Seems to be another attempt to mock the opposition instead of engaging in debate to me. Smug condescending liberalism masquerading as wit.

There is nothing to debate. One side wants to oppress, and the other does not.

I wouldn't debate a racist, either. Some things are only worthy of mockery and scorn.

It's just political correctness gone mad

Fortunately, Jack, that doesn't matter as those who were willing to debate racism won the argument and the establishment is now anti-racist.

@Oct
I didn't take it as an attempt to mock anything other than the absurdity of the question.

I'll debate you Octavious.

I think that two consenting adults, regardless of gender, should have the right to marry and be entitled to all of the legal benefits and burdens that come with that.

I find that it is morally unjust to deny the right of marriage to gay couples, and contrary to the principle of equal human rights.

Further, I think that any religious arguments against gay marriage are flawed on many fronts:
1) I do not believe that a religion should dictate the law of the land. In particular, for the USA, I would point to the unconstitutionality of passing laws with respect to a religion.
2) I'm not saying that we should force churches to recognize or sanctify gay marriage, or even all other marriages (for example, I don't expect nor want the Catholic church to recognize my civil marriage). However, at the same time these religions should have no say on the legal concept of marriage and shouldn't be used as a justification to deny equal human rights. If we want to uphold the value of religious freedom, we must also have freedom from religion.

@ hecks

You think so, hecks? Did you read something in lines such as "Even baby steps are met with fierce opposition from the culturally intransigent, the perpetually bigoted, and the insufficiently intelligent" or "creatures of petty emotions" and "ruled... by fearmongers" that I missed? To me that looks little more than throwing insults at people who think diiferently

As there are some religions that favor same-sex marriage and others that do not, and since Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet interprets the first amendment as meaning that the government may not favor one religion over another, it seems clear that there are only two options (at least in the U.S.): the government should either allow all willing couples of age to marry, or the government should refrain from registering, formalizing, or in any way recognizing marriage. Frankly, even as an unabashed big-government Liberal, I'd favor the latter option. However, given how deeply entrenched marriage is in the tax code, inheritance law, health law, child custody law, and property law, I think it'll be a cold day in hell before that's practical. Thus, the former would seem to be the most viable option.

"You think so, hecks? Did you read something in lines such as "Even baby steps are met with fierce opposition from the culturally intransigent, the perpetually bigoted, and the insufficiently intelligent" or "creatures of petty emotions" and "ruled... by fearmongers" that I missed? To me that looks little more than throwing insults at people who think diiferently"

Well... okay, I missed that sentence. Yeah, that's pretty direct.
Regardless, though, I didn't find it especially funny.

@ yebellz

I've been a supporter of gay marriage since long before joining this site, have argued in favour of it here on several occasions, and some time ago even started a thread encouraging British Webdippers to take part in a government consultation that led to the gay marriage bill being passed by Parliament this week.

http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=849946

What I object to is not the promotion of gay marriage being a good thing, but the reduction of the debate, in the finest American tradition, to petty insults and mudslinging.

Well, it seems that we agree on the core issue, in that we both support marriage equality.

However, I do object at your characterization of this satire as "condescending liberalism" or "petty insults and mudslinging".

Satire is a valid form of persuasive expression of one's opinion. Further, satire and parody have long been established in the course of politcal expression of opinion in the tradition of the USA.

You claim to object to reducing the debate to petty insults and mudslinging, but doesn't your dismissive rejection of the satire's expression of opinion directly contradict that claim?

Maybe the thrust of it was decent satire, but Oct's got a point that when the writer says things like "culturally intransigent, perpetually bigoted, and insufficiently intelligent" he steps outside the frame of satire and stoops to name-calling.

Good satire is best served by subtlety.

All of a sudden everyone loves a dirt-digger, a bottom-bandit. Is gay the new straight?

Good god...who gives a fuck who is "married" to whom? Get a civil union/draw up legal documents that give each other power of attorney,etc; wear a ring; tell everyone your married; dig dirt; live life and be happy and who gives a fuck if you have a piece of paper that nobody sees that says you are "married". Really...who give a flying fuck? Have a wedding ceremony and throw a party with all your friends, put it on the internet, send out announcements that you are married, blah blah blah. Who give a fuck?

