Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    26 Jun '11 02:16
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110625/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_ny_reaction

    It's fairly apparent that the blue states are going to fall like dominoes to this trend in short order.

    Purple states like Pennsylvania and Ohio and Florida are still probably a decade or two away...

    As for the Utahs of the world... well, it'll take a Supreme Court decision or maybe 2100... whichever comes first?
  2. 26 Jun '11 02:22
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110625/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_ny_reaction

    It's fairly apparent that the blue states are going to fall like dominoes to this trend in short order.

    Purple states like Pennsylvania and Ohio and Florida are still probably a decade or two away...

    As for the Utahs of the world... well, it'll take a Supreme Court decision or maybe 2100... whichever comes first?
    Speaking of Utah, did New York also do away with the ban for polygamists to marry?

    Woops, my bad. Polygamists are in large part conservatives and New Yorkers are liberal, so screw'em!!!

    After all, its not about rights, its about politics.
  3. 26 Jun '11 02:39
    it's a civil rights issue. every state will fall into line in short order and 30 years from now, they'll be wondering what the big deal was with the nutbars who stood against it.
  4. 26 Jun '11 02:52
    Originally posted by VoidSpirit
    it's a civil rights issue. every state will fall into line in short order and 30 years from now, they'll be wondering what the big deal was with the nutbars who stood against it.
    Why should the state be involved at all in the bedroom? Why should they have a say in marriage for anyone?
  5. 26 Jun '11 03:29
    Originally posted by whodey
    Why should the state be involved at all in the bedroom? Why should they have a say in marriage for anyone?
    Right. So the proper thing is to get out of the way and allow it. This is a good libertarian premise.
  6. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    26 Jun '11 03:56
    Originally posted by whodey
    After all, its not about rights, its about politics.
    All struggles for rights - and against discrimination - are fought in the political domain.
  7. 26 Jun '11 04:00 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by badmoon
    Right. So the proper thing is to get out of the way and allow it. This is a good libertarian premise.
    The state should not be in the position to "OK" marriage or not OK it. Agree or disagree?
  8. 26 Jun '11 04:02
    Originally posted by FMF
    All struggles for rights - and against discrimination - are fought in the political domain.
    And my struggle is to get the government out of the marriage business. It's got simply too many other lives to micromanage.
  9. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    26 Jun '11 04:36
    Originally posted by whodey
    And my struggle is to get the government out of the marriage business.
    And as you well know, almost nobody here disagrees with you. But of course saying 'get the government should out of the marriage business' is completely different from the other thing you have said, which is [words to the effect] that the struggle to end discrimination against homosexuals is just cheap partisan Democratic party politics [my paraphrase, but fair I think]. You are - it seems - deliberately blurring the distinction between these two stances, and trying to score a few cheap partisan points of your own along the way.
  10. 26 Jun '11 04:44
    Originally posted by FMF
    And as you well know, almost nobody here disagrees with you. But of course saying 'get the government should out of the marriage business' is completely different from the other thing you have said, which is [words to the effect] that the struggle to end discrimination against homosexuals is just cheap partisan Democratic party politics [my paraphrase, bu ...[text shortened]... these two stances, and trying to score a few cheap partisan points of your own along the way.
    What the state seeks to do is elevate homosexuals and heterosexual monogomous "rights" above polygamists.

    There is no getting around it. Call it what you like.
  11. 26 Jun '11 04:44
    Originally posted by whodey
    Why should the state be involved at all in the bedroom? Why should they have a say in marriage for anyone?
    you don't have to convince me, i'm a libertarian socialist.
  12. 26 Jun '11 04:46 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by VoidSpirit
    you don't have to convince me, i'm a libertarian socialist.
    I thought that you were in favor of the state giving a thumbs up or down vote on marriage? Isn't the struggle on the left for the state to give a thumbs up for gays?
  13. 26 Jun '11 04:52
    Originally posted by whodey
    I thought that you were in favor of the state giving a thumbs up or down vote on marriage? Isn't the struggle on the left for the state to give a thumbs up for gays?
    i just made a prediction of what will eventually happen given the history of other civil rights issues in ideologically western societies.

    my personal favor is for a society with no state, but that's a separate issue.
  14. 26 Jun '11 04:54 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by VoidSpirit
    i just made a prediction of what will eventually happen given the history of other civil rights issues in ideologically western societies.

    my personal favor is for a society with no state, but that's a separate issue.
    You mean no "states". After all, you are a socialist and all socialists need is a dictator central federal government, not state or local government.
  15. 26 Jun '11 05:07
    Originally posted by whodey
    You mean no "states". After all, you are a socialist and all socialists need is a dictator central federal government, not state or local government.
    i'm a libertarian socialist. i mean no states as in sovereign federal or central governments of any sort.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialist