Why so many extreme exagerations in our political discussions?

[jkjsooner]

I'm addressing this to both liberals and conservatives.

Why in the last 20 or so years have so many characterized a candidate's (or fellow poster's) opinions or beliefs at such extreme levels?

Too many people who favor some limited social programs are labelled as socialists. Less frequently (IMO) but still too often conservative ideas are labelled as fascist or racist.

I know why politicians do it. The public buys into it. Politicians don't believe the extreme labels they place on their candidates but they know doing so works. I question the morality of campaigning that way but I guess that's just too much to ask,

The real shame is that so many people buy into it. Not being able to see the vast gray area between the extremes is a sign of mental weakness.

If I believe that some form of limited and well controlled social safety net is best, that hardly makes me a socialist.


From Wikipedia - Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society

Nowhere does a small safety net equate to anything close to this definition.

As long as you can get rich by being innovative or through hard work your economy will be heads and shoulders above anything that is true socialism. No candidate has ever proposed anything close to true socialism.

I know many have extended this definition so they can call more and more "socialism" but that's just an effort to apply an extreme label to much less extreme ideas.

I know some claim that it's about baby steps towards extremes. 1) Extremes almost always arrive through radical revolutions not baby steps. 2) Our political system has way too much dampening feedback to ever reach such extremes by incremental steps.

I could go into a similar diatribe about how liberals label conservatives but I'll leave that up to you....

[Curly Bill]

Because the other side sucks!!!!

...and by other side I'm talking about the Socialist Democratic Party of the All-Powerful Messiah Brack Obama.

[1890MilesToNorman]

Most folks don't know what those labels mean, they just parrot what they hear.

If you want to know the meaning? it takes about 2 minutes to research in the Internet age, just too damn lazy I guess. And yes there are to many shades of gray, right and wrong is still right and wrong, I don't care how you spin it.

[SouthFortySooner]

Because each side knows just a little goes a long way in the idealogical arena. So the characterizations are inflated to what each considers the worst scenario.

For example I don't think the halls of justice here in SE Ok. will fill up with men wanting to marry each other tommorow, BUT, the groundwork will be laid over the next few years to make it more and more exceptable.

Therefore I painted President elect Obamma as a @*** $^% ((***#3 !!

[GottaHavePride]

acceptable.


And if gay people want to have insurance rights, power of attorney, adn inheritance rights like everyone else, well, why not? If calling it "marriage" gets your panties in a wad, call it a "civil union" and make it a purely legal classification, nothing to do with religion.

and then they can all quit their bitchin' and you won't have to hear about it any more.

[IronSooner]

Fear is the prime motivator of humanity

People respond more strongly to extremes than shades of gray.

Paint your opposition as the extreme opposite of what you believe, thus causing your constituency to fear that extreme other side, and now they're motivated to turn out in your favor. Simple as that.

[soonerscuba]

While I do agree that politicians play to the lowest common denominator and thus lending themselves to embrace their constituent's calls of socialism or fascism I throughly disagree that radical changes to government comes swiftly. England didn't move from a divine right monarchy to parliamentary democracy overnight, for example.

[SleestakSooner]

two words "Fairness Doctrine"

[Widescreen]

acceptable.


And if gay people want to have insurance rights, power of attorney, adn inheritance rights like everyone else, well, why not? If calling it "marriage" gets your panties in a wad, call it a "civil union" and make it a purely legal classification, nothing to do with religion.

and then they can all quit their bitchin' and you won't have to hear about it any more.

I don't think the gay activists have any interest in accepting a "civil union" label. They want marriage to be redefined. Even if the actual effect is the same, they want to be considered married.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I don't think the gay activists have any interest in accepting a "civil union" label. They want marriage to be redefined. Even if the actual effect is the same, they want to be considered married.And why shouldn't they? They're people, too. Equal people. Equal to you and me.

On another note, what if the government stopped giving marriage licenses to ANYONE and only gave out "civil union" licenses. So when you go to your church and get MARRIED, you actually have a "civil union" license. And gays and straights could both get them and they were the same thing with the same legal provisions for all people, equally?

