How to decide which instances of opposition to gay marriage are hateful and bigoted.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by panache45

Red heads are different than blondes . . . but have exactly the same rights.
Short people are different than tall people . . . but have exactly the same rights.
Asians are different than black people . . . but have exactly the same rights.
Gay people are different than straight people . . . .

...but have exactly the same rights.

Gay couples may not, but gay people have the same rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

That said, you're expanding on the original statement. Do you agree that my original statement is correct or not?

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by magellan01

And I simply made the factual point that "different" does not equal "lesser than"

You know well that that is not the typical view, nor the legally-established one.

I'll ask again: What, in your own view, is the reasoning behind the Brown ruling declaring "separate but equal" to be a fiction?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

You know well that that is not the typical view, nor the legally-established one.

I'll ask again: What, in your own view, is the reasoning behind the Brown ruling declaring "separate but equal" to be a fiction?

We've been through this. I might be inclined to explain AGAIN how that does not apply to my view on civil unions, but why don't you just do a search. You see, I'm not inclined to go through the same rigamarole on that when you and yours can't even grant the simple, factual truth that "different" does not equal "less than".

Once again, here's the original statement from Lobohan I was correcting:

Denying gays marriage requires that you find them less than you.

If I want women and men to use different rest room, do I think one is "less then" the other? Yes or no?

[ElvisL1ves]

IOW you know as well as anyone else there's no difference, and your frustration at your resulting inability to rationalize the conclusion you wish to hold is a source of anger to you.

Right?

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by magellan01

If I want women and men to use different rest room, do I think one is "less then" the other? Yes or no?

You're never going to find agreement or even get anyone to answer your 'simple' questions, because there's a fundamental disconnect: You think the difference between a heterosexual man or woman and a homosexual man or woman, or the difference between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage, is analogous to the difference between a man and a woman or a cow and a horse.

The people you argue against simply don't agree. At most, the difference between a heterosexual man and a homosexual man is the same as the difference between a black man and a white man, or between this Holstein cow and this Holstein cow. You want so badly for it to be a clear apple and orange situation, when we see it as an apple and apple situation.

Nobody wants to answer your simple questions because they have two brain cells they can rub together and realize that you're going to go, "You agree that a man is different from but not less than a woman, therefore you must agree with me that a civil union is different from but not less than a marriage." Nobody's willing to give you that inch because you'll simply take a mile.

[Rhodes]

Originally Posted by D-bear

And here is where some of the money raised from the sale of those oh so tasty Chick-fil-A sandwiches goes.

Bryan Jonathan Fischer the Director of Issues Analysis for the American Family Association, hosts the talk radio program Focal Point on American Family Radio in which he advocates kidnapping children from same sex parents.

Nope. Not bigoted or hateful at all.

Wow, what an awful plan.

Not that I doubt you, but cite please? I'd love to know what individual (or organization) gave how much to what organization. If, for example, Dan Cathy gave $100 to the AFA, then he's a bigotted douchenozzle as we already know. If, on the other hand, Chick-fil-A's "charity arm" gave $2 million to the Focal Point radio program, then that's a much better justification to boycott the restaurant.

[WhyNot]

Originally Posted by magellan01

If I want women and men to use different rest room, do I think one is "less then" the other? Yes or no?

If one room is appointed in gold and marble, has hot and cold running water and is cleaned and restocked every 20 minutes, and the other has splintered boards for countertops, no running water and hasn't seen a janitor in weeks and the soap dispenser is hanging empty off the wall...than yes, I'd think you'd have to consider one gender "less than" the other to be forced to content themselves with the second bathroom.

"Marriage" isn't the same as "civil unions". The rights are not identical, and the social acceptance isn't the same, and civil unions don't have any standing at all across state lines. You're not talking about two identical but separate restrooms, you're talking about a bathroom at the Taj Mahal and an outhouse.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by magellan01

If I want women and men to use different rest room, do I think one is "less then" the other? Yes or no?

Depends. Are you willing to let the woman decide which one she uses, and you'll use the other one?

If you say, "Woman, they're EXACTLY THE SAME, but I insist that this one is reserved for me and you may never enter it, and you must use that one," you might forgive her for being suspicious that you're telling the truth.

By analogy, if marriage and civil union are exactly the same, then you should be willing to let gay people choose which one they want, and you'll take the other. If you're not willing to do that, then you might forgive them for being suspicious.

