Great. Can you explain what the problem is? Instead of pure pineapple juice, we have a pineapple/orange cocktail. Tastes great, is there something I need to be concerned about?
For some reason you’re very much against mixing the two, so let’s hear why.
Because, I’m very well aware that mixing some OJ in with the pineapple will make it a little less pineappley and a little more orangey, let’s not have that be the reason why we shouldn’t mix the two.
So, even with the subsequent explanation you glom onto my use of the word “weaken”, which I used again in my revised analogy? :rolleyes: Wow, so you really are at a loss for a substantive rebuttal. So tell me, which is inferior, pineapple juice or orange juice?
Besides, the OJ is still there for you to enjoy.
So you believe they are equal, but they should be kept separate?
What the hell does that even mean?
but other people are adding pineapple. Think of the children! How can I enjoy orange juice anymore, when people are mixing it with all kinds of other juices Next it will be milk. And that’s just gross.
Well, Mr. Pot, you can go jump in a lake. Translate that whichever way you’d wish. I’m debating here in good faith. We’ve been down this very road before. It was unproductive, even after I painstakingly explained what Separate but Equal meant and explained in detail why my idea does not run afoul of it. I thought this might be helpful as far as understanding each other. But I forgot that it would require you do do the unthinkable: answer a fucking question yourself.
You seem to be under the impression that I am here to simply answer your questions but no similar requirement falls to you. Like I said, go jump in a lake. Translate with Caligula-esque imagination.
When you describe one of them as “special”, and “a cornerstone of our civilization”, and seek to exclude other relationships from this exalted status, it sure seems like you think of them as inferior; unconsciously, if nothing else.
They’re pretty much the same to my tastes; but this analogy doesn’t map to the issue; no one’s showering legal privileges and social prestige on pineapple juice and denying it to orange juice. It that were the case, it’d be evident that such a person certainly had an opinion on which juice was superior.
I don’t think I remember those specific posts. Would you mind linking to just one for me?
And that’s fine. But how about people who don’t like it mixed? And since we are now mixing all pineapple juice with all orange juice, neither can be enjoyed in pure:eek:, unadulterated:eek: form.
That simply isn’t true. Regular old heterosexual marriage is still an option for anyone who wants it.
Okay. Marriage, as traditionally entered into by a man and a woman, is orange juice.
Allowing SSM is like adding pineapple juice. Or water. Whatever. Since gays of the sort who are out enough to marry same-sex partners are around 4% of the US population (cite), you’re looking at one part pineapple juice to 24 parts orange juice.
So you would barely even be able to taste the difference, if at all, and therefore there’s no reason to reject SSM as part of the expanding definition of marriage. Hell, the FDA would still let you call it orange juice, though I’m not offended if you want to reserve that special term (“heterosexual marriage”) for Mr. and Mrs. Orange. You can just call it “juice” (“marriage”) when us pineapples are thrown in, and we won’t mind.
Great analogy!
This analogy is nonsense because we aren’t “mixing” things. Making SSM legal doesn’t change the nature of OS marriages.
You can have orange juice.
You can have pineapple juice.
Both are juice.
“Inferior” only makes sense wham you apply a metric to something. If the metric is “inclusiveness”, then a situation where SSM is a reality is superior to one that excludes it. If the metric is “traditional”, then a scenario that includes SSM is inferior.
The analogy was only brought up to demonstrate that diluting something with another thing makes no value judgments about each of the items in the abstract. The two justices are different. Adding one to the other dilutes it—makes it less what it was.
Possibly. For now. But the institution people contemplate entering will no longer have the symbolism in once did. Now, some no doubt think that a good think, as it is more inclusive. But that just proves the point that the symbolism that the institution, and the word used to describe it, has had is being altered.
See Post 616.
Saying something is “watered down” is nothing but a value judgment. Adding something to something else dilutes it-makes it less? Is that how you feel about marriage itself?
If this is the best you can do, you might want to find a a hobby more suited to your talents. T-ball?