Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How does it actually change your marriage? How does it actually change anything?
More specifically, how does it harm your marriage? How does it harm you personally? How does it harm your spouse? How does it harm your children (if you have any)? How does it harm anybody?
How does "changing the definition of marriage" (a statement I don't agree with) manifest in your life?
How does denying me equal civil rights prevent a harm?
You're wasting your time with that one.
I've been trying to think of an analogy or something that will help explain to people like Calvinist why he's off base with "redefinition affects me" arguments. I've come up with this:
Imagine you are a homeowner in 1955, in a subdivision called "Happy Acres." Being a homeowner in Happy Acres means you are white, Christian and rich, because the homes are very expensive, and there are restrictive covenants preventing blacks and Jews from purchasing in the neighborhood.
AFTER the Civil Rights era, Jews and blacks are allowed to move in the neighborhood and ALSO become Happy Acres homeowners. What it means to be a "homeowner in Happy Acres" may be different to the outside world ... BUT the rights and responsibilities of each homeowner towards their property, neighborhood, taxing authorities and local government DOES NOT CHANGE. Nobody kicks you out of your home, and you still have to take care of your yard.
Now, racists might not LIKE that being a Happy Acres homeowner no longer automatically means "white rich and Christian," but it doesn't AFFECT them or their rights in any tangible way. Only their feelings.
I completely agree.
Any man or women of legal age can get married. No discrimination whatsoever.
Some are trying to distort/change the definition of marriage and when they can't they rail and rant. Reminds me of a child pouting, and crying, "it's not fair."
But any man or woman cannot marry the person of their choosing, which according to Federal law, is a guaranteed right.
No. I am not just deflecting. I do not believe that homosexuals are discriminated against. Period. Yes, I believe that you have access to all the same civil rights that I do.
I'm sorry this is not want you want to hear.
The wages of a married homosexual in Iowa working for his or her spouse are subject to unemployment tax.
The wages of a married heterosexual in Iowa working for his or her spouse are not subject to unemployment tax.
A homosexual married couple in Iowa cannot file taxes jointly.
A heterosexual married couple in Iowa can file taxes jointly.
Given one is a military member, a homosexual married couple in Iowa cannot shop together a at military commissary.
Given one is a military member, a heterosexual married couple in Iowa can shot together at a military commissary.
A homosexual married couple in Iowa cannot pass social security survivorship benefits to one another.
A heterosexual married couple in Iowa can pass social security survivorship benefits to one another.
A homosexual Iowan married to a foreigner cannot live with his spouse in Iowa.
A heterosexual Iowan married to a foreigner can live with his spouse in Iowa.
(and these homosexuals are the least discriminated against homosexuals in America).
All of these are CIVIL RIGHTS. All of them are available to heterosexuals. None of them are available to homosexuals. Your claim that homosexuals are not discriminated against is LUDICROUS. It's like saying the Sun revolves around the Earth. Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge reality? It's clearly a reality you agree with and approve of. Why not own it and proudly defend it?
"Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it."
-Ayn Rand
They would probably be more receptive to a quote from Rand rather than from that hippy pothead Sagan.
The point is, without mentioning anyone by name, it doesn't matter how many times you or I or Rita or anyone lays out the legal arguments. They do not want to believe it, so they won't.
It's the poison of unshakeable conviction, a conviction held so personally that is so integrated into someone's identity that no amount of logic or evidence will overcome it. There's nothing rational about it. It's just cognitive dissonance.
These threads always follow this same pattern. No matter how many times the logic is explained, they anti-gay posters seem to just trot out the same refuted arguments over and over again, like some kind of mantra.
While this is frustrating, it also makes me curious: where are they getting these arguments? Who is out there actually claiming with a straight face that gays have the same rights as non-gays regarding marriage?
Where is this stuff coming from? Do they get it from anti-gay websites? What?
They would probably be more receptive to a quote from Rand rather than from that hippy pothead Sagan.
The point is, without mentioning anyone by name, it doesn't matter how many times you or I or Rita or anyone lays out the legal arguments. They do not want to believe it, so they won't.
It's the poison of unshakeable conviction, a conviction held so personally that is so integrated into someone's identity that no amount of logic or evidence will overcome it. There's nothing rational about it. It's just cognitive dissonance.
These threads always follow this same pattern. No matter how many times the logic is explained, they anti-gay posters seem to just trot out the same refuted arguments over and over again, like some kind of mantra.
While this is frustrating, it also makes me curious: where are they getting these arguments? Who is out there actually claiming with a straight face that gays have the same rights as non-gays regarding marriage?
Where is this stuff coming from? Do they get it from anti-gay websites? What?
I completely agree that these threads seem to follow the same pattern; no matter how many times the logic is explained the pro-homosexual marriage posters seem to trot out the same refuted arguments over and over again, like some kind of manta.
Where do they get this stuff from: Pro-gay websites?
One question: why do you always turn it around as, "anti-gay" For the most part the forum has been respectful of others opinions. I am not, "anti-gay" although it is easier for you to look at it this way.
Why can't you accept that others 1) have a different opinion than you and 2) think same sex marriage is wrong?
