What will be the next Great Progressive Cause™ now that same-sex marriage is common?

[jackstar7]

Also, I spotted a typo in my own post. Not sure if that caused you some confusion.

 

[Eureka]

Exactly, this is precisely what I said in one of my posts above. Gov should care less if a couple is married or not, they should just care if the couple has a valid civil union or not. Society can hash out what marriage means, Gov shouldn't even be in that arguement.

Chuck

The problem with this is that civil unions means financial benefits, and that is an issue because the government's finance comes from taxpayers.

If civil union meant nothing in terms of tax breaks, it wouldn't matter to anyone, because then it's just a stamp on a paper.

Now, personally, I don't think gay marriage was ever that urgent of a cause. We have many other issues in the world. Gay marriage, no matter how you look at it, is still mainly a QoL issue. If you deny someone gay marriage, you are not denying them their life. There are people who are starving, issues with crime in inner city, issues with the national budget, diseases to be cured, financial inequality. Hell you have people starving and tortured to death every day in NK and other countries.

I hate to be the one to say this, but gay right marriage is more of an entitlement issue than it is a personal right. To say we broke through segregation is important... you were denying people livelihoods. But this... not so much.

 

[chucky2]

As I just said in the other thread on this subject, as long as you guys take the blame and it isn't heaped on gay people with slanders of them "destroying marriage", have at it.

Take what blame? What happened that blame would need to be assigned? Gays and their supporters are effectively "destroying" the contextual and traditional meaning of marriage for purely emotional reasons. This is inarguable. When they get their way, they will in fact have destroyed the meaning of the word marriage and perverted it.

Gays could have been done with this argument like decades ago at this point if they'd insisted on full legal rights via civil union. Instead they've gone on an emo crusade, got the other emos to go along with them (predictably, as designed), and now are surprised when some of the sleeping masses of sheep wake up and go, 'Uh, WhoTF is Fing up the meaning of the word marriage and why?'

If/When they get the meaning of the word changed, they should be blamed for Fing up the meaning of the word. Of course, for them and their supporters, they'll be jizz down the leg happy...to them, the meaning won't be perverted, it'll be the new "accurate". Ironically, it'll be as accurate as black people being inferior was when the majority of society believed that as well. The majority is not always right, despite their insistance so...

Chuck

 

[Retro Rob]

Exactly the only thing gay marriage opponents can argue is why they are choosing to treat biological differences unequal in a social construct.

As a supporter I just have to choose to not treat the differences unequal.

No other arguments are relative all they impact is why one is making the choice they are.

...and just FYI, I made the biological incompatibilty argument to differentiate between the denial of interracial relationships and the denial of SS relationships on that basis alone... not same-sex marriage.

 

[lotus503]

Take what blame? What happened that blame would need to be assigned? Gays and their supporters are effectively "destroying" the contextual and traditional meaning of marriage for purely emotional reasons. This is inarguable. When they get their way, they will in fact have destroyed the meaning of the word marriage and perverted it.

Gays could have been done with this argument like decades ago at this point if they'd insisted on full legal rights via civil union. Instead they've gone on an emo crusade, got the other emos to go along with them (predictably, as designed), and now are surprised when some of the sleeping masses of sheep wake up and go, 'Uh, WhoTF is Fing up the meaning of the word marriage and why?'

If/When they get the meaning of the word changed, they should be blamed for Fing up the meaning of the word. Of course, for them and their supporters, they'll be jizz down the leg happy...to them, the meaning won't be perverted, it'll be the new "accurate". Ironically, it'll be as accurate as black people being inferior was when the majority of society believed that as well. The majority is not always right, despite their insistance so...

Chuck

Supporters are choosing that biological differences do not mean unequal.

That's it

You are choosing biological differences are unequal.

That's it

All the other shit is just hyperbole in support of ones choice.

Society is making the choice biological differences do not mean unequal.

You don't like it or agree which is fine it's going to happen anyway.

 

[cybrsage]

So I take it that everyone here agrees that the use of "equality" in this thread means "equality only for heterosexuals and homosexuals, all others will still be jailed"?

 

[lotus503]

...and just FYI, I made the biological incompatibilty argument to differentiate between the denial of interracial relationships and the denial of SS relationships on that basis alone... not same-sex marriage.

That's fine it really is immaterial

In the end it's is a simply matter of societies choice in how to treat biological differences in a social construct.

