The only harm I can see might be hurt feelings caused by drawing a line in the sand. Let’s say, my idea was implemented—exact same benefits as marriage, just without the word. Let’s also say that the use of the word “marriage” was never at issue. Gays would then have all the rights as hetero couples, and they’d be able to enter into long term loving relationships, just like hetero couples. I don’t see harm.
But let’s not hijack the thread. PM me if you’d like to discuss it further. This is an issue that should be able to be talked about regardless of the subject of the Proposition on the ballot.
Just out of curiosity, magellan, would you be in favor of passing a law preventing people from using the word “cheesy” to describe any product that does not meet your strict definition of “cheese”?
Well, if Magellan could copyright “marriage” like Tobasco copyrights tobasco, I’d be cool with it. The Louisiana hot sauce makers can go pound sand. Unfortunately, a lot more feelings and rights get trampled on copyrighting “marriage,” and Magellan doesn’t own the word.
If in one of the many realms I reign over after I am installed in my rightful place as Emperor of the Cosmos, “cheesiness” was a foundational institution, I might issue decrees to that effect. Which would be strictly enforced, of course. But until I am so installed and one of my devoted minions brings me news of such a problem, I request that we not hijack this thread into yet another SSM thread.
You keep bring rights into this, yet we’ve already been down the road that shows rights are not the issue when it comes to “marriage”. We agree on the rights. Feelings get hurt, yes. Mine get hurt from time to time, too. And often, the reason comes from within me.
So you feel that gays should be legally prevented from using the same word to describe their relationships that you use to describe yours because it hurts your feelings?
Not sure how this is related to Prop. 8 or anonymous donation, but there are already federal guidelines as to what can be called cheese. Cheese
Is there something specific about cheese that’s controversial? Are you relating the word marriage to the word cheese? :dubious:
Oh, I think the donations should remain public. That way, we can hunt the people who donated to Prop 8 down and throw them in a pit full of rabid weasels. Some may call me an extremist, but to them I say, “What, you want a turn in the weasel pit too?”
Oh, it’s the hypocrite Christian. You ran away the last time I called you on your faux piety. How’s it going, man? Were you able to rationalize your behavior with your God of peace, tolerance, and forgiveness?
magellan, you might want to reread Polycarp’s post.
One of your paragraphs was of particular interest to me and very telling, I think. The first and the last sentences, when put together, are very revealing:
The only harm I can see might be hurt feelings… I don’t see harm.
Please pay close attention to those hurt feelings. When the subject is marriage and it is forbidden to you, those hurt feelings are not trivial and they don’t just fade away. Couples continue to live together for a lifetime – just hoping for a chance to marry.
How dare you or any other American draw “a line in the sand”? Whatever happened to the idea of “the land of the free”? It’s no skin off your nose.
You’re referring to Post 281. And if you read both my response and the post to which I was responding to, which is contained within, what should have revealed itself to you is that Revenant Threshold and I were talking about harm to society. So I started the paragraph off saying, in essence, that I don’t see harm to society, just, perhaps, to individuals. The last line was a summation to the main point: harm to society.
Whatever happened to not trying to contort reality? Look I feel sorry for really short people who aren’t tall enough to ride the roller coaster, albinos who can’t enjoy the day at the beach, me for not being a good enough athlete to play in the NBA, and loving gays who want to enter a union defined by two opposite sex couples but can’t. But I don’t advocate these things as a starting point for public policy. And I’ll tell you that if I adopted the mind set that I had a right to be playing in the NBA despite my shortcomings, I’d probably start to feel pretty hurt and make myself pretty unhappy.
To the larger point, as a member of society I feel I have a right to craft it in a way that is most beneficial to that society. An obligation even.
You seem to think I don’t have that right. Guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that point.
If you’d like to understand my position better, I suggest you do a search of some threads in which SSM has been discussed. This thread is about donations and the degree to which they should be made public. If you have a position on that I’d be interested in hearing it.
[music]One of these things is not like the others… one of these things doesn’t belong…[/music]
We use logic round these parts, not “feelings”. One tool of logic is to illustrate an example of where a particular premise leads, and to note whether or not it leads directly to absurdity. In this case, your premise leads here:
Dreadful, isn’t it, how this poor chap was persecuted out of his right to craft society?
Not sure how this is related to Prop. 8 or anonymous donation, but there are already federal guidelines as to what can be called cheese.