Maggie Gallagher giving up on optimism

[CrackRabbit]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

This is only relevant if you define a marriage to be just a contract.

The problem is that since you demand that the government recognize your contract it is not just a contract between 2 people.

As well as the fact that you probably have several contracts yourself with non-human entities.

How does allowing a man to marry his couch affect your marriage? Are you afraid that if we recognize object sexual marriages you will start feeling an overwhelming urge to co-populate with your toaster?

Hey just because you like to stick your wang in a toaster doesn't mean other people do.
Besides I have never seen a toaster be able to consent to anything.

[Rob M.]

Lol, there's a Petition to lable the CC a Hate Group?!?

The sheer fact that this is out there makes me uncomfortable with liberals real agendas.

[zsdersw]

Originally Posted by Doc Savage Fan

I never said that. Try rereading what I said.

That's what you were implying.

[LumbergTech]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

What she says has merit, you just don't agree with it.

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong. Just say "it's not my cup o' tea", or that you disagree.

Total BS.

The article is completely wrong. It doesn't describe the average modern young man whatsoever.

[badb0y]

You guys can piss and moan all you want but this is going to happen sooner or later.

[Smoblikat]

Originally Posted by zsdersw

No she's not. She apparently believes that society is incapable of thriving without the things she thinks are necessary. That's a very narrow and historically unreliable view of society.

Unless she is right. Which to an extent I believe she is, though not for the reasons she does.

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by LumbergTech

Total BS.

The article is completely wrong. It doesn't describe the average modern young man whatsoever.

What's become(ing) aboundantly clear is that it's socially unacceptable to not accept same-sex marriage. It's really unacceptable to force someone to adopt the current "flavor of the month"... which is all this is.

..or better still, you can view it as wrong as long as you have legitimate, non-religious/Biblical grounds (in a feeble attempt to elimate any "legit" grounds). Liberal mind control 101. They dicate to YOU what's "legitmate" grounds for accepting/rejecting this?!?

The Social Crusaders are here!! You'd better get on the train or be on the "wrong side of history"!!!

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by CrackRabbit

Hey just because you like to stick your wang in a toaster doesn't mean other people do.

For the record I don't.

But apparently your argument is that to support equal rights for object sexuals you have to be an object sexual yourself...

Originally Posted by CrackRabbit

Besides I have never seen a toaster be able to consent to anything.

This is only relevant if we accept your objectphobic definition of marriage as the One True definition of marriage.

EDIT: And if you are still really bothered just replace toaster with corporation.

[soulcougher73]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

This is only relevant if you define a marriage to be just a contract.

The problem is that since you demand that the government recognize your contract it is not just a contract between 2 people.

As well as the fact that you probably have several contracts yourself with non-human entities.

How does allowing a man to marry his couch affect your marriage? Are you afraid that if we recognize object sexual marriages you will start feeling an overwhelming urge to co-populate with your toaster?

I dont personally have a problem with your stupid object marriages. If you want to fuck your toaster exclusely for life than so be it. I will fight for your right to do it if you fight for the right for gays to marry in the eyes of the government. You wont find many people who want what you propose but i see no harm in it..well other than them being ridiculed for being retarded. But to each their own.

[soulcougher73]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

What's become(ing) aboundantly clear is that it's socially unacceptable to not accept same-sex marriage. It's really unacceptable to force someone to adopt the current "flavor of the month"... which is all this is.

..or better still, you can view it as wrong as long as you have legitimate, non-religious/Biblical grounds (in a feeble attempt to elimate any "legit" grounds). Liberal mind control 101. They dicate to YOU what's "legitmate" grounds for accepting/rejecting this?!?

The Social Crusaders are here!! You'd better get on the train or be on the "wrong side of history"!!!

I would say the real issue is its becoming social unacceptable to continue to not treat them equally in the eyes of the law. You are free to view gays as unacceptable all you want since that is not something we can change in a person.

Edit: Also gays have been around since the dawn of man. So i wouldnt really call gays the "flavor of the month" as if they just appeared recently out of no-where.

Edit 2: Also why do people who dont like "teh gayz" get to dictate what is acceptable? Who made them god?

