http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/index.html
John "Natoma" Reynolds
John "Natoma" Reynolds
Bush supports amendment banning gay marriage
- Thread starter John Reynolds
- Start date
Pfft.
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=222031#222031
Why settle for the imitation when you can have the real thing?
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=222031#222031
Why settle for the imitation when you can have the real thing?
Watching crossfire on cnn. The person for gay marriages (president of a human rights group) was asked why not let more than 2 people getting married (poylgamists). What did she say after trying to dodge it for 1 minute:"Because I dont approve of it" I guess gay rights supporters know how to discriminate as well as homophobes.
later,
epic
I guess gay rights supporters know how to discriminate as well as homophobes. later,
epic
epicstruggle said:Watching crossfire on cnn. The person for gay marriages (president of a human rights group) was asked why not let more than 2 people getting married (poylgamists). What did she say after trying to dodge it for 1 minute:"Because I dont approve of it"
later,
epic
Ow Ow Ow Ouch!
There goes her credibility! 8 months left right? Better get the popcorn ready.
Edit: typo
If you like politics and you like it dirty. Then the next few months is going to make mud wrestling look tame.Tahir said:epicstruggle said:Watching crossfire on cnn. The person for gay marriages (president of a human rights group) was asked why not let more than 2 people getting married (poylgamists). What did she say after trying to dodge it for 1 minute:"Because I dont approve of it"
later,
epic
Ow Ow Ow Ouch!
There goes her credibility! 8 months left right? Better get the popcorn ready.
Edit: typo
Yeah her credibility was really shot. I couldnt believe what she said. I had to tivo back a bit to listen to it again. Laughed my ass off. later,
epic
I don't very much care for her answer because it's obvious she hasn't actually thought about the issue. But I find it highly dubious when people try to deflect the issue to something else instead of what's at hand.
I believe that if polygamists want to be legally recognized as married under the law, then that is their fight to take up. I see nothing wrong with people getting married to multiple mates if they so wish. It was only outlawed in this nation for christian reasons. Read the text on the 1879 Supreme Court decision which banned polygamy in this country. It's rather obvious it was a religious persecution decision and nothing more.
But that is not is what is at hand at this moment, nor is it what the bulk of my energy, or the millions of other gay and lesbian families and our supporters energy, is focused on.
I believe that if polygamists want to be legally recognized as married under the law, then that is their fight to take up. I see nothing wrong with people getting married to multiple mates if they so wish. It was only outlawed in this nation for christian reasons. Read the text on the 1879 Supreme Court decision which banned polygamy in this country. It's rather obvious it was a religious persecution decision and nothing more.
But that is not is what is at hand at this moment, nor is it what the bulk of my energy, or the millions of other gay and lesbian families and our supporters energy, is focused on.
I guess your right, lets keep discriminating against them. Glad we found something we agree on. I say screw gay rights while abortions are legal. And you say screw polygamists rights while gay marriage is illegal.Natoma said:
later,
epic
epicstruggle said:I guess your right, lets keep discriminating against them. Glad we found something we agree on. I say screw gay rights while abortions are legal. And you say screw polygamists rights while gay marriage is illegal.Natoma said:
later,
epic
Uh, no. I know you're going for a sarcastic jab in order to make a "funny" epic, but you know that's not what I'm saying at all.
I thought that was a pretty good sarcastic jab (more like an upper cut). At least you got the jist of it.Natoma said:
Although her comments strike me as funny/weird, because how would have the civil rights movement gone if they were only fighting for black rights??? See my point. Fight for everyones right to marry not just your own, then youll not look like a hypocrite. But thats just my 2cents.
later,
epic
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Natoma said:
How is that deflecting from the issue at hand? I didn't hear the actual interview, the precise wording of the question, or the complete context, but the general question is completely legitimate.
I personally don't like it, and I do see prolems with polygamy, but I wouldn't have an issue with States deciding for themselves what constituties a "civil union." Be it homosexual, polygamous, or whatever.
epicstruggle said:I thought that was a pretty good sarcastic jab (more like an upper cut). At least you got the jist of it.Natoma said:
Although her comments strike me as funny/weird, because how would have the civil rights movement gone if they were only fighting for black rights??? See my point. Fight for everyones right to marry not just your own, then youll not look like a hypocrite. But thats just my 2cents.
later,
epic
Well first off, I didn't see the television show in question so you have me at a disadvantage regarding what she stated on the show.
As for the rest, there's nothing hypocritical about what's going on at all. The of the civil rights movement in the 60s was centered on blacks epic. There were splinter groups, but the main proponents spoke almost exclusively regarding blacks, and the history of subjugation in this country.
Just as the women's rights movement had almost nothing to do with blacks, that didn't make the women's rights movement hypocritical. People can only focus on a particular subject simply because of the scope of the problem they are faced with. There is just not enough time, energy, and resources to throw at all the world's problems. I'm sure you could envelop every problem in this nation as a subset of civil rights, but who has the resources to do so?
Even the Civil Rights movement wasn't monolithic. Some were fighting for the right to marry interracially. Others were fighting for the right to vote. Others were fighting for the right to enter the same schools. In some cases it came together under one umbrella, but it took decades. You ask for too much, and are too quick to throw around the label "hypocrite."
Joe it's an ad hominem attack, if she had the presence of mind she would have pointed out that the right to marry multiple people is denied equally to all ... so it is not an issue of discrimination. Wether to allow discrimination based on sex for non-polygamous marriage is a question of discrimination. Just cause she didnt have the presence of mind to point out the difference between the issues doesnt give you the right to pretend to be equally stupid and do as well.
Joe DeFuria said:
Because you can say "What if" to anything Joe. With people asking in the 40s to be able to marry interracially, I'm sure they probably heard something like "Well why don't you just let the faggots marry too huh?" Or "Well if this happens, the white race will disappear! We'll go extinct! What if that happens huh?"
You can always find the "slippery slope" to anything progressive. It's nothing but a divisive, "end of the world" tactic that has long been used to keep progress at bay.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
MfA said:
And what about the right to be married to same sex partners? Why can't that be denied equally to "all"...whether you are a polygamist, or monogamous...
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Holy sh*t...Natoma and I just said the exact same thing 
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Natoma said:
Right. Don't see your point.
Why are you bringing interracial marriage into this....you're deflecting from the issue at hand.
that freaked me out too. less than 1 minute apart to boot.Joe DeFuria said:Holy sh*t...Natoma and I just said the exact same thing
later,
epic