Discussion in 'The Senate Floor' started by zombie, Jan 24, 2006.
"LGBT Americans" doesn't roll of the tongue very well. She needs a new phrase that is easier to say.
"Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons", basically.
As much as I'd love to make an immature joke about personal lubricants (that's just how I am sometimes) I'd actually love to know your justification for equating what is obviously an increasing amount of common sense in the general populace to a "slippery slope" which implies disaster. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Still bugs me.
I thought/hoped he was being sarcastic.
He's probably not.
And I want to hear Dave's K-Y joke.
1) I reject the proposition that there is “an increasing amount of common sense in the general populace.” People are lemmings, nothing more.
2) I reject the proposition that a “slippery slope implies disaster.” It simply means that forward progress can't be easily arrested.
3) I reject the proposition that I am equating these two things, since I don't accept them as true.
Since I reject all the propositions you have put forward, I obviously cannot be expected to provide any sort of justification for them...
Why does it bug you so much?
I mean, sure, I'm skeptical about the reasons behind the changes of heart, or whatever, but support is support. We can speculate forever about each person's reasons, but in the end, we really have no idea. If gay marriage ends up being legalized nationally, I really couldn't give a **** about each person's reason for supporting it (or saying they support it). It's a means to an end, as far as I'm concerned. I mean is it really any different from Catholics who say they support gay marriage wile simultaneously believing that homosexual sex is a sin? I'm aware that what I just asked is going to be interpreted as a personal snipe at you... it's not. I'm talking about Catholics who say they support gay marriage, in general.
She couldn't have supported it while she was Secretary of State.
But I honestly think the Clinton's have supported it since the 1990's.
1) Literacy levels are improving worldwide, with few exceptions. Humans are quite a lot more than lemmings, but I'm assuming you're using the term in its idiomatic style...
2) A slippery slope argument is clearly defined and as well known a turn of phrase, slippery slope almost always implies disaster unless you're literally describing the texture or condition of an actual slope.
3) Are you sure you're making an argument at all?
And her annoucement was a formality anyway, as IIRC, her department was one of the first to offer same - sex couples the same benefits, heterosexual couples have and she started that policy not long after she became Sect. of State.
Edit: This was to back up
@Summer Dreamer's post of course.
First let's frame the context of your "slippery slope" comment.
Now let's get down to the nitty gritty.
Summer Dreamer cited some pertinent statistics that show that most Americans are waking up. They're realizing that perfectly ridiculous opinions such as "homosexuality is a choice" and that it's "deviant" are just bigotry. That's it. The fact that you called the rate of increased awareness a "slippery slope" DID imply disastrous consequences, as that's how that tired euphemism is used, no matter what you accept or reject.
As far as the sexual orientation of any human being is concerned when it comes to marriage and the manufactured issue of same-sex marriage, let me pose the following question to everyone:
Edit: Thank you V-2, you covered a point I forgot to make.
Oh, right, cause Clinton signed this one law that made the federal government acknowledge same sex marriages.
So just because Bill signed DOMA into law means she can't geniunely support SSM? Because even Bill has said recently that DOMA was a mistake and should be struck down by the SCOTUS.
True. And I think most LGBT votes supported Clinton in the primaries, and there was the feeling that if elected she would support same-sex marriage in her first term.
Clinton was (I believe) the first presidential candidate to campaign on gay rights, back in 1992.
Sure, he had to compromise, since the country was not there yet. Whether history will see him right or wrong for that is up in the air, but I believe they've genuinely supported it for decades.
It still doesn't cancel out the fact that he signed the bill into law in the first place.
He think that vetoing it would have prompted a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution... which could have won easily, in the 1990's.
History will decide.
He also signed NAFTA which was, in my opinion, was one of the contributing factors to economic decline in this country.
I think repealing Glass-Steagall and failing to get Osama bin Laden will be Bill Clinton's greatest failures...
NAFTA was inevitable, and outsourcing to places like China was going to happen anyways. DOMA and DADT were understandable compromises for the time.
I would count such a person as an ally, as they're principled enough to realize that their personal beliefs are just that--personal--and that they aren't sufficient basis to deny someone else their rights.
I love the fact that a few years ago, supporting gay marriage was political suicide and now it's politically expedient.
From North Carolina no less...
And I know you live there, Tracy. You're a credit to a state that suffers a great deal of abuse based on stereotypes...and rightly so.
Seriously though, I can't wait to hear some follow-up to this story. I look forward to Baptists and Non-denominational Protestants bash the hell out of Methodists for this.
reason being there isn't a good reason to be against gay marriage unless its backed by some religious hocus pocus derived from the same era where mentally challenged kids were killed because they thought a demon was possessing them
It's just the Hegelian dialectic at work. The Republicans for the most part will come around to support gay marriage because at the end of the day there is no real difference between the two parties. They're just two sides of the same coin with the same hierarchy they answer to. But there will be much debate about the "GOP getting with the times" and a need for a "bigger tent" and other catchy phrases as they inevitably take the same stance as the party they supposedly are "so different" from. And the hamster wheel will keep turning.
Wow, Winston-Salem. I thought this story would be out of Chapel Hill or Asheville, which are the cool progressive areas of the state, or even Charlotte, as there are enough of us who voted against Evilmendment One.
I'm impressed. But yeah, the backlash from the alleged "God's people" should be interesting.