Time Magazines 10 Best and 5 Worst Senators.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Nym,

Ah, but you fail to comprehend the nature of equality.

Consider the examples of the current Pope, and Charles Manson.

Should they be treated exactly the same.

I would say No, that they should be evaluated upon their conduct, and Manson's conduct merits imprisonment for life.

Now, central difference is that intimate relations between homosexuals cannot result in issue (children),

So, facts merit different treatment.

[ilikeverin]

Nym,

Ah, but you fail to comprehend the nature of equality.

Consider the examples of the current Pope, and Charles Manson.

Should they be treated exactly the same.

I would say No, that they should be evaluated upon their conduct, and Manson's conduct merits imprisonment for life.

Now, central difference is that intimate relations between homosexuals cannot result in issue (children),

So, facts merit different treatment.

So we should give infertile, heterosexual couples different treatment too, right?  Facts meriting different treatment and all.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Ok, I'll bite.

1. liberals generally favor 'gay marriage' because it is a deliberate, intentional and malicious assault on the traditional family (a liberal bogeyman),

No, they favor it because they feel that everyone should have equal access to the institution of marriage regardless of their sexual orientation.

2. liberals generally favor disarming Americans because they recognize that so long as Americans are armed, liberals cannot impose a totalitarian state on them,

No, liberals don't favor disarming Americans, they favor restrictions on firearms that have no purpose other than to kill people so as to reduce crime.

3. liberals generally are opposed to freedom of speech, and prefer to inflict poltical correctness on others,

No, liberals are in favor of freedom of speech.

4. liberals generally are hostile to organized religion because it they prefer to worship the almighty state,

No, liberals are not hostile to organized religion. They merely support freedom of religion for all people regardless of their religious belifs.

5. liberals generally prefer to judge people on the color of their skin than the content of their character, which is why try (and too often suceed) in imposing quotas (sometimes mislabled goals and timetables),

No, liberals support equal opportunity for success for all people regardless of their race.

6. liberals generally support abortion on demand (i.e. no limits),

No, liberals support reasonable access to abortion.

7. liberals generally think the foreign policy of the United States should be dictated in the pont de neuf,

No, liberals think that foreign policy should take an assertive approach, neither aggressive nor passive.

8. liberals generally are hostile to the armed forces.

No, liberals are in favor of military action when they feel it is necessary and proper.

9. liberals generally prefer to have unelected federal judges usurp the power of the elected reprsentatives of the people.

No, liberals support checks and balances and a government in which all three branches play a role.

Nym,

You really are a stranger to the truth.  Lets just start with a couple of specifics.

Many universities have 'speech codes' which ban 'politically incorrect' speech.  Where these restrictions develped by liberals or conservatives (or are you ignorant of this fact)?

Are quotas (sometimes called by different names) the product of liberals or conservatives?  

Now, once you can own up to these two areas, we will discuss the others.

Obviously there are extremists in both parties that advocate ridiculous policies. This does not mean that an entire group should be stigmatized based on the views of a small minority of the group.

Er,

First, I did not say ALL,but did say "generally," so either you did not carefully read my post, or are deliberately misinterprting it.

Second, are you trying to state that speech codes only exist at a few (say, less than ten) universities?

Third, are you trying to alledge that racial preferences do not exist in many circumstances?

Fourth, if the supporters of speech does and racial preferences were a "small minority" of liberals, why are they so widespread?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Nym,

Ah, but you fail to comprehend the nature of equality.

Consider the examples of the current Pope, and Charles Manson.

Should they be treated exactly the same.

I would say No, that they should be evaluated upon their conduct, and Manson's conduct merits imprisonment for life.

Now, central difference is that intimate relations between homosexuals cannot result in issue (children),

So, facts merit different treatment.

So we should give infertile, heterosexual couples different treatment too, right?  Facts meriting different treatment and all.

Yes.

[Nym90]

Nym,

Ah, but you fail to comprehend the nature of equality.

Consider the examples of the current Pope, and Charles Manson.

Should they be treated exactly the same.