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by magellan01

"Flawed" is a loaded word. A cow is "flawed" as a member of the family horses. It does not mean that cows are "flawed" beings generally. That's pure logic. Factually correct. So, I repeat: "Different" does not equal "less than".

Before we move on, can we agree on that much?

Sounds like you're trying hard to be semantically or technically correct without applying your "logic" to the actual subject at hand.

You're comparing two different species which makes it a false comparison for this discussion.

If we're looking just at cows we might say one cow is lesser or greater than depending on the purpose we are considering. If the purpose is to acquire milk then the cow that gives more milk is greater. If the purpose is beef then the cow supplies more or better quality is greater.

If you're talking about them just being cows brown is different than black and white but neither greater or lessor. How would you then decide which cows get access to what feed and water? If you clearly treated one color better than the other just based on your personal feelings and preference then your motives would be in question
We're discussing the same species having the same rights concerning a social and legal institution. So, unless you can explain how different is not less than in the context of this subject your semantic wrangling is just a waste of time.
The problem for you is you can't. You have no factual or reasonable basis for your assertions

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by magellan01

If I want women and men to use different rest room, do I think one is "less then" the other? Yes or no?

So if people wanted black people to use different restrooms and fountains and diners , it's fine then? It never did mean anyone thought black people were less than?

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by magellan01

...but have exactly the same rights.

Gay couples may not, but gay people have the same rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

That said, you're expanding on the original statement. Do you agree that my original statement is correct or not?

Incorrect. If a gay individual does not have the right to marry the consenting adult they love and who wants to marry them then that individual does not have the same rights as others.

[D-bear]

NM. Still researching.

[D-bear]

Originally Posted by Rhodes

Wow, what an awful plan.

Not that I doubt you, but cite please? I'd love to know what individual (or organization) gave how much to what organization. If, for example, Dan Cathy gave $100 to the AFA, then he's a bigotted douchenozzle as we already know. If, on the other hand, Chick-fil-A's "charity arm" gave $2 million to the Focal Point radio program, then that's a much better justification to boycott the restaurant.

AFA is linked to American Family Radio.

Florida Family Council is an affiliate of the American Family Association, which has been designated as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by magellan01

We've been through this. I might be inclined to explain AGAIN how that does not apply to my view on civil unions, but why don't you just do a search. You see, I'm not inclined to go through the same rigamarole on that when you and yours can't even grant the simple, factual truth that "different" does not equal "less than".

In the broadest possible semantic sense, you are correct: Two is less than four, seven is greater than four, and roast beef is incommensurate with four. All three are different; only one is less than.

However, in the context that we have been debating, of two things declared to be "separate but equal," where there is a history of emotional prejudice against a group (black or gay people), with a centuries-old body of statute and case law built up around one of the two concepts (marriage), establishing a second category (civil union) will manifestly lead to inequities, just as the 'separate but equal' schools for black people got the short end of the stick 99.9% of the time. And your proposition that there be a single set of laws applying to both institutions equally will not work, for reasons history amply documents.

Here, for an inadequate but illustrative comparison, is Article XIV, Section 1, of the New York State Constitution, the "Forever Wild" guarantee. The portion in green is original; that in red, added by amendments.

