NationStates Jolt Archive

The market, free or not, can decide how much a gay wedding costs, but not whether the law will allow gay marriages to happen.

Yes it can. If there is a demand for gay weddings then gay weddings shall be supplied.

ok BUT if....gay marriages were granted all the same rights as heterosexual marriages except that called something else...

Would that be cool?

No. Gay marriage has absolutly zero impact upon those who oppose it.

You don't want gay marriage. You vote that way and win. Your enforcement means that I cannot marry my boyfriend.

I want gay marriage. I vote that way and win. My enforcement means that I can marry my boyfriend. It does not, however, at all imply that you must approve of my marriage, attend the wedding, perform the ceremony, or have one yourself.

Your stops me from doing what I want. Mine allows me to do what I want while having absolutly zero impact upon you.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that anti-gay marriage people see things that way.

I have a gay family member who is married to her partner. They found a priest willing to perform the ceremony. They wear rings and call themselves "married". They are also legally registered as domestic partners. They receive the same rights as my parents under the law. You and your boyfriend have those same freedoms, so what's the problem?

Your side DOES stop the other side from doing what they want. What they want is to live in a world where homosexuality is not encouraged. This is a belief shared by much of the rest of the world, where traditionally homosexuals have far less recognition and freedom then they do here.

ok BUT if....gay marriages were granted all the same rights as heterosexual marriages except that called something else...

Would that be cool?

Nope.

Marriage is first and foremost a legal contract
I know this is true ...but just think about it
it's win win

Oh? I didn't think sexual orientation was a protected class of people under federal labor law. If I'm wrong Huzzah!, one less thing I need to worry about when I get a job, but I could have sworn that sexual orientation wasn't protected.

Depends on the state.

lol

That's actually a kind of legal mirage. It is true that in many states, employers can get away with doing that, but that is typically because most employment is "at will" so no reasons need be given for not hiring someone or for firing someone. Without evidence that the decision was motivated by prejudice, it is almost impossible to make a discrmination case. But if a person CAN make such a case, then they can appeal to federal labor law, which Texas has to follow just like all the other states -- bizarre claims from their governor notwithstanding.

Oh? I didn't think sexual orientation was a protected class of people under federal labor law. If I'm wrong Huzzah!, one less thing I need to worry about when I get a job, but I could have sworn that sexual orientation wasn't protected.

ok BUT if....gay marriages were granted all the same rights as heterosexual marriages except that called something else...

Would that be cool?

We got your "point" the first time, and the second time. It is just as misinformed and unconstitutional this time.

Alot of people associate the word "marriage" with religion or heterosexual marriage, maybe they see same sex "marriage" as a affront to religion or the natural order of things.
Well, of course they do. But they are wrong on several points.

(1) It is only their own ego trip that sees gay marriage as being an affront to religion. It may be an affront to THEIR religion, but it is not to ALL religions. Since there is no official religion of the US, let alone one that opposes gay marriage, their claims that it is an affront to religion are both false and irrelevant. What they mean is that it is just an affront to them, but they are not important enough for the rest of us to care.

(2) Religion-based arguments about what state law should be are doomed because US law is secular, not religious, and the First Amendment bar state law from favoring any reliigious view. Therefore, states can only properly consider this question from the secular view of marriage as contract law, and conclude that there is no overriding public concern that can justify denying gays the right to enter into said contract.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that anti-gay marriage people see things that way.

I have a gay family member who is married to her partner. They found a priest willing to perform the ceremony. They wear rings and call themselves "married". They are also legally registered as domestic partners. They receive the same rights as my parents under the law.


In all likelihood, they actually do not.


You and your boyfriend have those same freedoms, so what's the problem?

Your side DOES stop the other side from doing what they want. What they want is to live in a world where homosexuality is not encouraged.

Allowing marriage doesn't encourage homosexuality. People aren't going to wake up and say 'hey, now that gay marriage is legal, I think I'll go stick my penis in another man's anus!'.

No one has offered any proof as to why legalizing same-sex marriage is the right thing to do. They simply keep repeating "because everybody should have equal rights".

Lying about things that one can easily see in this very thread is neither endearing nor particularly bright.

My feeling is that supporting same-sex marriage is simply the popular public opinion right now. That's fine. But keep in mind that - during the middle ages - supporting the Catholic church was the popular thing to do. Anyone who disagreed with them was labeled a "heretic" and persecuted. Here, we label anyone who disagrees with us a "homophobe" and we sue them.

Who the fuck has been sued for expressing dissenting opinions? Did this happen in the same universe where no one offered any reasons to legalize gay marriage?

Like it or not, both sides have to live with each other. We can agree to disagree, and to vote accordingly. If same-sex marriage becomes legalized (as a result of the democratic process, not judicial activism) then the anti-same-sex-marriage people will have to learn to live with it. But the reverse is also true. If the vote comes in and the majority OPPOSES legalized same-sex marriage, then WE will simply have to learn to live with THAT (until the next election cycle anyway; then we can try again).

...or we can go to the courts, because that is what they are there for.

And finally, if you're unsuccessful in trying to change the other side's mind, it is wrong to use the courts to force it down their throats. You're free to keep trying to convince them, of course, but to bypass the democratic process to enforce your agenda sets a dangerous precedent.

The horrible, dangerous precedent known as "doing things exactly the way the founding fathers intended, and as they have been done for the entire existence of this nation." Oh noes.

True, the courts ended segregation in this country, which I agree was a good idea :). But in the end that decision was supported by the majority, given that we DIDN'T recall all of our Congressmen and then elect a new legislature full of white-supremacists and immediately begin to try and bring segregation back. So I believe that ending segregation was a good thing because it truly represented the will of the people, who had been convinced by Martin Luther King's words.

And in CareBearLand, everyone was a cute little teddy bear and they loved each other very very much. In the real world, of course, there were and are plenty of racist idiots, and there was nothing whatsoever wrong with fighting to overturn the unconstitutional laws they put into place.

Same-sex marriage advocates have not yet managed to convince the majority to support them. Granted, that may be changing, and perhaps that will be the majority viewpoint in the near future. But until then it seems rather arrogant of us to start name-calling or dismissing their views.

And if anyone were name-calling or dismissing rather than discussing and disagreeing, this statement would have something to do with the topic of conversation!

Are we really so certain of our own moral infallibility that we're willing to believe that everybody who disagrees with us is a horrible, gay-hating idiot?

Of course not. I am quite confident that most people who disagree with me are not horrible, gay-hating idiots. Just not the ones who disagree about the particular issue of whether or not gay people deserve basic human rights.

There's absolutely no chance that they're people - just like us - who have their own opinions - equally valid - which happen to disagree with ours?

Of course they are people. That does not make their opinions equally valid. If my opinion was that the moon was made of green cheese, you are under no obligation not to think that is a fucking stupid opinion.

If we're so obviously right, then why does anybody disagree with us? They can't ALL be brainwashed can they?

Who other than you suggested anyone was "brainwashed"? It is entirely possible for large numbers of people to be wrong. The fact that people believed for centuries that the sun orbited the earth did not either mean that the sun really DID orbit the earth or that they were brainwashed. It just meant they were wrong.

Which brings me back to the whole reason that I posted in this forum to begin with: I resented the other side being referred to as "religious fundies". It's insulting to religious people (like myself), and it dismisses a sizeable portion of our population as being brainwashed idiots.

Given that "fundamentalist" (or "fundie" for short) is a term created by the religious right for the religious right, it is puzzling why you would object to it being used, or assume that it means "brainwashed idiot."



And so I have wrestled with this issue for years. I'm trying to do what I think is morally right, but I'm not 100% sure what that is. But when someone else dismisses my faith out of hand, or calls me a bigot, my natural response is "Oh yeah? Says who?"

I have not seen anyone in this thread dismiss anyone's faith out of hand. I am aware that people do so, and yes, when they do, that is stupid. You can believe whatever you want. But when you try to enshrine your beliefs into law, then yes, I will fight you tooth and nail, because I quite like the Constitution of my country, and I object very much to people deliberately violating it. You have already seen my feelings on your objection to the word "bigot."

You see where that road leads.

To supporting morally and legally repugnant positions just to be stubborn, apparently, from what you've said. I'm not sure you should be bragging about that.

ok BUT if....gay marriages were granted all the same rights as heterosexual marriages except that called something else...

Would that be cool?
No. As has been told to you by three posters already, separate-but-equal is not equal. This has already been decided by the Supreme Court.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that anti-gay marriage people see things that way.

I have a gay family member who is married to her partner. They found a priest willing to perform the ceremony. They wear rings and call themselves "married". They are also legally registered as domestic partners. They receive the same rights as my parents under the law. You and your boyfriend have those same freedoms, so what's the problem?

Your side DOES stop the other side from doing what they want. What they want is to live in a world where homosexuality is not encouraged. This is a belief shared by much of the rest of the world, where traditionally homosexuals have far less recognition and freedom then they do here.

Which is why the United States has its own laws that its citizens follow.

Are you honestly making the argument "gays have it worse other places, so stop making such a fuss and be happy with what we've allowed you"?

ok BUT if....gay marriages were granted all the same rights as heterosexual marriages except that called something else...

Would that be cool?

If all people that believe homosexuals deserve equality in marriage are called 'human'... and all people that DON'T believe homosexuals deserve equality in marriage are called 'neanderthal slime'...

would that be cool?

Oh? I didn't think sexual orientation was a protected class of people under federal labor law. If I'm wrong Huzzah!, one less thing I need to worry about when I get a job, but I could have sworn that sexual orientation wasn't protected.
Perhaps you're right. I'll have to read up on that. I work for tort lawyers mostly, so I'm used to not worrying about the rules that say we can't and concentrating instead on the rules that say we can sometimes, and making those work for us other times too.

damn

Allowing marriage doesn't encourage homosexuality. People aren't going to wake up and say 'hey, now that gay marriage is legal, I think I'll go stick my penis in another man's anus!'.

Well...You wont, :p

lol

In 2000, California passed Proposition 22, which rewrote the California Family Code to restrict the term "marriage" to heterosexual marriages.

Prior to this, you are correct, there was no legislation barring anyone from getting married.

Prop 22 was overturned by the California Supreme Court in 2008 by a vote of 4 to 3. Prop 22 was ruled as being unconstitutional. At the same time homosexuals were SPECIFICALLY granted the right to get married.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong a thousand times wrong. The law that restricted marriage to opposite sex couples was challenged and the court found that it was unconstitutional. The text of the constitution did not change for the to happen. Therefore, same sex couples had the right to marry ever since the relevant portions of the constitution were written, that right was simply never recognised. Homosexuals were 'granted' the right to marry the same time everyone else in California was. It simply took until 2008 for that right to get recognised.

Therefore, Prop 8 was passed in late 2008, rewriting the Constitution.

I don't really feel that it's necessary to restrict the term "marriage" to heterosexuals (please keep in mind that homosexual domestic partnerships retain all the legal and financial benefits of a marriage).

Personally, I believe that a reasonable solution would be to simply remove the word "marriage" from the laws. Everybody under the law could be a "domestic partner", gay, straight, threesome, whatever the state chooses to legitimize. Then if religious people choose to have a ceremony in a church (which would have no legal standing) they can call themselves "married" or whatever other term they choose to describe themselves. Likewise, gay people (as they are - in fact - already doing) could also have whatever form of ceremony that they wished and call themselves whatever they wanted. That way each group could have equal status under the law. Religious people might look at a gay couple and say "They're not REALLY married" if that makes them feel better, but you can't stop someone from calling themselves anything they want.
And we can just give blacks their own schools and it'll all be fine. Separate and equal and all that.

The fact that gay couples currently have all the same rights as straight couples,
Only in some places
yet they continue to get worked up about the term "marriage" is what gives me pause. If all someone wants is equal rights, then what does it matter if their rights have a different name? All races have equal rights, that doesn't stop us from identifying ourselves as "Caucasian" or "African American" or whatever. Should a white man have the "right" to be regarded as "African American" under the law? Is this even something worth getting worked up about?
Yes. Maybe you've noticed, but the gay community has recently been working to gain acceptance, rights and freedoms they deserve, but are often denied. Even if its just a symbolic gesture to call their legal unions marriage then its worth it.

The fact that gay activist groups are so determined to be described as "married" under the law makes me wonder if what they're really after is not equal rights, but equal PERCEPTION. I simply don't think it's right to force any group of people to recognize another as being legitimate. To me, it would be like a group of Christians demanding the "right" to be called Muslims.

Yes, god forbid those gays try to get society to accept them as they are. How vile and horrid of them. They should go back to acting straight and reluctantly marrying someone to hide their true orientation.

Marriage is first and foremost a legal contract
I know this is true ...but just think about it
it's win win
No, no it isn't. Seperate is inherently inequal.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that anti-gay marriage people see things that way.Honestly, unless they can demonstrate it to be fact, that isn't my issue.

I have a gay family member who is married to her partner. They found a priest willing to perform the ceremony. They wear rings and call themselves "married". They are also legally registered as domestic partners. They receive the same rights as my parents under the law. You and your boyfriend have those same freedoms, so what's the problem?They most likely (actually, pretty definatly), do not have the same rights. It has nothing to do with a ceremony or rings or calling eachother whatever you want. It is about the rights and responsibilities provided under marriage.

Your side DOES stop the other side from doing what they want. What they want is to live in a world where homosexuality is not encouraged. This is a belief shared by much of the rest of the world, where traditionally homosexuals have far less recognition and freedom then they do here.
Permitting gay marriages does not encourage homosexuality, and, untill they can provide anything that demonstrates otherwise, I, nor the law, are here to entertain their paranoias.

"They have it good here! Sure, they're second class citizens, but over there, they would be third or fourth class!"

That would depend on the vote. The majority doesn't have the right to discriminate against the minority just because they vote themselves the right to.

When this nation was founded, it was founded on an ideal that it didn't measure up to. That Ideal is preserved in the Constitution. Since then, the nation has been taking step by step(with the occasional backstep) toward that ideal. The idea that two consenting adults can marry regardless of gender is merely one more step. The majority has interfered in that step. It's happened before throughout American History and throughout that history, the majority has eventually been denied the ability to interfere any more. That's the power of the Ideal.

Beautifully put, and an argument that I agree with completely.

Please understand that I do not object to same-sex marriage. If a Proposition were proposed to overturn Prop 8 and allow same-sex marriage, I would vote for it.

What I object to is labeling people who ARE opposed to same-sex marriage as "bigots, homophobes, religious fundamentalists, etc." I think it's just as unfair as the Christian groups who claim that pro-same-sex-marriage advocates are "deviants, Godless" or "perverts". It's just people, doing what they feel is morally correct.

No, no it isn't. Seperate is inherently inequal.

They most likely (actually, pretty definatly), do not have the same rights. It has nothing to do with a ceremony or rings or calling eachother whatever you want. It is about the rights and responsibilities provided under marriage.



How do they not have the same rights?

Beautifully put, and an argument that I agree with completely.

Please understand that I do not object to same-sex marriage. If a Proposition were proposed to overturn Prop 8 and allow same-sex marriage, I would vote for it.

