Quote:Ok, the. We do acknowledge differences, and can discriminate between them. I agree

Nope this comment is pure derp as was the last

Just another smoke screen to hide your bigoted nonsense behind

The lengths you go to rationalize it are sad .

I also wonder if roadkill understands that the implications of  his own argument could be turned against him

(July 18, 2018 at 5:34 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I do think they are different, and different from two people of the opposite sex being joined in marriage.

You're right, RR. Gay couples and straight couples are different. What you and your neanderthal buddies don't seem to get (and I'm seriously beginning to believe it's intentional obtuseness), is that those different couples are supposed to be treated equally under the law.

(July 18, 2018 at 5:34 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: They are different, and therefore not equal.

Bullshit. Just because something is different, doesn't mean it's not equal.

8+8 = 4*4 = 128/8 <----- They're all different yet they're all equal.

For fuck's sake, the logic your using could just as easily be used by segregation era racial bigots (a mixed race couple is different, and therefore not equal), and probably was.

Bigotry is bigotry no matter how you dress it up and try to defend it. You claim it's a sin? Well, the Seventh Day Adventists claim to this day that mixing the races is a sin and can provide "scriptural evidence" to back it up. Are you going to defend the retrograde position of your SDA brothers in christ with the same fervor with which you defend your own?

(July 18, 2018 at 5:42 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: and everyone is equal.

Under the law? Bet your ass they're certainly supposed to be.

(July 18, 2018 at 8:40 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(July 18, 2018 at 5:34 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I do think they are different, and different from two people of the opposite sex being joined in marriage.

You're right, RR. Gay couples and straight couples are different. What you and your neanderthal buddies don't seem to get (and I'm seriously beginning to believe it's intentional obtuseness), is that those different are supposed to be treated equally under the law.

(July 18, 2018 at 5:34 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: They are different, and therefore not equal.

Bullshit. Just because something is different, doesn't mean it's not equal.

8+8 = 4*4 = 128/8 <----- They're all different yet they're all equal.

For fuck's sake, the logic your using could just as easily be used by segregation era racial bigots (a mixed race couple is different, and therefore not equal), and probably was.

Bigotry is bigotry no matter how you dress it up and try to defend it. You claim it's a sin? Well, the Seventh Day Adventists claim to this day that mixing the races is a sin and can provide "scriptural evidence" to back it up. Are you going to defend the retrograde position of your SDA brothers in christ with the same fervor with which you defend your own?

(July 18, 2018 at 5:42 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: and everyone is equal.

Under the law? Bet your ass they're certainly supposed to be.

Not to mention his line of reasoning could be used for some very uncomfortable positions

(July 18, 2018 at 8:40 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(July 18, 2018 at 5:34 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I do think they are different, and different from two people of the opposite sex being joined in marriage.

You're right, RR. Gay couples and straight couples are different. What you and your neanderthal buddies don't seem to get (and I'm seriously beginning to believe it's intentional obtuseness), is that those different couples are supposed to be treated equally under the law.

(July 18, 2018 at 5:34 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: They are different, and therefore not equal.

Bullshit. Just because something is different, doesn't mean it's not equal.

8+8 = 4*4 = 128/8 <----- They're all different yet they're all equal.

For fuck's sake, the logic your using could just as easily be used by segregation era racial bigots (a mixed race couple is different, and therefore not equal), and probably was.

Bigotry is bigotry no matter how you dress it up and try to defend it. You claim it's a sin? Well, the Seventh Day Adventists claim to this day that mixing the races is a sin and can provide "scriptural evidence" to back it up. Are you going to defend the retrograde position of your SDA brothers in christ with the same fervor with which you defend your own?

(July 18, 2018 at 5:42 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: and everyone is equal.

Under the law? Bet your ass they're certainly supposed to be.

Simmer down now.... that was just a statement (not a logical claim).  And if you disagree, we can make all three instances equal again, and go back to that.  I'm not saying that they don't deserve equal rights (and dignity) as a person.  I simply don't agree with changing the definition of marriage to make up for that difference, anymore than you don't agree with it for the other differences.  There is not any rights being denied in one any more than the other. If so what are they, and why don't you think that a single person or other deserve these rights.  The law is about equal rights, not that everything is treated the same, and that we have to re-define terms, to make them the same, if they are not.

Intolerance of intolerance is not a vice.

Quote:Simmer down now.... that was just a statement (not a logical claim).  And if you disagree, we can make all three instances equal again, and go back to that.  I'm not saying that they don't deserve equal rights (and dignity) as a person.  I simply don't agree with changing the definition of marriage to make up for that difference, anymore than you don't agree with it for the other differences.  There is not any rights being denied in one any more than the other. If so what are they, and why don't you think that a single person or other deserve these rights.  The law is about equal rights, not that everything is treated the same, and that we have to re-define terms, to make them the same, if they are not.

More wordy crap 

That does not challenge Gentleman's truth bomb

---

(July 18, 2018 at 9:59 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Intolerance of intolerance is not a vice.

One we can't afford

This is being talked about like changing a definition is some magical act of oppression. No one can force anyone to mean something different by a word. I could make it clear to everyone that when I say "marriage", I always mean the man/woman kind. Similarly, no one can be forced to interpret words a certain way.

Words still have multiple meanings, and in this case it's the definition of secular marriage that is being brought in line with the legal status. People can continue to talk about informal marriage, religious marriage, or fucking toaster marriage as much as they want. No one is going to arrest you for doing so. It's also still dependent on what country you are in, America isn't the whole world!

The "man/woman" thing is a blatant restriction which is irrelevant to everything else marriage is about (outside of any religious connotations). It's not the point of marriage, or the defining feature. The fact that some people think that it is, just shows how their mind works. And again, no one is forcing them to update what they mean by words. The restriction is/was there due to the intolerant nature of society, just like every other case where we have now progressed.

Some people can't bear to think about gays as equals, and I wish they'd just admit to that rather than hiding behind this utter shite.

---

PS: The alternative would be to make up a new word, and apply it to everybody (not just gay "marriage"). We can then use the old word just to refer to countries/institutions which continue to stipulate man/woman. But outside of legal speak, no one could enforce this either.

(July 18, 2018 at 11:39 pm)robvalue Wrote: This is being talked about like changing a definition is some magical act of oppression. No one can force anyone to mean something different by a word. I could make it clear to everyone that when I say "marriage", I always mean the man/woman kind. Similarly, no one can be forced to interpret words a certain way.

Words still have multiple meanings, and in this case it's the definition of secular marriage that is being brought in line with the legal status. People can continue to talk about informal marriage, religious marriage, or fucking toaster marriage as much as they want. No one is going to arrest you for doing so. It's also still dependent on what country you are in, America isn't the whole world!

The "man/woman" thing is a blatant restriction which is irrelevant to everything else marriage is about (outside of any religious connotations). It's not the point of marriage, or the defining feature. The fact that some people think that it is, just shows how their mind works. And again, no one is forcing them to update what they mean by words. The restriction is/was there due to the intolerant nature of society, just like every other case where we have now progressed.

Some people can't bear to think about gays as equals, and I wish they'd just admit to that rather than hiding behind this utter shite.

I think that you are trying to equivocate here. This is not about who one is attracted to. I’m not saying that a person attracted to the same sex is any less human nor undeserving of basic human rights and dignity. As you said, it is about a definition of marriage. And that we disagree, doesn’t give one liberty to make up lies about another.

(July 18, 2018 at 9:40 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(July 18, 2018 at 8:40 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: You're right, RR. Gay couples and straight couples are different. What you and your neanderthal buddies don't seem to get (and I'm seriously beginning to believe it's intentional obtuseness), is that those different couples are supposed to be treated equally under the law.


Bullshit. Just because something is different, doesn't mean it's not equal.

8+8 = 4*4 = 128/8 <----- They're all different yet they're all equal.

For fuck's sake, the logic your using could just as easily be used by segregation era racial bigots (a mixed race couple is different, and therefore not equal), and probably was.

Bigotry is bigotry no matter how you dress it up and try to defend it. You claim it's a sin? Well, the Seventh Day Adventists claim to this day that mixing the races is a sin and can provide "scriptural evidence" to back it up. Are you going to defend the retrograde position of your SDA brothers in christ with the same fervor with which you defend your own?


Under the law? Bet your ass they're certainly supposed to be.

