Illinois to become 15th state to recognize marriage equality

[Violet]

Well in all fairness, I did lash out first, albeit not at you. And I'm not ashamed of that. Secondly, you did attack me and my intelligence, so don't play like you're innocent, lol. But what's a little sticks and stones in a controversial argument?

You could lash out at anyone... and my response would remain generally disapproving. I'd certainly raise an eyebrow and/or furrow my brow. Shame is often not felt until much later, in observance of one's regrets.

It remains that I have yet to attack you, or your intelligence I *have* made mildly scathing musings towards that which you have put forth... and I have also offered the suggestion of introspection, complete with some potentially notes upon which you may be overlooking.

I am rather of the understanding that all I am here to do is help you, and to share the virtues of being reasonable with you. When harmlessly educating observations are become an attack: the universe itself sunders before my assault.



"Sticks and stones" (used in the implied manner) are as weapons of war in debate; weapons are only used as 'argument' by the unreasonable and control-desiring tyrant. That... is what a few 'sticks and stones' are to a discussion A weapon is a tool with one intended use: to exert will.

Mudslinging serves only to foster anger, deter pursuit, or impart pain. I would contend that it is 'controversy' above all else which should be absent insult... for there is little hope of reconciliation in war.

No, being a Christian wouldn't make any opinion any less or more valid than any other group of people but it's a notorious fact that Christians predominantly are against marriage equality

And Muslims are not? How about the Hindi? The not necessarily theistic Soviet-era Russians? The Roman Republic? Small communities all around the world? Native tribes? Uganda? The wonderful 'concentration camps' of the Nazis? South Africa...

Don't be fooled by Western media (the notoriety you speak of, I presume): the rest of the world is a very real place, and humanitarian issues are not alone American or European.

In some places homosexuals are put to death; 'marriage equality' be damned.

---

So god's a hypocritical cuntbucket. What else is new?

These SHOES. I LOVE them!

---

I think Violet Lilly Blossom hit the nail on the head with the issue of legal benefits. Denying homosexual couples the legal rights that married couples benefit from is just plain discrimination, no matter how you try to justify it.

That isn't to say that discrimination is not (of itself) a good thing, of course. It is a GOOD thing to recognize difference... but only when one observes the relevance of difference

There simply isn't much to gain with applying legal benefits to marriage anymore. It no longer offers the legislative benefits it once did (speaking of America's operational benefits in recognizing marriage but 50 years ago).

The internet and electronic filing have pretty much made it utterly without purpose, and the government could serve to gain a bit from removing any and all tax-benefits from such Mailing, tax collecting efficiency, etc...

Especially what with women working... it's just too much of a concession to make. It's a shame that many congresspeople are married... because the married could find themselves paying a bit more in taxes (either from the removal-of, or the additional application of. I'm partial to the latter, myself).

---

Huh. Cos, like, up till now, you've been bemoaning the fact that, increasingly, "normal society" DOES want to embrace gays in all their glorious gayness.

Toleration and embrace are not one and the same.

I wouldn't even say 'normal society' 'wants' but for tolerance... it simply is become (somewhat) more 'tolerating' of difference, and that often carries along the recognition of various injustices. This is, infact, natural for any and all 'melting-pot' societies.

For the nationalistic inclinations of Mehmet, on the other hand? Such 'tolerance' is nondesirable... even deplorable when driven to the point of government deliberation and/or concession.

Can't have it both ways, chum. Or can you bring yourself to accept that you do not represent "normal society" in the year 2013, but just a dwindling minority of pious prurient perverts obsessed with the sexual habits of complete strangers?

'Normal society' is extremely subjective. I would find a 'normal society' to be the 'most common societal infrastructure'... but in both yours and his: 'normal society' is more in the understanding of each of your coloured understandings of what would be expected of a society.

What do you know of Africa, the Middle East, Asia, South America, and various island nations? What I know is that these are hardly 'dwindling'... and that they are most definitely is not a minority. Democracy itself was a bit of Greece's thing, and it was largely forgotten between the fall of the Roman Republic and the formation of the American Republic.

Many are made uncomfortable when become aware in an environment and not acclimatized to their new awareness. Much of history and well-over a quarter (even a third?) of this planet's humans would generally side with Mehmet regarding this specific issue... a view being 'a majority' or 'minority' variation of such neither makes the view valid, nor invalid.

I wouldn't be the one to say anything along the lines of 'the majority believe it, therefore it is so'... especially when attempting the defense of 'the new'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JPOoFkrh94

Semi-relevant