How fucking dense are you?
This is hypothetical situation you ignoramous. It didn’t actually happen.
PMSL.
You are one thick bastard Olentzero. I’m gonna have to bookmark this thread for future reference.
So you’re making up “scientific facts” out of whole cloth, to back up a situation that doesn’t exist, in order to prove that someone can make bigoted arguments without necessarily being a bigot.
Fucking troll. What future reference are you going to bookmark this thread for, to show your grandchildren how you came this close to proving you had a negative IQ when you were younger?
Hey Blake. Any luck on that argument?
At last! A post by elucidator that I can get behind.
(So you might want to rethink that one, luci.) 
Roughly three hundred million people live in this country, Olentzero. As a percentage, I’d be interested to know just how many you think are influenced by Fred Phelps.
I believe that society is not nearly as filled with teh gay hayters as you like to think it is.
So far as I’m aware, there is no law that prevents gays from expressing and enforcing their wishes that their loved one be with them when they die.
And so far as I’m aware, gays have just as much right to dispose of their property and holdings however they wish by virtue of a will.
I suspect that what you’re really talking about are instances where someone dying of AIDS simply has not taken the necessary steps to ensure that his death transpires in the way you think it should.
Don’t know. Don’t frankly care. Those that are, however, deserve to be called on their bullshit and told in no uncertain terms that they can take their homophobic hate and shove it.
So marriage benefits are worthless? Why should they exist at all? Not everyone can afford or thinks to get a will. Not everyone gets to do it in time. Your argument is that straight couples get a huge set of bonuses automatically and gay couples should spend time and money to patchwork up the same benefits?
Fuck, at least you’re smarter than Blake. 
I repeat:
This is hypothetical situation you ignoramous. It didn’t actually happen.
You just don’t get it do you. This is to precious for words.
Hey Blake. Any luck on that argument?
Oh no, I get it perfectly, Blake. You’re pulling everything out of your ass and expecting us to accept it as a valid argument for your case. I think you’d have better luck trying to convince us the Brothers Grimm wrote an authoritative chronicle of German history. If you’re out of middle school early this year, there are some lovely bridges you can go hide under for the summer. It’s cool and dark there.
This.
Then I’d suggest you focus your efforts on that rather small population rather than trying to paint an inordinately large part of society with the Fred Phelps brush.
Nope. Never said they were.
Well, it all started a long time ago…but it’s late and I never said they shouldn’t exist. So I don’t think I’ll go into it.
No, my argument is that until the time comes when SSM is adopted, other means exist by which to acheive many of the same goals.
And “Any person over the age of majority and of sound mind can draft his or her own will without the aid of an attorney.” Link
And come on, they don’t think of it? They don’t have time? Please. Perfectly legal wills can be drawn up on a paper napkin in two minutes and written in ball-point pen. (Which is not to suggest that this would be a good way to go about it. :)) Still, anyone with sufficient concerns that their estates or their belongings should go to a specific loved one can easily draft, or have drafted, a will that ensure their wishes are honored upon their death. Then ‘not getting to do it in time’ doesn’t become an issue.
I repeat:
This is a hypothetical situation you ignoramous. It didn’t actually happen.
That you just don’t get the irony only adds to the delicious, sweet irony.
And the laughs. (Of course.)
Starving Artist, use your reading comprehension skills a little. elucidator said, and I quote:
While he did limit his argument to what he’d seen here on the SDMB, I did feel it necessary to point out that homophobia does in fact achieve the level of viciously rabid bigotry comparable to that spewed by Bull Connor, GL Rockwell, and the WCC, and provided Fred Phelps as an example. Nowhere did I assert that everyone who opposes SSM is a bigot on the level of Fred Phelps, nor did I assert that all opponents of SSM should be met with the same level of confrontation that Fred Phelps and his ilk justifiably deserve.
Nonetheless, I think it’s been made abundantly clear by those who take this issue seriously that opposition to SSM does have its foundations in bigotry, and therefore should be confronted as such. How it should be confronted depends on the situation and the person opposed to SSM, but it should be confronted.
As this happened halfway to your magical cut off point of 1000 years i’ll just claim 0.5 for this.
I’m sure you can find more yourself.
I don’t really want to highjack this thread but I’ve got to ask Jodi why only modern examples, and why only Christianity? Is it because you recognise/suspect/fear that earlier versions of Christianity were bigotted? Is it because you knew that replacing Christianity with the more encompassing term religion would have yielded more examples.
