And this is probably a good place to end the discussion. It displays that the SSM fans have no respect for the majority, tradition, or marriage itself, as it is generally understood. It shows that they are less concerned about equal rights than they are in trying to legitimize their relationships be hijacking an institution that arose out of a societal recognition of the natural coming together of man and woman. They are merely insisting on grabbing on the coattails and squeeze themselves into suit of respectability rather than creating their own.
Ironically, this is a course that will guarantee an us versus them mentality, making gay SSM advocates the very thing that gets in the way of the “equality” they claim they want.
Absolutely. If tradition wasn’t different and it societies hadn’t felt the need to recognize the special relationship that is only possible between a man and a woman, it’s possible that a more valuable tradition would exist. It is equally possible a less valuable tradition would exist. Or more harmful ones. Or ones more threatening to smaller groups.
Go fuck yourself. You’ve shown no attempt or desire to understand our position. You just keep repeating your personal beliefs on this subject as if they’re holy writ, when they’re not. People were making the exact same claims you are now when making the case for miscegenation, and today anyone who actually publicly advocates against interracial relationships is rightfully seen as a neanderthal, completely out of touch with both common decency and the tides of history.
Your viewpoint is doomed. And it will become nearly universally reviled relatively soon. I give it 20 years at most.
I haven’t had a reason to enter this thread before now but - You’re wrong, and jayjay is right. Nobody in this thread and others before this one has been able to convince you of this, and certainly I won’t, but I hope time will be.
Would a tradition of combined heterosexual and homosexual marriage as per the alternate America necessarily and certainly mean no recognition of the ability to procreate? I don’t see that the two are contradictory.
Yes, because allowing SSM is going to completely destroy OSM as we know it. Whatever, magellan.
BTW, do you have kids? What would you do if one of them turned out to be gay?
Maybe not. But then a word would arise to describe that special relationship. It would probably be held in high esteem for the very reason “marriage” is now. And some whiny gays would claim victimhood because they are not recognized in that more highly esteemed institution. More reasonable gays would leave it alone, of course, and just go about their lives enjoying the equal rights we all have.
Now you’ve turned into an idiot or a liar. I’ve read everyone’s post and responded to most. I have not been swayed, so what? I convey the opinions I have. Would you rather I try to convey someone else’s opinions. And I’ve commented on why this issue is different that anti-miscegenation laws. But by all means, t=don’t let those facts stand in the way of your little hissy-fit and need to demonize.
So I’m a less-esteemed, whiny person, claiming victimhood, trying to legitimize my relationship, trying to hijack an institution of which I am an unnatural outsider, trying to grab onto the coattails of something that clearly does not, has not, and will not ever apply to me?
No, I don’t see that one happening. For one thing, this word arising to describe this special relationship would not be one that applies to all straight people, so you’d have as much trouble with whiny straights as you would whiny gays (not to mention, of course, the straight people who wouldn’t agree with you on this already). I don’t agree that the reason marriage is held in such high esteem is because of the ability to procreate; were the ability to procreate special without, for example, a loving bond, then we’d be getting married and having kids all over the place.
But, perhaps primarily, I think the flaw here is the idea that marriage needs to be tied to that relationship at all. Why should it? People have kids without getting married these days. Gay people want to be able to use marriage because of the partnership elements, not the procreation elements - are you saying that you would only accept a recognition of that particular special relationship as part and parcel of all those other recognitions which the word “marriage” includes?
It wasn’t a try. I did say I would not be able to convince you. I’ve had these arguments before, and I don’t have the patience anymore to do my impression of Don Quixote.
Time should be able to convince you, when gay marriage is accepted as mainstream and the country does not collapse. You’ll just have to wait. I understand you’re anxiously looking at your wristwatch and tapping your foot, but your impatience is hardly my fault.
Cite. I don’t recall saying that. Perhaps you can show me where I did. Either that or apologizing for mischaracterizing my position.
Assuming the woodchipper wasn’t working, I’d do with them the same thing I would do with a heterosexual offspring: love them unconditionally.
The fact that you have to ask indicates that you haven’t read this whole thread. It might be a good idea if you’d like to participate more effectively.
magellan01: Read this and tell me how you feel about it:
*And this is probably a good place to end the discussion. It displays that the blacks have no respect for the majority, tradition, or America itself, as it is generally understood. It shows that they are less concerned about equal rights than they are in trying to legitimize their desire to be above their station by hijacking an institution that arose out of a societal recognition of the natural superiority of the white race. They are merely insisting on grabbing on the coattails and squeeze themselves into suit of respectability rather than creating their own.
Ironically, this is a course that will guarantee an us versus them mentality, making integration advocates the very thing that gets in the way of the “equality” they claim they want.
Well done.*
I only changed a few of the words from your post. See how horrible it sounds? That’s what gay people hear when you talk about this issue. If this is not how you want to come off, you might want to rethink your tone, if not also your content.
Oh, don’t you worry. When equal marriage is law, Magellan will go after gays in the military. When we fix that, he’ll go after something else. I shudder to think what, but he will.
He’s a wuss, stubbornly clinging to whatever hateful bigotry he thinks he still legally can, because he’s too big of a wuss to break the law.
I don’t mind an enemy who is man enough to be my enemy to my face, but Magellan is the most pathetic, infantile, impotent kind of slimy enemy. He’s to be pitied. In a straight jacket and padded cell.
That’s for you to decide. If you are on the militant side of the debate like jayjay, I’d say that hat fits. I don’t think—and hope—most supporters of SSM fall into that category. Even so, I don’t where “less-esteemed” comes from.
I will admit, though, to being a bit riled when I typed that. My anti-demonization suit is only so thick.
I’m sure it’s been mentioned before, but I forget what the response was; what ill effects can magellan01 point to in those countries which have legalized same-sex marriage? Can he bring concrete evidence to bear on his position that this will cause problems of some sort?