Simmer down now.... that was just a statement (not a logical claim).  And if you disagree, we can make all three instances equal again, and go back to that.  I'm not saying that they don't deserve equal rights (and dignity) as a person.  I simply don't agree with changing the definition of marriage to make up for that difference, anymore than you don't agree with it for the other differences.  There is not any rights being denied in one any more than the other. If so what are they, and why don't you think that a single person or other deserve these rights.  The law is about equal rights, not that everything is treated the same, and that we have to re-define terms, to make them the same, if they are not.

Ok, RR. I'll ask this question specifically of you since I've never seen you answer it when I ask it generally. Would you consider a change to civil unions as the only legal form of marriage-like status? If you want all the legal rights and responsibilities of "marriage" you have to have a civil union (automatically granted to all who are married when the law takes affect), removing all legal power from a church marriage. In short, get a civil union for all the legal stuff, a church marriage for the "in the eyes of gawd" stuff and let people choose if they want one, the other or both. Because as long as a secular government has the power to marry people, denying them the right to marry whomever they choose is a violation of their rights.

---

(July 19, 2018 at 12:04 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(July 18, 2018 at 11:39 pm)robvalue Wrote: This is being talked about like changing a definition is some magical act of oppression. No one can force anyone to mean something different by a word. I could make it clear to everyone that when I say "marriage", I always mean the man/woman kind. Similarly, no one can be forced to interpret words a certain way.

Words still have multiple meanings, and in this case it's the definition of secular marriage that is being brought in line with the legal status. People can continue to talk about informal marriage, religious marriage, or fucking toaster marriage as much as they want. No one is going to arrest you for doing so. It's also still dependent on what country you are in, America isn't the whole world!

The "man/woman" thing is a blatant restriction which is irrelevant to everything else marriage is about (outside of any religious connotations). It's not the point of marriage, or the defining feature. The fact that some people think that it is, just shows how their mind works. And again, no one is forcing them to update what they mean by words. The restriction is/was there due to the intolerant nature of society, just like every other case where we have now progressed.

Some people can't bear to think about gays as equals, and I wish they'd just admit to that rather than hiding behind this utter shite.

I think that you are trying to equivocate here. This is not about who one is attracted to.  I’m not saying that a person attracted to the same sex is any less human nor undeserving of basic human rights and dignity. As you said, it is about a definition of marriage.  And that we disagree, doesn’t give one liberty to make up lies about another.

You go on and one about the changing definition of marriage. What about the changes that allowed secular institutions to perform marriages. What about the changes for age of consent. These were changes to the definition of marriage. After all, 12-14 year old girls used to be married off to middle-aged men all the fucking time. For fuck's sake you all sound like allowing someone else to take part is somehow depriving you.

(July 19, 2018 at 12:07 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(July 18, 2018 at 9:40 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Simmer down now.... that was just a statement (not a logical claim).  And if you disagree, we can make all three instances equal again, and go back to that.  I'm not saying that they don't deserve equal rights (and dignity) as a person.  I simply don't agree with changing the definition of marriage to make up for that difference, anymore than you don't agree with it for the other differences.  There is not any rights being denied in one any more than the other. If so what are they, and why don't you think that a single person or other deserve these rights.  The law is about equal rights, not that everything is treated the same, and that we have to re-define terms, to make them the same, if they are not.

Ok, RR. I'll ask this question specifically of you since I've never seen you answer it when I ask it generally. Would you consider a change to civil unions as the only legal form of marriage-like status? If you want all the legal rights and responsibilities of "marriage" you have to have a civil union (automatically granted to all who are married when the law takes affect), removing all legal power from a church marriage. In short, get a civil union for all the legal stuff, a church marriage for the "in the eyes of gawd" stuff and let people choose if they want one, the other or both. Because as long as a secular government has the power to marry people, denying them the right to marry whomever they choose is a violation of their rights.

Ah, of course. I forgot about that phrase. That could be the "new" version I referred to in my PS. CUs could have all the legal power, and marriage could just be ceremonial. I see no problem with that, in theory.

I should add that a church ceremonial marriage already doesn't have any legal power; a secular legal document being optionally included is all that actually matters. [I realize on reflection that you already implied this]