Originally Posted by NYS Constitution

NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE XIV
Conservation

Section 1. The lands of the state, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the state from constructing, completing and maintaining any highway heretofore specifically authorized by constitutional amendment, nor from constructing and maintaining to federal standards federal aid interstate highway route five hundred two from a point in the vicinity of the city of Glens Falls, thence northerly to the vicinity of the villages of Lake George and Warrensburg, the hamlets of South Horicon and Pottersville and thence northerly in a generally straight line on the west side of Schroon Lake to the vicinity of the hamlet of Schroon, then continuing northerly to the vicinity of Schroon Falls, Schroon River and North Hudson, and to the east of Makomis Mountain, east of the hamlet of New Russia, east of the village of Elizabethtown and continuing northerly in the vicinity of the hamlet of Towers Forge, and east of Poke-O-Moonshine Mountain and continuing northerly to the vicinity of the village of Keeseville and the city of Plattsburgh, all of the aforesaid taking not to exceed a total of three hundred acres of state forest preserve land, nor from constructing and maintaining not more than twenty-five miles of ski trails thirty to two hundred feet wide, together with appurtenances thereto, provided that no more than five miles of such trails shall be in excess of one hundred twenty feet wide, on the north, east and northwest slopes of Whiteface Mountain in Essex county, nor from constructing and maintaining not more than twenty-five miles of ski trails thirty to two hundred feet wide, together with appurtenances thereto, provided that no more than two miles of such trails shall be in excess of one hundred twenty feet wide, on the slopes of Belleayre Mountain in Ulster and Delaware counties and not more than forty miles of ski trails thirty to two hundred feet wide, together with appurtenances thereto, provided that no more than eight miles of such trails shall be in excess of one hundred twenty feet wide, on the slopes of Gore and Pete Gay mountains in Warren county, nor from relocating, reconstructing and maintaining a total of not more than fifty miles of existing state highways for the purpose of eliminating the hazards of dangerous curves and grades, provided a total of no more than four hundred acres of forest preserve land shall be used for such purpose and that no single relocated portion of any highway shall exceed one mile in length. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the state may convey to the village of Saranac Lake ten acres of forest preserve land adjacent to the boundaries of such village for public use in providing for refuse disposal and in exchange therefore the village of Saranac Lake shall convey to the state thirty acres of certain true forest land owned by such village on Roaring Brook in the northern half of Lot 113, Township 11, Richards Survey. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the state may convey to the town of Arietta twenty-eight acres of forest preserve land within such town for public use in providing for the extension of the runway and landing strip of the Piseco airport and in exchange therefor the town of Arietta shall convey to the state thirty acres of certain land owned by such town in the town of Arietta. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions and subject to legislative approval of the tracts to be exchanged prior to the actual transfer of title, the state, in order to consolidate its land holdings for better management, may convey to International Paper Company approximately eight thousand five hundred acres of forest preserve land located in townships two and three of Totten and Crossfield`s Purchase and township nine of the Moose River Tract, Hamilton county, and in exchange therefore International Paper Company shall convey to the state for incorporation into the forest preserve approximately the same number of acres of land located within such townships and such County on condition that the legislature shall determine that the lands to be received by the state are at least equal in value to the lands to be conveyed by the state. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions and subject to legislative approval of the tracts to be exchanged prior to the actual transfer of title and the conditions herein set forth, the state, in order to facilitate the preservation of historic buildings listed on the national register of historic places by rejoining an historic grouping of buildings under unitary ownership and stewardship, may convey to Sagamore Institute Inc., a not-for-profit educational organization, approximately ten acres of land and buildings thereon adjoining the real property of the Sagamore Institute, Inc. and located on Sagamore Road, near Racquette Lake Village, in the Town of Long Lake, county of Hamilton, and in exchange therefor; Sagamore Institute, Inc. shall convey to the state for incorporation into the forest preserve approximately two hundred acres of wild forest land located within the Adirondack Park on condition that the legislature shall determine that
the lands to be received by the state are at least equal in value to the lands and buildings to be conveyed by the state and that the natural and historic character of the lands and buildings conveyed by the state will be secured by appropriate covenants and restrictions and that the lands and buildings conveyed by the state will reasonably be available for public visits according to agreement between Sagamore Institute, Inc. and the state. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions the state may convey to the town of Arietta fifty acres of forest preserve land within such town for public use in providing for the extension of the runway and landing strip of the Piseco airport and providing for the maintenance of a clear zone around such runway, and in exchange therefor, the town of Arietta shall convey to the
state fifty-three acres of true forest land located in lot 2 township 2 Totten and Crossfield`s Purchase in the town of Lake Pleasant. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions and subject to legislative approval prior to actual transfer of title, the state may convey to the town of Keene, Essex county, for public use as a cemetery owned by such town, approximately twelve acres of forest preserve land within such town and, in exchange therefor, the town of Keene shall convey to the state for incorporation into the forest preserve approximately one hundred forty-four acres of land, together with an easement over land owned by such town including the riverbed adjacent to the land to be conveyed to the state that will restrict further development of such land, on condition that the legislature shall determine that the property to be received by the state is at least equal in value to the land to be conveyed by the state.

While any one of those exceptions can be justified by an investigation into the background thereof, I trust that the idea that a law that started out as "these things are to be kept this and so, with no exceptions" can accrue dozens of exceptions over time. Which is the point why a "civil union giving the same rights as marriage" won't work.

[Der Trihs]

The differences between separate bathrooms for the genders and other versions of "separate but equal", is that separate bathrooms is what most members of both genders in our society want, and the motive isn't malignant. It isn't being imposed on an unwilling populace, and it isn't intended to hurt or humilate anyone.

