This would be hilarious if it weren’t so so sad.
So, Mags, let’s say a life long friend came out to you, you didn’t know he was gay until he told you so. Naturally, being a tolerant sort of fellow as you are, you assure him that your friendship is secure. Then he tells you he is going to have a more or less traditional sort of marriage ceremony, and wants you to attend, it would mean a lot to him.
So, do you chuck your principle overboard, or your friend?
For most words, no. But words can be powerful symbols. Sometimes important symbols. Like “hero”, which I also lament the dilution of and think it should be stopped. But you and others on the pro-SSM side know this. It is the precise reason that they insist on using the word. And when pushed, they admit this.
But I see an avenue that allows a break from the status quo, that gives gay couples the exact same legal benefits and privileges as their straight counterparts, while preserving the traditional definition of marriage. As I’ve stated, it’s win-win in my book. But that is, of course, because I value both of those outcomes. I know others don’t share the latter, but to jump from that disagreement to BIGOT is pretty comical. Especially coming from those on the left.
The difference is that you’re happy having it mean solely the committed love aspect. I want it to communicate that and the traditional meaning of the word which represents a valuable cornerstone of your society.
For example, the word “one” has a meaning. It’s not the one magellan01 keeps trying to use in the GD thread.
Good question. I don’t know. It would be a tough one, but I think I probably would make a polite excuse and not attend. Not sure, though. I’ve not attended all sorts of things for various reasons.
You came into this thread to offer that? Could you get any more lame? Yeesh!
Of course, this has been explained in detail in the GD thread, which you’ve no doubt seen. Yet you’re unable to digest the words. Odd attribute for a moderator, no?
I’m reminded of the joke
Q. What do you call a black man who flies a plane?
A. A pilot, you racist.
For years (over a decade as near as I can tell), of course, pilots were all white. But when that changed, we didn’t have to create a new word for black people who flew planes. We didn’t dilute the value of an aviator’s license by allowing black people to get them. We didn’t see that, once black people could get aviator’s licenses, fewer white people applied for them. We didn’t see people arguing that the idea of a black pilot was nonsensical.
Other professions are even more dramatic in this respect. We did not need to invent a new title for the first black man elected to our chief executive position. The first woman who became a professor at Harvard was called a professor. When Episcopals consecrated a gay bishop, his job title was “bishop.”
As our society becomes less prejudiced in various arenas, more opportunities are regularly opened up to the traditionally oppressed. They are able to participate in aspects of public life from which they were previously forbidden. We do not need to invent new words to describe their participation in those aspects of public life; to do so continues the shame of prejudice. We need to welcome them into these arenas from which they were forbidden.
Pretending you’ve made your point in another thread, when you actually haven’t, is kind of a bitch way to argue, bro.
And herre I thought you’d have such a firm grasp on the “bitch” way to do things. You disappoint again. But, admittedly, only a tad, given the level of expectation.
Traditionally, this is the point where you begin to obnoxiously include the word “Winning!”. It’s tradition.
I’ve posted several times. Maybe you don’t dislike gays- you just can’t count.
And historically, the preservation aspect is part and parcel of being a bigot. If you don’t want to be considered a bigot, you shouldn’t say things that trip the bigot alarm.
Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Wait, you’re wrong again!
Next.
Countdown to “I know you are, but what am I?” in 5, 4, 3…
Question: Are you of the mind that all bigots necessarily believe in the preservation you allude to? Or is it that every single person who believes in the preservation aspect is necessarily a bigot? You seem to allow for the possibility that believing in the preservation aspect and being a bigot is less than a one-to-one relationship. Is that right? And if so, shouldn’t it be incumbent upon others to make that distinction rather than me having to avoid voicing an opinion just to avoid being labeled in a way that may not be true?
Magellan schooling us is like the final scene in a murder mystery where all the suspects are in the same room, and the detective is about to reveal the killer. But the detective has Down Syndrome.
The primary means by which we “treat” one another is through language. If you’re calling someone a special word to account for their special status, you’re not treating them the same.
Legally, it should just be marriage.
All people should be subject to the same repeat offender provisions. Not some for gays, and some for straights. Same for marriage, same rules for everyone, gay or straight, black or white, etc. Sure, sometimes reality means they can’t be identical across the board. For instance, we won’t let 8 year olds get married. That’s fine - we recognize that children are *not *equal to adults.
I personally don’t agree that the marriages are a priori different. At least no more different than a marriage between two white people is different than a marriage between a chinese person and white person. As to the custody thing, I’m not a huge fan of the assumption that the woman will always make the better guardian.
I do too. When I was much younger I held this position. In the 90s I didn’t think actual gay marriage had a shot in hell, so I supported the idea of civil unions. So I don’t think that supporting civil unions automatically makes someone a bigot.
But I do think that the vast majority of people that support the idea today do it based on one simple belief:
They’re not like us.
When you take that belief, and then you march it down to the sea, and say “let’s make sure everyone knows it and stick them with a separate badge and label.”
Well, you can call them a different word than bigot, but I’m pretty sure it would mean the same thing.
-
As in 2 distinct groups
-
As in one set of statutes enumerating the benefits and privileges available to those those two groups
It’s possible that there’s a non-bigot who just has a real thing for their copy of Websters and hates the thought that they’ll have to buy a new dictionary. It’s also possible that Zachary Quinto’s gonna show up in 5 minutes to give me a backrub. You’ve not given me any reason to believe that this preservation argument is anything more than a lame attempt to stall marriage equality. Furthermore, your support is not required for marriage equality, so there’s no reason for the rest of us to take you up on your bargain. You have two choices: grow up and accept marriage equality or choke on it happening without your approval.
Have a nice day.
Yes. The 1 set of statutes contains subsets, and one of those subsets ascribes rights common to both groups; one subset ascribes rights available to gay folks; one subset ascribes rights available to straight folks.
In other words,
3