Naturally. And you’re free to alter the meaning of the word bigot to mean whatever you’d like it to. Oh boy!
Ah, complete agreement.
It’s win-win. SS couples get all the rights and privileges, and the meaning of the word “marriage” is not tampered with. Additionally, aside from the practical benefits of the rights being extended, there’s the lack of the religious (which I am not) getting a thumb jabbed in their eye when it’s not necessary.
Opposing SSM is treating same-sex couples with intolerance. It’s saying you can’t have what I have because you weren’t born like me. That is the very definition of bigotry.
Ok, then let me rephrase myself: What are you talking about?
And I am not treating them with intolerance, genius. I advocate them enjoying all the rights and privileges that married couples enjoy. But you know that from the other thread, don’t you?
I’m going to let you figure this out on your own. Just track back through our discussion here. Shouldn’t be too difficult.
All the rights and privileges except being recognized as married, that is. Why do you insist on denying that to them?
It is not, as has been explained to you repeatedly, win-win. SS couples, under your proposal, would be locked into a second-class status. You can only defend your proposal by either denying, dismissing, or ignoring something that bleeding obvious. At some point, yes, your motivations do have to come into question. You are defending your own right to indulge in hatred (and a simultaneous right to deny that that’s what it is), over others’ right to equal protection and simple human decency.
Where the fucking hell do you get the idea that the legal rights under discussion entail *anything *religious whatsoever?
And, again:dubious: what is this “Trojan Horse” stuff you were trying to peddle earlier?
When someone trots out an obvious absurdity (“people who don’t see the use of a social institution are the last people who should be allowed to reform it” – as if one cannot be an abolitionist unless one sees a good reason to enslave people), I’m not inclined to bother any further with them.
He’s under the mistaken impression that all the talk of rights isn’t really what the marriage equality movement is about, but rather that we’re all grasping with our semen-covered hands for the societal imprimatur that the word “marriage” implies or confers or whichever way around it happens.
Heliocentrism vs. Geocentrism – Teach The Controversy.
That actually made some sense to me in a way. The author was just saying, use caution before destroying something if you don’t understand it. I agree with that. I don’t like mosquitos, but I would think real hard about wiping them all off the face of the planet with a stroke of my pen, if I had the power. What the author failed to do was explain how the legalization of SSM would hurt (much less “destroy”) marriage. Sounds to me like the only possible outcome is more net marriages.
You make a good point–another, similar criticism of Magellan’s argument is that many same-sex couples do see the social and legal value of marriage (the “use” of the institution, according to the article)–that’s exactly why they want to be married. Because marriage brings with it the automatic grant of a bunch of legal rights, which they are entitled to, and is a social and cultural shorthand for a certain form of committed, loving, long-term family relationship- and many of the same-sex couples I know who want marriage are in exactly that kind of relationship, want to do what married couples do-raise families, live together, be happy.
So in short–same sex couples aren’t ignoring what marriage means-they’re embracing marriage, which is why they want to get married. (marriage as it exists today, that is–a close, loving, family relationship–something that is factually detached from its original purpose of religious endorsement of a sexual relationship).
Well, actually, they can do that already. The point is to get access to the various legal advantages hetero couples casually get and which no good reason to block homosexual couples exists that I’m aware of.
As had been asked of you, I think, by mswas in that other thread, no such right exists. I’ll ask you to respond in the other thread (and I will join you) as to not amplify what is turning into a hijack.
If you believe this, you believe that there is something about SS relationships that is inferior. I don’t believe that. I believe that once established, that CUs will prove to be as every bit as wonderful (and as fucked up) as hetero relationships. Maybe you know more than I about this. Maybe you’re of the belief that the relationships will, in general, be awful. Or laughable. Or whatever. and you want to make sure they get some good cover via the time honored and respected institution.
You can question my motivations all you want. But when my I share that, for instance, I am for extending all the rights and privileges to gays, and you are faced with the fact that your preconceptions and stereotypes don’t mesh reality—me, one would think you’d have the honesty and decency to not apply labels that don’t apply. Of course, you’re free to continue to do so. But that’s testament to your own thought process, not mine. I think it’s great you don’t realize that, as it displays just how much rigor you’ve applied to your thinking.
Oh, I guess you’re unaware that for a large segment of the population the objection to SSM is largely a religious one. My mistake. And here I’ve been surprised that you were unable to appreciate the nuances of the debate. Whoa.
Their has been a cry for equal rights for gays. But when faced with largely having those rights (in CA, for instance), and with an argument for granting and ensuring that ALL the rights are extended, and that be the end of it. That’s no longer good enough. Now, it MUST be marriage. They must have use of the word, regardless of sense or tradition. it’s all this is what I want—me, me, me, me, me. Fuck society’s wishes. And fuck common sense.
Or, in other words, separate IS TOO equal.
Wow. I find it amazing that object to that. It couldn’t be more sensible. You’re arguing for acting without a full appreciation of the facts. I hope you’re not an engineer. And her point was not that one would have to characterize the reason for X as being good, only that one understand what the reason for it’s existence is.
As for you slavery example, only after looking at the reasons why and how slavery came to be in the U.S., can one fully appreciate how horrible it was and how weak it’s continued justification.
And this is why I stopped responding to you earlier. I’ve explained numerous times in that thread in which you participated how this has nothing to do with what I advocate, as I advocate ONE set of laws. Either you have a hard time reading or your idea of a debate is “IS TOO”. Either way I’ll terminate our discussion with something you might be able to comprehend: IS NOT!!!
:rolleyes:
Well, first you’re going to have to establish how common sense is being fucked at all, and in Constitutional arguments, as I understand them, the key issue is most definitely not “society’s wishes” in the sense that the issue should be decided by a simple majority vote.
In any case, if they have a legal equivalent of marriage (and there are numerous valid arguments that “Civil Unions” are not), why not just call it a marriage? You’re free to call it whatever you want, assuming you’re not a government employee.
Justices Earl Warren, Hugo Black, William Douglas, Tom Clark, John Harlan, William Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, and Abe Fortas beg to disagree.
By reserving the term ‘marriage’ for straight couples, you inescapably imply that gay couples don’t deserve it.
Right. :rolleyes:
People arguing against equal marriage rights consistently claim that their religious freedoms are infringed upon, which claim is ridiculous. Churches can marry or refuse to marry anyone they like; this is not affected by the law at all.
Yes, curse those people demanding equal rights and equal treatment.
When society’s wishes are wrong – though in this area, they are steadily becoming less so – , yes.
You seem to be confusing ‘common sense’ with ‘my prejudices’.
For the 3rd time, magellan, what the fuck other thread are you talking about? It’s customary to provide a link.
magellan01, Cisco, and ElvisL1ves, we have now seen the last personal insult in this thread before it is closed and Warnings handed out.
Captain Carrot, Bryan Ekers, and others can all stop toeing the fight line, as well.
Knock it off, all of you.
[ /Moderating ]
Can you point out where I insulted anyone?