On the other hand, "civil unions" for same sex couples aren't ever going to be the equal of marriage, because being inferior is the point. Just as in racial separate but equal "colored" facilities were always inferior, because that was part of the point.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

Sounds like you're trying hard to be semantically or technically correct without applying your "logic" to the actual subject at hand.

No. I'm trying to prevent a statement from Lobohan, which is factually incorrect, from passing as true, and then that being treated as a "given".

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

You're comparing two different species which makes it a false comparison for this discussion.

I was using them as a simple example of sets and subsets. I could have used ice cream or cars. No difference from a logic perspective.

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

If we're looking just at cows we might say one cow is lesser or greater than depending on the purpose we are considering. If the purpose is to acquire milk then the cow that gives more milk is greater. If the purpose is beef then the cow supplies more or better quality is greater.

Yes. And if the purpose is to ride it really fast to a town 20 miles away, neither of them are of much value.

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

If you're talking about them just being cows brown is different than black and white but neither greater or lessor. How would you then decide which cows get access to what feed and water? If you clearly treated one color better than the other just based on your personal feelings and preference then your motives would be in question
We're discussing the same species having the same rights concerning a social and legal institution. So, unless you can explain how different is not less than in the context of this subject your semantic wrangling is just a waste of time.
The problem for you is you can't. You have no factual or reasonable basis for your assertions

Untrue. But fodder for another thread. If desperately interested, you can do a Search.

Also, you're reading way to much into my example. Perhaps I should have used station wagons and sports cars. The analogy is getting tortured.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

IOW you know as well as anyone else there's no difference, and your frustration at your resulting inability to rationalize the conclusion you wish to hold is a source of anger to you.

Right?

Wrong. If I have any frustration it is how how some of those on your side feel that just because they feel strongly about something they can suspend the rules of logic. But that really causes them more problems than me. So, ::shrug::

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Bosstone

You're never going to find agreement or even get anyone to answer your 'simple' questions, because there's a fundamental disconnect: You think the difference between a heterosexual man or woman and a homosexual man or woman, or the difference between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage, is analogous to the difference between a man and a woman or a cow and a horse.

The people you argue against simply don't agree. At most, the difference between a heterosexual man and a homosexual man is the same as the difference between a black man and a white man, or between this Holstein cow and this Holstein cow. You want so badly for it to be a clear apple and orange situation, when we see it as an apple and apple situation.

Yep. We disagree. I really don't see it that way.

Originally Posted by Bosstone

Nobody wants to answer your simple questions because they have two brain cells they can rub together and realize that you're going to go, "You agree that a man is different from but not less than a woman, therefore you must agree with me that a civil union is different from but not less than a marriage." Nobody's willing to give you that inch because you'll simply take a mile.

Well, that's really a problem with their inability to debate dispassionately. Just because one may disagree with my final position doesn't require them to disagree with every supporting point. In fact, that's asinine. But it does point to which side is using their emotions more than their brains. I mean, I think Obama is a poor President and really needs to be replaced. That doesn't mean I have to disagree with the proposition that he's a smart guy. In fact, I think he's very smart. Very smart and very misguided, but again, fodder for a different thread.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by WhyNot

"Marriage" isn't the same as "civil unions".

It is not my position that they are and have never claimed they were. It is my position that they can be legally identical.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Depends. Are you willing to let the woman decide which one she uses, and you'll use the other one?

If you say, "Woman, they're EXACTLY THE SAME, but I insist that this one is reserved for me and you may never enter it, and you must use that one," you might forgive her for being suspicious that you're telling the truth.

Just because she's suspicious doesn't mean that are not identical. But that's not a concern with what I'm talking about, because they're is nothing hidden.

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

By analogy, if marriage and civil union are exactly the same, then you should be willing to let gay people choose which one they want, and you'll take the other. If you're not willing to do that, then you might forgive them for being suspicious.

Again, their being suspicious offers no commentary of the reality of the equality. Aside from that, your analogy assumes 1) a baseline with no history attached, and 2) that I see no value in the maintaining the traditional meaning of the word. Those assumptions, obviously, are incorrect.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

Incorrect. If a gay individual does not have the right to marry the consenting adult they love and who wants to marry them then that individual does not have the same rights as others.

Define "right".

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

So if people wanted black people to use different restrooms and fountains and diners , it's fine then?

Not in my mind.

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

It never did mean anyone thought black people were less than?

