I sincerely hope everybody reads this thread.
As it should be. And your point is…
LOL; good luck finding somebody to take that sucker bet.
I told some shithead poster to take his stupidity to Haiti and let nature take its course. It’s like telling someone to drop dead. I can’t help it if I can do that with more creativity than most. It’s a gift. And a curse.
Just because you can overhear a conversation doesn’t mean that conversation isn’t between just the two people. The fact that you don’t have the sense and grace to see that an insult directed to a specific poster is not the same as a point that goes to the actual debate, which is there for wider consumption, is not a failing on my part.
I’m curious. What constitutes posting “excessively” to gay marriage threads? There are many posters who have posted in each thread that I’ve posted in. Is that not equally “excessive”? Or is it, as you so pathetically point out, that I tend to have more posts in the threads than others? If so, why is that the metric. Has not each post been in response to another poster? Yes, it has. Have I been redundant, covering points previously made by someone else on my side of the debate. No. Did I start this thread about gay marriage? Do I do that as a rule? If so, how many times? Has it been zero?
You try to paint me as a zealot. Because I post about a topic that interests me? That I offer an opinion I think a thread is lacking? That I answer questions that are asked of me? This, in your silly little mind equals “obsession”? That’s ridiculous. Don’t you think that if one or two people who have a different position than the much larger majority that they would rack up more posts than the others? How can you not realize this. Think about it. You are trading posts with me. I am trading posts with like ten people. In what world would it not make sense that I would have more posts than any other poster?
And by the way, if you read the thread over, I repeatedly tried to keep the discussion on the OP, which for me (as I’ve stated more then once) is more about a particular tactic being employed than it is about SSM itself. THAT is what drew me to this thread.
See above.
Unbelievable. The nonsense about post count has been covered. What is cowardly is not just arguing for yourself. What’s cowardly, and despicable, is trying to rally a crowd. Especially when the numbers are already so lopsided. It’s not enough for you that it falls to me to respond to multiple posters, you seek to solidify them into a crowd to add extra weight. As I said, you’re like the runt toughie in a gang. Pathetic. It’s fallacious because, even if you have every poster on your side, thinking that matters is an appeal to the masses.
Read above and face your colossal stupidity and low behavior.
I’m not surprised to see that you think inciting a mob is not wrong.
Is this dishonesty here? Or have you managed to ratchet up your imbecility to new heights? How am I "attempting to “drown out” voices? By a few insults here and there? And even then, after I’ve been insulted. If you would look at my posting in a fair light (not that have any delusion you would), you would see that the vast majority of them are insult free. Read this thread over if you don’t believe me.
Now you’re just being obtuse. He hurled a direct insult at me. Can you at least try to be honest in your characterizations? Is that too much to ask?
I didn’t read them carefully? Another lie from the Kreskin patrol. I did read them carefully. I said I didn’t understand the rationale behind them.
Because what was being discussed was not the merit of any particular difference, but the fact that some differences existed. Not in “rights”, but in some minor rules and regulations and the jumping through of hoops. You asked if I’d be happy to give up any perceived advantage heteros might be enjoying, I said I would. I said that it has consistently been my belief that the rights and privileges be identical. I said that the degree to which any of those differences in rules might make sense, they should apply to both groups.
Now you’ve gone and confused yourself. Your list was entitled “There are nine differences between CA’s domestic partnerships and marriage.” What you showed was the differences in a few procedures—certainly NOT rights—that were different for the two groups. So, my vote kept those differences in place, it didn’t remove them. And I still haven’t seen any RIGHTS gays in California lost via Prop 8. So feel free to go hunt for more nonsense to copy and paste from elsewhere.
You are right about it being a simple yes or no question. Here it is: should marriage in California be exclusively between a man and a woman and gay men and women continue to enjoy all the legal rights and benefits afford married couples through civil unions?
Answer: Yes.
And there I go again obsessing, by addressing the points you’re raised.
But Prop 8 was a California issue only. What needs to be done is that other states need to adopt the California model. That way, gay couples get the same rights and we retain the meaning of the word “marriage”. I know you don’t agree that the last point is important at all, but I do.
