Observer-Reporter forum

ellipses · Mod Joined: 29 Sep 2008 Posts: 9218 Location: WashPa!

I know this is "off topic" but the people this might be of interest to generally spend most of their time in the Nat/Internat. News forum, so I'll put it here...

I thought of this while reading the exchange between Cy and SSSS about the perception that Cy is arrogant and a "know-it-all" and Cy's response that a debate is a debate, and you are right unless your factual basis is refuted.

I thought it might be fun to reverse our "roles" for a week... I'd be happy to argue points from a conservative standpoint (or at least justify my position based on "conservative" ideology)... Not, necessarily, across the board... But I think I will argue from a conservative position on health care and gay marriage until next monday.

I have a TON of work to do today... but hopefully one of these issues will pop up through the course of the day or week... if not, I'll find something to take the alternative stand on...
_________________
The end is nigh! OR forums die APRIL 1. Don't lose contact! Join the forums at bogsource.com now!

Cylinsier · Master Joined: 29 Sep 2008 Posts: 13229 Location: Oh shi-

Playing devil's advocate?
_________________
The end is nigh! OR forums die APRIL 1. Don't lose contact! Join the forums at bogsource.com now!

ellipses · Mod Joined: 29 Sep 2008 Posts: 9218 Location: WashPa!

More or less...

There are GOOD arguments for a "conservative health care reform" plan that aren't being put forth by conservatives... I'm going to argue in favor of those with the same vigor and unwavering correctness that I do the liberal ones Smile

_________________
The end is nigh! OR forums die APRIL 1. Don't lose contact! Join the forums at bogsource.com now!

Cylinsier · Master Joined: 29 Sep 2008 Posts: 13229 Location: Oh shi-

I will try to keep you on your toes.
_________________
The end is nigh! OR forums die APRIL 1. Don't lose contact! Join the forums at bogsource.com now!

ellipses · Mod Joined: 29 Sep 2008 Posts: 9218 Location: WashPa!

Oh, and the gay marriage thing is a red herring... I'd still be in favor of it regardless of political ideology... just instead of being under the guise of equal rights and tolerance and accepting and yadda yadda yadda... it would be that the government shouldn't be in the bedroom and marriage = tax break for gays... Smile

_________________
The end is nigh! OR forums die APRIL 1. Don't lose contact! Join the forums at bogsource.com now!

OndinitaAKALibchit · Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:45 am Post subject:

Sounds interesting...
_________________
"If by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties ... if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal,' then I’m proud to say I’m a 'Liberal.'" ~ Senator John F. Kennedy 9/14/1960

Proud Member NDA

OndinitaAKALibchit · Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:46 am Post subject:

Can I repeat the arguments that I've heard from conservatives even if they don't make sense? Wink

_________________
"If by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties ... if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal,' then I’m proud to say I’m a 'Liberal.'" ~ Senator John F. Kennedy 9/14/1960

Proud Member NDA

freethinker · Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:59 am Post subject:

creative idea...sends tingles down my leg...
and by the way, there is NO such thing as "gay marriage"
the word marriage defines the union of a man and woman.Period.
if farmer wanted to marry his sheep, would you defend "animal
marriage...?" Stop trying to change the definition of words
just to suit your current fancy....try at least to have a little
integrity of consistency....I'm not saying that gays can't do
whatever it is that they do...But don't go stealing our words
for yourself..call it a "gay-union" or a "Homo-Duo" or anything
other than marriage.
(wow, this is fun..!)
Have a nice day.
_________________
where-ever you get it - there you have it. - Anon.

Cylinsier · Master Joined: 29 Sep 2008 Posts: 13229 Location: Oh shi-

So you object only to the use of the word "marriage?" I think its just being used for ease of connotation. "Gay union" begs the question "what is a union and how does it compare to marriage?" "Gay marriage" is crystal clear. But if the official wording were the only thing holding it back, I would think the gay community would overwhelmingly agree that it doesn't matter to them. Call it "gay space walk" for all they care. But the thing is, whatever the official name is, people are still going to call it "gay marriage" in conversation. Its kind of unavoidable at this juncture.
_________________
The end is nigh! OR forums die APRIL 1. Don't lose contact! Join the forums at bogsource.com now!

freethinker · Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:33 am Post subject:

"ease of connotation" slips into change of definition and a covert
method of changing popular opinion...I would not be in favor of
denying gay couples any rights that they earned...And if all of
them want to take a walk in space, that's okay by me..and by the
way, I figured you'd support my position, you bein' a red-blooded
conservative and all...or have you gone to the dark side...?
spooky.
(this is fun)
_________________
where-ever you get it - there you have it. - Anon.

Cylinsier · Master Joined: 29 Sep 2008 Posts: 13229 Location: Oh shi-

Yes, ease of connotation does eventually lead to definition change. I agree with you. And I don't necessarily feel militant about chaning the definition in question. All I'm saying is that the debate is largely academic at this point because I feel like the definition will change in the minds of most people with the legalization of gay unions regardless of how much effort is made to stop that. In other words, you can't have gay marriage without having "gay marriage."
_________________
The end is nigh! OR forums die APRIL 1. Don't lose contact! Join the forums at bogsource.com now!

Amphikalein · Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 12:02 pm Post subject:

So long as our federal government automatically grants unquestioned benefits and special legal status to one group of citizens through civil marriage, yet denies them to another group of citizens by prohibiting their civil marriages, then you're going to see an increasing number of Americans demanding marriage equality. Calling it something else is simply 'separate but equal' thinking, and we all know how well that's worked in the past when applied to a minority.
_________________
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." ~Martin Luther King Jr.

"May we, in our dealings with all the peoples of the earth, ever speak the truth and serve justice." ~Dwight D. Eisenhower

Amphy's blog | Proud Member NDA

freethinker · Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 12:38 pm Post subject:

"Automatically grants unquestioned benefits....?"
wrong wrong wrong
A man must earn those benefits by enduring a relationship
with a woman...and put up with the kids...and how in the
world can a gay couple make kids..? That isn't marriage, it's
co-habitation And anyway the only benefits to marriage is
in health insurance and taxes and the Liberal Express is
raising those anyway..
(this is fun, but harder than I expected)
_________________
where-ever you get it - there you have it. - Anon.

Cylinsier · Master Joined: 29 Sep 2008 Posts: 13229 Location: Oh shi-

Plenty of people get married every day, a man to a woman, who do not earn it in the sense that you are talking about. These people marry and then divorce in a matter of months. They do not endure the relationship and they do not take care of the kids. They split. By your logic, these people should not be legally aloud to marry, but how could enforce this? How could you know before the marriage that it would turn out that way?

I also don't like that you imply that only the man must earn the marriage and that he must "endure" the woman to do so. The roles of both participants require equal effort and should be based in love, not endurance.

If having kids is the requirement of a marriage, then by your logic thousands of married couples must have their marriages annulled as they choose to not have children through the use of birth control. Gay couples, however, can have kids by using a sperm donor or surrogate mother. This is no different than a divorcee remarrying and the step-parent assuming the role of parent. Straight couples can choose not to have children. Gay couples can have children. This negates the child argument.
_________________
The end is nigh! OR forums die APRIL 1. Don't lose contact! Join the forums at bogsource.com now!

Amphikalein · Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 12:46 pm Post subject: