The costs of gay marriage

[margodydek]

Untrue. In fact, the differences are large enough that medications can be indicated for white people and generally less effective in black people, or vice-versa. However, I'm sure you meant that these differences are completely irrelevant for deciding who should be able to marry whom, and I agree completely with that.



Actually, 50 years ago it was remarkably common to say that the differences between whites and black were so large that interracial marriage should be banned, just like you are now saying the differences between men and women are so large that same-sex marriage should be banned (or, if you are not saying this, I'm not sure what your point is). The differences between being black and white have not changed significantly in the last 50 years, but the importance we have attached to those differences has changed. Similarly, I suspect that 50 years from now, the differences between being male and female will seem less relevant in who should be able to marry whom.

Point is: most people now believe that differences in race should be rendered obsolete in our society. Obviously we don't want to dismiss those medications that work on Timmy, but won't work on Jamaal. However, a lot of people aren't so sure that we should render genders obsolete. I'm still not sure where I stand on this, but I'm saying that people who are attempting to preserve the current definition of marriage are not all "Chicken Littles". A lot of them are just not sure that rendering genders obsolete may not bring about unforseen consequences that, brace yourselves, may not be beneficial. Like I said, I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this, but if needs be, feel free to lump me into the "bigot" column with Colton. Or maybe I would be better suited with the mysogynists?

 

[colton]

They all were, back in the 1960s, to the degree that you can often just substitute a word here and there.

Sorry, this is incorrect.

You believe in a separate status that has no functional or practical purpose, over a condition most people have a choice in or control over.

Sorry, this is incorrect (talking about the first part, not the second).

The decision to deny the ability to marry based on same-sex attraction is intolerant and is based on your prejudices.

Sorry, this is incorrect.(*)

Basically, I conclude that you have no idea what I believe or what my arguments are. Granted I've only posted a couple of times in the thread, but one would think you'd read/understand them before calling me a bigot.

(*) Later edit - unless you're just saying it's intolerant by definition, your definition, in which case I'll just say you're free to define things the way you want.

 

[Stoked]

Sorry, this is incorrect.



Sorry, this is incorrect (talking about the first part, not the second).



Sorry, this is incorrect.(*)

Basically, I conclude that you have no idea what I believe or what my arguments are. Granted I've only posted a couple of times in the thread, but one would think you'd read/understand them before calling me a bigot.

(*) Later edit - unless you're just saying it's intolerant by definition, your definition, in which case I'll just say you're free to define things the way you want.

Did you read the Spazz/Brow conversation at all?

 

[margodydek]

Sorry, this is incorrect.



Sorry, this is incorrect (talking about the first part, not the second).



Sorry, this is incorrect.(*)

Basically, I conclude that you have no idea what I believe or what my arguments are. Granted I've only posted a couple of times in the thread, but one would think you'd read/understand them before calling me a bigot.

(*) Later edit - unless you're just saying it's intolerant by definition, your definition, in which case I'll just say you're free to define things the way you want.

People like One Brow have completely undermined the meaning of words like: bigot, racist, mysogynist, xenophobe, homophobe, etc. Those are mighty strong words that are now thrown out there without even batting an eye.

 

[One Brow]

Point is: most people now believe that differences in race should be rendered obsolete in our society. Obviously we don't want to dismiss those medications that work on Timmy, but won't work on Jamaal. However, a lot of people aren't so sure that we should render genders obsolete.

I agree with this general analysis. Note how heavy it is on concurrent cultural thoughts in various times.

I'm still not sure where I stand on this, but I'm saying that people who are attempting to preserve the current definition of marriage are not all "Chicken Littles". A lot of them are just not sure that rendering genders obsolete may not bring about unforseen consequences that, brace yourselves, may not be beneficial.

Any time a boat changes course, it will tend to lean, and sometimes that lean lets in a little water. I agree we want to turn the boat in a fashion so as to let in as little water as possible. However, we can't let our wish to stay dry keep us from turning the boat at all. The current direction of the boat is keeps us in the same rocky waters we've been in for centuries.

Like I said, I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this, but if needs be, feel free to lump me into the "bigot" column with Colton. Or maybe I would be better suited with the mysogynists?

I try not to lump anyone in to anything. You are you, colton is colton, Stoked is Stoked, Scat is Scat, etc. None of you deserves to caricaturized or treated as less an autonomous thinker. If you want to say you agree with colton specifically on any particular aspect of any issue, that doesn't make the two of you some group or unit.

So far, I don't see a reason to think you have settled into a comfortable prejudice (aka, not a bigot), and I don't label people as misogynists to begin with (feel free to go back and check, I talk about cultures, doctrines, and practices as misogynistic, not people). We all grew up in a misogynistic culture and we all (well, almost all) want to be fair and just.

 

[One Brow]

They all were, back in the 1960s, to the degree that you can often just substitute a word here and there.

Sorry, this is incorrect.

Prove it. Provide one argument used today against same-sex marriage that is not identical in form to an argument used against interracial marriage in the 1950s-60s. So far, I have seen clear analogues to all of them. I have no problem saying I was wrong, if you have a truly distinct argument in form.

You believe in a separate status that has no functional or practical purpose, over a condition most people have a choice in or control over.

Sorry, this is incorrect (talking about the first part, not the second).

In that you don't believe in a separate status (that is, you support gay marriage)? Because I may have misinterpreted this:

My view, short take: Marriage is wrapped up in the concept of heterosexual sex and child bearing/raising. Evidence for this is vast. For example, infertility is one of the possible grounds for divorce in many states. Lack of [heterosexual] consummation is grounds for an annulment in many states. The reason I cannot marry my sister or my daughter is because of the possibility of conceiving a child. I could go on and on.

What homosexuals want is not related to any of that.

It sure sounds like you want a separate status. Not to mention there is the factually wrong assertion that homosexual couples are not interested in child-raising (do you really need evidence provided against that?), or the claim that a lack of homosexual consummation would not be a grounds for divorce, etc.

So, I'm assuming you think there is a functional or practical reason to deny same-sex marriage. So, explicitly, what does society gain from denying same-sex marriage that serves some tangible benefit? If two gay men across the street from you are married, how is your marriage affected? If your marriage is not, what is the benefit?

The decision to deny the ability to marry based on same-sex attraction is intolerant and is based on your prejudices.

Sorry, this is incorrect.(*)

Basically, I conclude that you have no idea what I believe or what my arguments are. Granted I've only posted a couple of times in the thread, but one would think you'd read/understand them before calling me a bigot.

I certainly don't want to be unfair to you. So far, you've only presented arguments that were factually inaccurate ('gays are not interested in child-raising') or that gays would be able to get divorced for the same reasons straight people get divorced, so gays shouldn't be married (really, think about that). You might indeed have some arguments that don't sound bigoted and/or come across as a double-standard. I have apologized to other posters before when I misunderstood their arguments, I will of course extend you the same courtesy.

(*) Later edit - unless you're just saying it's intolerant by definition, your definition, in which case I'll just say you're free to define things the way you want.

It's so funny how everyone in here pretends that I think I'm some sort of wordsmith. I'm just using the words the way the dictionary defines them. It's not my fault that the dictionary definitions are not as narrow as you want them to be, so you can stay comfortable in not being labeled.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intolerant

1: unable or unwilling to endure
2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters
2 b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted
3: exhibiting physiological intolerance <lactose intolerant>

You are unwilling to grant or share the social right to be married to an adult of your choice (2b). Note the offered synonym is "bigoted".

 

[One Brow]

People like One Brow have completely undermined the meaning of words like: bigot, racist, mysogynist, xenophobe, homophobe, etc. Those are mighty strong words that are now thrown out there without even batting an eye.

