Same-sex marriage ban (Con't)

[Mr. Fed]

Oh yea, and that other thread was locked because Fireball couldn't communicate under the CoC.

Argue with godhugh or the other mods if you like. I think it's self explanatory.

Very arguably so. But that doesn't address why the particular expression you chose to single out was outrageous.

[Fireball]

I do treat my enemies better than they treat me. I may mock them and deride them, but I have never attempted to use the force of law to destroy their lives, to cheapen their existence or to question their humanity.

And once again, someone addresses tone instead of content. It's because there is not content that can counter the pro-equality position.

[Dirt]

I may mock them and deride them, but I have never attempted to use the force of law to destroy their lives, to cheapen their existence or to question their humanity.

No, you just do it on message boards.

[Fireball]

Apples and oranges.

It's one thing to be impolite to someone who hates you and is arguing in favor of the legal denunciation of the core of your very being.

It's quite another to attempt to pervert the Constitution just to punish a group of innocent, decent, hardworking Americans for not living their lives the way you do.

If you think the two are even remotely similar, the understanding simply eludes you.

[noxiousdog]

Oh yea, and that other thread was locked because Fireball couldn't communicate under the CoC.

Argue with godhugh or the other mods if you like. I think it's self explanatory.

Very arguably so. But that doesn't address why the particular expression you chose to single out was outrageous.

Because it was the proverbial straw.

[Mr. Fed]

Because it was the proverbial straw.

OK. Are you a camel? How many humps do you have?

I think you picked a relatively inoffensive straw when there is plenty of offal mucking up the pen.

[RunningMn9]

He repeatedly supported the gay bashing amendment in Congress. He used his bully pulpit as president to repeatedly push the issue. His party delegation in Congress, which is at his beck and call, were his ground forces in fighting the humanity and dignity of every gay American.

In the event that it matters some day - this was the moment I stopped taking you seriously, on any particular topic.

[noxiousdog]

I do treat my enemies better than they treat me. I may mock them and deride them, but I have never attempted to use the force of law to destroy their lives, to cheapen their existence or to question their humanity.

And once again, someone addresses tone instead of content. It's because there is not content that can counter the pro-equality position.

Kirk, minus the over the top rhetoric, I AGREE WITH YOU! However, if you continue to be such a bad spokesman, I can't side with you.

The only parallel I can make is Ricky Williams. I've been on the marijuna legalization bandwagon for quite a while now, but damn if Ricky Williams doesn't make that a tougher stance to hold publicly.

[noxiousdog]

Because it was the proverbial straw.

OK. Are you a camel? How many humps do you have?

I think you picked a relatively inoffensive straw when there is plenty of offal mucking up the pen.

I picked the last one.

[Fireball]

He repeatedly supported the gay bashing amendment in Congress. He used his bully pulpit as president to repeatedly push the issue. His party delegation in Congress, which is at his beck and call, were his ground forces in fighting the humanity and dignity of every gay American.

In the event that it matters some day - this was the moment I stopped taking you seriously, on any particular topic.

So again, incapable of arguing the point. If you disagree with me, give me a logical reason to change my opinion.

[Dirt]

Fireball is just being a drama-mama.

[RunningMn9]

So again, incapable of arguing the point. If you disagree with me, give me a logical reason to change my opinion.

Excuse me?

There wasn't any point to argue. I asked a question, and you answered it. The problem continues to be your ridiculous over-the-top tone.

So much so that you are taking people that agree with you - that support(ed) your cause, and you are working fervently to turn them against you because you can't answer the simplest question without adding absurd hyperbole to your answer.

That tells me that you can't possibly be serious about what it is you want to achieve - or you are too blockheaded to understand the damage you are doing to your own position. In either case - I can't take you seriously anymore.

[Dirt]

Apples and oranges.

It's one thing to be impolite to someone who hates you and is arguing in favor of the legal denunciation of the core of your very being.

It's quite another to attempt to pervert the Constitution just to punish a group of innocent, decent, hardworking Americans for not living their lives the way you do.

If you think the two are even remotely similar, the understanding simply eludes you.

It was a moment of hyperbole.

[Fireball]

.

[Dirt]

EVERYONE HATES ME AND IS AFTER ME!!! I'M GOING TO DIE!!!!!! AAAUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RunningMn9]

These people call me a danger to the American family. They say I will destroy the world if allowed to marry the person I love. They speak of me as something less than human. They denigrate the very core of my humanity and my existence.... but geepers, 'cause I'm not polite when talking to their minions, I'm clearly the one who's over the top.

I don't even know why I bother.

There are lots of people saying lots of different things. You're acting as if they are all saying the same thing.

The reason that becomes important is that dealing with and dispatching your opponents requires you to deal with them differently. What you are doing is galvanizing the opposition. You want to divide and conquer it.