What I object to is labeling people who ARE opposed to same-sex marriage as "bigots, homophobes, religious fundamentalists, etc." I think it's just as unfair as the Christian groups who claim that pro-same-sex-marriage advocates are "deviants, Godless" or "perverts". It's just people, doing what they feel is morally correct.

But, what if people who oppose same sex marriage fit perfectly into a text book definition of "bigots, homophobes, religious fundamentalists, etc."?

Well...You wont, :p

No, think about it...

If you want to have sex with your own gender, or you DON'T want to - it is statistically vanishingly unlikely that the legal/illegal status of marriage is going to influence that orientation.

That's the problem with the other posters argument - the idea that homosexuality is 'encouraged' by same-sex marriage.

How do they not have the same rights?

How did White Schools and Black Schools not offer the same opportunities? ;)

Beautifully put, and an argument that I agree with completely.

Please understand that I do not object to same-sex marriage. If a Proposition were proposed to overturn Prop 8 and allow same-sex marriage, I would vote for it.

What I object to is labeling people who ARE opposed to same-sex marriage as "bigots, homophobes, religious fundamentalists, etc." I think it's just as unfair as the Christian groups who claim that pro-same-sex-marriage advocates are "deviants, Godless" or "perverts". It's just people, doing what they feel is morally correct.

You have stated this more than once. I do not believe it is the truth, and frankly, I think your tactic here--"hey, I'm one of you guys, I'm just trying to be fair!"--is deceptive and repugnant.

Beautifully put, and an argument that I agree with completely.

Please understand that I do not object to same-sex marriage. If a Proposition were proposed to overturn Prop 8 and allow same-sex marriage, I would vote for it.

What I object to is labeling people who ARE opposed to same-sex marriage as "bigots, homophobes, religious fundamentalists, etc." I think it's just as unfair as the Christian groups who claim that pro-same-sex-marriage advocates are "deviants, Godless" or "perverts". It's just people, doing what they feel is morally correct.

I (and all gays and bis) am a deviant (one who deviates from social norms), I happen to be Godless, though, that isn't necessarily a common trait amongs GLBT, and can be quite the pervert. I don't take issue with them calling me any of those, because they are true. As such, they should have no issue with me calling them accurate adjectives.

No, think about it...

If you want to have sex with your own gender, or you DON'T want to - it is statistically vanishingly unlikely that the legal/illegal status of marriage is going to influence that orientation.

That's the problem with the other posters argument - the idea that homosexuality is 'encouraged' by same-sex marriage.

I was joking, lol...

The implication was meant to be that I was going to, :tongue:

We deny people equal rights all the time.....In all these cases privileges have been extended to certain groups of the adult population, while being denied to others. In this case, these privileges are awarded/denied based on age.

Please tell me you see how you just undermined your own argument.

How do they not have the same rights?

In what state do they hold their civil union? I can find out specifically.

Civil unions do not provide the same rights and responsibilities in all cases, but I can be more specific if I know what state they are in.

In all likelihood, they actually do not.



Allowing marriage doesn't encourage homosexuality. People aren't going to wake up and say 'hey, now that gay marriage is legal, I think I'll go stick my penis in another man's anus!'.

In this country, people are free to drink alcohol (if they're over 21). Some people object to this behavior. They think it is disgusting and immoral, and so they themselves do not drink. They take pride in being able to cal themselves "sober".

Now imagine if drunks somehow demanded a law that read "being a heavy drinker is just as good as being sober". Do you see how that could offend sober people?

ok...but if you had to choose.. which one would u rather have
gay marriages(called another name)
or
not having any marriage

ok...but if you had to choose.. which one would u rather have
gay marriages(called another name)
or
not having any marriage

not having any marriage (presumably for anyone), it would at least be equal...

In this country, people are free to drink alcohol (if they're over 21). Some people object to this behavior. They think it is disgusting and immoral, and so they themselves do not drink. They take pride in being able to cal themselves "sober".

Now imagine if drunks somehow demanded a law that read "being a heavy drinker is just as good as being sober". Do you see how that could offend sober people?Are there rights somehow provided to those who are sober that are refused to those who are drunks? No? Didn't think so. In the eyes of the law (which is what marriage is...a law), they ARE just as good as each other.

ok...but if you had to choose.. which one would u rather have
gay marriages(called another name)
or
not having any marriage
No marriage.

Beautifully put, and an argument that I agree with completely.

Please understand that I do not object to same-sex marriage. If a Proposition were proposed to overturn Prop 8 and allow same-sex marriage, I would vote for it.

What I object to is labeling people who ARE opposed to same-sex marriage as "bigots, homophobes, religious fundamentalists, etc." I think it's just as unfair as the Christian groups who claim that pro-same-sex-marriage advocates are "deviants, Godless" or "perverts". It's just people, doing what they feel is morally correct.

What would you call someone who opposed the abolition of slavery? Would it matter why?

Do you honestly think 'racist' or 'bigot' is in the same category of unfair as 'deviant', 'pervert' or '******'?

In this country, people are free to drink alcohol (if they're over 21). Some people object to this behavior. They think it is disgusting and immoral, and so they themselves do not drink. They take pride in being able to cal themselves "sober".

Now imagine if drunks somehow demanded a law that read "being a heavy drinker is just as good as being sober". Do you see how that could offend sober people?

First gays were murderers... now they're alcoholics. It seems you have trouble talking about homosexuality as homosexuality.

And as for those differences between marriage and domestic partnership, from wikipedia:

While domestic partners receive most of the benefits of marriage, several differences remain. These differences include, in part:

* Couples seeking domestic partnership must already share a residence, married couples may be married without living together.
* Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older, minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.
* California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage, there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.
* Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan, domestic partners are not.
* There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships. [3]

In addition to these differences specific to state law, should the Defense of Marriage Act be found unconstitutional or repealed, married persons in California might enjoy all the federal benefits of marriage, including Constitutionally-required recognition of their relationships as marriages in the rest of the United States under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. [4][dubious – discuss]

In addition to these differences specific to the United States, some countries that recognize same-sex marriages performed in California as valid in their own country, (e.g., Israel [5]), do not recognize same-sex domestic partnerships performed in California.

EDIT: Clearly, someone editing the article found the assertion dubious--I do not.

In this country, people are free to drink alcohol (if they're over 21). Some people object to this behavior. They think it is disgusting and immoral, and so they themselves do not drink. They take pride in being able to cal themselves "sober".

Now imagine if drunks somehow demanded a law that read "being a heavy drinker is just as good as being sober". Do you see how that could offend sober people?

I fear for the day when a country might consider its laws beholden to how many people might be offended by them. Nobody has the right not to be offended.

If Christians objecting to same-sex marriage are "intolerant" to homosexuals, then aren't homosexuals who insist on same-sex marriage "intolerant" to Christians?

No.

This has been another edition of Short Answers to Simple Questions.

mmm I am starting to like this forum write one word everyone else writes 500

this forum is emotional..good cause i love provoking :]

In this country, people are free to drink alcohol (if they're over 21). Some people object to this behavior. They think it is disgusting and immoral, and so they themselves do not drink. They take pride in being able to cal themselves "sober".

Now imagine if drunks somehow demanded a law that read "being a heavy drinker is just as good as being sober". Do you see how that could offend sober people?
Are you incapable of using any analogy for gays that is not insulting? You have compared gays to criminals, to the mentally incompetent, and now to drunks. But I notice you still refuse to compare them to blacks, women, or Jews.

ok...but if you had to choose.. which one would u rather have
gay marriages(called another name)
or
not having any marriage
I'll take what's behind Door #3, thanks. Ooh, look! It's equality!

The option you offer is the one offered by bigots.

mmm I am starting to like this forum write one word everyone else writes 500

this forum is emotional..good cause i love provoking :]

Not wise to admit that openly. Deliberate provocation results in a short nation lifespan.

Not wise to admit that openly. Deliberate provocation results in a short nation lifespan.

What if its Thought provocation, or Lulz provocation? ;)

bring it on :o

mmm I am starting to like this forum write one word everyone else writes 500

this forum is emotional..good cause i love provoking :]
Now, this annoys me. *that's an emotion* People keep saying NSG is "emotional" or certain posters are "emotional."

This forum is not "emotional." It is energetic, enthusiastic, committed, and rigorous. Yes, people do sometimes put a lot of emotion into their arguments, but for the most part, the arguments here are driven by enjoyment of the sport, not by people having their emotions jerked around.

If you want to provoke things, I hope you're going to give us more than a few fly-by posts of questionable quality and no quoted post you are responding to. That won't get you much emotional response at all -- unless you count boredom as an emotion.

I'm a bigot wow ...
i could be worse..

Now, this annoys me. *that's an emotion* People keep saying NSG is "emotional" or certain posters are "emotional."

This forum is not "emotional." It is energetic, enthusiastic, committed, and rigorous. Yes, people do sometimes put a lot of emotion into their arguments, but for the most part, the arguments here are driven by enjoyment of the sport, not by people having their emotions jerked around.

If you want to provoke things, I hope you're going to give us more than a few fly-by posts of questionable quality and no quoted post you are responding to. That won't get you much emotional response at all -- unless you count boredom as an emotion.

This is like that time I told my ex that she was "emotional" because of her PMS, isn't it?

But, what if people who oppose same sex marriage fit perfectly into a text book definition of "bigots, homophobes, religious fundamentalists, etc."?

It seems to me that such labels can only be bestowed by history.

During segregation, there were many people who argued that segregation was a good idea, and that allowing integration would be morally wrong.

Martin Luther King - along with other civil rights activists - successfully convinced a majority of the country that this was wrong. Segregation was ended, and the people accepted it.

Sure there were (and continue to be) people who were offended when segregation was ended, but their numbers have been dwindling ever since. Today, the popular opinion - shared by the overwhelming majority of Americans - is that segregation is morally wrong.

Gay-marriage activists have not yet achieved majority support. This does not mean that their cause is "wrong", just that they haven't managed to convince a majority that they're "right" yet. Although this will probably change in the near future. If so, then the history books will judge people accordingly. And yes, most likely 100 years from now the people who opposed gay marriage will be viewed similarly to the people who opposed integration.

However, this is not always the case. The idea of Communism was gaining popularity in the earlier part of the 20th century, but was eventually defeated by traditional capitalism. Many people today regard Communism as a bad idea that was luckily defeated before it could take over. The same MAY be true for legalizing same-sex marriage.

Granted, I don't see how legalizing gay marriage would bring about the moral downfall of America; indeed I think it would improve America's moral fiber. But I've also seen the results of increased tolerance for casual sex and drug use, and I don't like them. The ideas of marriage and traditional morality have been under serious attack since the 1960's, and during that same period we have seen an astounding increase in divorce rates, single-parent families, violent crime, broken homes, etc. True, these two events (growing acceptance of the counterculture and social decay) may be coincidental, or perhaps one is causing the other? Who's to say?

You have stated this more than once. I do not believe it is the truth, and frankly, I think your tactic here--"hey, I'm one of you guys, I'm just trying to be fair!"--is deceptive and repugnant.

I, for one, have never seen anyone take playing the devil's advocate so seriously. I'm also somewhat surprised that no actual opponents of gay marriage have appeared.

Are you incapable of using any analogy for gays that is not insulting? You have compared gays to criminals, to the mentally incompetent, and now to drunks. But I notice you still refuse to compare them to blacks, women, or Jews.

But, those peoples have a long, and documented history of being discriminated against, like Homosexuals...

Why would anyone make that comparison? :rolleyes:

a few fly-by posts of questionable quality ... damn u got me

Now, this annoys me. *that's an emotion* People keep saying NSG is "emotional" or certain posters are "emotional."

This forum is not "emotional." It is energetic, enthusiastic, committed, and rigorous. Yes, people do sometimes put a lot of emotion into their arguments, but for the most part, the arguments here are driven by enjoyment of the sport, not by people having their emotions jerked around.

If you want to provoke things, I hope you're going to give us more than a few fly-by posts of questionable quality and no quoted post you are responding to. That won't get you much emotional response at all -- unless you count boredom as an emotion.

I've got cousins out in farmland that are amused by getting pissed and driving tractors. It just doesn't take a lot to keep some people entertained. :(

This is like that time I told my ex that she was "emotional" because of her PMS, isn't it?
Yes, it's exactly like that. Refer to the notes you took then. ;)

a few fly-by posts of questionable quality ... damn u got me

*loads up magical gun of invisibleness*

Now, hold still, this will hurt a bit...

Now, this annoys me. *that's an emotion* People keep saying NSG is "emotional" or certain posters are "emotional."

This forum is not "emotional." It is energetic, enthusiastic, committed, and rigorous. Yes, people do sometimes put a lot of emotion into their arguments, but for the most part, the arguments here are driven by enjoyment of the sport, not by people having their emotions jerked around.

^ This. I've been accused of "getting my panties in a twist" or "being all worked up" when I am, as far as I can tell, perfectly calm and cheerful. Some people inexplicably seem to think that any emphatic or detailed argument somehow means the person making it is sobbing and punching their computer. I find this very odd.

I'm a bigot wow ...
i could be worse..
Indeed. You could be really bad at following arguments. I did not say you were a bigot. I said the option you offered was the option offered by bigots. Take a few years to consider the difference.

During that time, learn to use the quote button, thanks.

It seems to me that such labels can only be bestowed by history.

During segregation, there were many people who argued that segregation was a good idea, and that allowing integration would be morally wrong.

Martin Luther King - along with other civil rights activists - successfully convinced a majority of the country that this was wrong. Segregation was ended, and the people accepted it.

Sure there were (and continue to be) people who were offended when segregation was ended, but their numbers have been dwindling ever since. Today, the popular opinion - shared by the overwhelming majority of Americans - is that segregation is morally wrong.

Gay-marriage activists have not yet achieved majority support.

See, this is the crux of why youre wrong...

Majority support isnt what constitutes whether something is right or not, if it was, then Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, etc...would still have Segregation in their states, afterall, at the time, and for a significant segment today, Segregation was morally right...

Fortunately, we live in a Republic, that defends Minority Rights...

Morality isnt determined by numbers of Votes...

not worth the effort

I, for one, have never seen anyone take playing the devil's advocate so seriously. I'm also somewhat surprised that no actual opponents of gay marriage have appeared.
Maybe it's like their reaction to Steven Colbert -- they don't realize he's satirizing. They think he's doing a great job of speaking for them.

Yes, it's exactly like that. Refer to the notes you took then. ;)

curl up in the fetal position and play dead for at least 72 hours?

^ This. I've been accused of "getting my panties in a twist" or "being all worked up" when I am, as far as I can tell, perfectly calm and cheerful. Some people inexplicably seem to think that any emphatic or detailed argument somehow means the person making it is sobbing and punching their computer. I find this very odd.

calm the fuck down.

lol

a few fly-by posts of questionable quality ... damn u got me

Nah, I think Murv was actually pretty generous. Just being too lazy to type "yo" in front of "u" already got your posts downgraded to "questionable." The actual content takes them straight to the "waste of two seconds I could have spent on something more intellectually stimulating, like hitting myself in the head with a stapler" category.

hit away

curl up in the fetal position and play dead for at least 72 hours?
Yes, that's Step 1.

calm the fuck down.

