Should the government drop the word "marriage"

[Pangloss]

I can understand the frustration with scrappy's posts, but I think to some degree what's frustrating you guys is that he won't change his MIND. When he does make a reasonable post that is consistent with the spirit of "we can agree to disagree", you charge in en masse and demand that he change his opinion on this issue, which then gets his hackles up and leads to what some of you have decided just HAS to be trolling.

 

Well, we (yes we) don't see it that way, and I'm also concerned with the repeating pattern of minor abuse towards minority opinion holders on this forum. I don't think you guys realize how lucky you are to have those opinions represented here. What good is having a hometown baseball team if no visiting teams ever show up to play?

 

So relax. Have fun with it. Be respectful. Or we'll get all umpire-y on you.

[mooeypoo]

I'm trying to picture double penetration. Would I need to bend over for that? And how badly would I be incapacitated?

 

I'm not sure how this thread moved from a cohesive argument about whether or not a government should uphold a definition to .. well, THIS.

 

This argument is way too broad -- some of you argue the definition of the laws whiel others argue the place of the government - those arguments are not necessarily conflicting, but they ARE different arguments.

 

For that matter, I am a relative libertarian when it comes to marriage and sex-related laws. I think it's no one's business, including the government. In that aspect, I might've argued differently in this thread than I did so far. HOWEVER, If we take it in the context of gay couples, then the BOTTOM LINE, is that heterosexual couples receive rights that gay couples DON'T.

 

In that aspect, I am a realistic, and answer the question of whether or not gay couples should enjoy the same rights, which I argued in this thread (pro, if it was unclear).

 

It's very easy to go around and say that definitions don't matter when the person arguing this stance is not affected by these same definitions.

 

Perhaps it's time all of you took a step back and tried putting yourselves in the "minority" shoes, in the shoes of those who *ARE* affected by this definition (whether it was defined during the civil war or during the last election) and then try to see if the definition of the law (that exists and affects civil rights of people) is "relevant" or not.

 

And if you can't do that for fear of your masculinity, then perhaps take the term "homosexuals" and replace it with a hypothetical group, say, "blacks". Or "nerds". Or "people who talk online". Or "men"; and the respective "definition" in the law as whatever it is that would affect that specific group.

 

Then, perhaps, we could continue this debate without resorting to personal implications and irrelevant imaginary scenarios.

 

 

~moo

[iNow]

Pangloss - He's an actual, honest to goodness troll, as is obvious to anyone beyond kindergarden posting and reading here. Maybe if you'd step up and actually moderate we wouldn't feel the need to put him in his place for you. I can't believe you don't see this.

[mooeypoo]

Let's not turn this thread into a "How To Moderate Trolls", it has gone far down the drain enough for us to either pick it back up on track or close it down and admit defeat.

 

Choose.

[Phi for All]

Calling someone a troll is not good discussion style. Without specific references, it just becomes a personal attack.

 

As an example of this, where the thread started downhill, IMPO, was where padren made reference to a majority opinion, for which Scrappy requested some evidence. padren responded with supportive evidence, which he admitted fell short of majority. Scrappy's response

By my calculation, 22% falls a little short of "the majority of the population."

 

 

Yes, perhaps, 22% is not a very convincing "majority of the population." So what's you point? And how does it relate to the OP question "Should the government drop the word "marriage"?

took padren's post out of context (2 sentences later, padren admits 22% isn't majority but is maybe enough of a base to begin support of his statement, which clearly would be difficult to document for this forum) and then throws in a Strawman about padren's point not relating to the OP.

My point is, when you see a fallacy, call it out. Don't let the Red Herrings, Strawmen and out of context arguments pile up until all you can do is call "Troll!". That's another logical fallacy, Two Wrongs Make a Right.

[Pangloss]

Maybe if you'd step up and actually moderate we wouldn't feel the need to put him in his place for you.

 

Please remember also that infractions are not visible to the membership at large. You also cannot see our behind-the-scenes discussions, and many times when you see a moderator posting something it's only after we talked it over and agreed on a course of action.

 

You ARE getting a lot of "moderation" in this thread, it's just not always visible to you.