And you certainly don't want to convert your own soldiers to the enemy's cause. Which is what you are doing here.

[Exodor]

EVERYONE HATES ME AND IS AFTER ME!!! I'M GOING TO DIE!!!!!! AAAUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think this might be a good time to retract my comment about "intelligent and adult debate" from yesterday.


Fireball - I think what many here are trying to explain is that you're being so over-the-top that you're pushing away many who agree with you. I would hope by this point I've established my position on this issue, and even I think you're being needlessly insulting and dramatic.

I get it - you feel beseiged by the Religious Right (tm) and the anti-gay elements in the Republican party. You feel the DoMA is a direct attack on your rights (because it is). But insulting those who disagree with you only makes it that much easier for them to dismiss you as an extremist.

[Dirt]

I think this might be a good time to retract my comment about "intelligent and adult debate" from yesterday.

I call it the Charlie Brown Syndrome.

[Fireball]

Post removed.

It’s difficult, at times, to discuss issues that are of great personal importance to you, particularly when you feel attacked by your country’s leaders, and sometimes its people. This persecution, whether real or imagined, can lead to outbursts that go far beyond what you truly believe about an issue.

Obviously, I support gay marriage, and I am irritated at those who do not. But that doesn’t make those on the other side of the issue bad people, however often they may seem that way from my perspective.

As someone who holds very strong religious beliefs, I respect those of folks who disagree with me. I apologize if my comments caused any harm. I look forward to discussing these sorts of topics in the future with less rancor and more progress.

Quite a difference two years makes, when it comes to one’s tone and perspective.

[Mr. Fed]

The leaders of this movement are doing this for clear reasons of bigotry and malice against homosexuals.

Again, I think this is simplistic. Personally, I suspect that the Prez and VP and their team could give a shit about gays and what they do and are just cynically exploiting anti-gay sentiment for their own political benefit. Not that this is really any better than doing it out of hatred -- it may be worse.

You claim that others support his movement for other reasons, yet no such reasons can ever be found. All proffered justifications come back down to bigotry and malice, time and time again.

I find some of the proffered justifications to involve explicit bigotry and malice, but lots of other proferred justifications to involve bad or circular (or nonexistent) logic or pure religious grounds. I'm convinced that all of it can be dismissed as wrong, but I'm not convinced that all of it can be dismissed as "malicious" or bigoted.

Anyone who would change their position on an issue of fundamental equality simply because they don't like a particular member of the innocent, oppressed minority group is a person whose character and intellect are beneath reproach.

The impact is not limited to people changing their minds on the issue. The impact includes people being embarassed to be associated with a particular side and thus not wanting to carry its banner, or becoming so disgusted with the entire dialogue they go talk about something else.

[Dirt]

The Republicans and their minions are attempting to denigrate my existence and forever render me a second-class citizen.

You're not a second-class citizen; you are in the minority with your sexual preference and political beliefs on marriage. At this point, the majority of Americans still believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. Believing that this age old CULTURAL institution should remain as it always has doesn't make all of us bigots. Being a minority doesn't automatically make you right.

[Fireball]

Post removed.

It’s difficult, at times, to discuss issues that are of great personal importance to you, particularly when you feel attacked by your country’s leaders, and sometimes its people. This persecution, whether real or imagined, can lead to outbursts that go far beyond what you truly believe about an issue.

Obviously, I support gay marriage, and I am irritated at those who do not. But that doesn’t make those on the other side of the issue bad people, however often they may seem that way from my perspective.

As someone who holds very strong religious beliefs, I respect those of folks who disagree with me. I apologize if my comments caused any harm. I look forward to discussing these sorts of topics in the future with less rancor and more progress.

Quite a difference two years makes, when it comes to one’s tone and perspective.

[Fireball]

You're not a second-class citizen; you are in the minority with your sexual preference

Homosexuality is an ORIENTATION not a preference.

[noxiousdog]

Anyone who would change their position on an issue of fundamental equality simply because they don't like a particular member of the innocent, oppressed minority group is a person whose character and intellect are beneath reproach.

What about the ones that just cease listening?

The Republicans and their minions are attempting to denigrate my existence and forever render me a second-class citizen. The leaders of this movement are doing this for clear reasons of bigotry and malice against homosexuals.

Or.... they're being asked to choose between morality and equality. While you seen the two as fundamentally identical, they see them as fundamentally separate.

You claim that others support his movement for other reasons, yet no such reasons can ever be found. All proffered justifications come back down to bigotry and malice, time and time again.

Well, that and scripture.

So until someone provides a reason that is not founded in bigotry and malice, one must logically conclude that bigotry and malice is the justification for all those actively working to amend the Constitution to destroy the hopes of equality for every gay person in America.

Which is a far cry from calling friends and family immeasurably evil.

