrying a gender. They are presumably marrying someone of compatible SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Doesn't that make more sense? Like requiring blood types to match, sexual orientation is better served when people marry their same orientation type. So no, gay people haven't been legally able to marry their same orientation. That has now and is changing because there is no defense against doing so. All else remains the same. Gay couples otherwise marry under the same requirement of consent, age minimum and not being related or already married. And there are no fertility, morals, religious, endurance, skills or any other QUALITY tests to qualify to marry. So pretending that gay people should be tested or have a precedent for it, is why the traditional marriage mavens lose in court. They keep trying to make this about what isn't legal to impose on ANYONE.
In response to:

Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition

du2 Wrote: Aug 31, 2014 12:08 PM
Okay, that insults logic. It really does. That doesn't make any kind of sense, let alone has any connection to reality whatsoever. I suspect you suffer from dementia, therefore I won't make fun of you and your comment.
In response to:

Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition

du2 Wrote: Aug 31, 2014 12:06 PM
And heterosexuality doesn't protect you from disease. And certainly the tragedy of the millions of children living in poverty, and who are at risk of abuse and neglect that overwhelm ALL CPS in the US, is the abomination. People who don't casually and inconsiderately make babies, shouldn't be the subject of such derision and stigma because of it.
In response to:

Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition

du2 Wrote: Aug 31, 2014 12:03 PM
The divorce patterns and children being abandoned by fathers, isn't something you can blame on gay people. Neither is the overwhelming about of children living in poverty or who are wards of the foster care system. You're right about moral issues of responsibility. Gay people are hardly a threat when they are productive, tax paying and take responsibility for each other and THEIR own children. And often enough, as proven in court, responsibility for OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN. Each and every leader representative of organizations formed to protect traditional marriage, have none of them adopted a child in need. Nor served in the military in uniform. But sure put in their two cents about gays doing none of that. Hypocrisy much?
In response to:

Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition

du2 Wrote: Aug 31, 2014 11:59 AM
The Constitution is silent about marriage, because some things are a given without it being specified. Like all people being treated with as much equal justice and opportunity in their freedoms and rights as possible. The Constitution DOES specify protection of minorities from tyranny by a majority, so you ARE seeing federal justice working and NOT imposing individual views by the justices. All the laws imposed on gay citizens are based on animus and ancient reactionary beliefs that no longer apply and cannot.
In response to:

Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition

du2 Wrote: Aug 31, 2014 11:55 AM
The building blocks of a society takes a LOT more than a man and woman mating. Get real. The state can't enforce or ensure any of this by discriminating against gay people and THEIR participation in what is civilized, family and productive. THEY are capable of it. What is UNCIVILIZED and always has been, is denying this is true. And punishing otherwise law abiding, productive and compassionate people the option of forming and supporting each other and their families too. I can think of nothing MORE civilized, than recognizing the moral result of equal justice and opportunity under the law for each person with the will and the ability.
In response to:

Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition

du2 Wrote: Aug 31, 2014 11:51 AM
You just lost your case too. There is no requirement or NEED to believe in God. The quality of life is evidenced by a society that can recognize equal justice, protections, freedoms, rights and opportunity and the results of each of these. NO good purpose has EVER been served by denying gay people anywhere, any of these. There are traditions that have been cruel, brutal and unnecessary in the name of God too. And God has been invoked to implement this cruelty on different people OTHER than gays. So to only use the tradition itself as evidence, isn't intelligent, let alone morally sound.
In response to:

Blacks Must Confront Reality

du2 Wrote: Aug 27, 2014 10:35 AM
This black woman did. And although I'm not necessarily disagreeing with Walter Williams, he's leaving out some crucial information. During and after the war conflicts, black men were excluded from joining labor unions and living in neighborhoods where economies were much more stable. The same promotions and commiserate pay wasn't available to black families as it was to white families. Black men, although starting out in an intact family, strained economic levels in black families meant they were extremely and far more vulnerable in the event of illness or death. Those families were more intact because black women were working, as opposed to white women whose ability to be stay at home mothers was more of an option. With unstable economic issue that further isolated black families, black market criminal activity could prevail. And whites would indulge their own vices of drug use, gambling and prostitution in black neighborhoods, further creating higher crime areas. A legacy that remains to this day and contribute to the stats that Williams is mentioning here. The ROOT is still racism that continues to damage black family stability GENERATIONALLY because previous generations never got the same opportunity and access to those things that make neighborhoods more stable they could pass down to their children and grandchildren. He asked a rhetorical question. Several. But the critical obvious one is: why are black neighborhoods just that? Isolated and virtually synonymous with 'bad' neighborhood?
Maybe not. But our world is one of IMMENSE diversity and variation. There is little that is so rigid and cannot change among human beings. There are many kinds of normal. History, decency and social justice and the expansion of the human experience should have taught you by now the FOLLY of believing there is any supremacy in one human being over another. Especially on the basis of the ONE thing that might make them distinct. Like color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation. Being anti social, pathological are NOT exclusive. I guess you haven't learned. Well, those of us interested in social justice and human progress don't have time for you to catch up.
Barber wouldn't cite any research that supports the FACT that gay couples can and should benefit from marrying as op sex couples do. The FACTS are, that gay people are marrying someone who shares their same sexual orientation, as heterosexuals are presumed to be doing. The standards of marrying into a mutually consenting, adult relationship are the same for gay as well as op sex couples. The intention of the law for both is the same: custody and responsibility for each other and the children within that relationship. FACT: Gay couples can and have met these same requirements and WANT to. And have engaged in this responsibility, whether legally tethered to marriage or not. The fantasy, is an always has been Barber's. That marriage requires people to be good enough to marry, qualified ONLY by gender. But there ARE no religious, fertility, morals, skills, health or endurance requirements to marry. Marriage is worth just about ANYONE being encouraged to aspire to it. These are facts and I dare you to say differently.
That's funny you say that alhart. Because on this subject, marriage isn't really a matter of science to begin with. And RELIGION is exceptionally ALL about EMOTION. And people of fundamental faith, have been suspicious of science, human experience beyond the narrow religious view, the idea of independent critical thought and most of all, are rigid in their ideas about gender and it's reality and function in the world. MEN have relied on fear and ignorance to fuel the religious narrative, much more than rational and respectful tolerance. Herald of G is right about how men like Barber wax nostalgic about eras he'd never knew and traditions that had to change and were rigidly enforced purely on the basis of emotion. From not accepting soldiers marrying, women having no less autonomy in a marriage than a child...or pet, to mixed marriages being banned...science had been ignored for a long time in deference to prejudice. Barber is no exception there. So your comment is flat out contradictory.
Previous 21 - 30 Next