Posted 5 years, 9 months ago in the wee hours by HispanicPundit
First off, I apologize to Oso up front if this is an inappropriate way to notify guests. Feel free to remove this if I have overstepped my bounds.
To everybody else, I just want to note that there has been a change in plans. I had originally suggested to make our next topic about economics, and than move into vouchers and the like. But upon further thought, and because I am crunched for time (going to Mexico for Christmas etc), I have decided to move to a topic much more clear cut(IMHO): gay marriage 
. Talks about economics, vouchers, and the like are much more ‘gray’ than talks about gay marriage (or abortion for that matter), therefore they will take a significant more amount of time to discuss. So I’d rather put them off until I come back from Mexico. Plus, while on vacation I plan on reading some books that I have been meaning to get to for some time now, giving me the ability to more accurately and fairly present my side of the political aisle.
As far as gay marriage goes, for those of you that did not read my introduction, I am against gay marriage and against (gay) civil unions. I expect to learn a lot and can almost guarantee a good discussion on the topic. I plan (depending on how time-consuming the abortion discussion continues to be) to start it up this weekend.
Oh, one more thing, I am getting swamped with work and school, so if my responses are significantly delayed, please understand.
Good night everyone.
When you have more time do please elaborate on your position about gay marriage. I will be very interested to hear more about this.
Around the PBA
TCF has a profound reflection for Minority Republicans, especially the New Attorney General Appointee. Get well soon Doug! TIA has some very interesting thoughts on Bush Doctrine Global Politics and legitimacy. Reaching 60 does not mean one must become…
Something to think about….
We all want freedom from “fear”.
How do you address those who are involved in some major religions such as the Jewish Religion, the Muslim Religion and the Christian Religion?
The Christian religion is comprised of about 2 billion people. The Muslim religion is comprised of 1.3 billion people. And the Jewish religion is made up of about 14 million people.
These religions “FEAR” the consequences of their god’s wrath. All of these religions denounce homosexuality. Read their holy books.
Many of these followers do believe in a god-type. So the real struggle is fear in my opinion.
For the most part, Jews, Muslims and Christians fear the wrath of their god-type if they support homosexuality. They remember historical events like Sodom and Gomorrah.
In my opinion, we all want freedom, but, you need to look at the basics which is:
1. Freedom of religion.
2. Freedom of speech.
3. Freedom “from” want.
4. Freedom “from” fear.
How do you appease those individuals who fear consequences?
Something I should add…..
1. Gays fear that they will not receive equal benefits that married people receive.
2.And “religious” people fear the consequences from supporting the homosexual agenda all together.
Any ideas? Anyone? Anyone?
HP,
No overstepping at all – I was hoping you’d feel comfortable enough to make the announcement.
It seems like comments are starting to die down on our abortion discussion. I do want to say though, that those comment threads will stay open while we discuss other issues. So if a new thought or argument comes to you regarding abortion while we’re talking about gay marriage or economics, please post it and we’ll keep that conversation going as much as possible. Remember, we’re not looking for solutions, but rather to show the various arguments of each side the best we can and let readers (now and in the future) make up their own minds.
DD,
Your comments are appreciated. Let’s save all comments regarding gay marriage for after HispanicPundit’s post though. As more and more users start to comment it seems like our level of respectfulness and focused conversation is detiorating a bit. In posts that deal with actual issues, I’m going to try to keep the conversation as respectful and focused as possible.
Seyd,
I totally agree with you man. I think this conversation is going to be very interesting and that HP is going to bring up some points many of us had not yet thought of.
Oso invited me over here to participate in the conversation. I am a former liberal who was mugged by reality, so I generally lean towards the conservative side of political issues.
Weighing in on the gay marriage issue, I am strongly against gay marriage. Gay marriage is an oxymoron. However, I tentatively support the concept of civil unions. Primarily because in some cases it may benefit young children who could otherwise not have access to health benefits.
In my not-so-humble opinion, the question of whether to legalize gay marriage or gay civil unions (either of which is sufficient in my view) boils down to the ultimate question of ascribing or denying substantive rights to certain groups of people. I haven’t done a LOT of research on the benefits that legally married couples get over those who are not legally married, but I believe that denying a gay (or even a heterosexual unmarried) couple certain substantive rights (such as hospital visitation rights, health care rights, etc) is not justifiable. Once again it boils down to the Constitutional guarantee of equal rights and the 14th Amendment protection of those rights.
Just a reminder – we’re not going to start debating the gay marriage issue until HispanicPundit posts his opinions this weekend. I can guarantee you he will take a perspective that most of you have not heard. So let’s keep reading up until then.
Yeah sorry about that.
HP,
From your introduction, I find it telling and ironic that you are in lockstep with basic Conservative viewpoints, except when it comes to having an impact on you personally (Immigration).
Just a heads up also, every Conservative I’ve read arguing their opposition to Gay Marriage, without fail decide not to even address the precedent or Constitutional provisions that are the basis for the Massachusetts Supreme Court majority opinion.
With you being a self-described strict ‘Constitutionality’, I trust you will convincingly refute the opinions of these so-called ‘activist judges’, who collectively have 100+ more years of jurisprudence experience than you.
Another quick reminder. Let’s not attack HP as an individual or his overall political stance, but instead focus on each issue he presents to us. So far that is only abortion so I think we should keep picking apart his pro-life argument and wait patiently until he shares his thoughts about gay marriage.
Immigration doesn’t affect me personally all that much, I was afterall, born in this country.
Also, I don’t believe that immigration can truly be broken down along political lines. It’s alot like the patriot act, where you have people on both sides of the aisle for/against it.My family, for example, were all given citizenship because of Reagan. And George W. Bush is the first President to offer some form of workers program. You can quibble about the details, and the overall positive/negative effect this may have, but its a fact that only until Bush was something like that given national attention.
In addition, my support for immigration comes from the economic support of it, and the belief that economically speaking, it is a good thing.
I have also stated publically that I don’t support a constitutional ban on gay marriage, even though I am against gay marriage. So there are issues that I disagree from the conservative viewpoint, even when I personally agree with the underlying conclusion.
As for the court rulings on gay marriage. I am not going to address that for the simple reason that I know very little about it(I am an Engineer by trade, not a lawyer). I do know that the ruling was not as clear cut as you seem to imply. The Mass court itself split on a 4-3 ruling, so even the liberal state of Mass(of which I would assume has liberal judges) couldn’t rule unanimously in favor of such a revolutionary ruling.
Oso,
As I hope you can tell, my Comment posts here and over at HP have been respectful, yet sarcastic. They have been pointed and specific, and I did not manipulate or distort any comments in response.
My detractors have exemplified shrill, hysterical bile and obviously have an Achilles heel when it comes to race and their political beliefs.
I’m sorry if I have contributed to such unpleasant exchanges involving your blog. You see, I write for an online political commentary site and engage such opinions/attitudes from the Right, on a consistent basis. Therefore, I have a knack for hitting them in just the right spot.
Again, I apologize.
Language on the Podcast
So oso made a good comment over at the San Diego Blog. The language in the Podcast is defenetly not safe for work.