Republicans Sign Brief in Support of Gay Marriage, what say u Too Hot Conservatives?

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by Row6

Spoken like a true conservative.

So you want to abolish the notion of gay marriage and are fine with gay civil unions ?

I am not getting your dig at MOI, for some reason.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

So you want to abolish the notion of gay marriage and are fine with gay civil unions ?

I am not getting your dig at MOI, for some reason.

It was intended as praise, not a dig.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by Row6

the government should protect citizens from some types of discrimination (can't be denied service at privately owned place of business based on race) while not others (guest to a private dinner must be invited based on racial quotas). I don't accept your proposition that the comparison with racial discrimination has already been refuted on TH - do it again.

Who gets to be the arbiter of which forms of discrimination are permissible and which forms are not?

As for the analogy, race is not identifiable. It doesn't have a biological characteristic; it doesn't have a cultural characteristic; and it doesn't have a geographic characteristic. Our government recognizes this and it permits people to self-identify with whatever race they choose to consider themselves (it's really an antiquated identifier). That which people tend to approximate as race is typically a physical characteristic of skin pigmentation...not much different than classifying people based on their hair color or eye color; nonetheless, it's something that they're born with. While one's nature of who they are attracted to may have genetic components; there is no disputing that selection of a partner is a behavior.

Then there's the whole history of having selected a group of people based on their skin color to bring to our country as slaves and the ensuing damage that that caused in trying to help them integrate with our society.

It's really a bad analogy all around.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by Row6

It was intended as praise, not a dig.

Oh.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

Who gets to be the arbiter of which forms of discrimination are permissible and which forms are not?

As for the analogy, race is not identifiable. It doesn't have a biological characteristic; it doesn't have a cultural characteristic; and it doesn't have a geographic characteristic. Our government recognizes this and it permits people to self-identify with whatever race they choose to consider themselves (it's really an antiquated identifier). That which people tend to approximate as race is typically a physical characteristic of skin pigmentation...not much different than classifying people based on their hair color or eye color; nonetheless, it's something that they're born with. While one's nature of who they are attracted to may have genetic components; there is no disputing that selection of a partner is a behavior.

Then there's the whole history of having selected a group of people based on their skin color to bring to our country as slaves and the ensuing damage that that caused in trying to help them integrate with our society.

It's really a bad analogy all around.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

1 The people decide what discrimination is allowable through our elected representatives, same as it is now and has been for a couple of centuries.

2 Racial verification is not critical to determining discrimination. If you are refused service at a restaurant because you look black, white or yellow - no matter what you actually are - and there was no other reason like clothing or behavior, you have a racial discrimination case under public accommodations. On the other hand, if your daughters wedding is lily white and you specifically decided to not have her old roommate be in her wedding party because she's black, that's your and her right.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

Oh.

I am liberal, but I appreciate the value and validity of the conservative approach, and I may myself be that way on some issues. For instance, I don't think men should wear flip flops in court.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by Row6

2 Racial verification is not critical to determining discrimination. If you are refused service at a restaurant because you look black, white or yellow - no matter what you actually are - and there was no other reason like clothing or behavior, you have a racial discrimination case under public accommodations. On the other hand, if your daughters wedding is lily white and you specifically decided to not have her old roommate be in her wedding party because she's black, that's your and her right.

The question wasn't whether or not one can participate in a form of racial discrimination, it was one of how/where the analogy fails. Too many failures for it to continue to be used in this way.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by Row6

For instance, I don't think men should wear flip flops in court.

Bigot.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by Row6

For instance, I don't think men should wear flip flops in court.

Fixed it for you. HTH.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

The question wasn't whether or not one can participate in a form of racial discrimination, it was one of how/where the analogy fails. Too many failures for it to continue to be used in this way.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

I don;t get it. Can you elaborate?


I'm gone for now, but if you respond I'll check it later or in the morning.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by g8rjd

Fixed it for you. HTH.

Well I did mention that I am a liberal, though I get your point.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

Bigot.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

I had a court appearance about 10 years ago in Starke - yeah, you guessed it, traffic - and I wore a tie, nice pants, leather shoes, might have had a jacket on, don't remember. Out 50 people I was the only one so dressed and I don't think I'm exaggerating to say many looked like they came straight from the shower without stopping at the closet. Of course I don't get how medical personnel have got us used to them coming to work in their pajamas either. What's the deal with that?

[Lawdog88]

Accretion.

Like I said before.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by Row6

Spoken like a true conservative.

More like pragmatic bastardized utilitarian-libertarian with a neoconservative streak. But thanks anyway.

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

More like pragmatic bastardized utilitarian-libertarian with a neoconservative streak. But thanks anyway.

Which is probably closer to a true conservatism than what most of the movement conservatives could ever honestly claim.

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by Row6

I understand that, but why would someone try to eliminate the legal organizing principle of our society from the most basic and important legal institution upon which it is founded? I understand that you are offended by the nature of some of the relationships that will be allowed, but no one will force you to partake of one. You need to get used to it. The government certainly does have jurisdiction over certain parts of your private life and this is nothing new or radical in the long history of human societies. If anything that jurisdiction is less than in ancient times, though what we call government was then the tribe.

Again, I'm not opposed to government marriage due to opposition to gay marriage. I'm opposed to government marriage because it is unnecessary and infringement of my rights. If two, three, or 10 people want to set a contract dictating certain rights for each other then I don't care. It's their lives and their property to do what they want. If they want to all have sex with each other then that's fine too, again it's their lives and their property.

And I'm opposed to government deciding what is moral between two consenting adults precisely because of this debate. What is "moral" changes with the times and depends on the current majority. That is no way to govern.