• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

John Madden

resident policy guy
My parents and many other couples I know have done fine without these critically important legal benefits

that's nice, now tell me why what i'm quoting isn't logically fallacious.

not even addressing the rest of the point since you seem to be willfully leaving out the fact that the non-married couples at least have the CHOICE of getting married
 
Last edited:
that's nice, now tell me why what i'm quoting isn't logically fallacious.

Because it's anecdotal evidence, yes yes. Very good.

Point still stands that I see no reason to consider these benefits anything more than trivial.
 

John Madden

resident policy guy
given that the legal rights one is the only one that will realistically be addressed this century, it's as good as it's going to get
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
Yet the legal rights one isn't a good one in the first place, so what can you do?

Just because your parents "and many other couples you know" don't care about legal benefits doesn't change that the vast majority of couples do care about the legal benefits.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
Point still stands that I see no reason to consider these benefits anything more than trivial.

The thing is, gay people not being able to get a piece of paper is a lesser problem than bullying, restrictions against adoption, etc. It's definitely a lesser problem. But I don't see how this means that it doesn't matter at all. Just because we can't prove to a satisfactory degree that the marriage distinction does matter, doesn't mean that we've confirmed it doesn't matter.

And I still feel like the reason marriage matters is right in front of our face - why would people fight so hard over the sanctity of marriage, to protect their culture from homosexuality, if it wasn't valuable for gay people to satisfy this internalized culture of marriage-sanctity? It's not even particularly a matter of man-handling the culture of society or trying to force tolerance on people in some kind of tyrannical liberal manner, but having at least the governments that observe legal marriage certificates participate in this cultural discourse that is already partially there. And I don't think making marriage a part of government is a radical progressive idea. Separating marriage from government, in my mind, would be the new, unusual idea.

Also, I'm not really familiar with the dangers of this more sinister fake progressivism, mainly because I don't see the slope in which giving marriage to gay couples results in couples that aren't married campaigning to get the same benefits. That's what a marriage, in the legal sense, is for, and the example is completely alien to me.

Well it's as much a perception thing as much as anything else, especially in the U.K. As I said earlier in the thread, the gay marriage issue is as much about a man picking a fight and trying to wrestle internal control back to his side of a political party than it is about gay marriage. When a man campaigns for a minor change more passionately than he does for the need to save and restore our economy, it baffles me. Freedom of speech, drug legislation, the NHS. These things matter. Gay people no longer being civil partners but being married couples doesn't.

The gay marriage thing is also worth mentioning in another way, more tied to America, but applicable here too. It stems from the way in which gay marriage is used as a stick with which to beat others and further an agenda which moves much beyond gay marriage.

When we hear advocates of gay marriage talking, the buzzword is "fairness", or something similar to that. This same shtick (not a typo) is then used to justify other policies which have little to nothing to do with gay rights. Tax rises? It's about "fairness". More government? We must insure "fairness". Attempts to shut down freedom of speech? It's "unfair" to demonise certain groups for having vile opinions. It's part of an "us and them" mentality which is used by the modern left to prevent any kind of worthwhile debate. Hence why an irrelevant issue like gay marriage is presented as some kind of major step forward for civil rights. Those who oppose it are painted as bigots. Fast forward to a debate on the economy. Said "bigot" discusses sensible economic proposals, but their "bigoted" views on something like gay marriage are held against them and used as a stick in order to ignore their economic points. Gay marriage is a perfect embodiment of how minor issues are used to divert from other failures.

I'm pro gay-marriage, but I don't kid myself it's a big issue. Meanwhile, I resent the way that my opinion is used as a template for further "progressiveness".

Fair point, but like I said, I feel like this is a matter of personal taste, and don't really see the point of throwing out the gay marriage issue because you don't support the side that supports it. In addition, I actually really agree with you on the problem of throwing the idea of bigotry around and demonizing people for their motives and beliefs.

BTW, just so we're clear. What I'm replying to here is a man who criticises my opinions regularly when he has condoned mass murder on this very forum. Look at my sig for further details. A strange kind of moralist.

Dude, I'm sorry. But you either don't get it or don't want to. I said that about Gadhaffi because I didn't want Libya to be destablized, it's citizens to be in danger, and become vulnerable to al Qaeda...not because I somehow supported Gadhaffi himself. Even if my logic didn't work out, the fact is I was not calling for mass murder.

I very rarely stick to my guns in a debate on foreign matters anyway, which is why I said that I was 'deluded'. The fact is I'm a great big pacifist and it makes me sick to imagine anyone being killed, even a tyrant.
 
Last edited:
please, tell me more about how being blocked at literally every possible turn bar two from injecting any substantial government spending whatsoever into the economy was his fault again, i forgot what mental gymnastics you ran through last time

Let me rephrase as this isn't an Obama thread.

Taking away a debate on whose idea for the economy was better, the point is that the economy should have been the issue that dominated the election more than any other. Instead we got a Romney smear campaign.



Calling something mental gymnastics doesn't make it so.

i guess we should never address any issue that doesn't affect absolutely everyone (or enough of everyone to get classed as a Snorunt Conservationist-Approved Big Issue) then, since apparently the federal government is completely incapable of addressing ALL OF THESE SIMULTANEOUSLY.

That's not my point though and your purposeful misrepresentation won't make it so.

that's actually correct. they were about half self-identified moderates and about half self-identified liberals, with a very small proportion of self-identified conservatives. you're improving!

No liberal voted for Obama because Obama isn't a liberal and neither are his supporters.

and sort of repeating that second to last note, i wasn't aware that "gay issues" and "homosexuality and politics" were mutually exclusive terms from one another, given that gay issues are only issues because of the interactions between the latter. you'll have to show me your mental gymnastics routine again.

Well of course they are. One is located exclusively within the realm of what is a "gay issue" and the other encompasses politics as well. They may overlap but they're separate things.

Now, what forced me to have to point this out was that when I used the phrase "something like gay marriage", an individual (most likely purposefully) chose to interpret this as " gay marriage". This was wrong;. They then fell back onto the "oh but this is a gay issues" thread, which it is in part, but it is also a thread which encompasses politics. Gay marriage was a potential example related to wider political point. It was not the political point within itself.

Again, red herring mentions of "mental gymnastics" don't change anything.

drugs lol

Right, so a "war" which costs the West billions if not hundreds of billions a year (of taxpayer money), criminalises thousands and thousands of non-violent citizens, facilitates gang warfare (and the murders that go with it) and traps thousands of people within a criminal lifestyle is less important than gay marriage? Ok. Good to know.

civil liberty issues that actively affect a tiny minority of americans ps notice i am not saying they aren't issues lol

They affect everyone in America (and other laws in other countries affect civil liberties as well). If the government has a right to wiretap as they see fit, that affects everyone.

economic issues that aren't really issues ps this is specifically referencing things like the debt and tax rates on top brackets lol

Debt isn't an issue? Ok then. That's good. Everyone can stop worrying then.
 
Last edited:

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
Snorunt conservationist is probably right. We should just ignore the issue of gay marriage until we have fixed every other problem in the world.

This thread should be renamed to the Debt Debate.
 

Eterna

Well-Known Member
Snorunt conservationist is probably right. We should just ignore the issue of gay marriage until we have fixed every other problem in the world.

This thread should be renamed to the Debt Debate.

I agree, we should also stop funding abortions because we can use the money to better fund our economy. Besides, abortion is a small trifling issue anyway.
 

BigLutz

Banned
Snorunt conservationist is probably right. We should just ignore the issue of gay marriage until we have fixed every other problem in the world.

This thread should be renamed to the Debt Debate.

How about on a national level we work on the debt issue and leave Gay Marriage to where it should be, on a state level? Especially since it has absolutely no chance of passing on a national level
 
I plan to give a more substantial post later, but I need to point out something:


Also, I'm not really familiar with the dangers of this more sinister fake progressivism, mainly because I don't see the slope in which giving marriage to gay couples results in couples that aren't married campaigning to get the same benefits. That's what a marriage, in the legal sense, is for, and the example is completely alien to me.
Snorunt conservationist was not arguing about any kind of "slope." In fact, what he said was not even remotely like "giving gay marriage to gay couples results" in something else. CSolarstorm, despite showing genuine evidence of being able to look past the popular stereotypes on this issue, you do tend to see people's arguments as slippery slope arguments when they aren't (or as changing the subject when they aren't). Just because he mentioned something else that could, in theory, "be next" doesn't mean he was saying that this was next, in some kind of "Oh, that's a horrifying possibility that we have to prevent" type of way. His point was perfectly clear.

Snorunt conservationist is probably right. We should just ignore the issue of gay marriage until we have fixed every other problem in the world.

This thread should be renamed to the Debt Debate.
I agree, we should also stop funding abortions because we can use the money to better fund our economy. Besides, abortion is a small trifling issue anyway.


...

Do you two really have to make this debate even more stuffed with straw men?
 

7 tyranitars

Well-Known Member
I plan to give a more substantial post later, but I need to point out something:



Snorunt conservationist was not arguing about any kind of "slope." In fact, what he said was not even remotely like "giving gay marriage to gay couples results" in something else. CSolarstorm, despite showing genuine evidence of being able to look past the popular stereotypes on this issue, you do tend to see people's arguments as slippery slope arguments when they aren't (or as changing the subject when they aren't). Just because he mentioned something else that could, in theory, "be next" doesn't mean he was saying that this was next, in some kind of "Oh, that's a horrifying possibility that we have to prevent" type of way. His point was perfectly clear.





