You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #21: Actually that same argument was used by RW power plays to deny gay marriage. So yeah, it's RW. n/t [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Actually that same argument was used by RW power plays to deny gay marriage. So yeah, it's RW. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -I have one concern with the Prop. 8 decision. smalll  Aug-04-10 09:44 PM   #0 
  - Is there a secular interest in allowing  BootinUp   Aug-04-10 09:46 PM   #1 
  - Interesting. I will take some time to read the entire decision at some point.  smalll   Aug-04-10 09:52 PM   #4 
  - My understanding is that  BootinUp   Aug-04-10 09:57 PM   #6 
     - Thanks for your further response.  smalll   Aug-04-10 10:02 PM   #10 
  - It is just the opposite.  seattleblue   Aug-04-10 10:53 PM   #18 
  - Let the polygmists fight their own battles. We're talking about who is in a marriage, not how many.  Kerrytravelers   Aug-04-10 09:49 PM   #2 
  - Bingo ... let them make their case.  JoePhilly   Aug-05-10 03:09 PM   #45 
  - I don't have a problem with Polygamy or Polyandry  Milo_Bloom   Aug-04-10 09:51 PM   #3 
  - Thanks for your response. Yes, I anticipated the "none of my business" responses, like yours.  smalll   Aug-04-10 09:57 PM   #8 
  - are you willing to give up your civil rights until we vote on them?  CreekDog   Aug-05-10 01:22 PM   #41 
  - The point is I don't care what society at large is for or against.  Milo_Bloom   Aug-05-10 02:50 PM   #44 
  - Total BS.  JoePhilly   Aug-05-10 03:26 PM   #46 
  - I have a problem with both as I think it harms the fabric of society  mkultra   Aug-06-10 10:00 AM   #61 
     - It exists right now and doesn't harm society.  Milo_Bloom   Aug-06-10 11:04 AM   #62 
        - Much like with other society based issues...The problem is with the degree  mkultra   Aug-06-10 11:14 AM   #63 
           - Theft has an actual victim  Milo_Bloom   Aug-06-10 11:30 AM   #64 
              - Then drug use  mkultra   Aug-06-10 11:43 AM   #65 
                 - EXACT same connections if you want to make it.  Milo_Bloom   Aug-06-10 12:31 PM   #66 
                    - Sorry, there are facts that do not bare out your conclusions  mkultra   Aug-06-10 01:18 PM   #69 
                       - Your made up facts are not that impressive.  Milo_Bloom   Aug-06-10 01:35 PM   #74 
                          - Here is your starter education pack.  mkultra   Aug-06-10 01:51 PM   #75 
                             - Any other nonsense you would like to share?  Milo_Bloom   Aug-06-10 02:09 PM   #76 
                                - Well, we can start by correcting your terminology  mkultra   Aug-06-10 02:35 PM   #79 
                                   - Still dipping it in wrong sauce, eh?  Milo_Bloom   Aug-06-10 02:44 PM   #80 
                                      - You have my facts and none of your own  mkultra   Aug-06-10 02:49 PM   #81 
                                         - What FACTS?  Milo_Bloom   Aug-06-10 02:59 PM   #82 
  - so what if he does?  dsc   Aug-04-10 09:56 PM   #5 
  - jesus christ, RW talking points.  dionysus   Aug-04-10 09:57 PM   #7 
  - BS. An intellectually lazy reply.  seattleblue   Aug-04-10 10:57 PM   #19 
  - Actually that same argument was used by RW power plays to deny gay marriage. So yeah, it's RW. n/t  vaberella   Aug-04-10 10:59 PM   #21 
  - So if a RWer says the sun rises in the East  seattleblue   Aug-04-10 11:20 PM   #25 
     - Actually in the argument used by Holder's people to defend DOMA or DADT  vaberella   Aug-05-10 09:14 AM   #34 
        - So you have no legal argument against the position?  seattleblue   Aug-05-10 11:05 AM   #36 
           - I never suggested that I had a legal argument.  vaberella   Aug-05-10 07:34 PM   #53 
  - giving credence to RW talking points is a waste of intellectual energy  mkultra   Aug-06-10 01:34 PM   #73 
  - Yep d, and the OP must mention BESTIALITY too!! nt  caledesi   Aug-05-10 12:06 AM   #29 
  - Clergy need permission from the states to marry someone.  LiberalFighter   Aug-04-10 09:58 PM   #9 
  - Apples and Oranges: Polygamy and Gay Marriage  Starry Messenger   Aug-04-10 10:06 PM   #11 
  - Thank you.  David Zephyr   Aug-04-10 10:09 PM   #12 
  - My pleasure.  Starry Messenger   Aug-04-10 10:25 PM   #17 
  - Thank you for your posting and link! This makes a lot of sense.  smalll   Aug-04-10 10:17 PM   #14 
