Santorum

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

With Republicans, it's like nothing ever has to change.

Comments

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

Ok, but what it has to do with marriage?

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

People want to enjoy a committed love relationship, and marriage is our highest form of doing that, and it is now seen even by our laws that denying that to gays is like denying blacks the right to vote. In another 20 years, more conservatives will probably come to accept this, just as they have gradually come around to accepting civil rights for blacks.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

Again, do not bring up race - it is not even close. But let's get back to initial point: just because somebody is against same sex marriage, doesn't mean he should be vilified. The left is the most intolerant group of people.

[wind-shadow2008.livejournal.com]

Again, do not bring up race - it is not even close. But the comparison is. Blacks were denied rights afforded to white people because of the color of their skin. Gays were denied rights afforded to straight people because of their sexuality. In both cases, a group of people were discriminated against for simply being who they are.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

With the same token you can say - felons are denied right to walk around freely, right afforded to non-felons just because they didn't commit any crimes; group of people were discriminated against for simply being who they are.

[wind-shadow2008.livejournal.com]

No, you can't. Felons are in jail because of their actions, not because of who they are. That comparison makes no sense.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

Criminals commit crimes because who they are. Ever heard of kleptomania? You can't have it both ways-people have a free will, or they don't.

[wind-shadow2008.livejournal.com]

It still doesn't make sense as an argument here. First of all, not all criminals have a biological predetermination to commit crime. However, for the sake of this argument, let's only consider those who do (such as kleptomaniacs). Stealing, assaulting, raping, murdering, etc., are all crimes because they have a severe negative impact on a secondary party (the victims of said crimes), and so there are justifiable repercussions for their actions.

Now, to get back to your original point regarding race vs. same sex marriage. There is no justifiable reason to deny someone equal rights based on their skin color or sexual orientation. Those who are currently rambling against same sex marriage have no objective legal grounds to do so, only subjective personal convictions (ranging from religious beliefs all they way down to good old fashioned bigotry). This is incredibly similar to the opposition black people faced (and, to a degree, still do face) when they were fighting for equal rights (though in that case, the opposition was less rooted in religion and more in racism/stupidity).

If I am walking down the street and someone mugs me and steals my wallet, I would want that person to face consequences because their choice affected me. If I walk down the street and pass by a wedding where two men are getting married, this literally has no effect whatsoever to my life. That's the difference, and that's why your example doesn't work.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

You should be made aware that THE VERY SAME ARGUMENTS against gay marriage were used against inter-racial marriage decades ago.

THE EXACT SAME.

So you need to learn some history before you open your mouth and look quite unlearned.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

If you had taken you meds, you might be able to understand that same arguments work differently in different situations.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Do you see how you were a little rude to Enders with that "meds" comment? I imagine you did that because he was rude to you with his "unlearned" comment. You see, that's what I think the cartoonist is doing: Santorum was rude with his anti-gay comment, and, in return, the cartoonist was rude with his chimp cartoon.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

As far as I know, Santorum never was rude to anybody. He only expressed his believe that this lifestyle is wrong. I think, you're stretching a bit here.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

He went beyond lifestyle. If his comments remained at lifestyle, that would be FINE

He went beyond lifestyle. HE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE LAW

The Law, DOES NOT CARE, that you or Santorum think gays are "icky" or "unnatural" that's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

So, before the Obama singlehandedly dumped DMA, whoever was talking about gay marriage would be subject to persecution. The law DOESN'T CARE that you think that gays are the same, that's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Which means I can portray you as a chimp, no offense to either.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

As far as I know, Santorum never was rude to anybody. He only expressed his believe that this lifestyle is wrong. I think, you're stretching a bit here.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

Again, do not bring up race - it is not even close. But let's get back to initial point: just because somebody is against same sex marriage, doesn't mean he should be vilified. The left is the most intolerant group of people.