People can make all the arguments they want in why gay marriage is unequal from biology, to anything else, in the end it's a choice one makes in how to treat it.

 

[jackstar7]

Take what blame? What happened that blame would need to be assigned? Gays and their supporters are effectively "destroying" the contextual and traditional meaning of marriage for purely emotional reasons. This is inarguable. When they get their way, they will in fact have destroyed the meaning of the word marriage and perverted it.

Gays could have been done with this argument like decades ago at this point if they'd insisted on full legal rights via civil union. Instead they've gone on an emo crusade, got the other emos to go along with them (predictably, as designed), and now are surprised when some of the sleeping masses of sheep wake up and go, 'Uh, WhoTF is Fing up the meaning of the word marriage and why?'

If/When they get the meaning of the word changed, they should be blamed for Fing up the meaning of the word. Of course, for them and their supporters, they'll be jizz down the leg happy...to them, the meaning won't be perverted, it'll be the new "accurate". Ironically, it'll be as accurate as black people being inferior was when the majority of society believed that as well. The majority is not always right, despite their insistance so...

Chuck

The blame for destroying civil marriage as an institution. I thought that was clear... but I keep overestimating my opacity or underestimating your ability to be obtuse.

Also, your use of inarguable is inaccurate. It is being argued that this is not an emotional issue, you just deny the evidence that plainly demonstrates it what is counter to your established beliefs.

It's clear you never wanted to discuss this as you never had any intention of holding a different view of the situation. You just want to rant and rail against this injustice you perceive. I'll leave you to it. I'm sure others will continue to prompt you.

 

[lotus503]

So I take it that everyone here agrees that the use of "equality" in this thread means "equality only for heterosexuals and homosexuals, all others will still be jailed"?

No it means we are discussing equality in context of the subject gay marriage.

If you want to discuss equality as it relates to something else propose it.

 

[jackstar7]

So I take it that everyone here agrees that the use of "equality" in this thread means "equality only for heterosexuals and homosexuals, all others will still be jailed"?

I think bisexuals are covered. On whose behalf are you trying to argue that isn't covered by those three?

Oh, and I think asexuals are also covered, actually. So that's four.

 

[cybrsage]

I already did. Only Jackstar replied and he basically said they can fend for themselves, their rights are irrelevant to equality.

 

[cybrsage]

I think bisexuals are covered. What else are you trying to argue for?

You have a short term memory failure.

So I ask, why are we purposefully denying rights to some people while fighting to give rights to one select group of people? Why is the homosexual group more important or more special to deserve these rights while denying them to other groups?



EDIT: For example, the civil rights movement did not deny equal rights to Asians and only give them to Blacks. Why is this "equal rights" movement purposefully NOT trying to give equal rights to groups other than homosexuals? Equal is not very equal when it purposefully only advances one group while ensuring other groups are still denied equality.[/QUOTE]

 

[lotus503]

I already did.

I didn't see it but I admit I don't read most of your posts.

 

[nehalem256]

What children?

Since in your definition children do not exist prior to a marriage, how do you guarantee that children will exist and how is that an influence on how marriage is defined?

It has always been assumed that children would occur after marriage. Marriage is about controlling procreation.

Ever hear of bastard children?

 

[lotus503]

You have a short term memory failure.

So I ask, why are we purposefully denying rights to some people while fighting to give rights to one select group of people? Why is the homosexual group more important or more special to deserve these rights while denying them to other groups?



EDIT: For example, the civil rights movement did not deny equal rights to Asians and only give them to Blacks. Why is this "equal rights" movement purposefully NOT trying to give equal rights to groups other than homosexuals? Equal is not very equal when it purposefully only advances one group while ensuring other groups are still denied equality.

[/QUOTE]

It's like anything else squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Gay people and supporters have done an effective job of getting the issue in front of society for consideration.

If you have an equality issue you want society to address you can spend your time and resources over the course of time to get society to address it.

 

[Retro Rob]

That's fine it really is immaterial

In the end it's is a simply matter of societies choice in how to treat biological differences in a social construct.

People can make all the arguments they want in why gay marriage is unequal from biology, to anything else, in the end it's a choice one makes in how to treat it.

In fairness, you can't show anyone why they are biologically the same, either... it's all just relative and that isn't always acceptable.

You can "say" something is the same, biology can factually disagree.

