I don't have the time to read the thread from my last post and make a long reply, but I'll say this:

Living in New England all my life, it's just alien to me that same-sex marriage is still an issue with some people. I mean, for one, it's been a thing in Massachusetts for nearly 15 years, and in my home state for the last 8. Second, I've never really understood the mentality of "I find a personal decision between two people that has no negative affects on the community so abhorrent that I'm going to vote to prohibit anyone from engaging in it."

I mean, I'm a straight guy. As a straight guy, gay male sex is the opposite of appealing to me. But, I've never thought "I find it icky*, so I must stop others from doing it." I recognize that what people do in private isn't my fucking business (with the usual caveats - that it's consensual, between adults, and doesn't result in harm). And, more than that, I want people of all stripes to enjoy the same rights and privileges as I do.

*Icky, sinful, immoral, whatever... the point remains.

(July 21, 2018 at 12:30 pm)polymath257 Wrote:

(July 21, 2018 at 9:45 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: There is nothing wrong with criticism, and I never said otherwise.  This is about being able to have an honest and civil discussion.  I’m not going to keep fighting against what is only in your imagination, and whatever polemic you ty an twist to gain rhetorical advantage.

Let me put it this way.

Suppose someone claimed that inter-racial marriage isn't a real marriage and that real marriage is limited to those of the same race. Suppose that they point to the historical separation of the races as justified both societally and by religion.

Would you not say this person is a bigot?

The situation with gay marriage is *exactly* the same.

It is not even *remotely* the same.

The main point of contention is the definition of marriage. In your attempt at a parallel, you didn't change any definitions. No one would ever say that two people of different races can't logically get married. If you have a problem with the concept of an interracial marriage, you would be bigoted because the objection is based on race not on the definition of marriage. 

Using the ten millennium old definition of marriage, it is illogical for same sex to get married. 

I don't care [at all] if you think the definition should be changed. That is your opinion. What does NOT FOLLOW is that wishing to preserve the definition makes you a bigot.

(July 23, 2018 at 8:33 am)SteveII Wrote:

(July 21, 2018 at 12:30 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Let me put it this way.

Suppose someone claimed that inter-racial marriage isn't a real marriage and that real marriage is limited to those of the same race. Suppose that they point to the historical separation of the races as justified both societally and by religion.

Would you not say this person is a bigot?

The situation with gay marriage is *exactly* the same.

It is not even *remotely* the same.

The main point of contention is the definition of marriage. In your attempt at a parallel, you didn't change any definitions. No one would ever say that two people of different races can't logically get married. If you have a problem with the concept of an interracial marriage, you would be bigoted because the objection is based on race not on the definition of marriage. 

Using the ten millennium old definition of marriage, it is illogical for same sex to get married. 

I don't care [at all] if you think the definition should be changed. That is your opinion. What does NOT FOLLOW is that wishing to preserve the definition makes you a bigot.

On the contrary, people *did* argue that it was *logically* impossible for two races to marry, just as it would be *logically* impossible for humans to marry chimps (that was the argument).

The *definition* of marriage is 'a societally recognized bond used to form a family unit'. There is *no* reason that can't be applied to gay marriage. And, to deny it, is a form of bigotry.

(July 23, 2018 at 8:33 am)SteveII Wrote: polymath2
It is not even *remotely* the same.

The main point of contention is the definition of marriage. In your attempt at a parallel, you didn't change any definitions. No one would ever say that two people of different races can't logically get married. If you have a problem with the concept of an interracial marriage, you would be bigoted because the objection is based on race not on the definition of marriage. 

Using the ten millennium old definition of marriage, it is illogical for same sex to get married. 

I don't care [at all] if you think the definition should be changed. That is your opinion. What does NOT FOLLOW is that wishing to preserve the definition makes you a bigot.

That's because you're a fucking bigot, and bigots don't like being called out on their bigotry.

"I WANT TO DENY PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO GET MARRIED ON THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION!  BUT I'm NOT A BIGOT!"

Somehow, I think if we decided "God" has a 2 millenia old definition, and that Christ ain't it, you'd be pretty pissed that we decided you couldn't have freedom of religion on that basis.  So fuck off, you fucking bigotted maggot.  Your parents should truly be locked up for producing such a worthless offspring.

(July 23, 2018 at 8:49 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(July 23, 2018 at 8:33 am)SteveII Wrote: It is not even *remotely* the same.

The main point of contention is the definition of marriage. In your attempt at a parallel, you didn't change any definitions. No one would ever say that two people of different races can't logically get married. If you have a problem with the concept of an interracial marriage, you would be bigoted because the objection is based on race not on the definition of marriage. 

Using the ten millennium old definition of marriage, it is illogical for same sex to get married. 

I don't care [at all] if you think the definition should be changed. That is your opinion. What does NOT FOLLOW is that wishing to preserve the definition makes you a bigot.

On the contrary, people *did* argue that it was *logically* impossible for two races to marry, just as it would be *logically* impossible for humans to marry chimps (that was the argument).

The *definition* of marriage is 'a societally recognized bond used to form a family unit'. There is *no* reason that can't be applied to gay marriage. And, to deny it, is a form of bigotry.

Interracial marriage 'illogical'? That's ridiculous. Here's the obvious proof: you don't have laws against things that are illogical!! You go to another jurisdiction and as soon as you cross the line and it's legal for interracial marriage it magically becomes logical??? That was/is absolutely no one's position. 