*throws things at you for the second time today* :p

Yes, that's Step 1.

...I never knew there was more than one step...:(

Nah, I think Murv was actually pretty generous. Just being too lazy to type "yo" in front of "u" already got your posts downgraded to "questionable." The actual content takes them straight to the "waste of two seconds I could have spent on something more intellectually stimulating, like hitting myself in the head with a stapler" category.

OH GOD WHY DID YOU PUT THAT THOUGHT IN MY HEAD!!!



....now I have to find a way to pull this staple out....*finds staple remover* :p

hit away
Okay, that's it. I've wasted enough time on another one who doesn't understand the difference between IM and a forum. You've been just posting background noise, not conversation. I'm done with you. *turns off the "you" switch*

...I never knew there was more than one step...:(

I think it involves chocolate.

...I never knew there was more than one step...:(
Ah, you got lucky, then. :D

I think your switch is broken

*throws things at you for the second time today* :p

If by "things" you mean "yourself" then I can get behind that. Or in front of that. or really at any angle you'd prefer.

I think it involves chocolate.

This is generally a solid Step 2 in almost any endeavor.

I think it involves chocolate.

Specifically, you shove it down your throat until you stop breathing and enter a coma-like state. This is the only way to be safe - even if you play dead, they can hear your heart beating.

If by "things" you mean "yourself" then I can get behind that. Or in front of that. or really at any angle you'd prefer.

Oh really, now my preferences matter? Exciting! :tongue:

Ah, you got lucky, then. :D

or easily distracted by shiny things and never made it to 10 minutes in the fetal position, let alone 72, and was promptly slain and sacrificed to the vagina gnomes.

This is generally a solid Step 2 in almost any endeavor.
I can attest to this. When in doubt, bring chocolate.

or easily distracted by shiny things and never made it to 10 minutes in the fetal position, let alone 72, and was promptly slain and sacrificed to the vagina gnomes.
She had gnomes?! :eek2:

ok you guys lost me...

If by "things" you mean "yourself" then I can get behind that. Or in front of that. or really at any angle you'd prefer.

Always playing favourites you are >>

Specifically, you shove it down your throat until you stop breathing and enter a coma-like state. This is the only way to be safe - even if you play dead, they can hear your heart beating.

...yes. You'll do well.

Specifically, you shove it down your throat until you stop breathing and enter a coma-like state. This is the only way to be safe - even if you play dead, they can hear your heart beating.

I think the Haitians did something similar with puffer fish. Neurotoxin in one of the glands if I recall. You might think it's part of an ancient religious ritual. In reality it's just a way to escape pissed off girlfriends.

Always playing favourites you are >>

you're next ;)

Are you incapable of using any analogy for gays that is not insulting? You have compared gays to criminals, to the mentally incompetent, and now to drunks. But I notice you still refuse to compare them to blacks, women, or Jews.

<sigh> I was hoping to avoid the whole "are people born gay, or is it a lifestyle choice?" debate.

Obviously, blacks, women, and people of Jewish descent are born that way. There is no such thing as "acting black".

I am willing to concede that gay people are in fact "born that way". There seems to be strong scientific evidence to support that.

However, it is not the EXISTENCE of gay people that religious people object to. It is the ACTIONS of those people. Who we have sex with (except in the case of rape) is ALWAYS a choice, no matter how much we might want to do it. Certain people will disapprove of our choices. My family disapproves of the fact that I live with my fiance, but we're not married yet. I accept this disapproval as the consequence of my choices. If I wanted their approval, I could move out, but I choose not to.

you're next ;)

yeah, but you cant call it sex, you have to call it something else, :rolleyes:

like Sexual Organ Unions, lol...

This is like that time I told my ex that she was "emotional" because of her PMS, isn't it?
Why do I get the feeling these two things are related?
During segregation, there were many people who argued that segregation was a good idea, and that allowing integration would be morally wrong.
Their basis for believing this was that black people are inferior and would thus be a corrupting influence on society.

Martin Luther King - along with other civil rights activists - successfully convinced a majority of the country that this was wrong. Segregation was ended, and the people accepted it.

Sure there were (and continue to be) people who were offended when segregation was ended, but their numbers have been dwindling ever since. Today, the popular opinion - shared by the overwhelming majority of Americans - is that segregation is morally wrong.

Gay-marriage activists have not yet achieved majority support. This does not mean that their cause is "wrong", just that they haven't managed to convince a majority that they're "right" yet. Although this will probably change in the near future. If so, then the history books will judge people accordingly. And yes, most likely 100 years from now the people who opposed gay marriage will be viewed similarly to the people who opposed integration.
So what's your point here? Don't dare call the people who treat gays as inferior bigots just in case history sides with them? Fuck that shit.

However, this is not always the case. The idea of Communism was gaining popularity in the earlier part of the 20th century, but was eventually defeated by traditional capitalism. Many people today regard Communism as a bad idea that was luckily defeated before it could take over. The same MAY be true for legalizing same-sex marriage.
So what?

Granted, I don't see how legalizing gay marriage would bring about the moral downfall of America; indeed I think it would improve America's moral fiber. But I've also seen the results of increased tolerance for casual sex and drug use, and I don't like them. The ideas of marriage and traditional morality have been under serious attack since the 1960's, and during that same period we have seen an astounding increase in divorce rates, single-parent families, violent crime, broken homes, etc. True, these two events (growing acceptance of the counterculture and social decay) may be coincidental, or perhaps one is causing the other? Who's to say?

Not you, with any luck. Fortunately we have psychologists and sociologists who study such things.

She had gnomes?! :eek2:

<sigh> I was hoping to avoid the whole "are people born gay, or is it a lifestyle choice?" debate.

Obviously, blacks, women, and people of Jewish descent are born that way. There is no such thing as "acting black".

I am willing to concede that gay people are in fact "born that way". There seems to be strong scientific evidence to support that.

However, it is not the EXISTENCE of gay people that religious people object to. It is the ACTIONS of those people. Who we have sex with (except in the case of rape) is ALWAYS a choice, no matter how much we might want to do it. Certain people will disapprove of our choices. My family disapproves of the fact that I live with my fiance, but we're not married yet. I accept this disapproval as the consequence of my choices. If I wanted their approval, I could move out, but I choose not to.
the born that way argument is a waste of time anyway.

Either I am born that way, and am therefore acting upon my nature, and have the right to do so as any other set of genes, or I choose to be gay, and have the right to my freedom of choice and still deserve equal protection under the law.

My family disapproves of the fact that I live with my fiance, but we're not married yet. I accept this disapproval as the consequence of my choices. If I wanted their approval, I could move out, but I choose not to.

The fact that you have yet to comprehend the difference between "not approving" and "preventing" suggests to me that you are not yet ready for this conversation. Gay marriage proponents do not ask that anyone be made to approve. We're not asking that people have to like it. They're free to not like it. They're free to hate it. They're free to wag their fingers and cluck disapprovingly.

What they should not be able to do is prevent it, merely because they disapprove.

First gays were murderers... now they're alcoholics. It seems you have trouble talking about homosexuality as homosexuality.

And as for those differences between marriage and domestic partnership, from wikipedia:

While domestic partners receive most of the benefits of marriage, several differences remain. These differences include, in part:

* Couples seeking domestic partnership must already share a residence, married couples may be married without living together.
* Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older, minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.
* California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage, there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.
* Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan, domestic partners are not.
* There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships. [3]

In addition to these differences specific to state law, should the Defense of Marriage Act be found unconstitutional or repealed, married persons in California might enjoy all the federal benefits of marriage, including Constitutionally-required recognition of their relationships as marriages in the rest of the United States under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. [4][dubious – discuss]

In addition to these differences specific to the United States, some countries that recognize same-sex marriages performed in California as valid in their own country, (e.g., Israel [5]), do not recognize same-sex domestic partnerships performed in California.

EDIT: Clearly, someone editing the article found the assertion dubious--I do not.

It seems to me, then, that the next thing to do would be to address these inconsistencies.

the born that way argument is a waste of time anyway.

Either I am born that way, and am therefore acting upon my nature, and have the right to do so as any other set of genes, or I choose to be gay, and have the right to my freedom of choice and still deserve equal protection under the law.

I would just like to note that the accidental multi-quoted gnomes in this post briefly made me think you were debating whether women were born with vagina gnomes. This makes the argument SO much more fun.

<sigh> I was hoping to avoid the whole "are people born gay, or is it a lifestyle choice?" debate.
You should have followed your instincts on that. It is completely irrelevant.

Obviously, blacks, women, and people of Jewish descent are born that way. There is no such thing as "acting black".

I am willing to concede that gay people are in fact "born that way". There seems to be strong scientific evidence to support that.

However, it is not the EXISTENCE of gay people that religious people object to. It is the ACTIONS of those people. Who we have sex with (except in the case of rape) is ALWAYS a choice, no matter how much we might want to do it. Certain people will disapprove of our choices. My family disapproves of the fact that I live with my fiance, but we're not married yet. I accept this disapproval as the consequence of my choices. If I wanted their approval, I could move out, but I choose not to.
Right. Religious people choose to deny rights to gays in an attempt to control how they live in a manner that is judgmental and punitive, and in a way they do not apply to other people (such as themselves). I.e., they wish to discrimiate against gays because they don't like to see gays behaving differently from the way they (the religious people) do. I.e., the religious people are bigoted against gays.

the born that way argument is a waste of time anyway.

Either I am born that way, and am therefore acting upon my nature, and have the right to do so as any other set of genes, or I choose to be gay, and have the right to my freedom of choice and still deserve equal protection under the law.

If I am born with a genetic predisposition to alcoholism or pedophilia, so I have a "right" to act that way? There is strong scientific evidence that these are also genetically determined.

<sigh> I was hoping to avoid the whole "are people born gay, or is it a lifestyle choice?" debate.

Obviously, blacks, women, and people of Jewish descent are born that way. There is no such thing as "acting black".

I am willing to concede that gay people are in fact "born that way". There seems to be strong scientific evidence to support that.

However, it is not the EXISTENCE of gay people that religious people object to. It is the ACTIONS of those people. Who we have sex with (except in the case of rape) is ALWAYS a choice, no matter how much we might want to do it. Certain people will disapprove of our choices. My family disapproves of the fact that I live with my fiance, but we're not married yet. I accept this disapproval as the consequence of my choices. If I wanted their approval, I could move out, but I choose not to.

Whether they were born that way or not is irrelevant.

Race is not a choice and all races can marry. Religious affiliation(or none at all) is a choice and all religions(or none at all) can marry. Who someone wants to have sex with is as minuscule a reason to base discrimination on as being born with unusually long eyelashes or liking chocolate ice cream. SOme people are simply obsessed with other peoples' sex.

I would just like to note that the accidental multi-quoted gnomes in this post briefly made me think you were debating whether women were born with vagina gnomes. This makes the argument SO much more fun.

I always knew the little buggers were up to something...

http://geekstar.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/istock_000003214115xsmall.jpg

the born that way argument is a waste of time anyway.

Either I am born that way, and am therefore acting upon my nature, and have the right to do so as any other set of genes, or I choose to be gay, and have the right to my freedom of choice and still deserve equal protection under the law.
Did you quote me in that one to indicate that your ex was born with vagina gnomes?

It seems to me, then, that the next thing to do would be to address these inconsistencies.
Which can be done easily by letting gays get married.

If I am born with a genetic predisposition to alcoholism or pedophilia, so I have a "right" to act that way? There is strong scientific evidence that these are also genetically determined.

The difference being that alcoholism and paedophilia are objectively bad, whereas being gay does not affect anybody but themselves and their partner.

If I am born with a genetic predisposition to alcoholism or pedophilia, so I have a "right" to act that way? There is strong scientific evidence that these are also genetically determined.

Well, no one's discriminating against heavy drinkers, are they?

and, as far as your favored pedos, I believe we've already established an Age of Consent...

Although, I still fail to see what Gays have to do with Pedophilia or Alcoholism...:confused:

If I am born with a genetic predisposition to alcoholism or pedophilia, so I have a "right" to act that way? There is strong scientific evidence that these are also genetically determined.
Yet again you compare gays to criminals and addicts. I'm ready at this point to dismiss your claims to really support gay marriage as lies.

In response to the present post: Alcoholics DO have the right to drink, so long as they are old enough. Pedophiles DO have the right to marry an adult of the legal age of consent. In fact, many of them do so.

If I am born with a genetic predisposition to alcoholism or pedophilia, so I have a "right" to act that way? There is strong scientific evidence that these are also genetically determined.

Do you have a right to be an alchoholic? Of course you do. You can drink yourself into oblivion, if you so choose.

As for pedophilia, perhaps you missed the whole "consenting adults" part of the equation. You're really really bad at this, you know that right?

I mean, the funny thing is, every time, every single time this discussion gets brought up, someone brings up the same fucking arguments. It's always the same shit, "what about pedophiles?" "So it's ok if I marry my dog?" and assorted bullshit. It's the same argument every single fucking time. It was stupid the first time, it was stupid the time after that, it's stupid now, and it will be just as stupid the next time the guy after you brings it up.

I don't understand it. I don't get it. Is the position so untenable, so undefendable, that nobody can come up with a halfway decent argument? Something new for a change?

Christ, did you actually think you were somehow being clever? That's actually....sad.

I always knew the little buggers were up to something...

http://geekstar.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/istock_000003214115xsmall.jpg
That's what the hats are for.

I'm glad I held my breath, counted to three and read replies before posting. I feel calmer now. Sort of light-headed. Nice.

24 pages of this thread have shown me that there is no good explanation as to why a reasonable person would deny homosexuals the right to marry. Two pages of this thread showed me that, actually, but the other 22 really hit it home.

That's what the hats are for.

Hmmm...It makes one wonder what happened to the little guy on the right, :p

The fact that you have yet to comprehend the difference between "not approving" and "preventing" suggests to me that you are not yet ready for this conversation. Gay marriage proponents do not ask that anyone be made to approve. We're not asking that people have to like it. They're free to not like it. They're free to hate it. They're free to wag their fingers and cluck disapprovingly.

What they should not be able to do is prevent it, merely because they disapprove.

But they CAN prevent me from claiming "married" status, and all the attendant benefits. If I want those benefits, I have to play by the rules enacted by the majority i.e. I have to register with the state.

Gay people DO have equal rights under the law; the right to marry any person of the opposite sex that they choose. Should we recognize all kinds of marriage? Group-marriages? Animal/human marriages? (No joke, I knew a guy who was outraged that society wouldn't recognize his marriage to his dog).

Do you have a right to be an alchoholic? Of course you do. You can drink yourself into oblivion, if you so choose.

As for pedophilia, perhaps you missed the whole "consenting adults" part of the equation. You're really really bad at this, you know that right?

I mean, the funny thing is, every time, every single time this discussion gets brought up, someone brings up the same fucking arguments. It's always the same shit, "what about pedophiles?" "So it's ok if I marry my dog?" and assorted bullshit. It's the same argument every single fucking time. It was stupid the first time, it was stupid the time after that, it's stupid now, and it will be just as stupid the next time the guy after you brings it up.