[Charles Kozierok]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

What's become(ing) aboundantly clear is that it's socially unacceptable to not accept same-sex marriage.

Yes. So? Was it also bad when it became socially unacceptable to not accept equal rights for non-Caucasians?

Originally Posted by Rob M.

..or better still, you can view it as wrong as long as you have legitimate, non-religious/Biblical grounds (in a feeble attempt to elimate any "legit" grounds). Liberal mind control 101. They dicate to YOU what's "legitmate" grounds for accepting/rejecting this?!?

Nobody is controlling your mind. You can believe whatever nonsense you like.

As for grounds for conducting a society, they should be based on reason and fairness. Not the dictates of mythology. There are no non-religious arguments against equal rights for gays.

Originally Posted by Rob M.

The Social Crusaders are here!! You'd better get on the train or be on the "wrong side of history"!!!

Yeah, it's only good when Christians get to lead the Crusades. The notable difference here being that, unlike your church, nobody here is killing anyone.

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by soulcougher73

I would say the real issue is its becoming social unacceptable to continue to not treat them equally in the eyes of the law. You are free to view gays as unacceptable all you want since that is not something we can change in a person.

Gay people are treated equally. They, just like straights, are allowed to marry a person of the opposite gender.

Gay relationships are treated equally as platonic SS relationships.

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by soulcougher73

I dont personally have a problem with your stupid object marriages. If you want to fuck your toaster exclusely for life than so be it. I will fight for your right to do it if you fight for the right for gays to marry in the eyes of the government. You wont find many people who want what you propose but i see no harm in it..well other than them being ridiculed for being retarded. But to each their own.

And will you fight for the right of object-sexuals to marry their toaster?

[zsdersw]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

Gay relationships are treated equally as platonic SS relationships.

Except they're not equal. Monogamous homosexual relationships are more beneficial to society than the alternative, whether or not you personally think so.

By the way, how many homosexual people do you personally know?

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by zsdersw

Except they're not equal. Monogamous homosexual relationships are more beneficial to society than the alternative, whether or not you personally think so.

This is an opinion not a fact.

Besides, we could continue your line of reasoning and establish a continuum of relationship benefit to society with say:

Monogamous heterosexual relationships > Monogamous homosexual relationships > Platonic Friendship

Given that only heterosexuals are capable of pro-creating, and the obvious increase in poverty for single parents over married parents it would be hard to argue against this continuum.

Therefore, heterosexual and homosexual relationships are not equal, and there is no reason to treat them as such.

[zsdersw]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

This is an opinion not a fact.

Wrong. It is demonstrably factual that monogamous homosexual relationships are more beneficial to society than homosexual promiscuity.

Besides, we could continue your line of reasoning and establish a continuum of relationship benefit to society with say:

Monogamous heterosexual relationships > Monogamous homosexual relationships > Platonic Friendship

Given that only heterosexuals are capable of pro-creating, and the obvious increase in poverty for single parents over married parents it would be hard to argue against this continuum.

Therefore, heterosexual and homosexual relationships are not equal, and there is no reason to treat them as such.

I'm not saying heterosexual and homosexual relationships are equal, but they're not sufficiently different to say one somehow has exclusive participation in "marriage" and the other must not. That implies a level of disparity that does not exist and a sanctity of "marriage" that is not legally justified in this country. The "that's the way it's always been" excuse is a very poor reason to avoid change.

And I'll ask again... because you refuse to answer... How many homosexual people do you personally know?

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by CharlesKozierok

Yes. So? Was it also bad when it became socially unacceptable to not accept equal rights for non-Caucasians?

Comparing marriage to race. Bad idea, Charles.

Nobody is controlling your mind. You can believe whatever nonsense you like.

Because it's not popular (or, something you don't agree with) it's nonsense? Like I said to you earlier, stop voting for the religious right because that's what you're doing... and then you whine about the policies they want to eliminate or implement.

Mind control it is. Calling it nonsense is s clear indication of you all trying to subvert one's line of thinking. You're just as bad as these "Christians" you villify.