As a religious conservative, I think the country needs to get its collective head out of its ass and just declare gay marriage legal -- yes, religion should not dictate law, and the only *real* ramifications of marriage are legal ones (visitation rights, inheritance, etc) all of which *can* be gotten around with legal documents...which is all that a marriage license is anyway. Yes, it *seems* unfair as is, and it should just be changed and the issue be put to rest...but seriously, who gives a fuck!?! It is *hardly* the biggest issue in the world today. Not even top ten...It is a minor issue for a few individuals that happen to have an unusually loud voice in society. But seriously, who gives a fuck?

There are things that I can not do that I want to do, wish I could do, etc....I deal with it. That's life. In *reality*, you don't' always get what you want. Sometimes it truly isn't even fair...but you deal with it and live your life.

It's funny, too, that many of those that are demanding marriage "rights" (marriage, which is NOT a right, by the way, but a legal contract implemented by society...) are the very same individuals that want to strip others of their rights...such as gun ownership, various forms of speech, many of you would in your darkest fantasies would have children taken away from parents for teaching them religion so bigoted are you...Isn't hypocrisy wonderful?

*he's on one*

Good God.

They say you're supposed to get more conservative as you get older, and I feel that I have, yet, Webdip seems to be lurching to the right in the last year or so.

You really think we have to take anti-gay marriage activists seriously? Good grief.

Has it not always been this way here? I just took it for granted that the realpolitik of Diplomacy attracted more conservatives than liberals.

Really? The Webdip forums are dominated by the left wing, with a smaller and rather diverse group of right wingers attempting to provide some sort of balance.

You think? That wouldn't have been my offhand assessment. This might necessitate a new thread with a formal poll: Do you consider yourself left, right, or center.

I'm centre right. But taking this threat as an (albeit rather unscientific) example we have Thucy (hardcore radical intolerant lefty), Nigee (lefty) krellin (not a lefty), Jack (lefty) JECE (lefty), yebellz and yourself (probably lefty?).

This is quite a common state of affairs

thread*

Well, sure, if you're taking this thread, but some of the loudest voices on the forums, like MichiganMan, SocratesDissatisfied, Draughnar, Sbyvl, Semck, Gluck, FlemGem, StressedLines, and Fasces haven't shown up here. (Oh, shit, did I just summon them?)

Some of the loudest voices, perhaps, but they're significantly outnumbered. Also the divide between the (generalising slightly here) European right and the American right is so huge we hardly recognise each other.

I'm not going to get into the central debate, but I do want to address one common misconception. @yebellz,

"In particular, for the USA, I would point to the unconstitutionality of passing laws with respect to a religion."

Your wording is vague, but your apparent meaning is wrong. It is perfectly fine to support and argue for laws for explicitly religious reasons, if the law does not deal with explicitly religious subject matter.

I'm progressive, yes, but I have enough disagreements with the traditional left that I don't usually consider myself "leftist"

Statist is more accurate lol

Octavious: Yay! I have a reputation of sorts. I don't know why you think this is a leftist forum, though. Most political threads make me sick to my stomach they are so far right-wing. Maybe the far-right is more likely to make new threads?

@ JECE

There is no far-right on the forum. We had one young chap who seemed to think he was facist, but really he was just a bit of a tit. I'm really not sure which threads your refering to. You get the occasional disturbing thread beating the drum for Argentine expansionism, but I'm not convinced that's really a right/left thing

I kind of agree with what krellin has to say. I think that gay rights activists* tend to be pretty self-centered to think that their own pet issue is more important than education/environmental issues. Both of which, actually affect people.



*not to be confused with actual gay people

Re left or right bias on forum. If you line 11 people up only one of them will think there is an even number on the left and right. Everyone else will see more people to one side or the other. The further you are to the right, the more you see people to the left, the further you are to the left, the more you see people to the right.

Perhaps, although in every one of those political compass things that pop up every few months the left has always dominated.

Octavious: Ha ha, very funny. I should bump that threat again out of spite.

If you don't see the far right on this forum I don't know what else to say. Perhaps I have a broader definition than you. Do you remember 'T?????'s Chew'?