Arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall. You espouse hatred as much as Stangmar. I didn't have a retort on point because anything I say to will immediately be wrong, regardless of whether it's the truth or not.



I actually did NOT bring up Nazis and Slavery. Deschain did. I agreed with him. Is that the same thing? My initial mention of the nazis and slavery was a challenge to the definition of tradition, as I said in the previous post which, because of your hatred (see point 4) you have once again failed to notice. My subsequent mentions of nazis and slavery, besides the ones clearly spun off your petty comments decrying my inability to distinguish this issue from "slavery" and "mass genocide", was here, in which I said, well.. You can read it, I assume.



You're claiming that my lack of knowledge about other second class citizens in the world disqualifies my argument that A) not having marriage would make us second class citizens and us being second class citizens would be discriminatory?

If you can't see how being treated as a second class citizens is discriminatory and bigoted, then you need to wake the hell up.



If you didn't have a personal distaste for me, you would have actually read what I said, instead of assuming. You once again assume that I know Geoffrey Kors at all and that I met him through a family connection. That statement is so filled with hypocrisy that I shouldn't even need to say this.



What are you even trying to argue here? See point 4. I never said even heavily supported bills are instant, in fact I never laid out a time frame for anything I've said.



See point 4. You're making broad assumptions about my character based on statements you imagined and didn't read.

Watch: "Excuse me! Tiananmen Square, Vietnam and the Middle East have no relevance in a discussion about same-sex marriage. Your ignorance is amazing, and if you can't see how this issue differs from Tiananmen Square, Vietnam and the Middle East, then you need to wake the hell up."

See how easy it is to let my personal distaste for you distort what you actually said and your intent?

FINISH HIM.

everything being a civil union would be great.

I wonder how long it takes for someone to make a mockery of same sex marriage ala "I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry", and if the lobbyists get all upset or not.

The only one espousing hatred is you. Not Stangmar.

Here's what I asked, Daganev:



Your response didn't quite answer that question. I'm just trying to make sure I'm understanding what you're saying. From what I could glean, you are against same-sex marriage because it goes against your tradition. My counter-question is, "why does same-sex marriage mean that you can no longer hold onto your traditions? And if that's not what it means, then why does it matter? In what way does my getting married, affect your traditional values?"

Does this mean that all single people, or people who like to sleep around are being treated as second class citizens as well?

What shall we do to rectify this descrimination against people who like to visit legal hookers?

Giving heterosexuals marriage, and homosexuals civil unions would, in my mind, be treating us as second class citizens. I have no idea what your argument is in the above-quoted post, I can't at all see how you got that from what I said, so I can't really argue against it.

I believe, and please forgive the hatred I have to espouse here, but I believe that "separate but equal" is inherently not equal, and that giving us civil unions while heterosexuals remain married is definitely separate but equal.

Ok, you arn't understanding what being a tradtionalist means.

It has nothing to do with "my tradition", nor does it have anything to do with you.

I am against same-sex marriage, because it makes the term marriage meaningless. (i.e., I'm a traditionalist, and unless a really good reason is given, I don't believe that the term marriage should mean anything other than:



i.e., I do not believe in the idea of the law of the land, redifining the english language for the sake of political purposes. That just isn't the role of government in my mind, and I am against it when it happens.

Two college buddies getting together to for tax breaks, is not marriage. (nor should it be called such)
Are you going to start demanding that the state pries into your private life to test weather or not you are really married or just a couple of people looking for tax cuts?

And what are your views about two Heterosexual males getting a civil union? What about two heterosexual females getting married? Is that ok?

In regards to marriage, nobody is being set as a second class citizen because of who they are. If there is a status of second class citizen, it is because of who the partners are, not because of who wants to gain a partner.

The same is true in economic law also. Apple and Microsoft arn't allowed to merge (i.e. get married), but Apple and Sony can, or Microsoft and Yahoo can. (for anti trust purposes, but Apple and Microsoft are not being descriminated against, they just arn't allowed to merge for various legal reasons)

I've really just been a spectator of this thread, but I figure I'll give this a shot with that marriage comment.

First off- do I want to be able to marry when I grow up? Well, yes, definitely. Do I purposefully want to step on toes about the whole..sanction of marriage or changing the meaning of it or anything? No. Even if some of the people who fight to keep marriage as it is want to blow my head off. *cough*

As far as I understand, Civil Unions and Marriage are legally the same thing (I might be wrong here), one's just religious. Except some people want them to be the same, full stop. I'm honestly not sure what to do about that. I don't want to step on toes, again, but at the same time I find the idea of having to create an entirely separate...deal, you could say, for myself to be a bit strange.

