Gay Marriage

Quote: Face

It was our own AZDuffman who, through rational debate and well thought out points, gave me pause and caused me to think.

Which specific argument(s) did AZDuffman use which made you re-examine your position?

I'm pro-choice, though I'll admit that the pro-lifers have some good arguments about abortion. But the gay marriage opponents? Nope. I find the arguments against gay marriage totally unpersuasive.

Quote: rxwine

Or you are just trolling.

LOL...this is hilarious! :D

Reread this thread. You're the one who replied to my post out of the blue, yet I'm trolling you???? Oh well, some people just enjoy drama, I guess...lol

Quote: reno

Conservatives aren't opposed to changing the definition of words, right?

Nope, libs are the ones who don't like changing definitions. For example, I can't find a single liberal who supports changing the definition of marriage so that the guy in Florida can marry his computer. All the guy wants is equality. Can't believe libs don't support equality in this case.

Quote: Face

But I fail to see how he combats that opinion

I don't know the details about his particular case, but the fact that he's gone to court is great. It's totally different from saying "if you think it's OK to have an AR-15, then it should be OK to have a nuke". People like him who file such lawsuits simply need to take the same exact arguments which gay marriage supporters use and apply it to different types of relationships. Like I said before, if gays can arbitrarily change the definition of marriage to suit them, then why can't the Florida guy do the same?

Quote: Beethoven

Actually, your side is the one who thinks it's dumb. The guy in Florida wants to change the definition of 'marriage' so that he can marry his computer.

I'm sorry you think this is so dumb.

___________________________________________


On another note...

Openly Gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson Announces Divorce

LOL!

I find it highly offensive that you laugh at my bishop's heartbreak. Bishop Robinson is a good man of God and going through a personal tragedy, and yes, I do know him, and he will be humiliated that this has been made a public issue.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I find it highly offensive that you laugh at my bishop's heartbreak. Bishop Robinson is a good man of God and going through a personal tragedy, and yes, I do know him, and he will be humiliated that this has been made a public issue.

I find his demonization of traditional marriage supporters to be highly offensive. We don't like it when he and his supporters refer to us as "bigots" just because they disagree with us. I also find things like racial slurs to be highly offensive.


EDIT: That Robinson guy is such a freakin hypocrite. He wants his divorce to be a "private" matter (after proudly making a public spectacle of his marriage). Sorry, guy, but take a look at the very public divorces of: Cruise-Holmes, Pitt-Aniston, Woods-Nordegren, Burton-Taylor, Charles-Diana, etc. The media didn't lay off of them, so why should they lay off of you? Because you're gay? This is just another sad attempt at wanting special treatment again.

Quote: reno

Which specific argument(s) did AZDuffman use which made you re-examine your position?

I'm pro-choice, though I'll admit that the pro-lifers have some good arguments about abortion. But the gay marriage opponents? Nope. I find the arguments against gay marriage totally unpersuasive.

I don't think it was a specific argument. Actually, I know it wasn't. It came over time.

Up until the first gay debate I participated in, AZD and I hadn't really talked. Maybe a random comment here and there, but I think we only directly engaged each other once, which was to argue over speed limits. But on the gay debate, I remember speaking to him (and others, obviously) at length.

From my perspective, AZD is simply against it. There's no revelation or super debate he's given that's never been heard. Mostly I think what struck me was he was just honest and didn't play the games. It wasn't filled with the silly / stupid "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" mockery many of the debates get filled with. It was just a simple, honest statement of beliefs. He thinks (and correct me if I'm wrong, AZD) that it's not the stable family foundation that a hetero couple supplies. That it's unnatural in a scientific sense. And that most of the hubbub is mostly a sort of PC power grab. None of this is earth shattering or convincing, but it stuck with me. It wasn't fluffed up or sensationalized, it was simply honest - "this is what I believe".

That stayed with me as I came to know AZD. This same sort of bullshit free debate and opining is how he rolls. And I came to respect it. I came to respect him. And as a result, we sort of became friends.

And I suppose it came back up again with the whole Washington Redskins nonsense. Being Native, that one obviously hits close to home. And to me, knowing my culture and the people within it, and despite the opinions of Natives here and there, it is a slur of high offense. AZD disagrees, he even went so far as to say the word isn't even a slur.

