ThePlayDrive
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Messages
- 19,610
- Reaction score
- 7,647
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
That's not History 101. That's your perception of how society works. Your perception is flawed for two reasons: 1) It could be legitimately argued that our "house" is divided in many ways and that there are already "sets of competing tribes." 2) There could be many things other than a "central institution" that unites people or, at the very least, keeps them from harming one another.History 101: If there is no central institution from which a common set of values extends across the broad spectrum of society, then that society will become a set of competing tribes engaged in a zero-sum struggle for power, and will turn on itself. A house divided will not stand.
Because other than the emotional charge, the situation has not changed. What was wise then is wise now.
Oh joy, an appeal to tradition. Tradition =/= wise.
And yes. The situation did change. It went from gays willing to compromise to being shown that compromise was not an option
That's not History 101. That's your perception of how society works.
1) It could be legitimately argued that our "house" is divided in many ways and that there are already "sets of competing tribes."
2) There could be many things other than a "central institution" that unites people or, at the very least, keeps them from harming one another.
No, that is already legally available to them, and would be made easily so under the Civil Unions compromise, which you will note is being explicitly rejected. This isn't about a rights. It's about a name.
Not at all. For the government to issue marriage licenses requires that the government define the qualifications for those licenses, meaning that discrimination is inherent in the deed of issuance. To define something is to place borders around it, to say "this, but not that, that but not this".
Not at all. They are exactly where I found them when I do so.
Correct: Tradition is simply the accumulation of what [some of the usually small, but powerful] people who lived before us and [who lived in different times, in different societies, with less knowledge] have to have worked best [for some of them].what people who lived before us have found to have worked best.
At this point, it's mostly an option only in the minds of those who are losing the battle over SSM.compromise is explicitly an option, and even more explicitly an option in this thread.
Would civil unions have been an acceptable compromise to the interracial marriage debate?
At this point, it's mostly an option only in the minds of those who are losing the battle over SSM.
1. No, that's your perception.no, that's fairly basic.
that is correct, it could be. The argument would, however, still fall flat. We are not yet that far gone.
History has demonstrated this to be incorrect. The institution does not have to be organic (for example, Tito kept the tribes of his area from attacking each other through the imposition of totalitarian dictatorship), but it does have to be there.
I'm glad you're honest about that.That is generally the way of it. Those who are more confident in their power tend to believe in pushing conflict to the bitter end, and those who are less so tend to believe in finding common ground.
I'm glad you're honest about that.
:shrug: I have no idea - it was never presented.
In many things, certainly. Tradition is simply the accumulation of what people who lived before us have found to have worked best. A sort of Democracy that is not limited to the living.
that is incorrect. compromise is explicitly an option, and even more explicitly an option in this thread.
No knee jerk here - I came to this conclusion from experience, direct and virtual, as well as the application of sound logic.
What once "worked best" does not mean that it is best for here and now.
Just because a compromise is available does not mean that it should be used. Particularly when if the shoe was on the other foot the other side never would have compromised.
DiavoTheMiavo said:Here's a compromise . . . all those people against gay marriage get the first 230-years-or-so of the country without gay marriage . . . the rest of us get gay marriage for the next 230-years. Deal? Some people are going to look stupid in 40-years, and most will deny they were ever against it.
I'm glad you're honest about that.
I couldn't give a damn, personally. It only starts becoming a problem when people start viewing marriage as a "right".
I cannot think of any example where sociologically, when a door opened . . . that it ever shut again. Tattoos were once thought to be a deviant practice carried out only by convicts and sailors. Now-a-days, if a chick don't have a tramp stamp something is wrong. Remember when gays had to live in the closet? Think that is coming back anytime soon? Or will the door continue to open?
Here's a compromise . . . all those people against gay marriage get the first 230-years-or-so of the country without gay marriage . . . the rest of us get gay marriage for the next 230-years. Deal? Some people are going to look stupid in 40-years, and most will deny they were ever against it.
winston53660 said:SCOZTUS has said marriage is a right.
I've googled "Supreme Court marriage right" - and saw zero headlines that talked about it being a right. I've seen umpteen articles saying that they can and will hear cases involving gay/SSM. However, at no point did I see a statement from SCOTUS saying that "marriage is a right".
It's just viewed as a "right" by a lot of people who think that every damned thing today is a "right". It's as if America has forgotten the definition of "privilege".
I've googled "Supreme Court marriage right" - and saw zero headlines that talked about it being a right. I've seen umpteen articles saying that they can and will hear cases involving gay/SSM. However, at no point did I see a statement from SCOTUS saying that "marriage is a right".
It's just viewed as a "right" by a lot of people who think that every damned thing today is a "right". It's as if America has forgotten the definition of "privilege".
Really? I goggled the same phrase and the first two results mentioned it.I've googled "Supreme Court marriage right" - and saw zero headlines that talked about it being a right.
RabidAlpaca said:So marriage is a privelege that the state grants to whom it wants? I tend to be of the belief that its absolutely none of their business. We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Religionists using the state's muscle to provide special priveleges to some citizens that they deny to others is inherently immoral, and certainly out of the scope of government's power granted by the constitution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?