No.
This is a warning for you. You should know by now that personal insults are allowed only in the Pit. Do not post like this again in this forum.
nm
Bigot makes friends with person involved with leading protests against his company not during the years that those protests had been going on without national coverage, but after the recent media explosion. Invites him to big event that that group was planning on protesting. Now person formerly involved with leading protests writes article about how he and the company are swell after all.
See kids, this is Lawful Evil done right.
The same logic that leads people to think that marriage is a right for straights.
Nonsense. It’s simply extending marriage to more people, not “redefining” it. Redefining marriage would be like what we did by changing marriage from essentially a master-and-slave arrangement where the man owned the woman, to an equal partnership.
Because that won’t work, and goes against the whole point of civil unions; to create an inferior, ghetto pseudo-marriage. Just like there was no point in racial segregation unless the services and faculties for blacks were inferior.
Marriage is undatable.
Don’t be ridiculous. It’s an arbitrary distinction created by bigots, nothing more. They aren’t “naturally separate” any more than blacks and whites are; although plenty of people talked just like you are to defend segregation.
And if having to share offends some of them, too bad. In fact, if someone is offended by same sex marriage that’s a bonus; anyone that malignant deserves to be made unhappy.
There are taking nothing away from anyone. The mean spiritedness here is all from the bigots who oppose same sex marriage. Opposition to same sex marriage is purely a matter of bigotry and malice; morally speaking this is one of the most one sided disputes in history, with the opposition not even having self interest as a justification. Just cruelty for the sake of cruelty.
Not that I’m on the side of Chik-Fil-A, but according to the article, they HAVE stopped giving money to some pretty nasty anti-marriage groups. I’m still not going to eat there (because I never did before, anyway) but I’d say it’s at least a step in the right direction.
Saying that to a polygamist is akin to telling someone who is gay that no one is denying their right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Moved MPSIMS --> Great Debates.
Wow. Christmas:Kwanzaa::Marriage:Civil Unions. I don’t think I could come up with a more perfect syllogism to describe the inherent unfairness of marriage segregation if I tried. Thanks, I’ll be holding onto that one for future use.
Shiloh2013 is a very wrong person, if he thinks that the fact that marriage predates modern government is a rebuttal to the accusation that government has, of late, taken over regulation of marriage.
Once the government started charging married people a different income tax rate than single people, marriage started being a legitimate issue of legal challenges. It is, in essence, the government giving straight people a tax break denied to gay people. That’s a serious constitutional obstacle, which most of us are not willing to accept.
By that logic, Dan Cathy is not a bigot, since he thinks everyone should be denied the right to marry a person of the same sex.
Is Dan Cathy opposed to civil unions, or just to calling it “marriage”?
Have we established if Dan Cathy is a bigot yet or not? From what I can tell he is no longer donating money to vitriolic anti-gay groups and is shifting the money to organizations that promote family values and such.
In contrast to several other SSM advocates on this board, I am quite willing to acknowledge that same sex marriage does redefine the way that the word marriage has been used for a few millennia. However, the reasons for that definition began decades before the first call for the recognition of SSM and that redefinition is nothing more than a recognition of changes that have already occurred in society, at large.
Here are two facts: [ul]
[li]the ties binding marriage, sexuality, and child rearing have long since been irrevocably broken* and [/li][li]there are numerous societies that have already recognized that breakage, recognizing SSM not only in concept but in law.[/ul][/li]In light of these facts, arguing that we need a “new word” for SSM is neither rational nor productive.
This statement is not accurate. The vast majority of our laws and traditions regarding marriage in Western society derive from Roman civil law, not religion. The government did not “take over” a “religious act.” Rather, the entwined nature of religion and government that has generally occurred in most societies throughout history has led to confusion regarding the various roles each played, but marriage, an act that provides regulations for spousal conduct, child rearing, inheritance, and so forth, has always been a matter of civil law, even when enforced through religious conventions or beliefs.
- Chemical birth control on the one hand and various methods of procreation that no longer require copulation on the other, have severed the necessary relationships of marriage, sexuality, and child rearing.
Of course, sometimes they are.
“Naturally” is a weird word to use here. Marriage is a purely human social custom. It has no “natural” attributes other than what we choose to assign it. Race, on the other hand, is arguably something that is “naturally” separate, in that distinct human phenotypes evolved in vastly separated geographical locations - white people come from Europe, black people come from Africa, Asians come from Asia, etc. Whereas every culture in the history of the species has had native-born homosexuals in it. If you’re going to use (a highly suspect definition of) “natural” to argue for marriage segregation, you’re going to need to do a lot of work to explain why the same logic doesn’t apply to racial segregation.
In common, everyday usage, we don’t use “same sex” to refer to it. Two guys who get married don’t describe themselves as “same sex married,” they just refer to themselves as “married.” The distinction between straight and gay marriage is purely an artifact of the legal and political fight over equal treatment of gays. The term is almost certainly going to be erased from the cultural lexicon in about a generation or two after the fight is resolved.
Trans rights are a whole 'nother debate, and we shouldn’t hijack this one to discuss it.
I trust the irony in the juxtaposition of these two quotes is sufficiently obvious to not need further elaboration.
In what manner does allowing gays to get married take anything away from anyone else?
Are you poly yourself? I only ask because I have yet to meet a poly person who feels this is a valid comparison, and I’m wondering if you might be my first in that regard.
Are there any organizations that promote “family values” that are not opposed to marriage equality? In my experience, the term is almost always a dog whistle for homophobia.
Regardless, merely dropping out of the debate isn’t sufficient to demonstrate a change of heart over his previous actions. He would, at the very least, need to publicly repudiate his previous position in order to demonstrate that he’s done anything more than learn not to touch a hot stove twice.
bigot
Use Bigot in a sentence
big·ot
[big-uht] Show IPA
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
By this definition, I do not think Dan Cathy is a bigot.
Bad logic. Using the same kind of weird set-theory, a guy who hates Haitian blacks isn’t a bigot, because he doesn’t hate all blacks.