Aw, buggy-bear. :
:
Magellan, will you answer #525?
He won’t. I asked him a long time ago to articulate how precisely he would explain to a little kid that his or her parents can’t be married. He won’t do it. He wants to enact the evil laws but make someone else deal with it.
To approximately the same degree that a cat is threatened by a chipmunk.
You may want to purchase your next dictionary at a reputable bookstore. Judging from your word choices, the one you have now appears to have been a “second,” relegated to tthesaurushe half-price bin on account of its many inaccurate definitions.
But hey, thanks for playing.
He can’t. He hasn’t actually thought about this beyond his gut feeling that gay people are not quite equal to straight people.
No, YOU don’t get it. You claim you want gays to have equal rights. Yet you voted for them to lose a right they already had. If this doesn’t bother your conscience, then add that to the list of words that don’t mean you think they mean.
Shouldn’t we be? You’re actively working to harm us, and you’re succeeding at it. I, for one, am fucking terrified of you, and of people like you. And I don’t find it remotely amusing.
I’m not “getting at” anything here. I was trying to summarize the article as I saw it, the same article that you questioned twice whether I read it or not. It read:
Was it you or I that didn’t read this article?
Making everyone happy is a challenge regardless of the topic or the amount of people involved. That’s not the point of this. This is only about one topic, how the introduction of gay marriage has changed how marriages were conducted in the past in regards to the issue of the form.
First, that’s a false dichotomy. It’s not an either/or.
Secondly, that’s from your viewpoint. Other people feel might feel that they would like to keep the verbiage on their form and don’t feel that it is discriminatory to do so. They might feel that it’s only discriminatory if gay couple had different benefits, but if they have the same benefits, then they can use a different form.
That wasn’t the question. My question was asking whether the wording of Party A and Party B caused some opposite sex couples to cancel/postpone their wedding until a form acceptable to them was released.
Then could the form say domestic partnership instead of marriage?
While that’s a nice sentiment, it would seem that indulging everyone’s preferences would not only be impractical but also impossible when interests conflict.
While we can’t know why people voted as they did, I’m just suggesting that it’s a possibility that some people may have taken into account the thought that if the marriage certificate was changing that there may be more changes ahead that they hadn’t anticipated and wouldn’t be happy about.
Perhaps, but neither you nor I can know whether it would have been successfully negotiated since the proposition passed before anyone had a chance to complain that they weren’t represented after the form was changed back.
I was referring to this post:
Since you also don’t care about the word marriage but are interested in the same recognition of benefits, you fall under category 2 with Antinor01 and magellan01. Huh. Their usernames are even similar.
I just quoted your one word from this but didn’t want to quote tag it:
Agreed. But one of the reasons that I wanted to narrow this down to California is that according to Miller, there are 9 issues where domestic partnership and marriage differ and these could probably be successfully litigated. If that’s the case, it seems like a pretty good start to try magellan01’s solution. I don’t know if it has been tried before or what legal hurdles would need to be overcome.
As to the rest of your questions about how that legal remedy would work are great questions, but the answer is we can’t know since the remedy is theoretical. On the other side, we also can’t know how same-sex marriage might alter traditional marriage. Neither has been tried for a significant length of time (none on the hypothetical remedy side) to know the answer. So we can’t lock in an answer for either side.
However, since you both agree on the theoretical remedy, you both do agree. The only part to be nailed down is how and whether it would be successful.
No, no, no! Litigating this shit line by line is bullshit. How can you not realize that? Why on fucking good God’s earth should we litigate this shit line by line when we can just stamp it “approved,” and be done with it. Got an agenda? I think you do.
Fess up.
Would you care to speculate as to how SSM would alter traditional marriage? I personally can’t think of a single way that gay people getting married will alter my OSM marriage, so maybe you can help me out. What exactly is it that you’re afraid will happen?
If you’re really positing that We Just Can’t Know (in some scientific sense), we can look at places where it’s already legal. What has happened to hetero marriage in those places? It’s been legal in Denmark since 1989, so your significant length of time caveat won’t hold water.
Sure. I missed this, it’s a good question. Here it is:
I take no glee in anyone’s sadness or misfortune. But we live in a society, and when people disagree we put things to a vote. When a vote is held, some of the people will be happy with the result, some won’t. We adhere to this system as part of the social contract, so that we have a mechanism for settling disagreements without fighting each other in the streets. The side that loses, difficult as it may be, just has to suck it up. The vote results are not a cosmic etching of what is objectively right in the universe. Only what is appropriate for a given moment in time. Fortunately, we live in a society that allows for the changing of laws you do not like. So, it behooves those who feel aggrieved to suck it up and wage their battle through the appropriate channels another day. Until then, the will of the system needs to be respected. Just as if your side won, it would be incumbent upon the other side to respect the decision the system spit out.
Some of you might take this personally, as indicative of the esteem with which you are held by the opposing side. While some of them might hate you or detest you, to ascribe those feelings to the opposition in toto, is fallacious, unfair, and unhelpful in trying to understand the very minds you seek to change next go-around.