[iNow]

I appreciate that. I think I was more responding to your implication that I only called him a troll to "marginalize" his position since I disagreed with him. That bugged me, as it's quite clear he actually is trolling, that I and others had all made the much stronger arguments, and that he was doing all of the marginalizing on his own.

 

Either way, time to move on.

 

 

I'm really curious to hear what Mr Skeptic, who opened this thread, has to say. I am curious if he has heard any arguments that convince him that the government should, in fact, keep using the word marriage and allow it to apply to same sex couples, or if instead he has simply dug his heels in even further for his original position.

[scrappy]

I’m being called a troll by the person who posted this:

 

It's time for me to start shooting stupid people in the face with a pistol.

 

Never trust a troll who threatens you with a gun. Jesus!

 

The real problem here is the levitation of self-righteous indignation. It doesn’t sell well on the open market. Demands are being made here that most people don’t see the need for. Maybe they’re wrong. Maybe they’re bigots and trolls and all the bad names you can think of. But the core issue is very simple: we don’t agree on the definition of “marriage.” That’s all. It ain’t no big deal.

 

So, are you brave enough to take my test?

 

Here’s a test that goes right to the heart of the matter: When the SCOTUS hears the case on SSM and issues its opinion, will you abide with that opinion? Or will you claim that the SCOUS wrongly interpreted the Constitution and refuse its decision?

 

My answer is yes, I will go along with whatever decision the SCOTUS makes. What’s yours?

 

(Scoring key: a "yes" scores an A and a "no" scores an F.)

[padren]

By my calculation, 22% falls a little short of "the majority of the population."

 

 

Yes, perhaps, 22% is not a very convincing "majority of the population." So what's you point? And how does it relate to the OP question "Should the government drop the word "marriage"?

 

As I stated, it's more like 50% in Massachusetts, so you could ask the question at the state level if you like. Yes 22% is not a majority but it is the largest single group of Christians by several times over, the largest religious group in the country by 3x does not believe priests can be female.

 

If you apply the same argument to pastors instead of priests, you can't deny that far over 50% believe women can't be pastors.

 

If the majority of people in Massachusetts decided it should be illegal for women to be priests because it doesn't fit their definition, do you think the majority should be able to force that upon the minority of religions that disagree?

 

If the majority of people in the USA decided it should be illegal for women to be pastors because it doesn't fit their definition, do you think the majority should be able to force that upon the minority of religions that disagree?

 

If the majority of people in the USA decided it should be illegal for SS couples to marry because it doesn't fit their definition, do you think the majority should be able to force that upon the minority of religions (and non-religious people) that disagree?

 

Does that clarify my argument well enough for you?

[Dudde]

Never trust a troll who threatens you with a gun. Jesus!

The real problem here is the levitation of self-righteous indignation.

~~

we don’t agree on the definition of “marriage.” That’s all. It ain’t no big deal.

 

You're doing those who are trying to maintain the integrity of the board and this thread a disservice by your consistent rehashing of irrelevant ridiculousness, I would appreciate if you would stop - I highly doubt iNow is out on the street right now shooting Republicans in the face with a pistol. I've felt that way myself over the last few months.

/off topic

 

In response to "that's all. It ain't not big deal" - I have no idea why you're still fighting in support of the majority on this case if this is the case. If nobody cared, why'd DOMA come into existance in the first place? You seem to be changing beats with the same message very quickly, are you really trying to goad others to argue? This is the second time I've had to question why you're still continuing this debate, and whether you really believe what you're saying.

 

I also find the self-righteous indignation comment extremely infuriating - without causing some kind of flame war, it was the self-righteousness of this majority of people which caused some irrational fear, embedded deep down, that letting same sex couples become legally married would taint them - something that apparently must be stopped.

 

So, are you brave enough to take my test?

 

Here’s a test that goes right to the heart of the matter: When the SCOTUS hears the case on SSM and issues its opinion, will you abide with that opinion? Or will you claim that the SCOUS wrongly interpreted the Constitution and refuse its decision?

My answer is yes, I will go along with whatever decision the SCOTUS makes. What’s yours?

(Scoring key: a "yes" scores an A and a "no" scores an F.)

