Oh, my god…gelly’s thrown it all away and joined the Freudians!
Hell, yes, I refuse to accept a ghettoized pale copy of the actual societal recognition of my relationship. Nice try, though, thinking you can convince me I’m the gay equivalent of an “Oreo” or something. Amazingly childish thinking from a supposed adult…
Sharing an insitution is one thing-being restricted from one institution and restricted to another institution is entirely different.
You say something or other is proven and lapse into invective. I don’t think I can talk to you anymore. Go ahead and have the last word, you no doubt need it.
hint: why don’t you say I can’t answer your brilliant questions and declare victory, lol
How is race not part of the evolution of the institution? Again, you have to resort to utter nonsense in order to even try to make a point.
I’m not angry, I just don’t have a lot of patience for someone offering drivel and calling it a rational argument.
Is this going to lead to unisex bathrooms? 
I don’t know if that post was your best-argument, but either way, I think this first sentence is where we part. I don’t think the gender of the spouses is a fundmental part of marriage, I’d call it a distinction without a difference. Different terms from opposite-sex and same-sex marriages make as much sense as different terms for interracial marriages, interfaith marriages, different-handedness marriages, or any other variation of humanity.
Those are inanimate objects. I told my car it didn’t have the right to a speedy trial this morning, it didn’t seem to care one way or another.
It’s not inherently heterosexual to marry someone; it’s really not a “heterosexual model”.
No, it’s the not literal word that matters, it’s equality. If you change the word marriage to Spousecontract, that’s fine as long as everyone can legally and equally get Spousecontracted.
Yes, I’m sure that empty arguments (and worse, OLD empty arguments that everyone here has read before and most don’t find convincing) hurt me so much, coming from someone who joined the message board within the last week (or did you?).
We can also change the meaning of pen to mean a carburetor. The fact is that although the definition of marriage has changed slightly over the millennia, in Western Society it has been largely and remarkably unchanging for hundreds and hundreds of years. Hell, even the Mormons saw the error of their ways and have given up the nonsense of polygamy. The very seem nonsense that jayjay thinks is just fine. As it no doubts adds to some colorful rainbow of wonderful choices. :rolleyes:
jayjay, don’t accuse other posters of breaking the rules in GD - or anywhere outside the Pit. Put it in a thread report and leave it to the mods.
The dictionary isn’t the arbiter of rights.
In the fifth century the dictionary definition of marriage in Europe would have been very different to what you advocate. Why then, do you think the dictionary definition is somehow the binding force?
The dictionary describes rights as they are enacted by society, it doesn’t grant them.
It’s pretty obvious biologically what the engine behind marriage being inherently man and woman. If you are saying marriage evolved to keep races apart, you’re going to have to support that.
Also, when you call someones position drivel, that’s anger.
Is that why the Montgomery Bus Boycott occured, the black riders found riding in a section with other black people distasteful?
People dislike being segregated, either physically or in legal institutions.
Well, seems like you’ve got jayjay down. It really is a waste of time. The funny thing is that that is the complaint he levels against me and others. Translation: “How dare you not be sway to see things my way?!! You, you, Hetero, you.” Rich stuff.
I didn’t say I think it’s fine. I said I don’t CARE. And yes, that’s essentially a selfish approach, but you know what? I. Don’t. Care. I’m working on MY rights at the moment. When I HAVE my rights, legally, then I may hook up with the polyamory groups and help them. But essentially, right now, I’m busy with my own problems, because people like you are trapped in amber and think everyone else should be, too.
But the truth is, and I know this hurts, but let me point to the previous paragraph and repeat, I don’t care, that at some very near future point, you’re going to be as relevant as the individual bee or mosquito or wasp or whatever in any given piece of amber. The world will go on ahead of you, whether you step aside or it has to roll over top, and you’ll be left behind, to join the ranks of people like Bull Connor and Orval Faubus and George Wallace in the collective mind of future generations. You’ve lost already. You just don’t accept that yet.
I’m assuming everyone could get spousecontracted, we’ve being calling it civil union. Am I correct that even if all unions were regarded as civil unions, you would still object to any terminology that differentiated by virtue of the physical gender makeup of the union?
Loving vs. Virginia was 1967. It has not been unchanging for hundreds and hundreds of years.
If you’re going to play at metaphors, get them right. We have different common names for different forms of vehicle. Just like you can still call a gay marriage a “gay marriage” if you want.
In laws, these vehicles are all referred to with a single name: vehicles (or motor vehicles). So…exactly the opposite of what you’re trying to imply.
The only situations in which individual vehicle types ARE distinguished is when special (discriminatory?) laws apply to certain types, such as laws written regarding the use of the cargo area of pickup trucks.
Hence, those of us who advocate marriage equality are a little suspicious when folks say, “nah, we’ll give it a totally separate legal name, but don’t worry; we promise it’ll be equal and stay that way.”
It’s increasingly clear that your main concern here is that you don’t want to share your precious institutional name with the gays.
Fine. I’m a straight married man. Two months after my wedding, I was happy to attend my best man’s wedding. To his husband.
If you don’t want to share, that’s fine. I do. I own “marriage” just as much as you (maybe more? are you married?). And so do more and more of my friends. And we’re just going to outvote you.
Or dismissal. Or a recognition of fact.
But race isn’t relevant! Mostly because it weakens gelly’s argument horribly…
My titles all say sedan or suv or pickup truck.