Breaking: Supreme Court rules SSM a legal right (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 05:37:11 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Breaking: Supreme Court rules SSM a legal right (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Breaking: Supreme Court rules SSM a legal right  (Read 25754 times)
Citizen (The) Doctor
ArchangelZero
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,392
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.52

« on: June 29, 2015, 01:51:54 PM »

There is no one man more responsible for this than Karl Rove. If he hadn't used what was essentially a fringe issue to stoke fear ahead of the 2004 election, same sex marriage would never have advanced as rapidly in the US as it did. He focused the efforts of campaigners in favour of it, but moreso, he had people talking about the issue and engaging with it over their dinner tables a decade ago. And in that time, no argument against it has stood up. As less and less people accept "I just don't like it", full nation-wide legalisation became inevitable, and while it's a shame it took the courts to do it, it was always on it's way... and while he wasn't the main reason, Karl Rove deserves more credit than any other individual for it, I think.



The fact that statistically speaking it didn't do anything for the election either is also some great poetic justice.
Logged
Citizen (The) Doctor
ArchangelZero
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,392
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.52

« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2015, 06:33:13 PM »

I guess people who object to sex before marriage just hate single people too?

what? shua, i don't think you're very good at this whole comparison thing tbqh

You believe that someone can't oppose an act related to sexuality unless the hate the person doing it, when it comes to homosexuality, then why not sex before marriage?  Why there someone just has a moral belief, but you assume that anyone is full of hate and contempt if they say "I don't agree with this thing you are doing, so I'm sorry I can't take part in it, but I hope we can still be friends."

if you have a violent aversion to gay marriage that you do not have to straight marriage, then you believe that gay people are not worth as much as straight people. it's very simple.

a "violent" aversion?
yes?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
why is it so hard to understand that those people's views are objectively bad? we don't defend people who believe vaccines are evil or people who believe black people are worthless, so why are we supposed to defend people who believe gay people are worthless?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
spare me

And now we get to the heart of the issue: the people whose views you consider to be "objectively" bad (I don't know why you get to decide, you obviously haven't taken the time to really listen to anyone you disagree with on this) are people you therefore don't believe have any rights.  I find that disgusting and horrible, but I'm not going to try to force "rehabilitation" on you, because I'm not an authoritarian scumbag.

Some people used to see marriage and race in fundamentally different terms that we do. That doesn't stop us from seeing that viewpoint as deplorable.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 12 queries.