|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bgg1996
BeeGees are awesome!
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 2:55 am Post subject: 121 |
 |
|
A true "homophobe" would not make friends with a homosexual than an arachnophobe would with a black widow.
_________________
The one member below 18 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 3:15 am Post subject: 122 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Elaborate on the goalposts and their movements when you have the time. I think I've consistently repeated my position ad nauseum. |
I think that, in fact, your latest post is the first time you've said that you believe marriage is "man and wife". Until then it was always "people" or "traditionalists".
Perhaps I shouldn't have called it "moving the goalposts", as reading through the thread I'm not sure you ever gave me a clear idea of what you were suggesting marriage was, so it's more like you're making up the goalposts retroactively so that you can say I was wrong.
You said "a marriage is a marriage, regardless of whether the government recognises it as such", but then say that if homosexuals adhere to this statement and call themselves married, they are not "married", they are trying to achieve an agenda.
You stated that "people" believe that homosexual marriage is not marriage, and therefore it shouldn't be allowed to be called that. When studies were cited that show that a majority of people, in fact, support gay marriage, you began speaking about "traditionalists", which you have only just decided to define - previously only stating that the phrase "traditional marriage" has meaning beyond that of what the actual traditions are.
Your recent definition states that it means "people who think the word "marriage" means, and should continue to mean, husband and wife ... that the word "marriage" should be reserved for that." This still doesn't describe anything of substance. Do these people believe that a ceremony has to be performed to make a marriage valid? I would personally view that as a "traditionalist" standpoint, but you've already stated that you feel the ceremony is not necessary to the definition - and you've made it clear in your last post that "people" and "traditionalists" are interchangable with "extropalopakettle". I would like to see some actual traditions in their set of beliefs before I allow them the use of that title.
You amended your position from "equal rights/entitlements, separate titles" to "equal rights/entitlements, same titles - as long as the title isn't marriage". However, you still maintain that there is a fundamental difference between the natures of gay and straight relationships. You have not elaborated upon why you believe that two things you believe to be different should have the same title, and this in fact contradicts your stated fears of the world becoming an Orwellian dystopia due to using the same word for things that you believe are different.
You have not presented your views consistently, and I'm not even sure that your views have remained consistent throughout the thread. What you have done is performed some incredible mental gymnastics to justify what is, as far as I can tell, only prejudice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Undercover Monk
Professor Chaos
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 4:39 am Post subject: 123 |
|
|
not to derail this discussion but I disagree with that definition of bigot. I am completely and close-mindedly devoted to my opinions. After all if i thought i was wrong i wouldn't hold that opinion. and if i do decide i am wrng my opinion shifts instantly and im right again.
people accuse conservatives of being close-minded and arrogant. But we all think we are right. Thats the point. I recognize the possibility I am wrong, but I always think I'm right or I wouldn't hold the opinions that I do. The same goes for Makay and extra.
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 1:35 pm Post subject: 124 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Elaborate on the goalposts and their movements when you have the time. I think I've consistently repeated my position ad nauseum. |
I think that, in fact, your latest post is the first time you've said that you believe marriage is "man and wife". Until then it was always "people" or "traditionalists". |
Is my personal point of view regarding what "marriage" means relevant to my argument?
| Quote: |
| Perhaps I shouldn't have called it "moving the goalposts", as reading through the thread I'm not sure you ever gave me a clear idea of what you were suggesting marriage was, so it's more like you're making up the goalposts retroactively so that you can say I was wrong. |
You're saying I conjured up the husband and wife thing last minute to win an argument?
| Quote: |
| You said "a marriage is a marriage, regardless of whether the government recognises it as such", but then say that if homosexuals adhere to this statement and call themselves married, they are not "married", they are trying to achieve an agenda. |
That doesn't actually make sense (if you're use of "but then" is supposed to suggest a contradiction). To see that, consider this similar statement:
| Quote: |
| You said "a woman is a woman, regardless of whether the government recognises her as such", but then say that if men adhere to this statement and call themselves women, they are not "women", they are trying to ... whatever. |
| Quote: |
You stated that "people" believe that homosexual marriage is not marriage, and therefore it shouldn't be allowed to be called that.
|
I said government shouldn't be redefining everyday words. Anyone should be allowed to call anything anything - freedom of expression - I said that, I hope.
| Quote: |
| When studies were cited that show that a majority of people, in fact, support gay marriage, you began speaking about "traditionalists", which you have only just decided to define - previously only stating that the phrase "traditional marriage" has meaning beyond that of what the actual traditions are. |
Sorry, so much is wrong there. This will quickly degrade into you wearing me out by having me clarify all your misrepresentations of what I've said. Now I have to go digging through 4 pages to see what you misinterpreted that way.
You cited some polls, which I didn't address. I will (a bit later), if it will make you happy, but they're slanted. I think a majority, as I do, favor equal rights, but calling it "marriage" is a sticking point for many, and polls seldom or never give people the option to respond to those independently. Polls generally provide two options:
1) Give homosexuals equal rights and redefine "marriage" to include same sex unions.
2) Preserve the meaning of "marriage" and treat homosexuals as second class citizens.
I'm not understand your complaints about my use of the word "traditionalist". It was merely a much less verbose way of saying "those who take the word "marriage" to have its traditional meaning" (which is husband and wife). You then went into traditional marriage being polygynous and a transference of ownership, when I was meaning more recent centuries.
| Quote: |
| "traditionalists", which you have only just decided to define |
As soon as you questioned it (I thought it was obvious from context to begin with) with the polygynous transfer of ownership thing, I clarified "I mean tradition today". You're quibbling over something that I don't think has much relevance.
| Quote: |
| previously only stating that the phrase "traditional marriage" has meaning beyond that of what the actual traditions are |
Did I say that, or is the phrase "what the actual traditions are" your characterization of something I did (or didn't) say?