Then you could call it any damn thing and be all possessive about the semantics of the derned stupid thing and say that YOU are married since you're straight and stood in a church, but THEY aren't MARRIED since they're gay and had Elvis marry them on the beach with midgets.

How about that? Would that solve it for you guys FINALLY?

[KingBarry]

And why shouldn't they? They're people, too. Equal people. Equal to you and me.

On another note, what if the government stopped giving marriage licenses to ANYONE and only gave out "civil union" licenses. So when you go to your church and get MARRIED, you actually have a "civil union" license. And gays and straights could both get them and they were the same thing with the same legal provisions for all people, equally?

Then you could call it any damn thing and be all possessive about the semantics of the derned stupid thing and say that YOU are married since you're straight and stood in a church, but THEY aren't MARRIED since they're gay and had Elvis marry them on the beach with midgets.

How about that? Would that solve it for you guys FINALLY?

Yes, actually that would go a very long way. And I think it should be considered. To me, marriage is a primarily religious institution -- a commitment before God -- and therefore I do not need the secular state to consecrate something that has already been sanctioned by a much higher power. However, I and most everybody else do need legal sanctioning of contractual rights, determination of who would act for us if we were incapacitated, inheritance rights, etc -- and I have wondered if we should develop a civil relationship (call it what you will) that could be agreed between any two people. Why not allow an adult child to be the civil representative of an aging parent? Why not allow a close friend the same rights, if they are the most trusted? So i am not opposed to your suggestion, but do realize that is many, many, many years away.

But let me state this up front, restricting legal marriage to a lawfully sanctioned partnership between one man and one woman is NOT in anyway discriminatory, nor does it deny rights to any person. We all, you and me, and him over there, we all have exactly the same right -- which is to marry one person of the opposite sex. There is no right to marry who ever you want. You cannot marry someone that is already married, you cannot marry more than one person, and you cannot (in most states, now including CA apparently) marry a member of the same sex as yourself. In most states you cannot marry your sibling, your parent, or maybe even your cousins. (I think Payne County has exceptions.) You cannot marry minors.

You can agree or disagree with that definition of marriage, but it is not discriminatory in any way.

[KingBarry]

Why in the last 20 or so years have so many characterized a candidate's (or fellow poster's) opinions or beliefs at such extreme levels?

Too many people who favor some limited social programs are labelled as socialists.

If I believe that some form of limited and well controlled social safety net is best, that hardly makes me a socialist.

Nowhere does a small safety net equate to anything close to this definition.

No candidate has ever proposed anything close to true socialism.

jkj, don't take what I am about to say as undue criticism of you. I think the spirit of your post is exactly on the mark. I agree fully with the idea you are expressing, and appreciate your comment.

However, I do want to take exception with a couple of your specific points.

first, I wonder, how old are you? You say political debate has become unacceptably extreme in the last 20 years. I'd say this to you. You obviously don't remember the venom hurled at President Reagan, who left office almost exactly twenty years ago.

And you don't remember the vitriole spewed against Jimmy Carter, which in fairness was much deserved. (For context, JC was pretty much the John Blake of Presidential politics.) And then there was Nixon before that, though i don't remember a lot of that. And you can read how our greatest President, Abraham Lincoln, was called a "chimp", "ape" and "gorilla" by various opponents. Never mind what was said about poor King George III.

The point is that politics, while sometimes resembling a trivial sport, is in the end over very high stakes and of endless importance. Politics is literally a blood sport, as people will live or die based on who wins elections. And when people contest high stakes, they will use what weapons are at hand.

Be glad that in America, the "weapons" are mere words. In most places, they are actual weapons.

The second point is your contention that using the word "socialism" is an act of extremism. I agree that it is not a compliment, but I would also say that socialism has been used in reference to the possible policies of an Obama administration because there is real fear that Obama will advocate truly socialist policies.

Full disclosure, I believe that Obama is by nature and temperament a true "moderate," meaning that he is uncomfortable with any positions that create too much friction. He feels most comfortable in the center, where he will have allies on the left and on the right, and he can condemn those further out on both sides. And I think his policies will moderate over the course of his administration.

But his whole professional life has been spent among quite far left constituencies, and he has offered very few clear policy priorities. This was intentional, as he was running as a conciliator and didn't want to introduce divisive policy discussions into the debate, but that leaves us all to guess at what he wants to do.

And, given his background, and his focus on moving resources away from successful people to the less successful, there is a chance that he will advocate socialistically influenced wealth redistributionist policies.

Does he actually want to nationalize industry and run companies as agencies of the federal government? I doubt it (he has plenty of rich industrial fatcats among his closest political allies and funders), but would he advocate national policies to "cooridinate" industrial practices to "better serve the country"? I think he might. Might he advocate policies to mandate that unions be more strongly empowered to make decisions in the workplace? I am almost certain that he will.

The right-wing Bush administration has already partially nationalized our biggest banks as a temporary, emergency move. Could Obama move to make this permanent? i think he might.

So, while Obama does not seem to be a "socialist," I can certainly imagine that he will advocate "socialist" policies.

Well, one thing is for sure. We certainly will have the chance to find out.

[OU_Sooners75]

And you can read how our greatest President, Abraham Lincoln, was called a "chimp", "ape" and "gorilla" by various opponents.

Abe Lincoln was the greatest President?

Yes, he damn sure is one of the greatest. But it is kinda hard to take what George Washington did lightly and place it under any President that has followed him.

Here was a man that was not a great speaker or politician. He was a man that was a great delegater. He could have set a stature and continue on after just two terms. However, he did not. And that was by his choosing. I think the reason, even though it is merely a guess, was to show that this government in a new nation had to set an example that the democracy will work best when a person is not holding, even elected, into office more times than 2-3 times. Yes I know FDR was elected POTUS 4 times....but there was not a President before him that was elected more than 2 times. Now the law is no more than 2 terms. I Wonder why they came to 2 terms and not 1 or 3?

[My Opinion Matters]

My president is better than your president!

[Stoop Dawg]

I agree 100%.


Not being able to see the vast gray area between the extremes is a sign of mental weakness.

Just to expand on "mental weakness" - it could be lack of intelligence but more often (at least on this board) it's simple laziness. It's much more difficult and time consuming to formulate a sound opinion and have a rational discussion. It requires effort to actually try to understand someone's opinion when they disagree with you.

It's much easier to just type "YOU'RE A SOCIALIST" and then dismiss them out of hand. It's easier in that it's less typing, it's easier in that it requires no thought, and it's easier in that you don't have to question your own stance on the issue.

So to answer the question in the thread title: It's the easy way out.

[Stoop Dawg]

Full disclosure, I believe that Obama is by nature and temperament a true "moderate," meaning that he is uncomfortable with any positions that create too much friction. He feels most comfortable in the center, where he will have allies on the left and on the right, and he can condemn those further out on both sides. And I think his policies will moderate over the course of his administration.

But his whole professional life has been spent among quite far left constituencies, and he has offered very few clear policy priorities. This was intentional, as he was running as a conciliator and didn't want to introduce divisive policy discussions into the debate, but that leaves us all to guess at what he wants to do.

And, given his background, and his focus on moving resources away from successful people to the less successful, there is a chance that he will advocate socialistically influenced wealth redistributionist policies.


Well said.

Please post more often!!

[LosAngelesSooner]

But let me state this up front, restricting legal marriage to a lawfully sanctioned partnership between one man and one woman is NOT in anyway discriminatory, nor does it deny rights to any person. We all, you and me, and him over there, we all have exactly the same right -- which is to marry one person of the opposite sex. There is no right to marry who ever you want. You cannot marry someone that is already married, you cannot marry more than one person, and you cannot (in most states, now including CA apparently) marry a member of the same sex as yourself. In most states you cannot marry your sibling, your parent, or maybe even your cousins. (I think Payne County has exceptions.) You cannot marry minors.

You can agree or disagree with that definition of marriage, but it is not discriminatory in any way.You had me in complete agreement up until this point.

Talk about a streeeeeeetch.

By this logic, separate but equal for blacks is completely okay, as well.

