Active Users:447 Time:16/06/2025 04:49:15 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. Dannymac Send a noteboard - 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM
Look who's talking! You don't see that granting a special privilege and a novelty institution is a dagnerous precedent, much less compelling others to render artificial respect and legal obligations to said institution, just because you perceive an iniquity where none exists. Because of the aberrant behavior and choices of homosexuals exclude them by their own choice from certain social constructs and lifestyles, they demand that a pointless institution be created and legally empowered, even forced down the throats of those who do not share their beliefs. This is not a case of inequality or discrimination - the status quo applies equally to both sides. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals have the exact same rights of marriage. Neither may marry a person of the same sex and either may marry any eligible person of the opposite sex. The personal choices of homosexuals to abstain from such arrangements does not entitle them to special privileges, anymore than the refusal of Catholics to eat meat on Fridays entitles them to legally compell restaurants to serve meatless dishes.


So your argument is that since a gay man can marry a woman as much as a straight guy, there is no inequality involved? That alone is gender discrimination by definition.

If it makes you feel any better, in the states where gay marriage is currently legal, you would be able to marry another man, as well, presuming you found one to agree to it. You see? Still all fair!

In what manner do they scare me, and why don't you demonstrate some evidence of that? You are the one making illogical, unreasoned and unsupported arguments. You draw parallels where none exist and compare completely unrelated institutions and practices. You are excoriating people for making a decision that affects their lives and communities because it is at odds with your aesthetic sensibilities.


Homosexuality clearly frightens you. If it did not, you would not care whether gays married or not. As it does not affect you directly, it would not bother you in the least. But it does, doesn't it? Proven. Before you ask, the reason I keep speaking up is because the precedent set by Prop 8 DOES scare me. It could just as easily be turned on me as on Homosexuals. Scapegoats are easy to create.

The only relation between marriage of gays and marriage of Christians that I made was that of a minority group being targeted by a majority using hysterical arguments as justification. You have gotten by now that I am not ACTUALLY advocating banning of Christian marriage, right?

You are the one trying to do damage, by insisting that people make changes they will have to live with and do not want to, according to your ideals, while showing absolutely no evidence of having considered the ramifications beyond an artificial abstract notion of false equality.


In what way will you have to "live with" the changes I am discussing? There are many gays married to each other. How are they affecting you? At all?

I am not showing evidence of having considered ramifications because there frankly aren't any, besides one: Homosexuals will be able to enjoy the benefits of marriage to each other. No one is asking you to be happy about homosexual marriage, or even approve of it. You can be as disapproving as you want, so long as you respect the personal rights of the people involved.

You are a shallow, thoughtless and selfish demagogue, regardless of ideology.


Yeah, I am the shallow, thoughtless, and selfish demagogue. The one who is advocating for the equality of a group he does not belong to, man is that selfish.

I COULD be like you, advocating continued oppression of a group I don't belong to, angrily protecting an unequal status quo. Man, I wish I could be selfless like that.

