I’d be shocked if you had, as you suffer from the exact same phobia as he.
They’re the ones that attacked Fort Sumter.
Weren’t they also responsible for numerous additional crimes?
This isn’t the point. If it was, I would have stated my opinion and called you all poopie heads. I was making an observation.
I have an opinion on the subject, but I’m not locked in stone about it. And I don’t go to any lengths to share and shove my opinion down anyone’s throat.
I read this thread with interest, because I was curious to see what people were saying. I didn’t read one thing that made me stop and think… That person has a point.
When I wrote my response, it was not intended to be a support of magellen01’s opinion or stance on anything, so bringing my opinion into it was irrelevant. Perhaps you disagree, which is fine, but my intent was not to debate SSM and the pros and cons of it.
Perhaps what I DID do incorrectly is misinterpret the pitting… Someone above explained that it was a pitting of magellen01’s behavior, and not so much on the SSM argument, as that’s in GD.
But to be honest, for someone that doesn’t know magellen01 at all, or his posting style, I didn’t get a sense that this was just slamming him as a person, but slamming what he believes. Can you separate the two?
Why should we? Why do Christians think “I BELIEVE this” means something? The fact that you believe something doesn’t make it true or worthy of respect. It doesn’t contribute one speck of dust’s worth of weight to making it MORE true or worthy of respect. Thinking otherwise is narcissistic.
Magellan goes to 11. This is what it’s like arguing with him.
Why should I? If I believe an opinion supports injustice, why should I be quiet about it?
Its one thing to be wrong. Make a grammatical error, and most likely, I won’t even mention it. Usually not. Sometimes. But political error is somewhat different, add up enough bad opinions and bad shit happens. And sometimes, if you amass enough good opinion, it stops. Seen it happen. Not often enough, but it does happen.
Besides, Mags presents a special threat, due to his charm and gentle wit.
My point was that you rarely see someone defend magellan01 on this unless they actually agree with his premise. Turns out you were no exception.
I can absolutely separate the two, which is why I can both insult the stridency of his homophobia as well as debate him on the lack of reasoning behind his stance.
[ul]
[li]The closeted homophobe magellan01 can’t stop whining about the supposed trauma that society will one day suffer, years into the future, if we call SSM unions a marriage. [/li][li]The mountain of evidence he brings forth to back up this theory can be hurdled, with plenty of room to spare, by an injured gastropod.[/li][/ul]
See, separated, but equally damning.
Well, I think you have just described every religion in the planet, haven’t you? I mean, I haven’t heard of one religion where things are discussed and debated by the masses. They all work basically the same way. “Here’s the book that defines how we believe, and that’s the way things work, even for the non-followers and non-believers. Every other religion is wrong, except this one.” To make this about Christians seems to confuse the issue. Do Jews or Muslims, for example, listen to points of view that cut against the grain of their religion? I don’t think so. If that happened, I’m sure we would have seen something in the news about it.
I agree with the notion that just because someone believes something does not make it so, or worthy of respect. But what about the other side of the coin? Are you saying that if your POV is based on non-religious views, then it is more valid? Isn’t that narcissistic, too?
You don’t have to be quiet about it. In fact, I would say that if something brings an injustice, it is only going to change if you are not quiet about it. I’m just not sure I have seen anything outlined here which qualifies.
Basically, what I’ve read is that Magellen01 is a bigot. Fine. And the reason? Because he doesn’t believe in SSM, (I’m assuming this is the only thing, or at least the main thing that makes people call him a bigot. If I’m wrong, sorry. As I’ve mentioned, I don’t follow him or his posts, so I can’t tell you what he’s like). But I don’t think that makes him a bigot, does it? He mentions civil unions, and he states that a Civil Union is the same exact thing as a marriage, except for the word itself. Is that his position, or is it deeper than that? If that is his position, what exactly is the social injustice? If things are exactly the same from any POV, including legal, what is the social injustice that you speak of?
I know folks have used “separate but equal” as a way of proving how this would be unjust, as “separate but equal” never meant that in this country. I do agree, when we talk about separate but equal, it conjures up negative images particularly of the civil-right era south, but are you saying that calling a committment between two people a civil union instead of a marriage would equate to “separate but equal”, and all that the phrase has historically held. I’m sorry, but I’m not seeing it.
Is it your contention that if the law stated that two people rntering into a same sex civil union held the same rights and legal benefits and responsibilities as two people entering into an opposite sex marriage, that social injustice automatically follows? I don’t understand that. This isn’t two different water fountains. Nothing has to be constructed or divided to permit heterosexuals on one side of the line, homosexuals on the other.
I think two people of the same sex who are in love and committed to each other SHOULD be permitted to enter a legal co tract (which is what marriage is, after all) and suffer all of the same “benefits” heterosexual couples suffer by being “married”. After the first divorce, when one person is responsible for alimony, or whatever, my guess is that the idea of things being different in anyway will go out the window.
Or perhaps you could give me an example where the social inequality would be an absolute occurrence, in which case, perhaps civil unions are not the same as marriages.
We’re talking about people who want to legally subjugate gays in the United States. You know, Christians. Of course all religions are stupid, but I don’t need to establish that before discussing the topic at hand.
I don’t think we have to get to “subjugation”, I see enough purpose in “not nice”. People want a thing, their having that thing will do no harm, and might even make them better people, being not bitterly pissed off all the time. So, yeah, let them have it.