I would say No, that they should be evaluated upon their conduct, and Manson's conduct merits imprisonment for life.

Now, central difference is that intimate relations between homosexuals cannot result in issue (children),

So, facts merit different treatment.

I agree that not everyone should be treated equally. Obviously one's actions should affect how one is treated.

Though it is worth noting that this discussion was based on what the majority of liberals believe, not what I believe. That being said, I believe that the vast majority of liberals would agree with me on this.

And I never said that liberals believe everyone should be treated equally, only that everyone should be treated equally in their access to marriage on the basis of their sexual orientation.

You are certainly free to disagree with whether or not that is a good idea, but that's not the point of debate of this discussion. I was merely challenging your assertion of why liberals take the political positions that they do.

[Nym90]

Ok, I'll bite.

1. liberals generally favor 'gay marriage' because it is a deliberate, intentional and malicious assault on the traditional family (a liberal bogeyman),

No, they favor it because they feel that everyone should have equal access to the institution of marriage regardless of their sexual orientation.

2. liberals generally favor disarming Americans because they recognize that so long as Americans are armed, liberals cannot impose a totalitarian state on them,

No, liberals don't favor disarming Americans, they favor restrictions on firearms that have no purpose other than to kill people so as to reduce crime.

3. liberals generally are opposed to freedom of speech, and prefer to inflict poltical correctness on others,

No, liberals are in favor of freedom of speech.

4. liberals generally are hostile to organized religion because it they prefer to worship the almighty state,

No, liberals are not hostile to organized religion. They merely support freedom of religion for all people regardless of their religious belifs.

5. liberals generally prefer to judge people on the color of their skin than the content of their character, which is why try (and too often suceed) in imposing quotas (sometimes mislabled goals and timetables),

No, liberals support equal opportunity for success for all people regardless of their race.

6. liberals generally support abortion on demand (i.e. no limits),

No, liberals support reasonable access to abortion.

7. liberals generally think the foreign policy of the United States should be dictated in the pont de neuf,

No, liberals think that foreign policy should take an assertive approach, neither aggressive nor passive.

8. liberals generally are hostile to the armed forces.

No, liberals are in favor of military action when they feel it is necessary and proper.

9. liberals generally prefer to have unelected federal judges usurp the power of the elected reprsentatives of the people.

No, liberals support checks and balances and a government in which all three branches play a role.

Nym,

You really are a stranger to the truth.  Lets just start with a couple of specifics.

Many universities have 'speech codes' which ban 'politically incorrect' speech.  Where these restrictions develped by liberals or conservatives (or are you ignorant of this fact)?

Are quotas (sometimes called by different names) the product of liberals or conservatives?  

Now, once you can own up to these two areas, we will discuss the others.

Obviously there are extremists in both parties that advocate ridiculous policies. This does not mean that an entire group should be stigmatized based on the views of a small minority of the group.

Er,

First, I did not say ALL,but did say "generally," so either you did not carefully read my post, or are deliberately misinterprting it.

Second, are you trying to state that speech codes only exist at a few (say, less than ten) universities?

Third, are you trying to alledge that racial preferences do not exist in many circumstances?

Fourth, if the supporters of speech does and racial preferences were a "small minority" of liberals, why are they so widespread?

And I am challenging the assertion that they generally do. No misinterpretation involved there.

I do not have statistics available as to how many unviersities have speech codes. I would argue that anyone who supports such speech codes is going against the liberal political philosophy regardless of whether or not they call themselves liberal.

In many circumstances, racial preferences do exist, and in many others, they do not.

Racial preferences are much different than quotas, however, which is what you originally talked of liberals supporting. Quotas are largely illegal and are not supported by the majority of liberals.

Even most who do support these policies are doing it because they believe it will lead to equality of opportunity (and I agree with you that they are wrong, but that does not mean that they intentionally support inequality, as you were seeming to claim).

There is a big difference between disagreeing with someone's positions and even with warning of dire consequences of someone's policy proposals on the one hand, and declaring that someone's motivations for their policies are of an evil intent on the other.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Nym,

Ah, but you fail to comprehend the nature of equality.

