@Ionus,
Quote:You have created both sides of the argument and found in your favour . That is delusional
This accusation has no basis in fact. However, a simple review of our conversation discloses that you are the one guilty of creating strawmen arguments to counter. By your own standard, you are the delusional one.
Ionus wrote:
You understand very little . . . I was proposing (events have overtaken it) a compromise in that the full legal rights of heterosexual marriage be applied to homosexual unions, we just find a different name for it because it is the name that is creating the divisiveness."
I understood your argument. It is the "separate but [allegedly] equal" argument that was rejected by the Supreme Court. You may google and find authoritative sources to verify this fact. I now understand, however, that you are opposed to googling--you ridicule self-education and reliance on historical facts and authority--and would rather pull "delusional" stuff out of your uninformed head. So far, that is your modus operandi.
It is the unequal treatment of historically disfavored groups of people that creates divisiveness, not the failure of the oppressed to accept the crumbs offered to them. When we all can agree that the Fourteenth Amendment means what it says and is enforceable by persons deprived of equal protection under the law, then perhaps the divisiveness will come to an end.
"Ionus" wrote:Of course arrogance and stupidity won the day . Who wants to compromise when you have a cause that makes you feel powerful and righteous . People like you just want to push others around, carrying on with bullshit about slavery . Really ? How dare you compare homosexuality with slavery ! You are truely an obnoxious desperate character.
Please do not misrepresent my argument. I am comparing our nation's history of discrimination against black people to our nation's history of discrimination against homosexual people. Neither is acceptable, which is the point that you seek to evade with disingenuous outrage. "How dare you" indeed.
You are displaying a temper tantrum because your proffered "compromise" to keep the institution of marriage for yourself, and to establish a separate and allegedly equal institution for other people was rejected.
Anti-miscegenation laws and Jim Crow laws that became prevalent after the emancipation of the slaves were designed to allow those with delusions of superiority to oppress the blacks. Those are things that were truly obnoxious in our history, yet you refuse to recognize the parallel between the past and the present. If you understand that it wasn't acceptable to oppress people based on the color of their skin (and that oppression caused divisiveness), then why do you think it is acceptable now to oppress people based on their sexual orientation? The only ones causing divisiveness are the ones who somehow view themselves as superior and don't want homosexual people included in their precious institution of marriage, which is a civil institution (not a religious institution).
Debra wrote:you might of said the same thing to proponents of equal civil rights for our nation's black citizens
Ionus wrote:My service in helping black people pisses all over yours so dont get uppity with me .
I don't believe you. You have offered no evidence in support of your assertion. Your choice of the word "uppity", which word has significant historical meaning, says a lot about you. I will not kowtow to your command. I will get "uppity" whenever it pleases me to do so.
Ionus wrote:What about de-facto relationships, do they have to sit at the back of the bus ?
Ionus wrote:I cannot answer that question until you provide me with a definition of "de facto relationships". An online urban online dictionary defines the phrase as a dating relationship wherein the two people involved tell their friends they are not dating, just hanging out. I don't know how this relates to the subject of civil rights and second class citizenship.
Ionus wrote: "Ok, Ok, I get it already..it was online...gees ! You would have done better to use a real dictionary :
Quote:De facto (/dɨ ˈfæktoʊ/, /deɪ-/, Latin: [deː ˈfaktoː]) is a Latin expression that means "in fact, in reality, in actual existence, force, or possession, as a matter of fact" (literally "from fact").
They are also known as common law marriages, defacto relationships, domestic relationships, close personal relationships, and domestic partnerships to name a few . The original concept of a "common-law marriage" is a marriage that is considered valid by both partners, but has not been formally recorded with a state or religious registry, or celebrated in a formal religious service . In effect, the act of the couple representing themselves to others as being married, and organizing their relation as if they were married, acts as the evidence that they are married . Your choice of a definition was silly and self serving .
I have no quarrel with the definition of "de facto." I don't know what you mean when you use the expression to modify the word "relationships" within the context of our conversation. You still haven't made yourself clear. It doesn't appear that you even understand that marriage is a civil contract that may be entered, maintained, and dissolved only in accordance with civil laws. To the extent you're asking me whether same-sex couples who are denied the right to marry but have the right to enter "domestic partnerships" sit in the back of the bus (in the proverbial sense), then the answer is YES. They are being treated as second-class citizens.