Don't know where you're getting that.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

In the broadest possible semantic sense, you are correct: Two is less than four, seven is greater than four, and roast beef is incommensurate with four. All three are different; only one is less than.

I'm not expecting this to end well, given your propensity to argue with one foot art the base of the altar and the other in with the pit bulls, but let's see.

I am correct in the broad and narrow sense. It's really as simple as that. Any insistence otherwise betrays any claim of rational debate. The rules of logic still apply, Sorry.

Originally Posted by Polycarp

However, in the context that we have been debating, of two things declared to be "separate but equal,"

Let's stop right here. I wasn't debating that. I simply commented on this one falsehood:

Denying gays marriage requires that you find them less than you.

I pointed out the error: that "different" does not equal "less than".

Originally Posted by Polycarp

...where there is a history of emotional prejudice against a group (black or gay people), with a centuries-old body of statute and case law built up around one of the two concepts (marriage), establishing a second category (civil union) will manifestly lead to inequities, just as the 'separate but equal' schools for black people got the short end of the stick 99.9% of the time. And your proposition that there be a single set of laws applying to both institutions equally will not work, for reasons history amply documents.

History documents no such thing.

Originally Posted by Polycarp

Here, for an inadequate but illustrative comparison, is Article XIV, Section 1, of the New York State Constitution, the "Forever Wild" guarantee. The portion in green is original; that in red, added by amendments.


While any one of those exceptions can be justified by an investigation into the background thereof, I trust that the idea that a law that started out as "these things are to be kept this and so, with no exceptions" can accrue dozens of exceptions over time. Which is the point why a "civil union giving the same rights as marriage" won't work.

So? Any law can be changed. You think this is news? Even one that grants SSM. That argument fails by suicide.

[WhyNot]

Y'know, you could much more economically diffuse this whole conversation by relating one possible reason for denying gay people the right to marry which doesn't stem from finding them less than you.

And it doesn't even have to be one that you personally agree with.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Again, their being suspicious offers no commentary of the reality of the equality. Aside from that, your analogy assumes 1) a baseline with no history attached, and 2) that I see no value in the maintaining the traditional meaning of the word. Those assumptions, obviously, are incorrect.

My assumption presume the exact opposite: the word has a history attached, and we believe that, for all relevant purposes, that history applies to folks who want to build a family with another consenting adult. The precise reason you want to exclude gay folks from this history is what makes everyone so suspicious. The only reasons for drawing the distinction you make are unethical reasons. It really is as if you declared that, because black people have historically been treated differently in our society, we ought to send white children to "school" and black children to "education buildings," with the proviso that the two institutions be legally identical.

There's no good reason to do so, there are plenty of bad reasons to do so, and your desire to make this separate-but-so-called-equal pair of institutions reflects poorly on you.

[panache45]

Originally Posted by magellan01

...but have exactly the same rights.

Gay couples may not, but gay people have the same rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

That said, you're expanding on the original statement. Do you agree that my original statement is correct or not?

Of course I don't agree. "Different" is a fairly meaningless word without any context. Once you start asking "different in what respect(s)?" it rarely means "different but equal."

And "couples" in this context means "couples of people." I can't imagine in what respect the "couple" has rights of its own, apart from the individuals involved. If my partner and I each have the right to marry each other, as individuals, then in what sense do we, as a couple, not have that right?

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by magellan01

No. I'm trying to prevent a statement from Lobohan, which is factually incorrect, from passing as true, and then that being treated as a "given".

You weren't successful. His statement applied directly and specifically to the topic of discussion. You made a broad generalized statement which you have failed to apply to the specific topic. In fact your attempts to explain have only made it clearer that it does not apply.
As I noted, semantic games and technicalities.

I was using them as a simple example of sets and subsets. I could have used ice cream or cars. No difference from a logic perspective.

It's a false comparison for the reasons I noted. Again, you're nit picking a technicality when it has no practical or realistic application to the topic at hand. Notice how the closer you get to a proper comparison the more your point falls apart.
Technically, people could be perfect, but we're not so it's a useless point.

Yes. And if the purpose is to ride it really fast to a town 20 miles away, neither of them are of much value.

sure but that's comparing different species which is why the comparison fails.

Untrue. But fodder for another thread. If desperately interested, you can do a Search.

I've seen your arguments and it is true unless you've come up with something new. You arguments are essentially the same as other opposition that attempts to appear reasonable. Semantic manipulation with no foundation in solid reasoning and facts. You have an opinion based solely on emotion and personal preference. A very bad reason to deny equality

Also, you're reading way to much into my example. Perhaps I should have used station wagons and sports cars. The analogy is getting tortured.

I'm pointing out why it fails. The closer you get to the actual topic , rather than semantics, the more obvious that becomes.

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Define "right".

I'm not interested in semantic games. Call it a right, a legal privilege, a social and legal contract, whatever. My point stands. Gay individuals are not treated equally under the law because they cannot enter the social and legal contract of marriage that heteros can.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Wrong. If I have any frustration it is how how some of those on your side feel that just because they feel strongly about something they can suspend the rules of logic.

What logic are we suspending? What logic are you using?

One more time: Why is separate not equal in a racial context, but can be in a sexual-orientation context? Can you or can you not, finally, provide a "logical" reply?

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Not in my mind.



Don't know where you're getting that.

Yeah, I believe that.

You're the one that tried to provide a separate but equal example using bathrooms. I simply elaborated on it. Nobody objects or is harmed by separate bathrooms for men or women. It's a social tradition that is flexible. People don't normally have separate bathrooms ion their homes and if the "ladies" room is out of order women readily use the men's room without objection.

Our gay citizens are legally prevented from marrying in most states, just as our black citizens were legally prevented from using white bathrooms etc. My example is a more accurate example and demonstrates your error.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by panache45

Of course I don't agree. "Different" is a fairly meaningless word without any context. Once you start asking "different in what respect(s)?" it rarely means "different but equal."

I responded to this:

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Denying gays marriage requires that you find them less than you.

That is a factually incorrect statement. It's a fine opinion to have, but the use of the word "require" suggests that this is a universally factual statement, that a stance against SSM necessitates that one consider gays "less than" oneself. No even that is fine as an opinion goes. I was pointing out the error as I see it. I suggested a change in phrase that I think makes his claim universally true.

Originally Posted by panache45

And "couples" in this context means "couples of people." I can't imagine in what respect the "couple" has rights of its own, apart from the individuals involved. If my partner and I each have the right to marry each other, as individuals, then in what sense do we, as a couple, not have that right?

The point is that couples don't Constitutionally protected rights. Individuals do. Let's say I'm married to a non-citizen. I have a right to vote, we do not.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

I see a lot of self righteous condemnation out there that IMHO only makes the divide greater and harder to eventually overcome.

No, that's wrong. The divide is shrinking and the fact that a lot of people are now willing to take a strong position in favor of sme-sex marriage is patr of the reason. Gay rights weren't on the map 10 or 15 years ago. Today same-sex marriage is legal in several states and it's part of the Democratic Party platform, and most people have figured out that the legalization of same-sex marriage on a nationwide or near-nationwide scale is inevitable at this point. That's a tremendous amount of progress. There was no divide in the past because almost everybody was against same-sex marriage; there's a divide now because large numbers of people have realized this is a bigoted position. That will fade over time. I'm happy not to condemn people more than necessary, but harsh words didn't cause this situation. People who are against same-sex marriage will be against it regardless of how you make the case and will stay that way until they figure it out for themselves.

Originally Posted by magellan01

The point is that couples don't Constitutionally protected rights. Individuals do.

I'm failing to see why any of this is supposed to matter. Individuals have the right to marry a consenting adult of the opposite sex, but that's useless to gays and lesbians and denies them the ability to marry the people they want to marry. There's no rational reason to deny them that ability, and opposing same-sex marriage does come down to an argument that gays can't or shouldn't have the legal protections and recognition that comes with marriage. Ultimately it is an argument that they don't deserve that recognition.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

You weren't successful. His statement applied directly and specifically to the topic of discussion. You made a broad generalized statement which you have failed to apply to the specific topic. In fact your attempts to explain have only made it clearer that it does not apply.
As I noted, semantic games and technicalities.

You're 100% wrong. Here's what I initially responded to in Post 51:

Originally Posted by Lobohan

If you're bigoted because your dad told you nonsense around the dinner table or your priest told you nonsense from his pulpit, it doesn't matter. You're still bigoted.

Denying gays marriage requires that you find them less than you. That they will somehow dirty the institution.

You're saying, from this post and subsequent ones, that he was talking about civil unions. That would at least give your point some weight. Yet, you'll see that he doesn't mention civil unions, does he? Well, you might think to say, that was the general discussion, and just because he didn't use the term, that's what he was referring to, as you can see in the exchange the lead up to his statement. But an actual look at what preceded his comment shows that only one poster, in one post (#35) even brought it up. And it did not become not the point of the discussion. If anything is to be presumed to be what was responding to, it should Clothahump's post #48. Again, nothing to do with civil unions.

