I should have linked the live stream earlier...Follow

...but if anyone is interested in seeing any part of the judiciary hearing on the proposed equal marriage legislation pending in Maine, held today in Augusta (and ongoing until tonight, actually), it will be available in full tomorrow at http://www.mainecampus.com/ (University newspaper).

The evangelicals came out to preach, but were outnumbered 4 to 1, roughly.

Nexa

Not in the religious sense of the word.

I dunno... you do put up with Smash.

So you ARE insane.

How'd the hearing go?

It seems to me that her dismissal of their "preaching" is due the to the fact that, surprisingly, they're preaching. Attempting to make a segment of our population second class citizens in regards to their martial status based on a 2,000 year old book which is not universally subscribed to seems a bit...odd. And, again it seems to me that if they are preaching in public they are most likely evangelical, the two do go hand in hand.

And, please, this is a one paragraph statement. No need to respond with a novella.

To begin, I did not "broadly define persuasive speech", I'm specifically referring to preaching, in the sense of a religious based argument. And please, where I did label anyone? If you are referring to my use of evangelical, well, citing your religion in public as the base of an argument is quite the evangelical act, no?

If their argument is based off of the Bible, or another religious text, and their issues with homosexuality stem from these aforementioned texts, then their arguments are in fact preaching. If, say, they are Christians who argue that equal marriage will affect the economy negatively, or Muslims who are against equal marriage rights because they feel marriage is an outdated institution, then they would not be preaching. Basing your arguments off a religious source is preaching.

Would you not say you respond the same way to many a poster on this board?


Edited, Apr 23rd 2009 1:38am by GeltonofRathe

I saw this thread with Gbaji having the latest reply and wondered how a live stream could possibly be turned into a verbose debate.

I can't believe I even questioned it.

Aside from religious vestments, what is "Christian garb"?

One of the things I like most about this piece of legislation is how it specifically addresses the religious concerns:

LD 1020 (SP 384) "An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom"



I don't know how much more clear we can make it that we're discussing only the civil institution of marriage, but it doesn't matter to the folks showing up to recite bible passages anyway.

Nexa

All of them? Or just some of them? Maybe the ones the folks holding the cameras make sure to focus on when showing the opposition?

Unless you were there and talked to everyone who opposed this change (which you said you didn't), you can't possibly speak intelligently about how those voicing their opposition to this specific legal change were doing so.



Why not use the phrase "for the most part" when describing the first group? Think about that, and you'll realize the bias of your own perceptions.



No. I'm objectively assessing how several people in this thread seem to go out of their way to denigrate and dismiss the opinions of those they disagree with. In this particular case, it's labeling them all as religious fanatics. Honestly, I just got done with a big gay marriage debate. That wasn't my point here. I was just pointing out how perceptions can be skewed by assumptions about those we are perceiving. You view those who you agree with as rational, thoughtful people, and those you disagree with as blind, ignorant, religious bigots.

Ever consider it's really not that simple?



It's not your child any more than any other friend of mine's child is mine. Labeling the child "my child" is a semantic technique designed to maximize the emotional impact of the statement, but is irrelevant to the real issue at hand.

It's a nice appeal to emotion, with a side of falsehood.



Or maybe they believe we shouldn't be encouraging, let alone rewarding behavior they regard as sinful? Look. I can't speak for the devout religious folks out there, and I'm sure they have strong feelings that are somewhat similar to this. I'm just pointing out how the language changes depending on which side you like the most. Those are much more "different" than the arguments for/against gay marriage.


When giving an example of people you don't agree with, you use terms like "denying others" to describe what they are doing. When describing those you do, you call upon the image of a helpless child in need of care. Care which is denied to them (hah!) by those evil anti-gay-marriage folks.


Both examples use negative language. In the first, gay marriage is "good" because to deny it is to deny the marriage and the child's medical care. In the second opposing gay marriage is "bad" because they're denying the option to marry. Do you see how you basically just restated the same position in mirror image (with the whole child thing thrown in of course)?


Tell you what. I'm going to regret this, but I'll do it anyway. Give me a reason why gay couples should be granted the legal status of "married" under their state law which does not include something being denied to them. I want to hear a "positive" reason. I'm sure you can do it, but I think it might be a useful exercise. It's too easy to argue for something based on what that something is against. I want to hear what it's "for".




No. It's an inequality based on biology. It's about the makeup of the couple, not each individual within it.


Here's something to chew your noodle on:

Why might it be perfectly ok to sell two different type of ammunition or two different types of guns to the same person at one time at a gun store, but not to sell the same type of gun and ammunition to the same person at one time and in one store?


And for the record, that is an example of a rational argument (assuming you "get" it).

No, cause it really is that simple.