Consider the examples of the current Pope, and Charles Manson.

Should they be treated exactly the same.

I would say No, that they should be evaluated upon their conduct, and Manson's conduct merits imprisonment for life.

Now, central difference is that intimate relations between homosexuals cannot result in issue (children),

So, facts merit different treatment.

I agree that not everyone should be treated equally. Obviously one's actions should affect how one is treated.

Though it is worth noting that this discussion was based on what the majority of liberals believe, not what I believe. That being said, I believe that the vast majority of liberals would agree with me on this.

And I never said that liberals believe everyone should be treated equally, only that everyone should be treated equally in their access to marriage on the basis of their sexual orientation.

You are certainly free to disagree with whether or not that is a good idea, but that's not the point of debate of this discussion. I was merely challenging your assertion of why liberals take the political positions that they do.

Apparently you did not understand what I said, or read my brief post in response to any poster's inquiry.

Let me repeat, that the central purpose of civil marriage is the protection of children.

Now, given that homosexuals as a consequence of their relationship, will NOT result in offspring as a consequence of such a union, marriage is NOT necessary, and civil unions will suffice.

A simple difference of facts.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Ok, I'll bite.

1. liberals generally favor 'gay marriage' because it is a deliberate, intentional and malicious assault on the traditional family (a liberal bogeyman),

No, they favor it because they feel that everyone should have equal access to the institution of marriage regardless of their sexual orientation.

2. liberals generally favor disarming Americans because they recognize that so long as Americans are armed, liberals cannot impose a totalitarian state on them,

No, liberals don't favor disarming Americans, they favor restrictions on firearms that have no purpose other than to kill people so as to reduce crime.

3. liberals generally are opposed to freedom of speech, and prefer to inflict poltical correctness on others,

No, liberals are in favor of freedom of speech.

4. liberals generally are hostile to organized religion because it they prefer to worship the almighty state,

No, liberals are not hostile to organized religion. They merely support freedom of religion for all people regardless of their religious belifs.

5. liberals generally prefer to judge people on the color of their skin than the content of their character, which is why try (and too often suceed) in imposing quotas (sometimes mislabled goals and timetables),

No, liberals support equal opportunity for success for all people regardless of their race.

6. liberals generally support abortion on demand (i.e. no limits),

No, liberals support reasonable access to abortion.

7. liberals generally think the foreign policy of the United States should be dictated in the pont de neuf,

No, liberals think that foreign policy should take an assertive approach, neither aggressive nor passive.

8. liberals generally are hostile to the armed forces.

No, liberals are in favor of military action when they feel it is necessary and proper.

9. liberals generally prefer to have unelected federal judges usurp the power of the elected reprsentatives of the people.

No, liberals support checks and balances and a government in which all three branches play a role.

Nym,

You really are a stranger to the truth.  Lets just start with a couple of specifics.

Many universities have 'speech codes' which ban 'politically incorrect' speech.  Where these restrictions develped by liberals or conservatives (or are you ignorant of this fact)?

Are quotas (sometimes called by different names) the product of liberals or conservatives?  

Now, once you can own up to these two areas, we will discuss the others.

Obviously there are extremists in both parties that advocate ridiculous policies. This does not mean that an entire group should be stigmatized based on the views of a small minority of the group.

Er,

First, I did not say ALL,but did say "generally," so either you did not carefully read my post, or are deliberately misinterprting it.

Second, are you trying to state that speech codes only exist at a few (say, less than ten) universities?

Third, are you trying to alledge that racial preferences do not exist in many circumstances?

Fourth, if the supporters of speech does and racial preferences were a "small minority" of liberals, why are they so widespread?

And I am challenging the assertion that they generally do. No misinterpretation involved there.

I do not have statistics available as to how many unviersities have speech codes. I would argue that anyone who supports such speech codes is going against the liberal political philosophy regardless of whether or not they call themselves liberal.

In many circumstances, racial preferences do exist, and in many others, they do not.

Racial preferences are much different than quotas, however, which is what you originally talked of liberals supporting. Quotas are largely illegal and are not supported by the majority of liberals.

