Congratulations Iowa! (only 47 states to go).

@DrewDad,

Quote:

How is my marriage affected if two gay guys decide to get married in Vermont?

because marriage has a common definition, some of which is codified into law. If we change the common definition then what being married means changes for all of us. We can between the two individuals agree to maintain an older definition, for instance my wife and I could agree that we are husband and wife with all of the baggage that those labels carry, but for anyone else looking at us we will be married by the current definition. The definition of married will change to "life partners" if we allow same sex marriage. "Life partner" is not the same thing as "husband" nor "wife". Even if we insist that we are husband and wife we will not be able to demand that others conceptualize us as husband and wife, they will interact with us as if we are life partners, which will be different. I want to be a husband, and to be recognized as a husband, and I object to the gay rights pressure groups in cahoots with the courts working towards taking that away from me.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
How is my marriage affected if two gay guys decide to get married in Vermont?

because marriage has a common definition, some of which is codified into law. If we change the common definition then what being married changes for all of us. We can between the two individuals agree to maintain an older definition, for instance my wife and I could agree that we are husband and wife with all of the baggage that those labels carry, but for anyone else looking at us we will be married by the current definition. The definition of married will change to "life partners" if we allow same sex marriage. "Life partner" is not the same thing as "husband" nor "wife". Even if we insist that we are husband and wife we will not be able to demand that others conceptualize us as husband and wife, they will interact with us as if we are life partners, which will be different. I want to be a husband, and to be recognized as a husband, and I object to the gay rights pressure groups in cahoots with the courts working towards taking that away from me.

What a crock of ****. Even you can't truly believe what you write here. You wish to deny others rights for the most nebulous reasons imaginable - that you fear you will somehow be treated differently? By who and in what way will you be treated differently? Specifically.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
How is my marriage affected if two gay guys decide to get married in Vermont?

*** because marriage has a common definition, some of which is codified into law. If we change the common definition then what being married changes for all of us. ...

What a crock of ****. Even you can't truly believe what you write here. You wish to deny others rights for the most nebulous reasons imaginable - that you fear you will somehow be treated differently? By who and in what way will you be treated differently? Specifically.

for sure. there is one part that's close though. this; *** because marriage has a common definition

*** and here is that common definition; " i love you." "i love you too. we should get married and spend our lives together." that's the way it worked for ms. dtom and myself. pretty much the same with every other married couple we know.

well, except for the divorced ones, of course.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Foxfyre pulls this same line.

It must be in some conservative homophobic instruction book?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
How is my marriage affected if two gay guys decide to get married in Vermont?

because marriage has a common definition, some of which is codified into law. If we change the common definition then what being married means changes for all of us. We can between the two individuals agree to maintain an older definition, for instance my wife and I could agree that we are husband and wife with all of the baggage that those labels carry, but for anyone else looking at us we will be married by the current definition. The definition of married will change to "life partners" if we allow same sex marriage. "Life partner" is not the same thing as "husband" nor "wife". Even if we insist that we are husband and wife we will not be able to demand that others conceptualize us as husband and wife, they will interact with us as if we are life partners, which will be different. I want to be a husband, and to be recognized as a husband, and I object to the gay rights pressure groups in cahoots with the courts working towards taking that away from me.

I don't think it does change the common definition. Two people united by marriage. Husband and wife. Husband and husband. Wife and wife.

If you eliminate marriage, then there are no more husbands, and no more wives, and what once once known as "marriage" becomes "life partners".

But no one has eliminated marriage. So your explanation is very much resembles what my grandfather used to spread on his lawn. (I use synthetic fertilizer, but he hewed to tradition.)

0 Replies

Relevant video (well, it's really just a spoof of a current anti-gay marriage ad):

0 Replies

Oh Finn, I meant to answer this earlier for you...

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

What, by the way, does LGBT stand for? I think I know, but have to wonder why you seem to need to use the silly acronym.

LGBT is a acronym which stands for "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and/or Transgender." The need I see in using this "silly" acronym is a reminder that not only the gay community is affected by this. Why is that "silly?"

Further, If you're going to be taken seriously, shouldn't you know this kind of thing already? It suggests a very shallow understanding of the topic of LGBT social issues.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

It must be in some conservative homophobic instruction book?

Could be, but my money is on intellectual inbreeding.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Could be, but my money is on intellectual inbreeding.

Ideally you and those who are like you would feel that those who think that encouraging homosexual behaviour is a bad idea.....are wrong. But hell no, you have to label them as defective individuals. Such is the sad state of discourse at a2k, and in modern society generally.

This is a sad time for the human race.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

But hell no, you have to label them as defective individuals.

Defective individuals? Sounds familiar....

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

you have to label them as defective individuals.

You did see the word "intellectual" before the word "inbreeding", right? That indicates a defect in your thinking, due to having too little cross-pollination with fresh ideas.