 

 

This is completely irrelevant to the heart of the matter - and as someone who's so keen on logic and fairness, as you've been portraying yourself all along, where does this arrogance come from that disagreeing with someone else is an F? If we didn't question what our government tries to say in legislation, foreign affairs or internal affairs, how far do you think we'd have really gotten?

[padren]

Lets back up for a moment and nail a few things down:

 

Really, no one here is arguing that same sex couples should have fewer rights than heterosexual couples if they enter into some sort of legal union. I think we are all agreed on that.

 

Then we get to the real meat of the disagreements:

 

1) Should same sex couples be allowed to legally marry?

2) Should same sex couples get legal civil unions and heterosexual ones get legal marriages?

3) Should the state remove the term "marriage" from legal language entirely and adopt "Legal Partnership" or some such term that applies equally to same sex and heterosexual couples wanting to get married?

4) Should same sex couples use legal contracts and be banned from any marriage-like legal recognition (which as I said, I don't think anyone here is really arguing for)

 

 

If this works for everyone as a general clarification of stances, maybe we can move towards the specifics that support or detract from those given positions.

 

My Position:

 

I am in favor of #1 for a number of reasons. My preference would be #3 in a more "perfect world" but I don't believe it is possible. As said before, accomplishing #3 would be like getting "In God We Trust" off our money. I see it as a non-starter in the practical sense.

As for #2, I am against that because it is a resurrection of the Separate But Equal doctrine, which was already ruled unconstitutional. I am also against it because as ParanoiA very eloquently said: "Your rights end where mine begin" and I'd add "and where they clash, they must be arbitrated on the basis of tangible impacts to both parties." There is debate in this country about lowering the legal drinking age to 18, and it only went up to 21 because of tangible evidence relating to drunk driving costs to victims and other such statistics. It is being challenged right now, and while I don't want to go off on that tangent I just want to note the debate goes on about tangible challenges from both sides. The merits of this debate should be no less, and I am yet to see any tangible reasons for restricting marriage.

 

The only challenge I've seen is regarding "the majority opinion of the definition" and that is where most of the debate has focused throughout this thread. I've tried to make a point of demonstrating we don't utilize that argument in many other issues, from the definition of what a Priest is (the largest group of Christians, 22% of the whole population (at least) feeling only men can be priests in the US, and the majority in the state of Massachusetts) and whether the majority could change the legal definition despite the beliefs of other minority groups. If 22% is not enough, then realize the majority of Americans follow religions that require Pastors to be men, yet any church can still choose to allow women to be as they are not required to fit in with the majority opinion.

 

It's also demonstrated that while majority opinion does impact all aspects of our legal system that our legal system is specifically designed not to succumb to the pressures of majority opinion and instead we have a supreme court that is charged with ignoring majority opinion and rule exclusively on the constitutionality of laws which may or may not be unconstitutional and may have been passed as a result of public opinion without regard to constitutionality.

 

So far I am yet to see any argument that addresses the "Separate But Equal" issue with having separate but equal methods (marriage for one, civil unions for others) of gaining marital legal rights.

 

So far I am yet to see any argument that address why a majority opinion should trump constitutionality and why we would even want to set the precedent for allowing any group to define how another group should live when the actions of that second group in no way impact the lives of the former group.

 

 

 

This is where I see the argument as being right now - feel free to criticize how I framed it, or agree and argue within the framework against the points I made regarding my position. I just thought by buttressing the framework we may have an easier time staying on track.

Edited March 22, 2009 by padren

[scrappy]

Padren, I greatly appreciate your synthesis here.

 

I vote for #2, because I don't see the differentiation in the question as any kind of separate-but-equal issue. To me, it's not like making the blacks use a separate-but-equal drinking fountain. But I might be wrong; I'm not an expert on constitutionality. I'll defer to the courts.

 

So far I am yet to see any argument that addresses the "Separate But Equal" issue with having separate but equal methods (marriage for one, civil unions for others) of gaining marital [/i'] legal rights.

It's an issue that can be decided only by a state supreme court, and eventually by the SCOTUS. And that will hinge on its eventual decision on DOMA. We can only guess what that decision will be. (But I have a hunch and twenty bucks to back it up.)

