I would have gone with “I Touch Myself” by The Divinyls.
Why not Simon and Garfunkel’s I Am Iraq?
To be perfectly clear, I think that Magellan has every right to post his preferred ‘solution’ to the SSM issue, and to decline to be convinced by arguments against it. And while I’m skeptical of how close friends his ‘gay friends I’ve discussed this with’ really are, I think his intent is good, although he seems not to have the first clue how insulting some of his comments really are to gay people (or even to childless straight couples).
Wjere we part company is (1) his all-but-refusal to explain why extending the term ‘marriage’ to same-sex couples will work any harm – he claims it ‘dilutes’ it, but IMO Britney Spears’ 59-hour “marriage” dilutes the meaning far more than a committed SS couple would; (2) his apparent refusal to substantively debate the issues people advance why his plan would not work, other than to reiterate “What part of ‘one set of laws’ did you not understand?” and similar snark; and (3) his persistent posting of the Magellan Civil Unions Plan in nearly every thread on the topic of SSM, effectively hijacking every thread into a refutation-and-reiteration of his plan, even when that was not the topic to be discussed according to the OP (e.g., the thread inviting people to speculate on how SCOTUS would deal with the two SSM cases before it).
It would be nice if he would open new threads when he sees fit to bring it up again. It would be nice if people refused to engage him when he hijacks other threads. But neither of these seem likely to happen.
-
Let me ask you this: let’s ay there is more than one things screwing up the notion of traditional marriage. Like Brittany Spears and the incredibly high divorce rate. And, let’s say for the sake of argument the notion behind SSM. If one wants to preserve the concept of traditional marriage, is it then incumbent upon me to fight on every battle front? If you think so, why? The truth is that I see no solution to the Brittany Spears problem or the Las Vegas drunk marriage problem or the TV “The Bachelor” problem. Threads come up about SSM and I sometimes, probably even usually, voice my opinion. You’ll have to explain better what is so bad about that.
-
Do you not get that in order to debate the substance of MY plan that people have to agree to discuss, yep: MY PLAN. Once someone is talking about two sets of benefits and privileges they’re not talking about my plan.
-
You may want to take a look at all the threads you’re talking about. Do you think it is my desire to argue again and again, not so much the merits of my plan, but explaining to some dolts that I know full well what my plan is and isn’t? Why not complain about the usual suspects that don’t allow me to post a simple thought without me having to defend, once again, what MY plan is. And that is before we can even debate it on the merits, or lack thereof.
But, know, I am the one to blame. Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
Polycarp, you never addressed this, from Post 59:
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Said to Marley-the-human-being (because it’s necessary to distinguish here): The fact that You didn’t get this illuminates for me why he has had license to do so whenever the topic comes up. There is an inference to be drawn here, but here and by me.(FWIW, I’m honestly trying to speak my mind here without unduly brinking the board rules; if I’ve gone too far, please take that intent into consideration.)
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Perhaps you can explain yourself here. It seems that you think that because I participate in most of these threads when they come up and state and defend my position, that you think that that is a problem that the moderators should deal with? I could be wrong here, but it appears that you think my behavior is somehow trollish? Is that right. And due to that, that I should not be allowed to post. Correct?
I’ll wait for you’re response so I’m sure to address your actual positions.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
I’m so sorry! I had no idea that I was FORCING you to “argue again and again” about your stupid separate-but-equal plan. You do know that a) you’ve lost this battle. Period. It’s over. And b) no one is forcing you to do anything. If you no longer desire to “argue again and again” about your stupid separate-but-equal plan then just fucking STOP ARGUING AGAIN AND AGAIN ABOUT YOUR STUPID SEPARATE-BUT-EQUAL PLAN!
Geez…if you were any stupider we’d have to water you a couple times a week…
The problem with discussing your plan is that you STILL refuse to offer it. You’ve vaguely described it, but that description sounds like it’s separate-but-equal to everyone else. You deny that it is, but you refuse to give us the specifics to show that that’s the case. You make the total non sequitur claim that, because one set of statutes contains all items of your proposal, it cannot be separate-but-equal. When I show you a single set of statutes that includes the archetypal separate-but-equal laws, you dismiss it as some sort of foul play, ipse dixit.
This could all be cleared up if you offered your actual proposal instead of vague descriptions of it. Bated breath and all.
Until then, it’s as if you’ve claimed the invention of a perpetual motion machine that doesn’t violate the second law of thermodynamics. Everyone says Nonsense to your proposal and says how PM machines necessarily violate that law, and you say that if people are arguing against your proposal because it violates that law, they’re arguing against a different proposal, because yours doesn’t violate that law. When we ask to see the plans for your machine, you fail to offer them up for inspection out of fear we’ll nitpick them to death.