Or is it because we all know that peoples’ attitudes change over time. And that in a 1000 years people will look on the current attitudes towards SSM with the same incredulity we these days give to the inquisition and this classic
Oh and for the poster who believes that I’m not having the full human experience because I’m not going to procreate… That should deserve a Pit thread of it’s own. But I’ve got a couple of days off work, and I’m in too good a mood.
The existence of laws covering the condition known as “dying intestate” pretty much tells me there are lots of people, regardless of sexual orientation, who don’t get around to writing wills. But the laws up until this decade have seemed to favor those who were in a state-sanctioned relationship (i.e. marriage) over those who weren’t when it came to determining who inherited what in the case of intestate.
In California, for example, if the decedent was married, all community property goes to the surviving spouse. I’m assuming that the law states the date of marriage to be the effective date for determining what’s community property and what’s separate property in a marriage, and I have no idea how long that law has been on the books; apparently, however, it took until 2005 for California to enact a law giving registered domestic partnerships (RDPs) that exact same right. And RDPs were only established in 2000, which means prior to then there was no legal basis for establishing what was community property and what was separate property in a non-marriage relationship. I don’t have any cases at hand but I would be very surprised if there were no cases in CA whatsoever where a deceden’t gay or lesbian partner got screwed out of much of what they should by rights have inherited. So even the presence of a will may not have been enough.
We do not have “gay marriage” today, all of the conflict that exists today exists because there is no gay marriage. What conflict is there in states or countries where gay marriage is allowed? Gay marriage does not lead to social conflict. Bigots who want to deny gay people the right to marry, THEY cause social conflict.
BTW, for a person who thinks anyone should be able to come up with multiple non-bigoted reasons to oppose SSM (and inter-racial marriage), you’re sure having to create a fanciful set of circumstances to support your first example. I’d be more than happy to hear a real world example of non-bigoted opposition to SSM, because I haven’t heard one yet, and these gay couples are REAL. These are REAL people with REAL dreams and REAL lives, so quit it with the bullshit theoretical arguments supporting the folks who want to deny these people the rights that other people have.
Actually, that’s my attitude on the subject as well, so you can relax a little. If you want. I just thought DT was going just a bit over the top in claiming that he simply couldn’t find any way other than name-calling to be honest on this issue.
I’ll get out of the way now, so everyone can argue in peace.
The problem was that tomndebb accused me of lumping unrelated groups together with a broad brush argument, the common feature of those groups is bigotry against homosexuals, but tomndebb forbade anyone to say that those who oppose SSM are bigots in that thread. So, I couldn’t explain or defend myself there. Sort of like trying to explain how apartheid era South Africa, the Old South, and the KKK all belong in the same category without mentioning bigotry against black people.
Oh poor me. You know, I could make a list of people who do not “experience a full range of what it means to be human on the planet.” It would start with people who have numbers in their user names. I would have to add men. Somewhere along the list I would add people who have never had lunch with a palace chef or danced with a knight. But eventually I would add everyone to the list. We can all live full lives without having it all, you know.
Oh, come now! I’m quite crazy and so introspective as to be totally self-absorbed. Just ask those people over there.
Because I disagree with you, I’m dumb? No, sorry. You have to resort to ad hominem attacks rather than facts, because you have absolutely no leg to stand on. It’s really rather pathetic. My answers should be predictable to you, since we’ve already had this conversation.
Sticks and stones. Yes, I do deny that it allows for some mystical “fullest human experience.” It’s a different human experience. That’s not the same as denying that I wouldn’t be here without it. I think you can live an optimal, peak human experience without it. I also think this reason is full of shit, because if you truly believed it, you’d be lobbying to prevent non-procreating couples from marrying, because then children would think THAT was normal and OK, and they would also lose out on this fullest human experience. But you don’t care about non-procreating couples, just gays. Seems contradictory to me. Care to explain, since your intelligence is so much more vast than mine?
Playing word games as usual.
Neither can you, then, because you can’t be in love with another man. You can’t bear a child because you’re a man. Etc. No one can experience the full range of human experiences because it’s not physically or emotionally possible. This axiom is a poor reason to deny people access to equal rights.
We’ve been OVER THIS BEFORE. The norm is what’s normal. For gay people, being gay is normal. Statistically, it’s normal for about 10% of the population to be gay. Can you deny this? Is this a whoosh? You don’t have to be in the statistical majority to be fucking normal.
So, to you, “normal” does not mean “representative of the norm.” Oooookay.
That’s because you lack imagination. And a mirror.
I’d go with “magellan01 is unable to defend his ideas without resorting to third grade level name calling.” Would you say that’s a fair assessment? I think you’d sort of have to.