Having the word, which is a symbol for a foundational institution to our society, being watered down.
And if you care to search those other threads, the claim that SSM would lead to other contortions of the institution was also consistently pooh-poohed. But we can now see that the concerns of I and a few others on this board—not to mention Justice Scalia—were not fantastical:
Tell me, is just another thing to be unconcerned about?
Glad to hear it wasn’t as bad as you thought it might be. I’m a little more jaded after being physically assaulted several times, one of which sent my BF and I to the hospital. I was just bruised up but his jaw was broken. That happened in Columbus Ohio, at the time thought of as ‘The Key West of the Midwest’.
The weird thing is, you seem to be saying this as if it were evidence that your position is *not *rooted in homophobia.
Ah, the electromagnetism argument, proving that homosexuality is wrong. magellan is clearly an acolyte of Chibuihem Amalaha.
I don’t care to be on the same side as people that want to reserve the right to say “My marriage is real-Your marriage is not”, because whatever words you wish to label SSM, the only thing it will mean is “fake marriage.”
More bullshit from you. Since you indicate here that you do, in fact, recall those other threads you have participated in, how about you do the honorable thing and relay my position in its entirety.
Not that you really have to answer that.
And we have yet another admission that its not about the rights and privileges. It’s about grabbing onto the coattails of a revered institution and hoping to to be showered by its light.
Yep.
It fits well with your earlier admission that opposing SSM doesn’t have anything to do with protecting marriage, and is just an excuse to exclude people from it whom you don’t think measure up.
So now, understanding that a marriage is constituted of a husband and a wife is homophobic? Sigh. Come on man, the shark has already been jumped. No need to gild the silly.
Opinion is divided. For most American gays, DOMA was irritating, but had no substantial new effect on their daily lives. For me, it was the specific impetus to emigrate, so I bear a strong animus toward him and while I understand why he did what he did, I have no use for him at all.
That doesn’t mean I can vote for a republican, but post-DOMA I did reregister from Green to Democrat so I could have more say in the primaries. Not that it did any good.
I’ve already done so. It isn’t my fault that the position is not honorable.
I’d also like to exclude lions from the genus, Canis. Guess that means that I’m anti-lion. A horrible lionophobe! How dare you, Magellan!!:mad:
Nope you didn’t. So what you say is (checks forum) an untruth. Unsurprisingly, you are once again in error.
Whaddaya mean, now? The cornerstone of the argument I’ve been having with you for the last ten years has been that opposition to SSM is inherently homophobic. Are you literally just picking up on that now?
You’ve never proposed a mechanism. You’ve proposed a different name, and you swear up and down that that would be the only difference.
On the contrary: everybody understands what same-sex marriage is supposed to mean (even if they don’t approve) and most people in the U.S. now agree two men or two women should be able to get married. A word means what people agree it means.
How does admitting gay couples water down the word, and what does it matter if a word is watered down?
That depends. If you’re a conservative, it’s the end of the world, obviously. If you’re not, you may notice that three people saying something does not make it so.
No. Understanding that a marriage is NOT constituted of two men or of two women is what is homophobic. There’s nothing wrong with recognizing heterosexual marriage, or the importance of that specific kind of marriage in the history of the institution. The problem is excluding same-sex unions from it.
I’m completely unconcerned. You?
m: If you can actually point out a factual error in my summary, and not merely contempt, then please do so. But do keep in mind the extensive trail of searchable posts you’ve made, all to the same effect, ready for quoting by someone with enough time and boredom to show you.
Do also keep in mind that a few of your most recent posts are absolutely indistinguishable from those that would be made by someone who really does think gays are not as fully human as straights, and are actually not even natural. Indistinguishable.
Let’s explore that choice of words for a moment, shall we? Your argument is based on a word having a meaning that, unlike most any other word, can’t be changed.
“Watered down”. You’ve used “diluted” in other posts. I’m sure you know that means something of greater value, or greater validity, is being cheapened by mixing it with something of lesser value, or lesser validity. Let’s pause there and ask: Is that how you mean those terms?
Yes. Why wouldn’t it be?
I was in the middle of writing the exact same thing. The phrase suggests that same-sex relationships are somehow not as good as heterosexual ones. Expanding the meaning of a word does not automatically water it down - those are different concepts. But the implication is that if gay people can get married, somehow marriage is no longer as good or special as it used to be. Why is that so? The emotional and financial and other benefits of marriage aren’t contingent on the exclusivity of marriage.