I have an idea of the thought you're referring to, but unless you quote me, I can't find where I expressed it. The thought that brings to mind though is that marriage means a lot more to people than just the legal aspect ... that if my marriage to my wife were found to be legally invalid, we would consider ourselves as married as we ever did. But "traditional marriage" has meaning beyond that of what the actual traditions are ... I can't be sure what that means (and pretty sure I didn't say it). If this is gonna degrade into "extro misused the word 'tradition'", let's make sure it's relevant.
| Quote: |
| Your recent definition states that it means "people who think the word "marriage" means, and should continue to mean, husband and wife ... that the word "marriage" should be reserved for that." |
This is recent? I genuinely thought that was the context of the entire discussion. Look at the thread title. Should gay marriage be called "marriage"? Other than gay marriage, and husband and wife marriage, what are we considering? Antrax asked "What's wrong with defining a marriage as being between a man and a woman?". This set the scope of the entire discussion.
| Quote: |
| This still doesn't describe anything of substance. Do these people believe that a ceremony has to be performed to make a marriage valid? I would personally view that as a "traditionalist" standpoint, but you've already stated that you feel the ceremony is not necessary to the definition |
Please quote me.
| Quote: |
| - and you've made it clear in your last post that "people" and "traditionalists" are interchangable with "extropalopakettle". I would like to see some actual traditions in their set of beliefs before I allow them the use of that title. |
This is really about my abbreviating a description of people who think marriage entails a husband and wife? (what Merriam-Webster's calls "traditional marriage", when they say "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>")
And which last post are you referring to? The one where I'm saying such people aren't treating anyone with hatred or intolerance?
| Quote: |
| You amended your position from "equal rights/entitlements, separate titles" to "equal rights/entitlements, same titles - as long as the title isn't marriage". |
I've been discussing this topic with people for years, and yes I've amended my thinking on it somewhat over the years, but not in the last several months at least. What you're referring to is this alleged amendment, between my first and second post, where I'm agreeing with you, so we have no argument on this point:
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Mackay wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| The real problem is that "marriage" has meaning to people far beyond the legal contract, and government shouldn't be redefining it. Redefining it will change how people think. Changing how people think is fine, but it shouldn't be done by government manipulation of language. |
Surely you can see how this works in exactly the opposite way, though. By not allowing gay people to use the term "marriage", a distinction is being imposed by the government's manipulation of language. |
I agree, and I think it's unfortunate that government ever stuck its nose in the marriage business. I'd be fine with government granting "civil unions", as a legal contract, to any two (or more) people, of any combination of genders, and leaving what "marriage" means up to individuals (as with the meaning of any word). |
| Quote: |
| However, you still maintain that there is a fundamental difference between the natures of gay and straight relationships. You have not elaborated upon why you believe that two things you believe to be different should have the same title, and this in fact contradicts your stated fears of the world becoming an Orwellian dystopia due to using the same word for things that you believe are different. |
Did you mean "should not have the same title"?
Or if you meant, should all be called "civil unions", no, it doesn't contradict. "Marriage" has been around long before government. People off in the wilderness, removed from government, have gotten married. "Civil union" would be a legal status, and as such would not refer to two different things, nor, being a new term (and if anyone objects it's not new enough, fine, I've no objection to inventing something newer), would it entail redefining anything, and certainly not anything people care about.
| Quote: |
| You have not presented your views consistently, ... |
You're desperately seeking inconsistencies in my presentation. I'm human, they may be there. But I can assure you, again, regarding:
| Quote: |
| and I'm not even sure that your views have remained consistent throughout the thread. What you have done is performed some incredible mental gymnastics to justify what is, as far as I can tell, only prejudice. |
... again, I've had this discussion many times over many years. I know what my views are, I've examined them for inconsistencies, and I'm pretty good at that. I didn't just start thinking about this when the question came up here, and I'm far from the only one who has thought this through, though far from enough people have.
Prejudice? To a lesser degree, but in the same way, no different than "bigot" and "homophobe". I know my own heart, and there is no hatred or intolerance or xenophobia (which covers homophobia). You are being obstinate in refusing to understand, and intolerant of the many people to whom marriage means a great deal and who feel it deserves a name all it's own, and who don't want that name redefined. You're free to disagree with them, but to bulldoze them with government redefinition of an emotionally laden word that predates the government, this I feel is intolerant and lacking compassion. And no, they're not bigots. Most are quiet, humble, good people. Get to know them, before you write them off as bigots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 2:23 pm Post subject: 125 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Quote: |
| When studies were cited that show that a majority of people, in fact, support gay marriage, you began speaking about "traditionalists", ... |
...
You cited some polls, which I didn't address. I will (a bit later), ... |
Just quickly, since it's an easy one, the second poll you cited is invalid. They asked:
| Quote: |
| Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages? |
They said "traditional", which clearly invalidates the whole thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 3:30 pm Post subject: 126 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Is my personal point of view regarding what "marriage" means relevant to my argument? |
Not necessarily, but it's relevant to your claim that you have "consistently repeated [your] position".
| Quote: |
| You're saying I conjured up the husband and wife thing last minute to win an argument? |
I'm saying that "husband and wife" only became the focus when you wanted it to. "Husband and wife" is separate from "marriage", you are assuming that people share your inherent biases toward what the word means.
| Quote: |
That doesn't actually make sense (if you're use of "but then" is supposed to suggest a contradiction). To see that, consider this similar statement:
| Quote: |
| You said "a woman is a woman, regardless of whether the government recognises her as such", but then say that if men adhere to this statement and call themselves women, they are not "women", they are trying to ... whatever. |
|
Do you really not realise you're doing this? I have never accepted that a gay union is inherently different from a straight union. You have not given me any evidence to change my mind other than some mystical belief that your sex is better than other people's sex. You have also consistently refused to address the point when I've brought it up since.