And I don’t agree that marriage is the only vehicle through which gays can be granted the rights enjoyed by married couples. I mean, California itself is testament to that. I’ve argued often that I think gays should fight for one set of laws that both groups tap into. You can search no doubt and see the details.
magellan, if you don’t think using the word marriage is a right, why are you fighting for it? How can you say “they have not lost anything of value” and “what they want is far too valuable to me to let them have”? Please, please try to explain.
This post and the one you wrote that directly precedes it is a double-scoop of moron, covered in a lie.
HERE is the post in question, containing his insults and my response:
Right, 50 different states, plus DC and the territories all have to adopt the California model, and have those 50 different laws mesh perfectly with each other, with no gaps or overlaps, and have the Federal Government enact an overarching California style law that will give gay couples the federal rights they are currently denied. Do you actually believe this can happen? Seriously, do you really think that over 50 different legislative bodies can each enact separate laws that will give gay couples the universal rights that married couples get?
It is ridiculous to think that this could actually happen. The question then becomes, what is more important, the rights of gay couples to have the benefits of marriage, or your right to have a particular word have a particular definition?
You can have your pie-in-the-sky ideals, but the reality is that without the word marriage, gay couples are second class couples.
I was thinking about this post on my drive home yesterday, and I think this is actually the key post in this thread so far. Because it finally put the lie to magellan’s claim that he didn’t vote against Prop. 8 out of animus against gays. The threat to work even harder against gay marraige is clearly meant as a retaliation against people in this thread who have been giving him a hard time. It’s not about protecting marriage, and with the harm caused to gays as an unfortunate side effect - the side effect, here, is now the primary motive.
I am sure, somehow, magellan will try to spin this as non-homophobic. I am also sure his efforts to do so will meet with his customary success.
What’s so special about the word “marriage” that gays aren’t entitled to use it?
Why did you change SteveMB’s post in the part you quoted? He didn’t say anything about page 4.
Personally, I think telling me to get an STD is pretty over the top, but then I have so little respect for you that I find it funny rather than insulting.
Do you know why people continue to engage you in these threads? Because I don’t think any of them truly believe you hold the position you do. The idea of denying the word marriage to gays because that will objectively weaken the word, then saying they’re fine without it, without comprehending the inherent contradiction that’s been brought up in this thread (most recently by Ensign Edison) is so flagrantly, painfully stupid that someone who truly thinks it is probably too mentally incompetent to understand language and can only communicate in hoots and grunts. Because obviously you have some limited grasp of the English language (though I would certainly hesitate to say you have a command of it, as your insistence on the frailty of the word marriage shows), this isn’t likely, so there must be some other reason. Namely, bigotry. And so they try to get you to admit that your supposed concern for the wellbeing of gays is a sham.
But you know what? I’m going to be fair with you. I retract the “bigoted fuck” comment. I don’t think you’re bigoted. You apparently really are that earth-shatteringly rock-stupid. I’d tell you to seek help, but there is nobody capable of such. May whatever God you think you believe in and pray to (perhaps the little box with little people in it, or that banana you wanted to eat but couldn’t figure out how to open) have mercy on your soul.
Oops. My error. I went back to include the page number at the last minute as I though it would be helpful if anyone wanted to check on the context of the exchange. I inadvertently pasted it in the wrong place. My apologies to all.
Gotta go.
Before you answer Ensign Edison?
“Use of the word marriage is valuable to me.”
“Gay people are not being denied anything of value.”
Do you agree with both of the above statements or not, mag? I’m far from the first to try to get you to answer this simple question in some way. Shut us up with a brilliant explanation already!
I expect that sooner or later the basis of the decision in Brown v. Board of Education, that “separate but equal” is wrong because the “separate” part denies true equality even when there actually is apparent equality of benefit, will be applied to “domestic partnerships” as well as schools. I hope magellen01 survives the disasterous effect on his “marriage”.
Hell, why not Loving vs. Virginia?
Of course the anti-SSM crowd says that Prop 8 wasn’t about race, it was about sexuality, so it’s totally cool.
So to sum up the thread so far; Magellan is a cowardly, un-American, reflexively bigoted piece of shit.
Did I miss anything?
You forgot ugly, lazy, and disrespectful.
Indeed. I get that there’s a lot of animosity in this thread, and a log of smugness in claims that the animosity is all on the part of the other guy, but I still don’t get why the underlying issue is so divisive.
Shut up, bitch. Go fix me a turkey pot pie.
