We get it magellan01, you're the bigottiest bigot who ever bigotted. Now shut up about your POV.

The BBQ Pit
1

Bigot n. “A person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”.

Magellan01 loves the sound of his one opinion so fucking much that he’s willing to repeat it at least once a year.
2005

[QUOTE=magellan01]
No doubt I’ll get slammed for this as it is not the majority opinion here, but doesn’t it makes sense that we would have a word to describe one of the institutions that has been fundemental to our society: the one that is defined by the union of a man and a woman which has acted and acts as an anchor for the family unit. I do not mean to imply that this is the only construct, only that it has been, and is, the definitive norm.

I do not object to gay marriage on religious grounds, and I am for civil unions with all the rights that come with it. But this desire/need to erase the concept of marriage as it has come to be understood irks me to the extreme. I understand why it might be desireable for those working for complete equality, but words are helpful to us when they have specific meanings. We all agree that (I assume) that men are equal to women. Yet, it serves us well to have words that allow us to speak of each independently: man, woman; boy, girl.

To attempt to erase all differences withiin the realm of unions is political correctness run amok. We need to afford gay couples who choose to formally commit to each other the same the same advantages that heterosexual couples enjoy. But we need a different word.

I offer this only to give a gauge of how strongly I (and many others) feel about this. If I had to choose between the state recognizing civil uniuons, as I have described and I advocate, and having the meaning of “marriage” obfuscated, I’d vote to not recognize civil unions. So in the desire that I see in some to contort reality, they lose an advocate of equal “rights”. You may think this position is harsh. And it may be. But I convey my honest feelings in order to be helpful in the discussion. I think the quicker that the insistence on the term “marriage” is abandoned, the quicker society at large will embrace the concept of equal rights for gay couples.
[/QUOTE]

2006

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Have you changed your opinion? I recall that when I advocated extending to gays the exact same rights that married heteros have, minus the word “marriage”, that was unacceptable to you.

[/QUOTE]

2007

[QUOTE=magellan01]
I think this will backfire big time. Which I am glad about, as I do not advocate SSM (all other gay rights, yes). Actually, the best thing that could happen, from my standpoint, is that it passes. Even if it wasn’t quiclkly overturned it would cause such a backlash that SSM would be off the table for 20 years, and more and more laws would easily pass prohibiting the idea. It would probably allow a federal marriage amendment to pass, as well. An unfortunate consequence I fear is that it will damage the more general gay rights movement in the process.
[/QUOTE]

2008

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Like it or not, marriage is an institution tightly tied to the begetting of children. Historically, it is an institution that solidifies a relationship between a man and a woman creating a stable unit, mainly for children. This is what the word means. I don’t see why extending the legal rights afforded through the institution means we have to degrade the language. I see this simply as a strategy for legitimacy and full acceptance. And I see the benefit to that strategy. But I find it greatly offensive. I think there are other roads to that end. Demanding equal legal rights is a righteous argument—wanting what others get to enjoy without it affecting anything else. But when you ask me to contort the language, it gets my hackles up. As time moves on we make language more specific, not less.

Yeah, yeah, language changes, blah, blah, blah. But as soon as marriage becomes broader we’ll come up with another term that means what it has meant all along. So, why don’t we choose a different word right now? Civil Union sounds good to me, but I’m sure there are other terms.

And the discussion gets even more ridiculous if you want to start using terms like “husband” and “wife”.

[/QUOTE]

2009

[QUOTE=magellan01]
No. I want them to have the same legal rights and protection. But that doesn’t give them the right to spread the nonsense that A + B = A + A, when A does not equal B. Next thing you’ll be trying to sell is that a marriage is constituted of a husband and another husband.

[/QUOTE]

2010

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Wow. I’m sure those children who get the less-than-normal childhood are so lucky to make the sacrifice for your social agenda. You’re a peach.

By the way, I’m pro gay marriage, so save it
[/QUOTE]

Wait…what???
2011

[QUOTE=magellan01]
That’s not my position. It’s that two different groups can both tap into the same set—1 set—of benefits. For instance, two groups, women and men, both enjoy the same privileges when it comes to one set of voting laws. Two groups, one set of laws. Works just fine.

We can do the same thing with those joined through traditional marriage (heteros) and civil unions (gays). Two groups, one set of benefits and privileges.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, must’ve been a weird thing with the time continuum then.
2012

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Oh, I think that SS couples should enjoy all the legal privileges and protections that married couples do. Just call it something else.
[/QUOTE]

2013, the same ol’ shit from magellan01 is going on.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Let’s see, two groups, men and women, are subject to the same traffic laws. Is that odious because two groups are being treated as separate but equal? Therefore, “not really equal”?

