I thought that “Civil Unions” were supposed to be absolutely equal to "Marriage"in everything but name? Is it now supposed to be as different as the U.S.A.F. and the U.S.N. obviously are?
Can anyone else translate this…analogy??..for me?
I’m kind of amazed at how every single time you try to create an analogy explaining why marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals, you somehow manage to come up with one that explains why it shouldn’t be.
This is quite possibly the best example ever, maybe even more so than your driver’s license analogy.
He’s really really good at arguing for SSM. He may be the best I’ve ever seen.
Also, I’ve never met a member of any branch of the armed service who was not absolutely adamant that every other branch was inherently inferior to their own. YMMV.
And while I’m at it, I’m not the biggest military trivia guy, but isn’t the entire point of the Army Rangers that they’re significantly better than the regular army guys?
Really, the number of ways magellan’s new analogy undercuts his own argument is kind of amazing.
It’s an analogy to show how two terms can apply to two distinct groups without either group being disparaged. They both are to the same to degree patriots. They both serve and protect our country with equal importance.
Two terms, two distinct groups that are a subset of the larger group American Military Servicemen. No disparagement.
Why not just answer the VERY simple question? You really need help to communicate what YOU think? :rolleyes:
Amazing.
You have just moved into the top three of my Top Ten List Of Posters Most Likely To Secretly Be Stephen Colbert. The stage is all yours, dude.
But that’s my point. If one thinks that gays truly are equal, why not just proudly own your own term for marriage. Those in the Army do it. Those in the Navy do it. This in the Air Force do it. Those in the Marines do it. The only reason one of them would not proudly state, I am a ___________, is if he felt that his particular branch was inferior. And that would fly in the face of the point you just made.
This was for a subtler point: Soldiers and Rangers are respectful of what the other does. The Rangers have qualifications that distinguish them from regular soldiers. The soldiers I know don’t feel disparaged by that. They simply have admiration for them. Some never had the opportunity to go to Ranger school. Some flunked out. But it is a factual matter that Rangers have additional qualifications. The analogy here is that if you take the larger pool to be “couples that are in love and want to publicly commit to each other”, heterosexuals have the additional qualification of being representative of the union needed top bring children into the world. The fact that the extra qualification for the Ranger is earned and the that of the couple is anatomy is incidental.
Yeah. And when his analogies are extended to do things beyond the point being made in the analogy, or or flatly restated and/or misinterpreted, they really, really work against his point! :eek:
:rolleyes:
Man, this is one of the most tortured analogies I’ve ever seen. What’s the point of all of this handwavage? Good grief, why not use the same term for the same exact institution? It’s marriage…the legal and social contract that two PEOPLE have with society, to form a union between them.
The only reason to attempt to do the whole equal but separate thing is to at some level discriminate between straight marriage and gay marriage and erect barriers.
Well, you’ve demonstrated you can indeed type. You’ve demonstrated that you have interest in the subject. You have demonstrated that you are interested enough in what I have to say to ask me questions—repeatedly.
Now how about you demonstrate that you answer the oh-so-simple question I asked you.
Or not. In fact, that cloud does indeed have a silver lining.
Go to the “Is the Gay Marriage Debate Over?” thread and search for the word “juice.”
I don’t even understand the question, or how it applies to this situation. Honestly, I thought this was some sort of “baffle them with bullshit” ploy.
:eek: Holy crap…just when you think you’ve seen it all. I knew there was a reason I wasn’t subscribed to that thread!
Talk about hand-waving! If you think the analogy does a poor job of explaining the point I was making, show how and where.
Again with the misunderstanding of separate but equal. I’ve explained it ad infinitum. In fact, in the other thread, someone else—from your side of the debate—restated it accurately. Yet…
Perhaps my omitting a word made it appear more confusing that it is. Here is the original question:
And the corrected version:
Hope that helps.
The ones arguing for welfare. That’s a whole different thread, however, and it makes no sense to bring it up in this one.
In much the same way that “Why is a duck?” is less confusing than “Why a duck?”.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Talk about hand-waving! If you think the analogy does a poor job of explaining the point I was making, show how and where.
[/QUOTE]
Gods…where to even start. First off, the role that the various branches of the military serves are much more different than the role that two people serve in having a social contract with society that we call ‘marriage’. Basically, whether you are a gay or straight couple being married, the essential role from societies perspective is exactly the same, which is a contract for where that couple fits in and the expectations on that couple by society and, conversely, from society towards that couple.
My question to you would be…what’s the point? Why do you so need to have a different name for the exact same thing? The obvious answer, to me, is that it’s a way to discriminate and segregate and underscore a differentiation. But why don’t you answer for yourself, instead of trying to make up tortured analogies? Just a straight up answer.
Explain it here then, without trying to use tortured analogies. I don’t believe that I am the one failing to understand exactly what equal but separate means, what it was used for in the past, or what this attempt to do the same thing will do now (for a little while, because eventually ‘your’ side is GOING to lose this one…and, as I said, 20 years from now it’s going to be ‘your’ side that’s going to look like those southern assholes trying to keep the young black students from going to school and having to have the Nation Guard escort them in through a mob of angry white folks shaking their fists at them. That’s what being on the wrong side of history is going to get you).
20 years from now? He should be so lucky.