Yes, well…QED.
Not all dictionaries define the word that strongly. This one, for example.
You’re right.
I prefer to live in a country where marriage is reserved for one man and one woman. But I understand this is a personal subject and reasonable people may feel otherwise. This is the difference between liberals and conservatives: the former “knows” those with opposing views are simply wrong.
A few years ago, Ohio had a constitutional amendment to ban SSM on the ballot. It also banned anything simulating marriage, which is to say civil unions. Droves of people who didn’t want to outlaw civil unions or equal rights voted for the amendment because to vote against it would have been voting for SSM, or to redefine marriage. It passed by a wide margin, and as a result thousands are being denied equal rights because of someone’s wrong-headed need for some linguistic revenge.
And there is no good reason for that whatsoever. You might as well say that you “prefer to live in a country where marriage is reserved for couples of the same race only”.
:rolleyes: Oh, please. Conservatives are known for their rabid intolerance and self righteousness; it’s one of their hallmarks.
Conservatives have been given their chance to explain why same sex married is wrong or a bad idea; they’ve failed miserably. Liberals here just want same sex couples to have what everyone else has; it’s the conservatives who “just know” the other side is evil.
I agree that thousands are being denied rights because of wrong-headed beliefs, but there was no need to support that referendum just to prevent SSM. It was not legal in Ohio prior to the referendum and people who were not frightened into voting for the issue for bad reasons could have voted against it and then insisted that a new and differently worded amendment be passed. Voting against that amendment would not have made SSM legal in Ohio, it would have left SSM out of any Ohio law, so there was no reason to vote for such a poorly crafted law.
That vote passed due to scare tactics by those who opposed SSM, despite efforts to show that it was punitive toward many other people. That is the legacy of anti-SSM forces.
I had no idea there were still people on this board, liberal or conservative, who believed gay people should not be allowed to marry. I really just do not get it; this seems like a clear cut case of civil rights and what is the correct thing to do.
I wish self-hating gays who have to preen on and on about the personal “civility” and soft-spokenness of people who want us to die would stop being given a voice. But the whole cult of “niceness” in tone and “dialogue” and “compromise” overriding doing what is right is exactly what Obama campaigned on the first time, so it’s not surprising to see one of his fan blogs like the Huffington Post pick up on it.
Are you actually saying that the stripping of legal rights and protections of homosexuals in Ohio is the fault of the homosexuals themselves?
I’m not sure if that is a greater offense to morality, or basic logic.
While in the case of same-sex marriage, you’ve got a point… it’s sort of funny that you, of all people, would make it. You’re about the definition of liberal rabid intolerance and self-righteousness, aren’t you?
Why would anyone NOT be intolerant of homophobia? If you “tolerate” that you’re flawed.
Yeah, well, Ted Bundy could have had a mean chocolate cookie recipe. Maybe Ted Nugent makes an awesome pizza. Would you want any knowing what we know now about them?
I’m not saying you’re wrong. It’s just that Der Trihs has a tendency to argue in a very black/white, you either agree with him philosophically on all counts or you’re a bigot viewpoint.
But approaching any debate with a stiff-necked refusal to grant that the opposition is anything but a bunch of hatemongers is definitely the sign of someone intolerant and self-righteous. I’m just surprised to learn that DT isn’t fine with those characteristics (in and of themselves), given his own self-assuredness.
I mean, when the debate is over whether sexual minorities should be given equal legal rights (which is the MINIMUM standard of so-called “tolerance,” not some huge concession) then yes, the other side is “a bunch of hatemongers” to the extent that the “hate” concept is useful. That’s just what words mean.
Because the opposition is a bunch of rabid bigots. The modern Right is a very extreme, very nasty group of people; there’s grey on a lot of issues, but the Right left grey behind a long time ago.
It is redefining the word, a modest change perhaps, but a clear expansion of the definition.
What anti-SSM folks fail to show is how any such definition change matters to anyone but a few etymologists. My marriage will still fit the definition, and so will theirs, so why do they fucking care?
Nobody’s happiness should be denied in order to save Webster the trouble of updating an entry in his book.
There was no stripping of rights because the rights never existed. The constitutional amendment simply meant that no law could be passed and no court could back door it. And yes, it is the fault of stubborn gay rights militants that there is no civil union with full equal rights in Ohio. It could have been. But no, better to not have it at all than to not call it marriage.
If full legal rights via civil union contracts (which should be none of the government’s business) could be a reality nationwide tomorrow, the militants, incl many on this board I presume, would still say NO because it wouldn’t be called marriage. Again, that’s just a mean-spirited desire to be in your face, and operates counter to the professed goals.
No, it’s the fault of homophobic bigots.
If it isn’t called marriage then it isn’t equal. That’s how marriage law works, and that’s the point of civil unions; to be inferior.