I don't understand it. I don't get it. Is the position so untenable, so undefendable, that nobody can come up with a halfway decent argument? Something new for a change?

Christ, did you actually think you were somehow being clever? That's actually....sad.
The quality of the arguments is an indicator of the amount of thought given to the matter. Bigotry is dependent on avoidance of critical thinking.

Christ, did you actually think you were somehow being clever? That's actually....sad.

I think so, unfortunately. The whole "I didn't want to have to go into this, but..." intro made it sound like "acting gay is a choice" was his piece de resistance.

Hmmm...It makes one wonder what happened to the little guy on the right, :p
Earned his hazard pay. ;)

Do you have a right to be an alchoholic? Of course you do. You can drink yourself into oblivion, if you so choose.

As for pedophilia, perhaps you missed the whole "consenting adults" part of the equation. You're really really bad at this, you know that right?

I mean, the funny thing is, every time, every single time this discussion gets brought up, someone brings up the same fucking arguments. It's always the same shit, "what about pedophiles?" "So it's ok if I marry my dog?" and assorted bullshit. It's the same argument every single fucking time. It was stupid the first time, it was stupid the time after that, it's stupid now, and it will be just as stupid the next time the guy after you brings it up.

I don't understand it. I don't get it. Is the position so untenable, so undefendable, that nobody can come up with a halfway decent argument? Something new for a change?

Christ, did you actually think you were somehow being clever? That's actually....sad.

This brings up the question why my fellow Christians are so opposed. Homophobes I can sort of understand. But Christians I don't understand. We are suppose to show kindness and love to everyone. We are not endorsing gay marriage by allowing it and we are not being forced into gay marriages by allowing it. I know it is in the bible but so are alot of things that we still allow. I don't understand why Christians are apposed. :confused:

Gotta go all. Take care. Sorry if anyone was offended.

But they CAN prevent me from claiming "married" status, and all the attendant benefits. If I want those benefits, I have to play by the rules enacted by the majority i.e. I have to register with the state.

Gay people DO have equal rights under the law; the right to marry any person of the opposite sex that they choose. Should we recognize all kinds of marriage? Group-marriages? Animal/human marriages? (No joke, I knew a guy who was outraged that society wouldn't recognize his marriage to his dog).

*cough* *points at NA's post* *cough*

Gay people DO have equal rights under the law; the right to marry any person of the opposite sex that they choose. Should we recognize all kinds of marriage? Group-marriages? Animal/human marriages? (No joke, I knew a guy who was outraged that society wouldn't recognize his marriage to his dog).

...wow. If I didn't know better, I'd think you and Neo set that one up, you feel into it so readily.

Gay people DO have equal rights under the law; the right to marry any person of the opposite sex that they choose. Should we recognize all kinds of marriage? Group-marriages? Animal/human marriages? (No joke, I knew a guy who was outraged that society wouldn't recognize his marriage to his dog).

It's always the same shit, "what about pedophiles?" "So it's ok if I marry my dog?" and assorted bullshit.

Wow. Fucking nailed it.

Gotta go all. Take care. Sorry if anyone was offended.

Only bigots are offended by the mere existence of people who think differently than they do. We're fine.

...wow. If I didn't know better, I'd think you and Neo set that one up, you feel into it so readily.

we actually call each other in the morning so we can coordinate outfits.

Gah why do my post always end up at the bottom of the page!

Wow. Fucking nailed it.
It's rare to see such a perfect lay-up like that.

Guy says "Gay peopld DO have equal rights, they can marry somebody of the opposite sex."

S'like nodding your head for the wrong reason when a guy says "The law is equal in that it forbids both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges."

we actually call each other in the morning so we can coordinate outfits.

You mean somewhere out there is a catsuit fundie? :eek:

Gah why do my post always end up at the bottom of the page!
Because gravity hates you.

But they CAN prevent me from claiming "married" status, and all the attendant benefits. If I want those benefits, I have to play by the rules enacted by the majority i.e. I have to register with the state.

Gay people DO have equal rights under the law; the right to marry any person of the opposite sex that they choose. Should we recognize all kinds of marriage? Group-marriages? Animal/human marriages? (No joke, I knew a guy who was outraged that society wouldn't recognize his marriage to his dog).

Yeah, we can totally make our arguments based on "I knew this guy"...

But, as far as Animals, you cant get an Animal's consent, it is impossible, so that would be why you cant marry it...

As opposed to two CONSENTING Homosexuals getting married...

Now, if you can get the entire group to consent to marriage, I personally am fair game to that...

the real problem here, historically, is the lack of consent involved with Polygamy...

You mean somewhere out there is a catsuit fundie? :eek:

oh no no no, don't you fucking start.

oh no no no, don't you fucking start.

Bahahahahahahaha.

Catsuit!

You know, being on NSG for a long time has its benefits. You get to learn the posters. You get to learn their styles. You get to learn their arguments, and anticipate counters. You know who will be a challenge, and who will just waste time.

You also learn that, when you say you have to go, but stick around to watch the thread without logging out, people can still see you.

You know, being on NSG for a long time has its benefits. You get to learn the posters. You get to learn their styles. You get to learn their arguments, and anticipate counters. You know who will be a challenge, and who will just waste time.

You also learn that, when you say you have to go, but stick around to watch the thread without logging out, people can still see you.

Alright, sumbitch, I want your girlfriend.


Have at thee!

oh no no no, don't you fucking start.
Too late! I'm already planning to revive vaudeville for the new Lawyers and Fundies in Catsuits act. :D

You know, being on NSG for a long time has its benefits. You get to learn the posters. You get to learn their styles. You get to learn their arguments, and anticipate counters. You know who will be a challenge, and who will just waste time.

You also learn that, when you say you have to go, but stick around to watch the thread without logging out, people can still see you.
Hush. You'll scare him away.

You know, being on NSG for a long time has its benefits. You get to learn the posters. You get to learn their styles. You get to learn their arguments, and anticipate counters. You know who will be a challenge, and who will just waste time.

You also learn that, when you say you have to go, but stick around to watch the thread without logging out, people can still see you.

THat-th-Thats not true! Thats not true at ALL!


....alright, you win....this time, lol...

Too late! I'm already planning to revive vaudeville for the new Lawyers and Fundies in Catsuits act. :D

Its progress dammit! Think about how much better pianos are these days!

And for the acrobatics, a snare drum!

And a horn section, so when the fundies get caught buying meth from a male prostitute, it can go wah wah wah waauauauauau....

Hush. You'll scare him away.

I thought that's what we were trying to do? What with the whole pointing out the myriad ways in which he's wrong thing.

Its progress dammit! Think about how much better pianos are these days!

And for the acrobatics, a snare drum!

And a horn section, so when the fundies get caught buying meth from a male prostitute, it can go wah wah wah waauauauauau....
It'll be boffo, I'm telling you!

Actually, it could be. I mean, shit, if there could be a Ren and Stimpy, is this really that off kilter?

I thought that's what we were trying to do? What with the whole pointing out the myriad ways in which he's wrong thing.

He wasn't wrong! He was brave, and unique, and willing to fling himself into a sky of ideas, unfettered by fact or cogent reasoning!

We should admire him.

He belived he could fly. He believed he could touch the sky. I'll think about him every night and day. Ironically, he made me gay.

I believe he's my guy...I believe I can touch his thigh....

I thought that's what we were trying to do? What with the whole pointing out the myriad ways in which he's wrong thing.
Did you think that would scare him away? I'll only believe that if he never comes back.

It'll be boffo, I'm telling you!

Actually, it could be. I mean, shit, if there could be a Ren and Stimpy, is this really that off kilter?

Isn't vaudeville the traditional entertainment of economic decline? Or am I off by a decade?

I was terrible in history. And in the study of history.

He wasn't wrong! He was brave, and unique, and willing to fling himself into a sky of ideas, unfettered by fact or cogent reasoning!

We should admire him.

He belived he could fly. He believed he could touch the sky. I'll think about him every night and day. Ironically, he made me gay.

I believe he's my guy...I believe I can touch his thigh....

He didn't listen to the facts he went with what his gut told him. And I commend him for that.

He wasn't wrong! He was brave, and unique, and willing to fling himself into a sky of ideas, unfettered by fact or cogent reasoning!

We should admire him.

He belived he could fly. He believed he could touch the sky. I'll think about him every night and day. Ironically, he made me gay.

I believe he's my guy...I believe I can touch his thigh....

Can't...breathe...laughing too hard...

He wasn't wrong! He was brave, and unique, and willing to fling himself into a sky of ideas, unfettered by fact or cogent reasoning!

We should admire him.

He belived he could fly. He believed he could touch the sky. I'll think about him every night and day. Ironically, he made me gay.

I believe he's my guy...I believe I can touch his thigh....
:fluffle:

Isn't vaudeville the traditional entertainment of economic decline? Or am I off by a decade?

I was terrible in history. And in the study of history.
Hmm....no, I think you're thinking of liquor.

Vaudeville lasted over 100 years -- and all of them with the same acts and the same jokes -- through both busts and booms.

And put a lawyer and a fundie in some catsuits, and those jokes will get laughs for another 100 years. *nods*

Can't...breathe...laughing too hard...

I was tempted to go look up the complete lyrics to that song and do then "Ode to Homophobe: A Lyrical Journey Into I Believe I Can Fly That Will Inevitably End in a Distasteful Cum Joke That Really Kind of Ruined It But I Couldn't Help It".

But I don't have the genius of a two minute chicken fight.

:fluffle:


Hmm....no, I think you're thinking of liquor.

Vaudeville lasted over 100 years -- and all of them with the same acts and the same jokes -- through both busts and booms.

Speaking of fine busts and booms, I hear you're making a decent showing in the eligible wimmins thread.

I would just like to note that the accidental multi-quoted gnomes in this post briefly made me think you were debating whether women were born with vagina gnomes. This makes the argument SO much more fun.That would be a stupid argument. They move in about 6 months after she's born, depending upon the terms of the lease.

If I am born with a genetic predisposition to alcoholism or pedophilia, so I have a "right" to act that way? There is strong scientific evidence that these are also genetically determined.
Alcoholic? Yes. Pedophile? No, because children can't give informed consent.
Does a black person have the right to act as a full human? What about women? Because that sure as hell is genetically determined.
Did you quote me in that one to indicate that your ex was born with vagina gnomes?
...would you be at all surprised?
But they CAN prevent me from claiming "married" status, and all the attendant benefits. If I want those benefits, I have to play by the rules enacted by the majority i.e. I have to register with the state.which you can do...so where's the issue? Who can stop you from the whole marriage thing?

Gay people DO have equal rights under the law; the right to marry any person of the opposite sex that they choose. Should we recognize all kinds of marriage? Group-marriages? Animal/human marriages? (No joke, I knew a guy who was outraged that society wouldn't recognize his marriage to his dog).
Straights can marry whomever they love. Gays can't marry the person they love. Issue.

Yes, yes, and no (can't give consent)

You know, being on NSG for a long time has its benefits. You get to learn the posters. You get to learn their styles. You get to learn their arguments, and anticipate counters. You know who will be a challenge, and who will just waste time.

You also learn that, when you say you have to go, but stick around to watch the thread without logging out, people can still see you.

There MUST be a Trope from TVTropes for this SOMEWHERE. :D

Speaking of fine busts and booms, I hear you're making a decent showing in the eligible wimmins thread.

Best segue in the history of....ever.

Best segue in the history of....ever.

Comes in a fine oily second to "Why, yes, dearest, my kisses are a bit like yellow tail sashimi...let me show you why."

Comes in a fine oily second to "Why, yes, dearest, my kisses are a bit like yellow tail sashimi...let me show you why."

...


0.o

Comes in a fine oily second to "Why, yes, dearest, my kisses are a bit like yellow tail sashimi...let me show you why."

Well...You know, if you want to...

I mean, Maybe back to back, but I have to say Im not 100% on this, :p

Speaking of fine busts and booms, I hear you're making a decent showing in the eligible wimmins thread.
Thanks for noticing. I'm a little shocked, actually. Third place behind mega-hotties Ryadn and Neesika. I feel pressured now.

And you -- leading the eligible he-mins last time I checked. Nice. ;)

Comes in a fine oily second to "Why, yes, dearest, my kisses are a bit like yellow tail sashimi...let me show you why."

Ooh, I had the best yellowtail sushi when I was in Boston over New Year's.

Also some pretty decent kisses. :p

Thanks for noticing. I'm a little shocked, actually. Third place behind mega-hotties Ryadn and Neesika. I feel pressured now.

And you -- leading the eligible he-mins last time I checked. Nice. ;)

That's because I have nineteen accounts and people sometimes sig me so I have name recognition. No actual merit.

And I've only been single for a few weeks.

Ooh, I had the best yellowtail sushi when I was in Boston over New Year's.

Also some pretty decent kisses. :p

And some damn fine company atleast one of the evenings, thankyouverymuch.

Ooh, I had the best yellowtail sushi when I was in Boston over New Year's.

Also some pretty decent kisses. :p

One day he'll be a powerful man. Do you want that pressure? The inquiry into your background?

The paparazzi busting in when he's giving you the old "Jewish Breadstick Painless Headache Shiver Slippy Fist" treatment at a restaraunt?

The market, free or not, can decide how much a gay wedding costs, but not whether the law will allow gay marriages to happen.

The market is a lot smarter than you give it credit for.

And some damn fine company atleast one of the evenings, thankyouverymuch.

Indeed! If I make it back to Boston this summer (as I hope to), we should all do that again. :)

And some damn fine company atleast one of the evenings, thankyouverymuch.

until she caught you and I making out behind Kinsales.

You know who we should ask to settle this?

Tim Gunn. He'll understand, on many levels, and he's a natural leader.

Comes in a fine oily second to "Why, yes, dearest, my kisses are a bit like yellow tail sashimi...let me show you why."
And that's when you introduce her to your other wife?

Indeed! If I make it back to Boston this summer (as I hope to), we should all do that again. :)

I'm down. And if it's summer, I won't even be the one wearing a Bruins jersey creepily approaching random people in the bar untill someone finally takes pity.

"Jewish Breadstick Painless Headache Shiver Slippy Fist"

Dammit, now I am trying to figure out exactly what this would entail. I think you have just crashed my brain.

I'm down. And if it's summer, I won't even be the one wearing a Bruins jersey creepily approaching random people in the bar untill someone finally takes pity.

That's not the sad part. The sad part is you weren't even expecting us.

until she caught you and I making out behind Kinsales.

Oh, come on. She totally didn't see us.


...did she?

And that's when you introduce her to your other wife?

Don't even have the first one anymore.




I'm going to say its because the prospect of gay marriage somehow reduced the dignity and sanctity of my straight marriage.

I'm not going to say its because I lack the ambition and focus to be an accomplished anything, or degenerative mental illness, or anything like that.

No. Was them gays.

Indeed! If I make it back to Boston this summer (as I hope to), we should all do that again. :)
Damn straight. That was a good evening. Only next time, get that lawyer to show up on time.

That's not the sad part. The sad part is you weren't even expecting us.

The sad part is, the one who organized it was the last one to show up ;)

Dammit, now I am trying to figure out exactly what this would entail. I think you have just crashed my brain.

