But same sex marriage would destroy the institution

PostmodernProphet said:
but that simply isn't true......if bi-racial marriage had been a biological impossibility (as same sex "marriage" is), then the bigots wouldn't have needed to pass laws prohibiting it....
Click to expand...

You might want to read up. because biololgy was one of the reasons that was used to support the non-mixing of races.

Now, how is a same sex marriage a "biological impossibility"??
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
It doesn't matter to YOU...because what YOU are doing here is pointing to the ETHNIC differences and biases among caucasians. BIG FREAKING DIFFERENCE from HOMOSEXUALS comparing their civil rights struggle to that of BLACK PEOPLE in America. And that is what I will prove time and again if necessary. If one is going to fight for civil rights, do it honestly and correctly, I always say.
Click to expand...

WinterBorn said:
There are many similarities between the civil rights struggle of minority races and the current civil rights struggles of gays.

Great....let me know when there was a RACE of homosexuals shipped in the bowels of boats to be used as slave for nearly 2 centuries BEFORE the land became the USA. Then there was another century or so of institutiaonalized slavery, Jim Crow, and SEVERAL laws that had to be passed decades apart to reaffirm their rights to work, live and go to school anywhere they wanted.

The comparison does not demean or change the struggle the blacks went through.

The comparison to a large degree is bogus, as I've logically explained time and again.

But until equality spreads throughout our entire society, none of us should rest or be satisfied.
Click to expand...

That's a given.....I'm just making sure that everyone is honest in the struggle, and not deluding themselves or others.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
It doesn't matter to YOU...because what YOU are doing here is pointing to the ETHNIC differences and biases among caucasians. BIG FREAKING DIFFERENCE from HOMOSEXUALS comparing their civil rights struggle to that of BLACK PEOPLE in America. And that is what I will prove time and again if necessary. If one is going to fight for civil rights, do it honestly and correctly, I always say.
Click to expand...

Damocles said:
What I am telling you, "Mr. Civility", is that civil rights are civil rights, even if you don't like the idea that they are much the same thing because of the different reason they are being violated. The arguments for or against are the same, and even the book they use to support their violations is the same. The comparison is valid because it is the same rights being violated, the arguments to continue those violations are the same, and the arguments to end the violations are the same.

The way to avoid most of these violations, and thus the need to argue at all about this, isn't to get all hurty and mad because people notice and underline similarities with other past civil rights violations, it is to stop the government from making stupid laws limiting people's freedom for no reason other than to "protect the traditions" of the majority religion, or even a minority religion.

If we stop letting government perform surgeries with poop-covered hands to "fix" things they didn't need to mess with, we'll have much less infection. At some point we need to remember that individual freedom is something government is supposed to protect, not attempt to define away while protecting "traditions" of specific religions.
Click to expand...


Bottom line: When people start creating false premises to achieve their goals, then they lose credibility and create the basis for future problems that undermine any success achieved....much less make the goal that much harder to achieve.

Like I told Winterborn....let me know when there was a RACE of homosexuals shipped in the bowels of boats to be used as slave for nearly 2 centuries BEFORE the land became the USA. Then there was another century or so of institutiaonalized slavery, Jim Crow, and SEVERAL laws that had to be passed decades apart to reaffirm their rights to work, live and go to school anywhere they wanted. Then you might have a slam dunk case.

When civil rights are violated, you have to ask HOW and WHY. The comparison of gay civil rights to the black civil rights movement is wrought with errors....and it is YOU and others who throw a hissy fit whenever someone points out the logical flaws in that comparison because you perceive ANY criticism of the gay rights movement as homophobic in nature.

I've got NO problem with gay folk seeking civil rights....just so long as they do it honestly. That way, if I disagree with any tactic or aspect of their platform, it will be easier to discuss.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???...sorry, I'm only 58......it isn't up to me to create definitions.......all of humanity has known what marriage is for thousands of years.....it is defined by society....
Click to expand...

That is quite true. But the "definition" is not unchanging. There is no reason why society can't change the definition again.

Further, where the custom meets law it is not above the Constitution.


