Yes, you’re a Prop 8 supporter, so you advocate hurting other human beings. Not to mention that you think a visual of sending Mexicans hurtling through the air over a border wall, back into Mexico, is somehow funny.
For the record, that fact that you are a righteous bigot is the least of my issues with you, as we have plenty of those around here. The fact that you are a lying, sniveling, cowardly weasel is actually why most people would rather interact with whatever they happen to have recently stepped in while at the dog park. Dude, stop being such a chickenshit. Embrace your hate. We still won’t respect you, but at least we’ll laugh at you less.
The saddest thing for me is that he’s a scientific ignoramus as well as everything else. I pointed out a critical scientific flaw with his “one man, one woman” policy, and he did exactly what I predicted.
LOL…I know of people who have changed twice. I have to say, the paperwork burden is so oppressive, however, I doubt anyone would do it that many times.
But the thing is, if you are intersex, depending on the state, no surgery is needed to change your legal designation. So then you’re left with umpteen name changes and updates which I can tell you from personal experience is incredibly frustrating and time-consuming.
…but my whole point is not to focus on my favorite topic, but to focus on the basic fallacy of the whole argument that only men and women should be allowed to marry under a covenant called “marriage.”
The metaphorical turd I’m dropping in magellan’s punchbowl is that this one man, one woman mandate discriminates against those who are none of the above (or both of the above), as well as people who have transitioned, in many cases changing their birth certificates.
But the law can’t say “between an XX and XY individual,” because that would deny a right to marriage under magellan’s definition to a significant group of persons in society. Sadly for magellan’s argument, the Constitution has been interpreted several times to say that there is a right to marry someone.
Since intersex people exist, and since transpeople can in many (most?) states change their birth certificate gender, there seems to be a huge, glaring problem with this rigid and bizarre “one man, one woman” mandate. And then once the camel’s nose is under the tent, now you have this “elegant solution” which has all sorts of exceptions in it.
Instead of the truly elegant solution, which is simply “any two people can get married.”
Better amend that to “any two consenting adults can get married” before he comes in and asks you if you’re for men marrying children or something equally “intelligent”.
it’s worse than that. Given that same-sex marriage already exists in many countries and is referred to as such, the definition has already changed.
But of course, he meant specifically in the US. Except that SSM also exists in a few states and is referred to as such. And in a lot of the other states, people already use the term “marriage” to refer to a legal joining of two people of the same sex in the same way that they use it to refer to a legal joining of two people of different sexes. The meaning has already changed in popular usage and, in many places, in legal usage as well.
So really magellan01’s argument is “I don’t like that this has happened so I’m going to pretend that it hasn’t yet”. See that ship headed off towards the horizon? Yep - it’s sailed.
And, one might note, all the dire hypothetical consequences of referring to it as “marriage” that were envisioned have somehow failed to materialize anywhere.
So to sum up:
The language has already changed, so bang goes that argument.
There have been no adverse effects on male-female marriage anywhere SSM has been legalized, so bang goes that argument.
The “one-man-one-woman” definition is not even the “simplest” one, so bang goes that argument too.
He’s got nothing but a couple of bangs and a whimper.
Under his definition. since you’ve been one man and one woman you can marry yourself. Think of the tax breaks you’ll get! And if you divorce yourself later you won’t have to worry about dividing the CD collection.
I worry about the small-minded perverts who cannot consider the idea of “marriage” without obsessing over what another couple might be doing in their bedroom.