As far as SSM, you look at the institution and see it to be more inclusive because you focus on the love of the individuals involved. Detractors (some, at least) see that, too, but they focus also on an aspect of the relationship you ignore, the sex of the individuals involved and the historical/traditional role the institution, as a basis for the family and the raising of children, has played in our society. A role they see as something nature wrought, a natural extension of what we see in nature, of what evolution and sociological progression has found to be best: children being created and raised by a loving male and a female.
It’s like two groups looking at a baseball. One sees a white object with red stitching; the other sees roundness. Obviously, neither side is wrong, the difference is what criteria they find necessary and what they focus on. While I may insist that it is a white leather object with red stitching, that does not mean that I don’t see roundness. So, when you want to call a plain white ball a baseball and I object, it is because I think that leather and red stitching are necessary criteria to thing I call a baseball—as necessary as roundness. Now you may say that a plain leather ball of the same size or a synthetic ball with red stitching is just as good as the traditional baseball. And you can argue for that position. And you may be right. And I may argue that the materials of the baseball are necessary for it to behave just like the baseballs we already have. And I may be right. At that point, though, (unlike what takes place in these debates every time) the burden of proof is on you, the one who wants the change. You must convince me (society).
Just as it is possible that there is something just as good as a baseball for the game that lacks either in leatherness, whiteness, red stitching-ness, or even roundness, it is possible that there is something as a good as marriage as we know it that lacks one of the traditional criteria. Similarly, it is up to those who want the change to prove the validity of their position.
So, to those of you who might be sad, crying yourself to sleep at night, I say suck it up. Hold your head up. The decision isn’t necessarily an attack on who you are, or how you were born. Understand that you are seeking to alter a definition of a thing that they understand fully. Suck it up. You need to get people to look at the baseball and ignore the red stitching, to look at marriage and see that the vastly more important thing is the loving bond between two people who desire to publicly commit to each other for their days on this earth. That the more loving relationships that are contained in “marriage” the more “marriage” will be synonymous with it. And that is a good thing. For every married couple, and for society at large.
At the same time, it is incumbent upon you to listen to the other side, as well. Even if just to understand their objections so you can address them to their satisfaction—and that truly and fairly is the burden that falls to you. Remember, YOU want the change.
Remember, also, you may be wrong. Children may very well do better being raised in a traditional household. That may be a FACT. If it is, it may be the best thing for our society to not conflate loving SS relationships with loving OS relationships. And, consequently, maybe marriage should not include SS couples. Endeavor to see how people can arrive at the position and still see you as equal to them as individuals. Try to see how a focus on children (the red stitching) doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t see the love in your relationship as equal to the love in their relationship (roundness).
You are free to put forth how you see the world and why. And do so. But do so without demonizing the other side. Many of them do NOT demonize you and they are your best agents of change. They have influence. In the end one group of people will not have their way. But we still have to live together, and the less animosity the better it will be for us all.
In the meantime, I suggest, insist on those legal privileges which, aside from being what the other side has, offer practical benefits to living in a loving relationship/ Insist on being treated fairly as far as the benefits marriage would bring, whether you are to be included under its mantel or not. Show society that you are truly interested in the rights the institution brings to human beings. That it is not your desire to tear down the institution in people’s hearts, but to live more like them. To live with the person you love as they do. To grow old with them as they do. To comfort them when sickness strikes as they do. To have the laws help you as much as it helps them.
That’s what I would tell them. Something like that, anyway.
And yes, this is what I would tell a child of mine if he were gay right now. It is what I would tell my grandchild. Proudly. I see zero shame in any part of it.
I wish you wouldn’t be. You have no reason to be. Even if I have my way, you will be able to enjoy your life with the one you love with all the benefits, rights, and privileges as two people that are married. You just won’t fall under the word. I wish you a great life, Miller, I really do.
I think everyone would grant that your way would be “easier”, if instituted. But it is not the only way. and not necessarily the best way. Also, the bolded part above points to the area of greatest resistance.
Fuck you. I’ll live how I want. Don’t tell me, or my children, we should “live more like them.”
After all this time you still don’t understand that my position is that I want them to have all the legal rights and privileges that come with marriage, but not the ability to marry?
Oh-boy.:rolleyes:
Don’t give me that crap. You just convinced me you are part of the religious right because you pull all of their tricks out of your ass.
“Not the only way.”
“Not the best way.”
One of us has “moron” tattooed on their forehead. I believe that would be you for thinking I’ll fall for your shit.
I just did. Too bad. and I’ll do it again whenever the mood strikes me. And sorry, chum, but you’re not fucking me. In fact, you can’t even blow me. And that you focused on that one sentence is telling of what a complete douche you are.
Oh, yeah, almost forgot: deal.
Rubystreak is someone I’ve argued with before, and I can safely say she’s 1,000 times more intelligent than you. Fuck off.
I’m pretty sure she realizes when you state your position it means nothing, but you present it like it does.
Who made you God, mother fucker?
Okay, I’m seeing drug use here…mixed with alcohol maybe. Maybe even some mental illness. Perhaps you should talk to your shrink, friend. Or your priest, rabbi, or imam.