Your exchanges with jayjay have been barbed but just barely acceptable in my opinion. This isn’t. If you want to be this personally dismissive and derisive, do it in the Pit.
No one here has made that argument.
Yes, I can: it has no bearing on what our laws should be.
I guess he had to insinuate and run. I’ll catch him later.
Another consideration is that there is an active, and sizable, contingent of people that want SS pairings to not happen at all. Why should any gay person trust that Lucy won’t yank that football at the most inopportune time? Better to have everything on equal footing directly from the start.
Yes, this is really the underlying rationale for opposition to settling for separate but equal on this issue. Every time there’s a civil union, or even a domestic partnership (which is several levels below CUs) bill or referendum up for vote, it’s as heavily contested by the right wing as actual marriage equality is. If it’s just about the word and folks like Shiloh and gelly don’t really HATE gay people and only object because TRADITION!, then why is opposition to civil unions or even weaker extensions of relationship recognition so fervent?
Don’t worry. I won’t make Shiloh or gelly hang on those tenterhooks. I’ll just tell you why…BECAUSE IT’S NOT ABOUT THE WORD! The word is only a way to make the opponent of marriage equality not look like a Westboro member. Most of them don’t really care all that much about the word. They just want to make sure they, as defenders of the straight traditions, stay on top of the hill by themselves.
Additionally, opponents have to stop saying, “But this is the way it’s always been.” SSM is fully recognized in 11 countries and somewhat recognized in several more (such as the U.S.). It’s already NOT the way it’s always been and hasn’t been for a little while now.
Yet many gays want very much to marry.
Marriage is not a biological event, it’s a human invention. We own it and can do whatever we want with it. It serves us.
But they all say “Title.”
Every married couple has different names on their marriage licenses. But they all say “Marriage License.”
Further, I’m pretty sure the engine behind marriage is the codification of property rights.
And hey, if we always went with “this is the way it’s always been,” women would still be all at home wiping children’s butts and making sandwiches, signs would still be up in the South saying “Whites Only” and we’d still be British, just to think of a few off the top of my head. It’s a worthless argument.
Well, not just that. That actually goes with biology and children, because it preserved property for “legitimate” children only. If marriage were about only property, we’d be marrying our business partners.
My point is that we can change the purpose of marriage if we want. We did a long time ago - among heteros - and now we can accommodate others who want it too.
So, I have to ask here, as I think it will shed some light on the issues here:
magellan, Shiloh2013, do you believe that a human being is born gay, or that it is a choice that a person makes for reasons outside of the scope of this conversation?
I’m also unclear how someone being not opposed to polygamy (or polyandry) in a legally defined structure between consenting adults is damaging to the fabric of society. magellan, if you could define that for me I would appreciate it.
It is a gibberish argument. You are asserting it is so, because it is so. This ignores that marriage has shifted throughout history. Polygamy, chattel, interracial bars. All these things have shifted. You are holding on to the current form, when it is nothing but a snapshot of something fluid and in motion.
See above, and also note that in all your thousands of posts about SSM that you have made, you have never once, uttered a single rational argument for banning it.
My position isn’t that it was allowed before. It is that it should be allowed.
When interracial marriage was illegal (in living memory) it should have been allowed as well.
I didn’t need much time at all. You are simply asserting you’re right, based on nothing more than your say so.
Still waiting for an answer to this. I answered your question honestly, care to do the same?
I can’t believe in 2013 we’re still having this argument. Face it gay marriage opponents: your time is over and done. You are the same people with a different face who opposed interracial marriage yesterday; now it’s homos marrying - and let’s be frank, this is all about boy-boy sex.
Marriage is not about the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex. It’s nominally about the ability to marry whom you love, but even more it’s about the rights that are granted to you when you do.
While probably true for some, that’s kind of a low blow.
Do you support polygamy rights then?
(I do, along with gay marriage).
The anti-gay people are a bizarre breed. Their lives revolve around perpetuating a second-class status for a class of citizens, yet they refuse to be called “bigoted.” When your grandfather was marching with signs that said NO NIGGERS IN WHITE SCHOOLS, do you think he took “racist” as an insult, or a term of pride? Why do you care so much about being accepted as a great person by the people you want to destroy? Absolutely absurd.
Of course. But even beyond that, consider the fundamental evil of the argument they falsely claim to believe in. “Gays should be able to have all the same privileges of marriage, but it has to be called something else.” They’re saying that even though they can’t come up with any valid reason at all to oppose same-sex marriage, they insist on putting a badge of inferiority on homosexuals just for being homosexuals. It’s dropping all pretense of religious, historical, or semantic concern and just saying that they’re going to legislate spite simply because they have the power to do so. The legal equivalent of “I’m punching you solely because I’m bigger than you and you can’t hit back, freely admitting that you’ve done nothing to provoke me.” What a crock of ridiculous priorities and insane motivations.
Please don’t link opposition to same-sex marriage, or bigotry in general, to the South, it’s illegal in 41 states, not just the South.