Similarly, having two groups, SS couples joined in Civil Unions and OS couples joined in Marriage, is a simple and workable solution. All it requires is that the two groups have access to identical privileges and benefits. As long as they are, you’re not in a “separate but equal” situation. The fact that this still comes up is astounding. It shows a profound misunderstanding of what the term means, the history around it, and why it was such a bad thing.

[/QUOTE]

We get it. It’s tired. You’ve repeated the same stupid fuckin argument for 8+ years now. You are the very definition of obstinately or intolerantly devoted to your own opinions and prejudices.

Consider this thread a service to you. A place holder so you can just point to your POV and not have to repeat it anymore.

2

I admire the effort that went into this pitting. And the content as well.

3

You start the thread by making us read nine posts by magellan01? What did we ever do to you? :mad:

:wink:

4

A simple question, for a simple man/woman/whatever: do you plan on doing similar pit threads on others who I have debated with in each and every one of those years? You know, all those other horrible people that have expressed their opinion year after year after year?

5

Bah, the last thing I want to do is read quotes of that guy’s nonsense.

Can’t you just call him a fuckwad and not back it up with anything?

6

Hmm, are their opinions equally pants on head retarded? By equally, I don’t mean “separate but equal” but actually equal. Apparently that distinction is important to you.

7

The problem is, nobody else has such a transparently stupid opinion that they’re clinging to. You’ve had it explained to you seven ways from Sunday what’s wrong with your stupid traffic analogies or whatever, but you simply can’t get it.

If someone comes in here saying that 9/11 was planned by George W. Bush and his cabal of Jewish Overlords, and they say that for ten years, it’s them, not those who argue against them, who ought to be Pitted. You’re the Truther of the same-sex marriage debate.

8

Unsurprisingly, you miss my point. There’s seems to be somewhat of a bee in your bonnet not only as to the content of my opinion, but that I’ve shared it (at least) once a year. Surely, you can see where I get that from:

Recognize it? Those are your words. Which led to my question, which I will repeat for you, the slow of thinking:

A simple question, for a simple man/woman/whatever: do you plan on doing similar pit threads on others who I have debated with in each and every one of those years? You know, all those other horrible people that have expressed their opinion year after year after year?

9

Do I now have to school you on yet another fallacy, namely Appeal to the Masses? I’m going to have to start charging you for this tutoring. :wink:

10

Jeez louise you guys, it doesn’t matter if magellan01 spouts endless pathetic arguments against gay marriage that get worse every year or if he acts like an ass and shows zero critical thinking ability. It’s wrong to say he’s prejudiced against gays because he doesn’t like it when you say that. Why is that so hard to understand? Are you incapable of accepting magellan01’s word at face value because you’ve read and understood his arguments or something?

11

Hmm, are their opinions equally pants on head retarded? By equally, I don’t mean “separate but equal” but actually equal. Apparently that distinction is important to you.

Seems like that bears repeating:
Hmm, are their opinions equally pants on head retarded? By equally, I don’t mean “separate but equal” but actually equal. Apparently that distinction is important to you.

12

I don’t see anything in those posts about what sort of car he drives, or what it might have to do with possibly being a bigot.

By the way, I believe the correct term these days vis-a-vis opposing gay marriage is that one has not “evolved in his opinions”.

13

Meh, at least he is consistent. I don’t agree, I believe in SSM but there are millions of people who are willing to give marriage rights to the LGBT community that do not want it called marriage. Welcome to the diversity of opinions that is the Dope, IMO he is not a bigot, narrow minded but no bigot.

Capt

14

You couldn’t tutor me if you tooted a flute, dude. The point isn’t that you’re wrong because everyone disagrees with you: you’re wrong because you’re a stubborn moron. The point is that you’re wrong despite having had your errors explained to you in a wide variety of ways. If only I’d explained it to you, the fault might lie with my pedagogical skills. But that’s clearly not the case.

15

Being consistently wrong - while being stupid and disingenuous and whiny about it, I might add - is not a virtue. It’s actually kind of bad.

16

That would make a decent sig, maybe drop the hyphenated parenthetical for brevity.

17

Guess you see the problem of your post. So, my stating my opinion is not the problem, it’s the content of it. But then why go through the exercise of searching for those old posts. You’re not thinking straight, friend. You’re just whining.

18

Did you think you were being Pitted for having opinions? You’re being Pitted for having a stupid opinion.

19

I am too lazy to actually read through his posts. Can someone sum up for me what his opinion is that he is being pitted for?

20

Yes, yes, we *know *you don’t want to have to refer to the fudgepackers and bulldykes with the same word you use for normal people.

Too damn bad.