I know this is late, but I wanted to address a few things: GAY! (Ha! Come on, lets hug it out!) I see what your saying, and I agree with you to a point. One thing I would like to see, though we never will, is for these people that your speak of to publicly disassociate with The Assholes (useful enough term to describe the people we are talking about). You see this with a lot of special interest groups- everyone with a brain can see that these people are Assholes who should be shunned and ignored, yet they say nothing about them because 1) they're afraid of being attacked by The Assholes and their hatemonger mouthbreathing followers (which make no mistake, the assholes and their followers are just as guilty of vitriol and hate as those whom they say they are against), and 2) they don't care because they think The Assholes, even though they're Assholes, will help them get what they want. And you can make this association with ANY special interest group- I don't care what side of the fence they're on. I hate The Assholes representing all of them, and part of me wishes that every single one of their causes goes up in flames just to spite them. But I agree with you for the most part, and I wish the best to the gay people I know and what them to have whatever it is they want that will make them happy. But I HATE the special interest groups who label you racist or homophobic or a bigot just because you disagree with them. They always attack you personally without even addressing the argument, and they do it because it works, because people are either idiots who are swayed by the bullshit attacks or are too chickenshit to stand up to The Assholes. The people that do this (and make no mistake, they also are the ones who profit from this) should be banned from the discussion, but they never will be. And THAT pisses me off and makes me resent the cause more than anything. But let me ask you this hypothetically- where does it stop? If one group can bypass the will of the people, why can't others? Say there is a vote on a statewide wealth redistribution law- the people vote it down unanimously. But we have a very vocal segment of the population decrying the vote, demanding that wealth redistribution is their right, and we get an activist judge who agrees with them. Boom- its the law now, fuck what the people think. Lets look at the polygamists- same deal, voted down, very vocal minority (though this is a stretch, because Mormons just seem too damn polite to protest), activist law makers and politicians- Boom, its now legal, fuck what the people think. Its a very slippery slope, but like a said, if you override the people on one thing, why can't you do it for everything? Whats the point of having a democracy? Just trust us, We're the Government, we know what's best for you better than you do. I hate the assholes who run around in g-strings with vodka bottles shoved up their asses during Mardi Gras, too. But I REALLY hate the people who automatically cry "homophobe" just because they think these people are assholes. And its not about hating on Gay Pride parades, its hating on the large concentration of assholes. I don't fuck with Mardi Gras in New Orleans or Spring Break anymore either- too many assholes. Why is it a cop out? How many of your beliefs that you have today have a foundation in the way you were raised? She gave an honest, respectful response to a loaded question (and a response which, if you have that belief system, is perfectly understandable). The reaction? Hate. Threats of violence. The woman was dragged through the mud by The Assholes and the media, the very same people who say they are fighting for free speech and equality for everyone, just for stating what she believed in. What they really want is equality for everyone that agrees with them- fuck you if you think differently. It reminds me of that quote from Animal Farm: "All Animals Are Equal, But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others". And the nazi-youth comparison is bullshit- she wasn't raised to hate gay people or to think that she was racially superior. She was raised to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman (which it HAS been since the creation of the term Marriage). And that's ALL she said. And for that, she was crucified. Horse. Shit. Pretty much this- Most of you like Louis CK, I'm thinking. What did he say about this? Something like, "I don't hate him because he was gay, I hate him because he was being a faggot! HEY YOU, QUIT BEING A FAGGOT AND SUCK THAT DICK!". Shit, gotta go, the baby's awake- more later.
Just to the 'why do they want it anyway' conversation - case in point For Reals, this shit actually happened July last year, Clay Greene won his lawsuit for damages after the whole thing, but despite having every reasonable protection they could, because they weren't married, they were utterly fucked by the system. They were forcibly separated, denied visitation, their stuff was auctioned out from under the healthy partner and he was forced into a fucking home against his will, while being denied access to his partner of 20 fucking years and forcibly separated through the final moments of his partner's life. It enrages me just reading this story, no amount of compensation will EVER make up for that. And it took him a fucking year to get out of the assisted living home and get access to his own fucking assets. And it would NEVER happen to a male/female couple. It's beyond imagining for any straight person to consider their partner going through what Clay Greene went through. But for gay couples? It's a risk you have to try and plan for.
