The costs of gay marriage

[babe]

In that entire rant, you didn't once mention how the kids with the glassies and the steelies suffered because some other game existed with the same name.

The term "marbles" continues to mean something different form breaking bottles with slingshots and rocks, too. You seem unable to be intellectually honest about even the point of my comment. I clearly set it up so kids who play one game can have their own perfectly unique rules and all the fun the game can afford, while others can play their games as well, without necessarily having to get approval from "teach" or being told everything they are allowed to do by the government, or society.

I think the insistence on seeking government validation for gays while degrading the meaning of marriage is divisive and unproductive, and the agenda as being pushed is actually destructive of all human rights because it turns our government into an agent of tyranny more than it already is. There is way to go with all this that will decrease the role of government and laws regulating personal behaviours and beliefs. Why not go that way?????

 

[Hartsock]

Google.

Its pretty simple really, I'm assuming these ****** are literate, most of them are actually. The law says that a public business cannot discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc .... They probably assumed that since they were lesbians that they would fit into the "sexual orientation" category and therefore would be protected. That being said, go get a different photographer!!!

 

[One Brow]

You seem unable to be intellectually honest about even the point of my comment.

Sorry, but I just didn't see the point as relevant (perhaps I misread). I used to play pinochle with a group that used a double-deck but no nines (so, four each of A-10-K-Q-J in each suit). Occasionally, some people would play with single deck with 9s. It never bothered me that they called that game pinochle. If someone wishes to call their game Chess when the queen only moves two spaces, it doesn't change the game of chess I play, and their use of that term "chess" makes no difference in the game I play. Similarly, if some else wants to take a game where they break bottles with slingshots and call it "marbles", that does nothing to to detract from my game. So, I see the insistence that 'only people who use a thumb to shoot a glass sphere into a circle will be permitted to call their game "marbles"' as unfair, pointless, pendantic, and in some cases, spiteful.

Did that cover your point? If not, what do you think I missed?

I clearly set it up so kids who play one game can have their own perfectly unique rules and all the fun the game can afford, while others can play their games as well, without necessarily having to get approval from "teach" or being told everything they are allowed to do by the government, or society.

FIDE specifies chess rules; so if you don't play by FIDE rules, you can't play in FIDE. Similarly, when the government makes rules that say committed gay relationships are not marriage, that excludes gays from participating in marriage.

I think the insistence on seeking government validation for gays while degrading the meaning of marriage is divisive and unproductive,

To refer to gay marriage as a "degrading" is a nakedly bigoted statement. It doesn't bother me that you hold a nakedly bigoted opinion, of course. I'll just call you on it when you pretend it is otherwise.

There is way to go with all this that will decrease the role of government and laws regulating personal behaviours and beliefs. Why not go that way?????

If you wqant to get government out of all marriages, entirely (I'm not sure you meant that), that cause is orthogonal to the cause of gay marriage, not parallel to it.

 

[colton]

I accept that you believe there is no equivalence. However, since every argument currently used opposing homosexual marriage was identical in form to an argument that was used to opposed interracial marriage, you will understand that I find your belief unsupported by your own arguments.

You're wrong. Few if any of the arguments I made can be applied to interracial marriage.

Also, it is factually correct to call you a bigot for your stance, even if you are uncomfortable with that label.

How exactly is it factually correct to call me a bigot?

Here's Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

I'm no more a bigot by that definition than you are.

 

[One Brow]

Its pretty simple really, I'm assuming these ****** are literate, most of them are actually. The law says that a public business cannot discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc .... They probably assumed that since they were lesbians that they would fit into the "sexual orientation" category and therefore would be protected.

So, you have no reason to think that this particular couple expected to be discriminated against by this particular studio before they visited? I must have misunderstood you.

That being said, go get a different photographer!!!

Would you feel the same if it were a restaurant? How about if the religious objections were over an interracial relationship?

 

[Hartsock]

So, you have no reason to think that this particular couple expected to be discriminated against by this particular studio before they visited? I must have misunderstood you.



Would you feel the same if it were a restaurant? How about if the religious objections were over an interracial relationship?

Maybe I just dont like spending a lot of money to prove a point, I would be annoyed and would move on. Mayb'e I'd write him a bad yelp review or something.

 

[One Brow]

You're wrong. Few if any of the arguments I made can be applied to interracial marriage.

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

How exactly is it factually correct to call me a bigot?

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.

Here's Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

I'm no more a bigot by that definition than you are.

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

 

[One Brow]

Maybe I just dont like spending a lot of money to prove a point, I would be annoyed and would move on. Mayb'e I'd write him a bad yelp review or something.

I don't think other victims need to be held to your standard of the proper behavior for victimhood.

 

[margodydek]

I accept that you believe there is no equivalence. However, since every argument currently used opposing homosexual marriage was identical in form to an argument that was used to opposed interracial marriage, you will understand that I find your belief unsupported by your own arguments. Also, it is factually correct to call you a bigot for your stance, even if you are uncomfortable with that label.

There is no difference between a black man and a white man. But some believe there are differences between a man and a woman. Not identical arguments, unless you believe that a male/female set of twins can be identical.

 

[Hartsock]

I don't think other victims need to be held to your standard of the proper behavior for victimhood.

Why shouldn't they be held to my standard for proper behavior of victimhood? I am a man after all, and they are gay women, a far inferior species.

 

[One Brow]

There is no difference between a black man and a white man.

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.

But some believe there are differences between a man and a woman. Not identical arguments, unless you believe that a male/female set of twins can be identical.

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.

 

[One Brow]

Why shouldn't they be held to my standard for proper behavior of victimhood? I am a man after all, and they are gay women, a far inferior species.