IOW, you know damn well what separate-but-equal means, and therefore why your position is against the law and the principles that underlie the Constitution’s equal protection clause. So why do you continue to peddle it?
Correct, that’s all it is. Just as claiming that backs were created by God to be inferior to whites was just bigotry. Slapping the God label on bigotry doesn’t make it less bigoted; it just means you are claiming that God is a bigot.
First, it IS nothing but hate filled bigotry. And if being taught tolerance and the facts destroys religious beliefs, that just shows those beliefs should be destroyed.
And I don’t see why fundies should have the right to cripple their children with an inferior education just so they can mold their children into good little fanatic bigots. Which is the primary purpose and effect of most homeschooling, both because of the nature of most who choose to do so and because most people just don’t have the ability to give their children an adequate education by themselves.
The analogy holds, and you know it. This is just a reprise of segregation whether you choose to admit it or not. And if equal rights require the redefinition of marriage, then it should be redefined, and opposition to doing so is bigotry.
This constant harping on “redefining marriage” is also an appeal to emotion. If same-sex marriage were legalized everywhere tomorrow, not one existing marriage would change. Not one heterosexual married couple would find themselves redefined into an unmarried state, nor would any previously unmarried pair discover that they had become wed against their will. Heterosexual couples would continue to do what they’ve always done: go to the courthouse and get a form, get it solemnized by the officiant of their choice, and - pow! - they get to say they’re married (and if they don’t like it, they have to get divorced, which is a lot harder).
The only difference is that same-sex pairs would be able to do this, too. And I still fail to see how this would prevent heterosexual couples from enjoying the rights and privileges they’ve always had.
This is completely false. A self imposed delusion for those that embrace it. SSM does nothing to devalue or dilute family or hetero marriage. Nothing is lost but the delusion. Losing that is a plus for all society.
[quote=“cwthree, post:103, topic:497645”]
This constant harping on “redefining marriage” is also an appeal to emotion.
Yes, I am not the one claiming that one side is rational and the other is not.
Yes.
It wouldn’t prevent that, but it would change the moral culture in which we live. Schools would teach the children of Christians that what they believe is a sin is something that needs to be tolerated and that their parents Christian beliefs are nothing but, ‘bigotry and hate’.
Marriage is a country club. And you don’t really want to go to the trouble of joining a country club that allows filthy degenerate minorities in, right?
That’s the crux of MSWAS’ argument there. No one will want to get married if they let degenerates in. Which presupposes that gays and lesbians are degenerate and that they will ruin the club’s exclusiveness.
No that has nothing to do with the argument I am making. It’s an appeal to emotion, where you denegrate your opponent in the debate rather than addressing what they are saying.
What you are saying is that SSM will destroy the conservative vision of marriage.
Why?
What, is their entire moral code the oppression of gay people? And here I thought there was some sort of lip service towards being kind and loving and whatnot. Guess I was mistaken.
But the other critical thing to note here, is that at this level I don’t care what you believe. You may hate gays, if you like. You may feel free to hate blacks, even. I don’t care. I just say you can’t go around telling them not to get married just because it offends your tender little sensibilities.
That is, unless I can ban religious people from getting married, based on my tender little sensibilities. That at least would be fair, and based on your next paragraph, it would clearly be better for the children, after all. And if you’re in favor of banning marriage based on other people’s sensitivities you should wholeheartedly support my anti-religious-marriage initiative, right?
You put ‘hate-filled bigotry’ in scare quotes, while explicitly stating that the oppression you fear is that people will be forced to let their kids hear about “‘diversity’ and acceptance of homosexuality”. If you’re going to overtly put their “moral fashion” of education in opposition to acceptance and tolerance, why bother with scare quotes? You’ve already demonstrated what the position is.
And I hate to tell you this, but ths argument is also invalid. This isn’t a slippery slope because those evil, evil progressives are going to try to teach tolerance and acceptance anyway, regardless of whether you ban SSM or not! So, logically speaking, you can’t rationally argue against legalizing SSM on the basis of SSM increasing anti-“moral” education because there’s no actual connection between the two occurrences.
Now, you could make an argument for shooting all the liberals in pursuit of reducing anti-“moral” education. That, at least, would have an effect. I think this sort of thing has been done before with reasonable effectiveness, too.
Pheh, the people who are pretending marriage never meant “a man and his harem” are the ones redefining marriage, not anybody else. So apparently it is a waterfountain (whatever you meant by that).
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
This has already been discussed and put away. Yes there is a biological difference and it’s irrelevant. It’s an emotional issue for sure but those aren’t the reasons. The reasons are the pursuit of justice and equal rights for our fellow citizens.
[QUOTE=mswas;11180350Schools would teach the children of Christians that what they believe is a sin is something that needs to be tolerated and that their parents Christian beliefs are nothing but, ‘bigotry and hate’.[/QUOTE]
That happened in desegregation, too. You might want to look into the history of religion-based rationalizations for racism and even slavery.
You might also want to learn more about the wide variety of belief systems that use the name “Christian” before you use it in such a blanket way again.
Here is an elaborate argument for the negative consequences of gay marriage:
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/533narty.asp
A really sick and twisted argument if you ask me.
What was the straw charged with? Were you able to find a bondsman who would cover it? Or did they all consider straw too great a flight risk? (I’m glad to see you team up with him on some task, however.)
OTOH, no one would even bother with this conversation if you did not keep wandering in and poking at the embers.
There are emotional and irrational posters on all topics and you will never silence them by keeping issues alive that are dear to their hearts.
Vision? Or illusion?
And if that’s what the parents are teaching their children, their children should be told the truth. Just as they should be told that blacks and whites, women and men, left handed and right handed are equal regardless of their parent’s bigotry on the matter. And if that offends their parents, too bad; bigotry should be eradicated.
Yes, but it just sticks in my craw that it’s ok to just laugh a whole segment of the population off as bigots, and what’s worse not recognizing the bigotry inherent in doing that.
‘Because they are bigots’, isn’t an argument, and shouldn’t be treated as valid.
Good Lord what a stinky load that is. Ridiculous too.
religions of all types teach something to their children and their children, in a multicultural society, get to hear alternatives and choose for themselves, we hope.
Should we not teach evolution because fundie parents teach their kids something different?
And there’s the “it’s intolerant not to tolerate intolerance” argument, right on schedule …
No, it would not change the moral culture in which we live. Public schools already teach as factual and acceptable any number of things that some Christians (you understand that there’s considerable difference of opinion among the millions of Americans who identify as Christian, don’t you?) regard as false or sinful. Christian parents (as well as those of other religions) who wish to have their children taught according to the standards of a particular religion are already free to send their children to private sectarian schools or to teach them at home (despite you earlier comment, home-schooling is loosely regulated).
Public schools are not, and ought not to be, expected to dispense an educational pablum, guaranteed not to upset even the most delicate of intellects.