Anyone else think it’s kind of disturbing that the constitution protects belief in an invisible sky daddy more than it protects immutable, unchanging personal characteristics?
Actually, there is a lot of debate there - predominately over what that role is, and how much of what we attribute to men and women is biology vs. sociology. Take basically any gender-specific trait that isn’t purely physiological - basically anything beyond “men are on average taller and more muscular, women have vaginas, etc.” and you’ll find that it’s almost certainly going to be contentious. I mean, is it just a coincidence that so many of these things attributed to women are based on 18th-20th century female behavior in the western world? Behavior strongly constrained by an extremely patriarchal society in which women only quite recently gained such basic rights as the right to vote?
In the meantime, we’re on a debate board. We’re exchanging ideas. You questioned me and I gave you 1) my interpretation of what another poster offered and @) my reason for doing so.
Now it’s your turn.
I have no idea what sets of laws you are referring to. As I’ve not suggested any scenario that would use two sets of laws. Maybe you’re confusing me with someone else. Maybe you’re just confused. Maybe there are other explanations. Perhaps one that would account for your odd method of debating things that you could’;t be less interested in. Not to mention your posturing that these answers haven’t been supplied to you and others in previous threads.
Yeah, because the biggest problem facing the world today is that we don’t have enough people.
You are welcome to sacrifice your own happiness for the sake of your ideology. That’s why no one is advocating making you marry someone of the same sex. Even if you’re queerer that a 3 dollar bill or Marcus Bachmann, you can still marry an opposite sex partner. But you don’t have the right to demand that someone else sacrifice their happiness for the sake of your ideology.
One of the major reasons gay marriage has gained such rapid acceptance is that as soon as people try to look their children, friends and loved ones in the face and tell them that they must sacrifice their happiness in the service of some unevolved social ideal, they immediately realize that they are totally and completely 100% wrong. Ask the Portman family about how this works.
This idealization of the traditional nuclear family is just more right wing hypocrisy. Do you know why this country instituted all the social safety net programs that you guys are trying so hard to dismantle? They did it to allow families to remain intact during difficult financial times. The friends/family/charity solution that the Republicans are trying to revert to is notorious for breaking up families because friends, families and charities that want to help out usually don’t have the resources to help the whole family as a unit.
If you would take off your blinders you would recognize what a boon gay marriage is to the concept of the American family. Here you have this whole huge group of people that want to enter into lifelong committed relationships and nuture, raise and educate children that are not biologically theirs – many of whom would not have had the benefit of a stable family otherwise.
You guys are not pro-family. You are in favor of a certain narrowcast type of family and you are willing to cut a swath of legislative and moral destruction against any family that doesn’t fit your idea of what the annual Christmas card should look like and you don’t care who gets hurt as long as it’s not you.
And stop arguing from the dictionary. It’s tedious. Anyway, the invisible hand of the free market …you know, that infallible entity that Conservatives think can do no wrong… has spoken and effectively rebranded the SSM argument as Love vs Hate.
I asked you what the phrase “set of laws” means. You haven’t explained and your use of the term has been kind of circular. If you mean one piece of legislation, for example, I would answer that one piece of legislation can treat people unequally.
My own marriage has not been affected in any way by the fact that same-sex couples have had equal access to it for over a decade now in my state. In any way. Nor has any other mixed-sex married couple’s. Some even say they feel the importance of it has been deepened now that it represents something more just and fair and civilized than it used to - if that’s enough “change” to overcome your hysterical denialism, then so be it, but it’s a *good *thing.
You offer mixed-sex couples access to a set of laws allowing them to use the word “marriage”. You deny access to that set of laws to same-sex couples, forcing them to use a set that is very similar but *denies *them the use of that word. Therefore they are not the same set of laws despite their similarity in every other respect.
Now why does that matter? MA CJ Margaret Marshall explains:
Could that be why you think it’s so important to *preserve *the distinction? :dubious:
And that’s what separate treatment leads to. Which is why separate but equal is a lie and therefore impermissible. You may be getting there, but it’s clearly painful for you.
Until magellan01 explains what a set of laws is, I don’t see why we have to bother figuring this out. Because to my way of thinking it doesn’t matter if you have one “set of laws” or two. The question is what the law does, not how many laws there are. You can discriminate with a single law, and if the laws discriminate against gay couples, that’s wrong.
magellan isn’t “reaching” anything. These are the exact same arguments he’s been using here for at least five years and they haven’t changed a jot. He’s stuck in a rut. He’s comfortable there.
I understand that, in fact it is the entire point of the SSM discussion.
Here’s the problem, the anti-SSM side comes down to “I don’t want change.” as the entirety of their argument.
I can appreciate that a person may not want change, but that alone is not an argument supporting the status quo. You need an underlying reason to not want change, something about the change that is actually bad. Reminding me that we are talking about change is not an argument.
I remain unclear on how two laws - one defining marriage for heterosexuals and one defining civil unions for everyone else - morphs into equality when combined into one “set” of laws.
magellan has yet to clarify, despite advancing this peculiar arithmetic for quite some time.
Jesus, tom, did you hit your head lately or something? What bigot, in the history of people being dicks to each other, has ever said of his victim, “Of course he has the right to do that! I’m just going to go after him anyway.” White bigots didn’t think blacks had the right to vote. Male bigots don’t think women have the right to own property. And straight bigots don’t think gays have the right to marry. That’s the fundamental problem with bigotry - people who are bigots think their victims have less rights than they ought to.
I’m assuming you’ll accept “homophobe” as a sub-category of “bigot?” Normally, that’s not something I’d think I need to ask, but given the crazy-ass shit you’ve been posting in this thread, that doesn’t seem like a safe assumption any more. I tried to do a search on “I used to be a bigot,” but everything that came up was in regards to racism.
Interesting, by the way, that you didn’t have any trouble with the idea that people who used to be racist would refer to themselves as former bigots, but balked at the idea that people who used to be homophobes would use similar language.