Why does it have to be someone is against you? Why do you have to take it personal rather than debate in a mature way?
The intent here is to derogatorily attack homosexuals (and bisexuals).
Just as if a medical professional stated that people who opposed gay marriage had "gay-marriage-phobia" (it seems more appropriate than homophobia), and provided appropriate evidence, I would take it as a medical opinion. However, it is not being stated as a medical opinion on this thread. The intent here is to derogatorily attack people against gay-marriage.
Neither is appropriate in the context for which it is being stated.
There is also the issue of "homosexuality is not the issue" that can also be proven false by reading through this thread, as well as previous threads on the issue. There are a number of anti-gay-marriage personas here, whom when viewing their post history, have stated outright that the problem is indeed homosexuality. These same people have problems with homosexuals teachers, for instance. If you'd like to be provided with evidence (direct quotes with links), I can most certainly present it.
Now, I may be on the side of legalizing gay marriage, but it is quite clear that there are people on both sides who are blatantly using fallacies as their only means of debate.
They are both opinions relating to the medical field. Being called a homophobe is no more a "direct attack" than if someone were to say "people who dislike spiders are arachnophobes". However, in the context of their use, both "mental disorder" and "homophobe" are being used as derogatory remarks unsuited for a civil debate.
As for the ToS, I would be more than happy to further explain what is and what is not a personal attack via Direct Message, if you wish. Just drop me a line.
Using the reasoning that viewing homosexuality as a mental disorder is nothing more than "opinion", I offer that seeing the laws against same sex marriage as "discrimination" against homosexuals is also nothing more than "opinion". The laws apply equally to everyone and in order for discrimination to exist, there must be laws that apply solely to some people (but not to others)and that is not the case here.
An arachnophobe is actually afraid of spiders and the term is appropriate for those who do have a fear of spiders. "Homophobe", used in the context that anyone opposed to same-sex marriage has an irrational fear of homosexuals, is used as a derogatory term to discredit their opinion (there's that word again) and invalidate it.
As for ToS and personal attacks, I have seen an unequal application of that part of it in the past but have noted in recent months that the mods have been much more equitable in enforcing it, for which I am grateful, as moderators really should be impartial in trying to maintain civility in contentious threads such as this one.
I completely agree that these threads seem to follow the same pattern; no matter how many times the logic is explained the pro-homosexual marriage posters seem to trot out the same refuted arguments over and over again, like some kind of manta.
Where do they get this stuff from: Pro-gay websites?
One question: why do you always turn it around as, "anti-gay" For the most part the forum has been respectful of others opinions. I am not, "anti-gay" although it is easier for you to look at it this way.
Why can't you accept that others 1) have a different opinion than you and 2) think same sex marriage is wrong?
Why does it have to be someone is against you? Why do you have to take it personal rather than debate in a mature way?
If you think that same-sex marriage is wrong, then don't have one. Join a church that shares your belief and refuses to ordain same-sex marriages.
Remember, a CIVIL marriage is a simply a contract, given power by the state, that confers civil rights. It has nothing to do with religious belief or tradition. When you are against allowing me access to the civil rights of a CIVIL marriage - when you are for denying me access to the civil rights of a CIVIL marriage - because I'm a homosexual, then you are anti-gay.
If I proposed a law banning Christians from being able to access the civil rights of a CIVIL marriage, would you not call me anti-Christian?
If I proposed a law banning blacks from being able to access the civil rights a driver's license conferred, would you not call me anti-black?
Furthermore, would you not claim that those to bans would violate the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution?
When cornered, you throw out the most utterly ridiculous thing I've ever heard - that homosexuals aren't discriminated against and that they have access to all the same civil rights you do. There is no possible way you can believe that. You're either debating in a very intellectually dishonest and immature way, or you're delusional and truly believe this nonsense.
I completely agree that these threads seem to follow the same pattern; no matter how many times the logic is explained the pro-homosexual marriage posters seem to trot out the same refuted arguments over and over again, like some kind of manta.
Where do they get this stuff from: Pro-gay websites?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I get my arguments from what I learned in Constitutional Law class....
There is a reason even attorneys for your side of this debate don't make some of the arguments I see you guys making here.
Quote:
One question: why do you always turn it around as, "anti-gay" For the most part the forum has been respectful of others opinions. I am not, "anti-gay" although it is easier for you to look at it this way.
As far as I am concerned, you are if you are against them having equal protection under the law. You can play semantics all you like.
Quote:
Why can't you accept that others 1) have a different opinion than you and 2) think same sex marriage is wrong?
Oh I accept that wholeheartedly. It's what you try to DO with those opinions that is offensive, unconstitutional and un-American.
Quote:
Why does it have to be someone is against you? Why do you have to take it personal rather than debate in a mature way?
I have no personal stake in gay marriage, why would you assume so?
I just have a big problem with the so-called logic used in the anti-gay marriage arguments, meaning there really isn't any.
Then when presented with the argument that gay marriage bans constitute sexual discrimination under the 14th, as many here have explicitly pointed out, we get a lot of hand-waving and mantras in response.
It is just like arguing with Creationists. Logic and evidence just doesn't matter to them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
