Active Users:335 Time:17/06/2025 06:48:23 AM
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 1635 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. Helene - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 1035 Views
One small problem... Phelix - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 1063 Views
Re tax. Rebekah - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 1105 Views
That seems sensible to me. SilverWarder - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 954 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." Dannymac - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 1096 Views
Nice. *NM* Camilla - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 618 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people. Cannoli - 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM 1272 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there! Dannymac - 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM 1089 Views
Who else should make those decisions? Cannoli - 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM 1024 Views
I'd totally... Ectheledhel - 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM 984 Views
I'd totally... ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM 1141 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 1074 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 1074 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 983 Views
Um, ok. *NM* everynametaken - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 508 Views
*Shakes Head* Dannymac - 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM 947 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM* ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM 541 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. Great Lord of Chaos - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 1044 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense. ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM 1011 Views
Gah! You did that on purpose! Vodalus - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 957 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 996 Views
I still do not see how you think marriage is a "pointless" institution LadyLorraine - 08/08/2010 08:05:45 PM 1093 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 941 Views
You cannot be that stupid. Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM 1215 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 1094 Views
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. Dreaded Anomaly - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1323 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment random thoughts - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 928 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too Isaac - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 968 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* Ectheledhel - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 513 Views
Did I say there was anything? Isaac - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 1084 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad. Camilla - 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM 1002 Views
Is that assumption valid? Isaac - 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM 955 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? Camilla - 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM 944 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? Isaac - 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM 1057 Views
Not really snoopcester - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 917 Views
Re: Not really Isaac - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 1047 Views
Re: Not really snoopcester - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 911 Views
Re: Not really Isaac - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 1065 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 1084 Views
... Camilla - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 961 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too snoopcester - 09/08/2010 11:25:39 AM 987 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too Isaac - 09/08/2010 11:51:50 AM 927 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too snoopcester - 09/08/2010 01:18:35 PM 1035 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too Isaac - 09/08/2010 02:54:19 PM 1051 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage LadyLorraine - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 1095 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage Isaac - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 902 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. Dannymac - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 1029 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. Isaac - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 907 Views
Great post Danny SilverWarder - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 782 Views
It should be noted again... Jeordam - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM 1077 Views
and how is it not a right? LadyLorraine - 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM 952 Views
My definition of rights... Jeordam - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 1075 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right. LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM 834 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 938 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM 1066 Views
If we need a more specific resolution... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM 1246 Views
No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context Isaac - 10/08/2010 05:25:57 AM 929 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 03:04:39 PM 1253 Views
That's really a ridiculous stance, you do realize. Legolas - 10/08/2010 03:23:02 PM 889 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 1122 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 927 Views
It also doesn't say they can Isaac - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 940 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. Legolas - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 930 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so Isaac - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 951 Views
I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point. LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 06:09:32 PM 924 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 858 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 860 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM 1307 Views
I'm not sure that I would call the Security Council the 'Enforcement Body' SilverWarder - 10/08/2010 08:43:02 PM 900 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 1172 Views
Disagree - but it's most a matter of definition there SilverWarder - 11/08/2010 04:31:53 PM 1077 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... Jeordam - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 883 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 496 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination SilverWarder - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 1123 Views
Why don't YOU back up your assertion that the right to marry exists? *NM* Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:16:02 PM 497 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right. Dreaded Anomaly - 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM 1008 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction... Vodalus - 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM 1090 Views
I agree LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 808 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1173 Views
Note it all you want... Dannymac - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 801 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 509 Views
The best one yet. Camilla - 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM 1058 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane SilverWarder - 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM 925 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane Camilla - 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM 1036 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane SilverWarder - 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM 925 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane Camilla - 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM 1047 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel SilverWarder - 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM 1049 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