[padren]

I vote for #2, because I don't see the differentiation in the question as any kind of separate-but-equal issue. To me, it's not like making the blacks use a separate-but-equal drinking fountain. But I might be wrong; I'm not an expert on constitutionality. I'll defer to the courts.

I do understand that you don't see it as a "separate but equal" issue, but I am curious as to the distinctions you draw between the two scenarios. I am also curious as to the argument that the restriction is capricious regardless of the "separate but equal" issue on the basis that:

 

1) We do not allow other groups to define words in such a manner that unwarrantably restrict or segregate other groups. I know the word "segregate" has a lot of baggage, but I mean it in terms of the reality that we'd have tax forms that have one slot for "married" and another for "civil partner" on the basis that they somehow should not be considered the same thing.

2) By "unwarrantably" I mean without tangible grounds to demonstrate the threat of harm to the public, such as drug laws or blood alcohol limits for driving. The reason I find it capricious is that the only basis is a group said "The culture we identify with the most within this country doesn't use the word marriage that way, so they shouldn't either" without any demonstration of harm, or threat of harm, nor any respect for the fact that not all in this country are required to agree on the same cultural values.

 

 

It's an issue that can be decided only by a state supreme court, and eventually by the SCOTUS. And that will hinge on its eventual decision on DOMA. We can only guess what that decision will be. (But I have a hunch and twenty bucks to back it up.)

 

I just thought I'd quote this to respond to what you said somewhat earlier about respecting the ultimate verdict. The SCOTUS does make legal rulings that we have to abide by, but no one should just defer to that authority as being right because they ruled it. I don't agree with hard-line pro-lifers, but I fully respect their dissent regarding Roe Vs. Wade and their vocal beliefs that the ruling was wrong. I feel the ruling was right, but I respect their refusal to accept the verdict as beyond reproach - at least as long as they stay within the law of course. The SCOTUS can make mistakes, and may correct them at a later time - there is no final ruling ever in an ever changing society.

If the SCOTUS rules to support Prop 8 I would definitely like to see what they drew that conclusion from and analyze it - as perhaps it could change my opinion, but I doubt it would. A SC challenge to a law is much more than two sides saying "This is right" and the other "This is wrong" and the court just deciding - they prepare cases and precedent and all kinds of material, and then the Justices have to do their own research in addition before making a ruling. A future challenge may have differently prepared cases and reveal different revelations in the research - so who knows what the future holds regardless of any rulings on this issue.

[mooeypoo]

Padren, I greatly appreciate your synthesis here.

 

I vote for #2, because I don't see the differentiation in the question as any kind of separate-but-equal issue. To me, it's not like making the blacks use a separate-but-equal drinking fountain. But I might be wrong; I'm not an expert on constitutionality. I'll defer to the courts.

If the word marriage is so holy to you, I don't quite see the difference in using "civil union", "marital contract" or "blipblap" is the term to use for homosexual couples, as long as they get the same legal rights.

Hm, hey, I'm getting a deja vu here.. oh.. yes, of course.

 

So it's nice to know we agree.

 

And yet, you're either being naive or ignorant in your position, since you (repeatedly) claim this:

But that's exactly what the law does; it treats heterosexuals and homosexuals equally. The current marriage laws apply equally to both groups. Now, it's true that same sexes cannot get married under existing laws, but that condition applies equally to both heteros and homos. If it didn't it would be a blatant case of bigotry.

 

Equal rights? Really?

 

So to you, the fact that any man can marry any woman means that homosexual men can marry any woman they want, and that, to you, is equality? Seriously?

 

If this was your meaning then either you don't understand the meaning of equality, or you insist on continuing with - quite silly - word games here to deter from the bigger issue.

 

Saying that the rule applies to everyone and therefore it is "equal" is pretty much like saying that a rule stating that "Any man will be compensated for his lost foreskin with 50,000 dollars" is equality because it refers to *any man* and not just the men who have circumcision. That's not equality, it's picking favorites, and that's - by definition - is not equality.

 

I have stated before (in post #75) that it is not the first time (and will not be the last, probably) that laws are revised or ammended because of social changes. There used to be laws that didn't include blacks - for a very long time, too. When the fact that they were biggoted came to our attention, we changed them. Same applies here - the laws existed for many years: SO WHAT. The situation changed, and revealed flaws in those rules, which should now be changed.