Eschew Verbosity
This message last edited by Dannymac on 08/08/2010 at 10:48:35 PM
Reply to message
Let's ban all Christian Marriage. Dannymac - 07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM 1632 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. Helene - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 1034 Views
One small problem... Phelix - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 1061 Views
Re tax. Rebekah - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 1102 Views
That seems sensible to me. SilverWarder - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 952 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." Dannymac - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 1093 Views
Nice. *NM* Camilla - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 617 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people. Cannoli - 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM 1270 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there! Dannymac - 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM 1085 Views
Who else should make those decisions? Cannoli - 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM 1022 Views
I'd totally... Ectheledhel - 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM 980 Views
I'd totally... ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM 1140 Views
You'd defend this idiot? *NM* Ectheledhel - 08/08/2010 06:40:34 AM 507 Views
Indeed ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 1072 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering. everynametaken - 08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM 1070 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged Cannoli - 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM 982 Views
Um, ok. *NM* everynametaken - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 507 Views
*Shakes Head* Dannymac - 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM 945 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM* ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM 540 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. Great Lord of Chaos - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 1043 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense. ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM 1009 Views
Gah! You did that on purpose! Vodalus - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 956 Views
whoops *NM* ßelals Girl - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 464 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* Cannoli - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 993 Views
I still do not see how you think marriage is a "pointless" institution LadyLorraine - 08/08/2010 08:05:45 PM 1092 Views
No, I was referring to same-sex marriage. Real marriage hardly counts as a novelty. *NM* Cannoli - 11/08/2010 02:28:43 PM 452 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. Dannymac - 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM 938 Views
You cannot be that stupid. Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM 1212 Views
There's a lot of ridiculous arguments here, but I'll focus on just one of them... Legolas - 11/08/2010 03:38:05 PM 1091 Views
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. Dreaded Anomaly - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1319 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment random thoughts - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 926 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too Isaac - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 967 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* Ectheledhel - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 511 Views
Did I say there was anything? Isaac - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 1082 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad. Camilla - 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM 1000 Views
Is that assumption valid? Isaac - 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM 953 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? Camilla - 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM 941 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? Isaac - 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM 1053 Views
Not really snoopcester - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 914 Views
Re: Not really Isaac - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 1046 Views
Re: Not really snoopcester - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 909 Views
Re: Not really Isaac - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 1063 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 1082 Views
... Camilla - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 958 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too snoopcester - 09/08/2010 11:25:39 AM 986 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too Isaac - 09/08/2010 11:51:50 AM 924 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too snoopcester - 09/08/2010 01:18:35 PM 1033 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too Isaac - 09/08/2010 02:54:19 PM 1048 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage LadyLorraine - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 1093 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage Isaac - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 899 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. Dannymac - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 1028 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. Isaac - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 905 Views
Great post Danny SilverWarder - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 780 Views
It should be noted again... Jeordam - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM 1076 Views
and how is it not a right? LadyLorraine - 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM 950 Views
My definition of rights... Jeordam - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 1073 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right. LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM 831 Views
+1 Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 03:11:22 AM 1109 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example Isaac - 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM 936 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM 1064 Views
If we need a more specific resolution... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM 1244 Views
No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context Isaac - 10/08/2010 05:25:57 AM 927 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 03:04:39 PM 1250 Views
That's really a ridiculous stance, you do realize. Legolas - 10/08/2010 03:23:02 PM 886 Views
The point is that marriage IS a right, one which cannot be denied based upon sexual orientation *NM* Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 07:04:16 PM 717 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context Isaac - 10/08/2010 03:46:56 PM 1120 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though. Dreaded Anomaly - 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM 925 Views
It also doesn't say they can Isaac - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 937 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. Legolas - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 927 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so Isaac - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 949 Views
I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point. LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 06:09:32 PM 923 Views
Re: I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point. Isaac - 10/08/2010 06:33:56 PM 856 Views
It's mentioned as a right in some SC decision quoted in that Walker opinion. *NM* Legolas - 10/08/2010 06:51:13 PM 461 Views
To clarify for you SilverWarder - 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM 856 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM 1305 Views
I'm not sure that I would call the Security Council the 'Enforcement Body' SilverWarder - 10/08/2010 08:43:02 PM 897 Views
The fact that it is capable of authorizing the use of military force makes it an enforcement body Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 10:33:59 PM 1170 Views
Disagree - but it's most a matter of definition there SilverWarder - 11/08/2010 04:31:53 PM 1076 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... Jeordam - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 880 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 491 Views
That means it is up to the people. And they say "No." *NM* Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:13:12 PM 495 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination SilverWarder - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 1121 Views
Why don't YOU back up your assertion that the right to marry exists? *NM* Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:16:02 PM 496 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right. Dreaded Anomaly - 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM 1006 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction... Vodalus - 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM 1088 Views
I agree LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 806 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1171 Views
Note it all you want... Dannymac - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 798 Views
No, they seek to expand the terms of the partnership. Homosexuals can & do get married normally *NM* Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:14:25 PM 508 Views
The best one yet. Camilla - 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM 1056 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane SilverWarder - 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM 923 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane Camilla - 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM 1034 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane SilverWarder - 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM 924 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane Camilla - 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM 1044 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel SilverWarder - 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM 1047 Views
Re: Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel Camilla - 11/08/2010 05:09:23 PM 998 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes