Active Users:239 Time:25/05/2024 02:07:11 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 1492 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. Helene - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 920 Views
One small problem... Phelix - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 938 Views
Re tax. Rebekah - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 969 Views
That seems sensible to me. SilverWarder - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 815 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." Dannymac - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 971 Views
Nice. *NM* Camilla - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 564 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people. Cannoli - 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM 1137 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there! Dannymac - 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM 953 Views
Who else should make those decisions? Cannoli - 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM 896 Views
I'd totally... Ectheledhel - 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM 868 Views
I'd totally... ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM 1013 Views
You'd defend this idiot? *NM* Ectheledhel - 08/08/2010 06:40:34 AM 450 Views
Indeed ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 948 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 938 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 849 Views
Um, ok. *NM* everynametaken - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 452 Views
*Shakes Head* Dannymac - 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM 822 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM* ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM 480 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. Great Lord of Chaos - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 911 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense. ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM 874 Views
Gah! You did that on purpose! Vodalus - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 826 Views
whoops *NM* ßelals Girl - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 414 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* Cannoli - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 865 Views
I still do not see how you think marriage is a "pointless" institution LadyLorraine - 08/08/2010 08:05:45 PM 965 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 395 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. Dannymac - 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM 808 Views
You cannot be that stupid. Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM 1096 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 977 Views
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. Dreaded Anomaly - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1185 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment random thoughts - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 810 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too Isaac - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 837 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* Ectheledhel - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 449 Views
Did I say there was anything? Isaac - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 959 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad. Camilla - 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM 881 Views
Is that assumption valid? Isaac - 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM 829 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? Camilla - 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM 810 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? Isaac - 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM 928 Views
Not really snoopcester - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 786 Views
Re: Not really Isaac - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 910 Views
Re: Not really snoopcester - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 795 Views
Re: Not really Isaac - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 944 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 957 Views
... Camilla - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 837 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too snoopcester - 09/08/2010 11:25:39 AM 841 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too Isaac - 09/08/2010 11:51:50 AM 806 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too snoopcester - 09/08/2010 01:18:35 PM 893 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too Isaac - 09/08/2010 02:54:19 PM 913 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage LadyLorraine - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 963 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage Isaac - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 785 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. Dannymac - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 893 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. Isaac - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 782 Views
Great post Danny SilverWarder - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 645 Views
It should be noted again... Jeordam - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM 935 Views
and how is it not a right? LadyLorraine - 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM 812 Views
My definition of rights... Jeordam - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 938 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right. LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM 713 Views
+1 Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 03:11:22 AM 991 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example Isaac - 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM 810 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM 926 Views
If we need a more specific resolution... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM 1100 Views
No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context Isaac - 10/08/2010 05:25:57 AM 806 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 03:04:39 PM 1105 Views
That's really a ridiculous stance, you do realize. Legolas - 10/08/2010 03:23:02 PM 774 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 644 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context Isaac - 10/08/2010 03:46:56 PM 994 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 806 Views
It also doesn't say they can Isaac - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 812 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. Legolas - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 790 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so Isaac - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 823 Views
I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point. LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 06:09:32 PM 800 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 730 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 406 Views
To clarify for you SilverWarder - 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM 736 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM 1175 Views
I'm not sure that I would call the Security Council the 'Enforcement Body' SilverWarder - 10/08/2010 08:43:02 PM 784 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 1040 Views
Disagree - but it's most a matter of definition there SilverWarder - 11/08/2010 04:31:53 PM 944 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... Jeordam - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 747 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 434 Views
That means it is up to the people. And they say "No." *NM* Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:13:12 PM 438 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination SilverWarder - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 988 Views
Why don't YOU back up your assertion that the right to marry exists? *NM* Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:16:02 PM 452 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right. Dreaded Anomaly - 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM 884 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction... Vodalus - 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM 960 Views
I agree LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 693 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1030 Views
Note it all you want... Dannymac - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 680 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 454 Views
The best one yet. Camilla - 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM 927 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane SilverWarder - 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM 805 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane Camilla - 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM 910 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane SilverWarder - 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM 791 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane Camilla - 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM 913 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel SilverWarder - 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM 889 Views
Re: Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel Camilla - 11/08/2010 05:09:23 PM 881 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes