Enough already. Regardless of what definition of bigot you’re using, this kind of commentary doesn’t belong in Great Debates.
Arguments I have against polygamy are purely secular. But if you let religion influence your marriage laws, why not polygamy?
The fact that our courts do not allow religious arguments against SSM is the reason why the arguments given in the Prop 8 case both in California and in the Supreme Court have been so feeble.
Ohhhh, look at you, all blustery and tough-talking. But wait, you back -pedal from your insult in this very sticking your chest out. Tsk, tsk.
Never mind that there is no bigotry in what I wrote, lest you feel that wanting gay couples to be able tap into all the legal rights and privileges that straight couples enjoy is bigotry.
Odd, that. But you get on with your bad self.
Well, since you claim that 2 = 1, I guess it’s understandable you’d assume Voyager believes 3 = 2.
What cultural difference? I got married in a purely atheistic ceremony almost 35 years ago, and I have never even once noticed a difference in how people treat my marriage and those done in a church.
I guess if we got a sudden case of brain rot and decided to become Catholics or some other weird cult, we’d need to get remarried religiously, but that would be self-inflicted.
Well, under a system where 2 =1 is an axiom
succ(2) = succ(1)
3 = 2 is quite correct!
Minor problem with the axiom, though.
As are my arguments against SSM. I’ve never offered a religious argument at all. Not once. (Not sure you were implying I have, but just to clarify.) But even on purely secular grounds, if one advocates for SSM it would be perfectly consistent for him to argue for polygamy, if he so chose. There’d be no logical inconsistency.
Well, that is a difference actually. Legal marriage is taken seriously everywhere, religious marriage is only taken seriously by the members of that sect. Same sex couples have been able to get marriage in friendly churches for years after all, but religious marriage isn’t real marriage; at least not unless the legal version comes bundled in along with it as is usually done. It’s the legal version that actually matters.
I remain kinda curious when men and women came to be regarded as two separate groups for the purposes of giving out speeding tickets, though.
Polygamy and SSM have nothing to do with each other. SSM injures no one, polygamy does. Case in point - our tour guide in Egypt got specifically injured, since her husband got another wife, freezing her out, and though she could easily get a divorce she had to give up her dowry so it was very expensive.
But as far as I can tell, your argument is from the church of St. Noah Webster
The Lord is my definer,
I shall not misspell.
Discriminating against real people so as not to change a dictionary definition is pretty feeble. And if everyone in the US suddenly woke up with the sure knowledge that religion is bogus, SSM would pass in an eyeblink, opposed only by those with “icky” factor issues. I don’t think there are a lot of them.
This doesn’t belong in GD either. You can’t flame in here. I assume everybody is going to confine this kind of stuff to the Pit thread now because it’s wrong for this forum.
Heck, I’m just amused by the notion that a minor extension to a definition of a word will render all existing definitions invalid, as though straight couples who used to get married will get married no more, but something else entirely.
Or maybe not even that, since gay marriage will supposedly stop all or most heterosexual pairings entirely, leading to societal extinction. It must have happened in the past, the proof being that those societies went extinct, leaving no proof of their existence.
No. It is not a lie.
Rather, you hold a firm belief that we can call a specific event by two names in law based on whether the persons involved are or are not the same sex.
Others believe that using two words for the same event, simply based on the relative sex of the participants, must unavoidably lead to a disparity in treatment based on the use of separate terms.
You may well believe that the law may use separate definitions to describe identical actions without one or the other action being held in less esteem and treated less fairly. However, to call the opposition to that belief a lie is, itself, simply polemical rhetoric. The posters who hold the opposite view to yours cannot be accused of dishonesty unless you can demonstrate that they know that your opinion is correct and still hold to their own.
You have not yet provided an argument that has persuaded even a single one of those posters to reconsider their views, so your accusations of lying are not supported by facts or evidence.
I agree with much of this. And while I think you accurately describe the positions and motivations of some people, I don’t think it is all. There are, I believe, for whom the legal benefits and privileges are really not that important. That there goal is to use the “rights” argument top gain one level of support, while their goal is not those legal rights at all.
I don’t care what you have proposed.
Is it technically possible to create an identical set of laws for civil unions. Sure.
It’s a lot of time and expense for no good purpose at all. Why did people want seperate but equal? Has the basic reason changed. Not IMO.
Again? It’s not “an identical set of laws”. It’s ONE set of laws. One. Comparing something to itself is nonsensical. I really don’t get why that is so difficult to grasp. Unless you’re so infatuated with the pooh-poohing the idea with the SBE language. How about we try something different? You respond to me based on a position I’ve put forth? Just a thought.
Cite?
Yeah, dan, “separate but equal” has EQUAL right there in the term! IT’S EQUAL BY DEFINITION! ONE SET OF LAWS!
ONE!
I have yet to see any driving law that separates folks by gender. Generally, they use terms like vehicle operator, driver, etc., with no reference to gender. In the state of Ohio, all people that have a driver’s license, regardless of gender, are drivers.
What you are proposing with civil unions and marriage would be more akin to having different terms for male and female drivers.
Does that make any sense?
Nope.