PostmodernProphet said:
you keep ignoring the fact that marrying someone of the same sex is NOT a fundamental right....
Click to expand...

Marriage is a fundamental right. It is very much a part of the doctrine that "a man's home is his castle" which has long been a bedrock of our common law.

PostmodernProphet said:
it is, in fact, an impossibility, since a union with someone of the same sex cannot, by definition, BE a marriage....
Click to expand...

Your arbitrary definition. I see no more reason why it can't be defined as a marriage than I see a reason why an interracial marriage cannot.

PostmodernProphet said:
of course it's different, see the above....
Click to expand...

See what? You have not addressed this.

PostmodernProphet said:
I'm not being dishonest at all.....you cannot ignore the fact that conservatives oppose federal involvement.....if Massachusetts wishes to act like fools, let them.....just give us the power to ignore them.....
Click to expand...

Again the FMA. It's not DOMA. It's intent is to regulate marriage at the federal level.
 
Taichiliberal said:
It doesn't matter to YOU...because what YOU are doing here is pointing to the ETHNIC differences and biases among caucasians. BIG FREAKING DIFFERENCE from HOMOSEXUALS comparing their civil rights struggle to that of BLACK PEOPLE in America. And that is what I will prove time and again if necessary. If one is going to fight for civil rights, do it honestly and correctly, I always say.
Click to expand...

The civil rights struggle of blacks has nothing at all in common with the civil rights struggle of gays?

::rolleyes::
 
Taichiliberal said:
Bottom line: When people start creating false premises to achieve their goals, then they lose credibility and create the basis for future problems that undermine any success achieved....much less make the goal that much harder to achieve.

Like I told Winterborn....let me know when there was a RACE of homosexuals shipped in the bowels of boats to be used as slave for nearly 2 centuries BEFORE the land became the USA. Then there was another century or so of institutiaonalized slavery, Jim Crow, and SEVERAL laws that had to be passed decades apart to reaffirm their rights to work, live and go to school anywhere they wanted. Then you might have a slam dunk case.

When civil rights are violated, you have to ask HOW and WHY. The comparison of gay civil rights to the black civil rights movement is wrought with errors....and it is YOU and others who throw a hissy fit whenever someone points out the logical flaws in that comparison because you perceive ANY criticism of the gay rights movement as homophobic in nature.

I've got NO problem with gay folk seeking civil rights....just so long as they do it honestly. That way, if I disagree with any tactic or aspect of their platform, it will be easier to discuss.
Click to expand...

No one is denying the suffering of blacks or that their battle was difficult and long. Women were not enslaved but the struggle for their civil rights certainly shares similarities with that of blacks. This is painfully obvious as they were both civil rights struggles, duh. Arguing otherwise is just stupid.

Do you want gays to be punished a little more before they are permitted to ask for equality before the law?
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
It doesn't matter to YOU...because what YOU are doing here is pointing to the ETHNIC differences and biases among caucasians. BIG FREAKING DIFFERENCE from HOMOSEXUALS comparing their civil rights struggle to that of BLACK PEOPLE in America. And that is what I will prove time and again if necessary. If one is going to fight for civil rights, do it honestly and correctly, I always say.
Click to expand...


RStringfield said:
The civil rights struggle of blacks has nothing at all in common with the civil rights struggle of gays?

::rolleyes::
Click to expand...

We've already done this dance, String. Seems you just trailed off when you couldn't logically or factually fault me on what I was saying.

Start with Post #120, and then take it from there.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Bottom line: When people start creating false premises to achieve their goals, then they lose credibility and create the basis for future problems that undermine any success achieved....much less make the goal that much harder to achieve.

Like I told Winterborn....let me know when there was a RACE of homosexuals shipped in the bowels of boats to be used as slave for nearly 2 centuries BEFORE the land became the USA. Then there was another century or so of institutiaonalized slavery, Jim Crow, and SEVERAL laws that had to be passed decades apart to reaffirm their rights to work, live and go to school anywhere they wanted. Then you might have a slam dunk case.

When civil rights are violated, you have to ask HOW and WHY. The comparison of gay civil rights to the black civil rights movement is wrought with errors....and it is YOU and others who throw a hissy fit whenever someone points out the logical flaws in that comparison because you perceive ANY criticism of the gay rights movement as homophobic in nature.