 

Unless, of course, you don't support equality by law, which would lead us to a completely different discussion.

[ParanoiA]

Well' date=' we (yes we) don't see it that way, and I'm also concerned with the repeating pattern of minor abuse towards minority opinion holders on this forum. I don't think you guys realize how lucky you are to have those opinions represented here. What good is having a hometown baseball team if no visiting teams ever show up to play?[/quote']

 

Well, I apologize for my part. I think it should be noted, however, that our complaints were more along the lines of deficient discussion skills, depth and lack of honest effort to engage - nothing about him merely going against the group. I can recount about 4 or 5 different points of view in this thread, so I'm not sure there's much of a common group opinion anyway. (Fancy that)

[iNow]

I think it should be noted, however, that our complaints were more along the lines of deficient discussion skills, depth and lack of honest effort to engage - nothing about him merely going against the group. I can recount about 4 or 5 different points of view in this thread, so I'm not sure there's much of a common group opinion anyway. (Fancy that)

 

Precisely. The whole, "he's against majority opinion and that's why he's being called a troll" comment is itself a strawman. Nice point there, ParanoiA, and well articulated.

[scrappy]

I vote for #2' date=' because I don't see the differentiation in the question as any kind of separate-but-equal issue. To me, it's not like making the blacks use a separate-but-equal drinking fountain. But I might be wrong; I'm not an expert on constitutionality. I'll defer to the courts.[/quote']

I do understand that you don't see it as a "separate but equal" issue, but I am curious as to the distinctions you draw between the two scenarios.

OK, let’s beak this issue down to is logical parts to see the legal difference between blacks drinking out of the same drinking fountain as whites and gays getting married (i.e., drinking water) in the same marriage institution (i.e., from a drinking fountain) as the straights:

 

Blacks and whites drink water exactly the same way. We all have the same needs for drinking water. We all bend over at the drinking fountain the same way. And we all use our lips, tongues, and throats in the same way. Now, if blacks used their noses instead of their mouths to drink water we might have a different situation. The mouth drinkers might complain about the nose drinkers and want their own fountains. But, thankfully, we are all equal in every respect except skin pigmentation, and, thankfully, the problem with nose-drinkers doesn’t exist (to my knowledge).

 

By way of my analogy, which is as good as anyone can do when people insist on comparing drinking fountains to “gay marriage,” we have a different case. While the whites drink water with their mouths (i.e., they get married in the generally accepted manner) the gays insist on drinking water with their noses (i.e., they insist on same-sex marriage, which is technically unlike that of the straights—for one thing, they would consummate their “marriages" differently. I won’t bother to go into the squishy details).

 

It is impossible for gay couples to practice sex (i.e., consummate a marriage) in the same way as straight couples do it. That is a FACT (I’m a biologist, I ought to know). Therefore, a “gay marriage” (i.e., drinking water from a fountain) is fundamentally different from a straight marriage in that regard.

 

There is no separate-but-equal issue here at all, because America has no drinking fountains (i.e. marriage laws) that prohibit gays from participation. All they have to do is marry a member of the opposite sex to qualify. We don’t prohibit gays from the marriage institutions like we used to prohibit blacks from the drinking fountains. Blacks don’t drink with their noses. So, as soon as the gays stop “drinking with their noses” and come to the marriage institution like straights, they can “drink all the water” they want.

 

The real crux here is that blacks were being discriminated at public drinking fountains because of their race. They couldn’t marry whites, even though they desired heterosexual marriages, which is the central issue of that discrimination. But the gays want access to the straight’s “drinking fountains” and sill “drink through their noses.” If they “drank water” in the conventional manner there wouldn’t be any problem at all.

 

That’s the best I can do for anyone who likens drinking fountains and race to marriage and sexuality. If my reasoning seems odd to you, it’s because the separate-but-equal drinking fountain issue is not in any way like the separate-but equal domestic partnership issue.

 

Be kind. We’re all in this together, separately but equally, until the SCOTUS makes its interpretation of the Constitution. Then we’ll have to separate those who can stand the heat from those who need to get out of the kitchen.

[Dudde]

Wow. That was horrible. The analogy, the reasoning, were you even trying? That whole part about you support same sex couples a while back seems ridiculous to me now.