You are building entire arguments on an unproven assumption, and one I believe is false. This is what I'm talking about when I refer to your "moving goalposts" - you're not even acknowledging that you might be wrong about gay peoples' inherent inferiority.
| Quote: |
| I said government shouldn't be redefining everyday words. Anyone should be allowed to call anything anything - freedom of expression - I said that, I hope. |
How is it a redefinition, though? I asked this before - when a gay couple says they're married, we understand perfectly, it's just that you also suspect them of THE GAY AGENDA. Even the dictionary definition you quoted acknowledeged that same sex marriage is "marriage".
Are you okay with the government redefining "marriage" to "civil unions", and if so why is it different?
I'm going to go ahead and skip the "traditionalist" stuff, because it's clear from your latest post that you meant it as an abbreviation rather than to lend legitimacy (not the impression I got initially), so I apologise for getting mad about it.
| Quote: |
Did you mean "should not have the same title"?
Or if you meant, should all be called "civil unions", no, it doesn't contradict. "Marriage" has been around long before government. |
Right, and when marriage was around at that time, it was the polygynous transference of ownership of a woman.
| Quote: |
| People off in the wilderness, removed from government, have gotten married. |
Gay people have gotten married. Precedent is not your friend, here.
| Quote: |
| "Civil union" would be a legal status, and as such would not refer to two different things, nor, being a new term (and if anyone objects it's not new enough, fine, I've no objection to inventing something newer), would it entail redefining anything, and certainly not anything people care about. |
The problem with using a new term is that it is institutionalising the idea that gay people aren't worthy of the term "marriage" (which has evolved plenty since its "traditional" days). Everyone will remember that it used to be called "marriage" but got changed because gay people aren't allowed to use it.
| Quote: |
| Prejudice? To a lesser degree, but in the same way, no different than "bigot" and "homophobe". I know my own heart, and there is no hatred or intolerance or xenophobia (which covers homophobia). |
I don't think there is hatred, but you have openly admitted to believing that gay people are your evolutionary inferiors, that your relationships are inherently superior, and that your sexual relations are inherently more profound. You still haven't told me whether you've mentioned these things to your gay friends, either.
| Quote: |
| You are being obstinate in refusing to understand, and intolerant of the many people to whom marriage means a great deal and who feel it deserves a name all it's own, and who don't want that name redefined. You're free to disagree with them, but to bulldoze them with government redefinition of an emotionally laden word that predates the government, this I feel is intolerant and lacking compassion. And no, they're not bigots. Most are quiet, humble, good people. Get to know them, before you write them off as bigots. |
I really don't understand how it is a "redefinition", but then I've not really ever thought of marriage in terms of the genders of the participants so much as the bond between them, so perhaps this is just unbridgable.
And again, you've gone back to "predates government", in which case I think we also need to go back to "polygynous ownership etc". There is a double standard here. Maybe you need to examine harder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ralphmerridew
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 3:46 pm Post subject: 127 |
|
|
| More likely, "civil union" will replace "marriage" as far as governmental policy goes; "marriage" will remain in common use. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JDTAY
obseletes now
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 4:47 pm Post subject: 128 |
|
|
Oh man, I've noticed Ron Paul campaign ads popping up on this site. Does this site use one of those ad services that browses the content of posts and provides relevant ads, 'cause if so, I totally apologize for bringing the Ron Paul ads here. Maybe if I say Gary Johnson enough times, I can get his ads in here.
Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson.
_________________
Prohibit nothing. Disclose everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 5:07 pm Post subject: 129 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Is my personal point of view regarding what "marriage" means relevant to my argument? |
Not necessarily, but it's relevant to your claim that you have "consistently repeated [your] position". |
Does an irrelevant mention of my irrelevant personal point of view about something really disrupt the consistency of the argument it is irrelevant to?
| Mackay wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You're saying I conjured up the husband and wife thing last minute to win an argument? |
I'm saying that "husband and wife" only became the focus when you wanted it to. "Husband and wife" is separate from "marriage", you are assuming that people share your inherent biases toward what the word means. |
I'm not assuming. Is Merriam-Webster assuming? And again, what does the title of this thread mean? Are you suggesting Should gay marriage be called "marriage"? really means Should anything be called "marriage"? If the question isn't about gay marriage, but not questioning husband and wife marriage, then what is the question?
| Mackay wrote: |
| Quote: |
That doesn't actually make sense (if you're use of "but then" is supposed to suggest a contradiction). To see that, consider this similar statement:
| Quote: |
| You said "a woman is a woman, regardless of whether the government recognises her as such", but then say that if men adhere to this statement and call themselves women, they are not "women", they are trying to ... whatever. |
|
Do you really not realise you're doing this? I have never accepted that a gay union is inherently different from a straight union. |
That's irrelevant to what I just tried to explain to you. You wrote:
| Mackay wrote: |
| You said "a marriage is a marriage, regardless of whether the government recognises it as such", but then say that if homosexuals adhere to this statement and call themselves married, they are not "married", they are trying to achieve an agenda. |
Yes, I said "a marriage is a marriage, regardless of whether the government recognises it as such".