Even most who do support these policies are doing it because they believe it will lead to equality of opportunity (and I agree with you that they are wrong, but that does not mean that they intentionally support inequality, as you were seeming to claim).

There is a big difference between disagreeing with someone's positions and even with warning of dire consequences of someone's policy proposals on the one hand, and declaring that someone's motivations for their policies are of an evil intent on the other.

Well, lets review,

First, you do agree that speech codes do exist and have stopped insisting they exist in a tiny minority of cases (progress)

Second, are these speech codes the product of conservatives or moderates, or could it just be they they might by products of liberals (please answer the question)

Third, as I previously noted, the term "quotas" is often eschewed, with other expressions such as "goals and timetables"and "preferences" being used.  So, if sufficent 'preferences' are provided as to achieve a quota goal, trying to hide this under a different terminology is merely obfuscation.

Fourth, are these 'racial preferences' promoted by conservatives or moderates or is it just possible the advocates of such practices are just about uniformly liberals?

Fifth, if a majority of liberals do not favor such 'racial preferences,' why are they so widespread?

Now, while it is true that (unfortunately) well done surveys have not been published (to the best of my knowledge) as the attitudes of self described liberals on these matters, votes in Congress on these matters over the years indicate a high correlation between persons described by both the Americans for Democratic Action and the American Conservative Union as liberals do indicate that liberals (at least in Congess do generally approve of racial preferences).

[Nym90]

Nym,

Ah, but you fail to comprehend the nature of equality.

Consider the examples of the current Pope, and Charles Manson.

Should they be treated exactly the same.

I would say No, that they should be evaluated upon their conduct, and Manson's conduct merits imprisonment for life.

Now, central difference is that intimate relations between homosexuals cannot result in issue (children),

So, facts merit different treatment.

I agree that not everyone should be treated equally. Obviously one's actions should affect how one is treated.

Though it is worth noting that this discussion was based on what the majority of liberals believe, not what I believe. That being said, I believe that the vast majority of liberals would agree with me on this.

And I never said that liberals believe everyone should be treated equally, only that everyone should be treated equally in their access to marriage on the basis of their sexual orientation.

You are certainly free to disagree with whether or not that is a good idea, but that's not the point of debate of this discussion. I was merely challenging your assertion of why liberals take the political positions that they do.

Apparently you did not understand what I said, or read my brief post in response to any poster's inquiry.

Let me repeat, that the central purpose of civil marriage is the protection of children.

Now, given that homosexuals as a consequence of their relationship, will NOT result in offspring as a consequence of such a union, marriage is NOT necessary, and civil unions will suffice.

A simple difference of facts.

So let me repeat it.

If

I respect your view on that, but I don't agree that the central purpose of marriage is necessarily to raise children. I (and to keep this on topic, most liberals) feel that the purpose of each marriage should be left to the couple to decide, rather than having it dictated by the state. If children are present in a marriage or relationship of any type, it is morally wrong to ignore their needs, but that's a different issue entirely.

This has absxolutely nothing to do with destroying traditional marriage. Liberals merely want to expand accessibility to the institution, they have no desire to harm anyone else's marriage. This is in accordance with the principle of allowing each couple to decide on their own what the central purpose of their marriage should be.

So that's why earlier analogies were made to allowing blacks to vote; the similarity being that expanding access to an institution does not take away the rights of those who already have access to it. Of course those two things are not the same and the comparison is not making this claim, but they are similar in that one respect.

I could also point out that opposing allowing heterosexuals to marry who cannot or do not want to have children would be quite an extreme conservative position that most conservatives would not advocate.

[Nym90]

Ok, I'll bite.

1. liberals generally favor 'gay marriage' because it is a deliberate, intentional and malicious assault on the traditional family (a liberal bogeyman),

No, they favor it because they feel that everyone should have equal access to the institution of marriage regardless of their sexual orientation.

2. liberals generally favor disarming Americans because they recognize that so long as Americans are armed, liberals cannot impose a totalitarian state on them,

No, liberals don't favor disarming Americans, they favor restrictions on firearms that have no purpose other than to kill people so as to reduce crime.

