You’re classifying single sex marriage as a pop culture trend? :dubious:
You have presented no reasons for disagreement, and it is not at all clear that you do understand.
Absolutely backward. Bigotry IS dehumanization. How is it acceptable, while to point it out is not? Bizarre.
But you’d rather deny the word “marriage” to everyone rather than see it used by buttrammers. Got it.
Hint for the lazy: I am not opposed to gay marriage. I’m just fine with it. I even go a step further and think that gay adoption is not only something that we should allow but something that is a GOOD thing.
Just in case that clarifies thing. People are more than welcome to misdirect their discontent in my direction if they so choose, I just want to make my position clear.
No, lets forget the victimology angle. I stated specifically it was a hijack and other people pursued it and I answered questions.
Yeah, it’s really you that do not understand. The bigotry cuts both ways, because the two sides have irreconcilable differences. They are not tolerant of homosexuality and you are not tolerant of Evangelical mores. It cuts both ways, both sides are bigots in their own way.
Except that most of us are perfectly content to allow Evangelicals to practice their mores in peace (provided they leave us alone), while the lot of them are quite happy to try to prevent us from living our lives at all in any way outside of their approval.
What they should abide by would be the Constitution. That’s the point of the Loving decision - that interracial couples (and, by extension, interracial families such as mine) were being denied the equal protection of the laws. The idea is that the basic right of marriage is established in the common law, and was being abrogated. Note the underlined part - it is important to a correct understanding of the nature of rights and how they can be established.
Not the parts I don’t like - the parts that aren’t there. And it is not contrary to the Constitution - that is explicitly what the Tenth Amendment says.
And there you are merely mistaken. 'Taint so.
See also Black’s Law Dictionary 986 (7th ed. 1999) which defines marriage as the “legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife”. As well the Goodridge decision, which found that marriage “is an engagement, by which a single man and a single woman, of sufficient discretion, take each other for husband and wife”. -
(Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48, 52 (1810)).
Marriage is. Gay marriage is not.
Again, you are mistaken. See above.
Already done.
Regards,
Shodan
You chose the words.
Ah, yes, the old last-ditch argument that it’s intolerant not to tolerate intolerance. :rolleyes:
Right, and you can’t understand them, and it’s not topical so lets move on.
:rolleyes: Tolerance is not a virtue in and of itself.
But I am done talking to you because you aren’t responding to what I’m saying, you are responding to what you want me to be saying.
It’s laughably absurd to claim that your lives don’t impact them and vice versa. The idea that one side wants to let the other live in peace is bullshit. I’ve read plenty of people on this board that would happily remove tax exemption from churches and who hate the Christian religion passionately.
The reality is that this is a matter of function and not morality. It’s simply not a moral issue, it’s an issue of utility. How do we want to organize our society? Do we allow gay marriage or not? Personally for me, the answer is: yes, allow it. But I don’t get into the morass of pretending that it’s a moral issue, because it isn’t.
If that’s what you have to do to prop up your position, maybe it’s time for you to recontemplate it.
Is not.
Oh, I do. At the heart of this discussion is whether or not a man has a right to marry another man. That is a question to be answered. Yet you continue to assume it to be a given. It ain’t. It’s just your opinion. Sorry again, chum.
Are you not paying attention? Let me help you, you’re not. In what I wrote, both gays and straights are covered by the exact same laws—one set. One set that will heretofore apply to two groups, with language the prevents any change that does not affect both groups. So, pay attention, wouldya?
But you haven’t explained it once yet. See above, what you wrote implies you didn’t even read it. What you wrote doesn’t even apply to what I wrote in that paragraph.
Well, now we’re getting somewhere. So you’re admitting that it’s not just about the legal rights and benefits. That you want the rights and benefits AND the coattails to give committed gay couples a shroud of normalcy. I don’t blame you for wanting that. But I don’t think you have the right to dilute a word that describes the very special bond that only a man and a woman can enjoy. Sorry. I ask you to go find comfort elsewhere. If you want more acceptance in society, how about you respect the wishes of the populace? Your militant all or nothing attitude will create a deep rift between gays and straights that will ensure that you are considered “other”. You can only call a tractor a pumpkin for so long. How about you create your own reasons for the acceptance you want? Don’t you find it a little pathetic to get what you want by grabbing on to someone else’s coattails?
Complete and utter bullshit. I’ve never accused anyone of lying on this issue. (And extremely rarely outside this issue.) You may want to read the exchange over. You plainly accused me of lying. Aside from being against GD rules (and there’s a good reason why it is), it’s idiotic. Think about it.
Uh, no thanks. Not my cup of tea. And I wouldn’t fuck a dude because I’m not attracted to them. And that’s because I can see the stark differences between guys and girls without fucking them. The soft, gentle ones with the bumbs up top make me want to have sex with her. Not really so much my preference, I guess, than evolution’s.
Nothing is like algebra. Math is merely a symbolic way to explore and gain understanding of the world.