That was weird to me. I mean, he "knows" me. We call each other friend. And here's a word that's every bit as bad as "nigger" to my culture, yet he won't even recognize the offense that causes me. I had to think back to everything AZD was, and I did. And I realized it was simple. The dude simply has different beliefs than I. That's not crazy, nor is it something to get offended by. I feel I know him about as well as you could know someone you've never met, and I judge him as a good guy, as a friend. And I guess all that piled together sort of taught me that just because you feel a certain way about things, doesn't mean you're to be stereotyped into the worst example of that line of thought. Just because he's against gay marriage doesn't mean he's burning crosses and toting a "God hates fags" sign. And just because I'm for gay marriage doesn't mean I'm a flaming liberal leading the rainbow parade down the church district in protest.

It completely changed how I look at the debate. Because, yeah, I no longer think the "equal rights" argument is technically true. As much as I hate to admit it, yeah, gays do have equal rights. As the right always says, they're free to marry anyone of the opposite sex they want. They do want special rights, by definition. That is something he actually changed in my head. Of course, I now think they should get these "special rights", and I still think gay marriage should be legal (more truthfully, I think it shouldn't even be a political issue). But I am changed because of his argument. I am changed because he didn't obfuscate the debate with the bullshit games of rhetoric and strawman silliness. He just told it like it is.

I think that's the only way to properly get something done. Yeah, all these debates full of the games will get done, but the result will be partly laughable because all the work was done inside a game. You want a real result, you need real talk. Idiocy like this PC husband might get you a "win" by way of creating an impossible scenario, but what have you really won? A notch on your belt, and that's about it.

Quote: Beethoven

I agree, it would be a waste of time for the guy to go to umpteen internet websites and tell everyone that he's going to marry his computer, but he's not doing that. Instead, he's going through the court system. And it's brilliant. Why? Because 90%+ of gay marriage supporters use the ridiculous argument that "you should be able to marry whoever you love". Or that it's all about "equality". One of the great things about this guy's case is that he will end up forcing gay marriage supporters to give up lame, phony arguments like these.

Actually, no. A computer is not a "who" and it will be many years before it is a "who". An animal is not a "who" either.

Support for gay marriage is mostly predicated on the ability to make decisions and receive benefits that a male-female marriage allows under various laws across the land. For me, if Rick loves Jeff and wants to have a life-long partnership between them, from a government standpoint, why should that be any different than my marriage to Jennifer? When Jennifer goes to the hospital, I automatically have power-of-attorney; When Jennifer dies, I am the assumed estate in the will unless otherwise mentioned and receive government and work pension and survivor benefits; When I fill out my tax return and claim my spousal benefit, I get a tax deduction. These are various laws and statutes designed to benefits people in long term relationships (in Canada, that means married people and those who are a common law relationship -- living under the same roof for longer than a year) who live together.

What right does the government have to balk at those rights between any two loving people just because they happen to be same sex. And don't give me the crap that it isn't natural, because there is a segment of the population who is gay, be it genetically or through environmental influences.

Now, we can get into the entire Leviticus 10 thing where the bible declares it an abomination, but despite it being wrong according to the bible's view, there are plenty of other sins that are just as wrong and we can get sidetracked down the road of other things that are considered abominations in the bible.

On another note, I really don't like how this forum (and in particular, this thread) is denigrating to the sniping back and forths that existed over at WoV. I really, really enjoyed the modicum of behaviour that is going on over here and am a little bit sad to see things go a bit downhill.

Quote: boymimbo

On another note, I really don't like how this forum (and in particular, this thread) is denigrating to the sniping back and forths that existed over at WoV

I think you need to be telling that to the guy who continually uses the word "troll" in his messages to me.

In any case, do you really think it's realistic to expect no "sniping" in the "Controversial Topics" section??? Perhaps you should make use of the 'Block' feature, my friend.

Quote: boymimbo

Actually, no. A computer is not a "who" and it will be many years before it is a "who". An animal is not a "who" either.

I wish you would have quoted my subsequent post where I said:

"...if gays can arbitrarily change the definition of marriage to suit them, then why can't the Florida guy do the same?"

Gays don't want equality at all. They want to be the only ones who are allowed to change definitions of words.

Quote: boymimbo

Support for man-computer marriage is mostly predicated on the ability to make decisions and receive benefits that a male-female marriage allows under various laws across the land. For me, if Rick loves his computer and wants to have a life-long partnership, from a government standpoint, why should that be any different than my marriage to Jennifer?

What right does the government have to balk at those rights between any loving man-computer union just because they happen to be man-computer. And don't give me the crap that it isn't natural, because there is a segment of the population who loves computers, be it genetically or through environmental influences.

Fixed!