Gays do NOT have the same rights as straights right now. They are not allowed to marry the people they fall in love with. They are not allowed to adopt and raise children in many states. To say, "Well, they're allowed to marry the opposite sex, so it's fair! It's not discrimination!" is insulting to logic and to people's intelligence. Sorry.

[mdklatt]

But let me state this up front, restricting legal marriage to a lawfully sanctioned partnership between one man and one woman of the same race is NOT in anyway discriminatory, nor does it deny rights to any person. We all, you and me, and him over there, we all have exactly the same right -- which is to marry one person of the same race.

Tell me why this is different than what you wrote.

[mdklatt]

But let me state this up front, restricting legal marriage to a lawfully sanctioned partnership between two men or two women is NOT in anyway discriminatory, nor does it deny rights to any person. We all, you and me, and him over there, we all have exactly the same right -- which is to marry one person of the same sex. There is no right to marry who ever you want. You cannot marry someone that is already married, you cannot marry more than one person, and you cannot (in most states, now including CA apparently) marry a member of the same sex as yourself. In most states you cannot marry your sibling, your parent, or maybe even your cousins. (I think Payne County has exceptions.) You cannot marry minors.


And you'd be perfectly okay with this?

[LesNessman]

Thomas Sowell seems to make a good argument.


Affirmative Action and Gay ‘Marriage’

By Thomas Sowell

The politically clever way to get special privileges is to call them "rights"— especially "equal rights."

Some local election campaigns in various states are using that tactic this year, trying to get special privileges through affirmative action quotas or through demands that the definition of marriage be changed to suit homosexuals.

Equality of rights does not mean equality of results. I can have all the equal treatment in the world on a golf course and I will not finish within shouting distance of Tiger Woods.

When arbitrary numerical "goals" or "quotas" under affirmative action are not met, the burden of proof is put on the employer to prove that he did not discriminate against minorities or women. No burden of proof whatever is put on the advocates of "goals" or "quotas" to show that people would be equally represented in jobs, colleges or anywhere else in the absence of discrimination.

Tons of evidence from countries around the world, and over centuries of history, show that statistical disparities are the rule, not the exception— even in situations where discrimination is virtually impossible.

Anonymously graded tests do not show the same results from one group to another. In many countries there are minorities who completely outperform members of the majority population, whether in education, in the economy or in sports, even when there is no way that they can discriminate against the majority.

Putting the burden of proof on everybody except yourself is a slick political ploy. The time is long overdue for the voting public to see through it.

Another fraud on the ballot this year is gay "marriage."

Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that law has not been based on logic but on experience. To apply a mountain of laws based specifically on experience with relations between a man and a woman to a different relationship where sex differences are not involved would be like applying the rules of baseball to football.

The argument that current marriage laws "discriminate" against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior.

All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other purpose does law have?

While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not. Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars.

But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else.

The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely, heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.

The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined— and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?

Despite heavy television advertising in California for "gay marriage," showing blacks being set upon by police dogs during civil right marches, and implying that homosexuals face the same discrimination today, the analogy is completely false.

Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black. They were doing exactly what white people were doing— riding a bus. That is what made it racial discrimination.

Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.

Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different.

None of us has a right to other people's approval.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110508.php3

[mdklatt]

None of us has a right to other people's approval.


So there shouldn't be a legal concept of marriage at all. I tend to agree.

[Stoop Dawg]

So there shouldn't be a legal concept of marriage at all. I tend to agree.

IN!

[LosAngelesSooner]

DOUBLE IN!

[Tulsa_Fireman]

In some hiney, maybe.

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURN

[LesNessman]

So there shouldn't be a legal concept of marriage at all. I tend to agree.

How absurd.

So then you would agree with polygamy, a woman marrying three men and another woman, a guy marrying his alpaca and/or goat, or maybe a 50 year old guy marrying a 14 year old boy?

Why not get rid of all legal concepts while we're at it?

[LosAngelesSooner]

OOOooooohhhhh. Sizzle.

[LosAngelesSooner]

How absurd.

So then you would agree with polygamy, a woman marrying three men and another woman, a guy marrying his alpaca and/or goat, or maybe a 50 year old guy marrying a 14 year old boy?