[Exodor]

You're not a second-class citizen; you are in the minority with your sexual preference and political beliefs on marriage. At this point, the majority of Americans still believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. Believing that this age old CULTURAL institution should remain as it always has doesn't make all of us bigots. Being a minority doesn't automatically make you right.

There was a time not long ago when the majority of Americans believed marriage should be between men and women of the same race.

Being in the majority doesn't automatically make you right either.

And what's more, the constitution is designed to protect the rights of unpopular minorities against the whims of those who would discriminate against them.

There are over 1000 rights granted by the government to married couples that are unavailable to unmarried couples. Some, like the right to privilidged conversation, cannot be gained in any other way than via a marriage license.

Can you explain how denying these rights to gay couples it not discriminatory?

[Dirt]

Why can't gays create cultural rituals and traditions that match marriage? Christmas isn't for everyone. It ties back to a cultural (and religious) tradition that didn't conform to African-American's heritage and culture. That's why many created Kuanzaa and that's what they celebrate. Is Kuanzaa any less of a holiday/ritual/tradition than Christmas? As far as I'm concerned, you can have all civil and legal rights as people who can marry. Marriage, though, is between a man and a woman.

[Dirt]

Can you explain how denying these rights to gay couples it not discriminatory?

I'm not denying anyone any legal rights regardless of their sexual preference. I'm denying them my cultural reference.

[Exodor]

You seem to presume that these people are persuadable. The activist anti-gay types, the ones who come into forums like this and argue in favor of the anti-gay amendments, those who write and organize the votes on such laws, are incapable of being persuaded. They are so steeped in bigotry and their heads so filled with malevolent, religious-inspired anti-gay nonsense that they are incapable of even grasping what reality is for a gay person. They don't even see us as people.

Perhaps not - but there are likely many reading this thread who are not actively posting who may be persuadable. Your current posting style makes you seem extreme and insulting - not the best way to convince people of the validity of your arguments.

I can't help but be an insult to them, because my very existence insults their worldview. Short of cutting open a wrist, and I'm not doing that again, there's nothing I could do to not be a living, breathing affront to these people.

I would never ask you to not be an insult TO them if they think homosexuality is an affront - however, why do you feel the need to compound that by BEING insulting to them?

Locked threads merely make one look like an unstable extremist - and this is coming from someone who has spent quite a bit of time on these boards arguing against the DoMA and the anti-gay forces.

[Exodor]

Why can't gays create cultural rituals and traditions that match marriage? Christmas isn't for everyone. It ties back to a cultural (and religious) tradition that didn't conform to African-American's heritage and culture. That's why many created Kuanzaa and that's what they celebrate. Is Kuanzaa any less of a holiday/ritual/tradition than Christmas? As far as I'm concerned, you can have all civil and legal rights as people who can marry. Marriage, though, is between a man and a woman.

We're talking about CIVIL MARRAIGE here - the rights granted by the government to those holding a marriage license.

You're talking about RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE - the rituals and traditions that take place in churches, synagogues (sp?) and other places of worship.

No one would dare to question the right of religious institutions to marry or not marry who they wish. The government rightly has zero say in that matter.


But that's not what we're talking about.l

[Al]

Why can't gays create cultural rituals and traditions that match marriage?

Why do you want to weaken the institution of marriage, Dirt?

[Exodor]

Can you explain how denying these rights to gay couples it not discriminatory?

I'm not denying anyone any legal rights regardless of their sexual preference. I'm denying them my cultural reference.

So you oppose the Defense of Marriage Amendment?

As FireBall posted, it not only denies marriage but any legal standing that grants gay couples the rights of marriage.

[Fireball]

Can you explain how denying these rights to gay couples it not discriminatory?

I'm not denying anyone any legal rights regardless of their sexual preference.

ORIENTATION, NOT PREFERNCE. Jesus.

And you are denying me legal rights. Like the right to visit the person I love in critical care. The right to make his medical decisions. The right to privileged conversations.

I'm denying them my cultural reference.

It's my culture, too, dammit. I have just as much claim to it as you do.

[Dirt]

Why can't gays create cultural rituals and traditions that match marriage? Christmas isn't for everyone. It ties back to a cultural (and religious) tradition that didn't conform to African-American's heritage and culture. That's why many created Kuanzaa and that's what they celebrate. Is Kuanzaa any less of a holiday/ritual/tradition than Christmas? As far as I'm concerned, you can have all civil and legal rights as people who can marry. Marriage, though, is between a man and a woman.

We're talking about CIVIL MARRAIGE here - the rights granted by the government to those holding a marriage license.

You're talking about RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE - the rituals and traditions that take place in churches, synagogues (sp?) and other places of worship.

No one would dare to question the right of religious institutions to marry or not marry who they wish. The government rightly has zero say in that matter.