I've got NO problem with gay folk seeking civil rights....just so long as they do it honestly. That way, if I disagree with any tactic or aspect of their platform, it will be easier to discuss.
Click to expand...

RStringfield said:
No one is denying the suffering of blacks or that their battle was difficult and long. I never said they did.....you should pay attention to what I write and ignore your penchant for seeing what YOU want me to write. Women were not enslaved but the struggle for their civil rights certainly shares similarities with that of blacks. This is painfully obvious as they were both civil rights struggles, duh. What's "painfully obvious" is that ANYONE DENIED THE SAME RIGHT, (i.e., voting) shares that struggle...BUT NOT NECESSARILY FOR THE SAME REASONS OR BY THE SAME MEANS. Arguing otherwise is just stupid. And yet, here you are doing just that.

Do you want gays to be punished a little more before they are permitted to ask for equality before the law? How does my pointing out an erroneous comparison translate into advocating "punishment" for gays wanting certain equality that's denied them? Stop trying to distort the discussion with these bogus dodges.
Click to expand...

What's "stupid" is your stubborn attempts to detract from my point with endless repetition of "examples" that eventually lead to the same correction.

We've done this dance, String....here are the posts to which you can read my answers to your predictable rebuttal. If you come up with any new angle, I'll respond.

Posts #120-158-163-164-180-188-211-234-247-248
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
We've already done this dance, String. Seems you just trailed off when you couldn't logically or factually fault me on what I was saying.

Start with Post #120, and then take it from there.
Click to expand...

Uhhh... no. the last post in the earlier exchange, 193, was mine. You never gave any further support to your ridiculous notion that discrimination must be based on something that is visually obvious.
 
What's "painfully obvious" is that ANYONE DENIED THE SAME RIGHT, (i.e., voting) shares that struggle...BUT NOT NECESSARILY FOR THE SAME REASONS OR BY THE SAME MEANS. Arguing otherwise is just stupid. And yet, here you are doing just that.
Click to expand...

You are arguing that they are not comparable at all. Nobody said they were identical struggles. Of course not, largely because the previous struggles shape the next. IMO, the struggle for civil rights is one movement.

How does my pointing out an erroneous comparison translate into advocating "punishment" for gays wanting certain equality that's denied them? Stop trying to distort the discussion with these bogus dodges.
Click to expand...

The only distinction between the two struggles you cite is the greater suffering of blacks. That is not relevant unless you are demanding blood from gays before they are given equal rights. Yes, blacks suffered more. So?

What's "stupid" is your stubborn attempts to detract from my point with endless repetition of "examples" that eventually lead to the same correction.
Click to expand...

I have not heard you correct you errors nor have you responded concerning those examples.


We've done this dance, String....here are the posts to which you can read my answers to your predictable rebuttal. If you come up with any new angle, I'll respond.

Posts #120-158-163-164-180-188-211(response to damo)-234(response to damo)-247(response to to winterborn)-248(response to damo)
Click to expand...

I did not look at 188 or anything previous because you have not responded to 193. You have not given any compelling argument for you ignorant notion that discrimination must be based on visual information alone. Again, you must be confusing discrimination and racism as being the same thing.
__________________
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
I'm not sure why you need an explanation....marriage is a union between a man and a woman....what part of "same sex" are you missing....
Click to expand...

And within a very short period of time, the term marriage will include those of the same sex.

Society is not stagnant; but certain individuals are.
 
RStringfield said:
That is quite true. But the "definition" is not unchanging. There is no reason why society can't change the definition again.
Click to expand...
does that justify forcing change upon it?.....

Marriage is a fundamental right. It is very much a part of the doctrine that "a man's home is his castle" which has long been a bedrock of our common law.
Click to expand...
what you are advocating here is not marriage.....what does a fundamental right to marriage have to do with this argument?....

Your arbitrary definition. I see no more reason why it can't be defined as a marriage than I see a reason why an interracial marriage cannot.
Click to expand...
again, it isn't my definition.....it's society's definition......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top