What are you, fucking stupid? Forty years ago blacks and whites couldn’t marry. A 150 years ago, a man could marry a dozen women. Years before that, for the aristocracy it was arranged by the parents for political gain.
True, so why not allow all citizens to partake?
What gives you the right to deny two adults the right to marry, because you’re stupid enough to think dictionary definitions are more important than other people’s rights? The definition of marriage changed when we allowed mixed-race couplings. Did that make America worse?
Seriously, you obviously haven’t given this a moment of actual thought.
Separate but equal didn’t work. There is no reason for them to have a different word, unless you think homosexuals are so gross that they’re gonna stink up marriage for you.
If your marriage is diminished by homosexuals married, good. It obviously was worthless to begin with.
Mixed race marriages, idiot.
Plural marriages are older than the bible.
Fuck people with religious values that decide to strip others from rights.
Religion is already a net drag on society, using it to bulwark your bullshit argument doesn’t win you any points.
I am drawing a conclusion about your morals. You are fine with killing babies as long as it meets a totally arbitrary line you created. Life is not decided solely on a babies relation to a vagina. To believe that is as stupid as believing that life begins at conception.
Good for you. You can yell about how right you think you are and wallow in your utter certainty. It ain’t gonna do a damned thing but if it works for you, whatever.
Is there anything that would cause you to rethink your position? If not, I wouldn’t be surprised.
You can work up whatever froth you want. The thing is you are too stupid to realize that I am closer to your side. People like you are just as ignorant as the religious idiots that are against abortion and gay marriage.
When someone declares that an issue is black and white, especially on an issue like abortion, it just shows ignorance.
But you probably like that. Think about it. You have joined that lofty club created by Der Trihs. What exalted company you keep.
Additionally, when people like you and BrainGlutton go off with your utter certainty it does nothing to resolve the issues. It doesn’t get anyone on your side. It doesn’t address the underlying issues. It alienates those who disagree with you and kills any reasoned argument.
In other words it is fucking stupid.
I don’t think abortion should be outlawed. I am, however, smart enough to realize that those on the other side have rational reasons (to them at least) for their beliefs.
I do believe that the goal should be for abortion to be used as little as possible. That includes education, contraception, abstinence, adoption, basically whatever works. If there are no unwanted pregnancies then the whole argument goes away.
The argument that life begins at conception is not one I agree with. I do believe however that a fetus becomes a human before birth. I don’t know where that line is exactly but my general belief is that the brain is all that matters. If the brain isn’t active you aren’t alive. That belief plays into this but I don’t know where that point is exactly. From what I have read that is about 6 months in. So my general belief, which is open to change, is that abortion is more acceptable in the early stages and should be used as little as possible in the late stages.
Then again, it would be nice to halt all rational thought, pick a side and go with that. It seems to work for you and BrainGlutton. And the anti-abortion side seems to like it as well. I mean, you don’t have to actually think about anything. Just state that you are right and tell everyone else they are wrong. That is certainly much easier.
Slee
What exactly does this sticking in the eye entail? What actual damage does the “heterosexual community” (assuming such a thing exists) actually suffer by the existence of gay marriage? What damage have the “heterosexual communities” of countries with legalized gay marriage suffered?
Nope, the concept of marriage has changed over time. Used to be normal in some places for a man to have several wives, or a wife or wives plus one or more concubines, for instance. And it used to be that the man was considered the head of the household, and that he had final authority over his wife. In some countries, this is still true. And in this country, I know that some people want to go back to that.
My heterosexual marriage is not diminished if two men or two women get hitched, and are legally entitled to call themselves married. There are a lot of legal advantages to being legally married. Those advantages don’t apply to being in a civil union, from what I understand.
And again, polygynous (one man, several women) marriages are not something that the Mormons came up with. If you have “religious values” (by which I take it that you are Christian, Jewish, or Muslim), then read your Bible/Torah/Quran. King David, for instance, had at least 7 wives, plus he had a lot of concubines as well.
As others have pointed out, the definition of marriage has changed hugely over time. Quite aside from things like mixed race marriage, there has also been a radical change in what a marriage between a man and a woman generally constitutes. For a long time a woman was essentially her husbands property and she needed his permission to do pretty much anything. Now we tend to think of marriage as more of an equal partnership. Do you not think that that constitutes a change to the definition of the word ‘marriage’? Do you think that change is harmful?
