Well, here, in this post from 3-23-2002
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=105416&highlight=homosexual
I say, in attempting to deal with the problem of defining homosexuality:
And, then there’s this post, from 9/9/2002, in a thread you participated in:
where I talk about my coming out and close with
So, there’s two threads, quickly.
I thought that was when a nun was having her period.
More disingenuous bullshit patronizing people, trying to tell them they have no right or reason to be indignant and angry.
Regally yours,
Mockingbird
It’s news to me. I always thought he was a 'phobe.
Now I just think he’s self-loathing.
It’s news to me. I always thought he was a 'phobe.
Now I just think he’s self-loathing.
In 1304 Sciarra Colonna is said to have slapped pope Benedict XI. AFAIK that was the last time something like this happened.
Also, it didn’t solve any problems then, just pissed off some people. Oh well…
Well, perhaps Eve feels that it’s time to give it another try. 
One group tries to deny another the same rights they enjoy.
The other group tries to obtain equal rights.
You think this is “the same process”.
You’re either an idiot, a bigot, or both.
There was something in this post that nagged at me, last night. It only just came to me
I reckon that if the head of one of the most influential organisations had publicly stated his intent to prevent me receiving full equality with others then yes, I would find it hard to sleep at night. I reckon that I’d be so angry I’d react in a far more furious manner than Eve’s charming and witty OP.
What would yours be? Would you argue your right for equality, or would you dismiss it with the glib smugness evident in your post?
I’m thinking both.
FTR, none of my friends parents are divorced. This includes those where the parents hate eachother, have abused eachother or the children, or have other familys outside the origional one. I have friends whose parents are not married (despite wanting to and having lived together for 25 years) because one of them is already married to somone else. The pope, through his church, has strongly influenced his followers (and yes, I am talking about plain old “vote yes and you will go to hell” sermons on a sunday) to vote against the possibility to divorce or otherwise dissolve a marriage. It was only about 6 years ago the laws changed to allow for limited forms of divorce (limited compared to Sweden that is, don’t know about elsewhere).
Up until 91-ish, birth control was illegal, except for the pill when prescribed by a doctor in cases where a pregnancy could kill the mother.
Abortion is still illegal. We have however gained “the right to travel” to England to have abortions. This right was won about 8 years ago by a 13 year old girl who became pregnant having been raped by the father of a friend.
I can’t help but think that if Eve had been decrying the latest decree from the Taliban or some other radically conservative Islamic faith then she would be getting hella lot more back up on this. Separation of church and state is equally vital when it comes to christian faiths as to any others.
The catholic church makes the baby Jesus cry.
There’s no question of rights. Any man can obtain a marriage license with any woman who’s willing to marry him. Any woman can obtain a marriage license with any man who’s willing to marry her. No one is being discriminated against, unless you accept the idea of a victim minority group defined either solely by a behavior, or by self-claimed membership in said group.
If the state says that male/female marriage is an acceptable relationship, but a same-sex marriage is not, then there is obvious discrimination. If you do not understand that, then you have failed to understand the word “discriminate”, namely:
"to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit "
Now unless you’re argument is that a same-sex relationship is not as worthy or meritous as a heterosexual relationship, then you are clearly wrong.
But if that is your argument…well that leads to a whole different conversation, where frankly civil language is not required.
Which is it?
It’s like some horrendous nightmare version of Whack-a-Mole.
-MrVisible
Arcite please come back with some original sophistry. Your “logic” was rejected by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia many years ago. People made the arguement then that since no white man could marry a black woman and no black man could marry a white woman, then there was no discrimination. It didn’t wash then, and it won’t again soon, witness Canada and several European nations.
Do you hear that ticking? That’s the clock running out on you anachronistic, backwater bigots. Whether you are a religious bigot or a plain vanilla bigot (not meaning the poster, vanilla) your grib on this nation is slipping and the sun is going down on your reign. The time of the heterosupremist is past.
Why? What have I said that’s homophobic?
Well, it’s not really about what the state considers acceptable or not acceptable (is what you want an official statement from the government that “same-sex relationships are acceptable”?) but whether the state is going to attempt to redefine marriage as something other than what it has always been. But I’d rather get away from arguments about “discrimination.” I think that word has been wrongly vilified. We all discriminate every day. We attempt to discriminate between good and evil, between right and wrong. Discrimination is an inherent part of any hiring process: discrimination based on qualifications, that is. So if “discrimination” means “refusing to count a romantic/erotic relationship between two men as being equal to one between a man and a woman,” then I’m all in favor of discrimination.
Different logic. Obviously, there was unfair discrimination, since a white man could marry a white woman but a black man couldn’t. When a woman can marry a man but another man can’t; that’s not unfair discrimination, it’s just what marriage is.
I’m more inclined to think it’s just a fad. National Review had an interesting cover story a few years ago on how we’re living in “The Gay Moment”. I didn’t agree with everything they said, but I think their general point was correct. Any attempt to completely deny human nature itself is doomed to break down sooner or later.
You know, you could have spared me wading through some incredibly sophomoric bullshit if you’d just cut to the chase: you think that homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual relations. Can we deduce you feel they’re inferior, or are you just fucking about with sophistry again?
I could ask you to justify that belief but frankly it’d just lead to more of your tedious attempts to use arguments you don’t grasp, then more of your painfully clumsy retractions. To spare myself this sort of boredom how about I note your opinion and assure you I’ve given it all the consideration I feel it’s due.
Ah…so gays aren’t human? Or gay isn’t natural?
I’m so going to enjoy watching you try to dig yourself out of this one, Arcite. I somehow managed to miss your Neanderthal bigotry before. I guess the Hate Patrol still has some undercover agents…
Or, optionally, we’re denying a right (to marry me, for instance) to men and extending it to women. I call sexism.
Interesting the patronizing language you chose to frame things in.
“victim minority group”
We are not a victim minority group. We are a minority group that is at times victimized by sophistry spewing individuals like you.
Your behaviour isn’t solely defined by your heterosexuality because it is the prevailing norm. We often get treated like we are solely defined by a sexual act because of the lack of understanding and comfort our culture has with sex, and because it is easier to discriminate in a bigoted and aggressive fashion when it is seen as a choice and not recognized as a central part of identity.
You are a self-claimed member of heterosexuals who feel they have to protect marriage. Or at least that is how you appear to be.
Others have used the line that we aren’t discriminated against because any man can marry any consenting woman. So? I don’t want to marry a woman. I shouldn’t have my choices and the protections inherent as well as the benefits limited to being with a woman when I not only don’t want to be with a woman, but neither she nor I would be happy. Oh, but happiness isn’t important, nor is satisfaction from what I read from you. Stick with the standard and don’t open up to embrace reality and remain with the old prejudices rather than see how things are and become inclusive.
This is no different than when interracial marriages weren’t allowed. It is a fallacy to try and claim otherwise. It is two consenting adults who are being denied the right to formalize their relationship legally.