This from the guy who has twisted and dodged and snaked down the field for two days refusing to actually participate, while making sure everyone still got to see his username in the left hand column?
My entire post was tongue in cheek, as I am sure most posters recognized, tweaking mswas for a typo and then noting that he was prolonging a discussion that he was lamenting.
I have no problem with the issue actually being discussed and if you would ever deign to contribute something of substance I will be delighted.
In this case, I was referring to mswas. Who is making good arguments and more sense than anyone else.
And he’s right, “because they are bigots” isn’t an argument, it’s a weapon. A sure sign that someone has either run out of arguments or is on shaky ground.
You aren’t seeing this correctly. I’m not the one arguing that marriage is like a social club. I’m arguing that the anti SSM crowd see it as such.
Your acceptance of that idea really shows that it’s true. You think that membership will go down because they let those… undesirables onto the roster. The current membership (straight couples) don’t want (gay couples) in the club.
First off that isn’t wholly true, many straight people want SS people to be able to wed. Second off, marriage isn’t a social club. It’s an institution that means different things to different people. A man can marry a Russian mail order bride. And that doesn’t denigrate marriage for others. A twenty something Lothario can marry an elderly matron purely for money, and that doesn’t in the slightest impact on your marriage.
The social club analogy flawed because it isn’t a club. If you think gays are less than you, you never need to hang out with one. Their marriage doesn’t have one thing to do with your marriage any more than the giggalo marrying for money or the middle-aged poindexter with the Russian teen on his arm.
Yeah that sounds real nice until you get down to the details. You’re advocating we keep two fountains tapped into the same water line, {then legal system} and do a shit load of extra work and go to a lot of expense to ensure the quality of water is equal. We’ve already shown that doesn’t work. Then comes the question of why? Why go to all that extra work and expense? Should we cater to those who are used to having the fountain to themselves and don’t want to share with people who are different. {What’s that sounding like now?} Will their own drinks somehow be less thirst quenching because those other people are drinking from the same fountain?
To justify all that extra work and expense we need a valid reason or two. So far we’ve been offered none. What we do have is a clear history of this kind of proposal not working because in the end, no matter how you slice it, dice it, and coat it in semantics, it’s catering to ignorance and bigotry. Given our history that’s pretty hard to justify. {see impossible}
2 men want to get married; the equivalent of a men’s club. Or 2 women, the equivalent of a woman’s only club.
Clubs and marriage are still not a good analogy, since there aren’t the same arguments for why some third party should be allowed to join a marriage as there are for a club. And the level of commitment is a lot different too.
No, it’s an explanation. “Why do some people oppose single sex marriage ?” “Because they are bigots.”
You like to make this claim, a lot, but historically, you are in error. When Plessy v. Ferguson was decided, most of the Southern states implemented laws that very carefully dilineated white from colored in equal ways. (One reason that Southern school funding was so impovershed for much of the 20th century was that many states set aside proportionately equal budgets for white and colored schools, then slashed the budgets to prevent the colored schools from getting “too much.”) The inequality only slipped in over time, as town councils, county governments, and then state legislatures discovered that they could get away with more and more inequality.
So we have historical precedent that establishing “equivalence” actually has the appearance of establishing equality while the reality is that it will never survive as equal.
Can you provide a counter example in which two groups were allowed to engage in identical behavior, separated by language, in which the minority culture was not ultimately oppressed? Until you do so, your persistent claim that your odd, “let’s call this thing by two names” approach has no basis on which any of us should pretend that it will work.
Let’s say the men at the men’s club were telling women they couldn’t have a club but they could have some sort of group. You can’t call it a club because if you do it will hurt our club. Still sound good? Reasonable?
Now less flawed than your country club analogy. But it is useful for the specific, limited point I was usiing it to make. I think you just don’t like it because it works in that regard.
Now, while I agree that the institution is in need of repair, I disagree with the language you use here. Speaking for myself, I don’t think gays or “less” in some moral sense. The way I look at it they’re pursuing what is inside their body just like I am. We’re just wired differently, attracted to different people.
Within that club, sure. But women are free to open an all-women’s club across the street. I don’t see a problem. Unless you don’t think single-sex clubs she be permitted in general. Me, I have no problem with them.
magellan01, since I see you’re online now, and responding to this thread as of 3 minutes ago, a question for you: What, specifically, would be the negative consequences of allowing gays to marry?
Dude, you called it a club. You can’t do that - it’ll devalue the men’s club! All the men will quit the club, because they care about the club so much!
(Oh, and now that we have the women all in their own ‘non-club clublike-building’, the next step is to burn it down, right?)
See another appeal to emotion. You take ‘they are bigots’ as a given, so you can draw a false equivalence between them and every other half-assed bigot analogy you can think of.
The problem here is that people are equating a whole subset of religious morality as being ‘bigotry’ as though it’s synonymous. That’s a dangerous one.
The fact of the matter is that the Pro-SSM side wants to change the way things are, and the anti-SSM side wants to keep them the way they have been for centuries.
Bigotry isn’t an answer, it is devoid of meaning. ‘Because they are bigots’, gives us no clue as to the mindset, and then if you suggest anything else you get shouted down in favor of the vague, ‘bigotry’, explanation which doesn’t really explain anything.