Perhaps you should ask Colton these things before you attempt to pin ideas and politcal stances on him. Just a thought.
The costs of gay marriage
- Thread starter The Thriller
- Start date
Perhaps you should ask Colton these things before you attempt to pin ideas and politcal stances on him. Just a thought.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
So you're saying the answer would be something other than "marriage based on traditions?"
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
You don't know that--nobody does. That's why it's called 'pre-historic.' (The Bible is not a history book.)
Organized religion, with a priest class governing the affairs of society (civic and religious), on the other hand, is a relatively new phenomenon in human history coming AFTER advances in food production technologies that allowed humans to remain in established settlements and create specialization in societal roles.
While there may have been 'religious beliefs' in certain societies, these are far from the type of organized religions that officiate over civil ceremonies, such as marriage. I'm guessing marriage (the joining of men and women into familial groups) far, far predates organized religion as a mechanism for social regulation.
Please, send me the links. My criticisms show not that I have not read them, but show that I question your methods, and the methods of people you use as backup to your arguments.
If the skin color of managers does not matter, why would the skin color of the applicant matter? You brought skin color into this, as did those performing the studies. Either skin color matters, or it doesn't.
Make up your mind.
So, your intent is to discount, not analyze.
Who cares, according to you what I think or feel does not apply to anything does it? Have you changed your mind again?
Oh no, my goal is the same as yours. I question in my supreme quest of understanding.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
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.)
I'm sorry that you wish to seek for hidden meanings when there are none.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
I'm not. Which is why I question why "traditional marriage" is selective when choosing which traditions go into that definition.
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.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Went off? Machismo? Uh...no.
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.
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.
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.
Hot Rod : "OB hippity hops to the left side, then with his patented spin move, OB feigns ignorance, spins around the defense and continues with his schtick toward bigotland.
One Brow I'd like you to meet One Brow. I don't think you two have meet before.
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.
Wait... What?
Not sure exactly what you are asking so I will break them down.
1. Obvious. I am for gay marriage
2. Just because someone has a differing opinion does not mean it is non sensical. Their opinions are no less valid than yours or mine.
3. I think that after gay marriage is made legal, as it should be, there will be lawsuits all over the place about anything that stands up to them. Private business, charities, religions. Such as Catholic adoption agencies and housing provided by religious entities.
lol I know everything you meant, I merely thought you were confused and thought I was against it.
And you're right, maybe I shouldn't have used the word "opinion." Let me reword it, gay marriage has no effect and doesn't hurt anyone.
As there should be. Can you imagine if an adoption agency turned away a black couple or an interracial couple that was looking to adopt? Married gay couples should have their rights protected just as much as everyone else.
If that adoption agency takes any public funding than they do business with everyone. If it is a private organization then I am fine with them turning away who ever they wish for whatever reason they wish. I support that for the same reason I support gay marriage.
Just as a gay private business owner should have the right now to do business with for any reason they want. I am against the government being so involved in private peoples lives. That goes for who I do or do not do business with, who I marry, who I decide to cover on insurance, what gun or gun accesory I wish to buy, where I wish to travel...