No. You don’t have a perpetual motion machine that doesn’t violate the second law of thermodynamics. You don’t have a proposal for allowing straight people to marry but forbidding gay people to marry that treats straight people and gay people equally.
How about simply acknowledging that they are *examples *of the “traditional definition of marriage” you hold holy? Could you go that far, at least?
What *does *“separate but equal” mean to you?
You have defended exactly nothing, because nothing you’ve said is defensible and because repeated assertion does not constitute defense. You haven’t debated it either, unless your panicked, hysterical dismissal of any contrary facts or reasoning or analogy constitutes “debate” to you. You haven’t discussed the merits, because you haven’t presented any that aren’t laughable. You haven’t even fucking explained why it isn’t separate but equal, because it is. All you’ve done is denounce everyone who dares to point out your moral and intellectual bankruptcy here.
So, yes, little spamtroll, you *are *the one to blame here.
This is bewildering. He claims that the proposal treats straight and gay folks identically in every way, therefore there’s no separate treatment. He also claims that straight people should be allowed to get married while gay people shouldn’t, because there’s something important about getting married that should be reserved for straight people.
I cannot see how these ideas are anything but contradictory. If marriage is important, and only one class of people can get it, then by definition (tautologically, if you will), one class of people is getting access to something important that another class is not getting.
This may be the crux of the disagreement. I think you and those on your side want complete and utter equivalence in all things, not just the law. I don’t, mainly because they ARE different. What I do want, have been advocating for, and my plan gives, is to treat both sets of couples equally under the law. Having both groups tap into the ONE and same set of legal benefits and privileges does that. How can it not? It’s the same laws. Let’s say Statute 4A-2.3 applies to hospital visitation. Well, that one statute applies to both gay couples and straight couples. There is not one statute regarding hospital visitation for straight couples and then a corresponding one (which may differ slightly). No, Statute 4A-2.3 applies to both groups.
Clearer?
Except for the law that allows gay couples to be called “married”. :rolleyes: That’s a difference under the law. And it does matter. And you know that very well.
Heck, he acknowledges that “seperate but equal” was a failure when applied to race. I don’t know by what form of hysterical blindness he can assume it’d work out for sexual orientation.
This is a proposal that would suffer the problem of Separate but Equal. Let’s say Poster X proposes that there be Civil Unions for gay couples and Marriages for straight couples. He then goes on to explain that there will be a set of laws for the straight couples and a similar set of laws for gay couples. And he would try to ensure that they be identical or as close to identical as possible.
Well, THAT idea is proposing two sets of laws. Using the standard SBE explanation, that wouldn’t work because the two sets of laws would most likely differ, just like the two sets of schools for children. The one set of schools that were set aside for White schoolchildren were likely (100% certainty, I’d say, but that’s beside the point) to differ from those set aside for Black schoolchildren.
So that is Poster X’s idea. My idea does not use two sets of laws. I agree that there would be SBE problems with Poster X’s idea, which is why I am not advocating it and never have.
Now, that’s gotta help, right? Do you at least see the difference between my proposal and that of Poster X?
YES! Is it just dawning on you that I advocate two different phrases being used? Sheesh. But it does not affect the legal benefits and privileges that each group can tap into. THAT is what I’ve been arguing.
I’m leaning more and more towards the troll/annoying people for the fun of it theory. The plausibility of someone, even someone with stupid or evil ideas, going out of his way for ten years to advocate something that he refuses to explain is pretty low.
Do you acknowledge or do you not that there is a difference outside that particular narrow realm as well, and that your proposed law would cement that difference into place, and that that is your actual intent? :dubious:
Are you really so ignorant of history as to think white and colored schools were equal because the letter of the law said they had to be? Really?
Neither did segregated schools. But you’re too fucking dumb to connect that dot, aren’t you?
:rolleyes: But let’s say I was a troll. Do you realize that every time you engage me or about me that you’d be doing precisely what I want you to do? Do you get that, my little wood-headed marionette?
That’s what I’ve been saying all along. I want a specific word to refer to traditional marriage—one man, one woman. But I disagree strongly that seeking equality under the law is a “narrow realm”. In many of these threads pro SSM people have argued that straights are now able to tap into hundreds or thousands of laws that gay couples cannot. That’s hardly a narrow realm. The more accurate “narrow realm” is the distinction I want to keep: marriage = one man + one woman.