Gay Minn. Sen. Scott Dibble Slams Marriage Ban

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by leekohler, May 12, 2011.

  1. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #1
  2. TheShinyMac macrumors 6502a

    TheShinyMac

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    #2
    I love how he directly "attacks" the two other Senators that are for the so called "bill' I'm e-mailing this video to my Scripture teacher to spark some interesting discussions in my Jesuit school.
     
  3. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #3
    Much appreciated. Thanks.
     
  4. CaoCao macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    #4
    Marriage, noun: the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife
     
  5. racers macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    #5
    the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
    • a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex.
    • a relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts
    Way to pic and choose :rolleyes:
     
  6. CaoCao macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    #6
    The other definitions don't have to do with the law
     
  7. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #7
    The law can be changed. There are plenty of good arguments for changing it. I've never seen a good argument against changing it.
     
  8. dscuber9000 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    Indiana, US
    #8
    Not for too long.
     
  9. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #9
    So let me see if I understand you:

    Premise 1-Marriage is defined by the law as a union of a man and a woman, making them husband and wife.

    Premise 2-The dictionary definition of marriage is based on the legal definition of marriage.

    Premise 3- ?????????????????

    Conclusion: The homos shouldn't be allowed to get married.


    I guess we can ignore the fact that the law can be changed right? Or that our definitions of words change over time. Or that a definition is a NOT A BASIS TO DETERMINE WHAT THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS.

    In any case, the bullet has left the barrel in terms of this issue. The only question is how long it's going to take for younger generations to have an impact on public opinion. We're at the tipping point now since a few polls have found an even split (and one found majority support). By the 2012 general election we'll probably be at a 52% majority in support of full marriage equality. Demographers expect a 1-2% steady gain per year for the next few years, and then the issue will suddenly accelerate rapidly towards acceptance as attrition takes effect (we could literally be one bad flu season or heat wave away from settling this issue, as grim as that sounds) and previous holdouts realize that there are bigger fish to fry.

    The only thing that should matter to you is which side of history you'd like to be on.
     
  10. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #10
    So....are you saying that states that have laws granting equal marriage rights are somehow illegal? Last time I checked, Massachusetts, Iowa and others have LAWS for equal marriage rights. Many countries do too.

    And you did not answer the question. Watch the video and explain point by point, why you have a problem with this.
     
  11. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #11
    That's your argument, really? That its the currently law so we can't change it?

    Please that's trash...at least we've come to the point where any reasonable person can agree there isn't any real good reason to keep gay marriage illegal.

    I don't care what you do in your church, when it comes to taxes and the ability to visit loved ones in a hospital, I don't care what genitals you have if you love each other.

    As for what you do in the bed room, that hardly seems like it will change based off marriage status. Nor does it matter, what ever floats your boat as long as everyone is involved is willing and of legal age.
     
  12. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #12
    A decade ago, was same-sex marriage even on the radar? Seems to me that around '04, the right-wing started to play it up as a deflection issue, to get their constituents to the polls. Before that, there was generally not much talk of it, IIRC. So, in a decade or so, when most of the country supports and recognizes it, we can thank the Republicans for helping it become a popularly accepted concept.
     
  13. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #13
    The earliest polls started to record it in the mid 90s after there were murmurs that Hawaii might recognize it. IIRC, in the mid 90s a whopping 70% of the population was opposed and barely 20% was in favor. As the 90s came to a close, there was a small but noticeable uptick that kept going until 2003 when Lawrence v. Texas, Massachusetts' Supreme Court decision and San Francisco Valentine's Day weddings became headlines. That's when the right really started to pound the pavement, seeing an easy opportunity to get high conservative turnout.

    Ultimately I think political scientists are going to see Prop 8 as the watershed moment for the movement. The granting, and then harsh retraction, of equality was quite jarring for people to see. I think it finally stirred the movement and gave it vigor that it had lost largely to a small group of careful lawyers in DC, NY, and San Francisco. The recent statutory successes in Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire, the It Gets Better campaign, and a host of other smaller victories (including the outing and public ridicule of homophobes) all point to a much more active coalition than at anytime in the past.

    What should really terrify conservatives is that they have created yet another permanent constituency against them. Rich, old, white, straight, and male is going to be an increasingly narrow constituency.
     
  14. Andeavor macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
  15. iStudentUK, May 13, 2011
    Last edited: May 13, 2011

    iStudentUK macrumors 65816

    iStudentUK

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    London
    #15
    Change (verb) - 1. to transform or convert

    So we change (see above) the legal definition of marriage to be between two people.

    Easy! :D


    EDIT- Having now watched that video it is really sad. I really feel for the guy. When you think about it you could define marriage currently as "a union between two people whose combined DNA fingerprint contains exactly one Y chromosome". If that doesn't make it seem like a stupid definition I don't know what does.
     
  16. Heilage macrumors 68030

    Heilage

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    #16
    See, I made it all better. Now it even makes sense.


    AMAZING!
     
  17. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #17

    [​IMG]
     
  18. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #18
    That was awesome. :)
     
  19. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #19

    Actually, in his world:

    Premise 1 - Marriage is defined by religion as union of a man and a woman, making them husband and wife.

    Premise 2 - The law adopted the religious definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman, making them husband and wife.

    ...

    A marriage is a contract entered into by two people. It has legal rights granted buy llaw. It can legally be dissolved.

    The legal definition of who can enter that contract can, and will change. Sorry for all of you who wish a theocracy.
     
  20. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #20
    There should be a tiny sliver of pie: Fred Phelps's head will explode.
     
  21. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #21
    There's a 100% chance of that happening, along with a 100% chance of gays getting married. How the hell do you show that on a pie chart?

    Maybe that's the argument against legalizing gay marriage. It's mathematically impossible to model it :p
     
  22. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #22
    A Venn diagram...perhaps there is a circle underneath. :D
     

Share This Page