"but then" I said something else. Are you implying a conflict between the two things I said? I thought you were, given the juxtaposition of the two statements separated by "but then", and was demonstrating there's no conflict.
| Mackay wrote: |
| You have not given me any evidence to change my mind other than some mystical belief that your sex is better than other people's sex. You have also consistently refused to address the point when I've brought it up since. |
It's irrelevant to the point that people are entitled to their beliefs, even IF those beliefs are ignorant or wrong, and that government shouldn't be in the business of changing them.
If you want to have that discussion, fine, but I don't want my engaging in it misconstrued as me implying it's relevant to the discussion at hand. There's nothing mystical about the notion that there's a definite purpose (in the sense of an evolutionary selective advantage, in this case extreme) in sex between a man and a woman being pleasurable, and the parts involved being designed (again, in the evolutionary sense) to be very good at making it extremely pleasurable, to an extent appropriate to the importance of its function, reproduction, which from an evolutionary perspective, has importance second to nothing.
| Mackay wrote: |
| You are building entire arguments on an unproven assumption, and one I believe is false. |
Some people say there is no God. God may be a false assumption. Is that a reason to have government weigh in on the question? I would argue no, and it would not be based on a belief there is a God. Same here.
| Mackay wrote: |
| This is what I'm talking about when I refer to your "moving goalposts" - you're not even acknowledging that you might be wrong about gay peoples' inherent inferiority. |
I would never, and didn't, say "inherent inferiority". I have considered the fact that there are other species which have non-reproductive individuals, and that there is a distinct evolutionary advantage to their being that way. There is the "gay uncle" hypothesis, where being gay and childless lets him focus on nieces and nephews who share many of his genes. I'm just not clear it has an advantage over being heterosexual. There are studies which link male homosexuality to female fecundity, i.e. the son of a woman who has many children has a greater likelihood of being gay than the son of a woman who has less children. It might be that there are genes which expresses themselves differently in women versus men, and that the selective disadvantage when expressed in women outweighs the selective disadvantage when expressed in men. Hypothetically, a gene which creates a strong attraction to men (whether one is a man or a woman) would do that. Somewhat like sickle-cell anemia, where the gene which produces it is actually advantageous as a whole, in conferring resistance to malaria.
But more importantly, even if I had (I don't) the view that homosexuals are "inherently inferior", it would be irrelevant to my argument (again, as being wrong in believing there's a God would be irrelevant to my argument that government should stay out of influencing people on the matter).
| Mackay wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I said government shouldn't be redefining everyday words. Anyone should be allowed to call anything anything - freedom of expression - I said that, I hope. |
How is it a redefinition, though? I asked this before - when a gay couple says they're married, we understand perfectly, it's just that you also suspect them of THE GAY AGENDA. Even the dictionary definition you quoted acknowledeged that same sex marriage is "marriage". |
The dictionary definition acknowledged the word "marriage" is used in the phrase "same-sex marriage" to mean something "a relationship like that of a traditional marriage". The primary definition of marriage entails husband and wife. And again, I questioned how they compile concordances from which they determine how words are used, and noted that, far from it being because of consensus of meaning, but rather because of the lack of consensus, the word "marriage" in current discourse very often is in the context of the controversy regarding whether same-sex marriage is marriage.
I believe the entire dispute could be resolved through government abandoning the term "marriage" for "civil union" for all, but there are many who feel that would not be good enough, that same-sex couples should have government recognized "marriage". This reveals an agenda beyond equal rights, i.e. acceptance, and that alone is not wrong at all, but again, it's wrong to use government to bulldoze people who believe differently.
| Mackay wrote: |
| Are you okay with the government redefining "marriage" to "civil unions", and if so why is it different? |
Not sure what that means. I propose government not say what "marriage" is.
| Mackay wrote: |
| Quote: |
| People off in the wilderness, removed from government, have gotten married. |
Gay people have gotten married. Precedent is not your friend, here. |
Impossible. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
| Mackay wrote: |
| Everyone will remember that it used to be called "marriage" but got changed because gay people aren't allowed to use it. |
I can't claim there's a painless solution to the mistake of ever letting government be in the marriage business, and I don't know that it needs to be seen that way, but it seems the lesser evil.
| Mackay wrote: |
| And again, you've gone back to "predates government", in which case I think we also need to go back to "polygynous ownership etc". There is a double standard here. Maybe you need to examine harder. |
When was it polygynous ownership? Before my time. In any case, today, what marriage means, in the minds of people, is not dependent on a government stamp of approval. Not everyone may feel that way, but I pity anyone who think their marriage is less a marriage if government doesn't say so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 5:08 pm Post subject: 130 |
|
|
| JDTAY wrote: |
Oh man, I've noticed Ron Paul campaign ads popping up on this site. Does this site use one of those ad services that browses the content of posts and provides relevant ads, 'cause if so, I totally apologize for bringing the Ron Paul ads here. Maybe if I say Gary Johnson enough times, I can get his ads in here.
Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson. |
Who isn't using adblock? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 5:48 pm Post subject: 131 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Who isn't using adblock? |
Me (the small time benefit isn't worth it to me). The GL's ads have generally leaned a touch conservative (I don't remember seeing pro-liberal advertising and there's been other conservative advertising). However, I suspect that's more about the amount of money being paid toward putting conservative ads on the internet than the GL's political leanings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 6:43 pm Post subject: 132 |
|
|
| extro wrote: |
| People off in the wilderness, removed from government, have gotten married. |
| Mackay wrote: |
Gay people have gotten married. Precedent is not your friend, here.
|
| extro wrote: |
| Impossible. Marriage is between a man and a woman. |
Wrong, extro. There are many gay men who have married women, perhaps even gay women. I'm not sure how that impacts the discussion, but gay people do, in fact, get married.....every day.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 7:47 pm Post subject: 133 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
| extro wrote: |
| People off in the wilderness, removed from government, have gotten married. |
| Mackay wrote: |
Gay people have gotten married. Precedent is not your friend, here.
|
| extro wrote: |
| Impossible. Marriage is between a man and a woman. |
Wrong, extro. There are many gay men who have married women, perhaps even gay women. I'm not sure how that impacts the discussion, but gay people do, in fact, get married.....every day. |
OK, possible - marriage is between a man and a woman.
And btw, yeah, I know - post #105:
(If you didn't click, it's a Rabbi who arranges marriages between gay men and lesbian women)
(and no Mackay, I'm not saying that is a marriage nor saying it isn't a marriage) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 7:50 pm Post subject: 134 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Not sure what that means. I propose government not say what "marriage" is. |
OK.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Impossible. Marriage is between a man and a woman. |
But you're willing to?
In any case, from a legal point of view, it's not the least bit impossible. A childhood friend of mine recently married her lesbian partner of 20-odd years in Massachusetts. The federal government was even glad to recognize the marriage, granting the partner a green card that they had otherwise denied her, and accepting the relationship as marriage for tax purposes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 8:01 pm Post subject: 135 |
|
|
who should be offended more, gays by getting their own special-name-for-marriage or "traditionalists" by having the definition of marriage extended to include gays?
I think this boils to tradition VS equality in which case equality wins.
I'll try to better explain with examples:
In a thought experiment I ask a gay person why does he want the definition of marriage to include gays and I ask a traditionalist why he doesnt want the definition of marriage to include gays.
My imaginary answers lead to tradition vs equality.
A different thought experiment
scenario 1: TV open in the living room. A news reporter is referring to a gay couple as gay-married. John, 7 yo son of Frank and Jacob, asks them why is she referring to his dad(s) type of marriage as gay-marriage.
scenario 2: TV open in the living room. A news reporter is referring to a gay couple as married. John, 7 yo son of "traditionalists" Frank and Hana, asks his mom and dad them why is she referring to it as marriage.
In both scenarios a discussion follows. I want yo live in a world where the "traditionalists" to have to explain the distinction to their son rather than the other way.
The reason government is important in this debate is because marriage is institutionalized through and by the government. Changing how government treats this will impact opinions in the long run.
There is also the advantage of simplicity in that extending the definition to include gays automatically gives them equal rights in terms of the law (as opposed to adding a new legal term "civil union" and all the legislation to go with it).
_________________
Will sell this place for beer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 1:47 am Post subject: 136 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| You're saying I conjured up the husband and wife thing last minute to win an argument? |
She is saying that you have consistently refused to define marriage, other than the assertion that it must be between man and wife.
To avoid the problem of the contracts being the same, you say that it has meaning beyond the legal contract, but you don't say what that meaning is, other than to assert that you mean the "tradional" sense of man and wife.
Mackay then brought up that actually, the traditional definition includes polygamy and the husband owning the wife. You didn't like that, and to avoid it, you are using traditional now to mean only "in recent centuries".
Again you have not actually defined marriage. You are instead leaving it vague so that every time Mackay makes a point, you can fend it off by saying you actually meant something different. As Mackay said, you are not so much moving goalposts as never saying what they are, so when she reaches where it seems they should be, you can tell her she's in the wrong place.
I could try again, though, and mention that there are plenty of places in the world where polygamy is a current practice. It is legal and practiced in most of Africa, in the Middle East, in India and Indonesia. Of course, you will respond by saying you didn't mean foreign traditions, but were referring to the modern traditional definition in the US, again not offering a definition beyond man and wife, man and wife.
I would answer one more time, and say that the modern definition of marriage in the US was actually shaped by an anti-bigamy law in 1862. The applied Utah Revised Statute indicated that "every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another" was a bigamist, and subject to punishment. Before that point, polygamy was legal and practiced, and the language indicates quite plainly that it was still considered marriage. The law was created just to attack Mormons.
But of course, that does leave the opening that by "recent centuries", you could have meant precisely the 20th and 21st centuries, literally year 1900 forward, and this new, sharper, previously unmentioned requirement would again dodge the point.
Refusing to come up with a definition of marriage makes it impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you about what things should be called marriage.
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 1:52 am Post subject: 137 |
|
|
| bgg1996 wrote: |
| A true "homophobe" would not make friends with a homosexual than an arachnophobe would with a black widow. |
As someone with fairly heavy arachnophobia (which I am getting better at, I swear, just as long as those creepy little f-ers stay the hell AWAY from me and stop sneaking up on me, bastards), if I found a spider I could TALK to, I will still attempt to do so. In other words, if a black widow could make an arrangement where it doesn't bite me, I would make an arrangement not to kill it on sight. Though I would probably still not trust it. Did I mention that they are creepy, sneaky little f-ers?
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 2:17 am Post subject: 138 |
|
|
| Nsof wrote: |
| who should be offended more, gays by getting their own special-name-for-marriage or "traditionalists" by having the definition of marriage extended to include gays? |
I'm not certain being offended has any relevance to the discussion so far.
| Nsof wrote: |
| I think this boils to tradition VS equality in which case equality wins. |
It's important to distinguish between the different senses of equality.
