Who doesn't back gay marriage?

@spendius,

Quote:

So the legislatures of 40 odd states are "ignorant" are they?

Oh my good dog! You even hafta ask, Spendi. How many state legislatures, how many federal legislatures allowed untold examples of discrimination?

Quote:

Plain women are discriminated against. People who are in any way out of the ordinary physically are discriminated against regarding prices for clothes.

There's severe educational discrimination against kids that come from poor homes. And when they grow up don't understand tax havens.

How many times is this dumb dumb dumb argument going to be raised?

Quote:

The discrimination argument is not going to get a lot of sympathy. It's special pleading.

Certainly not from folks with 18th century minds. The battle was long but women, Blacks, and some others haven't done too too bad.

Quote:

I bet these homosexuals discriminate against somebody all day long. Or are having it done for them in a way to help them not notice.

How many times is this dumb dumb dumb argument going to be raised?

2 Replies

@JTT,

You really have got a dose of what Apisa has JT.

Declaring a statement "dumb" is not in the slightest way to contradict it or even question it.

As for tiresome repetition, the statement that homosexual marriage should be approved is near the top of the list. "dumb, dumb, dumb" is near the bottom because it's meaningless.

Are you suggesting that a statement you have heard a few times is somehow incorrect simply because you have heard it before? You of all people.

Wasted words JT, I'm sorry to say.. You are even afraid of charging the legislatures of 40 odd states with being ignorant as you had previously said they must be. You find an ambiguous expression to avoid it.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Hey JT--I'm getting more down-thumbs than you are.

That should worry you.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

Terrible analogy, McTag.

You may be right there. I'll admit it requires a little thought.

Since homosexual couples are different, why do they want to appear the same? I don't think this is about equality. They are accepted, by most right-thinking people. Just don't mess about with the language. Marriage is not a good word for that situation.

3 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

Quote:
Terrible analogy, McTag.

You may be right there. I'll admit it requires a little thought.

Since homosexual couples are different, why do they want to appear the same? I don't think this is about equality. They are accepted, by most right-thinking people. Just don't mess about with the language. Marriage is not a good word for that situation.

McTag...governmental agencies in the United States recognize, and grant special considerations to, "married" couples. That being the case, if a same sex couple wants to be "married"...they should be allowed to be married. There is no compelling argument for them to be denied that privilege. Nancy and I have been together in a monogamous relationship for 32 years…and we have never deemed it necessary to have any church or political entity consider us “married.” If we wanted to, we could get “married.” Why shouldn’t two same sex individuals enjoy that same right?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

if a same sex couple wants to be "married"...they should be allowed to be married. There is no compelling argument for them to be denied that privilege.

If there is no compelling argument what is the reason for them being denied the privilege in 40 odd states.

I hope it isn't that the legislatures in those states are stupid and talking nonsense because that would call into question the wisdom and efficiency of democratic processes.

4 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
if a same sex couple wants to be "married"...they should be allowed to be married. There is no compelling argument for them to be denied that privilege.

If there is no compelling argument what is the reason for them being denied the privilege in 40 odd states.

I hope it isn't that the legislatures in those states are stupid and talking nonsense because that would call into question the wisdom and efficiency of democratic processes.

IAHCWTGMTSBATDS

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

If there is no compelling argument what is the reason for them being denied the privilege in 40 odd states.

Odd is the key word in that sentence.

Things change. Continuously. That's how societies develop. Some people, cities, states, countries are slower than others.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I hope it isn't that the legislatures in those states are stupid and talking nonsense because that would call into question the wisdom and efficiency of democratic processes.

You're assuming the U.S. is a democracy.

0 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

Marriage is not a good word for that situation.

why?

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Because it already has a particular meaning assigned to it.

I am not comfortable about a woman referring to another woman as her "wife".

2 Replies

@McTag,

Exactly and is just not the wording being questioned is the entire tradition and culture around it...I don't mind they create their own institution with their own rituals with similar civil rights, I just don't like the mingle of the concept, the mishmash coming not just on this issue but in so many other things theses days...my perspective doesn't even focus on the gay marriage per se but applies to all the classical fundamental traditions of any culture being questioned by minorities...for me, my take, its not about civil rights as I gladly concede that point, I just don't want having my own rights trumped in the name of defending other people rights...it doesn't follow !
I'm entitled to defend my own culture while respecting other peoples perspectives...simple !

