No, you don’t.
In a similar vein, I’d like to know what “toeing the fight line” means, if it’s something other than the normal interplay in a GD thread, since I’m not aware of crossing or even approaching the limits of established GD behaviour.
You are the first one who raised ther issue of calling people bigots. magellan01 is the first one to declare that he had no need to be civil. From there, everyone has begun ratcheting up the rhetoric, implying bad motives to others and doing their best to be as nasty as they can without tripping over the line.
No one has posted a direct violation of the rules–yet–and I intend that you all back away before such rules are broken.
You may think what you’re proposing is a “one set of laws,” I have no doubt that that’s what you believe, but all those posts you chose to ignore explained (I thought, politely and clearly) why that was not the case-why the two are substantively different (both as you proposed it, and in practical terms no matter how close civil unions get).
You are proposing a system in which one class of relationship is allowed to get thing “A”, civil unions, and a second kind of relationship is allowed to get thing “B”, marriages. That is, in and of itself, a difference–they aren’t the same thing. If they were, they’d both be civil unions, or both be marriages. They may be substantively equivalent, but that’s a different argument than that they are the same thing.
Further, here you are in this thread arguing as to why same-sex relationships shouldn’t be categorized in the same way as opposite sex relationships. Your argument is that that is because they can both get the same rights. That is, by definition, separate but equal. You may seek to argue that it’s OK, and that’s worth arguing. But you simply have to see how your proposal is the very definition of separate but equal–these guys get this thing, those guys get that thing, and (I think we agree) that because both groups are entitled to the same substantive rights, this difference is only OK because each category gives the same rights.
Further, here’s a simple proposition: Right here, right now, civil unions are not the same as marriage. That’s a factual statement, not an argument. In some states (CA), they are close to the same. In other states (IA), they are very different (Iowa, though it now recognizes gay marriage, doesn’t recognize civil unions at all–so if you moved in there with a civil union, it would get no recognition).
So if you agree that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights as opposite-sex couples, then right now the practical solution is marriage. Get your state to create a civil union that has EXACTLY the same rights as marriage (not even california does so), then argue that we should have civil unions instead of marriage-it may be (to you), an ideal outcome, but it’s not a practical solution to the current, real world denial of rights until every state recognizes civil unions with exactly the same rights as marriage.
The other thread (“What is the Rationale for Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage”):
As magellan01 notes
For example, magellan’s revealing post #1168:
I’m perfectly ok with allowing people to spout discriminatory, bigoted viewpoints here. To me, it shows us the other side of the argument, which can often be beneficial, demonstrates intellectual honesty on the part of the board, and allows people to self-label as stupid. But to simultaneously disallow the pointing out of bigoted behavior is just-- it’s-- I don’t what to call it but I don’t like it. As smart as you are, tomndebb, I have absolutely no doubt that you know what the word bigot means, but maybe you should look it up again just as a refresher. Calling magellan a bigot was no more an insult than calling Obama a president or Tom Waits a musician. He - himself - in this thread - is saying that he wants to deny the right to marriage to homosexual people. Bigotry is intolerance. Intolerance is the unwillingness to share rights. Magellan01 is - BY DEFINITION - a bigot. Saying so isn’t calling names, it’s just shining a light.
Ah, so magellan is calling me out on a thread that I’ve never even read, much less posted in. Why am I not surprised?
I think you know that I disagree with a lot of the ire that comes your way for your stance on this. That said, I consider your views here as as equally poorly considered as those who would label you a bigot and question *your *motives.
Look, I for one have listened to your argument and found it wanting. That’s just an opinion, of course. But you seem to take it for granted that not only is your argument correct, but that people know your argument is correct, yet reject it anyway. And that because it might benefit them personally, ergo their reasoning is solely based around that benefit to them personally. That they don’t have differing ideas of sense or tradition - that they wilfully choose to reject them.
In all honesty; what is it that’s led you to be able to generalise this way? Has there been a poll going round that I didn’t see? I’d like to give you a challenge; support your view that “they” think this, in a way that I cannot also use to call “they” on your side a load of unthinking bigots.
The last?
We haven’t seen the first.
Why do you insist on denying that it’s about equal protection? That has been in the Constitution since 1868, and the separate-but-equal approach you espouse to get around it was struck down, unanimously, in 1954.
I do not, unless you were using the generic “you”. Anyway, it follows that you have no basis for denying them the use of a word, and all that its use implies in society, that you would permit straights to use. What other reason can there be?
And they are. So why aren’t you willing to call that “normalcy” (your own choice of word)?
On this topic, that cannot be avoided. Motivations are inescapably the very heart of the discussion. It’s all about motivations. If one’s own motivations cannot be articulated in public, and honestly, then that is a strong statement in itself.
Except for that one that just sticks in your craw for some reason, a reason that you have hinted at on multiple occasions.
Where do you see that?
Religion is inapplicable to a discussion of the law (the Constitution discusses that too - you really ought to take a look at it sometime). The mistaken conflation there is, indeed, your own
That assertion wasn’t even coherent. Can you try again?
No. What it must be is equal rights under the law - as the Constitution, and basic human decency, require.
:rolleyes:
I am amused by your sophistry, but, in fact, the word bigot is always employed as an insult and your attempt to pretend that you are employing the “objective fact” defense does not change the fact that it is an act of name calling in this forum.
(Unless, of course, you are arguing that magellan01 may call you a bigot for attempting to deny the Religious Right and others such as magellan01 their rights to define the term marriage in a traditional way.)
Further discussion of this topic will be carried out in the ATMB forum as a discussion of moderating.
[ /Modding ]
Oh, well, if understanding the reason for existence is sufficient, I have that. (The reason is that the “eww ewwwww homos!” reaction was sufficiently common to give the balance of political power to its adherents).
It is actually pretty clearly a straw man. His claim is that some vague and unidentified group has been arguing “rights” as a “Trojan horse” (his words) to get something they don’t deserve. The reality has been that the homosexual community, (by and large), have been arguing the desire to engage in marriage for years and the “rights” issue was simply the means by which they are attempting to get society to recognize the reasons why such marriages should be recognized in law.
He has taken an approach to changes in law and invented a scenario in which some sort of subterfuge was being employed to gain a separate result when the separate result was very publicly the motivation from the beginning. This allows him to pretend that there is some sort of “dishonesty” against which he can rail, ignoring both the reality in society as well as the fact that his “Trojan horse” has never been argued by any of his opponents on this Forum.
He may, in fact, actually believe his little scenario, (the utter lack of evidence notwithstanding), but it is certainly a clever way to argue, implying that he is merely arguing for “honesty” even if the “dishonest” actions are of his own invention.
OK, so if no such right exists, why do heterosexual couples get to call themselves “married”? Shouldn’t they be denied the use of the word, too?
Since marriage isn’t mentioned in the constitution, but people surely got married at the time it was written, it must be one of those unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. I’d say it falls under, oh, the pursuit of happiness. That’s settled then, right?
Marriage = Pursuit of Happiness? Never been married, eh?
Ah, I see you’re a Harvard graduate.
4 years next month.
Meaning?
Jefferson: …inalienable rights…
Adams: The word is ‘unalienable’, Mr. Jefferson.
Jefferson: ‘Inalienable’ is correct.
Adams: It just so happens that I am a Harvard graduate.
Jefferson: Well, I attended William and Mary. laughter
Obscure musical reference FTW!
Ah, I never heard that. I know different drafts used both. I actually prefer inalienable but I usually say unalienable because that’s what everyone learns in school.