One sense of equality is equal rights, which definitely trumps all, but isn't at odds with anything suggested here.
The other sense of equality is sameness, and we're talking about things which are not the same, and there's no way to change that. You can dismiss the differences as insignificant, but that's your subjective assessment.
| Nsof wrote: |
I'll try to better explain with examples:
In a thought experiment I ask a gay person why does he want the definition of marriage to include gays and I ask a traditionalist why he doesnt want the definition of marriage to include gays.
My imaginary answers lead to tradition vs equality. |
Too vague for me - I don't understand your point.
| Nsof wrote: |
A different thought experiment
scenario 1: TV open in the living room. A news reporter is referring to a gay couple as gay-married. John, 7 yo son of Frank and Jacob, asks them why is she referring to his dad(s) type of marriage as gay-marriage.
scenario 2: TV open in the living room. A news reporter is referring to a gay couple as married. John, 7 yo son of "traditionalists" Frank and Hana, asks his mom and dad them why is she referring to it as marriage.
In both scenarios a discussion follows. I want yo live in a world where the "traditionalists" to have to explain the distinction to their son rather than the other way. |
A very verbose way of saying you prefer "marriage" be redefined rather than it retain its traditional meaning, which is fine - we're all entitled to our preferences.
| Nsof wrote: |
| The reason government is important in this debate is because marriage is institutionalized through and by the government. |
And is it a foregone conclusion that government institutionalization of everything meaningful to people is a good thing? Again, I believe what marriage means to most people has little to do with government.
| Nsof wrote: |
| Changing how government treats this will impact opinions in the long run. |
There are at least three alternatives. Three are:
1) Don't change how government treats it. Leave marriage as husband and wife.
2) Change how government treats this by acknowledging same-sex marriage.
3) Change how government treats this by not taking any stand on "marriage", but granting equivalent civil unions to couples regardless of gender or orientation.
I think the third option has the least impact on opinions.
| Nsof wrote: |
| There is also the advantage of simplicity in that extending the definition to include gays automatically gives them equal rights in terms of the law (as opposed to adding a new legal term "civil union" and all the legislation to go with it). |
Simplicity, granted. It was a mistake to let government into the marriage business, but only because of the unforeseen consequences that it would put government in the position of either:
1) backing out of that business
2) redefining "marriage", a far greater meddling than the ancillary granting of special benefits first intended when they got involved
3) taking the stand that same-sex unions and traditional marriage are distinct.
Switching from "marriage" to "civil union" for all would be a one-time complexity. Not switching will be a permanent form of government thought control. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 2:45 am Post subject: 139 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
There are at least three alternatives. Three are:
1) Don't change how government treats it. Leave marriage as husband and wife. |
The government uses marriage to refer to a contract. That contract is the same whether it refers to a husband and wife, a husband and husband or a wife and wife. The current state is not specifically husband and wife, as you claim. Defining marriage as specifically husband and wife would introduce a distinction the government should not recognize.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| 2) Change how government treats this by acknowledging same-sex marriage. |
This is not a change, because the the contracts are identical. This is the option that would be correctly labeled as not changing how the government treats marriage.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
3) Change how government treats this by not taking any stand on "marriage", but granting equivalent civil unions to couples regardless of gender or orientation.
I think the third option has the least impact on opinions. |
Changing the terminology to include homosexual couples is a declaration that the current terminology does not apply to homosexual couples. This is the option where the government is pushing a particular terminology. This is the option where the government is most trying to dictate public opinion.
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 2:57 am Post subject: 140 |
|
|
| casinopete wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| You're saying I conjured up the husband and wife thing last minute to win an argument? |
She is saying that you have consistently refused to define marriage, other than the assertion that it must be between man and wife. |
A complete definition of marriage would be an enumeration of many properties, and there is a single property in question here. In addition, how I personally would define it is again irrelevant. I believe I have a fairly good idea of how a great many feel about it in certain regards, and this includes:
1) husband and wife
2) irrespective of government recognition
| Quote: |
| To avoid the problem of the contracts being the same, ... |
Please explain what you think I'm avoiding and its relevance.
| Quote: |
| Mackay then brought up that actually, the traditional definition includes polygamy and the husband owning the wife. You didn't like that, and to avoid it, you are using traditional now to mean only "in recent centuries". |
Am I out in left field about what "traditional" means? If so, so is Merriam-Webster. I cited their definition a few times. I don't take them as an absolute authority (I explained specific concerns), but what they're saying about "traditional marriage" is consistent with what I'm saying. I'm really not getting this. Would you balk at the notion of a "tradition" of having a wedding cake if it so happened that it's only been so for the last thousand years?
| Quote: |
| Again you have not actually defined marriage. You are instead leaving it vague so that every time Mackay makes a point, you can fend it off by saying you actually meant something different |
Bullshit. Where have I fended off a point by saying I meant something else? My point is this, for the umpteenth time:
Enough people believe "marriage" means, among whatever other things not relevant to this discussion, husband and wife, and there is no legitimate reason for, and legitimate reason against, government influencing a redefinition of "marriage".
| Quote: |
| As Mackay said, you are not so much moving goalposts as never saying what they are, so when she reaches where it seems they should be, you can tell her she's in the wrong place. |
What the hell is a "goalpost" in the context of this discussion?
