SPLIT--> Judicial Review & Gay Marriage

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by diamond
It is a thread about redifining the meaning of the word marriage though, and that was my point.

dbs

With human beings, genius. So, either you're making a horrible joke of the discussion or you're equating homosexuals to inanimate objects. I really hope that it's the former.

Jesus Christ.

Anyway, Dennis Kucinich is by far the best candidate in the race, his stances on many issues are exactly where they should be.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by yolland
chickens, cockroaches, cyborgs, blades of grass or what the hell else.

apparently, in the eyes of some of us, these are all of equal worth as the average homosexual.

[unico]

Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel
Thank you for that link, unico . I've heard a bit about this guy in the past...looking at that link right now I think it's safe to say that, unless somebody else really winds up convincing me they should be the one I vote for, this is the guy who's gonna have my vote . I really like what I'm reading here.

Angela

i'm glad you like the link! i agree with pfa that kucinich is the candidate that makes the most sense to me. he has always been pro-equal rights and is certainly not shy about it.

[martha]

So. Has INDY abandoned his thread?

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by financeguy



The Devil's Advocate thread was closed for at lot less than this.

Some posters seem to get away with comments like the above more than others.

Just sayin'.

Well, this was a bit more plain, but it certainly wasn't more offensive as diamond's approach to this topic, or statements he made in the past about e.g. homosexuals, liberals or atheists.

[INDY500]

(actual thread quotes)
"offensive stupidity"
"hateful tripe"
"ignorance"
"hatred and homophobia"
"total bullshit"
"blatant homophobia"
"nonsense"
"unmitigated hateful crap"
"bigoted filth"
"I want the drugs you are on..."
" drunk with hatred of homosexuals"
"act(ing) as though a gay person is a lesser person than I"
"crush(ing) others liberties"

One or two word dismissals and personal attacks are the type of intellectual debate that is supposed to change your opponents (of which there are more of than proponents) deeply held beliefs about redefining marriage?

There are a couple of exceptions and you can read down the posts and identify them pretty quickly. To the rest I'll just say... you're not helping.

[phillyfan26]

Glad to see you're reading the arguments. Oh wait...

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by phillyfan26
I've yet to hear a single secular argument about it. Not a single, solitary one.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by INDY500
[B]
"act(ing) as though a gay person is a lesser person than I"

um, what else are you arguing?

anyway, i look forward to your responses to my posts, i've put the time in, so i expect the same in return.

[unico]

there was one guy who was an atheist...he posted awhile ago why he was against same-sex marriage (or couples for that matter). i think his name was AussieU2fanman. I haven't seen him post in ages.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by unico
there was one guy who was an atheist...he posted awhile ago why he was against same-sex marriage (or couples for that matter). i think his name was AussieU2fanman. I haven't seen him post in ages.

Yeah, because I've never seen one. All the arguments about it I see are religious.

It's not like any of them are going to make sense.

[INDY500]

Originally posted by martha
So. Has INDY abandoned his thread?

Not to bum your day, but this will be my last post until the end of the week due to work. Yes I know, here, let me hand you a figurative tissue to wipe away that tear.

So, for a whole week, this thread can now be the echo chamber that so many of you obviously feel more comfortable with

with


with



with





with







with










with.

[phillyfan26]

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by INDY500


Not to bum your day, but this will be my last post until the end of the week due to work. Yes I know, here, let me hand you a figurative tissue to wipe away that tear.

So, for a whole week, this thread can now be the echo chamber that so many of you obviously feel more comfortable with

while i can appreciate how difficult it is to be virtually alone, self-pity isn't going to win you any arguments or converts or do anyting other than get people to write you off even more. i've been answering you directly and challenging you direclty -- hardly echoing the sentiments of others. and i've received very little from you in return. is it easier to write off gay people to other straight people, than it is to essentially tell a gay person that he can go fuck off to his face?

if you've got such a legitimate position, then you should have no problems defending it?

or could it be the position is flawed. can you countenance that?

[diamond]

Let me clarify my postion and why I posted the article.

First the article, several articles today actually say that marriage could be changed in the not too near future:

Forecast: Sex and Marriage With Robots by 2050

That said, I think it is wrong. Several ppl -straight ppl *could claim it is their right to marry a robot, cyborg, half human/half machine, because if you don't let them-you're infringing on their "civil rights".

My position is that marriage is between a man and a woman, how it is currently defined.

That an American has civil rights doesn't mean:

polygamous marriages should be legalized;
homosexual marrigaes should be legalized;
bestality marriages should be legalized;
*and*
straight or gay marriages to robots in the future should be legalized or even considered.

To keep things simple, marriage is between and man and a woman.

If you want to form some sort of "legal union" between different from marriage, call it what it is-but is not marriage.

That doesn't make me a bigot, only somebody that defines marriage for what it is-a union between a man and a woman.

dbs

[phillyfan26]

Diamond -

Why are robots equal to homosexuals?

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by diamond
[B]To keep things simple, marriage is between and man and a woman.

how is this any different than saying, "to keep things simple, marrige is between whites and whites, and blacks and blacks; no intermingling, it gets confusing."





[q]If you want to form some sort of "legal union" between different from marriage, call it what it is-but is not marriage.[/q]

so, for this, we can infer that you and Hillary and Obama and the rest of the Democrats hold the same position -- that you're for equal rights, but you wish to retain the word "marriage" for men and women.

that's fine. so, question: what about my transgendered acquaintance? the legal man who still has a vagina who's marrying a woman? is that a marriage? the state seems to think so.

and what's so precious about the word? what is it, for you, that makes a marriage?

this is what i want from Diamond and INDY:

give me the characteristics of what makes a marriage, and then tell me how and why gay people do not share these characteristics, and you're going to have to tell me why you would include infertile people, those who chosoe not to have children, and post-menopausal women in this group, but not gay peole.


[q]That doesn't make me a bigot, only somebody that defines marriage for what it is-a union between a man and a woman.[/q]

is it hard to see that the insistence upon keeping the "purity" of a union is a form of discrimination? for someone who wrote a paper decrying racism, you're operating on the same assumptions as racists do. they'd say there's something fundamentally wrong about a black/white pairing. that it's unnatural. that the races shouldn't coexist, and they'd point to the fact that the vast majority of people marry within their own race. that's how it's always been.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by diamond
That an American has civil rights doesn't mean:

polygamous marriages should be legalized;
homosexual marrigaes should be legalized;
bestality marriages should be legalized;
*and*
straight or gay marriages to robots in the future should be legalized or even considered.

what does homosexuality have in common with polygamy, bestiality, and robots?

[diamond]

all can not be called "marriage" legally.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by diamond
all can not be called "marriage" legally.

upon the basis of what rationale?

other than "because i said so" -- why is it in *anyone's* interest to prevent such things?