We’re agin it.
I’m reading the above, and it sounds like you threw the first punch, and that you and your friends, who outnumbered the other guys, beat on them.
Exactly how many of you were there?
Good God, and circumcision, too.
Eh… lot of wandering to do. Can you highlight some specific posts that deal with the analogy in question?
I’d still like to hear why Magellan objects to it. It seems like a pretty reasonable analogy to me, marriage denied to one group because of race and another because of sexual orientation. I’m curious as to why someone would argue that it’s not just a debatable analogy, but totally ad clearly wrong.
But lets not be too hasty! Despite a life-long devotion to the cowardly arts of cringing and fleeing, I can readily see how, under certain special circumstances, a more vigorous and direct approach may be appropriate.
Take, for instance, the celebrated drudge Dr. Johnson, who famously engaged in direct, physical rebuttal to Bishop Berkeley’s extravagantly idealistic phenomenology by kicking a heavy table leg and shouting “Thus do I refute him!” How much more effectively might his point have been made, if he had applied his argument directly to the celibacy-shriveled stones of the good Bishop? No doubt the cleric’s Christian ethic would have forbidden any response more aggressive than the traditional rolling up into a ball and whimpering, but we will never know.
Still, the question affords an opportunity to examine meaningful issues, as well as an opportunity to make wretched puns around testimony, testify, and Testament. To which, of course, we will not stoop. One has standards, after all. Well, guidelines.
xtisme, what you did was stupid and immature, not to mention dangerous as hell, and if I was there and drunk, I’d’ve been swinging right next to you. ::Tips hat::
Is it okay to grab drunk, overweight non-Hispanics by the collar? Need answer fast!
Depends, I suppose, on whether your intentions are flirtatious and/or suicidal.
And to think of the amount of money the guys of MasterCard have thrown into that campaign… and it just doesn’t quite work.
:dubious: “Celibacy-shriveled”?
I think you’re inadvertently mixing up Anglican bishops like Berkeley with Roman Catholic bishops who are required to be celibate.
Bravo! Bravo! Good for you and your friends xtisme! Those jackasses deserved it and will rue the day when they messed with the wrong gay guys! I only wish that I could have taken a picture and captioned it something about getting beat by a gay guy. I cackle in satisfaction when I know that these people will be despised and hated, rightfully, by the majority of people in the future for their evil and assholic beliefs. They got off easy and the wounds will heal, but their mental wounds will be far deeper and last longer than anything you could have done to them physically.
IIRC, Magellan01 believes in gay rights, and believes that gay people should be able to get all the benefits from marriage that straight people get…except he doesn’t want the state to call it marriage. He’ll grant everything but the word marriage, from the state. Which is genuinely baffling to me.
YAY! Violence is the answer. 
All we are saying
Is give fistfights a chance.
Eh, I can kinda understand that. I don’t agree with it, but it’s a far cry from the claims of bigotry that have been advanced. I do still want to know why he feels that it’s a bad analogy to compare prohibiting consenting adults to marry based on race to preventing consenting to marry based on sexual orientation.
And breast feeding in public.
Also, which was does the toilet paper roll sit? And do we take our shoes off in the house…?
Because if interracial marriage is a valid analogy, then his opposition to gay marriage makes him a bigot. It does, of course, but he won’t admit it.
No, not necessarily. Someone can be a traditionalist to a degree that is detrimental and not a bigot.
People can be traditionalists to the point that it’s detrimental to themselves without being bigots. Once they start using that traditionalism to deny rights to broad classes of people, they cross over into bigotry.
No, they don’t. At least not the way the word is commonly used. It’s possible to be bigoted against change, but the way most people use that accusation is that they’re bigoted against gays. Whole different kettle of fish.