Sigh...take it up with Harvard. He'll show you. He's actually pretty good at it.




You should still leave him, though.

Oh, come on. She totally didn't see us.


...did she?

Let's put it this way: did you really have to "smoke" his "cigarette" all the way down to the "end" right there on the street? I mean, I know you Massachusetts guys are a bunch of godless sodomites, but come ON.

The sad part is, the one who organized it was the last one to show up ;)

well, I said at the time it was my cat but...let's be honest. I mean, Poli and I walked in, together, 45 minutes late.

The whole "cat" story...wasn't really fooling anyone was it?

Damn straight. That was a good evening. Only next time, get that lawyer to show up on time.

The problem wasn't so much the lawyer as the lawyer's cat, and, well, NA may claim to be a dom, but he's totally his cat's bitch.

Let's put it this way: did you really have to "smoke" his "cigarette" all the way down to the "end" right there on the street? I mean, I know you Massachusetts guys are a bunch of godless sodomites, but come ON.

I will have you know that it was HE that was smoking MY cigarette. And yes, he had to smoke it all the way, lest he waste my money.

Let's put it this way: did you really have to "smoke" his "cigarette" all the way down to the "end" right there on the street? I mean, I know you Massachusetts guys are a bunch of godless sodomites, but come ON.

Sodomites. Sodomians. Sods. Sodomitians. Sodommers. Sodomans.

There, I like that last one. Sodomans.


Harvard is a Sodoman.

well, I said at the time it was my cat but...let's be honest. I mean, Poli and I walked in, together, 45 minutes late.

The whole "cat" story...wasn't really fooling anyone was it?

I hope your cat attacks your big toe as you sleep tonight.

Cats eat tuna.

Cats eat tuna.

*pats on head*

*pats on head*

Purrs.

Cats eat tuna.

my cat's breath smells like cat food.

my cat's breath smells like cat food.

You can't marry your cat.

Therefore, two men should not get married.

-Euclid, The Elements, Section XI, part 2

What the hell is going on here? (dang where is the picture of the guy with the exploding head when you need it?)

You can't marry your cat.


Trying to get NA's cat into a wedding gown would be pretty hilarious, though.

Where by "hilarious" I mean "certain to cause violent death and dismemberment."

What the hell is going on here? (dang where is the picture of the guy with the exploding head when you need it?)

Its very simple.


Can you marry a can of tomato soup? Of course not. Its absurd.


Therefore, two men who love one another and wish to commit their lives and fortunes to a marital life should be denied.

Do the math.

Its very simple.


Can you marry a can of tomato soup? Of course not. Its absurd.


Therefore, two men who love one another and wish to commit their lives and fortunes to a marital life should be denied.

Do the math.

Math is my worst subject, and I was reffering to all the offtrack stuff before you got back to the gay marriage issue. At least it looked like it was unrelated.

Math is my worst subject, and I was reffering to all the offtrack stuff before you got back to the gay marriage issue. At least it looked like it was unrelated.

As I was postulating earlier tonight, I think threads on NSG have a fairly standard life cycle: Actual Discussion -> Mocking of the Stupid -> Gratuitous Flirtation -> Complete and Utter Spam -> Death. You just showed up somewhere in the last few phases. :p

Math is my worst subject, and I was reffering to all the offtrack stuff before you got back to the gay marriage issue. At least it looked like it was unrelated.

http://www.cossa.csiro.au/pubrep/maymoot/img00003.gif

Whats not to figure out?

http://www.cossa.csiro.au/pubrep/maymoot/img00003.gif

Whats not to figure out?

Thank you, that was helpful, succinct, and arousing.

As I was postulating earlier tonight, I think threads on NSG have a fairly standard life cycle: Actual Discussion -> Mocking of the Stupid -> Gratuitous Flirtation -> Complete and Utter Spam -> Death. You just showed up somewhere in the last few phases. :p

Why is it that every time I show up on a thread it is either dieing(spelling?) or is already dead.

Nice theory though. I should probably commit that to memory.

As I was postulating earlier tonight, I think threads on NSG have a fairly standard life cycle: Actual Discussion -> Mocking of the Stupid -> Gratuitous Flirtation -> Complete and Utter Spam -> Death. You just showed up somewhere in the last few phases. :p

Think about it, Poli.

If you and pastyscrote get married, wouldn't you feel that the value and worth of your marriage would be dimished if two dudes could get married? Or two women?

And maybe one of the women is a little dominant, gets kind of rough, and the other woman is submissive, and lets out little pained sighes as she arches her back?

Think about it, Poli.

If you and pastyscrote get married, wouldn't you feel that the value and worth of your marriage would be dimished if two dudes could get married? Or two women?

And maybe one of the women is a little dominant, gets kind of rough, and the other woman is submissive, and lets out little pained sighes as she arches her back?

Well, Im certainly thinking about it.......among other things, lol...

I would argue that BOTH sides are attempting to enforce their view of what's right or wrong on the other.
Gays: We want the right to marry the one we love.
Fundies: You can't we find it icky
How exactly is that forcing anything on those who are opposed to same-sex marriage?
I would further argue that there IS NO OBJECTIVE "right" answer to this question.
And you would be wrong.
Unless God Himself decides to show up and weigh in on this question, we're left to figure out what to do ourselves. I can't think of a better way to do that then a democratic vote, can you?
Yes, and we have presented it to you already. Discrimination is illegal. Refusing gays the right to marry the person of their choice is discrimination.

Alot of people associate the word "marriage" with religion or heterosexual marriage, maybe they see same sex "marriage" as a affront to religion or the natural order of things.

And that's their problem, not ours.

It's always the same shit, "what about pedophiles?" "So it's ok if I marry my dog?" and assorted bullshit.

Boy, did you hit the nail on the head. :D

Let us pull a H2 time travel: 1860's, C.S.A.: "Next things ya know they'll be forcin' us to free our horses!"

Obviously, blacks, women, and people of Jewish descent are born that way. There is no such thing as "acting black".
Never been to a night-club have you?
I am willing to concede that gay people are in fact "born that way". There seems to be strong scientific evidence to support that.
Okay, things are looking up...
However, it is not the EXISTENCE of gay people that religious people object to. It is the ACTIONS of those people. Who we have sex with (except in the case of rape) is ALWAYS a choice, no matter how much we might want to do it.
And then back down again...

Lets see if I can make this clear for you...
I couldn't care less what religious people object to, they have no right to force their religion upon me.
You find homosexual sex to be morally objectionable? Fine, then don't do it.

It seems to me, then, that the next thing to do would be to address these inconsistencies.

Exactly, by allowing same-sex marriages...
Presto, no inconsistensies

And then back down again...

Lets see if I can make this clear for you...
I couldn't care less what religious people object to, they have no right to force their religion upon me.
You find homosexual sex to be morally objectionable? Fine, then don't do it.

Yes, fuck theocracy...in the ass.

Well, no one's discriminating against heavy drinkers, are they?

and, as far as your favored pedos, I believe we've already established an Age of Consent...

Although, I still fail to see what Gays have to do with Pedophilia or Alcoholism...:confused:

Duh, all gays are criminal, alcoholic, pedophiles...

Yes, fuck theocracy...in the ass.

Only if it's cute... :p
Unlike KoL I have standards. ;)

Only if it's cute... :p
Unlike KoL I have standards. ;)

:D

Well. it is old, but is has plenty of zeal.

Boy, did you hit the nail on the head. :D

Let us pull a H2 time travel: 1860's, C.S.A.: "Next things ya know they'll be forcin' us to free our horses!"

Ohohohohohoho! Hope this expression sticks!

Ohohohohohoho! Hope this expression sticks!

It will. You were epic.

Ohohohohohoho! Hope this expression sticks!

You made the best post about same-sex marriage I have ever seen, so it easily could.

You made the best post about same-sex marriage I have ever seen, so it easily could.

Well, I got these compliments, I may have caused the coinage of a new expression, and I developed a new move, Time Stream. Not a bad day overall. Going to bed soon, but I thank my audience. :D

Edit: By the way, TPE, your (smaller, and maybe less "dramatic") version of my move was very good itself - The "free our horses" was a great humorous touch.

I'm back. Had to take a break to go watch the new X-Men movie :)

You know, I've spent all day on this post. I originally just got on to caution people against name-calling. I thought it would alienate the people that we're trying to convince to see our point of view. Also, once we begin labeling the other side with terms like "bigot" we lose our moral high ground.

Instead, I was attacked. I was called names. People cursed at me. I was forced into defending a viewpoint that is not my own, and then vilified for it.

Falling into my natural role as Devil's Advocate, I tried to answer these challenges. But the people here weren't interested in discussion, they were simply interested in hearing themselves preach. They kept repeating the same arguments again and again, offering very little logic or evidence to back them up. Meanwhile, every time I tried to show another point of view, I was dismissed with "those aren't good reasons".

You know, I'm on your side here. But when I see how quickly our side attacks the other, how intolerant we can be while demanding tolerance for others, how quickly we stick our fingers in our ears and shout "No! No! No! You're wrong! You're a bad person!"..well...it makes me wonder if maybe the other side has a point. It certainly reduces sympathy for our cause.

If you ask someone to recognize your rights, because you feel they have been overlooked or denied, that's one thing. If you DEMAND that someone recognize your rights because if they DON'T that makes them a bad person, well, that's something else.

We feel that it is OK for courts to grant the right of same-sex marriage, regardless of what the majority wants, because we feel that our cause is just and that the end justifies the means. I say we should attempt to convince the other side to see things our way, admit that they are wrong, and join us in building a better future. This will never happen if we continue to insult or antagonize them.

At my college campus, around election time last year, there were many booths set up encouraging people to oppose Prop 8. There was only 1 booth set up encouraging people to support it. Anti-prop 8 people vandalized this booth, destroyed their equipment, called them names and threatened physical violence. Ironically, the people campaigning for tolerance, equality, and peaceful co-existance were the only ones behaving in an intolerant manner and generating violence.

my cat's breath smells like cat food.

Thank you, Ralph.

<sigh> I was hoping to avoid the whole "are people born gay, or is it a lifestyle choice?" debate.

After watching you lop off your own penis, debate-wise, I can see why you were hoping to avoid doing anything to continue your self-imposed flogging.

Obviously, blacks, women, and people of Jewish descent are born that way. There is no such thing as "acting black".

You've obviously never seen suburban white boys in action, have you? Bet your subwoofer there's such a thing as "acting black".

I am willing to concede that gay people are in fact "born that way". There seems to be strong scientific evidence to support that.

If by "seems to be", you mean "mountains of evidence enough to daunt every Sherpa ever born", then you are correct.

However, it is not the EXISTENCE of gay people that religious people object to.

That's funny. Seems to me that you don't actively campaign to remove or deny rights to someone whom you are okay with.

It is the ACTIONS of those people. Who we have sex with (except in the case of rape) is ALWAYS a choice, no matter how much we might want to do it.

Is it? So you're saying that you could have sex with anyone, male, female, attractive to you or not? I call bullshit. If you're not hard, you're not having intercourse with anyone. Your wiring makes you stand up at attention, or remain soft and sexually near useless.

Certain people will disapprove of our choices. My family disapproves of the fact that I live with my fiance, but we're not married yet. I accept this disapproval as the consequence of my choices. If I wanted their approval, I could move out, but I choose not to.

Wait...so you've acknowledged and admitted to "living in sin" but are still casting aspersions on homosexuals? The gymnastics of thought it takes to pull that off and still look at yourself in the mirror are impressive.

Do you have a right to be an alchoholic? Of course you do. You can drink yourself into oblivion, if you so choose.

As for pedophilia, perhaps you missed the whole "consenting adults" part of the equation. You're really really bad at this, you know that right?

I mean, the funny thing is, every time, every single time this discussion gets brought up, someone brings up the same fucking arguments. It's always the same shit, "what about pedophiles?" "So it's ok if I marry my dog?" and assorted bullshit. It's the same argument every single fucking time. It was stupid the first time, it was stupid the time after that, it's stupid now, and it will be just as stupid the next time the guy after you brings it up.

I don't understand it. I don't get it. Is the position so untenable, so undefendable, that nobody can come up with a halfway decent argument? Something new for a change?

Christ, did you actually think you were somehow being clever? That's actually....sad.

As to this nasty, sanctimonious drivel...

Simply saying that an argument is "bullshit" or "I've heard it before" or "it's stupid" is not the same thing as defeating it logically. I've heard Newton's Laws before too...does that make them untrue?

This is not an argument, it is a dismissal. A refusal to answer my points or even consider them. Interwoven with a healthy dose of snide remarks and low-class cursing.

What is truly sad here are the number of people who later remarked at how clever this was.

If this is your champion, good people, then I'm wasting my time talking to you, and I weep for how much damage you are doing to our cause.

Thank you, Ralph.

Wait...so you've acknowledged and admitted to "living in sin" but are still casting aspersions on homosexuals? The gymnastics of thought it takes to pull that off and still look at yourself in the mirror are impressive.

How do you figure? I never claimed to be a saint. Christians recognize that all human beings - yes, even us - are sinners. The difference is, some people accept responsibility for our choices and accept that others will disagree with us, and that's ok. Others deny that they did anything wrong in the first place, and claim that anyone who says they DID is a hate-mongering, judgmental Nazi. Do you see the difference?

As I was postulating earlier tonight, I think threads on NSG have a fairly standard life cycle: Actual Discussion -> Mocking of the Stupid -> Gratuitous Flirtation -> Complete and Utter Spam -> Death. You just showed up somewhere in the last few phases. :p

I like to think of this part where you, Neo, Sgt. Jhahammurab and Assorted Other Characters shadowbox as the thread's "death throes". It rhymes with oh noes! :eek: :D

I'm back. Had to take a break to go watch the new X-Men movie :)

You know, I've spent all day on this post. I originally just got on to caution people against name-calling. I thought it would alienate the people that we're trying to convince to see our point of view. Also, once we begin labeling the other side with terms like "bigot" we lose our moral high ground.

So you're a concern troll. Got it. That's not a name, that's what you've done.

Instead, I was attacked. I was called names. People cursed at me. I was forced into defending a viewpoint that is not my own, and then vilified for it.

"Forced"? I thought we all had a choice. You weren't vilified, you were defeated. And soundly. You're going to have to show the posts wherein you were called names. I'll admit I only skimmed some pages of this thread, but I did go through them all.

By the way the "I was just kidding" ploy doesn't fly well here.

Falling into my natural role as Devil's Advocate, I tried to answer these challenges. But the people here weren't interested in discussion, they were simply interested in hearing themselves preach. They kept repeating the same arguments again and again, offering very little logic or evidence to back them up. Meanwhile, every time I tried to show another point of view, I was dismissed with "those aren't good reasons".

Sorry. You were dismissed because your reasons and your arguments were flawed and vessel that were easily broken. You're confusing getting your ass handed to you for some kind of unfair treatment. Not so.

You know, I'm on your side here. But when I see how quickly our side attacks the other, how intolerant we can be while demanding tolerance for others, how quickly we stick our fingers in our ears and shout "No! No! No! You're wrong! You're a bad person!"..well...it makes me wonder if maybe the other side has a point. It certainly reduces sympathy for our cause.