3. liberals generally are opposed to freedom of speech, and prefer to inflict poltical correctness on others,

No, liberals are in favor of freedom of speech.

4. liberals generally are hostile to organized religion because it they prefer to worship the almighty state,

No, liberals are not hostile to organized religion. They merely support freedom of religion for all people regardless of their religious belifs.

5. liberals generally prefer to judge people on the color of their skin than the content of their character, which is why try (and too often suceed) in imposing quotas (sometimes mislabled goals and timetables),

No, liberals support equal opportunity for success for all people regardless of their race.

6. liberals generally support abortion on demand (i.e. no limits),

No, liberals support reasonable access to abortion.

7. liberals generally think the foreign policy of the United States should be dictated in the pont de neuf,

No, liberals think that foreign policy should take an assertive approach, neither aggressive nor passive.

8. liberals generally are hostile to the armed forces.

No, liberals are in favor of military action when they feel it is necessary and proper.

9. liberals generally prefer to have unelected federal judges usurp the power of the elected reprsentatives of the people.

No, liberals support checks and balances and a government in which all three branches play a role.

Nym,

You really are a stranger to the truth.  Lets just start with a couple of specifics.

Many universities have 'speech codes' which ban 'politically incorrect' speech.  Where these restrictions develped by liberals or conservatives (or are you ignorant of this fact)?

Are quotas (sometimes called by different names) the product of liberals or conservatives?  

Now, once you can own up to these two areas, we will discuss the others.

Obviously there are extremists in both parties that advocate ridiculous policies. This does not mean that an entire group should be stigmatized based on the views of a small minority of the group.

Er,

First, I did not say ALL,but did say "generally," so either you did not carefully read my post, or are deliberately misinterprting it.

Second, are you trying to state that speech codes only exist at a few (say, less than ten) universities?

Third, are you trying to alledge that racial preferences do not exist in many circumstances?

Fourth, if the supporters of speech does and racial preferences were a "small minority" of liberals, why are they so widespread?

And I am challenging the assertion that they generally do. No misinterpretation involved there.

I do not have statistics available as to how many unviersities have speech codes. I would argue that anyone who supports such speech codes is going against the liberal political philosophy regardless of whether or not they call themselves liberal.

In many circumstances, racial preferences do exist, and in many others, they do not.

Racial preferences are much different than quotas, however, which is what you originally talked of liberals supporting. Quotas are largely illegal and are not supported by the majority of liberals.

Even most who do support these policies are doing it because they believe it will lead to equality of opportunity (and I agree with you that they are wrong, but that does not mean that they intentionally support inequality, as you were seeming to claim).

There is a big difference between disagreeing with someone's positions and even with warning of dire consequences of someone's policy proposals on the one hand, and declaring that someone's motivations for their policies are of an evil intent on the other.

Well, lets review,

First, you do agree that speech codes do exist and have stopped insisting they exist in a tiny minority of cases (progress)

Second, are these speech codes the product of conservatives or moderates, or could it just be they they might by products of liberals (please answer the question)

Third, as I previously noted, the term "quotas" is often eschewed, with other expressions such as "goals and timetables"and "preferences" being used.  So, if sufficent 'preferences' are provided as to achieve a quota goal, trying to hide this under a different terminology is merely obfuscation.

Fourth, are these 'racial preferences' promoted by conservatives or moderates or is it just possible the advocates of such practices are just about uniformly liberals?

Fifth, if a majority of liberals do not favor such 'racial preferences,' why are they so widespread?

Now, while it is true that (unfortunately) well done surveys have not been published (to the best of my knowledge) as the attitudes of self described liberals on these matters, votes in Congress on these matters over the years indicate a high correlation between persons described by both the Americans for Democratic Action and the American Conservative Union as liberals do indicate that liberals (at least in Congess do generally approve of racial preferences).

As I said, I don't know to what extent speech codes are prevalent, what percentage of colleges have them. I'd be interested in seeing statistics on this.