 

Scrappy, your entire last post basically posted "if they do it differently, they shouldn't be allowed to do it" - at least what I pulled out of it. So you're telling me that if blacks really did drink with their noses, you'd be all about banning them from the fountain? Even if they didn't touch the fountain with their nose?

 

 

The argument that they have the same rights because they can marry members of the opposite sex is ludicrous, and I'm not addressing it again.

[jackson33]

I don't think you understand how expensive it's going to be for a same sex couple to obtain the same rights, and how much of a ***** the process will be - which is ridiculous, because they're already included with a marriage license.

 

How is this relevant? Are you saying that same sex couples are not discriminated against, because they can pay out the wazoo and spend enormous amounts of time signing legal documents? I understand that each state does it differently, but it starts at a federal baseline, which is much lower for non-married citizens.

 

I agree with your point regarding the Living Trust however, that is extremely prudent planning, especially when you may be too vulnerable or distracted when the time comes to actually need it to fight the state.

 

First off, I have already voted FOR a word change for the Federal Government or in short say, it's none of their business who marries who, then under the religious concepts of the Constitution.

 

In most States TODAY, people are treated as individuals, not couples. A PERSON can do this, that or anything another person is allowed to with equal restrictions.

 

No, a contract between two or more persons whether for living conditions or some financial undertaking is very inexpensive. It can be hand written, notarized and placed in public records at NO cost, well maybe a filing cost or done on line with legal assistance for less than 200.00 in most cases. A prenuptial agreement today, is just as costly, which actually counters State Laws. Keep in mind many of the benefits listed as for Married couples, have a time line and if not met the legally married couple, divorced in 9 years, 11 months and 25 days is no longer eligible for.

 

 

iNow; are you saying any person opposing the viewpoints of the majority of members of this forum, is automatically a troll ??? Frankly, same sex marriage isn't bothered with, outside a minority of G/L folks seeking some sort of religious acceptance or maybe some benefit. I would argue, those seeking benefits, would in the end reduce the amounts received under a marriage contract, opposed to individual, to begin with...Then for religious acceptance, there going to have some problems. I certainly wouldn't advise moving to Iran to escape American attitudes.

[scrappy]

Wow. That was horrible. The analogy, the reasoning, were you even trying? That whole part about you support same sex couples a while back seems ridiculous to me now...

But I'm not the one who is insisting on a likeness between separate-but-equal drinking fountains and separate-but-equal domestic partnership laws.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

iNow; are you saying any person opposing the viewpoints of the majority of members of this forum, is automatically a troll ???

Yes.

 

Frankly, same sex marriage isn't bothered with, outside a minority of G/L folks seeking some sort of religious acceptance or maybe some benefit. I would argue, those seeking benefits, would in the end reduce the amounts received under a marriage contract, opposed to individual, to begin with...Then for religious acceptance, there going to have some problems. I certainly wouldn't advise moving to Iran to escape American attitudes.

True in all respects.

Edited March 22, 2009 by scrappy
Consecutive posts merged.

[Dudde]

In most States TODAY, people are treated as individuals, not couples. A PERSON can do this, that or anything another person is allowed to with equal restrictions.

No, a contract between two or more persons whether for living conditions

~

well maybe a filing cost or done on line with legal assistance for less than 200.00 in most cases.

 

Understood - as I've said, of course you can do it. I think you're taking points and re-arranging them, or I suck at my explanations. Let me try again -

 

You can, indeed, get that legal agreements can be written and are inexpensive - but what if the same sex couple wants all the benefits inferred to married heterosexual couples? You don't think they'll find a lawyer who's going to make that effort for that $200 do you?

 

iNow; are you saying any person opposing the viewpoints of the majority of members of this forum, is automatically a troll ??? Frankly, same sex marriage isn't bothered with, outside a minority of G/L folks seeking some sort of religious acceptance or maybe some benefit.