If a hetero couple and SS couple get together, one can have kids and the other can't, you can't say there's no difference in those respective relatioships... your willingness to ignore that difference hold really no scientific weight and no weight in reality.

That being said, SS couples can marry, in my eyes, if the law says they can, but to ignore the obvious difference in the relationships is just... well... ignorant (not to say you are ignorant... just speaking generically).

 

[nehalem256]

It's like anything else squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Gay people and supporters have done an effective job of getting the issue in front of society for consideration.

If you have an equality issue you want society to address you can spend your time and resources over the course of time to get society to address it.

And wouldn't it make sense to then adjust marriage to not discriminate against any sexual minority group while it is front and center

At least assuming you actually do think it is wrong to discriminate against sexual minorities with respect to marriage, which is what same-sex marriage supporters are claiming.

 

[cybrsage]

I didn't see it but I admit I don't read most of your posts.

You obviously do, else you would not have replied to them.

 

[jackstar7]

You have a short term memory failure.

So I ask, why are we purposefully denying rights to some people while fighting to give rights to one select group of people? Why is the homosexual group more important or more special to deserve these rights while denying them to other groups?

EDIT: For example, the civil rights movement did not deny equal rights to Asians and only give them to Blacks. Why is this "equal rights" movement purposefully NOT trying to give equal rights to groups other than homosexuals? Equal is not very equal when it purposefully only advances one group while ensuring other groups are still denied equality.

You talked about sterilizing people. That's why I never cared to answer you seriously; because you showed no sign of making a serious argument.

 

[lotus503]

In fairness, you can't show anyone why they are biolgocally the same, either... it's all just relative and that isn't always acceptable.

You can "say" something is the same, biology can factually disagree.

If a hetero couple and SS couple get together, one can have kids and the other can't, you can't say there's no difference in those respective relatioships... your willingness to ignore that difference hold really no scientific weight and no weight in reality.

That being said, SS couples can marry, in my eyes, if the law says they can, but to ignore the obvious difference in the relationships is just... well... ignorant (not to say you are ignorant... just speaking generically).

It's not of issue of arguing sameness.
It's an issue of choosing to treat differences unequal.

Gay couples are different than traditional couples in what sex they are attracted to. Two males cannot conceive a child naturally etc.

I choose to not treat those differences unequal in a marriage as a social construct.

Others choose to treat them unequal.

 

[cybrsage]

It's like anything else squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Gay people and supporters have done an effective job of getting the issue in front of society for consideration.

If you have an equality issue you want society to address you can spend your time and resources over the course of time to get society to address it.

That would have been like denying civil rights to Asians and Hispanics when the blacks marched. It is classic injustice to expand rights to include one minority group while denying those rights to other minority groups.

It sounds to me like you agree that in this thread equality does not mean equality, it means "giving rights to one minority group while denying them to other minority groups".

 

[lotus503]

You obviously do, else you would not have replied to them.

I said most not all. Your inability to construct a valid argument has my particular attention at the moment.

 

[nehalem256]

It's not of issue of arguing sameness.
It's an issue of choosing to treat differences unequal.

Gay couples are different than traditional couples in what sex they are attracted to. Two males cannot conceive a child naturally etc.

I choose to not treat those differences unequal in a marriage as a social construct.

Others choose to treat them unequal.

Treating unequal relationships equally is treating them unequally.

 

[jackstar7]

In fairness, you can't show anyone why they are biologically the same, either... it's all just relative and that isn't always acceptable.

You can "say" something is the same, biology can factually disagree.

If a hetero couple and SS couple get together, one can have kids and the other can't, you can't say there's no difference in those respective relatioships... your willingness to ignore that difference hold really no scientific weight and no weight in reality.

That being said, SS couples can marry, in my eyes, if the law says they can, but to ignore the obvious difference in the relationships is just... well... ignorant (not to say you are ignorant... just speaking generically).

The same-sex couples can adopt, or artificial inseminate, or use surrogacy.

Or do we need another word for families that aren't formed "naturally"?

 

[Retro Rob]

It's not of issue of arguing sameness.
It's an issue of choosing to treat differences unequal.

Gay couples are different than traditional couples in what sex they are attracted to. Two males cannot conceive a child naturally etc.

I choose to not treat those differences unequal in a marriage as a social construct.

Others choose to treat them unequal.

I get what you're saying... you can certainly choose how to treat something or someone.

But it doesn't change the facts, that's all I mean. But I agree with you.