The Problem with Gays and Voters: Whom can we trust?

[RedPhoenix]

And Seal has never argued it would. Nice strawman though...

If you don't like gay marriage then just don't get gay married. Easy peasy.

[SealBeachHusker]

There is also fundamental differences between Hindu couples, Japanese couples, Islamic couples, Sikh couples, black and white couples, rich and poor couples, may and december couples, midgets and regular people couples, and just about every other type of couple you can think of and "straight" couples. And none of it has to do with the sex of the partners.

So fundamental differences in relationship styles has not been a barrier to marriage previously, I see no reason to bar gays from being totally unique... just like everyone else.

No there's not, not within the context of the basic understanding of fidelity inherent in the commitment of Marriage. Basic definitions of marriage don't talk about any of the stuff you are trying to make comparisons to.

I see since the strawman didn't work...your just looking for straws....(relax, I'm joking)

[SealBeachHusker]

If you don't like gay marriage then just don't get gay married. Easy peasy.

If you don't want to get Married, go enter into a Civil Union...easy peasy. No need to change Marriage.

[HuZkurZ]

If you don't like gay marriage then just don't get gay married. Easy peasy.

If you don't want to get Married, go enter into a Civil Union...easy peasy. No need to change Marriage.

slam.jpg

[RedPhoenix]

No there's not, not within the context of the basic understanding of fidelity inherent in the commitment of Marriage. Basic definitions of marriage don't talk about any of the stuff you are trying to make comparisons to.

I see since the strawman didn't work...your just looking for straws....(relax, I'm joking)

Not looking for any straws. You said fundamental differences....yet you seem to be focusing on ONE difference in SOME gay couples. My point is, that there are plenty of differences between peoples relationships. That go far beyond who's pounding whom. And that those differences haven't prevented them from getting married and I don't think it should prevent gays from getting married either.

Look, we can go round and round on this but we both know we aren't going to come to a middle ground on this issue. I say let them marry and you say don't let them marry. Separate but equal doesn't work for me, nor is it an appropriate middle ground. It is simply another way to continue to discriminate for no good reason.

[RedPhoenix]

If you don't want to get Married, go enter into a Civil Union...easy peasy. No need to change Marriage.

Marriage isn't "changing".

[RedPhoenix]

slam.jpg

Derrrr.....stallker....derrrr...herrrr.... crrreeeeeppyy...derrrrr....

[RedPhoenix]

If you don't want to get Married, go enter into a Civil Union...easy peasy. No need to change Marriage.

Wait....that makes no sense at all. If a gay person wants to get married they aren't legally allowed to do so in most states. On the other hand, you are free to not get gay married in all 50 states.

[SealBeachHusker]

Marriage isn't "changing".

lol...ok.

[RedPhoenix]

lol...ok.

Did marriage "change" when we allowed interracial marriage? No. But they certainly argued that it would as I think CM has pointed out previously.

[SealBeachHusker]

Wait....that makes no sense at all. If a gay person wants to get married they aren't legally allowed to do so in most states. On the other hand, you are free to not get gay married in all 50 states.

Didn't offer them to get married...as that would require a change to the centuries old institution. A federal Civil Union designation would receive overwhelming bipartisan support I'm sure. Although, then what would the the extremists on both sides have to hyperbolize about?

[RedPhoenix]

Didn't offer them to get married...as that would require a change to the centuries old institution. A federal Civil Union designation would receive overwhelming bipartisan support I'm sure. Although, then what would the the extremists on both sides have to hyperbolize about?

Sure man. I don't even know why I argue about this as gay marriage is gonna happen sooner rather than later.

[SealBeachHusker]

Did marriage "change" when we allowed interracial marriage? No. But they certainly argued that it would as I think CM has pointed out previously.

Don't recall that as a universal social construct, it was a localized and situational construct...and without basis in natural biological or reproductive rationale. As such, it was altered and abolished and re-established over time based on regional biases, beliefs, etc. On an overwhelmingly universal basis, across time and cultures, marriage has been between a man and a woman. Not an accurate comparison at all.

[RedPhoenix]

Don't recall that as a universal social construct, it was a localized and situational construct...and without basis in natural biological or reproductive rationale. As such, it was altered and abolished and re-established over time based on regional biases, beliefs, etc. On an overwhelmingly universal basis, across time and cultures, marriage has been between a man and a woman. Not an accurate comparison at all.

It's completely accurate. I know it makes you look bad. But it's completely accurate.

[SealBeachHusker]

Sure man. I don't even know why I argue about this as gay marriage is gonna happen sooner rather than later.

Yeah, as long as you only give people the choice between two extremes and leave out the common sense alternative; oh, and don't give them all the facts about the nature of gay relationships; oh, and hammer home these aspects in the form of "news", "academic study", and "entertainment"...then you're probably right.

But, then again, that's what polarizing politics is all about.

[RedPhoenix]

Yeah, as long as you only give people the choice between two extremes and leave out the common sense alternative; oh, and don't give them all the facts about the nature of gay relationships; oh, and hammer home these aspects in the form of "news", "academic study", and "entertainment"...then you're probably right.

But, then again, that's what polarizing politics is all about.

Sure man.

[SealBeachHusker]

It's completely accurate. I know it makes you look bad. But it's completely accurate.

You're wrong, but explaining that isn't really all that effective unless you understand a little deeper than "hetero marriage bad", "everything married good". I could get into the academics of sociology and anthropology and the difference between universal and local and situational, but in the end most people's minds will gravitate to extremes...it's what's easiest.

[SealBeachHusker]

Sure man.

Prop 8

Given an existing option of Civil Unions, an overwhelmingly left leaning populace chose the alternative. They had rejected discrimination against gay couples, and also rejected the notion of altering the traditional definition of marriage.

[RedPhoenix]

You're wrong, but explaining that isn't really all that effective unless you understand a little deeper than "hetero marriage bad", "everything married good". I could get into the academics of sociology and anthropology and the difference between universal and local and situational, but in the end most people's minds will gravitate to extremes...it's what's easiest.

Sure thing man.

[RedPhoenix]

Prop 8

Given an existing option of Civil Unions, an overwhelmingly left leaning populace chose the alternative. They had rejected discrimination against gay couples, and also rejected the notion of altering the traditional definition of marriage.

Sure man.