I've never encountered them before personally. They certainly would (or at least should) be ruled unconstitutional as violations of the First Amendment.

If they were instituted by liberals at these universities, as I said, this would not be a true liberal position as I see it, and in any event the fact that a university board of regents might have a handful of extremists capable of implementing this says little to nothing about the overall attitudes of liberals (or conservatives, or people of any other political persuasion) in America as a whole.

I do not know whether or not a majority of liberals would support affirmative action, but I am confident that a majority would oppose quotas. There may be some cases where preferences could lead to a de facto quota if the prefer, but this is not something that would be favored by the majority of liberals, no. The true liberal position here would be to favor equality of opportunity for success, which would not in any way be accomplished by a quota. It can be logically argued that a racial preferences system may help improve access to success in higher education by minorities, and it can also be logically argued that it would not lead to this. Thus liberals who hold this positon are not judging people merely on the color of their skin but are using the racial preference system as a means to an end to accomplish equality of opportunity. As I said before, one can argue with the logic of this position, but that does not mean that liberals are intentionally trying to impose a quota system that would be clearly harmful to this goal. That's the issue at hand.

I still maintain that there is a big difference between a quota, in which a certain percentage of accepted applicants must be of a certain race (ruled unconstitional), and a preference system in which race is considered as one of many factors (legal). Most liberals would oppose the former. As for the latter, liberals who do support it are doing so because they feel it will lead to equal opportunity for success for all Americans. One can certainly disagree with the logic of this, as I do, but that does not mean that these people are advocating it for malicious reasons
 

[CARLHAYDEN]

Nym, you are very good at avoiding the issues.

Lets again review the two points.

First, where conservatives are in charge, no politically correct speech codes.  Where liberals are in charge, there frequently are speech codes.


Second, where conservatives are in charge there are no no racial preferences, but where there are liberals in charge, there usually are racial preferences (whether in admission to schools or employment).

Hmm.

Third, members of Congress who are considered to be liberal both by a major liberal organization and a major conservative organization a clear majority of whom support racial prefernces, but this does not reflect the opinions of most liberals outside of Congress?

Hmm.

It seems to me Nym, that you are playing games with definitions.

Essentially you seem to be saying that even though others agree that certain persons of liberal, if they support a clearly odious position, you simply declare they are not liberals.

[Inmate Trump]

Snowe is only a Republican because there's an "R" next to her name; that's really the only thing that makes her a Republican--everything else about her makes you think "liberal Democrat."

Aside from Snowe (and having Ted Kennedy on there), I'd say the list is pretty good, considering that there really isn't anyone in Congress you could say is doing a good job................

[Gustaf]

Carl, you're not making sense now. Marriage, as of now, is a state sanctioned institution which, among other things, involve certain tax benefits (or so I've understood it, at least). It is also symbolic. It's exactly the same as saying "Blacks are allowed to go to a school. Not just the good one that white kids go to." Why should gays get a b-marriages with heterosexuals getting the real thing?

Liberals believe that in an egalitarian society, people have a right to be treated equally by the state.

Gustaf,

First, apparently you missed the discussion a few months ago when a number of liberal leaning posters DID suggest that marriage should cease to be a civil function and instead be a religious function (it will be interesting to see if any of them will remember their earlier posts to the effect)

Second, there is no reason why the 'tax benefits' cannot be address with civil unions.

Third, the critical difference between traditional marriage and 'gay marriage' is that children do NOT naturally issue as a result of 'gay marriage.'

I don't get your first point. Why should the liberal posters on the forum have any bearing on my opinion? If you read my post, you'll see that it says, "as of now". If you're suggesting that the state should only recognize civil unions and get out of marriage, leaving it to churches that would be another matter, of course.

Why would the state impose two different things if the legal consequences were exactly the same? That makes very little sense to me.

