Just to save Stink Fish Pot some time: magellan01’s position is “Marriage is a special word, but if the inferior gays are allowed to use it, it will lose its magic powers so terrible things (that I have yet to specify despite 10 years to come with an example) might happen.”
[Note: Slight paraphrase, not an direct quote]
If one is now trying to root their opinions/arguments on narrow provincialism then one shouldn’t have also tried to preach those exact ideas also under a ecumenical banner
IOW that door has been opened and that bed has been made insert quirky joke about Peter and Paul getting laid
You’re viewing this thread as an exemplar of people arguing against Magellan, which it isn’t. This thread is people ranting about Magellan. Very different. Arguably pointless and irrelevant, but not something which shows off how the SDMB left actually engages in debate.
Also, liberals on the SDMB plenty often disagree about all sorts of things (gun control, nuclear power, Israel).
Indeed: he tried to show that, because your position is “not exactly unpopular,” we should respect it. Totally different in Bizarro world.
I can so picture this guy having a placard made up to take with him on all occasions. Once SSM happens, he can use it to point at any gay couple he believes are now legal. It will say, “That’s not a marriage, this is a marriage!” Crocodile Dundee style and then he’ll pull his wife close for a smooch.
He is married? Does Hallmark make sympathy cards that reflect such a situation?
Indeed, I don’t know where the racist comparison could come from. Certainly racists never advocated any kind of separate but equal philosophy like you are here.
Really? I don’t remember that at all. But when I said I didn’t expect you to change your mind, I meant on the specific issue of gay marriage, not just in general.
The problem is you don’t seem to understand your own proposal. You say that it does “A”, then describe a process that does “B”. I argue against “B” because what your proposal actually does in more important than what you think it does.
I appreciate this, in that I believe you are sincere and I expect that you will vote the right way and counter people who make explicitly homophobic remarks, and I’m not so short-sighted as to reject support over a difference in its origins. However, there are areas where the different reasons that gay people or those coming from a more philosophical position support gay marriage and the reasons liberals do cause tension. Chiefly is in how to deal with those who oppose it–since ultimately, the liberal attitude is “anything to do with sex is awesome and we can’t judge people” they get very uncomfortable with me telling homophobes to kill themselves or demanding people don’t eat at Chick-Fil-A. They want to “tolerate” everybody and they don’t see why I should be going to such extremes over protecting my own fetish–they wouldn’t boycott a restaurant whose CEO once gave the corporation’s money to promote anti-bondage speakers at high schools, would they?
Wow, you must REALLY like the idea of dollar coins…
It comes from people like you who are too stupid to see the differences. People desperate to label me with ad hominems, thinking, incorrectly, of course, that it somehow bolsters their position. You know, weak, dumb people. Look in the mirror.
Yeah, I guess that my changing my mind on gays in the military says about as much about my immovability on other gay issues, like SSM, as would my changing my opinion on the DH rule.
Oh, I understand it perfectly. You, possibly don’t understand it. But I’m beginning to think you do, but have decided that, “No that might actually make sense. But I don’t want that position to gain one inch, lest it gain more.”
Snerk.
Heh.
Watch out, woodstockbirdybird! magellan01 is standing right in front of you!
I’m not sure why you seem to be taking that as an insult. It wasn’t intended as one. I’m granting you the courage of your convictions. It’s a compliment. You and I have been arguing about SSM for years, now. You’ve seen all my arguments, I’ve seen all your arguments. It’s pretty clear neither of us is going to budge on this subject.
That presumes I feel there’s a genuine danger of people being convinced by your arguments. That’s… not really a huge concern for me.
I propose that we create a new name for a subset of marriage just for magellen01, but it will of course come with all of the same legal rights as “traditional” marriage. We can call it a “closeted-(weak, before he gets in a huff about the definition, again)-homophobe-and-some-arbitrary-female union”, which I think is kind of catchy. Hell, we might even expand it to other such couples (I’m looking at you polecat, if you ever stop being so lonesome), if they insist.
Next thing you know, you damned liberals are going to insist that not every hispanic-looking person in the U.S. is here illegally.
What is to stop schizophrenics from marrying one or more of the voices in their heads? Answer me that!
No one is making that argument.
There are tons of arguments for SSM. Equality under the law, for one. There are exactly zero rational arguments against SSM.
Magellan’s argument is that it would somehow make marriage less special. So fewer heterosexuals would marry. That’s just goofy.
Seriously, who fucking cares what magellan thinks? He’s way on the wrong side of history on this one, and he’s only going to be left further behind. I think I’ve made my Bull Connor/Orval Faubus speech about him before, no need to do it again.
Well, that set of rules, laws, culture and moral compass includes, as far as I know, the concept of equal treatment under the law. By its own ideals of freedom and equality (as well as the separation of church and state), the notion of making a legal distinction based on sexual orientation should be anathema to modern America and it kinda looks like it is, based on the opinions of younger Americans.
The Canadian example just demonstrates that disaster (or indeed significant social change of any kind) will not follow the legalization of gay marriage.
His opinion is something he’s more than entitled to without challenge, but he also claims he has sound reasoning behind his opinion, and that remains starkly undemonstrated and subject to extensive challenge. He’s always been free (indeed invited) to offer up a solid line of reasoning explaining why a legal distinction must exist between heterosexual and homosexuals, but so far… zilch. He instead submits that the definition of the word “marriage” must not be diluted, lest it become less special, such specialness being nothing that he can define (or at least nothing that he has defined) in any measurable way. Why this is important to him, or should be important to anyone, remains unclear at best.
Oh, I doubt anyone has that expectation. magellan’s anti-SSM stance will end when magellan does, i.e. upon his death, and that’s probably typical of anti-SSM sentiment in the U.S. generally - it’ll cease to be significant when those who currently believe it die off and are not replaced by those of similar views, to be eventually relegated to a determined fringe element, some mid-21st century equivalent of the Klan.
Rather, magellan’s statements are worth analyzing and challenging for the fun of it, to demonstrate just how empty and indeed self-contradictory they are. Possibly some undecided person will see this and be favourably influence, but even if not… well, I can only speak for myself. I like shredding his premises for the heck of it, and because my respect for arithmetic rebels when I’m told that 1+1=1.
Who are these “arithmetic rebels”, and how may I join them?