Maggie Gallagher giving up on optimism

[Retro Rob]

The bold part is particularly wrong. The only way it can be "in your face" is if you let it. Everyone else is more secure in their sexuality and their relationships.

Oh, not this "fear" thing again.

I don't mean to sound ignorant, but I've yet hear a valid explanation of what's so "fearful" about SSM being legalized, or even on the table.

 

[zsdersw]

Oh, not this "fear" thing again.

I don't mean to sound ignorant, but I've yet hear a valid explanation of what's so "fearful" about SSM being legalized, or even on the table.

If not because of fear or insecurity, why is something you're not a participant of considered by you to be "in your face"?

 

[Retro Rob]

If not because of fear or insecurity, why is something you're not a participant of considered by you to be "in your face"?

Rubbing it in, dude.

...because they've been "discriminated" against for so long, they'd see it as a jab to religion, or the "Church" in particular... especially seeing how many religous folks make up the GOP.

Maybe not you, but I am quite sure many would love that! Read around, Z... you'll see.

 

[soulcougher73]

LOL at all of you who think gay marriage some how threatens hetro marriages. In what way does it threaten a hetro marriage? It is not going to cause more divorces in hetro couples because gays can marry.

Non issue. Let them get married already for fucks sake.

 

[zsdersw]

Rubbing it in, dude.

...because they've been "discriminated" against for so long, they'd see it as a jab to religion, or the "Church" in particular... especially seeing how many religous folks make up the GOP.

Maybe not you, but I am quite sure many would love that! Read around, Z... you'll see.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about why an outsider and non-participant (you, for example) would consider a gay marriage to be "in your face".

Motives of others are not the issue; why you consider it "in your face" is the issue.

 

[nehalem256]

LOL at all of you who think gay marriage some how threatens hetro marriages. In what way does it threaten a hetro marriage? It is not going to cause more divorces in hetro couples because gays can marry.

Non issue. Let them get married already for fucks sake.

It doesn't threaten A hetero marriage. It threatens the idea of marriage by spreading the idea that marriage exists just to get government benefits for your sex partner.

 

[zsdersw]

It threatens the idea of marriage by spreading the idea that marriage exists just to get government benefits for your sex partner.

It does not threaten the idea of marriage. Marriages are what their participants make of them, and the idea of marriage changes accordingly.. for better or worse.

 

[Retro Rob]

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about why an outsider and non-participant (you, for example) would consider a gay marriage to be "in your face".

Motives of others are not the issue; why you consider it "in your face" is the issue.

Well, that's what I was talking about... "in your face", generally speaking.

Otherwise, it's not in my face (ME).

 

[zsdersw]

Marriage is not a Christian institution.

It is in this country, according to the vast majority of SSM opponents.

 

[soulcougher73]

It doesn't threaten A hetero marriage. It threatens the idea of marriage by spreading the idea that marriage exists just to get government benefits for your sex partner.

So if its not about benefits then lets get rid of all hetro marriage benefits as well. No more seeing your wife on her death bed etc.

 

[Retro Rob]

So if its not about benefits then lets get rid of all hetro marriage benefits as well. No more seeing your wife on her death bed etc.

My sarcasm meter may be broken.

In short, don't get married only because of the benefits, thus, cheapening it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

In short, don't get married only because of the benefits, thus, cheapening it.

Why do you assume that gays only get married because of the practical benefits?

Like heterosexuals, some do it mainly for the benefits, some do it partially for the benefits, and some don't care about the benefits at all.

 

[zsdersw]

Why do you assume that gays only get married because of the practical benefits?

Because it assists the argument caricature he wants to make.

Like heterosexuals, some do it mainly for the benefits, some do it partially for the benefits, and some don't care about the benefits at all.

Yes, but why would someone bother with the truth when it's easier to pigeon-hole the issue with dishonesty.

 

[Retro Rob]

Why do you assume that gays only get married because of the practical benefits?

