Can a person be against Gay Marriage and not be a bigot?

rivrrat · Nov 8, 2009

MiddleoftheRoad said:
I keep seeing people say gays don't have equal rights. But any man is free to marry any woman who is agreeable, just as any woman may marry any man. Seems equal to me. Now for any man to marry any other man seems like that would be an additional right.

Yeah, like how blacks were perfectly free to marry other blacks and whites were perfectly free to marry other whites. Seems pretty equal to me!

Hatuey · Nov 8, 2009

rivrrat said:
Yeah, like how blacks were perfectly free to marry other blacks and whites were perfectly free to marry other whites. Seems pretty equal to me!

You're free. As long as you do what we want you to do.

CaptainCourtesy · Nov 8, 2009

MiddleoftheRoad said:
Its not a silly argument, its a fact. If a man doesn't want to marry a woman, thats fine. There is no law saying he must.

Of course it's a silly argument. And it's illogical, too. A straight person can marry someone that they want to, based on their sexual orientation. A gay person cannot. That's the distinction that those who make this argument omit...and why it is a silly and ridiculous argument.

winston53660 · Nov 8, 2009

Crunch said:
Not silly at all.... marriage, as defined is a union between a man and a woman, gays have that right today.... what they want to do is redefine marriage as a union between anything and anything.

What you are talking about is a legal codification. even in the states where States do not recognize gay marriage gays are still getting married.

They want to change the definition, then claim they are being discriminated against…. That is the silly argument.

Why?

CaptainCourtesy · Nov 8, 2009

Crunch said:
What the problem is, gays are first wanting to redefine the concept of marriage, then they want to claim they are being denied one of their basic rights.

They are as free to marry a person of the opposite sex as anyone else.... that is what marriage is.

A great example of the Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition) logical fallacy.

CaptainCourtesy · Nov 8, 2009

Crunch said:
They can marry a person of the opposite sex just like everybody else, that is what marriage is.

You want to keep posting this logical fallacy, I'll keep pointing it out: Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition).

CaptainCourtesy · Nov 8, 2009

Crunch said:
Not silly at all.... marriage, as defined is a union between a man and a woman, gays have that right today.... what they want to do is redefine marriage as a union between anything and anything.

They want to change the definition, then claim they are being discriminated against…. That is the silly argument.

And one more time with feeling:

Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition).

obvious Child · Nov 8, 2009

Crunch said:
Not silly at all.... marriage, as defined is a union between a man and a woman

Except that you are ignoring the legal aspect of marriage.

State secular marriage is nothing more than a three way contract between two unrelated people of adult age, consent and ability and the state. There is no religious aspect anymore in legal marriage.

gays have that right today.... what they want to do is redefine marriage as a union between anything and anything.

You know, blatantly lying when everyone can see it doesn't help you. All gays want is access to the legal foundation of marriage: a three way contract between two unrelated people of adult age, consent and ability and the state.

They want to change the definition, then claim they are being discriminated against…. That is the silly argument.

Tell me, are gays discriminated from entering a three way contract between two unrelated people of adult age, consent and ability and the state with the person of their choosing who meets the criteria?

EpicDude86 · Nov 8, 2009

CaptainCourtesy said:
Of course it's a silly argument. And it's illogical, too. A straight person can marry someone that they want to, based on their sexual orientation. A gay person cannot. That's the distinction that those who make this argument omit...and why it is a silly and ridiculous argument.

"A straight person can marry someone that they want to, based on their sexual orientation. A gay person cannot."

oooh, I like that.

Jerry · Nov 8, 2009

EpicDude86 said:
It makes about as much sense as two hetero males getting a civil union if they want to NOT have the rights they're entitled to as heteros.

:lol:

Once again, this whole debate is asinine. I think gays may accidentally be the best trolls this planet has ever seen.

People you need to thank this post even if you disagree, because this is the sort of thing DP needs a whole hell of a lot MORE of.

Jerry · Nov 8, 2009

rivrrat said:
Yeah, like how blacks were perfectly free to marry other blacks and whites were perfectly free to marry other whites. Seems pretty equal to me!

Gays can marry gays and gays can marry heteros, so Loving doesn't apply to the issue in any way.

You have to be the opposite sex just as you have to be unrelated. It's the same thing.

EpicDude86 · Nov 8, 2009

Jerry said:
People you need to thank this post even if you disagree, because this is the sort of thing DP needs a whole hell of a lot MORE of.

You...*sniff sniff*....Really think so, Jerry? :')

Jerry · Nov 8, 2009

Hatuey said:
You're free. As long as you do what we want you to do.

Freedom was never absolute as everyone has to abide by the rule of law.

If you don't govern yourself (ie; self-limit your freedom) someone else will do it for you. Wouldn't you rather your freedoms be limited on your own terms?

Jerry · Nov 8, 2009

EpicDude86 said:
You...*sniff sniff*....Really think so, Jerry? :')

It's why teacher's threads are still stickys 2 years after his banning.

disneydude · Nov 8, 2009

Dav said:
Comments like this really make me wonder about the left's constant assertion that they are not anti-American.

So in order to be pro-American you have to close your eyes to the discrimination that is rampant in our country's history?

Please......I would say just the opposite. If you love America you should always be trying to make it better and that includes correcting the problems of the past and not trying to bury our history.

EpicDude86 · Nov 8, 2009

Jerry said:
It's why teacher's threads are still stickys 2 years after his banning.