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Drawing attention to themselves and their sexual behaviour.

Oh, so thy can get bullied (and sometimes murdered) because of it?

Quote:

Being provocative.

When millions of people (like you, it seems) are disgusted byit...?

Quote:

Money.

What is ONE example of a way gay people can make money that straight people can't??

Quote:

Avoiding the opposite sex.

Have you noticed that the "stereotypical gay guy" tends to hang out mostly with girls? And the "stereotypical lesbian" tends to hang out mostly with guys?

There's only one thing homosexual people are trying to do.... and that's exactly what heterosexual people are trying to do. We all just want to be happy and experience great love.

0 Replies

@McTag,

Your discomfort is a reason not to extend rights to other people?

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

Odd is the key word in that sentence.

OK. The states that do have a reason, or reasons, comprise 264 million people out of a total 0f 312 million. About 84%.

So what's the reason or reasons? It can't be that they are "odd".

How many words do you wish the reverse the meaning of. "Gay" is absolutely associated with heterosexuality in the whole of literature before this revisionism got underway. So is "marriage" for officially sanctioned unions between one man and one women for life and so is "odd" for minority tastes.

I consider only widows and widowers entitled to a second "marriage", in agreement with the RC Church and the C of E.

The slippery slope of convenience can only end in a pile of writhing bodies in a heap at the bottom.

Aldous Huxley posited the notion of sexual unions lasting one night. Or dogging. Or cruising. But he had already taken procreation off the table. Kids were hatched and had no parents.

It's a Marxist plot to undermine the family and private property both of which institutions they hate. And Orwell predicted the mangling of word meanings. Doublethink, doublespeak and doubletalk.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I'm entitled to defend my own culture while respecting other peoples perspectives...simple !

not simple at all. That is also how people defend racism.

What makes your personal culture valuable to the greater world?

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

No. You see I don't oppose the substance, the rights themselves, I concede and grant that easily so there is no parallel with racism, but I oppose the form which is just as important...the way I see it this is "cultural hijacking" !
There is a confusion between peoples common rights and cultural mishmash...and yes its is quite simple to grasp... perhaps my rookie English is making my point harder to get but then you must forgive me for my poor choice of words as I am no native English speaker...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

No. You see I don't oppose the substance, the rights themselves, I concede and grant that easily so there is no parallel with racism, but I oppose the form which is just as important...the way I see it this is "cultural hijacking" !
There is a confusion between peoples common rights and cultural mishmash...and yes its is quite simple to grasp... perhaps my rookie English is making my point harder to get but then you must forgive me for my poor choice of words as I am no native English speaker...

I suspect the people taking you to task, Fil...are much less bothered by you "English"...than by your thinking.

You are not thinking in English, are you?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

No. You see I don't oppose the substance, the rights themselves, I concede and grant that easily so there is no parallel with racism, but I oppose the form which is just as important...the way I see it this is "cultural hijacking" !
There is a confusion between peoples common rights and cultural mishmash...and yes its is quite simple to grasp... perhaps my rookie English is making my point harder to get but then you must forgive me for my poor choice of words as I am no native English speaker...

I suspect the people taking you to task, Fil...are much less bothered by you "English"...than by your thinking.

You are not thinking in English, are you?

What do you believe Frank ?
Have you anything to say regarding my comments of substance or are you just pissed with me in the other thread ?...

1 Reply

Some of you people don't quite seem to get the entitlement to distinction as a fundamental right itself...a group cultural values better or worse are as worth defending as any human rights as long they don't question or stand in the way of them...why shouldn't classical marriage have its own right to keep being defined as it is ? Whether people like it or not, agree with it or not, that is an entirely different matter, and has nothing to do with civil rights...the confusion is deliberately gross and does nothing more then imposing the perspective of a minority upon a majority under the guise of "freedom" a much abused word these days...

0 Replies

Who doesn't back gay marriage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know