There is a reason that people legitimately think that marriage should not be applied to a gay union--it is not the definition of marriage. Again, I don't care what your opinion is, I am correcting the shitty logic that objections to the changing of the definition entails bigotry. It is indefensible. Stop trying.

(July 23, 2018 at 8:49 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(July 23, 2018 at 8:33 am)SteveII Wrote: It is not even *remotely* the same.

The main point of contention is the definition of marriage. In your attempt at a parallel, you didn't change any definitions. No one would ever say that two people of different races can't logically get married. If you have a problem with the concept of an interracial marriage, you would be bigoted because the objection is based on race not on the definition of marriage. 

Using the ten millennium old definition of marriage, it is illogical for same sex to get married. 

I don't care [at all] if you think the definition should be changed. That is your opinion. What does NOT FOLLOW is that wishing to preserve the definition makes you a bigot.

On the contrary, people *did* argue that it was *logically* impossible for two races to marry, just as it would be *logically* impossible for humans to marry chimps (that was the argument).

The *definition* of marriage is 'a societally recognized bond used to form a family unit'. There is *no* reason that can't be applied to gay marriage. And, to deny it, is a form of bigotry.

Not to mention racists argued not just that they couldn't but the birth of mixed race children would lead not negative consequences and that it was against nature to mix races .

And again defining marriage by reproduction is arbitrary their is no reason a family unit cannot be comprised of gay people .

---

(July 23, 2018 at 8:51 am)Divinity Wrote:

(July 23, 2018 at 8:33 am)SteveII Wrote: polymath2
It is not even *remotely* the same.

The main point of contention is the definition of marriage. In your attempt at a parallel, you didn't change any definitions. No one would ever say that two people of different races can't logically get married. If you have a problem with the concept of an interracial marriage, you would be bigoted because the objection is based on race not on the definition of marriage. 

Using the ten millennium old definition of marriage, it is illogical for same sex to get married. 

I don't care [at all] if you think the definition should be changed. That is your opinion. What does NOT FOLLOW is that wishing to preserve the definition makes you a bigot.

That's because you're a fucking bigot, and bigots don't like being called out on their bigotry.

"I WANT TO DENY PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO GET MARRIED ON THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION!  BUT I'm NOT A BIGOT!"

Somehow, I think if we decided "God" has a 2 millenia old definition, and that Christ ain't it, you'd be pretty pissed that we decided you couldn't have freedom of religion on that basis.  So fuck off, you fucking bigotted maggot.  Your parents should truly be locked up for producing such a worthless offspring.

Yup all this definition and tradition crap is just rationalizations .Like white nationalists trying to appeal to various avenues of bullshit to condemn mixed race couples . Sorry we not buying it .

(July 23, 2018 at 9:21 am)SteveII Wrote:

(July 23, 2018 at 8:49 am)polymath257 Wrote: On the contrary, people *did* argue that it was *logically* impossible for two races to marry, just as it would be *logically* impossible for humans to marry chimps (that was the argument).

The *definition* of marriage is 'a societally recognized bond used to form a family unit'. There is *no* reason that can't be applied to gay marriage. And, to deny it, is a form of bigotry.

Interracial marriage 'illogical'? That's ridiculous. Here's the obvious proof: you don't have laws against things that are illogical!! You go to another jurisdiction and as soon as you cross the line and it's legal for interracial marriage it magically becomes logical??? That was/is absolutely no one's position. 


There is a reason that people legitimately think that marriage should not be applied to a gay union--it is not the definition of marriage. Again, I don't care what your opinion is, I am correcting the shitty logic that objections to the changing of the definition entails bigotry. It is indefensible. Stop trying.

Hmmm...you cross a line today and gay marriage is legal. Seems quite similar to me.

And yes, indeed it *was* the view of *many* people at one time. They even supported their views with quotes from the Bible.

Again, the *relevant definition* of marriage is 'a bond between people that is societally recognized to form a family unit'. There is NOTHING in that definition that requires opposite genders. And this is a *universal* definition that has worked in *all* cultures.

(July 23, 2018 at 9:32 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(July 23, 2018 at 9:21 am)SteveII Wrote: Interracial marriage 'illogical'? That's ridiculous. Here's the obvious proof: you don't have laws against things that are illogical!! You go to another jurisdiction and as soon as you cross the line and it's legal for interracial marriage it magically becomes logical??? That was/is absolutely no one's position. 


There is a reason that people legitimately think that marriage should not be applied to a gay union--it is not the definition of marriage. Again, I don't care what your opinion is, I am correcting the shitty logic that objections to the changing of the definition entails bigotry. It is indefensible. Stop trying.

Hmmm...you cross a line today and gay marriage is legal. Seems quite similar to me.

And yes, indeed it *was* the view of *many* people at one time. They even supported their views with quotes from the Bible.

Again, the *relevant definition* of marriage is 'a bond between people that is societally recognized to form a family unit'. There is NOTHING in that definition that requires opposite genders. And this is a *universal* definition that has worked in *all* cultures.

You are confusing formulating a logical argument to support your belief that is it wrong with the question: is interracial marriage logically possible. Of course it is--in every sense of the word.

Do you realize you just keep repeating your new definition of marriage? For 10,000+ years it was COMPLETELY defined as heterosexual. You would be hard-pressed to even find some ancient, remote, limited timeframe, exception, anywhere. You can't win this. The only thing you can do is express your opinion that the definition should be changed.

More of Steve's empty rationalizations

Seriously buddy your not fooling anybody 

BTW, was President Clinton Bigoted when he supported DOMA?