You recognize that the bonds of marriage have ‘deep personal meaning’ to most people. So why shouldn’t they have meaning to gay people too? They’re not aliens, you know.
I’m also interested to hear what you think the detrimental effects of gay marriage might be. Can we see these effects in countries with legalized gay marriage? If not, why not?
I made a similar mistake once, confusing the homophobe bigot mswas for the homophobe bigot magellan01. I acknowledged the error as soon as it was pointed out, but magellan is such a pussy that he demanded an apology and when I declined to give him one, he stopped talking to me. I believe his demand was just an excuse to not have to deal with my questions about the damage he was predicting would occur through legalized gay marriage.
Just saying.
And I decline to take you seriously.
Well, my country has no abortion laws and gay marriage. As far as I’m concerned, things worked exactly to my satisfaction on these two issues. Why the Americans are so baffled by them is only a matter of academic interest to me.
On abortion? Yes, I can conceive of extremely remote circumstances where I’d adjust my position. I’ve mentioned a few times that a Children of Men-type extinction scenario might cause me to rethink my stance. I don’t know - it would have to be pretty extreme and unusual for me to want to consider stripping half the population of what I consider a crucial individual right. I can vaguely imagine deciding that the best course of action is for men (or women) to lose the right to vote, if the situation was sufficiently dire, and I mean seriously dire, like a science-fictiony virus afflicts all Y-chromosome-possessors with mental retardation or something.
Of course, I’d be one of them, unless I got enough warning to seal myself off in my isolation geodome, which I assume I’ll have built by then.
I am very confident that I am more intelligent than you, and significantly more intelligent than the average. Your opinion of my intelligence is so factually incorrect that it’s not even offensive - it’s like calling me purple, something a child would blurt out.
And I don’t know where you are on the abortion-rights spectrum. If you want to describe your stance, be my guest. If you’ve already described it, I’ve forgotten or hadn’t noticed. Nothing personal.
If that’s what you think I’m doing, then you are ignorant, but that’s okay since I have no egotistical expectation that you’d have read or remembered the various arguments and reasoning I’ve presented in various abortion threads, even though many of them were wasted on a slug-brain like OMG a Black Conservative.
Guilt by association? How trite. Besides, I didn’t join his club - if anything, he joined mine. Or more accurately, there is no “club”, just your pathetic attempt at a riposte. Should I embrace Trihs in response and validate your specious claim? Distance myself from him, as if the accusation of association was stinging?
I’ll just shrug it off, thanks.
So you say, but in Canada the issue is settled - I figure the best thing I can do is keep an eye on the issue and if it looks like the rights of Canadian women are in danger (they do not appear to be, now or in the likely near future), to speak up about it. Whether or not any American (or anyone from any nation) is convinced to get on my side is of trivial interest. I think I present my views well enough, that is to say - well enough to satisfy me, though I’ve no idea what effect they’re having. I suspect none, but I never had any illusions that this message board was a wellspring for political or social change, or that I was a particularly influential poster.
Well, is something that is rational only to oneself truly rational?
Sure, but I doubt unwanted pregnancies will ever go completely away. Contraceptives fail. Women are raped. Teenagers won’t be abstinent. The number of abortions per year doesn’t really matter to me, except in what expenses it may pose to the Canadian health-care system, and that they are regulated for safety like any medical procedure. Meantime, children should be educated, contraceptives should be available, adoption should be streamlined… I see no real value in pushing abstinence, but if you know of a study that shows such a campaign having positive effects, I invite you to present it.
I consider the matter moot, myself. From a scientific view, the sperm and ovum are living human tissue before fertilization and afterward, so there’s no “beginning” to life or humanity as such - it’s living human tissue restructuring itself in a continuous process. I daresay earlier abortions are better than later abortions because they pose less medical risk to the woman, though some risks might only become apparent or threatening in the later stages, like eclampsia or prenatal diabetes, making a late-term abortion necessary or at least worth considering. The developmental stage of the fetus is not something I see any need to dwell on. The fetus could be fully formed (albeit small) with an intact brain from the moment of conception and it wouldn’t change my views.