So, as I said, you're wrong. Completely and utterly.

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

It's a false comparison for the reasons I noted. Again, you're nit picking a technicality when it has no practical or realistic application to the topic at hand. Notice how the closer you get to a proper comparison the more your point falls apart.
Technically, people could be perfect, but we're not so it's a useless point.

Look. I know what you want, and you get it on this board to great deal because it's pretty much a hive mind, particularly when it comes to SSM. You want to be able to be loose with the facts. Sloppy. But I am under no obligation to play along. I'm nitpicking a technicality. I'm correcting a statement that implies universality in order to make it universal. Without doing so, the notion is allowed to stand that a necessary and ever-present component to a stand against SSM is that one hold gays to be less than oneself as a human being. I choose to call that mistake out. The more it is allowed to go unchallenged, the greater the rift between the two sides.

It is in interesting the lengths you and others are willing to go to to not grant me the smallest concession in the debate. Even though the statement I suggested isn't anything that I think anyone could claim is wrong. Here is Lobohan's statement with my suggested change:

"Denying gays marriage requires that you find them [different] than you."

So, please, tell me what part of that statement you disagree with. And why. If you can agree with it in full, then please try to explain why that simple suggestion on my part turns into this attack from the hive?

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

I've seen your arguments and it is true unless you've come up with something new. You arguments are essentially the same as other opposition that attempts to appear reasonable. Semantic manipulation with no foundation in solid reasoning and facts. You have an opinion based solely on emotion and personal preference. A very bad reason to deny equality

And this is a good part of the problem. You know my position. (Or think you do, anyway.) You disagree with it strongly. But you then somehow think that any statement I make on the subject is something that you must disagree with. Again, look at the rewriting of the original statement I just supplied. Do you really disagree with any of it? Is it wrong? The only way to consider it wrong is to hold the view that "Denying gays to marry requires that you find them the same as you." Which, I have a hard time believing that you or anyone else with half a brain would agree with.

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

I'm pointing out why it fails. The closer you get to the actual topic , rather than semantics, the more obvious that becomes.

Analogies don't have to work on every level. They are often, usually, offered to shed light on a particular point. This is especially true when they are far removed from the actual topic of discussion.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

I'm not interested in semantic games. Call it a right, a legal privilege, a social and legal contract, whatever. My point stands. Gay individuals are not treated equally under the law because they cannot enter the social and legal contract of marriage that heteros can.

Oh yes you are. You want to employ some sleight of hand. The word "rights" has a lot of power. That power is derived from those rights laid out very eloquently in the Declaration of Independence and those that are enshrined in our Constitution. And when talking about "rights" (assuming those) there is a starting point of a moral high ground. So if we're talking about those rights that's one thing. If not, than you shouldn't expect to automatically be able to bask in their glow. So, before we get all emotional about a member of one group not having the same rights of members of another group, it seems fair to determine what you mean by "rights" in the context of your claim.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

My assumption presume the exact opposite: the word has a history attached, and we believe that, for all relevant purposes, that history applies to folks who want to build a family with another consenting adult. The precise reason you want to exclude gay folks from this history is what makes everyone so suspicious. The only reasons for drawing the distinction you make are unethical reasons.

I'll have to ask you to state the reasons that you've deemed unethical and to explain why you think them to be so.

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

It really is as if you declared that, because black people have historically been treated differently in our society, we ought to send white children to "school" and black children to "education buildings," with the proviso that the two institutions be legally identical.

Actually, no, it's not like that at all. I'm not going to rehash in this thread the long argumets I've already made on this subject, but in my idea, there are not the two entities. there is only the one—ONE set of laws. By definition one thing is equal and identical to itself. There are two ways to access those laws, privileges and benefits. You must fall into one of two categories: by part of a marriage or a civil union. Laws are written this way all the time. There is what the law is and who it covers.

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

There's no good reason to do so, there are plenty of bad reasons to do so, and your desire to make this separate-but-so-called-equal pair of institutions reflects poorly on you.

It may reflect poorly on me in your eyes, and to most members on this board, but that is something I have no problem living with. If I claimed that a position you held reflects poorly on you, would that matter? As far as my reasons, other than the fact thy've been stated, I'm curious to see your answer to the question above which of them you deem to be unethical and why.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

I'd think that gay-marriage supporters would be the last to say something like "it's bad for society to have a large percentage of ..." or argue against needed changes to our legal framework. Don't both apply to gay marriage as well?