Why not get rid of all legal concepts while we're at it?YEAH!
And then we'll try to use absurd and illogical examples to win arguments even though they don't make any sense or carry any logical weight whatsoever simply because they are reactionary and give us funny images of dudes with their Alpacas!!!!

THIS GAME IS AWESOME!!!!

[Tulsa_Fireman]

How absurd.

So then you would agree with polygamy, a woman marrying three men and another woman, a guy marrying his alpaca and/or goat, or maybe a 50 year old guy marrying a 14 year old boy?

Why not get rid of all legal concepts while we're at it?

This is already legal in Stoolwater. TIMES ARE A'CHANGIN'.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Hey LAS, let's get married. I'm much hotter than Sarah Palin.

[LosAngelesSooner]

We can't. It's illegalz n stuff. Besides, you don't look like an Alpaca.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I have some goat leggings.

[TUSooner]

I have some goat leggings.

OK, I've seen enough of this thread. :eek:
I'd rather read something more comforting, like Obama taking my guns and pension and nationalizing zymurgy.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Okay, how's this?

OBAMA TOOK MY GOAT LEGGINGS! He's a Goatcialist!

Get it? Socialist, GOATcialist?

[jkjsooner]

I don't think the gay activists have any interest in accepting a "civil union" label. They want marriage to be redefined. Even if the actual effect is the same, they want to be considered married.

You may be right but this is where we all have a say in it.

In my opinion, of companies are going to extend benefits to gay partners, then we need either "civil unions" or "gay marriages." I think I prefer the former but that's not the point and I am not incredibly offende by the latter.

If I have to be married and have some type of binding legal relationship to get benefits then so too should everyone else. Otherwise you end up with scam partnerships that can be created and deleted at will just to piggy-back on other's benefits. Make them too go through the ugly "divorce" or "disolvement of the civil union" that we sometimes have to face.

[LosAngelesSooner]

That joke was ba-a-a-a-a-a-a-ad.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Yeah, my jokes have a tendency to get a lil' wild and WOOLy at times.

[jkjsooner]

first, I wonder, how old are you? You say political debate has become unacceptably extreme in the last 20 years. I'd say this to you. You obviously don't remember the venom hurled at President Reagan, who left office almost exactly twenty years ago.

I'm old enough to at least remember Carter and was in high school during the latest Reagan's years. Maybe 20 years was not enough. I was thinking more along 30 years.

Yes, politics have always been ugly but it seems more and more divisive every year.



The second point is your contention that using the word "socialism" is an act of extremism. I agree that it is not a compliment, but I would also say that socialism has been used in reference to the possible policies of an Obama administration because there is real fear that Obama will advocate truly socialist policies.


For those who actually believe that then that's fine. We'll have to wait and see. But my point isn't just about Obama. Kerry was called a socialist. So was Gore. So was Clinton - who by the way was pretty moderate when it came to economic views. (Heck, he even shares some of the deregulation blame that got us in the current mess we're in.)

My point is that it seems that if I am a little left of you then I'm basically Joseph Stalin. If I'm a little right of you I'm Hitler. (And I recognize that it is not accurate to say that fascism is the extreme on the right side but people use it.)

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Right.

But you're not Joseph Stalin. You're Karl Marx.

HOT KARL (Where's 1tc when you need him?)

[LesNessman]

YEAH!
And then we'll try to use absurd and illogical examples to win arguments even though they don't make any sense or carry any logical weight whatsoever simply because they are reactionary and give us funny images of dudes with their Alpacas!!!!

THIS GAME IS AWESOME!!!!

So which examples are absurd and illogical? If there isn't going to be a legal concept of marriage, anything goes right? Why distinguish between any kind of behavior?

Seems you don't want to take the argument very seriously. You may want to read Dr. Sowell's article again.

[mdklatt]

So which examples are absurd and illogical?

Comparing two adults getting married to beastiality and child molestation is absurd, illogical, insulting, and ****ing stupid.

I don't think polygamy should be illegal. Who's the victim? Fun fact: One of the biggest sources of funding for Prop. 8 in California was the Mormon Church. The Mormon F'ing Church is all for upholding traditional marriage between one man and one woman. BWAHAHAHAHA!

[KingBarry]

My goodness, this is a great thread! Several of you had comments on my posts above, and I am happy to respond to them, however, i don't have time right now.

Also, to do so, I need to be able to display both my original quote, as well as the response, so that my response to the response (if you will) would make sense.

Can someone explain to me how to do that?

[LesNessman]

Comparing two adults getting married to beastiality and child molestation is absurd, illogical, insulting, and ****ing stupid.

I don't think polygamy should be illegal. Who's the victim? Fun fact: One of the biggest sources of funding for Prop. 8 in California was the Mormon Church. The Mormon F'ing Church is all for upholding traditional marriage between one man and one woman. BWAHAHAHAHA!

Please make up your mind.

You are the one arguing that there be no legal concept of marriage and now you want to try to define some legal concept of it?

Once you start redefining things, when and where does it stop?

[LosAngelesSooner]

Les. You don't make sense and you say dumb stuff.

Cool.

[SleestakSooner]

Once you start redefining things, when and where does it stop?

You redefine ignorance with nearly each new post... the well never seems to run dry either.:pop:

[tommieharris91]

Please make up your mind.

You are the one arguing that there be no legal concept of marriage and now you want to try to define some legal concept of it?

Once you start redefining things, when and where does it stop?

I'm having a ton of trouble following you. :confused:

[Curly Bill]

I'm having a ton of trouble following you. :confused:

...as I am you. Quit changing your avatars Beyonce. :D

[tommieharris91]

...as I am you. Quit changing your avatars Beyonce. :D

No. :P

[Stoop Dawg]

Once you start redefining things, when and where does it stop?

It stops where society says it stops. That's what laws are - reflections of the current state of morality in society.

Right now, for the most part, society is not "okay" with homosexual marriage. So right now it's not legal. I think society is becoming more accepting, and soon the laws will change to reflect that.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Not to mention all the buttsecks is nasty and corny.

[LesNessman]

It stops where society says it stops. That's what laws are - reflections of the current state of morality in society.

Exactly my point, and exactly Dr. Sowell's point, though others on this thread seem not to understand, or eother got their feelings hurt.

From his article:

"Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that law has not been based on logic but on experience. To apply a mountain of laws based specifically on experience with relations between a man and a woman to a different relationship where sex differences are not involved would be like applying the rules of baseball to football.

All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other purpose does law have?"

Seems like others didn't read the article, or other posts in the thread, or simply don't understand the point.


Right now, for the most part, society is not "okay" with homosexual marriage. So right now it's not legal. I think society is becoming more accepting, and soon the laws will change to reflect that.

You are correct in the first part, but maybe not the second, at least not yet. The traditional (for the last few millennia) definition of marriage has been as between one man and one woman. 30 states in the U.S. now have amendments to their state constitutions protecting that definition, up from 27 just a few days ago:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjJjNDQyOWUzYTNmZGFiMDkzNTZhYTExYTM2ZjliM2M=&w=MQ==

tommieharris91,

mdklatt responded to the article I posted from Dr. Sowell and said he agreed with "no legal concept of marriage". Those were his words not mine. What does that mean? If something has no legal concept it has no societal boundaries, no clear definition. After all what are laws, but defined boundaries on behavior? "No legal concept of marriage" would invite total chaos.

I'm simply making the point that if you redefine marriage to accomodate homosexual behavior because they feel discriminated against, why not other groups and their behavior? Why is it only ok to redefine marriage to accomodate homosexuals? Seems very discriminatory to me in that respect.

Dr. Sowell also points out that no person is being being dicriminated against when it comes to marriage. All are free to do so. It's the behavior that is discriminated against and rightly so. More again from the article:

"The argument that current marriage laws "discriminate" against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior."

While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not. Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars.

But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else.

The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely, heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.

The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined— and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?"

Go ahead name-callers; do your thing!

[Stoop Dawg]

Exactly my point, and exactly Dr. Sowell's point, though others on this thread seem not to understand, or eother got their feelings hurt.

From his article:

"Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman.

The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined— and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?"

It's true that marriage has existed for centuries, but it's absolutely NOT true that it has always, until recently, meant a union between a man and a woman. There have been many civilizations that embraced polygamists. There have also been civilizations that embraced pedophilia.

So the real issue is whether marriage should be redefined again. At the present time it appears that there is not enough support for it. But the tide certainly seems to be shifting.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Every time someone says that marriage has always been "between one mane an one woman" I know that they either haven't ever studied history or they're just copying something they've been told, like a parrot.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I'm simply making the point that if you redefine marriage to accomodate homosexual behavior because they feel discriminated against, why not other groups and their behavior? Why is it only ok to redefine marriage to accomodate homosexuals? Seems very discriminatory to me in that respect.

Dr. Sowell also points out that no person is being being dicriminated against when it comes to marriage. All are free to do so. It's the behavior that is discriminated against and rightly so. More again from the article:

"The argument that current marriage laws "discriminate" against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior."

While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not. Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars.

But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else.

The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely, heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.

The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined— and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?"Lord. There are so many HORRIBLE leaps in logic and logical fallacies in this post that it's embarrassing.

Seriously. I'd never post this again, if I were you. It's just about the dumbest thing I've ever read.

[KingBarry]

It's true that marriage has existed for centuries, but it's absolutely NOT true that it has always, until recently, meant a union between a man and a woman. There have been many civilizations that embraced polygamists. There have also been civilizations that embraced pedophilia.

So the real issue is whether marriage should be redefined again. At the present time it appears that there is not enough support for it. But the tide certainly seems to be shifting.

"Polygamy" in practice has often been a euphemism for "women in slavery" and often developed in societies where status and power came to the physically strongest -- in other words most all societies at some point. As women are invariably weaker than the strongest men, they really get the short end of the stick in such situations.

And I guess there may have been societies that "embraced" paedophilia, though I am not aware of them, and I would be curious to hear about their social arrangements. And why would this be relevant to marriage, a life-long partnership? Obviously, if you are interested in children, you are only going to get a few years out of such a relationship.

And if such pedophelic relationships did become "marriages," I am curious if these were not again a legalized system of chattel slavery by another name.

[KingBarry]

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingBarry (as amended by mdklatt, amendments in bold)
But let me state this up front, restricting legal marriage to a lawfully sanctioned partnership between two men or two women is NOT in anyway discriminatory, nor does it deny rights to any person. We all, you and me, and him over there, we all have exactly the same right -- which is to marry one person of the same sex. There is no right to marry who ever you want. You cannot marry someone that is already married, you cannot marry more than one person, and you cannot (in most states, now including CA apparently) marry a member of the same sex as yourself. In most states you cannot marry your sibling, your parent, or maybe even your cousins. (I think Payne County has exceptions.) You cannot marry minors.


And you'd be perfectly okay with this?

I don't understand your question. No, of course I woudn't be OK with your scenario, but I would agree that it is not discriminatory. Just because something is NOT discriminatory doesn't mean it is good, it just means it's not discriminatory. "Discriminatory" is a point of fact, "good" is a point of opinion.

Mrriage laws decreeing that the institution can only exist legally between one male and one female may be good, or may be bad, but are not discriminatory. i said elsewhere that maybe we should move away from legal "marriages" and towards legally binding partnerships that could recognize other family bonds, so I am not a "traditional marriage" zealot.

At the same time, I would also point out that just because something is discriminatory doesn't mean it is bad. For example, here in Virginia registered sex offenders are not allowed to put up Halloween decorations and must post signs saying "No Candy." As nobody else must behave this way, that requirement is discriminatory. I think this is good. Likewise, some states forbid gay couples to adopt children. Very clearly discriminatory, in fact, and, in my opinion, also good policy.

[mdklatt]

Mrriage laws decreeing that the institution can only exist legally between one male and one female may be good, or may be bad, but are not discriminatory.

It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender. Men are excluded from marrying other men because of their gender, and women are excluded from marrying other women because of their gender. That's illegal.

But even if it was legal, it's still wrong. There is no functional difference between a gay couple and a straight couple. Two consenting adults are two consenting adults. Don't bother mentioning reproduction, because plenty of straight couples can't or choose not to have kids.