Then again, I'm just 16 and I can't even vote yet. As far as being gay goes, I've got three priorities-

1. Don't get myself killed.
2. Get out of my parent's house before the crap hits the fan and they find out.
3. Being recognized as, well, an equal.

So, uh, tell me again.

Why does gays being able to marry bother you people?

I'm still not catching it. It seems to be, "Well... because... well... just because, okay!" or "It's against my beliefs".


If it's the latter, be glad that the Amish haven't revolted and tried to fight to ban electricity or miniskirts.

Is it because two married lesbians making out naked isn't as hot as two single lesbians making out? And yes, it's relevant, someone at school said that's one reason they're against gays getting married, because lesbians making out when they might be married isn't worth watching.


I'm not looking for an argument. I'm looking for a reason.

So do you agree with separation of church and state? I gather that you don't, as your definition of the "term marriage" consists of "legal union", rather than "religious union" (which is what I believe marriage to be.)

You also said:

Wouldn't that make the term marriage meaningless? The only line of the definition of marriage that we're arguing here would be fundamentally change to no longer be a legal status. The legal status would be civil union. How is that not hte same thing?



I'm not sure how allowing same-sex marriage would make it any more likely that people are getting married for a tax break.. Why wouldn't you just ask your female friends?

I think the reason that we don't see a lot of marriages for tax breaks is because it runs a lot deeper than you think, and the legal ramifications of marriage aren't just limited to tax breaks. Furthermore, once you start getting to a certain income level, being married penalizes you, tax-wise, rather than helps you.



See above. It's not that I want to be treated specially, I want to be treated equally.



If you discriminating against someone on the basis of their birth, why does it matter if you're discriminating against skin color or brain chemistry? If you believe that having a separate word for the institutions that only differ based on sexual orientation, then do you also think it would be fair of me to argue in favor of segregation? Separate but equal was deemed inherently unequal. How is this case any different?

I did finish you, stop asking for what you already received.

1. You're wrong because you're wrong. Look at your own statements, you just told me that you would love for Civil Unions and Marriage to co-exist (last page) if you got every single right. But a couple posts above this it's back to that being Second Class Citizenship.

2. You agreed with him and drove the point further, your own words, towards owning slaves, political control through vote processing, and physical discrimination through segregation are traditional values through poor rhetoric. It's not my fault you can't keep your statements straight.

3. My point about the rest of the world ties in with what I already said. You do not make real-world examples that have anything to do with your actual case. You make them about things very poorly related but very widely known/hated so that you can appeal to the emotional side through shock value. I then pointed out that "Quibbling" is going back and making amends by saying you meant some small facet of what you mentioned, not the whole package. A disclaimer like that you put in the first paragraph if you don't mean the whole kit and kaboodle, not a page later when people call down your BS.

4. If you can't see how it's not being treated as a Secondary Citizen, you need to wake the hell up. Religious people call theirs "marriage". You can call yours "civil union". Not difficult, steps on no toes, but not satisfactory to those with an agenda. I also see you don't even move in favor of dissolving all of it to Civil Unions as a whole, unless you're just waiting to say that in response to this as a "oh no I really do but that was a given, you should have known, silly you!" despite it being in the past page.

5. I over-estimated your connection to the Entertainment industry based on a picture and story behind it in another thread. I am sorry I actually gave you more credit than credit was due and I respectfully retract any credit you were given in said statement. Having said that, obviously I do read the things you say without animosity, it's just that you seem to think that because I dislike you that provides some sort of out when you don't have a point.

6. You insulted my knowledge of the political process in regards to legislative time frames. I illustrated where both advanced and basic knowledge of the subject comes from. I didn't assume anything, your statement led the crowd to believe it was some sort of mystical concept the average citizen has no knowledge of.

7. Your personal distaste is just hilarious because you still haven't made a single solid point in any of these statements. You attack a non-existent motive in order to attempt to obscure the subject at hand. My point still stands, why not just throw in more loosely related garbage about worldwide events to appeal to the emotions through shock value? You've already managed to do it twice here, keep it up!

Decapitated.

lol, ahh teenagers..

Yeah, that's...really all they care about, half the time.

The Amish aren't the religious majority in the country either, or you would see far more of their values leaking into the government. The reason is simple, marriage is a term rooted in Religion-> Religion is a sensitive subject -> Marriage is a sensitive subject to those with Religion. Just because the government developed duality for the term by adopting it into policy doesn't negate the premise of the actual word. Like I said before, people fight and die for Religions, especially when said religion is widespread and adamantly believes certain things are dead wrong.

Can you identify with a suicide bomber? Can you see why he feels so righteous about what he is doing that the lives he takes aren't weighed against the "positives" in his mind? That, in fact, the lives he takes are positives? I certainly can't even fathom that rationale. Likely, due to your disconnection from fervent Christian faith, you can't seem to get a handle on just how much zealotry can go on for just the meaning of the word marriage. Religion is an idea, backed up by faith, enforced by the masses.