You are not strengthening your argument, here, but rather coming off as small-minded and petty.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

Intellectual inbreeding or academic inbreeding refers to the practice in academia of a university's hiring its own graduates to be professors. It is generally viewed as insular and unhealthy for academia;[1] it is thought to reduce the possibility of new ideas coming in from outside sources, just as genetic inbreeding reduces the possibility of new genes entering in to a population.[2]

Economists David Colander and Arjo Klamer, Ph.D. wrote a book entitled The Making of an Economist which researched the growing concern behind the methodology of academic teaching and the lowering numbers of PhDs in economics granted annually in the United States. Colander-Klamer state the trends described shrinking number of economic professors teaching at the University level would result in intellectual inbreeding.

According to the Commission on Graduate Education in Economics (COGEE), they recognize it as "a trend for emulation rather than diversification." Academic inbreeding has also been cited as a major problem in the major universities of the People's Republic of China"such as Peking University and Tsinghua University, which have adopted measures in recent years specifically to combat the practice[1][3]"and South Korea.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_inbreeding

I assumed that Thomas was making up his own definition for the term, one that was intending to be insulting and to imply defect, as the term as commonly defined is not appropriate in the sense that it was used.

0 Replies

@old europe,

Quote:

Defective individuals? Sounds familiar....

Very much so, which makes be wonder why we don't hammer the gay rights lobby, those who are so quick to condemn all who don't agree with them as bigots and thus defective. They are guilty of the very same mistake that they tar their opponents with. One sticks, the other does not, which goes to show how strong irrational bias runs in what we claim is rational logical thought.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Wait... you're arguing that bigotry and speaking out against bigotry is the same thing, and you complain that both aren't being treated identical?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Defective individuals? Sounds familiar....

Very much so, which makes be wonder why we don't hammer the gay rights lobby, those who are so quick to condemn all who don't agree with them as bigots and thus defective. They are guilty of the very same mistake that they tar their opponents with. One sticks, the other does not, which goes to show how strong irrational bias runs in what we claim is rational logical thought.

The supporters for equal rights for the LGBT community are not only gay. The group is quite diverse and robust in it's argument.

Thomas was using the term correctly. If you read the blurb YOU POSTED you see that it specifically sites the term to mean the prevention of new ideas.

The gay rights lobby is not just condemning by firing into the audience, they are firing very specific rebuttal at old and failed ideas such as the ones you post here. Logic is not biased, and if you want to cry foul because your argument can't but a sound argument together, too bad. If you had something logical to consider it would be.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@old europe,

Quote:

Wait... you're arguing that bigotry and speaking out against bigotry is the same thing, and you complain that both aren't being treated identical?

the knock on fags was that they were defective humans, the knock on those who don't agree with the gays rights agenda is that they are defective humans....it is the same bad behaviour by one set of people who are trying to put down another.

If the gays rights people argued that those who don't agree with them are wrong, and explained why they are wrong, then I would say that they are conducting their political project along the lines that are provided for by the ideals of democracy. What they are doing is something else.

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Wait... you're arguing that bigotry and speaking out against bigotry is the same thing, and you complain that both aren't being treated identical?

the knock on fags was that they were defective humans, the knock on those who don't agree with the gays rights agenda is that they are defective humans....it is the same bad behaviour by one set of people who are trying to put down another.

If the gays rights people argues that those who don't agree with them are wrong, and explained why they are wrong, then I would say that they are conducting the political project along the line that are provided by the ideals of democracy. What they are doing is something else.

To say someone is an intellectual inbreed is explaining why they are wrong: They are insulated from the big picture yet making conclusions about it.

You either can comprehend this concept or you can't, but by YOUR definition, the gay rights lobby via Thomas's statement is "conducting the political project along the line that are provided by the ideals of democracy."

T
K
O

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Another troll armed only with pedantry. When you can't win the argument, create a meta-discussion about the argument itself, and deflect.

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

They are insulated from the big picture yet making conclusions about it

Impossible, individuals who don't agree with the Gay rights agenda are not insulated from the human race, they look out upon the collective and make their own evaluation of what is best for the collective. Unless Thomas wants to argue that all who don't agree with the pro gays rights side are hermits his reasoning is nonsense, life as a human among the human collective and intellectual theory at the academy are not at all the same thing.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

the knock on those who don't agree with the gays rights agenda is that they are defective humans....

hawkeye10 wrote:

If the gays rights people argued that those who don't agree with them are wrong, and explained why they are wrong, then I would say that they are conducting their political project along the lines that are provided for by the ideals of democracy. What they are doing is something else.

You know what it's called when somebody makes up an argument, claims that this is what those who disagree with him are saying, and then proceeds to knock down that argument?

relevant link

0 Replies

Congratulations Iowa! (only 47 states to go).

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know