Well, you’ve pigeonholed me, I guess, decided I’m stupid and irrational. You’re wrong, of course, but since you asked me what might make me reconsider my views on abortion, I ask you to ask yourself what might make you reconsider your views on me.
I don’t need your answer; I just like the rhetoric.
I’m not sure why you think this is such a conundrum. One can be pro-choice on logical grounds and still think certain abortions are not such a great idea on moral grounds. I believe that abortion should be freely available because a woman has rights to her own body and shouldn’t be forced to incubate against her will. But if I personally knew someone who used abortion as regular birth control or who aborted their fetus just for being female, well, I’d find that morally questionable and I probably wouldn’t think too much of them. But that doesn’t mean I think those things should be illegal - just because I think something is immoral personally doesn’t mean I automatically want it outlawed.
Now, I’m perfectly aware that some pro-choicers have stated that they want sex-selective abortions to be made illegal, and that does seem to go against their principles. But your contention that all pro-choice people would be stymied by this issue and therefore ‘gleefully ignore’ it is just not true. It’s not the gigantic stumbling block you seem to think it is.
No, it didn’t. You and others keep dragging out this false, bullshit argument. In fact, there was no time during the history of the U.S. that antimiscegenation was illegal nationally. Also, at no time was it illegal in all colonies or states. IN fact, of the 13 colonies, 3 of them never even had such laws. So, since marriage was always legal for interracial couples someplace in the U.S, there was no need to find another word for it. Plus, there is nothing about interracial marriage that would call for another word, as the union was between one man and one woman.
You know, there’s one good thing about liberal dolts like you bringing up this bullshit argument. It rightly pisses of American blacks when you try to ride on the coattails of their very unique history of abuse, and pushes them a little further into the conservative camp. So, nice work. Especially since its unintentional.
That’s not what separate but equal means. If there is one set of laws that groups by two different names gain access to, that one set of laws cannot be separate from itself. It’s only ONE set of laws. So, if civil unions and marriages are ruled by two sets of laws, as is the case now, then separate but equal does indeed apply. But as I’ve described numerous times to you, one can have the two groups access one (1) set of privileges and benefits, which does away with your SbE claim. At the very least, you should recognize the distinction.
See above, idiot. The definition of the word was not altered. There was no confusion. There was only debate in some states as to whether the marriage should be allowed. The same way there was a debate as to whether a black man should be free.
In other words, fuck people who see the world differently than you due to religious values. Gotcha.
I think it’s telling that the anti crowd is more interested in the definition of a word than they are in the happiness of actual human beings.
Sure I’d be happy to grant you your life long wish of equality… But that would violate my linguistic ethics. You want me to become a… a… a… descriptivist?
Just as there’s nothing that calls for a different word for same sex couples.
More nonsense. The only reason for civil unions is to create an inferior, ghetto version of marriage. It is exactly the same as the racist version of “separate but equal”, where blacks were consistently forced to use separate but grossly inferior facilities & services. Because that is the point of such systems.
Exactly. Such people are bigots & lunatics who at best deserve contempt.
I entirely agree. I can understand from both a logical and an emotional standpoint the objections to abortion even if I don’t agree that they trump arguments about mother’s rights etc and even if I find many of the practices of the “pro-life” side utterly reprehensible (as curlcoat has already described). I remember the twelve-week scan of my own child - had there been some medical issue necessitating an abortion even at that point I would have found it devastating. But that’s not a basis for sound law.
Agree again, as magellan01 is proving once more. I’ve read more of his assertions about this than I can count and still his arguments that same-sex marriage diminishes the institution of marriage continue to boil down to “IT JUST DOES!!!”. He keeps saying he has a logical argument but presumably he’s keeping it safe in a jar under his bed or something because it has yet to see the light of day.
Which, ironically, is the main argument given against same-sex marriage.
You’re not the only one. If he sticks to his patterns, his end argument is that hetero marriage is special and if things are special, it is 100% logical that making more things special makes them all less special.
I admit being amused by his “interracial marriage was never banned in all the colonies, just ten out of thirteen of them!” stance.
Hey, his posting record speaks for itself. I daresay a search for his posts containing the words “special” and “marriage” will summon the crazy faster than a flasher’s spirit at an all-girl seance.