Oohhh I hope this isn't foreshadowing...or that you're psychic....

Hatuey · Nov 8, 2009

Jerry said:
Freedom was never absolute as everyone has to abide by the rule of law.

You're expanding the discussion Jerry. This isn't about whether or not you have to follow the law. It's about whether law should be changed.

If you don't govern yourself (ie; self-limit your freedom) someone else will do it for you. Wouldn't you rather your freedoms be limited on your own terms?

I'd rather 'freedom' not be limited as far as the gay marriage issue goes. It's a case by case thing Jerry.

Jerry · Nov 8, 2009

CaptainCourtesy said:
Of course it's a silly argument. And it's illogical, too. A straight person can marry someone that they want to, based on their sexual orientation. A gay person cannot. That's the distinction that those who make this argument omit...and why it is a silly and ridiculous argument.

No, they can't.

There are a host of other qualifications 2 heteros must meet in order to marry.

As a hetero I never have had and do not have the right to marry just whomever I want of the opposite sex.

Maybe we should create a right to marry the same-sex, but that in no way means such a right already exists today.

Jerry · Nov 8, 2009

Hatuey said:
You're expanding the discussion Jerry. This isn't about whether or not you have to follow the law. It's about whether law should be changed.

Right, so we can agree and have celerity here then.

Gays do not want into an institution while leaving everything alone.

They want to change that institution.

Again, maybe we should change it, but let's at least have clarity that we are changing it and not simply stopping the denial of a right. We are creating that right.

Hatuey said:
I'd rather 'freedom' not be limited as far as the gay marriage issue goes. It's a case by case thing Jerry.

Everyone plays by the same rules.

EpicDude86 · Nov 8, 2009

Hatuey said:
You're expanding the discussion Jerry. This isn't about whether or not you have to follow the law. It's about whether law should be changed.

I'd rather 'freedom' not be limited as far as the gay marriage issue goes. It's a case by case thing Jerry.

This isn't about whether or not you have to eat your vegetables, it's about whether they should be changed to other vegetables. :lol:

EpicDude86 · Nov 8, 2009

EpicDude86 said:
Life is like a video game engine. There are set rules programmed in, like physics, and then we have what we the players and end-users have additionally coded within the constructs of the game engine known as IRL. (in real life)

Real Life has the best graphics, some of the best A.I.

but the gameplay...leaves a lot to be desired...too many cheaters.

Gay people are end-users of the same "engine" as Straight people.The most important question is: Is it compatible with our own "mods"? Will it affect game play on the realm? the server?

Glossary:
Mods = Modifications; that which we as human beings have created; Mods include anything in any way, shape or form that is not standard code to the engine called Life.

CaptainCourtesy · Nov 8, 2009

Jerry said:
No, they can't.

There are a host of other qualifications 2 heteros must meet in order to marry.

As a hetero I never have had and do not have the right to marry just whomever I want of the opposite sex.

Maybe we should create a right to marry the same-sex, but that in no way means such a right already exists today.

My argument is NOT whether or not this would be an added right. My argument IS that arguing from the position that "gays can still marry...just not someone of the same sex" is silly and irrelevant and does not take into consideration the reason this issue is an issue: sexual orientation. You know my position on this, Jerry. Just irks me to see people make silly arguments on this issue, either pro or con.

Taylor · Nov 8, 2009

CaptainCourtesy said:
Of course it's a silly argument. And it's illogical, too.

How so?

CaptainCourtesy said:
A straight person can marry someone that they want to, based on their sexual orientation. A gay person cannot. That's the distinction that those who make this argument omit...and why it is a silly and ridiculous argument.

Why does this make it "illogical?" We have lots of laws to encourage behavior that treat people differently.

[BTW - a gay person can marry anyone they choose - what's at issue is whether that marriage needs to be recognized by the state, right?]

CaptainCourtesy · Nov 8, 2009

Taylor said:
How so?

I've explained it twice, at least, in this thread.

Why does this make it "illogical?" We have lots of laws to encourage behavior that treat people differently.

The non-logic is not about rights or differences. The lack of logic is saying that gays can marry anyone they want...of the opposite sex. This ignores why this is an issue in the first place: sexual orientation. Hence the reasoning, by ignoring the argument/issue completely, is illogical.

[BTW - a gay person can marry anyone they choose - what's at issue is whether that marriage needs to be recognized by the state, right?]

See above.

Hatuey · Nov 8, 2009

Jerry said:
Right, so we can agree and have celerity here then.

Gays do not want into an institution while leaving everything alone.

They want to change that institution.

Again, maybe we should change it, but let's at least have clarity that we are changing it and not simply stopping the denial of a right. We are creating that right.

You're distorting what I said Jerry. Marriage is not an institution. The Catholic Church is an institution. Universities are institutions. A police department is an institution. Marriage is contractual agreement currently defined as being between a man and a woman. What is being sought is the expansion of this definition to be between two willing participants. So yes, that would be a change in the law. But not the complete make over you want to paint it as.

Everyone plays by the same rules.

Only rules can and are usually bent, changed, expanded etc to match the evolution of a society.

Can a person be against Gay Marriage and not be a bigot?

Can a person be anti Gay marriage and not be a bigot?

Yes

No

Goddess of Bacon

Rule of Two

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Equal Opportunity Hater

Rule of Two

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Rule of Two