I don’t think he’s claimed any such thing. He’s been quite clear that his mind was changed on the subject.
If Bricker says he now favors gay marriage, I’d take him at his word there.
Scouring his posts for evidence that he once felt differently doesn’t demonstrate much, unless you want to accuse the man of thoughtcrime.
I think you mean alliteration there, Scotty.
I am not prepaird to take his word on it, since while he claims to have changed his mind, he is still argueing against the current best hope for the stuff to actually pass. As I recall, recently, he hand waved away all claims that the mass. decission might actually be correct. If he is claiming to be progay, but opposes the effcort to actually gain rights, that still doesn’t mean he is a bigot. However, it does seem awfully suspicious, and as I said in the OP, If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
P.S. I lef out one freaking letter, UncleBeer, I don’t see why I have to buy you the next round! 
Hey, while I realize there are certain liberals who value some deranged concept of “intellectual purity” that requires one’s history to be blemish-free (so to speak), I’m not amongst 'em. If someone changes their mind on an issue to match my viewpoint, I consider it a very positive thing. (And a sign of how perceptive and intelligent the person is! :D) He could well have discussed it when he changed his mind. I missed that discussion, however. In some posts I’ve run into later, he seemed to suggest that it was self-evident that he supported gay marriage, which seemed to contradict the linked post. If I missed something in the middle, it’s my own fault. Either way, I’m just glad he changed his mind. I had no intention of “calling him out” or something - sorry if my post came out that way. I consider a willingness to reconsider one’s attitudes a virtue, not a vice.
“Literation.” “Alliteration.”
That’s two letters, dear.
I also remember the thread (nearly a year ago, IIRC), where Bricker was convinced to change his position on gay marriage. Very admirable, the way he listened to opposing logical arguments and didn’t allow his previously-established ideas to interfere when he decided that those arguments made sense.
Intellectually honest and the opposite of bigotry, I thought.
The OP could learn something from Bricker.
I don’t want to turn this into a Bricker suck-off fest, but I agree with this 100%. Bricker argues more honestly and more patiently than just about any other poster on this board, including myself. That’s pretty hard to do when you are representing the minority viewpoint, as he often is around here.
Good job, Bricker! Hey, you wanna get married?
I think Bricker’s position, like mine, would be called gay-neutral. Neither pro nor anti. Therein lies a distinction that I suspect you can’t comprehend. But seeing as how you are not prepared to believe what a person tells you… that you have already formed an opinion of that person, regardless of what facts are presented… well, I’m at a loss to think of a word that describes that sort of thinking. :rolleyes:
Did YOU read that thread, Scott?
The WHOLE thread?
Especially, say, post 366 and those following it?
I am willing to bet the answer is “no.”
What’s your position on anchovies? I can’t marry someone that won’t share an anchovy pizza with me.
Aw, man, the part I missed was in that very thread. Wow, that’s really dumb of me. I’m feeling a touch like a jackass right now.
Anyway, I salute you, Bricker. Very classy.
I withdraw all of my earlier comments. All people who like anchovies are intolerant dickheads.
I keep on hearing people claiming Bricker is neutral on this issue. I can see how it is possible to argue on behalf of a position you don’t really support, but I think it is suspicious. I can also see how, in Pat Robertson claims federal judges are greater threat than al Qaeda/Nazi Germany, (which originated far after Rick’s claim to have changed his mind was written) it is possible for Bricker to be arguing that certain judges are wrong in claiming equal rights mean equal rights, but again, that is suspicious.
I argued on it for the longest time, until I was overcome by the sheer amount of hand waving dismissing the correctness of the recent decissions (cite) and just how much he turned the arguments of others into strawmen, along with backwards reason why he should not have to present an argument in favor of his position why there is a compelling reason the state should stick to the same old definition. (Handy dandy note: As I recall, his position was to claim the state had a vested interest in have couples capable of procreation, and not shutting up no matter what anyone said.) Plus, the whole feel of his using exclamation points, and his bolding words comes across as being so fucking snotty.
See? I’m oppressed, I tells ya.
So, you’re also a hypocrite.
What is this, a self-pitting? 
No, John, as you might recall, in the GD threads, people keep on using the same tired old arguments in favor of saying that gay people should be denied equal rights, and… Oh-ho, I think I see what you are saying, I shouldn’t have used the words “arguments already put down in GD”, but instead been more specific, but that fact of it is, my arguments in favor of equal rights were not “put down”, but instead ignored. I keep on countering point after point, while Bricker, et all, kept on putting up new ones, and refusing to acknowledge the points I, and others made.
Oh, stop.
Maybe I am wrong to use “marriage” to mean “religious ceremony” exclusively. No, scratch that. I am wrong to use “marriage” to mean “religious ceremony” exclusively. I will refrain from doing so from here on out, furthermore, I will restate my opinion in the terms of the debate.
I, Happy Scrappy Hero Pup, support unequivocally and without reservation the resolution that two men and/or two women ought to be allowed to marry, by which I mean that two men and/or two women ought to be allowed to publically declare and be bound by the same oaths/promises that any heterosexual couple are currently free to publically declare and be bound by.
Of course, such a declaration from me is nothing new- I have always supported it. And anyone who can read in a non-reactionary frame of mind already knows this.
However, I, Happy Scrappy Hero Pup, also solidly support the right of the Catholic Church (and, by extension, any other religious organization) to determine the eligibility of any person or persons to partake in its sanctioned rituals.
Just who the hell are you, Excalibre, to put such words in my mouth? And where in the world have I ever said anything that would lead you to such conclusions?
I have always supported separation of church and state. My Church has no authority over UU doctrine, nor would I wish it to.
We don’t determine which church gets to decide government policy. None of them do.
But I think you understand all this and are just trying to bait me, because I can’t conceive of anyone who’d be so caught up in semantics that they’d miss my meaning when I said this:
Scott, you loveable goober, if you’ve ever made any salient point here, a legion of detectives couldn’t find it. Your posts are as impenetrable as a Joyce novel and as obtuse as a homoepathic remedy enthusiast.
I do not recalling your ever saying such things, but your claims in the past that it is possible for homosexual acts to be the least bit immoral seems odd, and your claims in Pitting the attitude, not necessarily Evil Captor. Personal Responsibility- extinct? seem awfully damn close.
What the hell are you talking about?
English, motherfucker, DO YOU SPEAK IT?
Are you claiming that homosexual acts can never be immoral? Because a moment’s reflection will show that that’s just sheer lunacy.