"Our side" "attacks" quickly because the "other side" hasn't got a leg to stand on. Nobody said you were a bad person. If you truly felt that way, you'd have reported this thread to Moderation.

If you ask someone to recognize your rights, because you feel they have been overlooked or denied, that's one thing. If you DEMAND that someone recognize your rights because if they DON'T that makes them a bad person, well, that's something else.

Excuse me, but the US Native population "asked" for decades for the US to abide by treaties and laws. Demand was all they had left. Black people had the Emancipation Proclamation and three post-Civil War Amendments that granted them the same rights as whites. It wasn't until they DEMANDED that the US honor its own laws that things began to change. Sir, I put it to you that DEMANDING is the only way rights are ever extended to unpopular minorities who've been without them unjustly, but who deserve them under the Constitution.

We feel that it is OK for courts to grant the right of same-sex marriage, regardless of what the majority wants, because we feel that our cause is just and that the end justifies the means. I say we should attempt to convince the other side to see things our way, admit that they are wrong, and join us in building a better future. This will never happen if we continue to insult or antagonize them.

Do you hear yourself? "Convince" the other side that their Bible is at best incorrect, and at worst a hoard of fairy tales? Sorry. That's not going to happen, and you know it. So long as the opposition to gay marriage includes Leviticus, reason isn't something that's going to turn any of those using Leviticus around on this issue. To think otherwise is naïve at best.

At my college campus, around election time last year, there were many booths set up encouraging people to oppose Prop 8. There was only 1 booth set up encouraging people to support it. Anti-prop 8 people vandalized this booth, destroyed their equipment, called them names and threatened physical violence. Ironically, the people campaigning for tolerance, equality, and peaceful co-existance were the only ones behaving in an intolerant manner and generating violence.

And those people in those instances were idiots. You're comparing those people to the shredding your fain arguments got here? Please. You did a poor job as Devil's Advocate and were summarily beaten to a pulp with your lousy arguments. Notice how I say it's your arguments that are lousy. I wouldn't want to you think I was attacking you, personally.

To come into this forum, where there are people who've been here a long time who've shot down opponents to rights for homosexuals more times and with greater accuracy than the Spitfire shot down Messerschmidts during the Blitz, and think you're going to do any better with the weak sauce you ladled in this thread, well, you were asking for the drubbing you got.

I assure you it wasn't personal -- we've heard it all before, and we know how to deal with it. Hell, Neo Art even predicted it. You were outmatched, but it's okay. Those here are not likely to feel as though someone determined to demonize and second-class a group of citizens who deserve equal rights under the law needs to be treated with any more respect than the forum rules demand. Your debate standards may differ, but from what I read, you were pilloried fair and square.

How do you figure? I never claimed to be a saint. Christians recognize that all human beings - yes, even us - are sinners. The difference is, some people accept responsibility for our choices and accept that others will disagree with us, and that's ok. Others deny that they did anything wrong in the first place, and claim that anyone who says they DID is a hate-mongering, judgmental Nazi. Do you see the difference?

So you accept that you're living in sin, but keep doing it. How are you different in any Christian's eyes than an active homosexual?

As to this nasty, sanctimonious drivel...

I see. Hypocrisy is here.

Simply saying that an argument is "bullshit" or "I've heard it before" or "it's stupid" is not the same thing as defeating it logically. I've heard Newton's Laws before too...does that make them untrue?

It's been defeated logically by many others in this thread and dozens of others. Animals can't consent. Old-school polygamy didn't usually involve consent, either (was another's claim). It's all there. You're choosing to ignore it.

This is not an argument, it is a dismissal. A refusal to answer my points or even consider them. Interwoven with a healthy dose of snide remarks and low-class cursing.

Oh get off the high horse. It's a dismissal because the argument is so incurably lame but manages to limp into every one of this kind of thread. We get tired of it, so we dismiss it.

What is truly sad here are the number of people who later remarked at how clever this was.

If by "sad" you mean "wholly accurate", then yes. I was openly weeping, myself.

If this is your champion, good people, then I'm wasting my time talking to you, and I weep for how much damage you are doing to our cause.

"Our cause", as if we're supposed to believe that after your arguments were soundly pistol-whipped, you magically became a Devil's Advocate. Here's a tip. You should probably have told the thread that you were arguing against type to see how well you understood the opposing arguments. What's funny is that you presented those arguments just as poorly as "true believers" usually do.

I think that for sanctimony, you'd better look in a mirror.

I like to think of this part where you, Neo, Sgt. Jhahammurab and Assorted Other Characters shadowbox as the thread's "death throes". It rhymes with oh noes! :eek: :D

And it involves throes, which are always fun! ;)

Falling into my natural role as Devil's Advocate, I tried to answer these challenges. But the people here weren't interested in discussion, they were simply interested in hearing themselves preach. They kept repeating the same arguments again and again, offering very little logic or evidence to back them up. Meanwhile, every time I tried to show another point of view, I was dismissed with "those aren't good reasons".

Kind of like how your "very good reasons for opposing same-sex marriage" amounted to a repetition of "some people think it's wrong, and we shouldn't make them legally acknowledge a right of other human beings if it's icky to them"?

You know, I'm on your side here. But when I see how quickly our side attacks the other, how intolerant we can be while demanding tolerance for others, how quickly we stick our fingers in our ears and shout "No! No! No! You're wrong! You're a bad person!"..well...it makes me wonder if maybe the other side has a point. It certainly reduces sympathy for our cause.

No, you're not. And this kind of gross insincerity and smugness is part of what makes you so dismissible, along with unsubstantiated arguments and your total failure to address the many posts that have intelligently countered your position.

We feel that it is OK for courts to grant the right of same-sex marriage, regardless of what the majority wants, because we feel that our cause is just and that the end justifies the means. I say we should attempt to convince the other side to see things our way, admit that they are wrong, and join us in building a better future. This will never happen if we continue to insult or antagonize them.

"Ends justify the means"? The means being...the horrible, unconscionable use of the constitution to protect the rights of everyone, not just the majority? I think I can live with those means.

At my college campus, around election time last year, there were many booths set up encouraging people to oppose Prop 8. There was only 1 booth set up encouraging people to support it. Anti-prop 8 people vandalized this booth, destroyed their equipment, called them names and threatened physical violence. Ironically, the people campaigning for tolerance, equality, and peaceful co-existance were the only ones behaving in an intolerant manner and generating violence.

Just like the guy you knew who wanted to marry his dog.

You know a very interesting assortment of people who happen to make perfect anecdotes for whatever bull you're trying to sell. That must be handy.

This is not an argument, it is a dismissal. A refusal to answer my points or even consider them.

After 25-odd pages of ignoring at least half of the arguments presented to you, I am highly amused by your outrage.

And it involves throes, which are always fun! ;)

Is a throe a prostitute who only services royalty, or one that only services pitchers and quarterbacks?

Further thought:

One day last year I was on campus, and there was this fellow holding a sign. The sign read "Satan's Children" and went on to list a variety of different types of people, including the usual lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender people, along with - my personal favorites "mouthy women and girlie men" (yes, we're dealing with a true master of the English language here, folks).

Anyway, he was waving a Bible and spouting off this and that about how were were all going to hell. When people offered him counterarguments he simply replied "Well, that's what I'd expect to hear from someone like YOU <sneer>".

This guy was a jerk.

So I stepped to the front of the crowd and denounced him as a false prophet. A nasty, viscous little person who was twisting Christ's teachings to justify his campaign of hate. One of my favorite memories of that day was hearing other Christians shout similar accusations. "You don't represent us!" "You're giving our faith a bad name!" "This is not what Jesus would want!"

Unfortunately, there were also people in the crowd who took this opportunity to shout things like "God is dead!" "No want wants to hear about your make-believe God!" And several ruder comments that I wont repeat here. But no one asked them to shut up because they were giving US a bad name.

I am proud to be a Christian. And I am on your side. But we must avoid sinking to this level. If we resort to petty name-calling and sarcastic dismissals, hen it becomes harder to convince the other side to take us seriously.

Remember what Martin Luther King did. He advocated peaceful protest. When his people were beaten, humiliated, called names,attacked with dogs and fire hoses, etc. They didn't respond in kind. They simply picked themselves back up, held hands and sang "We Shall Overcome". And by doing this they convinced the majority of Americans that their side was righteous, while the other side was behaving like a pack of hooligans. I believe that it was this strategy that crippled the power of racism in America.

And please PLEASE stop using the term "religious fundies". It's obviously insulting the way it's been used here, and in my opinion it's not much better then when they start calling people "fags". If you attack all Christians as a group, then you risk driving those of us who would otherwise support you (for Christian reasons) into the camps of those of us with the nasty "Satan's Children" signs. Please don't make me choose between my faith and my belief that our cause is just.

Is a throe a prostitute who only services royalty, or one that only services pitchers and quarterbacks?

Hee. It is just a spasm. And, well, put it this way: I spent a couple of years in a madrigal choir; I've sung waaaaaaaaaaay too many songs about "death" spasms not to think they're inherently dirty. :p

Hee. It is just a spasm. And, well, put it this way: I spent a couple of years in a madrigal choir; I've sung waaaaaaaaaaay too many songs about "death" spasms not to think they're inherently dirty. :p

I knew the denotation, I was jus' bein' silly.

Si, ch'io vorrei morire -- I know what you mean. And so did Monteverdi.

I knew the denotation, I was jus' bein' silly.

Si, ch'io vorrei morire -- I know what you mean. And so did Monteverdi.

My very favorite is Arcadelt's Il bianco e dolce cygno, which has got to be the single most beautiful song about how awesome it would be to get off a thousand times per day ever written. :p

Honestly if you think hes a troll, shouldn't you stop feeding him?

Jesus fucking christ whata bunch of fucking ***s
Now I know how to get mutliple thousands of posts...

Further thought:

One day last year I was on campus, and there was this fellow holding a sign. The sign read "Satan's Children" and went on to list a variety of different types of people, including the usual lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender people, along with - my personal favorites "mouthy women and girlie men" (yes, we're dealing with a true master of the English language here, folks).

Anyway, he was waving a Bible and spouting off this and that about how were were all going to hell. When people offered him counterarguments he simply replied "Well, that's what I'd expect to hear from someone like YOU <sneer>".

This guy was a jerk.

So I stepped to the front of the crowd and denounced him as a false prophet. A nasty, viscous little person who was twisting Christ's teachings to justify his campaign of hate. One of my favorite memories of that day was hearing other Christians shout similar accusations. "You don't represent us!" "You're giving our faith a bad name!" "This is not what Jesus would want!"

You must think this kind of shout-down by reasonable Christians is somehow common. It isn't.

Unfortunately, there were also people in the crowd who took this opportunity to shout things like "God is dead!" "No want wants to hear about your make-believe God!" And several ruder comments that I wont repeat here. But no one asked them to shut up because they were giving US a bad name.

So wait -- your point of view was the only one permissible to denounce the false prophet? Not every egalitarian of you. Guess what? Some people don't believe in any god at all, let alone yours. They get to have a say in an open forum, too. You may not like what they have to say or how they say it, but it's valid and deserves air time.

Can some people be bad representatives of a point of view? Of course. The false prophet you mentioned was doing a disservice to Christianity. The idiot atheists (or whoever the rude others were) were doing a disservice to their point of view. You got to say what you had to say, so did everyone else. Societies composed of differing viewpoints can get messy. You seem to think that everyone has to hold hands and agree completely in order to progress. I disagree. When I hear people making a mess out of a point of view I support, much like you, I let them know. I wasn't there for your incident. That doesn't mean I don't exist.

That also doesn't mean that what you described happened here.

I am proud to be a Christian. And I am on your side. But we must avoid sinking to this level. If we resort to petty name-calling and sarcastic dismissals, hen it becomes harder to convince the other side to take us seriously.

I agree, to a point. There comes a time when the only thing a stupid opposition understands is an argument made in their own terms. Someone frothing at the mouth about Leviticus isn't going to want to hear any argument that dismisses the Old Testament as nonsense, no matter how well you state it. The Levitican flogger isn't going to care much about Constitutional arguments either because he's very likely to think that the Constitution was written by Christians like him. It wasn't, but you can't tell them that because no matter what proof you show them -- and there's a ton of it -- they simply don't care. They have beliefs, not ideas. Ideas can change. Beliefs are tougher to dislodge.

Remember what Martin Luther King did. He advocated peaceful protest. When his people were beaten, humiliated, called names,attacked with dogs and fire hoses, etc. They didn't respond in kind. They simply picked themselves back up, held hands and sang "We Shall Overcome". And by doing this they convinced the majority of Americans that their side was righteous, while the other side was behaving like a pack of hooligans. I believe that it was this strategy that crippled the power of racism in America.

King wasn't alone, and Medgar Evers, Malcom X and others didn't always see eye-to-eye with King. You can believe that there were some in that movement who did not take discrimination with King's equanimity. King succeeded in spite of those who did advocate violence...you can't just idealize away the Black Panthers.

And please PLEASE stop using the term "religious fundies". It's obviously insulting the way it's been used here, and in my opinion it's not much better then when they start calling people "fags".[/quote]

I'll use whatever terminology I like, thank you.

It's not obviously insulting because it's accurate. It's short for "religious fundamentalists". How much more accurate can the term be? Biblical literalists are religious fundamentalists. So were the hijackers on 9/11. It's an accurate term, whether you like it or not. Reasonable religious people aren't included or even implied by the term, and you're actively looking to create insults out of thin air if you think that they are.

If you attack all Christians as a group, then you risk driving those of us who would otherwise support you (for Christian reasons) into the camps of those of us with the nasty "Satan's Children" signs. Please don't make me choose between my faith and my belief that our cause is just.

How can you reconcile this paragraph with asking me not to use a term that, with precision, SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES you who would support pro-gay people? If you're reasonable about this issue, you're not a religious fundie. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Honestly if you think hes a troll, shouldn't you stop feeding him?

Jesus fucking christ whata bunch of fucking ***s
Now I know how to get mutliple thousands of posts...

I'm not sure he's a whole troll. Just a partial one. If his blather about not really being anti-gay is true, then this thread will be a valuable education for him. That is, if he can get over having his use of anti-gay arguments utterly destroyed.

My very favorite is Arcadelt's Il bianco e dolce cygno, which has got to be the single most beautiful song about how awesome it would be to get off a thousand times per day ever written. :p

I would have to agree. It certainly beats "Blister in the Sun".

"Forced"? I thought we all had a choice. You weren't vilified, you were defeated. And soundly. You're going to have to show the posts wherein you were called names. I'll admit I only skimmed some pages of this thread, but I did go through them all.

By the way the "I was just kidding" ploy doesn't fly well here.


"Our side" "attacks" quickly because the "other side" hasn't got a leg to stand on. Nobody said you were a bad person. If you truly felt that way, you'd have reported this thread to Moderation.



