Active Users:1135 Time:14/11/2024 06:06:35 AM
You cannot be that stupid. Cannoli Send a noteboard - 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM
So your argument is that since a gay man can marry a woman as much as a straight guy, there is no inequality involved? That alone is gender discrimination by definition.
Actually, it's not. Both genders are treated the exact same. It's only discrimination in the sense that having separate bathrooms or changing rooms is discrimination, i.e. the literal meaning of the word which means to indentify a difference.

If it makes you feel any better, in the states where gay marriage is currently legal, you would be able to marry another man, as well, presuming you found one to agree to it. You see? Still all fair!
Exactly. Given all the financial and legal benefits to such arrangements, it opens the door for massive amounts of fraud to cost people and the public. At least with such marriages for different sexes, there is a long-standing tradition backing up marriage that would curtail the freedom of such persons to participate in a normal relationship. With same-sex marriage, a piece of paper that creates a legal fiction of a partnership between two such people, there is no traditional or cultural impediment to each of them carrying on with the partner of his or her choice, and meanwhile transferring funds to avoid taxes, protecting coversations and transactions from testimony, gaining otherwise unauthorized residential or employment benefits and so on.

Homosexuality clearly frightens you. If it did not, you would not care whether gays married or not.
The latter notion does not logically proceed from the former.

As it does not affect you directly, it would not bother you in the least. But it does, doesn't it? Proven.
And what does that mean? "It does not affect you directly" is in no way a valid reason for closing off opposition. Did you ever hear of principles? Why must people be restricted to stands that only affect their well-being or interests? In fact, the OPPOSITE circumstance is generally prefered for a point of view because of a thing called "Conflict of interest." Your argument is essentially: "You have no conflict of interest, therefore you can only be driven by irrational emotions." Proven, my ass!

By this standard, the only people who should be allowed to have an opinion on the death penalty are criminals on death row, and the corrections officials responsible for them. The only people who should be allowed to have opinions on gun control laws are gun owners. The only people who are entitled to an opinion on whether or not to fight a war are soldiers. The only people allowed to vote on the display or prohibition of religion and religious imagery would be members of that religion. Oh, and go fuck yourselves, disease-charity-people; only people with diseases are allowed to contribute now. Anyone offering an opinion on those categories is obviously just scared. Proven.

Before you ask, the reason I keep speaking up is because the precedent set by Prop 8 DOES scare me. It could just as easily be turned on me as on Homosexuals. Scapegoats are easy to create.
HOW? What novelty institution are you planning on inventing and demanding legal enforcement of? The only precedent set by prop 8 is the right of the people to refuse to recognize special privileges and institutions forced on them by their goverment at the behest of tiny minority.

The only relation between marriage of gays and marriage of Christians that I made was that of a minority group being targeted by a majority using hysterical arguments as justification. You have gotten by now that I am not ACTUALLY advocating banning of Christian marriage, right?
The outlawing of a real marriage because of the religion or other circumstances of the participants is illegal and unethical. Refusing legal recognition of a play-acting imitation of marriage is not at all related to forbidding some from participating in the general practice. Not even homosexuals are legally prohibited from getting married. Same-sex marriage is equally forbidden to all groups, and heterosexual marriage is equally permitted to all.

In what way will you have to "live with" the changes I am discussing? There are many gays married to each other. How are they affecting you? At all?
They are not legally enforced, which is the reason why they are not. What happens when spouse benefits start being cut by employers and various joint endeavors by couples start requiring exponentially greater paperwork and bureaucracy because of same-sex couples now claiming privileges intended to protect the basic relationship that underlies human society, but now made available due to a novelty practice made de jure by government fiat.

I am not showing evidence of having considered ramifications because there frankly aren't any, besides one: Homosexuals will be able to enjoy the benefits of marriage to each other.
And what would those be? Make up your mind - is it something that affects no one but the couple in question, or will there be things in which other people are forced to comply with their partnership? Are you saying that employers who disapprove will not be forced to provide coverage for "dependant spouses" who are in a same-sex "marriage" with their employees? Are you saying that institutions or organizations will not be forced to treat such a relationship the same as they do a real marriage when ascertaining that criterion for whatever standards they hold?

No one is asking you to be happy about homosexual marriage, or even approve of it. You can be as disapproving as you want, so long as you respect the personal rights of the people involved.
But this farce requires me to not only accept, but support such relationships. There is no natural right to marriage, but same-sex marriage, if enforced by law, will infringe on the rights of those who do not recognize it as such.

Yeah, I am the shallow, thoughtless, and selfish demagogue. The one who is advocating for the equality of a group he does not belong to, man is that selfish.
Just because you don't belong doesn't mean you don't derive some satisfaction from your self-righteous posturing. THAT is why you are selfish - you are encouraging the government to tinker with institutions which will have no effect on you, but will affect millions of others, just so you can feel good about yourself. Who cares about the couples that will be deprived of the traditional benefits of marriage because the costs of extending them to same-sex "marriages" has forced them to be withdrawn? A bunch of smug moralists can congratulate themselves in striking a blow for equality because they are too dim to see the flaws in their comparison of completely unrelated issues.

I COULD be like you, advocating continued oppression of a group I don't belong to, angrily protecting an unequal status quo. Man, I wish I could be selfless like that.
I am not married to anyone, nor have I any intention of doing so in the near future, but I am standing up for the defense of that institution. So, yeah.

Cannoli
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
Reply to message
Let's ban all Christian Marriage. - 07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM 1530 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 958 Views
One small problem... - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 977 Views
Re tax. - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 1010 Views
That seems sensible to me. - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 854 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 1013 Views
Nice. *NM* - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 583 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people. - 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM 1180 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there! - 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM 992 Views
Who else should make those decisions? - 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM 939 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM 905 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM 1050 Views
You'd defend this idiot? *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:40:34 AM 472 Views
Indeed - 08/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 990 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering. - 08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM 976 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged - 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM 890 Views
Um, ok. *NM* - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 474 Views
*Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM 858 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM 503 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 953 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM 914 Views
Gah! You did that on purpose! - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 870 Views
whoops *NM* - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 437 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 906 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. - 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM 851 Views
You cannot be that stupid. - 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM 1137 Views
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1225 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 846 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 879 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 474 Views
Did I say there was anything? - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 998 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad. - 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM 917 Views
Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM 871 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM 853 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM 964 Views
Not really - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 823 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 954 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 835 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 980 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 995 Views
... - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 875 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 1009 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 820 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 933 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 819 Views
Great post Danny - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 690 Views
It should be noted again... - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM 984 Views
and how is it not a right? - 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM 856 Views
My definition of rights... - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 983 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right. - 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM 750 Views
+1 - 10/08/2010 03:11:22 AM 1036 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example - 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM 847 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis... - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM 972 Views
If we need a more specific resolution... - 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM 1157 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though. - 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM 843 Views
It also doesn't say they can - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 848 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 840 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 865 Views
To clarify for you - 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM 773 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body... - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM 1218 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 781 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 454 Views
That means it is up to the people. And they say "No." *NM* - 11/08/2010 03:13:12 PM 459 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 1026 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right. - 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM 923 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction... - 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM 1001 Views
I agree - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 728 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1081 Views
Note it all you want... - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 721 Views
The best one yet. - 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM 969 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM 844 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM 951 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM 833 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM 955 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel - 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM 929 Views

Reply to Message