 

I don't think we need to go back to the trolling part, it's distracting from the interest

 

I must say however, my friend, you've been severly misinformed. I don't know any same sex couples looking for religious acceptance, and are often aloof and uncaring about what ridiculousness religious crowds may throw around. A majority of the crowd wanting same sex marriages is really trying to get the same legal rights, with the ease of a single document - that marriage license. The last part of your post, i.e "the G/L folks seeking - etc. etc." is an opinion swinging itself like a fact, and is quite offensive not only to the G/L couples themselves, but to the great number of people wanting to get equality for them, and those avidly opposing them - same sex marriage is bothered with all the time - those 'benefits' you're talking about are legal, real, and inexcusably being denied.

 

But I'm not the one who is insisting on a likeness between separate-but-equal drinking fountains and separate-but-equal domestic partnership laws.

You have such a way with words. If you don't want to back the analogy, why'd you write it?

[iNow]

Scrappy - Here is another example where you respond out of context and misrepresent the actual positions being discussed.

 

NOBODY has said that the fight for equal rights with same sex marriage is the same as people of different skin colors drinking from the same water fountain. Unless you're autistic and have no ability to see conceptual metaphors, you can plainly see that there are significant parallels in the civil rights movement and the current discussion.

 

 

Jackson - The fact that you would even ask my reasons for calling Scrappy a troll at this point, and on top of that suggest I only did so because I disagree with him, is really rather telling. It's plain to even people with a 2nd grade intelligence why I levelled the accusation I did. Do try to keep up, will you please? This has all been covered, and as Dudde rightly suggested, it's distracting from the thread and not worthy of further comment.

 

Scrappys homophobia is well documented in his posts at SFN, in this thread, the Prop 8 thread created by me, and also his thread "Homosexuals and their kin." Also rather telling were his posts on evolution and abiogenesis. Stop responding in a vacuum and get with the program.

 

 

Now, to AGAIN try to wrestle this thread away from the trolls and get back on topic...

 

The only reasons shared thus far supporting differences in laws are:

 

A) A majority opinion demonstrated by an unconstitutional vote to actively remove rights from a minority group

B) An unproven and assumed original definition is trying to be changed, despite the obvious lack of support or evidence for this "definition" and the fact that laws like DOMA implicitly show that these definitions excluding same sex couples NEVER existed

C) Sodomy sex is different from Missionary sex (which misses the point that several opposite sex couples engage in sodomy anyway)

D) If same sex couples spend lots of money and work really hard, they can put in place contracts on a case-by-case basis which almost mirror the marriage benefits

E) Bigotry and homophobia

 

 

Did I miss any?

Edited March 22, 2009 by iNow

[mooeypoo]

This is unbelievable.

This thread is full of ad hominem attacks and derogatory comments. Whether the people stating those comments are right about their opponents is utterly irrelevant: This should stop.

 

Okay, how 'bout everyone takes a deep breath, steps back from the keyboard, go gets laid, and comes back with a fresh view, because this is the third time moderators are trying to keep this thread on the right track.

 

So here's what we're going to do:

 

1. We are going to stop calling people trolls, even if we really think they are. Instead, we are going to report threads that we believe are examples of trolling and let the moderators deal with that.

 

2. We are going to stop blaming one another of being narrow minded and fallacious and start answering with *EXPLANATIONS* of why a certain point is fallacious.

 

3. We are going to drop the derogatory attitude and drag our behinds out of the mud.

 

 

I don't know what about you, but I personally feel like my points drowned in the mud you boys use to wrestle in. Knock it off, already, and - quite frankly - grow up.

 

~moo

[Klaynos]

This thread is now on 24 Hour Suicide Watch.

 

The thread starter has failed or is failing to support their position, has not managed the thread direction in a manner which supports its purpose, or is actively encouraging a disorderly discussion. The thread starter must bring the thread under control in order for the thread to stay open.

 

Alternatively, there are more reportable posts breaching the SFN Rules in this thread than there are non-reportable posts, and all participants are expected to improve their level of input if this thread is to remain open.

 

If the thread does not turn into a productive and rational discussion within 24 hours of this post, then it will be closed without any consideration of the moderation policy.

 

All participants are responsible for helping to bring the thread back on track.

 

This post is a standard text set by SFN policy.

[iNow]

It's really rather sad that we're all being punished for responding to one guy who keeps repeating hateful and debunked assertions. Score another one for the troll. The thread is going to be closed. Yippee frakkin doo.