Excuse me, but the US Native population "asked" for decades for the US to abide by treaties and laws. Demand was all they had left. Black people had the Emancipation Proclamation and three post-Civil War Amendments that granted them the same rights as whites. It wasn't until they DEMANDED that the US honor its own laws that things began to change. Sir, I put it to you that DEMANDING is the only way rights are ever extended to unpopular minorities who've been without them unjustly, but who deserve them under the Constitution.


Do you hear yourself? "Convince" the other side that their Bible is at best incorrect, and at worst a hoard of fairy tales? Sorry. That's not going to happen, and you know it. So long as the opposition to gay marriage includes Leviticus, reason isn't something that's going to turn any of those using Leviticus around on this issue. To think otherwise is naïve at best.


And those people in those instances were idiots. You're comparing those people to the shredding your fain arguments got here? Please. You did a poor job as Devil's Advocate and were summarily beaten to a pulp with your lousy arguments. Notice how I say it's your arguments that are lousy. I wouldn't want to you think I was attacking you, personally.

To come into this forum, where there are people who've been here a long time who've shot down opponents to rights for homosexuals more times and with greater accuracy than the Spitfire shot down Messerschmidts during the Blitz, and think you're going to do any better with the weak sauce you ladled in this thread, well, you were asking for the drubbing you got.

I assure you it wasn't personal -- we've heard it all before, and we know how to deal with it. Hell, Neo Art even predicted it. You were outmatched, but it's okay. Those here are not likely to feel as though someone determined to demonize and second-class a group of citizens who deserve equal rights under the law needs to be treated with any more respect than the forum rules demand. Your debate standards may differ, but from what I read, you were pilloried fair and square.

I snipped that a bit, to respond to these particular points.

a: By "forced", perhaps I should have said "allowed myself to be put into the position of defending". It's mostly my fault, but I felt such vehemence that I was a bit taken aback. I hadn't come here prepared to defend the anti-same-sex-marriage crowd.

b: I never said "just kidding", nor did I intend to imply it. I stated early on that I was a supporter of same-sex marriage. My first comment was simply asking people to stop using the term "religious fundies". The first response that I got was "that's what they are!"

c: I do not feel the need to report this to moderation, because I respect people's right to disagree with me, which is what this whole thing is about.

d: Claiming "the only way things get done is by DEMANDING what's rightfully ours!" is simply false. Furthermore, it's the excuse every terrorist around the world gives as his justification. Martin Luther King won by persuasion. The Abolitionists were also winning by persuasion, which forced the South - in desperation - to secede and begin the Civil War (the only way to get the North to respect our rights to own slaves is by FORCING them to!).

e: I was convinced to abandon Leviticus as inconsistent with Christ's message. If I can be, why not others? Christians are not quite so close-minded as people tend to believe. Although - for the record - homosexuality is also condemned several times in the New Testament as well, in fact, it is largely due to this that I started thinking of the Bible as a set of guidelines rather then (pardon the pun) the "Gospel truth". Many Christians today would agree with me on this.

And the rest: I might quibble with your description of me being "defeated", although that may just be wounded pride talking :) Still, I feel that only one person offered me a logical reason to support same-sex marriage, with everyone else simply repeating "because it's the right thing to do". I may have lost the battle for public opinion, but I was doomed from the start there. These arguments were all heat and passion, little thought or logic.

I know you weren't attacking me, but I thank you for going to pains to mention it. I found your response thoughtful, without the heat I found from others. THIS is the sort of dialogue I ws hoping to find here.

I'm not sure he's a whole troll. Just a partial one. If his blather about not really being anti-gay is true, then this thread will be a valuable education for him. That is, if he can get over having his use of anti-gay arguments utterly destroyed.

You have so much more faith in humanity than I do.

So you accept that you're living in sin, but keep doing it. How are you different in any Christian's eyes than an active homosexual?

I'm not. In the eyes of the church we're both equally sinful. The difference is that I accept that the church has a right to their opinion, while others simply want to call the church nasty names.

d: Claiming "the only way things get done is by DEMANDING what's rightfully ours!" is simply false. Furthermore, it's the excuse every terrorist around the world gives as his justification. Martin Luther King won by persuasion. The Abolitionists were also winning by persuasion, which forced the South - in desperation - to secede and begin the Civil War (the only way to get the North to respect our rights to own slaves is by FORCING them to!)

That is a very simplistic view of events, I do not believe it is accurate, and for much of the war the Confederation was winning. Unless you think Gettysburg was fought on soap boxes, I don't see how you can support this claim.

My very favorite is Arcadelt's Il bianco e dolce cygno, which has got to be the single most beautiful song about how awesome it would be to get off a thousand times per day ever written. :p

...and, you know, while this WAS a tangent, it actually reminds me of an on-topic point. It was argued earlier in the thread that acceptance of gay marriage is part of some overall societal descent into immorality, as evidenced by things like promiscuity and drug use.

Like I said, I spent a couple of years in a madrigal choir, singing songs composed several hundred years ago. If you stripped away all the poetic language from those songs, do you know what nearly every one boiled down to? "Hey, you know what's awesome? Fucking my girlfriend! And then maybe getting drunk, and fucking her again!" There are variations on this theme ("It's spring! That means we should fuck a lot!" and "Woe! I am not currently being fucked!" are both popular ones), but the general theme is pretty much a constant.

16th-century pop songs are perhaps a silly way to make a point, but I like being silly, and the point is worth making - people aren't really any more "immoral" than we ever were. Humanity has pretty much liked the same general things - sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll, although nowadays the rock'n'roll involves fewer lutes and portative organs and more electric guitars - for as long as we've been around. We are not becoming more tolerant towards homosexuality because we're suddenly "sinful" - we're just getting better at going, "Hey, this group of people is really just like us. Go figure."

I'm not. In the eyes of the church we're both equally sinful. The difference is that I accept that the church has a right to their opinion, while others simply want to call the church nasty names.

I believe the church has a right to their opinion. I believe the KKK has a right to its opinion. I do not believe either should be allowed to strip others of their rights.

16th-century pop songs are perhaps a silly way to make a point, but I like being silly, and the point is worth making - people aren't really any more "immoral" than we ever were. Humanity has pretty much liked the same general things - sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll, although nowadays the rock'n'roll involves fewer lutes and portative organs and more electric guitars - for as long as we've been around. We are not becoming more tolerant towards homosexuality because we're suddenly "sinful" - we're just getting better at going, "Hey, this group of people is really just like us. Go figure."

Not to mention that along with our loose morals and love of drugs, we've also mostly stopped lynching people of different hues and forcing our daughters into abusive marriages. The decline of traditional values.

I snipped that a bit, to respond to these particular points.

a: By "forced", perhaps I should have said "allowed myself to be put into the position of defending". It's mostly my fault, but I felt such vehemence that I was a bit taken aback. I hadn't come here prepared to defend the anti-same-sex-marriage crowd.

Then why did you? You talk about choices, but seem to want us to believe that you somehow did that against your will.

b: I never said "just kidding", nor did I intend to imply it. I stated early on that I was a supporter of same-sex marriage. My first comment was simply asking people to stop using the term "religious fundies". The first response that I got was "that's what they are!"

Not to belabor the point, but I addressed this in my last response to you. I'm sorry, but "religious fundamentalist" perfectly describes Biblical Literalists and other people talkin' to God on a two-way radio. It's very definition excludes people such as yourself, if this is who you really are this time.

c: I do not feel the need to report this to moderation, because I respect people's right to disagree with me, which is what this whole thing is about.

Then you were not insulted. Please, show me the direct, intended insult to you, personally, and I'll back off this claim.

d: Claiming "the only way things get done is by DEMANDING what's rightfully ours!" is simply false. Furthermore, it's the excuse every terrorist around the world gives as his justification. Martin Luther King won by persuasion. The Abolitionists were also winning by persuasion, which forced the South - in desperation - to secede and begin the Civil War (the only way to get the North to respect our rights to own slaves is by FORCING them to!).

The bus boycott was a demand. Rosa Parks demanded. Lunch counter sit-ins were demands. They weren't especially forceful ones, but in the context of their times, they were demands. You don't think King's speeches included demands? Sorry, but I'm not going to sit here and let you re-write history. A demand couched in florid and gospel-tinged prose is still a demand.

e: I was convinced to abandon Leviticus as inconsistent with Christ's message. If I can be, why not others? Christians are not quite so close-minded as people tend to believe. Although - for the record - homosexuality is also condemned several times in the New Testament as well, in fact, it is largely due to this that I started thinking of the Bible as a set of guidelines rather then (pardon the pun) the "Gospel truth". Many Christians today would agree with me on this.

If Leviticus is to be abandoned, doesn't that at least partially invalidate the rest of the OT? See, it's people who can think like you've posted here who are NOT religious fundamentalists. Why is that distinction so hard to make for you?

And the rest: I might quibble with your description of me being "defeated", although that may just be wounded pride talking :) Still, I feel that only one person offered me a logical reason to support same-sex marriage, with everyone else simply repeating "because it's the right thing to do". I may have lost the battle for public opinion, but I was doomed from the start there. These arguments were all heat and passion, little thought or logic.

If you say so.

I know you weren't attacking me, but I thank you for going to pains to mention it. I found your response thoughtful, without the heat I found from others. THIS is the sort of dialogue I ws hoping to find here.

You did find it here. You found it among the exasperation at having to say the same thing over and over to yet another misguided soul determined to make the world safe for heterosexuals everywhere. Context is important, and the context here is commonly "oh geez, not THIS crap again."

How can you reconcile this paragraph with asking me not to use a term that, with precision, SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES you who would support pro-gay people? If you're reasonable about this issue, you're not a religious fundie. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Ah...I apologize. I misunderstood your use of the term.

You have so much more faith in humanity than I do.

What can I say, I'm a sap. Occupational hazard as a teacher.

I'm not. In the eyes of the church we're both equally sinful. The difference is that I accept that the church has a right to their opinion, while others simply want to call the church nasty names.

*sigh* And all you can do is imagine that those people somehow invalidate the whole pro-gay side. Fred Phelps doesn't invalidate all of Christianity, so why no reciprocity from you? Can't you ignore the name callers instead of wishing them away? You do know you can't walk up to someone that angry and that irrational and actually tell them "hey, you're angry and irrational", don't you? Kinda like waving a red flag at a bull.

...and, you know, while this WAS a tangent, it actually reminds me of an on-topic point. It was argued earlier in the thread that acceptance of gay marriage is part of some overall societal descent into immorality, as evidenced by things like promiscuity and drug use.

Like I said, I spent a couple of years in a madrigal choir, singing songs composed several hundred years ago. If you stripped away all the poetic language from those songs, do you know what nearly every one boiled down to? "Hey, you know what's awesome? Fucking my girlfriend! And then maybe getting drunk, and fucking her again!" There are variations on this theme ("It's spring! That means we should fuck a lot!" and "Woe! I am not currently being fucked!" are both popular ones), but the general theme is pretty much a constant.

16th-century pop songs are perhaps a silly way to make a point, but I like being silly, and the point is worth making - people aren't really any more "immoral" than we ever were. Humanity has pretty much liked the same general things - sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll, although nowadays the rock'n'roll involves fewer lutes and portative organs and more electric guitars - for as long as we've been around. We are not becoming more tolerant towards homosexuality because we're suddenly "sinful" - we're just getting better at going, "Hey, this group of people is really just like us. Go figure."

It is a crime we haven't met. I've actually made this point in my choir rehearsals and Music Appreciation classes, and made it in very similar language. Mozart was a genius, but wrote for the same reasons that pop music is written now. Dancing. So if the average Classical era composer is equivalent to, say, Britney Spears or flavor-of-the-month of your choice, then Mozart was (using my own tastes here), say, Steely Dan or XTC or Radiohead.

That is a very simplistic view of events, I do not believe it is accurate, and for much of the war the Confederation was winning. Unless you think Gettysburg was fought on soap boxes, I don't see how you can support this claim.

Having recently researched this anti-slavery debate from the late 1600's to the Civil War I can tell you that the anti-slavery majority in the North was successfully defeating pro-slavery Southern arguments. By the time of the Civil War the majority of slaves had already been freed in the (to use an awkward term) northern South, with the institution only enjoying popular support in the Deep South. Many historians believe that the South seceded in a last-ditch effort to maintain their institution, because they knew that it wouldn't be long before Congress outlawed it entirely.

The Confederacy certainly enjoyed many early successes, but that has nothing to do with my point. My point was that if the South had not seceded, Congress would have outlawed slavery anyway.

Ah...I apologize. I misunderstood your use of the term.

Not just mine. Everyone's.

A Christian who believes the Bible is more guideline that whole-cloth, infallible truth from Genesis to Revelation, is, by definition, not a fundamentalist.

I believe the church has a right to their opinion. I believe the KKK has a right to its opinion. I do not believe either should be allowed to strip others of their rights.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, which is why I support same-sex marriage.

I simply don't believe that it's a good idea to start calling the KKK a bunch of stupid rednecks. It's stooping to their level.

Of course, the KKK are small, with little power and virtually no public support. We can get away with calling them names because we don't need their approval.

But given that a majority of the voters are not yet ready to embrace our viewpoint, I think that alienating them is a bad idea. We can't win unless we get them on our side. Oh sure, the courts can give us what we want, but then the people can change the constitution (like Prop 8 successfully did) and take it away again. If we want a long-term victory, we need the majority on our side.

I used to be against gay marriage. Do you know what changed my mind? A good friend of mine (he was gay, BTW) simply asked me "You believe that God created everyone, including me right?" I agreed. Then he said "And God wants us to love each other, right?" Again, I agreed. Then he asked "And God made me gay, right?" I said yes. Then he said "Why would a God who believes in love allow me to fall in love with someone but forbid me to express it physically? Wouldn't that be rather cruel?"

And I didn't have an answer for that.

So I changed my opinion.

So you see, we CAN convince people to change their minds, but only if we stop treating them like the enemy.

I used to be against gay marriage. Do you know what changed my mind? A good friend of mine (he was gay, BTW) simply asked me "You believe that God created everyone, including me right?" I agreed. Then he said "And God wants us to love each other, right?" Again, I agreed. Then he asked "And God made me gay, right?" I said yes. Then he said "Why would a God who believes in love allow me to fall in love with someone but forbid me to express it physically? Wouldn't that be rather cruel?"

And I didn't have an answer for that.Well. If you take Revelations serious*, God loves only a very, very small number of his creations. So...

* Of course, no major theologican outside the fringe groups does. They hate it with a passion, and it just barely made it into the bible at all. But, in theory... :-p

Not just mine. Everyone's.

A Christian who believes the Bible is more guideline that whole-cloth, infallible truth from Genesis to Revelation, is, by definition, not a fundamentalist.

Actually, many within the church we have a different definition of "fundamentalist". Fundamentalists (the way we use it) believe that organized religion has distorted Christ's teachings, which were (very simply) "be nice to other people". The goal is to get back to the fundamentals of Christ's message, and not to worry ourselves too much about enforcing this rule or that rule (such as the rules condemning homosexuality).

I used to be against gay marriage. Do you know what changed my mind? A good friend of mine (he was gay, BTW) simply asked me "You believe that God created everyone, including me right?" I agreed. Then he said "And God wants us to love each other, right?" Again, I agreed. Then he asked "And God made me gay, right?" I said yes. Then he said "Why would a God who believes in love allow me to fall in love with someone but forbid me to express it physically? Wouldn't that be rather cruel?"

