Gay Marriage To Be Officially Part Of Democrat Party Platform

Originally posted by stanguilles7
The idea that blacks wont vote for Dems (and a black potus) over gay marriage is wishful thinking.

Sure, they may be vocal about their dislike of the topic, but that is a voting bloc that is reliably Democrat.

Especially since the NAACP also officially announced support of Same Sex Marriage.

The board of the N.A.A.C.P. voted to endorse same-sex marriage on Saturday, putting the weight of the country’s most prominent civil rights group behind a cause that has long divided some quarters of the black community.

“We support marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

www.nytimes.com...

Actually a platform is a principle. The principles of such a system are understood by its users as the essential characteristics of the system, or reflecting system's designed purpose.

So the homosexual lifestyle is an essential characteristic of it's parties policies?

What about the Polygamists or those that want sex with animals? Do they get rights equal to the homosexuals?

Just a question, if indeed it's all about 'rights'/

Originally posted by PvtHudson
I just want to know if Democrats and liberals are going to force Muslims to do gay marriages as well. Or is this just target at the Christian religion?

I'm asking this as an agnostic. I haven't seen a single thing about forcing mosques or Islam to perform gay marriages. My guess based on history is no, they will not force this on Islam.

Guffaw. This has nothing to do with 'forcing' any church to perform any kind of marriage. It has to do with equal rights under the law, not the church.

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Actually a platform is a principle. The principles of such a system are understood by its users as the essential characteristics of the system, or reflecting system's designed purpose.

So the homosexual lifestyle is an essential characteristic of it's parties policies?

What about the Polygamists or those that want sex with animals? Do they get rights equal to the homosexuals?

Just a question, if indeed it's all about 'rights'/

lol decent critical thinking skills exhibited here (sarcasm). i have seen this scenario or question come up some recently. i forgot how others responded on this inquiry. lol

are there a lot of people in the country who want to go public and start a movement/presence for bringing about equal rights for beasteality marriages? can these groups push to be a major presence? or are they simply minor and isolated?

i dont see a majority of people having a problem with just keeping it one person to one person. that is one human to one human.

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Actually a platform is a principle. The principles of such a system are understood by its users as the essential characteristics of the system, or reflecting system's designed purpose.

That's the principle idea yeah

So the homosexual lifestyle is an essential characteristic of it's parties policies?

That's a peculiar transition you made there...

Why did you go with the explanation of this 'essential characteristic' versus them simply embracing what they believe to be equality for people?

You see it as embracing homosexuality whereas I myself see it as embracing a moral understanding. The evolving understanding of what equality means for today's World. Gay rights merely fits under that wider subject. Supporting gay marriage isn't about promoting "homosexual lifestyle" it's about encouraging what they believe to be ethically right.

What about the Polygamists

Good question. If this is a big concern it should be addressed. In the spirit of equality I wonder how 'free' the women really are in that kind of relationship. I would be open to exploring that.

or those that want sex with animals?

How many people do you know with a sexual orientation towards animals? I myself haven't met one. I imagine it's not that common. What is your point though? Consensus isn't a relevant factor in this discussion for you?? How do you make the connection between essentially raping animals and consensual same-sex relationships?

Do they get rights equal to the homosexuals?

Be honest, concerning animals I doubt you are all that concerned about their rights regardless of this supposed marrying animals issue. Why is this being brought up?

I believe they have rights under law, and those rights are evolving as well. Same rights as humans? Don't you think that question is a bit silly? Until they share similar sentience with humans, most of these 'equal rights' issues wouldn't even be applicable.

Originally posted by krossfyter

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Actually a platform is a principle. The principles of such a system are understood by its users as the essential characteristics of the system, or reflecting system's designed purpose.

So the homosexual lifestyle is an essential characteristic of it's parties policies?

What about the Polygamists or those that want sex with animals? Do they get rights equal to the homosexuals?

Just a question, if indeed it's all about 'rights'/

lol decent critical thinking skills exhibited here (sarcasm). i have seen this scenario or question come up some recently. i forgot how others responded on this inquiry. lol

are there a lot of people in the country who want to go public and start a movement/presence for bringing about equal rights for beasteality marriages? can these groups push to be a major presence? or are they simply minor and isolated?

Thats actually not equatable. Gay marriage is between consenting adults. Bestiality, obviously, isnt.

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by krossfyter

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Actually a platform is a principle. The principles of such a system are understood by its users as the essential characteristics of the system, or reflecting system's designed purpose.

So the homosexual lifestyle is an essential characteristic of it's parties policies?

What about the Polygamists or those that want sex with animals? Do they get rights equal to the homosexuals?

Just a question, if indeed it's all about 'rights'/

lol decent critical thinking skills exhibited here (sarcasm). i have seen this scenario or question come up some recently. i forgot how others responded on this inquiry. lol

are there a lot of people in the country who want to go public and start a movement/presence for bringing about equal rights for beasteality marriages? can these groups push to be a major presence? or are they simply minor and isolated?

Thats actually not equatable. Gay marriage is between consenting adults. Bestiality, obviously, isnt.

solid point. totally agree. but what about a human and an underage human if both are consenting. obviously there is underage laws in the U.S. but if we want to travel down that road of it being equatable and the formula for that is consenting. i know we are going off the mark here but im just using your logic.

reply to post by krossfyter


Underage humans cannot give consent.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by krossfyter

 

Underage humans cannot give consent.

what do you define as underage?


btw im playing devils advocate here. im trying to understand this whole situation as well. i believe homosexuals should have the right to get married. i believe its a civil rights issue. but im going down that argument territory so i can figure out where my boundaries are and what they are and why i believe them.

reply to post by RealSpoke


I would not go that far...

I lost my virginity at 17 and my girlfriend at the time was 15... I am positive we were both fully giving consent!

But this is an important topic. The whole world hasn't come to agreement as to the correct number. Here in CA it's 18 for the 'adult' title. It's a best guess that the expected level of psychology that the average 18 year old would be matured enough to be sexually active. Not everyone agrees on the age, but the overall idea is still consent.

As far as it pertains to homosexual relationships. No one is advocating equal rights for a homosexual that engages in non-consensual intercourse. So the idea of non-consenting underage kids, which I think is what was being alluded to, is erroneous.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy




solid comment Luicd Lunacy.

im trying to figure this out. if i agree that homosexual gay marriage is a civil rights issue because its about two consensual humans (which i do) than how far can i stretch this logic and find the boundary of civil rights? wheres the edge? the edge where if i go further its no longer about civil rights anymore. is there such an area?
do we have to factor into the equation/formula the idea of a movement of people wanting certain rights? not isolated cases?

if we say the underage law trumps civil rights
than why cant we say the one man one woman trumps civil rights too?

reply to post by krossfyter


Well there certainly is an area that leaves the boundary.

My question to you is, why is that hypothetical concern any more a possibility with accepting homosexuality when surely those concerns are equally applicable already even taking homosexuals out of the equation entirely. I mean same concerns were voiced when the discussion of interracial marriage was the hot topic. This perceived slippery slope was just a real (or not real) then. Pretend heterosexuals and homosexuals were reversed (never mind procreation), pretend homosexuals were really concerned that if they allowed heterosexuals to marry it would lead the way to breaking these huge moral boundaries.. like marrying animals and underage sex, etc etc. Imagine you as a minority heterosexual in response to that. Would you feel it was a legitimate concern? Or would you feel your heterosexual community agreed and understood the boundary and merely wanted to be allowed equal rights within it?

I think the slippery slope thinking is fallacious basically.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy




thnx for your reply.

its a concern of mine because we all seem to be using aristotelian logic to arrive at the conclusion that gay marriage is a civil rights issue.


a major element of it being a civil rights issue:

consenting adults


im out here arguing that its no different logically than blacks wanting rights back in the 50 and 60s. rights to be on equal footing with whites.

the argument/rebuttal to come after that is polygomy marriage rights and or underage marriage rights etc. i believe its wrong to deny the right of one group of people to marriage while allowing another group of people the the right to marriage. but how far should i take that thinking and why?

is it subjective or objective? are there different degrees?
or is there something else in this that im missing entirely?



should the boundary be gay marriage rights? after that is the edge? the slippery slope? why?
im questioning here to try and learn not to argue btw. i may not be as understood in these matters as others but thats why im questioning.

the argument/rebuttal to come after that is polygomy marriage rights and or underage marriage rights etc.

Yep and animals. It's a common rebuttal. So I am confused on whether this is the slippery slope you yourself are concerned about?

i believe its wrong to deny the right of one group of people to marriage while allowing another group of people the the right to marriage. but how far should i take that thinking and why?

You do? Take homosexuals completely out of the equation. You're saying that you have been firmly believing heterosexual marriage is morally sound and so is a 50 year old man marrying a 7 year old? That's what you just said. I am sure you don't really support that, right? So you drew a line there. Taking homosexuality completely out of the equation we are able to support heterosexual marriage and yet still make a moral distinction that says that other group (pedo's) should not be granted those rights. Allowing same-sex marriage will not change our ability to make and enforce those distinctions...

it's not a slippery slope at all. To think that somehow expanding our moral thinking entails we lose sight of boundaries is just bizarre to me and I don't see any rational reason to think it will be the case.

Let's say every US state allows same-sex marriages. If a lesbian wife beats her lover to the point of death she would go to prison. Allowing them to marry did not somehow disrupt the entirety of our moral thinking. That woman crossed an unacceptable moral boundary that was not affected by allowing them to marry. That violent act is still criminal. That's just an example.

is it subjective or objective? are there different degrees?

These are good questions. But these are not new questions. Questioning the nature of morality is certainly not exclusive to the gay rights movement.

should the boundary be gay marriage rights? after that is the edge? the slippery slope? why?

The boundary should be what we a society deems morally correct. That can't be set in stone as the world changes, technology changes. The only thing we can be certain of is that moral thinking needs to evolve alongside the World. For instance ethics concerning robotic sentience holds no bearing now but it will in the future.

