Let’s say I’m wrong. (One of us obviously is.) Why do you think there exists for you and others to demonize me or my position? I think you cannot entertain being wrong because it questions so much of who you are. In other words, the cost to you being wrong is quite great. For me it’s an issue of what is the best policy for society. What should be the age for drinking alcohol, what should the speed limit be, should we outlaw burning the flag, abortion, etc. Is it possible to argue the position and detach yourself from it? Seriously. And ask this not just of you, but of all those who have thrown out accusations of hatred, bigotry, ignorance, etc. I’d really like to know, because this adolescent righteousness is getting really really old.
I’m about to go to bed, because it is 12:44 AM and I have to get up at 7. But let me ask you this, in parting:
Why is preserving the word “marriage” the best policy for society? Is it because you’re trying to encourage people who marry to stay together? Is it to strengthen marriage as we know it? Wouldn’t those goals be better served by doing something about easy divorce and adultery than by denying an entire class of people access to the institution? What is it about LGBTetc people marrying that would cause it to be a bad policy decision?
I have not yet heard you explain why. I’ve heard you assert that denying LGBTetc access to marriage would be the best policy, but I have not heard you explain WHY that would be.
And what is “adolescent righteousness” to you is “trying to hang onto equality by our fingernails” to us. Your supercilious, condescending attitude toward us in our hour of mourning isn’t exactly covering you in glory, either.
I would also submit that it’s facile to accuse us of not being able to detach ourselves from this and argue it objectively. There is no objectivity in this for us. This is affecting US! It doesn’t do shit to you…of COURSE you can argue your end of it objectively and detachedly. There is nothing in this situation that will strip you of basic equality and civil rights. You are completely unaffected by this. Try to remember that Prop 8 was basically over half of the population of a fairly liberal state telling us that we’re not worth much in their eyes.
What really hurts is that LGBTetc people have been HEAVILY active in the Civil Rights movement and in immigration issues. We have stood behind and supported African-Americans and Hispanics in every single one of their struggles. And when it’s our turn, as a group, to need support, they aren’t there. They’re actually helping the other side, by 70% and 53%, respectively. That knife in our back hurts.
What could actually be BAD about it? I cannot conceive of how gay people being married does you material harm. It does not harm my marriage either-- it is utterly irrelevant to my marriage IMO, as my marriage concerns only me, my husband, and the government who confers benefits on me for it. I don’t see how it concerns you in the slightest. I would love for you to articulate how it does.
What harms marriage is adultery and divorce, and those are both perfectly legal and no one is doing a damn thing to prevent them from happening free from interference from the government. Really, I’d love for you to enumerate the meaningful, material harm that gay marriage would do to you. Not metaphysically, not philosophically, but in concrete terms. I am really listening and want to hear it.
Funny, that’s the issue it is for me too.
The best policy for a healthy society is for it to evolve.
I don’t understand the people who are so godawful FRIGHTENED every time there’s a change in society. That’s the core of this, is my belief. I can’t see any actual logical reason other than fear of change.
The proffered reason for magellan01 literally just looks transparent to me…there’s nothing there. I can’t see anything…it’s like a cloud of smoke.
Okay. Fair enough. But I would just quibble with your claim that your position doesn’t deny anyone anything. I think it deprives individuals, and society at large, of holding onto the concept of an institution they hold sacred, religiously and secularly, if you’ll forgive the oxymoron. Also, your latest post excepted, the attitude of the argument denies something else, as well. You deny people the right to express and opinion and simply be wrong. The demonization of the other side is really a cheap, childish tactic, especially with an opinion that is quite prevalent. Pedophilia is an extreme and repugnant position that might deserve derision. A position like the one one that hold regarding gays—wanting to extend ALL legal rights to them, save marriage—not so much.
No one can; there is none. Not for a million, not for a billion, not for a trillion. It’s pure bigotry; pure malice, and has no justification.
Yet, I favor every extending every other right to gays. Imagine that.
There’s nothing naturally mognonomus about the human race - if there was was we wouldn’t find people getting married over and over again. Upthread a couple of people have stated that their mum/friend whoever doesn’t know any gay people. Yes they do - it’s your butcher, your baker, your candlestick maker, your doctor, your lawyer, your merchant, your thief. 35 years ago my primary school teacher at my English Church of England school was gay - and the butcher had a statue of Eros in his front garden. It was normal then and it’s normal now, it’s not deviant and nor has it ever been. The Catholic nuns who strapped my mothers left hand behind her back were deviant. There’s nothing sacred about marriage - it’s a contract between two people. State of California voters- get yer nose out of peoples love lives you censorious fucks.
And I should believe you because ?
You’ve already demonstrated you are scum; I see no reason to think you have enough principles to object to lying.
Well, people have to come to grips with the fact the world isn’t flat and they won’t fall off the edge. Some people have to get over their fear and fly on an airplane.
Is it really so scary for you?
Way back in 1849, California held a constitutional convention. One of the debates at the convention was whether California should adopt a community property system for marriages or a common law property system. California had inherited the community property system from Mexico, but many people who had immigrated from the Eastern US desired to implement a common law system (which was in use pretty much everywhere but the southwest and Texas). Under the traditional common law system, at the time, all property owned by the wife became joint property with the husband when she married him. Under the community property system, property which the wife owned prior to marriage would remain her separate property. There was a rancorous debate at the convention about which system to choose. Here are excerpts from the debate. Notice how many of the arguments parallel the arguments made in this thread.
I think some people in this thread are the reincarnation of the esteemed Mr. Botts. Somehow, California survived adopting a community property system, even though it was predicted the foundations of marriage would be destroyed! It’s funny how when it comes to extending rights to anybody, the foundation of marriage is always threatened.
Bonus French bashing, too!
Agreed. He has shown himself, once again, to be nothing more than a fuckwit. An ignorant, self contradicting, hateful fuckwit, and nothing more.
There are too many like him. He’s just barely smart enough to be a troll; the others are blind and/or ignorant.
Here’s my thinking:
I feel that the ideal situation for a child is to be raised by a man and a woman. Marriage is an institution that helps foster that result. It is in society’s best interest to encourage the ideal situation for the raising of children. Therefore, it is not wrong for society to show a preference for the institution in its traditional form. In fact, I’d say they have a responsibility to do so.
At the same time, we have a group of people who are gay. There is a history of them being treated badly and not being able to enjoy basic rights. It is incumbent upon society to remedy this. They have a right to enjoy the same legal protections and privileges as the straight majority. Some of the desires this group would like to enjoy conflict with what society at large wants.
The question is how can the minority enjoy the legal rights and realize their desires when they are in conflict with the wishes of the populace. As far as legal rights, they should be granted. As far as desires, they should be considered, as should the conflicting desires of the majority.
Additionally, to what degree should the desires of a small group be allowed to undermine, even in a small way, something that society deems is in its best interest to retain?
I see it as a good compromise to afford gays all the legal rights, while denying them the opportunity to “marry”. This compromise would extend to gays all the legal benefits and privileges of marriage, yet would allow the term marriage to convey what is viewed (by some) as the ideal type of relationship for the raising of children, which society has a vested interest in.
I think this this would also be an “easier” sell to the larger population. If so, that would go a long way to helping dissolve existing bigotry toward gays.
Uh, you may want to review my initial posts in this thread. The first one is on page 4, with my first opinion offered on page 5.
(bolding mine)
Do you see how that might not be helpful, and frustrating, in a discussion?
And I take no pleasure in anyone’s pain. I did not come in here and gloat. In fact, I stayed out of it for quite some time. And when I did come in, it was to offer a counter opinion, which I hoped would be viewed as helpful. I should have known better by now, I guess.
But I reject the notion that some of that demonizing the other side is justifiable.
Just to be clear Magellan, you think it’s ok for us to have all the rights of marriage but not the name. Basically you want us to compromise our position.
However you’re not willing to compromise, even to the point of donating money to groups that want to take away all of those rights.
Is that about right?
If someone with your intellect is doing the flying, petrified. Then again, if someone with your intellect is driving a donkey I’m scared.
You are too dumb to make this worth it. I’ll continue with those smarter than you. In other words, everyone. I am done with you.
I am more than willing to compromise. If there is a ballot measure to give homosexuals the complete set of rights enjoyed by straights, save marriage, I will vote for and donate to that cause. Does that answer your question?
And please keep in mind, I do not agree that there exists a “right” to marry someone of the same sex.
Oh yeah, stupid head. You’re a Stupid Head!!!
:rolleyes:
Can’t address the question again, I see.
That doesn’t answer my question. You want us to compromise on marriage but are unwilling to compromise even if it means we don’t get those rights. That’s the sense I’m getting from you.
You’ve already said you are fine with the rights, so what you said is not really a compromise.