And I didn't have an answer for that.

So I changed my opinion.

So you see, we CAN convince people to change their minds, but only if we stop treating them like the enemy.

That's a good story, and I'm glad it changed your mind, but you know, it's not very solid logic. God also "made" pedophiles be sexually attracted to children, and it's pretty cruel to make someone feel an intense desire--even love--that they can not, should not ever act on.

This is one of the many reasons I don't think it's necessary to "change peoples' minds". They don't HAVE to think gays are "okay". They just need to give them the same legal rights and protections that everyone else enjoys, because they are consenting adults who are not harming others. Doesn't that sound like a much better foundation for laws, rather than "God made me this way"?

I agree with you wholeheartedly, which is why I support same-sex marriage.

I simply don't believe that it's a good idea to start calling the KKK a bunch of stupid rednecks. It's stooping to their level.

Of course, the KKK are small, with little power and virtually no public support. We can get away with calling them names because we don't need their approval.

But given that a majority of the voters are not yet ready to embrace our viewpoint, I think that alienating them is a bad idea. We can't win unless we get them on our side. Oh sure, the courts can give us what we want, but then the people can change the constitution (like Prop 8 successfully did) and take it away again. If we want a long-term victory, we need the majority on our side.

I used to be against gay marriage. Do you know what changed my mind? A good friend of mine (he was gay, BTW) simply asked me "You believe that God created everyone, including me right?" I agreed. Then he said "And God wants us to love each other, right?" Again, I agreed. Then he asked "And God made me gay, right?" I said yes. Then he said "Why would a God who believes in love allow me to fall in love with someone but forbid me to express it physically? Wouldn't that be rather cruel?"

And I didn't have an answer for that.

So I changed my opinion.

So you see, we CAN convince people to change their minds, but only if we stop treating them like the enemy.

Only if those people you're trying to convince are like you.

The part of your post that I bolded is very rare in typical Christian thought. You have to understand how unusual you are in others' experience. Your gay friend wouldn't have gotten that answer out of the majority of Christians I've met in my life, and that post anti-gay here.

Actually, many within the church we have a different definition of "fundamentalist". Fundamentalists (the way we use it) believe that organized religion has distorted Christ's teachings, which were (very simply) "be nice to other people". The goal is to get back to the fundamentals of Christ's message, and not to worry ourselves too much about enforcing this rule or that rule (such as the rules condemning homosexuality).

That strikes me as a kind of "taking the word back" from those who'd use it pejoratively. That's fine, but the definition I showed you is far more common, presently.

That's a good story, and I'm glad it changed your mind, but you know, it's not very solid logic. God also "made" pedophiles be sexually attracted to children, and it's pretty cruel to make someone feel an intense desire--even love--that they can not, should not ever act on.

This is one of the many reasons I don't think it's necessary to "change peoples' minds". They don't HAVE to think gays are "okay". They just need to give them the same legal rights and protections that everyone else enjoys, because they are consenting adults who are not harming others. Doesn't that sound like a much better foundation for laws, rather than "God made me this way"?

Bingo.

Then you were not insulted. Please, show me the direct, intended insult to you, personally, and I'll back off this claim.



I'm new to this forum, so I don't know how to do the multiple-quote thingy, but I went back and excerpted the following from earlier today...

Because they're a bigot? Oh wait...

And who are they (i.e. probably you) to refuse equal rights to anyone?

...your bigotry...

People that oppose same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed to be called 'human'. They should still get all the same rights, but they should be called 'scum'.

Obviously you are either an idiot or you are being intentionally obtuse

Again, are you an idiot or are you being intentionally obtuse?


(all emphasis mine)


As for the idea that some have said around here, about my being insincere about being pro-gay-marriage or that I only claimed to be playing the DA after people started jumping on me, I offer you one of the few posts that I read from someone who actually seemed to be listening to what I said...

"Well, he did say he was a supporter of same sex marriage. It just seems you started quibbling over the constitution and then started throwing things. Oh, and for what it's worth, he has a point, if a weak one: Everyone has a right to say things, even if we don't like it, and we can't label them bigots just becuase we don't agree. It's really only because they are an ever shrinking minority these days that people call them bigots."

I first stated that I was pro-gay-marriage in post #54

Feel free to reply, I will read them later. I'm afraid that I have to go study for midterms now so I wont be able to reply for several hours.

Take care all.

Ah yes...the traditional "agree with me or you're a bigot/racist/Nazi" argument...that didn't take long. It's nice to see the people arguing for tolerance and acceptance being so tolerant and accepting themselves.

Sorry what? Denying people rights on account of them having a different sexuality to you is bigoted. I'm not being intolerant at all, you can have your opinions, but your opinions should not be reason enough for gay people not to marry.

Sorry what? Denying people rights on account of them having a different sexuality to you is bigoted. I'm not being intolerant at all, you can have your opinions, but your opinions should not be reason enough for gay people not to marry.

Heh...I couldn't stay away. Now I'm posting in the library when I should be writing my midterms. Oh well, if it makes anyone feel better, there's a good chance that my car is being vandalized as we speak :)

First of all, these are not my opinions. They are other people's opinions and I respect their right to have them. I disagree with them, but I don't feel that makes them "bigoted". Many of them are decent people who are simply doing what they feel is best for society. I believe that society has the right to regulate people's behavior.

They are other people's opinions and I respect their right to have them.

And, as I have previously stated, so do I.

Many of them are decent people who are simply doing what they feel is best for society.

I know, but Mao thought he was doing what was best for his society, and look at the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

I believe that society has the right to regulate people's behavior.

Even when that behaviour is totally harmless and 100% consensual?

And, as I have previously stated, so do I.



I know, but Mao thought he was doing what was best for his society, and look at the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.



Even when that behaviour is totally harmless and 100% consensual?

"Harmless" is debatable.

Is having a strip club in your neighborhood harmless? It's 100% consensual after all. No one is forced to work or visit there. Liquor stores are also consensual. But many people feel that these establishments harm the moral fabric of society. I'll be the first to admit that I can't draw an exact cause-and-effect chain to show HOW they harm society, but casual observation tells me that I don't want to live in a neighborhood with lots of liquor stores and strip clubs.

Personally, I don't agree that legalizing gay marriage would harm society. But that's me. I DO know that prohibiting gay marriage is the traditional practice. Tamper with tradition at your peril.

Ever since the 1960's it has become increasingly popular to attack traditional thought. Granted, in some cases it was about time! Racial segregation and allowing male bosses to grope their female employees were also traditions, and they were bad, and good riddance to them!

But other traditions, such as regarding casual sex as a Bad Thing, might have been good ideas. Femminists and homosexuals have long attacked the traditional "nuclear family" as being oppressive. But since the 1960's we have witnessed a dramatic increase in divorce rates, illegitimate children, single-parent households, and violent crime. So maybe we should have left the nuclear family alone?

Or maybe not. Maybe these things are unrelated. Maybe they would have happened anyway. Maybe we didn't attack the traditional family enough to prevent this from happening. I don't know.

And, as I have previously stated, so do I.


This is a test...this is ONLY a test...I'm trying to figure out how to do the multiple-quote-thingy :)


I know, but Mao thought he was doing what was best for his society, and look at the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.


Eureka! I think I have it now!

Even when that behaviour is totally harmless and 100% consensual?

Gee, I realy could have used this earlier :)

But other traditions, such as regarding casual sex as a Bad Thing, might have been good ideas. Femminists and homosexuals have long attacked the traditional "nuclear family" as being oppressive. But since the 1960's we have witnessed a dramatic increase in divorce rates, illegitimate children, single-parent households, and violent crime. So maybe we should have left the nuclear family alone?

Or maybe not. Maybe these things are unrelated. Maybe they would have happened anyway. Maybe we didn't attack the traditional family enough to prevent this from happening. I don't know.

Consider that, with the fall of sexism (don't take that too literally, there's still a lot of destroying of the concept less to do) the nuclear family is starting to fall apart because families started getting into -relationships- not owner/property concepts before. Further, the nuclear family concept was birthed and deathed in the 1960s. It never existed before or after. families in the late 19th century, rather were vast and sprawling affairs where the parents had as many children as conceivably possible so that they would be looked after in old age. the wife in this affair was not a 'partner' so much as she was chattel of the husband, domestic abuse was rife. Violence still happened, don't let people with rose tinted glasses tell you otherwise. But it wasn't illegal or criminal. it was a husbands privelige to his wife. and it was a whole lot easier to take it out on her than it would be to pick a fight at a bar and maybe even lose it. Once women had an escape from such a relationship, they took it. But there was still the evil tug of 'tradition' that bound many of them to their situation, miserable and powerless, so many of them remained in abusive situations long after they had gone sour and should have been ended.

That's just one reason why families have begun to collapse. Another reason is the lack of education. Families start now because the past generations were so damned scared of sex that when their children started becoming adults and actually having it, that was that. 'You had sex with someone? Well, welcome to mr and mrs whoever, because she's pregnant'. And this situation is getting WORSE. As a response to children not being married off to their partners at young ages and having the freedom to explore, prior generations have reflexively reacted to crush and destroy any information that might help them make informed choices (see: abstinence only for further information). Of course casual sex causes misery when you consider the diseases that might spring forth from it, never mind the lifetime commitment of a child.

Now look at a counterexample where sex is somewhere that's actually pursued with a modicum of intelligence, without the stupid screaming hysteria of thousands of old men and women fearful that 'having fun will unravel society'. Holland! Holland is a society where parents will actually talk with their children about things like sex in a mature way (by and large). That's why children there will actually wear a condom and use other forms of contraceptive -at the same time- and correspondingly things that tend to start unhappy families like SURPRISE KIDS between casual partners are fairly low.

Infact, one of the prime reasons, more than any other thing in my opinion now, as to why families are breaking up with increased regularity is simple. You can end them now without the social stigma that forced people to stay together before. being divorced isn't considered a terrible thing, and nor should it be. people will get together in the throes of love and passion where all they can see in others is the perfection that shines back and then when it all wears off and they find out they can't really stand the sight of each other they just end it. And there are some who, when that passion wears off finally, don't end it, but find they still rather enjoy each others company and last as families for a long time. And another group that whilst not having hate or like for their partners find out that really, the only reason they were interested in their partner was their sexual skills, and part with no real feeling.

So yeah. I have nothing really to say to the rest of your argument because I've no interest in getting involved with it - but please don't blame sex for the collapse of society - its peoples fearful reactions around it, the increase of peoples (especially womens) freedom both in general and to actually try things out without HAVING to make a lifetime commitment all the time, that's leading to the disintegration of permanent families being everywhere. And don't even get me started on the silly argument that humans were meant to just have one partner for 80 years. More families would last if people got over the mad jealousy and stupid anger that comes with outside of relationship sex. Nobody is genetically wired to spend their entire life just being in a relationship with a single person. other people will continue to be attractive on multiple levels even after the point of commitment. I'm going to stop there. I apologise for the rambling.

King wasn't alone, and Medgar Evers, Malcom X and others didn't always see eye-to-eye with King. You can believe that there were some in that movement who did not take discrimination with King's equanimity. King succeeded in spite of those who did advocate violence...you can't just idealize away the Black Panthers.

In this case, the use of the phrase "in spite of" is inaccurate. Had there not been civil rights groups advocating the use of violence, King likely would not have succeeded as quickly as he did. Chaos is a powerful motivator. The establishment dislikes change, but it dislikes insecurity even more. If presented with two movements advocating for the same changes, one of which is peaceful and one of which is potentially violent, those in power will accede to the former to avoid dealing with the latter.
The situation is similar to the idea of the carrot and the stick, although the carrot is initially unpalatable. The carrot is taken not because it is desirable, but because eating it will remove the threat of the stick.
A peaceful movement alone is ignored. A violent movement alone is crushed. Operating in tandem, they make progress towards their goal.
And, perhaps most importantly, the establishment will always give credit entirely to the peaceful movement, because the establishment does not like changing.

Racial segregation and allowing male bosses to grope their female employees were also traditions, and they were bad, and good riddance to them!

Right. So just saying that something is a "tradition" is not good enough. You have to have an actual reason for defending a certain judgment, however traditional.

There is no reason to oppose homosexuality.

Femminists and homosexuals have long attacked the traditional "nuclear family" as being oppressive.

Well, certain aspects of it, anyway. We object to its sexism and its heteronormativity.

But since the 1960's we have witnessed a dramatic increase in divorce rates, illegitimate children, single-parent households, and violent crime. So maybe we should have left the nuclear family alone?

Maybe it's because there aren't enough pirates anymore!

And why, on this theory, have violent crime rates decreased over the last two decades or so?

no same sex marriage its not right you people are crazy

no same sex marriage its not right you people are crazy

I would not suggest calling anyone crazy here.

Let me start by saying that I am both a christian and a homophobe. Although I am apposed to gay marriage allowing them to marry is not going to have any affect on my life. The idea is not that we force everyone into gay relationships with this it is just a each to his own kind of deal.

"Harmless" is debatable.

Is having a strip club in your neighborhood harmless? It's 100% consensual after all. No one is forced to work or visit there. Liquor stores are also consensual. But many people feel that these establishments harm the moral fabric of society. I'll be the first to admit that I can't draw an exact cause-and-effect chain to show HOW they harm society, but casual observation tells me that I don't want to live in a neighborhood with lots of liquor stores and strip clubs.

Making a comparison between marriage and a strip club is not reasonable. If (stepping into crazy land, for a minute) promiscuous behavior harms society, why would one want to ban a marriage? Do you want homosexuals to be promiscuous? And how do two married men exert a harm on "children" anywhere near the same way a liquor store does?

I'm new to this forum, so I don't know how to do the multiple-quote thingy, but I went back and excerpted the following from earlier today...

Because they're a bigot? Oh wait...

And who are they (i.e. probably you) to refuse equal rights to anyone?

...your bigotry...
As has been said before, when you display bigoted opinions you will be labeled a bigot. Don't want to be called one? Don't be one.
People that oppose same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed to be called 'human'. They should still get all the same rights, but they should be called 'scum'.
This was ridiculing the argument of "Gays shouldn't be allowed to get married. They should get the same rights, but it should be called civil unions"
Obviously you are either an idiot or you are being intentionally obtuse?
Again, are you an idiot or are you being intentionally obtuse?
Not my fault you chose the insulting one

As for the idea that some have said around here, about my being insincere about being pro-gay-marriage or that I only claimed to be playing the DA after people started jumping on me, I offer you one of the few posts that I read from someone who actually seemed to be listening to what I said...
Meh, as I've said before, you can repeat it all you like I don't believe you were/are playing devil's advocate. Don't like it? Too bad. After your spouting all the same old tired 'arguments' for the entirety of the thread there is nothing you can do to convince me.
Here's the thing though... What effect does my not believing you really have? It shouldn't have any.

no same sex marriage its not right you people are crazy

Me? Crazy? *looks in pants and pulls out a gopher* How'd that in there? *pays gopher ten bucks and sends it on it's way* Now what were we talking about again?