| Quote: |
| I could try again, though, and mention that there are plenty of places in the world where polygamy is a current practice. It is legal and practiced in most of Africa, in the Middle East, in India and Indonesia. Of course, you will respond by saying you didn't mean foreign traditions, but were referring to the modern traditional definition in the US, again not offering a definition beyond man and wife, man and wife. |
I'll stand by what I said in my second post:
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| I'd be fine with government granting "civil unions", as a legal contract, to any two (or more) people, of any combination of genders, and leaving what "marriage" means up to individuals (as with the meaning of any word). |
What I think "marriage" means isn't important, let people (plural) decide, and don't have government taking a stand on it. I REALLY feel like I'm repeating myself.
| Quote: |
| I would answer one more time, and say that the modern definition of marriage in the US was actually shaped by an anti-bigamy law in 1862. The applied Utah Revised Statute indicated that "every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another" was a bigamist, and subject to punishment. Before that point, polygamy was legal and practiced, and the language indicates quite plainly that it was still considered marriage. The law was created just to attack Mormons. |
Government should not be involved in marriage.
| Quote: |
| But of course, that does leave the opening that by "recent centuries", you could have meant precisely the 20th and 21st centuries, literally year 1900 forward, and this new, sharper, previously unmentioned requirement would again dodge the point. |
Opening? In what? You're quibbling about something inessential. All I've ever said, if you actually read, is that government shouldn't be influencing people to change their definition of marriage. What the word means today, whether it entails husband and wife or not, should be up to the people at large.
| Quote: |
| Refusing to come up with a definition of marriage makes it impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you about what things should be called marriage. |
The conversation I've been having ISN'T ABOUT WHAT THINGS SHOULD BE CALLED A MARRIAGE, but about who should be making that decision - the people or the government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:05 am Post subject: 141 |
|
|
| casinopete wrote: |
| Changing the terminology to include homosexual couples is a declaration that the current terminology does not apply to homosexual couples. |
No, it's an acknowledgement that the word "marriage" means more to people than government recognition, and that government ought to remain neutral regarding its meaning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:39 am Post subject: 142 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| The conversation I've been having ISN'T ABOUT WHAT THINGS SHOULD BE CALLED A MARRIAGE, but about who should be making that decision - the people or the government. |
Your argument that man-woman sex is more profound than man-man sex is about what things should be called a marriage, not about government decisions. Your claim that there are psychological differences between men and women that cause something to be lacking in a homosexual relationship is about what things should be called a marriage, and not about government decisions. Your "argument" that homosex is evolutionarily an accidental byproduct, while heterosex is advantageous is about what things should be called a marriage, and not about government decisions. You have been arguing both.
Furthermore,
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| This is recent? I genuinely thought that was the context of the entire discussion. Look at the thread title. Should gay marriage be called "marriage"? Other than gay marriage, and husband and wife marriage, what are we considering? |
You just announced quite plainly that you were talking about WHAT THINGS SHOULD BE CALLED A MARRIAGE.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| A complete definition of marriage would be an enumeration of many properties, and there is a single property in question here. |
But whether that property makes any sense requires evaluation in context of the whole definition. We wouldn't say that the relationship described by "friendship" is based on which combination of genders are involved, but we would for "fatherhood" and "motherhood". The overall definition for marriage is essential for deciding whether the distinction is significant enough to require separate words. You claim there is an important distinction, and we therefore need your definition so we can find it.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Please explain what you think I'm avoiding and its relevance. |
You tell us that there there is something in the man-woman marriage relationship that is lacking in a man-man marriage relationship. We see no such "something". We require your definition of marriage so we can find the "something". By not giving us a definition, you are avoiding all meaningful conversation about the topic.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Bullshit. Where have I fended off a point by saying I meant something else? |
You didn't give a definition of marriage, so Mackay tried to argue against you with what she considers the normal definition of marriage. You told her you didn't mean that, you meant traditional marriage. When she tried to answer you by discussing traditional marriage, you said you didn't mean what she was talking about, but instead meant a narrower definition of traditional marriage.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| What the hell is a "goalpost" in the context of this discussion? |
To demonstrate that there is something incorrect or illogical about your position. She hasn't been able to do that, though, because you have not offered enough of your position to argue against.
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:45 am Post subject: 143 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| No, it's an acknowledgement that the word "marriage" means more to people than government recognition, and that government ought to remain neutral regarding its meaning. |
It could have meant simply that, if they'd done it in response to people getting "legally married" for citizenship-related or financial reasons. They didn't, because no one cared enough about the "real" definition to defend it.
To do it now, in response to demands from the right, is to say that yes, homosexuals aren't really married, and we will change the terminology in every law that mentions marriage to reflect that.
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bgg1996
BeeGees are awesome!
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:41 am Post subject: 144 |
|
|
Even by calling it gay marriage, you're admitting that it's a type of marriage.
_________________
The one member below 18 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:29 am Post subject: 145 |
|
|
| bgg1996 wrote: |
| Even by calling it gay marriage, you're admitting that it's a type of marriage. |
Not if one calls it gay "marriage" in a mocking tone and makes little finger quote gestures:
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:33 pm Post subject: 146 |
|
|
| We should start referring to traditional marriages as two sex marriages or straight marriages to avoid confusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:41 pm Post subject: 147 |
|
|
We should all refer to marriage as "Landcra". That makes as much sense as any other alternative.
Straight Landcra and Gay Landcra are equivalent forms of Landcra to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JDTAY
obseletes now
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:41 pm Post subject: 148 |
|
|
Just a heads-up, Ron Paul will be on The Daily Show on Monday. You'd best avoid your TV that day.