I don't used racist/misogynist as a nouns describing a people, nor use xenophobe or homophobe at all. I use them as adjectives describing cultural images, actions, behaviors, and effects. The words are strong, but then the images, actions, behaviors, and effects are also strong and offensive.

Further, my usage of the words I choose is carefully, strictly, and strongly within the actual meanings of the words.

 

[Stoked]

It's so funny how everyone in here pretends that I think I'm some sort of wordsmith. I'm just using the words the way the dictionary defines them. It's not my fault that the dictionary definitions are not as narrow as you want them to be...

Just a thought.

If "everyone in here" is telling you the same thing then perhaps there is something there. Perhaps there really is a problem in the way you present yourself and your opinions. Perhaps there is a problem with the way you try to disect every single sentence in an attempt to find hidden meanings.

 

[One Brow]

Just a thought.

If "everyone in here" is telling you the same thing then perhaps there is something there. Perhaps there really is a problem in the way you present yourself and your opinions. Perhaps there is a problem with the way you try to disect every single sentence in an attempt to find hidden meanings.

You are correct that I need to give this consideration, and I try to.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Any time a boat changes course, it will tend to lean, and sometimes that lean lets in a little water. I agree we want to turn the boat in a fashion so as to let in as little water as possible. However, we can't let our wish to stay dry keep us from turning the boat at all. The current direction of the boat is keeps us in the same rocky waters we've been in for centuries.

It takes on water especially when there are people fighting to take over the oars from other people. Not out of rocky waters, but a course change from heading to Aslan's country to The Lone Islands. Some people can only see the land right in front of their eyes, and cannot seem to fathom the ultimate destination. It's a good analogy with a few changes, nice effort One Brow.

I try not to lump anyone in to anything. You are you, colton is colton, Stoked is Stoked, Scat is Scat, etc. None of you deserves to caricaturized or treated as less an autonomous thinker. If you want to say you agree with colton specifically on any particular aspect of any issue, that doesn't make the two of you some group or unit.

So far, I don't see a reason to think you have settled into a comfortable prejudice (aka, not a bigot), and I don't label people as misogynists to begin with (feel free to go back and check, I talk about cultures, doctrines, and practices as misogynistic, not people). We all grew up in a misogynistic culture and we all (well, almost all) want to be fair and just.

I also do not call people names or label them, that is rude. I will not call One Brow any names, but everything he says and does as a foolish, a lie, or immoral. It's not One Brow himself, it's just everything about him everything he believes or does not believe. It is his language, his thoughts, his false demeanor of respect. His actions show having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof. His words are like unto a whited sepulchre which indeed appears beautiful outward, but inside is full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.

Is that fair? I would hate to call someone out directly.

 

[Stoked]

It takes on water especially when there are people fighting to take over the oars from other people. Not out of rocky waters, but a course change from heading to Aslan's country to The Lone Islands. Some people can only see the land right in front of their eyes, and cannot seem to fathom the ultimate destination. It's a good analogy with a few changes, nice effort One Brow.




I also do not call people names or label them, that is rude. I will not call One Brow any names, but everything he says and does as a foolish, a lie, or immoral. It's not One Brow himself, it's just everything about him everything he believes or does not believe. It is his language, his thoughts, his false demeanor of respect. His actions show having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof. His words are like unto a whited sepulchre which indeed appears beautiful outward, but inside is full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.

Is that fair? I would hate to call someone out directly.

Tell us how you really feel. I do not have that opinion of One Brow. Things like the above are highly foolish to me. I just would not like to have One Brows view of things.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

How many times does religion need to be on the wrong side of history before it figures this stuff out. People not better than anyone else because of their faith. They don't know anything more than the faithless, they may think they do but they don't and vice versa. On the issue of human rights religion stumbles over and over again.

Do any of you want to be crazy grandpa or grandma that actually supported the stance against gay marriage? How many generations have to make the same mistake over and over before they learn?

Some of you like to throw out the insanity cliche; doing stuff over and over again blah blah blah. Well, are you insane?