No. It is evident on its face that shutting a segment of the population out of the prospect of forming a family is a Bad Thing. It is evident on its fact that a joining of three raises issues (e.g. what if one leaves but the other two stay together?) that cannot arise from a joining of two.

Really, these points are so clear and so obvious that this "question" can only be considered an exercise in JAQing off.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Steve MB

No. It is evident on its face that shutting a segment of the population out of the prospect of forming a family is a Bad Thing. It is evident on its fact that a joining of three raises issues (e.g. what if one leaves but the other two stay together?) that cannot arise from a joining of two.

Really, these points are so clear and so obvious that this "question" can only be considered an exercise in JAQing off.

Ah, another blatant attempt to shut off debate. I love it.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

Yes, but in my experience never in language remotely similar to what's being hurled against Cathy.

Yeah, and I hear that some guy who voted to blackball Jews from his country club got less criticism of his anti-Semitism than the head of Stormfront did. Your point?

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by magellan01

So, I repeat: "Different" does not equal "less than".

Before we move on, can we agree on that much?

Nobody here is going to agree to idiotic nonsense no matter how many times you cut and paste it.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by magellan01

We've been through this. I might be inclined to explain AGAIN how that does not apply to my view on civil unions, but why don't you just do a search.

Nope. We ain't doing squat. You dug yourself into the hole; you try to extricate yourself from it.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Steve MB

Nobody here is going to agree to idiotic nonsense no matter how many times you cut and paste it.

That's the beauty of it. I get them to deny things that no reasonable person would deny. All to not agree with me or grant me the tiniest concession. It's a thing of beauty in what it reveals.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by magellan01

It is in interesting the lengths you and others are willing to go to to not grant me the smallest concession in the debate.

That's the usual penalty for being repeatedly caught engaging in quibbling, evasion, etc.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Ah, another blatant attempt to shut off debate.

Shutting off debate is a perfectly reasonable response when one side of the "debate" is on the level of moon-landing hoaxers, 9-11 MIHOP conspiracists, seekrit-Kenyan-Mooslimb Birthers, etc.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Steve MB

Nope. We ain't doing squat. You dug yourself into the hole; you try to extricate yourself from it.

HA! The old "WE" is coming back strong!!

You can do a search or not. I really don't care. In fact, it results in me not having to field the same questions over and over and over again.

What does "we" say to that. Do you need to have a meeting, or do you feel authorized to speak for everyone?

Ah, Steve MB, you're particular strain of, uh...um...DEBATE, yeah, that's it, DEBATE...has made my day.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by magellan01

I get them to deny things that no reasonable person would deny.

"Everybody knows that you can see the stars in space."
"Everybody knows that open flames won't melt steel."
"Everybody knows that documents on the Internet aren't reliable."

Well, I guess we're just going to have to keep on denying statements that no reasonable person would deny, the clamor of the crackpots notwithstanding.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Steve MB

Shutting off debate is a perfectly reasonable response when one side of the "debate" is on the level of moon-landing hoaxers, 9-11 MIHOP conspiracists, seekrit-Kenyan-Mooslimb Birthers, etc.

Absoutely. Couldn't agree more. And you're the one to make those decisions, aren't you buddy? The world according to Steve. LOve it. Perhaps you should write a book.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by magellan01

No. I'm trying to prevent a statement from Lobohan, which is factually incorrect, from passing as true, and then that being treated as a "given".

The problem with that, is I am correct, and everyone in this thread knows it, and you are utterly wrong. And everyone, but you, in this thread knows it.

Your argument is the country club argument. "This club used to be wonderful, until they let the Irish in!"

So people stop going to the country club. It's exactly what you're arguing. That society will see that homosexuals are allowed to marry, and then people will go, "Well, the institution used to be awesome. But look who they let in."

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Steve MB

That's the usual penalty for being repeatedly caught engaging in quibbling, evasion, etc.

More brilliance! You're a gift. A gift, I tell ya. Hey, Steve, here's one for you, I think "gay couples should be allowed to adopt."

No, feel free to disagree. But don't let that knee knock a tooth out!

[Marley23]

This is getting stupid. Either make an argument or don't, but everybody needs to drop the meta-commentary on how the debate is going.

[Bryan Ekers]

<never mind>