Your third point is irrelevant, unless you want to prohibit marriages involving sterilized people, women who have stopped menstruating, people over a certain age, those with handicaps that prohibit them from reproducing and so on.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, lets review:

First, apparently you are abandoning your earlier argument abut 'tax benefits,'

Second, apparently you do not understand that there ARE different consequences for marriages between a man and a woman capable of bearing children, and legal recognition of unions between others who are incapable of bearing children.  Marriage is primarily designed to protect children, and where children are not (at least potentially involved) other legal arrangements appear to me to more than satisfactory.  In short, a DIFFERENT situation.  In short, the termination of a marriage or the death of a party has different consequences for people who bear children than for those who don't.

[Virginian87]

Carl, for a Democrat you have quite a strange view of how liberals think.  I may not be a liberal, but I can still see that in pushing for gay marriage they are not trying to destroy the traditional nuclear family.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I don't know whether you did not carefully read my posting or are deliberately misrepresenting what I said.

I did NOT say that liberals supported 'gay marriage' because they wanted to "destroy" the nuclear family, but rather to show their contempt for traditional marriage.

Further, I qualified my statement that this was "generally" the rationale of liberals, rather than stated it was shared by all liberals, or the sole rationale (I will acknowledge that some DO support the destruction of the nuclear family, but that most haven't thought that far).

[Virginian87]

I don't know whether you did not carefully read my posting or are deliberately misrepresenting what I said.

I did NOT say that liberals supported 'gay marriage' because they wanted to "destroy" the nuclear family, but rather to show their contempt for traditional marriage.

Further, I qualified my statement that this was "generally" the rationale of liberals, rather than stated it was shared by all liberals, or the sole rationale (I will acknowledge that some DO support the destruction of the nuclear family, but that most haven't thought that far).

well, I know a lot of liberals, and most of those who support gay marriage show no contempt for traditional marriage, so I still don't know where you're getting these generalizations.

[ottermax]

Carl, I believe you may be taking liberal views to the extreme. Maybe your thinking of particularly extreme liberals, not the majority of more moderate liberals. I also have to dissagree with your opinion on the liberal's view of free speech, something that liberals support. Perhaps you are getting confused between Democrats and Liberals.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, let me welcome you to the forum.

Second, let me point out that there are many sensible Democrats, and I was referring specifically to liberals.

Third, with respect to freedom of speech, do you acknowledge that speech codes exist? 

If so, are you trying to suggest they are the product of conservatives of moderates?

If you acknowledge that the identified supporters of speech codes are liberals, then the remaining issue is what percentage of liberals support such speech codes.

Now, I never stated that all liberals are supporters of speech codes.

However, if (as some here on this thread have maintained) most liberals oppose speech codes, then why are they so extensive.

Its very hard to explain if conservatives oppose speech codes (they do) and moderates oppose speech codes (they do), why they continue to exist of most liberals oppose speech codes.

[Gustaf]

Well, lets review:

First, apparently you are abandoning your earlier argument abut 'tax benefits,'

Second, apparently you do not understand that there ARE different consequences for marriages between a man and a woman capable of bearing children, and legal recognition of unions between others who are incapable of bearing children.  Marriage is primarily designed to protect children, and where children are not (at least potentially involved) other legal arrangements appear to me to more than satisfactory.  In short, a DIFFERENT situation.  In short, the termination of a marriage or the death of a party has different consequences for people who bear children than for those who don't.

Eh. I'm not abandoning any of my arguments. I don't know what gives you that idea.

Since there are many childless marriages I wouldn't say that is the sole purpose of marriage. Would you favour an automatic nullifying of all marriages where the participants pass a certain age or get sterilized?

[Soaring Eagle]

It is certainly fair to say Dean Barkley was bad.

Refresh my memory, why was Barkley bad?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, lets review:

First, apparently you are abandoning your earlier argument abut 'tax benefits,'

Second, apparently you do not understand that there ARE different consequences for marriages between a man and a woman capable of bearing children, and legal recognition of unions between others who are incapable of bearing children.  Marriage is primarily designed to protect children, and where children are not (at least potentially involved) other legal arrangements appear to me to more than satisfactory.  In short, a DIFFERENT situation.  In short, the termination of a marriage or the death of a party has different consequences for people who bear children than for those who don't.