     - I didn't read the comments.  Starry Messenger   Aug-04-10 10:23 PM   #16 
        - Why on earth would you assume (or state) that  COLGATE4   Aug-05-10 03:55 PM   #49 
           - You're right, I'm an asshole.  Starry Messenger   Aug-05-10 04:41 PM   #52 
  - Civil Rights for Blacks and other minorities were moslty won through Courts  JI7   Aug-04-10 10:16 PM   #13 
  - The courts are there specifically to protect minorities  ruggerson   Aug-04-10 10:23 PM   #15 
  - I don't care if it's the other parties are consent. n/t  vaberella   Aug-04-10 10:58 PM   #20 
  - If he wants to have four wives, and his four wives him, who are we to stop them?  LittleBlue   Aug-04-10 11:02 PM   #22 
  - As I said to someone else upthread,  smalll   Aug-04-10 11:20 PM   #24 
     - You're bringing in the philosophy of "nature"? You serious?  LittleBlue   Aug-04-10 11:30 PM   #26 
        - I only brought up "nature" to say that there is a 1 to 1 ratio of men to women in the population --  smalll   Aug-04-10 11:33 PM   #27 
           - So what? That's genetics, not a female entity named "nature."  LittleBlue   Aug-04-10 11:37 PM   #28 
           - Ugh, read a little anthropology before you make sweeping statements, please.  Ignis   Aug-05-10 12:35 PM   #38 
              - I was already half aware of what you mention --  smalll   Aug-05-10 08:27 PM   #54 
                 - No, pair-bonding remains the norm, outside societal pressures to the contrary.  Ignis   Aug-05-10 08:43 PM   #56 
                    - Well, that's good news then!  smalll   Aug-05-10 08:50 PM   #57 
                       - No, you are incorrect. Again, Anthro 101 here.  Ignis   Aug-05-10 09:01 PM   #58 
                          - LOL - sorry to be a difficult student!  smalll   Aug-05-10 09:12 PM   #59 
                             - Actually, I should apologize.  Ignis   Aug-06-10 02:11 PM   #77 
  - I wouldn't think that it would be the same precedent  KingFlorez   Aug-04-10 11:09 PM   #23 
  - Good topic. I see the eventual result of all this  Hosnon   Aug-05-10 12:22 AM   #30 
  - There probably is no legal ground to stop it. But it goes beyond the marriage aspect.  Drunken Irishman   Aug-05-10 12:32 AM   #31 
  - I think you've now touched on exactly why the LDS is fighting so hard on this.  msanthrope   Aug-05-10 12:41 AM   #32 
  - Arghhh!  shimmergal   Aug-05-10 01:03 AM   #33 
  - The requirement that a bishop be the husband of one wife was not about polygamy.  potone   Aug-05-10 11:53 AM   #37 
  - Thanks for your thoughtful response!  smalll   Aug-05-10 08:42 PM   #55 
  - The State Has A Real Interest In Stopping Polygamy or Polyandry  Yavin4   Aug-05-10 09:38 AM   #35 
  - That's an identifiable interest but not a compelling one or a narrowly tailored fix  Kurt_and_Hunter   Aug-05-10 01:36 PM   #43 
  - Well, I can only say that when Canada grew up and recognized equal marriage...  Spazito   Aug-05-10 01:15 PM   #39 
  - let's vote on your civil rights  CreekDog   Aug-05-10 01:19 PM   #40 
  - Brown v. Board of Education stirred up trouble, I tell you...  Kurt_and_Hunter   Aug-05-10 01:35 PM   #42 
  - Who cares? There is my intellectually lazy response because  CBR   Aug-05-10 03:30 PM   #47 
  - I have many concerns with your mental well-being.  Starbucks Anarchist   Aug-05-10 03:31 PM   #48 
  - If you took the time to read the judge's opinion then you would see that  grantcart   Aug-05-10 04:00 PM   #50 
  - I hate the notion of people voting on the rights of others.  Odin2005   Aug-05-10 04:24 PM   #51 
  - When Loving v Virginia made inter racial marriages legal  Bluenorthwest   Aug-06-10 01:30 PM   #72 
  - Slippery slope fallacy  NMMNG   Aug-05-10 10:12 PM   #60 
  - Well done  TrogL   Aug-06-10 01:16 PM   #68 
  - A different take  JustAnotherGen   Aug-06-10 12:59 PM   #67 
  - Karl? Grover?  Bluenorthwest   Aug-06-10 01:23 PM   #70 
  - Not this shit again...  Nicholas D Wolfwood   Aug-06-10 01:26 PM   #71 
  - I recommend you read the decision.  onenote   Aug-06-10 02:26 PM   #78 
  - He's welcome to try  jberryhill   Aug-06-10 03:06 PM   #83 
  - I don't believe that equal rights should be subject to a vote period  Proud Liberal Dem   Aug-06-10 03:16 PM   #84 
  - Please put me in the "who cares/none of my business camp"  TheKentuckian   Aug-06-10 03:51 PM   #85 
  - as long as blacks can't marry whites and christians can't marry jews  Warren Stupidity   Aug-06-10 08:44 PM   #86 
 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC