gay marriage

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by fatherphil

i am in favor of legalizing gay marriage. just trying to come up with the best way to achieve this.

But as yet you haven't presented much, and you've offered no solutions to the problems we have mentioned with regards to your ideas

i like short posts and one question at a time.long drawn out responses that pick apart sentence by sentence a post and can only be answered by a long drawn out post defending the attack sentence by sentence just take more time than i'm willing to invest.

You figure it takes less time to write a bunch of incomplete posts than one comprehensive post?

I am not asking you to be wordy, look at my posts, they are actually short. However, I do try to address every point made. You need not break it apart by sentence or paragraph as I do, but I would like my major points aknowledged or addressed if we are having a discussion.

I certainly hope you don't feel I am attacking you, I am just trying to understand your position by asking for clarification and I disagree with many of your points so am offering counterpoints. That's not an attack that's a discussion.

sorry i piss so many folks off here, i've tried to be polite. if asked to leave i will gladly do so.

Oh my gawd! One person, me, has said they are frustrated with you. I am not pissed off at you and I don't want you to leave. I was blunt about my feelings because that's just me. What you choose to do about it is entirely up to you.

You can fight back, leave, tell me to fuck off, put me on ignore, simply disengage, or whatever...but "polite" is useless to me in any way, so don't "try" to be polite. Just be yourself and accept that your style is frustrating to one person, me. Maybe we can work it out, maybe not, but no more of this "I'll leave" stuff, okay?

[fatherphil]

fair enough.

i know, from experience, the challenge involved in changing Christian's position on this issue. i just don't see any other option in getting gay marriage legalized unless the supreme court balls up on the issue.

[Adora]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Obviously this in no way follows from my arguments, which neither mentioned nor entailed anything about who changed or failed to change their minds.

Then why the did you bring them up in the first place?

But this is an altogether different claim. If you're talking about lynchers rather than white people, you have a better analogy. The clearest response would have been "Okay, lynchers rather than white people."

Of course I'm talking about the lynchers. Just as here I'm talking about the people actively opposing and denying queers civil and human rights. Not just the complicit heterosexists in society, who don't know why marriage is only between a man and a woman, but like it that way (because it keeps their concepts of gender safe - basic unconcsious self preservation tactic). I'm talking about the churches and the politics that are creating this mess in the first place.

but i'll do my best to learn from you how to better communicate.

You could start by pointing out the reason for your quips about the gospels, and making Fundamentalists think gay marriage is "their idea".

the case be made that the marriage contract is a stabilizing influence in society regardless of the sexual orientation of the participants.

And the case can be made that that "stabilising influence" has only been creating an imbalanced status quo to feed a capitalist patriachal society since marriage rates rose after the middle ages. Marriage creates a potential system of control for the instigators of the marriage, and a closed relationship (in many cases all over the world) where one partner can work out their public issues in the privacy of their homes, on the rest of their family. Y'know, domestic violence, and all that?

there are secular reasons to be against gay marriage.

That doesn't make them valid.

lets see, my dad said it was just not right, that marriage should be between a man and a woman and he was coming from a secular mindset. he didn't mind unions but was not willing to concede marriage to gays.

So he's a heterosexist. What's your point? He's honest and a secularist? That still doesn't make his argument valid.

the guy that says he does not want his companies health costs to go up because gays will get benifits for their spouses may have a valid point, no?

Then perhaps he should read some research of the economic impact of domestic violence on male and female heterosexual workers in industries. Or, as PinkRose pointed out, the cost for insuring a possible pregnant woman over simply another male in the partnership. And I'm still confused as to how this applies to countries which actually have a working, functional health system, not reliant on employment practices. Once again, not valid.

the challenge involved in changing Christian's position on this issue. i just don't see any other option in getting gay marriage legalized unless the supreme court balls up on the issue.

But you keep on arguing that only Christian discussion can change the Christian's opinion to a Christian institution. What does the US Supreme Court have to do with that?

[fatherphil]

is valid a subjective term? and is marriage a Christian institution?

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Adora

Then why the did you bring them up in the first place?

I simply pointed out the failure of your analogy.

Of course I'm talking about the lynchers.

In English "white people" doesn't mean "lynchers".

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

In English "white people" doesn't mean "lynchers".

Maybe not in North American English, but remember she's from Australia.

[Adora]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

I simply pointed out the failure of your analogy.

How could you point it out when it was in no way related to it?

In English "white people" doesn't mean "lynchers".

And maybe this is just another illustration of your complete lack of comprehension skills, but I never said it did. Go back and read the thread, and come back to me when you don't skip words.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Adora

How could you point it out when it was in no way related to it?

And maybe this is just another illustration of your complete lack of comprehension skills, but I never said it did. Go back and read the thread, and come back to me when you don't skip words.

Bluster won't get your grade raised for lousy work. Just try do better next time.

[Adora]

Only if you promise to do the same. Seriously, way to miss the entire point, Clutch. I make a comment about people changing and not changing their minds, and you move into the twilight zone of random cultural references. My original comment applied to both your suggestion that whites made the black civil rights movement, and the suggestion that post-equality, anybody who was active in persecution of racial minorities (ie-lynchers) would also think it was their idea. Comprehende?

[koan]

I'm pro any relationship where people can tolerate living with each other. Yeah, people! I'm currently against marriage of any kind. I'm just bitter, though

[koan]

I'm also for gay couples that adopt a kid over a straight couple that hates each other but has three or four kids anyway.