But that's not what we're talking about.l

Chinese people have been marrying each other for centuries without churches and synagogues. Marriage is more of a overtly religious institution in the West. It did and does continue to exist without overtly and all important religious overtones/rituals/traditions in other places of the world.

[noxiousdog]

Why can't gays create cultural rituals and traditions that match marriage? Christmas isn't for everyone. It ties back to a cultural (and religious) tradition that didn't conform to African-American's heritage and culture. That's why many created Kuanzaa and that's what they celebrate. Is Kuanzaa any less of a holiday/ritual/tradition than Christmas? As far as I'm concerned, you can have all civil and legal rights as people who can marry. Marriage, though, is between a man and a woman.

Because cultural rituals and traditions don't convey legal status.

And as long as the government conveys one set of standards (marriage) on one group of people and another set of standards (civil unions) on another, you have a Separate but 'Equal' case on your hands.

[LawBeefaroni]

Why can't gays create cultural rituals and traditions that match marriage? Christmas isn't for everyone. It ties back to a cultural (and religious) tradition that didn't conform to African-American's heritage and culture. That's why many created Kuanzaa and that's what they celebrate. Is Kuanzaa any less of a holiday/ritual/tradition than Christmas? As far as I'm concerned, you can have all civil and legal rights as people who can marry. Marriage, though, is between a man and a woman.

Woah.

[SuperHiro]

I remember one time in elementary school, we were playing kickball. There was this one kid. He was also rather overweight, and waddled when he ran. We'll call him Fatty McChubbybucket.

Anyway, we were playing. He was on first, made a run towards second. We had no umps at the time, instead relying on the honor system. The second baseman called him out. Now this second base guy was a real piece of work. Total dillweed assbucket pissant bastard. Pretty much no one liked him; the only reason he was in the game was because the playground teacher made us, we'll call him Dumbass McDillweedassbucket (sidenote: the only reason I was playing was because I didn't want to be the only boy not playing. Remember that "Calvin and Hobbes" comic with baseball? That was me). Dumbass was clearly in the wrong. He was no where near the base when Fatty touched it.

But Fatty went OFF the deep end. We never called Dumbass a dillweed assbucket pissant bastard to his face, but Fatty did. In fact, I learned all the swear words that fateful day in 1987, and the many ways they can be combined. His attack on Dumbass was so vile and so angry that the rest of us (who agreed with Fatty by the way) kinda gathered around and watched. Eventually Fatty got so pissed he picked up the ball, kicked it over the fence, and then ran crying to the other end of the field. After Fatty left, the rest of us admonished Dumbass for being a dumbass and then continued on without Fatty.

Moral of the story: If you leave the kickball field, you don't get to play kickball.

[Dirt]

Can you explain how denying these rights to gay couples it not discriminatory?

I'm not denying anyone any legal rights regardless of their sexual preference.

ORIENTATION, NOT PREFERNCE. Jesus.

And you are denying me legal rights. Like the right to visit the person I love in critical care. The right to make his medical decisions. The right to privileged conversations.

I'm denying them my cultural reference.

It's my culture, too, dammit. I have just as much claim to it as you do.

Sweet Jesus. How many times do I have to type it?

AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, YOU CAN HAVE ALL CIVIL AND LEGAL RIGHTS AS PEOPLE WHO CAN MARRY.

[Exodor]

Chinese people have been marrying each other for without churches and synagogues. Marriage is more of a overtly religious institution in the West. It did and does continue to exist without overtly and all important religious overtones/rituals/traditions in other places of the world.

Interesting - but also totally irrelevant when talking about the rights granted by the government to those who apply for and receive a marriage license.


The argument is about whether gay couples can get married in Southern Baptist churches. The argument is about whether gay couples can receive the rights and recognition from the government that are currently restricted to heterosexual couples with a marriage license.

[Mr. Fed]

I remember one time in elementary school, we were playing kickball. There was this one kid. He was also rather overweight, and waddled when he ran. We'll call him Fatty McChubbybucket.

So wait a minute. I'm confused. Who is the fat kid here? It's me, isn't it? Well, fuck you! It's glandular! I can't help it!

[Dirt]

Chinese people have been marrying each other for without churches and synagogues. Marriage is more of a overtly religious institution in the West. It did and does continue to exist without overtly and all important religious overtones/rituals/traditions in other places of the world.

Interesting - but also totally irrelevant when talking about the rights granted by the government to those who apply for and receive a marriage license.


The argument is about whether gay couples can get married in Southern Baptist churches. The argument is about whether gay couples can receive the rights and recognition from the government that are currently restricted to heterosexual couples with a marriage license.

How many different ways do I have to say this?

I'M NOT AGAINST CIVIL UNIONS.
I SUPPORT CIVIL UNIONS.
LET'S PASS AN AMENDMENT GUARANTEEING GAY COUPLES ALL RIGHTS UNDER LAW AS A CIVIL UNION.