Should we abandon terms like gay, straight, bisexual, transgendered, man, woman, husband, wife, mother, father, aunt, uncle, brother, sister, son, daughter, family, tall, short, slim, stocky, blonde, brunette, challenged, genius?
Any of them? Which? Why or why not?
So, even in your scenario (which is not mine) it would be correct to say all is contained within 1 set of statutes, because the other statutes (again, according to you) are subsets of the first.
Well done.
No.
No one is suggesting that all people are the same (they’re not).
The only thing in question here is whether marriages between gays are the same as marriages between the straight (they are).
Pfft. Magellan01 wouldn’t have gay friends. They’d have to be called “civil companions” or something like that because friends *traditionally are straight in the US.
That’s not actually possible, is the problem. By creating two distinct groups, you are creating two sets of statutes. You either have two groups, and two sets of statutes, or you have one group, and one set of statutes. You can’t mix and match. It just doesn’t work that way.
Yes, exactly like in the proposed scenario, where everything is contained in one set of statutes:
One set of statutes contains everyone’s rights. See? Equality!
In other words, putting everything in one set of statutes is a meaningless thing to do, because within that one set, there can be inequalities.
Aside from the familial terms, none of those words have any place in the law. The government has no business singling out people based on their hair color, weight, gender, or sexuality.
In every day use, sure, those are all excellent and useful words. But they’re not things we should be writing legislation about.
Technically, he’s right: you just have to make the set big enough. It’s a totally meaningless way to be right, though. I’m happy giving him this victory, if he’ll concede that it’s possible to put everyone into a single set of statutes while treating people unequally.
Oh. So, you must want to retract this then:
Correct?
You realize your argument essentially comes down to paragraphs, right? You’re admittedly using laws to create different classes of people and discriminate against one of them, but you think it magically becomes non-discrimination if they’re formatted a certain way? Who is supposed to give a shit? Even for you, this is really stupid.
What? Seriously, what? Reread what he wrote; he’s not contradicting himself at all.
That’s a premise an ideallist might embrace, that the “equal” legal application of marriages and civil unions will remain forever so. As long as the idea is kept purely in the hypothetical, maybe the illusion could be maintained just for the sake of argument, like postulating on a perfectly frictionless surface or a spaceship moving faster than light.
“Separate but equal” education failed because blacks were actively despised and distrusted by whites who also had many misconceptions about the moral and intellectual capacities of blacks, thus the black schooling systems were treated with (at best) indifference. Is there anyone so naive to think corresponding attitudes don’t currently exist toward homosexuals?
You can do whatever you want. The issue is what the government does, and equal treatment under the law, as I understand it, does indeed mean “same”, to the maximum extent possible. We don’t issue blue ballots to men and pink ballots to women; we issue ballots to voters.
A thought occurs that magellan’s argument, ostensibly to protect marriage, could be interpreted as a call for censorship. He himself uses the phrases “gay marriage” and “ssm” at various times, so to him the concept of marriage with a same-sex qualifier is not unfathomable or harmful. Further, he has used “traditional marriage” as a descriptor for the one-man-one-woman model (which, as has been pointed out to him often, is not the only historical form), so he doesn’t seem to have a problem recognizing “gay” and “traditional” as two flavours of marriage (in the hypothetical, at least) - it’s not causing his brain to melt or misfire (or at least not more so than usual) and I don’t see any indication that he’s about to give up on women and spend his days in a frenzied search for good hard cock. Yet he argues that others must be shielded, especially children lest they grow up thinking gay marriage is normal and, apparantly, cause social collapse in 40 years or so.
magellan is fearful, and wants his fear written into law, I guess to make his fear more tolerable. It is a mistake to cater to his weakness.
Actually it is. As I’ve demonstrated in the other thread.
Glad I could clear that up.
This is really weak of you. You lay out a scenario, I use your scenario and show the problem with it. But rather than attempt to defend what YOU laid out as an example, you shift gears. (Hmmm, wonder why?) And what do you shift to? The mind-numbingly dumb attempt to equate my idea with the SBE problems of Black and White schoolchildren of the 1950s.
Please debate better. I know you can.
Oh really? Are you saying that none of those words are used in law? None of them qualify people for certain things that others don’t get?
As much as I hold you to be an authority on stupid, I disagree.
So who do you think your utterly dishonest attempts and lying your way to victory are fooling?
You’re not even being coherent, do you think repetition will make it so?
Listen, idiot, the problem is that you magically think putting everything into a single set keeps SBE from occurring. In order to disprove you, all I have to do is show a single set of laws that includes SBE provisions. That’s what I did. There’s no gear-shifting, there’s only a counterexample to your premise that SBE is avoided by virtue of having a single set of statutes.
Is there anyone else who can’t understand the idea of a counterexample?
What else is he supposed to do?
That was not directed to you. God knows that any post including the phrase “Please debate better. I know you can.” is not, cannot, be directed to you.