_________________
Prohibit nothing. Disclose everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anonymous Daedalian*
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:36 pm Post subject: 149 |
|
|
I am a conservative-to-moderate Christian who feels that a conservative-to-moderate Christian view on this matter needs to be expressed. Generally, matters revolving around sex, romance, and marriage are something I prefer to avoid as much as possible, and the reason I refuse to use my real name here is to avoid giving people the impression that I would be comfortable if they brought up these subjects. If you're gay, I don't want to hear that. If you're straight, I don't want to hear that, either. If you have a philosophical opinion to express containing the word "sex" or "marriage" or any word derived from either of them, and I haven't approached you about it, then I don't want to hear it.
I see only two viable solutions to the "gay marriage" issue. One of them is to do away with absolutely every legal meaning of the word "marriage" and grant "civil unions" to all couples indiscriminately, so long as there are two people in the couple. That "civil union" status can be accompanied by a marriage ceremony or somesuch if the couple wants, but the marriage ceremony will mean nothing from a legal standpoint, as the word "marriage" means nothing. The other viable solution is to do away with both "marriage" and "civil unions", saving tons and tons of tax dollars, but hurting couples who spawn a child – a potential future taxpayer – and suddenly have their living expenses increase as a result. I do not claim to know which of these two solutions is better, but either way, homosexuals would have no right to complain about not having "equality". As long as churches aren't forced to perform marriage ceremonies on gay couples if they don't want to, I'll be happy with this separation of church and state.
I don't see marriage or sex as something pure that homosexuals are threatening to destroy with their fight to allow gay marriage – heterosexuals already destroyed these things decades before homosexuality was a hot topic, partially through the "free love" movement where people suddenly decided that sex should be enjoyed as often as possible with absolutely no boundaries, all in the name of a very perverted concept of "love", turning sexually transmitted diseases into the pandemic which they are today, along with propagating the other, more emotional symptoms of unrestrained sex. Even the Old Testament records prostitution and affairs as having happened, though, and ultimately, if the state of affairs we are in today can be traced back to one event, it is The Fall.
What I'm getting at here is that I acknowledge that whether something is right in God's eyes or something He intended for and whether it should be legal civilly are two different things. Murder is both abhorrent in His sight and civilly illegal because murder denies one the civil right to breathe. Consensual premarital sex is also abhorrent in His sight, but far less illegal because the consequences on this Earth are different. This is how I can make this forum post and have no cognitive dissonance, just as I can find premarital sex disgusting without believing it should be legislated. 34585328283641246436 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bgg1996
BeeGees are awesome!
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:16 pm Post subject: 150 |
|
|
It's already been established that gays have the right to marry, not landcra.
Giving them marriage and not calling it marriage is like giving somebody a toy and saying "Here's my toy, but now that you have it, it's called an entertainment device." Not only can it be confusing, but it's against the point, because it doesn't stop them from having the toy, it's just denial.
_________________
The one member below 18 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bgg1996
BeeGees are awesome!
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:18 pm Post subject: 151 |
|
|
Anybody in favor of tracking down the anonymous guy, then giving him all of our opinions about marriage and sex and things derived from them?
Just me?
_________________
The one member below 18 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:18 pm Post subject: 152 |
|
|
| Anonymous Daedalian* wrote: |
| Murder is both abhorrent in His sight and civilly illegal because murder denies one the civil right to breathe. |
I guess somehow, creating a flood that kills almost everyone including babies is somehow ok though. 
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bgg1996
BeeGees are awesome!
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:20 pm Post subject: 153 |
|
|
That's better for the "Ask Christianity" thread.
_________________
The one member below 18 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bgg1996
BeeGees are awesome!
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:20 pm Post subject: 154 |
|
|
...Because we have no idea.
_________________
The one member below 18 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:11 am Post subject: 155 |
|
|
| bgg1996 wrote: |
It's already been established that gays have the right to marry, not landcra.
Giving them marriage and not calling it marriage ... |
Nobody has the "right" to marry, and everyone has the same basic freedoms to do whatever, with the exception of there being certain natural constraints. I'm not free to be a negro. I have no "right" to be a negro. Does that mean I have less rights than negros? No, of course not.
Nobody "gives" anyone marriage.
I agree with Anonymous Daedalian's do away with absolutely every legal meaning of the word "marriage" and grant "civil unions" to all couples indiscriminately, except that restricting it to couples of two seems rather arbitrary. (cites http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeroOneInfinityRule )
But we've pretty much covered all those bases already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bgg1996
BeeGees are awesome!
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:31 am Post subject: 156 |
|
|
Gays do have the right to engage in ceremonies that are in all ways equivalent to marriage, though.
_________________
The one member below 18 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bgg1996
BeeGees are awesome!
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:36 am Post subject: 157 |
|
|
"when I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck."
_________________
The one member below 18 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Terry Gilliam*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:08 am Post subject: 158 |
|
|
Judith: [on Stan's desire to be a mother] Here! I've got an idea: Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb - which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans' - but that he can have the *right* to have babies.
Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother... sister, sorry.
Reg: What's the *point*?
Francis: What?
Reg: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can't have babies?
Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:20 am Post subject: 159 |
|
|
| bgg1996 wrote: |
| Gays do have the right to engage in ceremonies that are in all ways equivalent to marriage, though. |
| Quote: |
| "when I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck." |
A marriage is more than the ceremony, or a parody thereof, and parrots are free to walk, swim and quack like ducks if they so choose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bgg1996
BeeGees are awesome!
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:11 am Post subject: 160 |
|
|
Parrots cannot and do not quack.
Parrots cannot and do not swim.
Parrots that walk like ducks, swim like ducks, quack like ducks, and get the same tax benefits as ducks have a name. Ducks.
And a marriage is a ceremony.
_________________
The one member below 18 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