It's different from your hypothetical wealth redistribution scenario because a vote for gay marriage doesn't take anything away from anyone else. It doesn't make anyone less free to do as they please. In fact, a law or state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (as exists in several states) is a much better example of a democratic government unjustly imposing its will on private citizens, based purely on the disagreement of some religiously-minded voters. It seeks only to restrict people who are not them. That is a clear-cut case of tyranny of the majority. Just because many people want something a certain way does not make their demands right or fair. As for polygamy, I think it should probably be legal as well. I think the potential for financial difficulties and child neglect are higher, so they should be watched with more scrutiny, but if the man or woman is capable of caring for and supporting all those spouses and children, who cares? Again, it has no affect on my life.
To start, the people support gay marriage. At least, according to this this poll they do. I can only assume that because you are in the insurance business the term "slippery slope" has been surgically implanted in your head. The only people I have ever heard use that term have been insurance defense attorneys talking to judges in open court. And it is always a smokescreen. It's never a slippery slope. It's a dodge. It's a cute turn of phrase with little or no substance behind it. No. If there is some reason to put a higher level of scrutiny on a couple (group), then fine, but under no circumstances should a group of people be pre-selected for increased government scrutiny out of some morality based feeling that maybe they will have financial difficulties.
But that's the thing- I'm not talking about whether the laws in my examples are right or wrong; replace them with any example you wish. I'm talking about the fact that if you ignore the will of the people on one issue, what's to stop you for ignoring others? Its either all okay or none of it is. The majority may very well be wrong on this one issue, but throwing democracy out the window whenever you see fit is not the answer. That's all I'm saying. ... Can we still hug it out, buddy? EDIT- basically, you can sum up my feelings as this: I don't like activist politicians, and if you couldn't tell this yet after reading my previous post, I don't like Assholes. I'm good with everyone else though, for the most part!
Just to the slippery slope arguments - I'm curious, exactly what the problem would be with any hypothetical group of consenting adult human beings having some recognition of and protection for their relationship? Wouldn't it be nice if in the case of multiple wives, all of them had protection and access to assets in the event of the primary earner's death? Or if all of them were considered family for hospital visitation rights? I don't think the slippery slope argument extends to children, animals, corpses, or anything else distasteful really, not any more than letting darkies ride at the front of the bus was a slippery slope to letting animals ride there. Or letting Adults buy alcohol again after the prohibition was a slippery slope for letting children drink in school. But EXACTLY what is the problem with consenting adults in any number or of any gender, being able to marry each other? As an aside, do the numbers some time on the tax benefits of marriage. In most places, they really aren't fucking much and in a lot of places they're actually not a benefit at all. And if Tax shows up anywhere in your criticism of consenting adults marrying, wouldn't tax reform be a more applicable issue to focus on, than prevention of marriage? on the topic of the wishes of the majority... who elected Al Gore were it not for an electoral system designed to prevent a simple majority from exercising undue power over the geographically distributed minority, I think the Sam Adams quote says a lot... Wendell Philips said They were talking about Darkies... but the point still stands that when the wishes of the majority encroach on the freedoms and fundamental human rights of the minority, fuck the majority. Emma Goldman also had an entirely relevant point. Speaking of Minorities, between 2.5% and 12.7% of American's are atheists or non religious depending on the metrics. Less than 1% of the American prison population are atheist or non religious. Atheists and the non religious account for between 85% and 95% of the members of every major north american science organisation that has not formed around an explicit religious ideal. Despite the fact that prisoners are far more in line with the religious views of main stream America - I know which demographic I'd prefer be making decisions for the broader cultural group... I'm also increasingly questioning the identification of non heterosexuals as a Minority. Kinsey's studies and their follow ons suggest that somewhere around 5% of the population is exclusively heterosexual. While on a cultural and social level we place intense pressure on men to not explore non heterosexual inclinations, metrics are implying that by thirty something like 1 in 4 guys will have at least experimented with another dude. What percentage of women do you think have at least experimented with another woman by Thirty? I suspect some element of non-heterosexuality at this point puts you about as much in the minority at this point as having experimented with pot. While the numbers above are controversial - I think that controversy is much more about cultural inertia and tainted social history than actual reflection of the modern first world.