Freedom to pursue happiness, the default position. If there is a compelling reason they should not, so be it. Otherwise, we mind our own damn business.
Well, I don’t subscribe to the idea that there exist people who actually support gay equality except for marriage; that’s just something they say on the Internet to try to get you to listen to them. We all know what magellan & co are like towards gay people in the real world.
I’m not defending him on his views on SSM. And if he is indeed homophobic, then I am certainly not defending those views. If he has them, then I have no problem with you pointing them out and pitting him. Based on what has been posted in this thread, I haven’t seen anything homophobic posted by him. (I have yet to read the link provided by lhod)
You are wrong in placing me in the same group as magellen01’s defenders. Because, at least in my case, I’m not defending him. You’re making an incorrect assumption.
Heh–that link isn’t me trying to convince you of anything, it’s me having a cheap laugh, because I realized that trying to argue with him is as easy and as difficult as convincing Nigel that he could just make an amp that went up to 10, only make 10 louder. “But this one goes to 11!” Nigel insists, and “But there’s one set of laws!” Magellan insists. Now that my joke is explained, we can all have a hearty chuckle.
The problem with “separate but equal” schools as they existed in the south in the 1950s and earlier was not the separation in itself. It’s that although equality existed in theory and on paper, in practice the black schools got less funding, fewer resources, fewer services and more restrictions than the white schools, because once the separation existed and became codified, it was ridiculously easy (and I expect irresistible) for state and county officials (invariably white) who had authority over the schools to put their biases into action.
I gather you knew this already, but I supply that observation just as background to show that concerns over it happening again are not unreasonable. An example I’ve used before and present for your impressions:
So, no, disparities don’t automatically follow, but there’s reason to believe they will. Heck, would anyone have expected that as late as 2009, a justice of the peace in the United States would refuse to officiate a mixed-race wedding? It happened, and it wasn’t the first time for that particular JP, either. Predictably, the outrage was significant and the JP, Keith Bardwell, resigned (his contention was that wasn’t a racist, but thought mixed-race children didn’t do well).
Now picture government officials all across the U.S. who decide that civil unions won’t do well, and thus won’t officiate them. Will they resign? Will they receive public support in some venues?
Are these concerns far-fetched? Heck, 20 U.S. states have banned civil unions outright, so there’s no point even pretending that civil unions represent a compromise that SSM opponents are prepared to accept. If there was a federal mandate for civil unions forced on them, I can’t imagine this new form of “separate but equal” would remain “equal” for more than a few microseconds.
You mean just physically? Because otherwise this comment makes no sense. Somewhere along the way, there will have to be language that says “marriage” is for heterosexuals only, and though that line exists only in law books, it’s pretty bright and obvious. Have you thought about how “marriage” and “civil union” will actually be defined in the law books? Have you noticed that there’s a difference between them, or were you just assuming some kind of gentlemen’s agreement where everybody would just know who gets a marriage and who gets a civil union without having to say it out loud or put it in writing?
Well, get those 20 states to agree that civil unions should even* exist*, and even then, I’d have serious and well-justified doubts that inequalities will become apparent almost immediately. Actually, I think you’d have to shockingly naive to not expect this to happen. If you want absolutes, though, I wonder how you could possibly get them, if mountains of historical evidence isn’t enough and crystal-ball technology remains in its infancy.
Yes. People need to take a goddamn high school history class. Does the phrase “badge of slavery” mean nothing to you? The courts have ruled again and again that even symbolic or unintentional racial segregation is unconstitutional. Arguing that we need a separate kind of marriage for PURELY symbolic reasons fails every test. It’s not a serious proposal, it’s just tendentious bickering from people who think they are pulling the wool over the eyes of real human beings by not coming out and say what they really want, which is a return to gays being fired, jailed, or beaten to death with no consequences. You’re not fooling anyone, Christians.
Huh, just noticed the last paragraph of my earlier post is screwed up. It should read:
Well, get those 20 states to agree that civil unions should even exist, and even then, I’d have serious and well-justified expectations that inequalities will become apparent almost immediately. Actually, I think you’d have to shockingly naive to not expect this to happen. If you want absolutes, though, I wonder how you could possibly get them, if mountains of historical evidence isn’t enough and crystal-ball technology remains in its infancy.
-My writing often lacks clarity and brevity and I trip myself up.
Oh, if you only knew how wrong you are. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Living in San Francisco, I have plenty of friends that are gay. Two couples even have adopted children, and I have supported gay adoption since I first became aware of the issue. I’ve gone on vacation with gay people and shared rooms with them. I’ve celebrated holidays with them. I’ve worked with them and had them work for me. And each and every one of them would love to work for me again if I called them. But you simply must have it fit in your pointy little head that if someone takes a principled stance, not so much against SSM, but for traditional marriage, that they must be both lying and a homophobe. Oh, and based on some other of your posts, (shudder) a Christian.
You’re a nitwit and have the personality of a bully. I’d call you a bully flat out, but your too weak-minded to really be able to pull that off in full. I guess one could call you a bully wannabe. Maybe when you grow up you can be just that.
Uh-huh. And has it ever come up in water-cooler conversation that you feel that gays getting married is the equivalent of taking a big shit on the concept of marriage?
Oh, excuse me… that it “dilutes” the concept of marriage and makes it less “special.”
I don’t believe you.
Waaaah! Uppity gays persecuting Christians by not lying down for the hammer! Who will put a stop to it!