As for grounds for conducting a society, they should be based on reason and fairness. Not the dictates of mythology. There are no non-religious arguments against equal rights for gays

YOU don't think its reasonable or fair for someone to believe contrary to what's socially acceptable. Mind control 101. Crusade-esque thinking.

Yeah, it's only good when Christians get to lead the Crusades. The notable difference here being that, unlike your church, nobody here is killing anyone.

LOL, you're killing free and contradictory thought and want to supress religious speech. Please, you are no different that them. Since when do you need a basis (legit, in the eyes of the non-believer) to have the freedom to spread your opinion regardless of whether you liberals agree with it?

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by zsdersw

I'm not saying heterosexual and homosexual relationships are equal,

So we are in agreement here. Heterosexual relationships are more important to society.

Originally Posted by zsdersw

but they're not sufficiently different to say one somehow has exclusive participation in "marriage" and the other must not. That implies a level of disparity that does not exist and a sanctity of "marriage" that is not legally justified in this country. The "that's the way it's always been" excuse is a very poor reason to avoid change.

If "ability to procreate" is not sufficiently different than WTF is?

The fact that one kind of relationship is necessary for the continuation of the species and the other is not seems like a pretty f-ing big level of disparity.

Originally Posted by zsdersw

And I'll ask again... because you refuse to answer... How many homosexual people do you personally know?

How many homosexual people I know is irrelevant to the definition of marriage.

Try reading this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally Posted by zsdersw

That's what you were implying.

Nope...wrong again. You just make up shit. Intellectual honesty doesn't appear to be your strong suit.

[soulcougher73]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

Gay people are treated equally. They, just like straights, are allowed to marry a person of the opposite gender.

Gay relationships are treated equally as platonic SS relationships.

How about you drop the fucking retarded by now "opposite gender" bit, and replace it with "someone they love". You will feel better about yourself.

[soulcougher73]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

And will you fight for the right of object-sexuals to marry their toaster?

Didnt i just say i would? Reading comprehension 101. Look into it.

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by soulcougher73

I would say the real issue is its becoming social unacceptable to continue to not treat them equally in the eyes of the law. You are free to view gays as unacceptable all you want since that is not something we can change in a person.

Edit: Also gays have been around since the dawn of man. So i wouldnt really call gays the "flavor of the month" as if they just appeared recently out of no-where.

Edit 2: Also why do people who dont like "teh gayz" get to dictate what is acceptable? Who made them god?

Legalizing gay marrigae is the flavor of the month. After it's done and over with, socialists wiill find something else to latch on to. That's my whole point. It's just what's hot now, and emotions are high.

As far as I have seen, only the 'Church' is playing the moral gatekeeper (which is hypocritically funny). Everyone else is dictating to themselves and expressing their opinion in public in some cases.

[soulcougher73]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

So we are in agreement here. Heterosexual relationships are more important to society.



If "ability to procreate" is not sufficiently different than WTF is?

The fact that one kind of relationship is necessary for the continuation of the species and the other is not seems like a pretty f-ing big level of disparity.



How many homosexual people I know is irrelevant to the definition of marriage.

Try reading this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

So with all this rambling above you think if we legalize SSM that we will not have enough hetro people left to continue to populate the already over-populated earth?

I was unaware allowing SSM would turn me gay. My bad.

[soulcougher73]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

Legalizing gay marrigae is the flavor of the month. After it's done and over with, socialists wiill find something else to latch on to. That's my whole point. It's just what's hot now, and emotions are high.

As far as I have seen, only the 'Church' is playing the moral gatekeeper (which is hypocritically funny). Everyone else is dictating to themselves and expressing their opinion in public in some cases.

Youre right it is a hot issue, but not for the reasons you think it is. Im hetro and find the idea of gay (male) sex gross. But that doesnt mean i want to treat gays differently or deny them rights i have access to as a hetro. My point is you can fight for equality without liking what they are doing.

Live and let live. Youll feel better about yourself.

[DougK62]

How about if we approach this another way. Would it be acceptable to people on both sides of the argument if we just took the government out of "marriage" completely? So then if you wanted someone to have control over your property, make choices for you if you're incapacitated, etc. you'd just fill out the appropriate contracts to delegate that out. Is this fair?