What's new
By:

The costs of gay marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
The Black Swordsman said:
People are getting married less and less, (especially liberals) yet they keep crying about marriage. Gay marriage is immensely trivial. People raise awareness on this issue rather than the people dying in Africa. There are people getting tattoos of themselves, protests, etc all for gay marriage yet they are silent on the other issues.

"The bigoted defamation of an opposite opinion, rather than a willingness to listen to it or pay any attention to it. Liberal bigotry is the worst of all, as it thinks it's so enlightened."

This is all coming from someone who is in favor of allowing gays to marry.
Click to expand...

I don't get it. If we support same sex marriage and publicly advocate for it, why does this then compel us to publicly advocate for all other causes, such as people dying in Africa. Couldn't we turn this same argument on its head and say the same things to those publicly advocating against same sex marriage? As a practical matter, we only have so much time and energy to advocate publicly for so many causes. It doesn't mean we don't care about other things. This is a stupid argument.

Gay marriage isn't trivial--it's integral to the centuries old struggle of homosexuals to win their acceptance within wider society and to be granted the same rights/privileges of other members of society. That's hardly trivial.

Finally, while I really like Hitchens, I don't go to him to get my opinions/beliefs. I disagree with him. To me, it's not bigotry to fight against those who oppose extending civil rights to all members of society. Just as I don't have to worry about the opinions of the racist or bigot, so I don't have to worry about the opinions of the homophobes. Irrational and baseless opposition to whole groups of people based on crude stereotypes and religious myths does not merit my respectful attention. (As a note, I don't believe all opposition to same sex marriage is motivated by homophobia. I am willing to talk and listen to reasonable people, but at the end of the day I don't see any justifiable reason to oppose granting civil rights to any law abiding citizen.)
 
Darkwing Duck said:
I'm not. Which is why I question why "traditional marriage" is selective when choosing which traditions go into that definition.
Click to expand...

No, you went off on Colton. There is a difference. If you were questioning his phrasing you would have asked him to define his use of "traditional marriage" before you tried to shove machismo down his throat.
 
colton said:
You called me a bigot, OB. How is that NOT hateful?

Edit: to make things more clear--I don't think you had hate as your motivation, just as those who hired white men over black didn't have hate as their motivation in the example you provided. But if the actions can be hateful without the motivations being hateful, then yes, I do think your behavior in this thread has been hateful towards those who are in favor of traditional marriage.
Click to expand...

If I had a word you would not take offense to, colton, I would use it. The very best I can do is to be clear that:
1) this makes you the same as I (and every other human), not different,
2) this is a description of a particular position on a particular issue, and not of the entire person, and
3) if I could find a word that says you are not really interested in a fair, secular government, but prefer to impose your determination of legitimacy upon others who bring harm to neither yourself nor each other, while incurring no practical, functional, or legal benefit you have yet been able to consistently formulate, yet such a word as to offer no offense to you, I would gladly use it.

I am truly sorry that I am not up to the task of making clear how odious and hurtful your position is without sounding hateful. I will try to improve.
 
One Brow said:
If I had a word you would not take offense to, colton, I would use it. The very best I can do is to be clear that:
1) this makes you the same as I (and every other human), not different,
Click to expand...

If the word "bigot" applies to every human, then it loses nearly all its meaning. I doubt that anyone else I've ever met would say that all humans are bigots. I think you should bring your usage of the English language in line with the other 99.9999% of people.

(snip a bit)
I am truly sorry that I am not up to the task of making clear how odious and hurtful your position is without sounding hateful. I will try to improve.
Click to expand...

You made me laugh, at least. Now not only am I a bigot, I am also odious and hurtful! Or sorry--you're only saying that about my views, not about me as a person.

Personally, I cannot see where the bigotry, odiousness, or hurtfulness lies in my train of logic: (a) homosexual and heterosexual relationships are different on a fundamental level. Biologically this cannot be argued. Legally it also cannot be argued, because countless laws about marriages have underlying heterosexual assumptions. (See my first post in the thread for two examples regarding annulling marriages and granting divorces. Other examples abound.) (b) Therefore different words should be used to describe the different relationships.
 
One Brow said:
Thank you.



I always approve of skepticism. This law review article quote State vs. Jackson, from 1883:

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3036&context=wmlr



Of course, it's entirely possible that "progeny" here refers to white children, as opposed to any children at all.



I agree that locating statements from individuals, who do not represent government or other political entities, would be *very* poor evidence.



I presume you mean the argument about having children. Gay couples have children, and many plan on having children. Some from adoption, some from fertilization, some from surrogacy, some from previous marriages. Your argument is unsound because it is based on a false assumption.







I will wait until you have time to expound upon that, then. Because right now, you are invoking circumstances that could be present in many different sorts of heterosexual marriages, and using them to invalidate homosexual marriages.



Then, I respectfully disagree. I assure you, polite, respectful bigots abound.



It also says "treats with", not 'feels'. The effect counts, not trhe feelings of the person in question.



Depends. Are we agreeing about vegetarianism or the Holocaust?
Click to expand...

One Brow said:
How so?

Oh, you're just messing, and not serious. OK.
Click to expand...

One Brow I'd like you to meet One Brow. I don't think you two have meet before.
 
Haven't read any of this thread but I really don't see what logical reason anyone who's against gay marriage has. It literally has no effect on anyone and the only thing it hurts are the nonsensical opinions of people apposing it.
 
One Brow said:
Thank you.



I always approve of skepticism. This law review article quote State vs. Jackson, from 1883:

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3036&context=wmlr



Of course, it's entirely possible that "progeny" here refers to white children, as opposed to any children at all.



I agree that locating statements from individuals, who do not represent government or other political entities, would be *very* poor evidence.



I presume you mean the argument about having children. Gay couples have children, and many plan on having children. Some from adoption, some from fertilization, some from surrogacy, some from previous marriages. Your argument is unsound because it is based on a false assumption.







I will wait until you have time to expound upon that, then. Because right now, you are invoking circumstances that could be present in many different sorts of heterosexual marriages, and using them to invalidate homosexual marriages.



Then, I respectfully disagree. I assure you, polite, respectful bigots abound.



It also says "treats with", not 'feels'. The effect counts, not trhe feelings of the person in question.



Depends. Are we agreeing about vegetarianism or the Holocaust?
Click to expand...

Tony said:
Haven't read any of this thread but I really don't see what logical reason anyone who's against gay marriage has. It literally has no effect on anyone and the only thing it hurts are the nonsensical opinions of people apposing it.
Click to expand...


Three things:

1. I am for gay marriage

2. There opinion is as sensical as yours

3. I think it can and will have negative effects in other areas of private life with the lawsuits that I believe are sure to result from gay marriage becoming legal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top