Ha! More bullshit. The ad hominem has been a very effective tool of the left. If you don’t ignore the differences between men and women and how they fir into relationships, you’re a homophobe. If you’re against affirmative action, you’re a racist. I grant you the cheap tactic has been effective for the PC police, especially with the malleable Humpty-Dumpty definition of the word. But it is a cheap tactic. Though I would expect no less from someone who seeks his legitimacy through riding someone else’s coattails.
I know you understand the concept of analogies better than this. But just in case, the analogy drew parallels between people who blindly hold an extreme view, those with whom one can no longer have a reasoned discussion. The Creationist will no pay attention to the fossil record. The Taliban guy will not be swayed to less hate through any manner of reason. And you refuse to even admit that your “marriage is a right” is just your opinion, and not a “given”. And that’s just for starters.
I don’t think gay rights are any different. I’m surprised by now that you think I would. I think both logic and the moral high ground are behind it. But we’re not arguing about gay rights, we agree on the rights (the non-imaginary ones). We disagree on how gays should tap into those rights.
You forgot check writing. That’s two ways I’ll be attempting to craft society in a way that I believe would most benefit it. I call it the Audacity of Common Sense.
Not really, my position is superior to yours.
Welcome to the cause!
Cite?
Sigh. *Goodridge *overturned that portion of Milford.
All of this has nothing to do with gay marriage and you know it. If this is your position, your position is bullshit; gay people wishing to get married have no problem whatsoever with straight people staying married to people of the opposite gender.
So I assume it wouldn’t be a moral issue if we made it illegal for straight people to get married. And thus took away all their marital rights, and allowed their families to completely shut out the former spouse in cases of children or property or medical determinations or financial support, should the other member of the union become incapacitated.
Especially if we did this to people for no rational reason. That’s not a moral issue at all.
(I think you’ve just reduced the set of “moral issues” to the empty set.)
And in Loving v Virginia, one side was not tolerant of interracial marriage and one side was not tolerant of Southern good-old-boys mores. Guess both sides were bigoted there, too.
For someone who claims to support same-sex marriage, you have a really funny way of showing it.
You’re reduced to defending intolerance itself even *knowing *that’s all your position is based upon. To what could it be superior?
You can’t even state it coherently.
No, that’s not what you’re saying. You are NOT arguing for one law. One law would be marriage for everyone. What you’re advocating is TWO laws. One called marriage, and one called civil unions. This is basic arithmetic, for god’s sake. How can you except to implement wise social policy when you can’t count to two?
Okay, let’s try it again. Maybe this will help you figure out the gigantic, glaring flaw in your previous statement.
We have a system of laws we call marriage. This law says, “Men and women can get married, and they get rights A, B, and C.” You get a civil unions law passed. It says, “Same sex couples can get civil unions. Civil unions have all the same rights as marriage.” There are now two laws regarding marriage - one for straight people, and one for gay people. The body of the second law is basically one big, “ditto” to the first law, but they’re still separate. Now along comes Johnny Homophobe. He gets a law passed that says, “Civil unions no longer get rights B or C.” Now marriage and civil unions are no longer equal. And because it’s possible for someone to pass a law like this, the two institutions of civil unions and marriage were never equal to begin with.
Now, if there were only one law that said, “Anyone can get married, and they get rights A, B, and C,” Johnny couldn’t do this, because there isn’t a separate civil unions law that only effects gays. He can’t take away rights B and C from us without losing them himself.
I’ve never said that it was just about those. However, those elements are also intrinsic to my position.
That’s not what I said. I don’t care what other people think about my marriage. I want marriage because of what it means to me, not because of what it means to anyone else.
Because their wish is for me not to be accepted, of course. I can’t gain acceptance by giving up acceptance.
What all or nothing attitude? Where have I ever said that I want full marriage rights or no rights at all? For that matter, where have I ever advocated the use of force in obtaining my civil rights? Because that’s what the word “militant” means, you know. It’s not just a modifier that means, “really a whole lot.”
You have repeatedly ascribed motives to me that I have specifically disavowed.
And some day, we might even become as adept at using it as the right.
No, if you believe that homosexuals are inherently inferior to heterosexuals, you’re a homophobe. If you believe that homosexuals should be treated differently under the law, you’re a homophobe. Both of these are positions to which you subscribe, although I’ll grant a pass on the latter one due to the mathematical difficulty you’ve demonstrated earlier in this post.
Unfortunetly for you, I’m also conversant with the concept of subtext.
Except the right to marriage.
Calling what you pedal common sense is pretty audacious, I’ll give you that much.
But you shouldn’t given his “shroud of normalcy” comment - which can only mean that homosexuality is not normal. And isn’t that the heart of the matter?
Scalene triangle?
I’m not defending intolerance at all. I am calling out intolerance where I see it. The intolerance cuts in both directions. I’m sorry that’s not clear to you. As I am not really on either side of the debate I can step back and see the hate and vitriole from both ends.