Good enough for me. There’s plenty of things I don’t support, but am resigned to and don’t consider it worth the effort to fight.
With respect, that’s bullshit. Young homosexuals operate the same as young heterosexuals. A lot are quiet and meet and have a relationship that isn’t “in your face.” Then you have some that are unrepentant party animals and serial one night stand participants.
The correlation? The 60/70’s phrase of “Young, Dumb, and Full of Cum” is far more likely than “zomg homosexuality.”
I want to tell you about someone. You know those Hollywood stereotypes of the flaming queer guy? Lisp? Fashion conscious? Wine connoisseur? Utterly annoying? I know that man. He is straight as the day is long.
It seems people are variations and stereotyping isn’t useful to understanding a wide demographic.
Well, heck, that’s only 20 days on Venus. That’s not even monogamy, yet. 
No offense, Miller, but this is what I don’t like. People should not have to “prove” themselves to be human. Non heterosexuals aren’t any different than heterosexuals. I don’t see any reason to not accept them as members of society or to force them underground in some sort of society-level shaming.
I really wish that this tribalism in all things that’s been developing over the last 25+ years would just knock it the heck off. There is no them. There is only us.
I think that over time we are changing sensibilities as a society, but I also recognize that roughly half the country disagrees with the other half. I still think that there will be ten plus more years of this struggle. 
The judiciary is actually using rationality to dismiss arguments that people should be treated differently based on orientation. It’s just as retarded as giving people second class status because they eat pork and not chicken.
Whatever the reason (to avoid the nature vs nurture debate) they don’t practice the same sexuality as you, why should that mean they get treated differently than you?
They are not ‘treated differently’! That’s a straw man argument!
Yes. Thus, they would not be troubled by this aspect of the system they themselves created.
Well, I don’t know much about obscure same-sex practices in foreign cultures, so I’ll leave those digressions to you…
I - and probably dozens of other people - already explained this to you.
You don’t know what a strawman argument is. It’s too late to spare yourself from embarrassment, but you should still stop using the term.
Go marry your best male friend in Montana. You will be denied based on their constitutional amendment that says same sex partners cannot get married and cannot get benefits.
Now go marry your best female friend. It’ll take you 15 minutes. if there’s a line.
Different treatment is not a strawman.
I didn’t say we should, I said we did. I’m not the one who put the barrier there, I’m just pointing out that we’ve long since cleared it.
Not sure wtf you’re talking about with the tribalism stuff.
He’s saying people only started dividing themselves into little groups about 25 years ago. Before that, everybody agreed we were all one species and held hands while singing “Kumbaya.”
It’s the binary classification of “with us or against us” that we have fallen into. Politics was always fairly like that (R vs D), but we’ve been hard at work making “battle lines” for various issues. Abortion vs Non, Homosexual vs heterosexual. And so forth.
How did you prove you were human? Did it involve a CT scan when someone found out you were homosexual?
I’m not saying we were one race of love and tolerance, but issues are being framed more simplistically around talking points. I use 25 years because we started doing it to these issues in the mid eightiess (which I guess is 30 years, now) as we lost the political cash cow of “us vs communism.”
You do realize, I hope, that you’re simply defining the problem away instead of exploring it. Just like you pretend that banning same-sex couples from using the word “married” does not make them second-class citizens.
But, after all these discussions, you’re obviously not going to be convinced by mere argument. Just recognize that you’re in a shrinking minority that future generations are going to wonder about.
Here’s where I come in and keep you on your toes and ask you if you support the right of polygamous marriage.
Yes. My only hold up are the lawful determinations of inheritance and such for the social side of things. (Does it stay with the genetic parents, the married group’s assets at time of conception, drawn lots?, etc)
ETA: I support ADULT polygamy. Any sort of “14 is old enough” I don’t support.
But he is, in fact, against me. He’s lobbied, successfully, to restrict my civil rights, based purely on my sexuality. There’s an “us and them” dynamic at play here, and it’s not the gays who instituted it.
Good job on blaming the victims for standing up for their rights, though. You’re a peach.
Neither cute, nor amusing.
Cool.
Now, when do we demand that?
That goes without saying. Much like the fact that gays aren’t pedophiles goes without saying.
I ought to ask you the polygamy question too.
Do you support the right of polygamous groups to marry?
I’m not Miller, but I certainly do.
Now, what’s your point with the polygamy angle and how is it relevant?
Read the thread.
You mistake the people I am annoyed with. It’s not the non-heterosexual crowds who have done the injury, it’s the heterosexual crowds who have gone “They aren’t like me and thus they are bad. They are them.”
And I hate that sort of tribalism. There is no reason to exclude based upon anything that isn’t harmful to another person, as has been done to the non-heterosexual community for quite some time.
Then I plainly apologize. I simply find the fact that you have to somehow prove your humanity disgusting. My disgust tends to come out as attempts at sarcastic humor.
Like I said: As soon as we can discover a socially acceptable way to deal with inheritance and other factors. The binary relationship is comparatively easy. You had two parents, they are your guardians. If they split, both are responsible. Child support and all of that grows out of it. A homosexual couple fits into this quite nicely.
In a trinary+ relationship, if one of the three+ parents leave, are they responsible for child care in the same way a divorced binary couple is? Does it only matter if the person who leaves the relationship was a blood relation of the child? Do we structure it in a way that two are still the primary responsibility holders, possibly creating a situation where that duo leaves and causes issues with the child?
It’s a big question. I prefer caution when child welfare is involved. I’d hate to create a generation of trauma victims if we stumble this sort of allowance as a society too badly.
I’ve been in this discussion, before, and my support for polygamy has, multiple times, been extended to de-facto support for the Mormon polygamy that practices young marriage. I just wanted to head this possible line off at the pass.
It’s ta law that needs to be changed. Duh. You should be able to appoint heirs. Where was their estate attorney?
I have a degree in philosophy and know more about fallacies than the lot of you put together!