Fuck yeah. And ?
This actually made me laugh.
When someone does the equivalent of saying “La la la la, I can’t hear you, but my arguments are found somewhere else if you look” with their fingers in their ears, and follows that up with a sad little martyr complex statement… that’s when you know that their “arguments” are bereft of logic or common sense.
It’s axiomatic, really.
Heck, I’ve proposed scenarios in which energy independence is 100% established by harnessing the power of angel farts, but you can’t convince the people on THIS board, no sirr-ee!
Cite!!!
It’s on the board, go look for it!
On that note, I’m done. I have a life you know. (AKA the Starving Artist/magellan01 defense)
Painting with a pretty broad brush, aren’t you? Not every single one calls us breeders, I know a lot who don’t bother differentiating us from them. Actually, I don’t differentiate us from them, we are all us. No idea what bunch you are hanging out with, but pretty much everybody I know would like to get married to their significant other no matter what the gender assortment.
And I would rather see everybody in the country restricted to ‘civil unions’ with ‘marriages’ dropkicked to some random minor religious ceremony that means absolutely nothing legally to be perfectly honest. The only reason mrAru and I got married was because the US Navy does not recognize any union other than marriage.
I think this would be even better titled: Why Do The Gays Insist on Marriage? It would capture that old Archie Bunker-age sit-com effect.
I would go for this, with the caveat that all legal, government recognized unions be called “marriage”, while the others would be called “religions unions” and would have no recognition in law. In a religious union, churches would be allowed to discriminate against whoever they like. They could refuse to marry gays, interracial couples, amputees, people with big noses; whatever they choose. However, legally recognized marriage would be subject to no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Ever see the The Dirty Dozen?
There’s a scene where the men refuse to shave with cold water. Their commander reacts by refusing to issue them razors so they cannot shave at all.
The men don’t really care about shaving, but taking away the privelidge is the commanders way of letting them know that they are his to control.
Witholding something from someone is a way of controling them. It’s a statement; “You are not free, you have no rights other than those I care to grant you and if you get uppity I may just take away what you have now”.
This is the statement we make to same sex couples by not allowing them to marry - you are second class and we tollerate you at our pleasure.
Same sex couples only really want to be treated equally.
Well, it is one distorted claim regarding the OP. “The answer”? Not so much.
Right, and the fact that you have simply pretended that waving a magic wand of a law will overcome all the language and precedent in several hundred years of legislation and case law has nothing to do with people in the real world rejecting your imaginary scenario. And, of course, the fact that you have to claim that opposition to your magic law is a “lie” would seem to be simply a recognition on your part that you have to poison the well of the discussion since your claim is too weak to stand on its own.
::: shrug :::
I feel like I got beaten to it by an hour and a half. I have a similar thought whenever I hear someone say, “We should get the state out of the marriage business altogether.”. How about we get churches out of the marriage business altogether instead? Any couple that wants to get married goes down to the courthouse for a secular marriage license. Whatever rituals they want to perform in the privacy of their places of worship will be completely unregulated (as long as they don’t involve crime) and unrecognized by the state. Any member of the clergy who wants to also be a clerk (or whatever the term is) who issues marriage licenses can do so insofar as anyone can juggle two jobs; a priest/clerk would have no more right to refuse service to interracial or same-sex couples than a mechanic/clerk or pilot/clerk.
It’s quite literally that he can’t tell the difference between “one thing” and “two things.”
yadda yadda I pinky swear the colored fountain has the same water as the white fountain yadda yadda…
Have you ever gotten married? Because everyone who was legally married in the United States got a secular marriage license. Got married within the walls of Our Lady of Perpetual Pain by Father O’Reilly? Secular marriage license. Got married in an open field clad in nothing but your birthday suit while Mother Raindrop chants about Diana and the Burning Times? You got a secular marriage license. Get married in some stark grey building with Comrade Jenner officiating the party line? You got a secular marriage license.
Yeah, the couples that don’t get secular marriage licenses likely skip it because there is no legal recognition of their marriage - i.e. an FLDS polygamist whose multiple marriages might be 100% kosher according to his church, though only the first one is legal in the eyes of the state.
Heck, there were gay “marriages” long before 2000 - gay couples who went through a ceremony officiated by some holy person, in the presence of witnesses with exchanges of vows, rings, etc., a process mostly indistinguishable from any religious wedding ceremony… but ultimately without the secular marriage license and thus no legal recognition or protections.
Actually, I’ve heard “breeders” used more by childfree fanatics than I have by any gay people.
That, and your tendency around page five or six of these sorts of threads to drop the pretense of civility and start revealing your true feelings about gays co-opting marriage so they can pretend to be “normal.”
It wouldn’t be so bad if they weren’t so gosh-darn insistent about it.
'Bout what you’d expect from someone arguing that using the word ‘marriage’ for same-sex unions is simultaneously so trivial that gays should stop whining about it and so important that allowing it will inflict unspeakable* horrors on America.
*Literally unspeakable juding from magellan01’s constant refusal/inability to explain just what harm will come from calling same-sex marriages marriages.