The boundary needs to be continually challenged. What many seem to not understand is that 'awareness' is a crucial component for this process.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

the argument/rebuttal to come after that is polygomy marriage rights and or underage marriage rights etc.

Yep and animals. It's a common rebuttal. So I am confused on whether this is the slippery slope you yourself are concerned about?

well i drew the line on animals because it does not = consenting.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
You do? Take homosexuals completely out of the equation. You're saying that you have been firmly believing heterosexual marriage is morally sound and so is a 50 year old man marrying a 7 year old? That's what you just said. I am sure you don't really support that, right? So you drew a line there. Taking homosexuality completely out of the equation we are able to support heterosexual marriage and yet still make a moral distinction that says that other group (pedo's) should not be granted those rights. Allowing same-sex marriage will not change our ability to make and enforce those distinctions...

yep thats what i said. one group should have the same rights of another group is the essence of the argument. however i do not personally agree that a 50 year old should marry a 7 year old and that be legal. i know full well that does nothing but harm to the 7year old. i also know that that 7 year old is not at an age to be consensual.

again the formula im addressing here ... consensual is A HUGE part of the equation.

there is a very subjective argument as to when a human becomes consensual and it differs state to state. in one area it is okay to marry at a certain age at another area its a different age. if people in a certain area wanted the age to be lower to have a consensual marriage how is this not to be considered a civil rights issue? a consensual civil rights issue?

and i know u know what CR is but just putting it out there...

Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.
Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical and mental integrity, life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as physical or mental disability, gender, religion, race, national origin, age, status as a member of the uniformed services, sexual orientation, or gender identity;[1][2][3] and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, and movement.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
it's not a slippery slope at all. To think that somehow expanding our moral thinking entails we lose sight of boundaries is just bizarre to me and I don't see any rational reason to think it will be the case.

im not directly saying that. i may be implying it in a very round about way but thats not what im trying to get at. what im dealing with here is logic. logic we are using for the rights of same sex marriage.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Let's say every US state allows same-sex marriages. If a lesbian wife beats her lover to the point of death she would go to prison. Allowing them to marry did not somehow disrupt the entirety of our moral thinking. That woman crossed an unacceptable moral boundary that was not affected by allowing them to marry. That violent act is still criminal. That's just an example.

sorry im not quite certain as to why this comment is being made and what its referring to in my questioning. i may need more clarification to understand the point here.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
These are good questions. But these are not new questions. Questioning the nature of morality is certainly not exclusive to the gay rights movement.

oh of course not. these are not new questions. never thought they were. they are just at the forefront now for me because of this particular mainstream issue. i have these same questions for older issues too.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
The boundary should be what we a society deems morally correct. That can't be set in stone as the world changes, technology changes. The only thing we can be certain of is that moral thinking needs to evolve alongside the World. For instance ethics concerning robotic sentience holds no bearing now but it will in the future. The boundary needs to be continually challenged. What many seem to not understand is that 'awareness' is a crucial component for this process.

true. very much agree here. so its a subjective boundary than. based on society and culture? now its beginning to make a little sense. its not objective at all? so civil rights is subjective than?

BTW thank you Lucid Lunacy for taking the time to have this discussion with me. I may be getting a clearer understanding of what I set out for. If not or regardless I appreciate you conversing with me in a civil and respectful manner and taking the time out to do it. Really appreciated.

I normally read through entire threads before posting but I think I get the gist here...

My only comment regarding this is, I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.

Allowing gay couples to "legally marry" = REVENUE.

BIG TIME $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ that the government doesn't have now.

Marriage means registration. Registration means more debt slaves.

More debt slaves means more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

It has nothing to do with equal rights.

reply to post by krossfyter


Not a problem. I enjoy it too. Thanks also for the discussion I will have to reply tomorrow though as it's sleep time.

reply to post by HIWATT


You mean from Corporate America's perspective? Sure I agree with you many motives for supporting this probably have to due with money.

That doesn't somehow negate intentions from say myself. Who supports it because he thinks it best represents the American ideal of equal rights and the pursuit of happiness..

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by Annee

 

Having experimented once or twice with the same sex doesn't mean you are gay.

I'm sorry you can't admit you are wrong.

I'm not wrong. 1-2% of the populaton is gay. The report that you claim says 11% has that number only when it includes experimentations. It says so right in the report. And having one or two same sex incidents does NOT make a person 'gay'. I'm sorry that YOU can't admit that you are wrong. The gay population is 1-2%. When bi-sexual is included it's 4%. Falsely hyping the numbers doesn't help your cause.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Speaking so definitively that experimentation a couple times with same-sex doesn't mean your're gay or bisexual begs the obvious question of how many experimentation's does it take to get to the center of this tootsie roll?

For real. How are you making the distinction between experimenting and sexual attraction? Are you suggesting said people that experimented had no further attraction towards same-sex afterwords ever? How was that determined?

I personally feel many of those people, the ones that experimented with same-sex but entered relationships with opposite sex, are in fact bisexual. That's my myopic take on it.