I apologize. I should have fleshed that out a little bit better and not made some generalizations about my friends and applied them to you. If you hate gay parades because parades of all types are just annoying that's fine. There isn't anything wrong with hating parades. But if you asked my guy friends what they thought of gay pride parades you would get the standard "that's disgusting, I don't need to see that, how disrespectful, etc." stuff, but they wouldn't complain if hot nubile women were prancing around shoving vodka bottles into various orifices. And I would consider their reasoning to be homophobic, because they are unnaturally disgusted by dudes going at it. She was raised to think that she is superior to gay people. Maybe not in those exact terms, but that is the outcome of the marriage is between a man and a woman line. She has rights that gay people don't deserve to have. She can be nice about it, but in my opinion that belief is wrong. I can see where you are coming from about the over-reaction and how that is basically reverse discrimination. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how best to change peoples minds about gay marriage. Do you just let everyone who thinks gay marriage is wrong have their opinion and let them live their life or do you call them out on it? I think she had to be called out about the answer because she currently represents the status quo. No one gives a shit about Willie out in the backwoods carving a swastika into his chest preaching white power, because that value system has been dismissed for the most part, but when the fight is still being fought a public figure saying something like that makes for an easy effective target.
And I'm saying that you can't equate just any example to this issue. We're not talking about taxes or health care. These are people with a clear history of discriminatory and prejudicial treatment based on a broad national ignorance of their rights. How long should they be expected to wait for the whims of a fickle mob to shift in their favor? Especially when those whims are so clearly determined by religion, something lawmakers are constitutionally obligated to keep separate from the laws of the state. When people insist on huddling in the dark, you drag them into the light. And you know full well that you will always live in a free boat on the lake that is my heart.
Ha! I don't hate parades, when did this become about parades? I hate the people who act like assholes at parades. I hate the drunk asshole at Mardi Gras who screams at every single woman that walks by to "WOOOOOOOOOOOO SHOW YOUR TITS!!!" before puking all over himself and passing out in the gutter. I hate the asshole women who get drunk, flash their nasty tits to the drunk assholes, and then end up fucking the drunk assholes in the gutter, thus encouraging their asshole actions. I don't want to see (or smell, for that matter) that shit, just like I don't want to see ol' Lance dance around in the street dressed like a hooker, singing with a lisp like an idiot, while getting handjobs in out in the open all in the name of "Pride". And also, what if it were two ugly women, would you want to see that? No, you wouldn't, because that would be gross. Two ugly men? Gross. And ugly man and an ugly woman? Gross. So basically, those actions are acceptable, but only if the people are good looking. No- those actions make you ASSHOLES. And that's what I'm talking about. Let me ask you this- do you REALLY think that every morning before school, Mr. And Mrs. Prejean used to beat into young Carrie's head that she was superior to people? Well, maybe ugly people because she was a beauty queen and all (and you're starting to see, The Ugly People are woefully under-represented by the special interests groups), but do you think that they told her everyday that she was better than gays and minorities? No, she was told that there is a mommy and a daddy. Because in her family, and probably every family she was exposed to, that's what there was. She probably had grandparents, too, that were grandma and grandpa. Thats what she saw, thats what she knew, and thats what billions of people have been raised to believe for thousands of years. We are all here (the gays, too) because of the union between man and woman. I'm just saying that people who were raised to this way of thinking are not automatically bigots who "carve swastikas into their chests". And with that, I think we just about covered everything- good thread everyone, good thread. I'll see yall in the showers.