We’re both saying the same thing, you’re just conceptualizing it as set theory, and I see it more in terms of object-oriented programming.
[Doh–not reading carefully and editing quickly]. I guess I think his point (ONE SET OF STATUTES!!!11!!) is easy to concede, in the way that I’ll concede Nigel’s amp goes up to 11. It has nothing to do with the issue, which is the important problem with it.
Realize that he’s advocated hurting other human beings for a decade on this board based on nothing more than raw bigotry? And feel bad or something.
Yeah, I guess the tapdance is all he has left.
I was just critiquing YOUR proposal (which, by the way, does not resemble mine) using your criteria. The fact that you tripped yourself up is not a problem for me nor my proposal.
Admittedly I’m not up to such grand pronouncements as, “One law! One law! [froth] One lawwwwwwww!!1one.” But I’ll try to keep up.
Indeed, my proposal does not resemble yours in the fact that mine exists in print, whereas yours does not.
Gah! You moron! I didn’t trip myself up! YOUR AMP GOES UP TO 11! IT’S ONLY ONE SET OF STATUTES!
But the fact that you can phrase it as one set of statutes (ferchrissakes, all the statutes ever written in history can be put into one set of statutes) has bugger-all to do with the question of equality or justice.
Edit: Sorry about that. Calm now. I got some of his stupid in my eyes, and it burns like a sonofabitch. Off to rinse them for fifteen minutes under running water.
Wanting to extend a host—as some have counted, hundreds or thousands—of legal benefits and privileges—to every committed gay couple in the U.S. = advocating hurting other human beings?
And you think I should take anything you say seriously? HA!
I hear fiftenn minutes with the entire head under water works better. 
“But, one set of statutes!”
[RIGHT]— Magellan[/RIGHT]
I think we heard the same advice, i.e., soak the part of your body that’s come in contact with the stupid.
Yeah, in the GD thread, I gave up trying to show him the logical error he’s been making, and step him through the practical problems with it. He responded by telling me I was absolutely correct, then spent a paragraph explaining why I was completely wrong.
Not really sure where to go with that.
Separate but equal. That’s what you’re calling for.
Excellent. I hereby deputize you.
Gotta run. Back later.
Deputy status revoked. Dolt status reconfirmed and stamped on your forehead.
No, in the other thread, you just committed the same logical error, but with more words.
You literally want gay marriage to be equal to regular marriage.
You literally want it to be separate.
This isn’t some stretch of logic on my part. This is exactly what you are saying. You can’t deny standing in the pool, when you’re actually standing in the pool. People notice stuff like that.
You’ve read his posts. Where have you ever seen any indication he’s capable of something like that? He’s worked very hard to disabuse you of that notion. Right now he’s saying segregation and legal discrimination are fine as long as you don’t need too much ink to print them.
But since your proffered solution doesn’t actually protect the ‘traditional definition’ of marriage it’s no wonder people doubt your motives.
Imagine if your proposed scheme was put into place, exactly as you want it. Do you really expect the man-on-the-street to not use the word ‘married’ to describe same-sex civil unions? Are new ‘civil union ceremony planners’ (equal in every way to wedding planners!) going to start new businesses? Is a gay man going to introduce his ‘civil union parter’ or his ‘husband’?
No law can prevent a change in the language, so the only reasons I can see to have different legal definitions, with purportedly identical rights and responsibilities, is a desire to treat them differently or pure animus towards homosexuality.
Well, only that one word is not acceptable. Common terms would not be affected. One man might refer to his legal cohabitor as “the old balls and chain”, for instance.
At this point, we may as well concede his “one set of laws” before he uses a font so big it destroys us all.
In any event, his “one set” contains language that makes a legal distinction between straight people and gay people for no useful purpose. I don’t see how any amount of dancing around can hide this.