Arguing against; "The definition of 'Marriage' is between a man and a woman".

And that is the frustrating part of discussing equal rights with those whose basis for demurring is their visceral belief that those being denied those rights are either “evil” or acting in an “evil” way. Yet we persist in trying to engage them anyway, with whatever reasoned approach we can, knowing that they are not “evil” but merely misguided. And that has been effective so far, even if there is much more to be done.

You may call that pointless if you like, but those who consider the opposition “evil” still control the recognition of rights. To rectify the problem requires “attempt at reasonable debate”, pointless though it may be.

Or were you perhaps assigning labels, perhaps for the purpose of dismissing any such debate, *the other way around?
*

For those who, like Rumor, advocate a compromise of some sort, even in a non-“evil” spirit, I would also be interested in understanding how it is acceptable in any way to compromise between rights and prejudices. Does a right even exist if you’re willing to restrict it in the name of “popular appeal”?

But when you use language like “evil” you’ll just further entrench people in their own mind set. Even if they’re arguing something stupid. It’s not if were presenting them with an environment were they can admit to or concede to anything. They just get deffensive. I think these two women are ignorant. When they’re dead I’ll decide their evilness.

And in what way are they not evil? By that logic the Nazis weren’t evil; they too believed the Jews were guilty of “acting in an evil way”.

Convincing yourself with zero evidence that the people you persecute or kill are guilty of evil behavior does not justify your persecution and murders. It’s the people persecuting and murdering the innocent who are the evil ones.

They won’t anyway. They’ll remain what they are until the day they die. You don’t reason with such people; you overcome them or outlive them.

They are arguing over a name. I think those are people on the brink of, but not quite ready to full except Homosexuals are REAL, and should have equal rights… I don’t think they are like the Nazi’s.

The ones that are not willing to join the RIGHT side of the argument over a word, (IMO), ignorant, not evil. And to give up on people who are so close would be silly. Calling them evil wont help. It’s like being ignorant on dealing with ignorance. Der I listened to, and agree with everything you’ve said on the matter.

I don’t agree at all.

Look at racism; people weren’t persuaded to give up on segregation. The issue was decided by law, and imposed by force. And the people who hated blacks still hated blacks. It wasn’t reason that marginalized them; it was old age, death and the condemnation of such beliefs as evil.

Condemning such people as evil has at least the possibility of convincing young, still uncommitted people that they don’t want to join their ranks. Refusing to condemn them just means that all the condemnation comes from the other side; which makes your side look weak and encourages people to join the side doing the denouncing.

You sound like the church I used to go to. I’m glad I’ve had other influence in my life.

Well, duh. If churches are good at one thing it’s persuading people. Any good strategy for winning people over on an issue like this is going to sound a lot like something from a church or politician; only the content and ethics will be different.

If reason was going to work this would never have become an issue; in terms of reason this is an utterly one sided debate. “You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into”.

Persuading people by a God who’s a terrorist and a bigot, and eternal damnation. I like the other approach. I think there are people willing to listen if you’re willing to inform in a way that doesn’t feel like a lecture, but a proposal to a different way of thinking.

Or just by a willingness to stand up and call something wrong. People take you more seriously when you do that.

Again, look at the history of civil rights; it hasn’t been pandering to people’s prejudices, compromise with bigots and pretending the other side is reasonable that has led to progress. It’s been a willingness to stand up and call evil, evil. It’s been people who are willing to do things like flatly assert that segregation is wrong, women being unable to vote is wrong who have pushed matters forward. By treating the opposition in this as reasonable when they are not, people are both essentially lying for the benefit of the anti-SSM side, and making their own side look like it doesn’t really believe its own arguments.

And, it simply is not just to pander to such people.

Oh, behave!

Should we be campaigning against separate washrooms for men and women?

Look, I’m all for goy marriage, but I’m against shoving it down people’s throats.

No one is asking you to marry someone of the same sex. :smiley:

Also, it’s the people who oppose SSM that are trying to impose their prejudiced beliefs on others.

How is some gay couple getting married somewhere in the US shoving it down anyone’s throat?

And yet that’s exactly what the same sex couples who do have civil unions, right now, are saying. They aren’t married. They know that they aren’t married. They have some of the rights of married couples, but the ones that are most important are still unavailable. They’re well aware of their separate and unequal status under the law.

Whether they consider their personal relationship to one another to be emotionally equivalent to marriage is wholly irrelevant. No one is demanding marriage equality so that when they wake up next to their partner in the morning and look over at them they can think “yay, we’re married!” We are demanding marriage equality so that when we have to file our taxes, or get health insurance to cover our life partners and our children, or a mortgage, or when we end up in the hospital, or develop Alzheimers or when we die, our families are not treated differently just because we’re a two-slot or two-tab couple rather than slot-and-tab variety.