Like heterosexuals, some do it mainly for the benefits, some do it partially for the benefits, and some don't care about the benefits at all.

..becasue those are the main reason(s) I hear/read about.

This is the main argument, again, I read about. To be honest, the couples who have been together for years (normally with older SS couples) get married for love, etc. Older couples generally don't care about benefits much. The newer generation SS couple put that as a main discriminatory disadvatage.

 

[DukeN]

LOL, only in America you give up optimism because your bigotry is on the downslide...

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This is the main argument, again, I read about.

That's probably because people feel the practical argument will be more persuasive.

To be honest, the couples who have been together for years (normally with older SS couples) get married for love, etc. Older couples generally don't care about benefits much. The newer generation SS couple put that as a main discriminatory disadvatage.

And that's true. It's not an invalid argument, just not the only one. So why try to make it into something it's not?

 

[Retro Rob]

And that's true. It's not an invalid argument, just not the only one. So why try to make it into something it's not?

I'm not, they are. Nice way to try and flip that over on me, though.

 

[zsdersw]

I'm not, they are. Nice way to try and flip that over on me, though.

Only in your inexperienced/uninformed world. You yourself said you only knew one gay person... and have only read/heard about everything else. That's hardly a solid basis on which to form an opinion.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'm not, they are.

Aren't you?

Here's what you wrote:

We need to stop making this about love and peace and unity, becasue that isn't what this is about, IMO. It's only about getting the benefits that hetero couples (married) gets, and having a little "in yo face" factor in it. Plain and simple. Gay people care less about whether people accept them or not. I don't blame them, to be honest. I don't think they care about uniting the country -- they only want want what hetero couples have.

You said that the "only" reason gays want to get married is for benefits. Which is not true.

Furthermore, you're implying with your language that wanting the right to marry for benefits is somehow inappropriate or shameful.

Why are you using invalid and insulting arguments?

 

[Retro Rob]

Aren't you?

Here's what you wrote:



You said that the "only" reason gays want to get married is for benefits. Which is not true.

Furthermore, you're implying with your language that wanting the right to marry for benefits is somehow inappropriate or shameful.

Why are you using invalid and insulting arguments?

Ah, I see.

I was stating facts, dude, which they've brought up time and time again as to why they're "discriminated" against.

My apologies if I made an overly-general statement which I will own, but I'm not wrong in the fact that "benefits" is a very compelling and convincing legitimate reason to cite discrimination.

In their shoes, they're not "wrong", but it's an argument they make. If my arguments are insulting, grow some thick skin, please.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'm not wrong in the fact that "benefits" is a very compelling and convincing legitimate reason to cite discrimination.

That's true. It is a compelling, convincing, and legitimate reason to cite discrimination.

The question then, I suppose, is why you are trying to make fun of or denigrate that reason.

 

[soulcougher73]

My sarcasm meter may be broken.

In short, don't get married only because of the benefits, thus, cheapening it.

I was being sort of serious. In the eyes of the law a marriage is a legal contract that has certain perks or benefits. If people are upset gays want these same perks/benefits then lets just get rid of all of them for hetro or gay marriages.

Of course hetro couples would not like that, thus nullifying their arguement about gays wanting marraige just for benefits.

 

[Retro Rob]

That's true. It is a compelling, convincing, and legitimate reason to cite discrimination.

The question then, I suppose, is why you are trying to make fun of or denigrate that reason.

Im not, next question.

 

[nehalem256]

It is in this country, according to the vast majority of SSM opponents.

I think you mean PROPONENTS. Considering their basic strategy is to paint anyone who opposes SSM as a member of the Christian Taliban who wants to force their religion on others.

 

[nehalem256]

No more seeing your wife on her death bed etc.

(1) Because only married couples are allowed to visit in hospitals... (from experience you are lying).

(2) Assume you are correct. Could we maybe come up with an even better solution? What about 2 unmarried straight people who have been BFFs for 40 years? Shouldnt they be able to visit in the hospital as well?