Straw man, irrelevant. I never argued such a thing.
Or we could just take the government out of marriage completely. Let the emotionally loaded term matter only in the personal realm.
Straw man still.
Everyone thinks that THEY are the good guys and the ones who oppose them are the bad guys, it’s a normal function of society.
jayjay I’m sorry, I thought this thread was about discussing the rationale for opposition to same-sex marriage, not the thread about venting spleen at mswas due to the lack of targets on a heavily liberal leaning message board. I’m just explaining the the position in opposition to yours as I see it. If my being able to understand the opposing viewpoint pisses you off that’s a personal problem and irrelevant to me.
No. Wrong again. In my solution, if you, a gay man who has entered into a civil union, wants to see what the law is regarding inheritance, you go look up the law in the book called “The legal rights and privileges of couples joined through marriage or civil unions”. You then go to Page 23, Paragraphs 3 -6 and you have the answer. If a married man wants to look up the same law that applies to him, he goes to THE SAME BOOK, THE SAME PAGE, AND THE SAME PARAGRAPHS. Two groups, ONE set of laws.
Ooooo, tricky, tricky. Except for the fact that you ASSUME that what I have written is not only incorrect, but that I know it to be incorrect. And this is precisely the type of nonsense that instigated the board to ban charges of lying in GD. Some of us didn’t need the rule, knowing we cannot read minds. Others, obviously, do. And even then don’t abide by it. :rolleyes:
More word gamesmanship. Nicely done. They are deficient in regard to reproduction. That’s simply a fact. Don’t like it, go cry to Darwin. Or God. Should they be treated differently? If we’re talking about the arena in which they suffer the “inferiority” (again, nice loaded word), I’d say it depends. In adoption, I’d say it doesn’t matter. In including them in an institution that not only has traditionally involved one man and one woman, but also has been the model through which couples have brought children into the world, absolutely.
Unfortunately for you, the world is not here to cater to your hurt feelings and illusions of victimhood.
My position is that none of them HAVE a rational reason for opposition. It’s all smoke, mirrors, fear and religious fanaticism. Therefore I don’t respect, understand, or take into account their position*. We’re going to keep winning, even if that involves waiting for the 'phobes to die. Or, they’re going to get desperate and commit an act of violence that’s going to delegitimize their cause and cling to them like the Mark of fucking Cain. I’m hoping it’s more the former than the latter, because I don’t want to see any more of my people die because of society’s general homophobia.
Same-sex marriage (and I do mean marriage, not civil unions) is inevitable. Standing in the path of the wave of history isn’t going to get them anything but a reputation akin to Bull Conner and Orval Faubus.
*By which I mean, there is no point of compromise. I will not accept being stuffed into a cupboard that’s painted to “look like” marriage.
I agree, though I think it’s sad really. We should remove straight marriage and make it civil unions for everyone. Otherwise this same debate is going to continue on into polygamists.
I don’t really think you do, because you still think our side is indulging in equal bigotry. And we’re not. You know what would make me stop thinking of the evangelicals completely? If they minded their own business and left us alone. If they did that, if they spent most of their time tending to their own souls instead of trying to force ours into their mold, I would spend absolutely no time whatsoever even thinking of them. If they don’t give me a reason to fight, I won’t fight.
You’re still ignoring the other book over there that’s called, “Ammendments to the legal rights inherent in civil unions.” You know, the one that’s full of laws that were passed specifically targeting civil unions, that doesn’t in any way effect marriages? That’s how you know you’re talking about two laws - when you can change one without changing the other. Doesn’t matter if you write them down in the same book, the effect is still two separate legal institutions.
I can’t read minds, but apparently I’m giving you too much credit in assuming you can read posts, else you’d have noticed the multiple times I specifically disavowed the motives you attributed to me, before you went and attributed them to me again.
Except that they’re not deficient in reproduction. Gays are every bit as fertile as straights, on average. What they are, is less likely to have children they do not want or plan for. Which to me, sounds like an advantage, not a defeciency.
And that’s what makes you a homophobe. That’s a simple fact. Don’t like it? Go cry to Webster.
magellan01, sweetie, I’m still hoping for a response to my prior post (#293).
Cite? No, seriously: what evidence do you have that there is a “very special bond” which is restricted to opposite-sex couples? Coz I do a fair amount of mucking about in psychology/sociology and I haven’t seen a shred of a hint of any proof for such an assertion.
In a couple of places in this thread you imply that homosexuality is somehow evolutionarily depreciated. Now admittedly, if you get any two or more evolutionary biologists around a table you can have a heated six-hour argument on the evolutionary relevance (if any) of human homosexuality, but the best evidence to date indicates that it’s a positively-selected trait (or at least a side-effect of a positively-selected trait), although there’s still disagreement about what is being selected for (possible candidates: kin-selection in the form of help with childcare; direct selection for facilitating homosocial affiliations; side-effect of genes promoting female fecundity; side-effect of genes promoting sexual competition). The introduction to this paper covers some of the possibilities (warning: technical). In any case the odds are good that human homosexuality is part of Evolution’s Master Plan™ *.
*Phrase used for sarcastic purposes only. Evolution has no plan.
I do understand and you are bigotted toward your opposition. I’m not going to quibble over trying to quantify qualitative judgments to determine whether or not they are ‘equal’.
Funny, they say the exact same thing. But there will continue to be gay pride parades through the center of town in most cities, that celebrate promiscuity and where people are practically naked. It flies in the face of the culture they knew. Their culture is dying. You say good riddance, it makes them sad. The reality is that it is mutually exclusive, there is no live and let live in this scenario.
