I’ve almost talked myself into this scenario. Another advantage would be this: the wedding officiator wouldn’t have to be licensed by the state, and for that matter you wouldn’t necessarily need one at all, you could just say the vows yourself. Judges wouldn’t do it anymore, but you also wouldn’t have to have a friend answer a “become a licensed minister” ad in the back of Rolling Stone in order to do it yourself.
Sorry…I copied the wrong response from my friend before. This one is worse. Re: the Restrooms analogy:
Yes it is and no it should not.
Equating the plight of black Americans from post-emancipation to current and modern day homosexuals who cannot marry offends me (whitey) to my very soul.
It is not apt, it is not correct, it is barely similar and it is patently, absolutely and 100% red-white-and-blue-star-spangled crap.
Nobody’s doing that, you doofus. People are equating miscegenation with SSM.
gods, but these Same Sex Marriage threads make me laugh out loud. I mean, here I am, in fucking South Africa, and we have SSM. South Africa! We’ve only had fucking real democracy for 15 years, people, and our gays can marry. And a bunch of bigots are holding 90% of the Land of the Free back. Some of them post on the 'Dope, too.
I don’t think you quite got the thrust of the remark. though I’m open to correction. I think the esteemed poster is pointing out that equating the struggle for equal marriage rights with the struggle for black civil rights is inappropriate. For examples, repeated remarks herein that if one is reluctant to accept equal marriage, for any reason whatever, that this is precisely the same as racial bigotry. It isn’t, for obvious reasons.
This is not to imply that opposition to equal marriage is somehow rendered acceptable, only that there is an order of magnitude involved.
There’s also been some equating of white-only vs. colored-only water fountains with marriage vs. civil unions. Although I’m not sure why comparing one separate-but-equal situation with another would be considered terribly offensive to someone*.
*Except magellan01 who keeps insisting that “straights can marry, gays have to settle for civil unions” is the ideal of equality with no separate part whatsoever.
The first and foremost objection to the “separate but equal” dodge is that it was never intended to be truthfully implemented, it was merely intended as a cover story. Of course, truly equal facilities and access would have been a practical impossibility, but it was never meant sincerely in any case. One might well speculate, in a alter-history fantasy, what might have been if it had been sincerely meant and applied, but it wasn’t.
But there’s only ONE LAW!!!
GOOD.
Correctly elucidated, kind sir.
There is no direct, unbroken line between black civil rights and gay marriage as a civil right as some would suggest here and I believe attempting to draw that line is not only a bad analogy but openly disrespectful precisely because of the magnitude of the issue.
Opposition to equal marriage (good line) is a bigoted standpoint, no matter how one arrives at said standpoint. This does not make, at least in my opinion, the entire person a bigot. If we are to believe that people can be rehabilitated after a life of crime and wrong decisions, then we must believe that of everyone, I think.
Wait a minute, that’s what an “elucidator” is? I thought it referred to an, ah, physcal characteristic, like, “Ron Jeremy is an elucidator.”
Well, shit!
I’ve noticed that people around here are not good with proportion. Binary modes are more to their liking.
As those famous musical philosophers, The Prodigy, once said - “Fuck 'em, and their law!”.
Ahh yes but what about, “Catch my pitch up…”
That’s as may be, but I was referring solely to the idea that, simply because black people do not like the analogy, the analogy is incorrect. The analogy can stand or fall on its own, regardless of how black people feel about it.
Oh, please. Atheism was just a rather minor feature of it, harped on by people like you who want to demonize atheism and have no real ammunition to do so. Which is why it’s always communism, communism, communism that gets brought up. As if communism and atheism were the same.
No; generally it has been defined as a man taking ownership of a woman, or multiple women. Not a union of equals. So by the “traditional standard”, marriage hasn’t existed for some time. Absurd ? Yes, but that’s the kind of absurdity you get when you try the “it’s not marriage unless it never changes” argument.
SSM advocates are trying to get it legally acknowledged, not change the meaning. If I saw “Steve and Jim want to get married”, no one mistakes my meaning.
But they will and do; marriage and civil unions don’t have the same body of law, or the same legal recognition. Separate but equal never works, because they are never equal, because NOT being equal is why the separation is created in the first place.
But, as pointed out lends strength to the “gays are trying to destroy marriage” crowd.
First, as I understand it the demographics favor SSM; the people who oppose it are dying off and not being replaced. Second, if they CAN do that, they will regardless of anything I say. Third, they already ARE enemies; they aren’t being “made into enemies”.
And why does how long its been going on matter ? Does that magically make it less valid ?
Yes, yes, and it “just wasn’t the same” for the Jews or women either. I hear that argument all the time, and no; just because your group was oppressed doesn’t mean you get to deny that other groups have been oppressed.
The analogy works because it fits; because it’s applicable. Like it or not.
Yeah, I’m glad those crazy guys finally found a couple of dames to marry them and… what… to each other? Ew.
Why do you feel the need to lie about common knowledge?
Atheism was a huge part, Karl Marx coined the phrase, “Religion is the opiate of the masses.”, and considered religious belief to be a control mechanism by which the elite held power and had no place in a rational workers state. It was such an important part of it that they shut down Christian religious worship in the Soviet Union and killed a bunch of Jews.
It wasn’t a minor aspect at all. But it’s a good thing this is the pit so I don’t have to debate what is an obvious lie.
The key tenet of communism is not surfing. Communists don’t surf. Not surfing is a core belief of communists.
You’re an idiot. And a coward unwilling to defend his beliefs on top of that (at least if the GD thread is any evidence).
By the way, Hitler was a Christian. 