Eh. I'm not abandoning any of my arguments. I don't know what gives you that idea.

Since there are many childless marriages I wouldn't say that is the sole purpose of marriage. Would you favour an automatic nullifying of all marriages where the participants pass a certain age or get sterilized?

Gustaf,

It is a basic principle that when one poster initially makes an assertion, which is rebutted by another poster, the failure of the original poster to address the rebuttal is a concession of the point.  I note that you have yet to address my point (tax advantages could easioy6 be granted to civil unions),

Further, simply because "you wouldn't say' something does deny the fact.  You might not 'say' the world is spherical (despite that, it is).  You might not 'say' that one plus one equals two (but it does).  So, simply because you wouldn't"say" something does not in any way relate to its truth.

Now, for the purpose of simplification, where at the time of the union, both parties are incapable of creating children, then a civil union is appropriate.  When, at the time of the union both parties are capable of producing children, then marriage is appropriate.

Now, you may want to intervene in the relationships between two individuals, but I do not. 

What is the fascination in the left for subservience to homosexuals?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And since when is Hillary Clinton an up-and-comer?

She's a first term Senator who receives a lot of attention.  In the context of the Senate, that makes her an up-and-comer.

[Gustaf]

Well, lets review:

First, apparently you are abandoning your earlier argument abut 'tax benefits,'

Second, apparently you do not understand that there ARE different consequences for marriages between a man and a woman capable of bearing children, and legal recognition of unions between others who are incapable of bearing children.  Marriage is primarily designed to protect children, and where children are not (at least potentially involved) other legal arrangements appear to me to more than satisfactory.  In short, a DIFFERENT situation.  In short, the termination of a marriage or the death of a party has different consequences for people who bear children than for those who don't.

Eh. I'm not abandoning any of my arguments. I don't know what gives you that idea.

Since there are many childless marriages I wouldn't say that is the sole purpose of marriage. Would you favour an automatic nullifying of all marriages where the participants pass a certain age or get sterilized?

Gustaf,

It is a basic principle that when one poster initially makes an assertion, which is rebutted by another poster, the failure of the original poster to address the rebuttal is a concession of the point.  I note that you have yet to address my point (tax advantages could easioy6 be granted to civil unions),

Further, simply because "you wouldn't say' something does deny the fact.  You might not 'say' the world is spherical (despite that, it is).  You might not 'say' that one plus one equals two (but it does).  So, simply because you wouldn't"say" something does not in any way relate to its truth.

Now, for the purpose of simplification, where at the time of the union, both parties are incapable of creating children, then a civil union is appropriate.  When, at the time of the union both parties are capable of producing children, then marriage is appropriate.

Now, you may want to intervene in the relationships between two individuals, but I do not. 

What is the fascination in the left for subservience to homosexuals?

Carl,

For someone who favours tradition you should learn some traditonal, good manners.

I stated that the state grants certain favours to those that are married that is not granted to those who are  not married. You stated that this could be changed, implying that you do not think the government should give financial support to married couples while denying it for those with civil unions. That is not a refutation of my argument, that is you agreeing to my point. Since you lost that debate, I saw no reason to pursue it.

I said I wouldn't say that because many marriages are also childless. I don't know why you're being a jerk over that, but if it makes you happy to rant about it, then by all means.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that people who cannot have children should not marry? I'm wondering how, exactly, you would enforce this. Compulsory gynecological exams for those wishing to marry perhaps?

Finally, once again, if the purpose of marriage is bringing children to the world then marriages which can no longer produce children and who's off-spring has reached adult age should be annulled, should they not? I mean, since they no longer have any purpose.

Now, I don't think any of us should question people's reasons for getting married but let them live their lives. But that's me.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Gustaf,

Again you dance around the subject.

If homosexuals can obtain all the tangible rights under civil unions which could be obtained under marriage, they why do some of them (and most liberals) insist on marriage?

Its not for the tangible benefits, but rather because they are seeking equate homosexuals relationships with non-homosexual relationships.  For many liberals this is simply a way of expressing their contempt for traditional marriage.