Even people who come from heavily religious areas who aren't actually religious will still share the sentiments planted by the religious people before them. In the rural agricultural areas of the nation, in particular, you will find lots of people who don't go to church but think homosexuality is wrong. They call it "family values", but it still spawned from the same place.

Ok... apparently everything I said got completely missed by you.

1. ofcourse I agree in the seperation of church and state, I also agree that the government should not be involed in marriages anymore. (the purpose of doing so has long been redundant). As for the definition, I just copy and pasted it from the dictionary, I thought that was clear. The simple point I was trying to make, is that the dictionary definition of Marriage should be the only definition needed. The government should not be changing the definition of words. Thats too orwellian for me.

2. It would not make the meaning of marriage meaningless, it would just remove it from the legal sphere, and keep it entirely in the social sphere. However, changing the meaning of the word "marriage" to be that of "union", makes the word "marriage" meaningless, in that there is no reason for that word to exist anymore. Marriage would still mean "the union between a husband and wife". i.e. "marriage" would be a specific type of union, however with the desire to change the meaning, marriage would be the same thing as union, not a subset of it.

3. I can tell you right now, that if legal marriage was also a same sex union, then I personally would find no reverance for the legal term,and it would just be another tax break to me. To me, marriage means the insution created to keep husbands commited and resoncible for thier children., but thats just me. There are plenty of people who do marriages for tax purposes, or for citizenship purposes, or for all sorts of legal, non romantic purposes. (I heard about a case recently where a couple got legally divorced to avoid a forclorsure for instance, even though they still considered themselves married)

4. My point was that marriage and civil unions have nothing to do with how you were born. If same sex marriage is legal, then it will be legal for heterosexuals also. Not only homosexuals will get civily married to eachother. I.e., there is no descrimination based on sexual orientation. There is currently, only descrimination based on sex. (i.e. a heterosexual OR homosexual female, is not allowed to marry any other female, for any purpose.) So lets repeat this.... The government is NOT descriminating against how a person was born, or even choices they might have made later in life.

Desitrus is absolutely right. I can't keep my statements straight, I have no basis for arguing against Daganev, he is 100% right. I shall vote for Prop 8, I shall revere Geoffrey Kors for the great work he does in the entertainment industry, and of course having marriage distinct from civil unions is not separate but equal. I don't know what I was thinking.

I've seen the light.

Mods, can you close this thread? It has served my original post's purpose and is now, for all intent and purposes, hijacked. Voter registration is almost over and if they haven't done it by now I probably don't want them voting. (Or do I, Desitrus? You make my arguments so weak even I don't know which way is up anymore.)

Thanks to everyone else for contributing to this thread, especially Xavius. I was struck by your persuasive arguments and keenly wish I had such a mastery of words.

Edit: Please feel free to continue this thread elsewhere, I bow out, however, and have fulfilled what I set out to do in the original post.

It's blatantly obvious that Desitrus was only responding to me because he hates me, it's clear that since he 1) hasn't posted since this post, and 2) agreed with me that same-sex marriage is a Good Thing but still argued with me just to prove me wrong.

This argument was a huge deal around here 8 years ago. We did go with Civil Unions, but even then I figured it was just a first step. It really does not make much sense to me to keep them separated, and I've been a supporter of the sort of thing Desitrus has been talking about: Remove the government from marriage altogether. Make marriage the sanctified holy thing that it is supposed to be-- it is what you do when you go to your church (whatever it may be) and are joined in holy matrimony (or whatever term you prefer) by your deity(deities). The government itself would do the behind-the-scenes paperwork that affords the legal rights and responsibilities. No ceremony for the filling out of the paperwork-- it's not marriage, after all.

As such, I don't really see how Daganev can say that "Marriage would lose its meaning." Yes, it would lose one part of its meaning (the part it should not have to begin with), but in return it gets an emphasis on what the institution of marriage itself should truly be. It would be possible to get married without actually entering the civil contract (if, for some reason, you don't want to), and it would also be possible to get a civil union without actually being married. They would have their own distinct meanings.

Maybe you missunderstood me.
I meant that IF marriage is redefined to be something that males can do to eachother, THEN it would lose its meaning.
It would not lose its meaning if Civil Unions were adoped, and marriages were dropped.

Well, that would be up to Churches in general. I can't imagine the Catholic Church would be willing to recognize them, but a few of the others might. The Catholic Church (and most Catholics in general) would likely go right on saying that same-sex marriages are invalid, which would be their choice and their right (as it would now be a purely theological term).

Some of us will probably recognize them as real marriages (to me, if they have the ceremony regardless of gender they're married), but that's a personal thing as I'm not much for institutional religion.