...

Do you two really have to make this debate even more stuffed with straw men?

I would say sarcasm, but that is me.
 

BigLutz

Banned
That's what they used to say about civil rights.

Yeah and when we have Gay Marchers having fire hoses turned on them, beaten, lynched, and basically mob action there may be more push toward it. Right now though it just is not that big of a deal for people.

I mean I look at these polls and the ones that include Gay Marriage seem to get around 1 to 4% in terms of national interest, that just shows me that people do not really care right now.

http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm
 
Last edited:

THRILLHO

nothin' at all
yes, those samples of 0.0005% of the american population are surely strong indicators

just because "most people don't care" doesn't make it a non-issue. i'm sure in the 1930s not many people would have cared about black people getting equal rights either, but that doesn't mean **** when they do deserve the same human rights as every straight, cis, white, middle class man
 

BigLutz

Banned
yes, those samples of 0.0005% of the american population are surely strong indicators

That is always the poor excuse when a poll doesn't turn out how people like. The fact is these are respected companies that work the numbers to try and get a respectable snap shot of America. If you have a poll on the same level as Pew and CNN that shows something different, feel free to post it.

just because "most people don't care" doesn't make it a non-issue. i'm sure in the 1930s not many people would have cared about black people getting equal rights either, but that doesn't mean **** when they do deserve the same human rights as every straight, cis, white, middle class man

It makes it a non issue in the realm that there is no rush to provide political pressure to pass a bill that will get it through the House and Senate. We can go round and round about if Gay Marriage is equal to how Blacks were treated in the 1930s ( Personally I think that is a terrible example ), but at the end of the day, the political pressure is just not there, that is just a fact.
 
Last edited:

THRILLHO

nothin' at all
That is always the poor excuse when a poll doesn't turn out how people like. The fact is these are respected companies that work the numbers to try and get a respectable snap shot of America. If you have a poll with the same level that shows something different, feel free to post it.

it is actually impossible to judge anything from such a small sample size, regardless of how varied they try to make it.

It makes it a non issue in the realm that there is no rush to provide political pressure to pass a bill that will get it through the House and Senate. We can go round and round about if Gay Marriage is equal to how Blacks were treated in the 1930s ( Personally I think that is a terrible example ), but at the end of the day, the political pressure is just not there, that is just a fact.

there's no political pressure because the groups that are passionate about it are such a minority. somewhere between what, 5-10% of the population identifies as LGBT, so the level of politically active LGBT lobbyists is going to be tiny.
of course it's not going to be a [img139]http://i.imgur.com/KdO4JbO.gif[/img139]PRESSING ISSUE[img139]http://i.imgur.com/KdO4JbO.gif[/img139] when less than 5% of the population is actively supporting it. they still deserve the rights, whether or not most people care about it shouldn't matter.

to be honest, it SHOULD be a non-issue and should just be allowed, the people who are so opposed to it are the ones kicking up a big fuss over something which doesn't affect them at all it's just so dumb why does anyone give a crap
 

BigLutz

Banned
it is actually impossible to judge anything from such a small sample size, regardless of how varied they try to make it.

Again if you have something that disproves it....

But lets go at this from a different angle. Lets say the polls are wrong, politicians still live by polls and with no evidence to show that Americans see it as a top issue, then why is a Politician going to invest time into a issue that 50% of Americans oppose, that is going to cost a extreme amount of time and political capital in, and which has little chance of passing? Mind you the last time politicians did this, it was Obamacare, and the Democrats are still paying for it.

there's no political pressure because the groups that are passionate about it are such a minority. somewhere between what, 5-10% of the population identifies as LGBT, so the level of politically active LGBT lobbyists is going to be tiny.
of course it's not going to be a [img139]http://i.imgur.com/KdO4JbO.gif[/img139]PRESSING ISSUE[img139]http://i.imgur.com/KdO4JbO.gif[/img139] when less than 5% of the population is actively supporting it. they still deserve the rights, whether or not most people care about it shouldn't matter.

to be honest, it SHOULD be a non-issue and should just be allowed, the people who are so opposed to it are the ones kicking up a big fuss over something which doesn't affect them at all it's just so dumb why does anyone give a crap

Again another cop out, just because a person cannot relate does not make something any less a pressing issue, gay marriage has passed in several states now by vote, and gay marriage is seen as something that people support by over 50 percent of the country for the first time ever. Again people do not need to be gay to relate, but that does not mean they are going to see it as the number one issue facing this nation. Because lets face it, when you have millions upon millions out of work, the economy on the edge of declining, and the debt reaching 100% of GDP, the whole marriage thing seems kind of... well small.
 
Last edited:
Top