Oh I agree with this, it’s the more Christian thing to do even, to tend to their own souls, but at the same time your behavior presents itself in their faces. They have to watch the gay culture celebration of promiscuity because it’s put into people’s faces. They think homosexuality is immoral and they are standing up for that.
There is no tolerance for their views. Look at the birth control and pharmacists debate. The position is essentially that they shouldn’t become healthcare professionals if they disagree with birth control. It’s not exactly a tolerant position. The point that underlies it is that there are two cultures genuinely in conflict, one will win and the other will lose, and that live and let live is not possible.
I realize it’s only been mentioned 10^8 times in this thread alone, so you may have missed it, but plenty of same sex couples are bringing children into this world.
As a specific exapmle, could you explain why Melissa Ethridge and Julie Cypher should not have been allowed to raise their kids as a married couple just because they needed a sperm donor* to conceive?
(*OK, the fact they chose David Crosby as a father might suggest poor judgment, but other than that…)
No, the position is that “if they disagree with birth control to the extent that they cannot in good faith fulfill their legal responsibilities to provide access to same, they shouldn’t become healthcare professionals”.
The old “It’s intolerant not to tolerate intolerance” argument once again.
Then they don’t have to attend. People prejudiced against the Irish don’t have to go to St. Patrick’s Day parades either.
So how should we accommodate this “culture” of intolerance, then? What do you propose other than to indulge it?
They’re as wrong about that as they used to be about miscegenation and suffrage. The concept that homosexuality is immoral is necessarily based on the assumption that it’s voluntary. But anyone who has tried to imagine themselves with the opposite orientation, or has tried to answer the question of when they themselves made their own choice of sexuality, knows that it is not. Gays are what they are, they *cannot *decide to change and become “moral” in a way that the evangelicals would approve of. The “morality” they claim is therefore nothing of the sort; it is hatred born of ignorance and need not be respected.
Will you please tell us why there *should *be? Why do you think it appropriate for views based on hatred and ignorance to continue to hold society back?
The side that’s morally in the wrong generally does lose in the long term, yes - and that’s *why *it loses. Your inherent assumption that such hatred and intolerance are just a choice of morality and of lifestyle, of equal value with choices of love and generosity, is blinding you.
I never said it was tolerant. But I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on that point. As you noted, you’re seeing the whole thing from the viewpoint of someone who isn’t personally affected by both the hate coming off the other side nor by the issue at hand. To you, same-sex marriage is an abstract social good. To me, it’s my and my partner’s life. Of course I’m going to see this from a more personal viewpoint.
As you said, it’s a culture war. As long as there are people who consider me and mine not fit to share in the culture, I’m going to fight them. And I never claimed it would be pretty. My personal opinion of people like the National Organization for Marriage (NOM…hehe…I still find that hilarious) is very dark. Very. It’s one reason I don’t discuss this situation one-on-one IRL. I don’t want to gamble that my self-control is as good as all that.
Except that’s not what I am saying. He said he can’t wait for their culture to die off. Hardly the same thing.
If you really don’t understand the difference well…
I’m not proposing anything, I am just pointing out that the two sides are locked in a battle to the death, and one will win the other will lose. I think both sides agree that the Conservative Christian side is losing.
This is a fundamental misreading of the Christian position. Sin is PERFECTLY natural. The call is to resist the natural sinful inclinations. Most of civilization is based off of the idea of resisting nature. Marriage itself is unnatural, we are naturally promiscuous, and breeding in the wild generally resembles rape and subjugation more than the modern conception of, ‘making love’.
‘Views based on hatred and ignorance.’, see you think your basis for the discussion is just accepted. I don’t agree that the views are based on hatred and ignorance. It’s a non-starter.
I’m not the one who is blinded here. I see both sides, you like most people who are trying to convince someone are trying to make them believe that they just need to open their eyes. It’s the same tactic my friend on Facebook who posts all the conspiracy videos takes in arguments too.
“If only you could see properly, you’d know I am right.”
Yeah, and that is pretty much how things play out at the current level of social development of humanity. shrugs It’s just a part of it, the passion play that decides which sides gain power and which lose it.
My point, lest it slip past you, is that the desire to “preserve the definition” is a smokescreen over a barrel of red herrings. Definitions are constantly in flux, and people generally don’t give a shit. It is only on this topic that a single word must, for some reason, be preserved in amber now and forever, or civilization as we know it will be rent asunder. Clearly, people care about it for other reasons, which many are unwilling to be honest about. I have slightly more respect for someone willing to admit that they just think fags are yucky, rather than couching their rationale in ludicrous claims of preserving the language.
You say it isn’t bigotry, and yet the only alternate reason I see offered (excluding religious dogma, which is another smokescreen), time and time again, is some variation on “it’s always been that way.” I have yet to see a single reasonable proposal for how allowing gay marriage is going to hurt anyone, let alone threaten the institution of (heterosexual marriage) and damage society. “It’s always been that way” is a statement devoid of meaning, but “bigotry” sure fits like a glove, and from there all the pieces fall into place.
You clearly don’t like the term. I suspect a large number of bigots don’t, and similarly lack the self-awareness to realize that their own opinions push them quite easily into that group. It is amusing, albeit exemplifying a “guy on crutches slipping on a banana peel” sort of humor, to watch the artless rhetorical floundering of those trying to convince others (and themselves) that their iron-clad devotion to excluding gays from marriage is driven by something other than bigotry, or if you prefer, some unsavory mélange of distaste, disgust, fear, and ignorance.