And despite the fact that civil unions are meant to be the functional and legal equivalent to marriage in the states where they exist, for all purposes but federal law, that is not and will never be how they are treated by those with the capacity to interfere in people’s lives, like employers and insurance carriers and hospital administrators and family court judges.

Civil unions in the United States of America are a failed experiment in the incremental recognition of civil rights, because civil rights do not work that way. You either have them, or you don’t. You can either sit at the lunch counters or you can’t. There is no part way solution.

Individuals can be converted in their thinking. My mother is such a person (she is, by most definitions, elderly and is also very involved in her religious faith which is very opposed to LGBT equality of any sort). My aunt is (even more elderly, also religious) another such a person. My 85 year old uncle went from being a typically homophobic middle-class male to saying “oh who the hell cares, let anyone who wants to get married get married, how does it affect me?”

But all of that comes from being personally persuaded. No campaign or organization or protest is going to do it. It’s going to take the brothers and sisters and sons and daughters and grandchildren and nieces and nephews not letting members of their families get away with bigotry in the name of family peace or because bigots are old or “set in their ways.” When you hear it, you counter it, every single time. That’s how change happens.

For some people, having to live in a world where those icky homos CAN get married is the very same thing as forcibly coercing an innocent straight man to marry his best buddy next door.

For some silly people.

Hell, I don’t know, but millions of people beg to differ.

Its like refering to blacks as Negroes. Why an African American is offended by the term is beyond me but I accept it is so and abridge my freedom of expression accordingly.

But give it time. I hear that some native Americans are no longer offended by being called Indians.

First off wrong is wrong no matter how many people may think otherwise. At some point in history everyone thought the world was flat. That didn’t make it so.

And it is not the same as referring to blacks as Negroes. While some black people may find it a pejorative word it is your choice to self-censor yourself. No one is stopping you from using the term except you.

Stopping someone from getting married, by use of the law, is a whole other deal.

So, they vote against it out of spite, or something? Gay marriage isn’t hurting them in any way, they have no personal stake in the issue, so rather than not vote, they vote no…

They must be so proud of themselves.

Anyway, the argument I’ve often used is that a citizen wants to do something, and we have no actual evidence that doing this action will cause harm to anyone, and in a freedom-loving country, governments should only pass laws to punish causing harm… so this law has no reason to exist.

The only counter to this argument, as far as I can tell, is to prove that harm will occur, and it has to be a more significant harm than just some people being offended. I’ve yet to see any such evidence on this issue.

Then if a man and woman choose not to have children, would that still be a marriage? If they find out one of them is shooting blanks ,should that be grounds for divorce?

Bottom line for me is this: if the (Insert name of denomination) Church wants to hold that marriage is sacred and should only be between a man and a woman that is fine. However, the U.S. has a separation of church and state and while we can quibble over whether that should extend to Nativity scenes at a state capitol during Christmas or the 10 Commandments displayed on the wall of a Federal court then that is fine. But for me, it means that no legislature (state or Congress) shall make a law for purely moral reasons. Take abortion. The issue of abortion should not hinge on the morality of the action, but rather is the fetus a legal human being to be accorded protection against being murdered. Our Constitution says no based on an interpretation of the 14th Amendment. As soon as the government gave special priviledges it is now a civil issue and “sacredness” has nothing to do with it.

Second, justify a system to me where two concenting adults cannot marry simply because of the same genitalia but a 12 year old girl from Kansas can because she has parent permission.

Third, every reason I’ve heard for banning same-sex marriage seems to have an exception for non-same-sex marriage. I remember the AG of Washington defending their law stating that the purpose of marriage was to have children :dubious: and since same-sex couples cannot breed together, they should not be married. Even if you agree, then you should also agree that sterile people or women past menopause should not be married. A further question is should couples then be required to have children.

Four, if you disagree with point #1 and that the laws of the U.S. should be based on the Bible, then when will we have madatory circumsision with the new mother having to sacrifice a lamb, turtledove or pigeon to be cleansed (Lev. 12)? When will we ban shaving sideburns (Lev. 19:27) give the death penalty for kids that backtalk (Lev. 20:9) ban ministers from marrying prostitutes (Lev. 21:7,14) or non-virgins and divorced women (Lev. 21:13-14). And besides banning transfats, will everyone have to go Kosher?

See if your co-worker has anything in response. If he bases his beliefs in the New Testament and the rules of St. Paul (IMHO a misogynistic self-loathing homosexual) then call his mother/wife/daughter a streetwalking whore because she doesn’t wear a hat. Just before he hits you, have him look up the Pauline epistles to the Corinthians requiring all women to wear hats in public.