Get HuskerMax™ on your iPhone. Click here for details. Get tickets for all home and away games here.
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 61

Thread: The Problem with Gays and Voters: Whom can we trust?

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPhoenix View Post
    Where did I say they weren't making a choice? I also didn't say it was a detriment to them. Although that seems to be what you are implying. But one can reasonably and rationally conclude that perhaps because of how society has treated them for hundreds of years, that maybe, just maybe they have a different view on relationships. So while it is certainly a choice they make, one can see how it can be influenced by past treatment and social stigmas.
    Which is absolutely fine for them to believe it is a positive aspect of their relationships...whether is it based on thousands of years of forming relationships or basic brain and hormonal differences between men and women. Regardless, it represents a fundamental difference in the nature of their relationships. This is backed up by the research (unbiased and academic), by the fact that they want to keep it from being shared...and the lack of expressed desire to change that aspects of gay relationships. Let voters and decision makers decide based on all the facts instead of trying to turn it into a fight between the extremes (ala Bush's "with us or against us). Civil unions would provide an alternative form of relationship open to a new characterization based on the wants and needs of homosexual couples...while also providing the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as married couples.

  2. #32
    God of Huskermax

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Posts
    58,799
    Quote Originally Posted by SealBeachHusker View Post
    Which is absolutely fine for them to believe it is a positive aspect of their relationships...whether is it based on thousands of years of forming relationships or basic brain and hormonal differences between men and women. Regardless, it represents a fundamental difference in the nature of their relationships. This is backed up by the research (unbiased and academic), by the fact that they want to keep it from being shared...and the lack of expressed desire to change that aspects of gay relationships. Let voters and decision makers decide based on all the facts instead of trying to turn it into a fight between the extremes (ala Bush's "with us or against us). Civil unions would provide an alternative form of relationship open to a new characterization based on the wants and needs of homosexual couples...while also providing the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as married couples.
    Or we could just let them be equal and get married. Cause neither one will affect you or your relationship with your wife or kids.

  3. #33
    Heisman

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    McKinney, Texas, United States
    Posts
    11,787
    Quote Originally Posted by huskerator 5000 View Post
    I can't believe that was almost 50/50 in the 90s.
    Good, because it wasn't. It was approve by a 48-42 margin in 1991, and had gone to approve by 64-27 by 1997. We're not sure what it was by 1999. So to say it "was almost 50/50 in the 90s" is definitely a misrepresentation.

  4. #34
    Heisman

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    McKinney, Texas, United States
    Posts
    11,787
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPhoenix View Post
    Or we could just let them be equal and get married. Cause neither one will affect you or your relationship with your wife or kids.
    And Seal has never argued it would. Nice strawman though...

  5. #35
    All Big 10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    18,790
    Quote Originally Posted by McKinneyTXHusker View Post
    Good, because it wasn't. It was approve by a 48-42 margin in 1991, and had gone to approve by 64-27 by 1997. We're not sure what it was by 1999. So to say it "was almost 50/50 in the 90s" is definitely a misrepresentation.
    How do you figure that an approval rating of just less than 50% in 1991 means that h5k misrepresented an "almost 50/50" split?
    "We need education in the obvious more than investigation of the obscure."

    "If you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."

    “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”

  6. #36
    Guest

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    6,962
    Quote Originally Posted by McKinneyTXHusker View Post
    And Seal has never argued it would. Nice strawman though...
    Not really a nice one at that.

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPhoenix View Post
    Or we could just let them be equal and get married. Cause neither one will affect you or your relationship with your wife or kids.
    Never said that. You'd have to understand social constructs and social institutions to understand the effects it will likely have. And, you'd have to admit that there is fundamental differences between a majority of gay and straight relationships in their very nature...not just in the sex of the partners.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by McKinneyTXHusker View Post
    And Seal has never argued it would. Nice strawman though...
    Thanks. I hope I have tried to approach this whole issue without fear mongering and mean spirited rhetoric...not my intention.

  9. #39
    Heisman

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    McKinney, Texas, United States
    Posts
    11,787
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    How do you figure that an approval rating of just less than 50% in 1991 means that h5k misrepresented an "almost 50/50" split?
    Pretty simple - because taking one single sample from 1991 and referring to it as "the 90s" is the misrepresentation part.

  10. #40
    God of Huskermax

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Posts
    58,799
    Quote Originally Posted by SealBeachHusker View Post
    Never said that. You'd have to understand social constructs and social institutions to understand the effects it will likely have. And, you'd have to admit that there is fundamental differences between a majority of gay and straight relationships in their very nature...not just in the sex of the partners.
    There is also fundamental differences between Hindu couples, Japanese couples, Islamic couples, Sikh couples, black and white couples, rich and poor couples, may and december couples, midgets and regular people couples, and just about every other type of couple you can think of and "straight" couples. And none of it has to do with the sex of the partners.

    So fundamental differences in relationship styles has not been a barrier to marriage previously, I see no reason to bar gays from being totally unique... just like everyone else.

  11. #41
    God of Huskermax

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Posts
    58,799
    Quote Originally Posted by McKinneyTXHusker View Post
    And Seal has never argued it would. Nice strawman though...
    If you don't like gay marriage then just don't get gay married. Easy peasy.

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPhoenix View Post
    There is also fundamental differences between Hindu couples, Japanese couples, Islamic couples, Sikh couples, black and white couples, rich and poor couples, may and december couples, midgets and regular people couples, and just about every other type of couple you can think of and "straight" couples. And none of it has to do with the sex of the partners.

    So fundamental differences in relationship styles has not been a barrier to marriage previously, I see no reason to bar gays from being totally unique... just like everyone else.
    No there's not, not within the context of the basic understanding of fidelity inherent in the commitment of Marriage. Basic definitions of marriage don't talk about any of the stuff you are trying to make comparisons to.

    I see since the strawman didn't work...your just looking for straws....(relax, I'm joking)

  13. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPhoenix View Post
    If you don't like gay marriage then just don't get gay married. Easy peasy.
    If you don't want to get Married, go enter into a Civil Union...easy peasy. No need to change Marriage.

  14. #44
    Guest

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    6,962
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPhoenix View Post
    If you don't like gay marriage then just don't get gay married. Easy peasy.
    Quote Originally Posted by SealBeachHusker View Post
    If you don't want to get Married, go enter into a Civil Union...easy peasy. No need to change Marriage.
    slam.jpg

  15. #45
    God of Huskermax

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Posts
    58,799
    Quote Originally Posted by SealBeachHusker View Post
    No there's not, not within the context of the basic understanding of fidelity inherent in the commitment of Marriage. Basic definitions of marriage don't talk about any of the stuff you are trying to make comparisons to.

    I see since the strawman didn't work...your just looking for straws....(relax, I'm joking)
    Not looking for any straws. You said fundamental differences....yet you seem to be focusing on ONE difference in SOME gay couples. My point is, that there are plenty of differences between peoples relationships. That go far beyond who's pounding whom. And that those differences haven't prevented them from getting married and I don't think it should prevent gays from getting married either.

    Look, we can go round and round on this but we both know we aren't going to come to a middle ground on this issue. I say let them marry and you say don't let them marry. Separate but equal doesn't work for me, nor is it an appropriate middle ground. It is simply another way to continue to discriminate for no good reason.







Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •