[eeky]

How do you know I'm not right? Do you provide any evidence? Also what is your obsession with calling me a bigot, when I'm open to dialogue. You are the one who is glad that I'm a "dying breed", so I would say you're the bigot. Also, if you want to talk about literally being a dying breed, I would think homosexuals who do not have children fit that definition better. Also, I'm 19 years old. Much how there was a reactionary swing to the left in the 1960/70's, there could very well be a reactionary swing back to the right that is emerging. (I'm using the archaic "left/right" metaphors just for sake of argument)

[jlgreco]

I am not calling for your execution in the streets, I am merely expressing glee at the fact that the American Taliban are dying of old age and heart disease faster than you can replenish your ranks.

If you think that makes me a bigot, then consider Karl Popper:

" Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

You should crack a book or two. You're only 19, your brain isn't fully formed yet. There is still hope that the damage is not irreversible.

On second thought...

> "Also, if you want to talk about literally being a dying breed, I would think homosexuals who do not have children fit that definition better."

Words cannot express how shocked I am by this comment. I thought people as stupid as you were hyperbolic strawmen... Christ.

[Karunamon]

>You are the one who is glad that I'm a "dying breed", so I would say you're the bigot.

Ah, the old "tolerance means accepting intolerance" card. Nope, totally haven't heard that tired old fallacy from the far right ever before.

>Also, if you want to talk about literally being a dying breed, I would think homosexuals who do not have children fit that definition better.

Irrelevant. If your grounds for opposing marriage equality are on purely biological grounds, you must also oppose all forms of birth control and support compulsory reproduction for married couples.

I had a more conciliatory message here a moment ago. I'm just now noticing that you're not even bothering to respond to the messages that completely disprove your points (i.e. "traditional marriage" is a nebulous term that means whatever its speaker is advocating for), so it is my full belief that you are just a troll.

[eeky]

>"tolerance means accepting intolerance"

That is not at all what I said. He suggested that he supports me going away and dying out, and I think shouting out your opposition is intolerant.

>Irrelevant. If your grounds for opposing marriage equality are on purely biological grounds, you must also oppose all forms of birth control and support compulsory reproduction for married couples.

I agree it's not relevant. I was responding to an equally irrelevant comment.

>I'm justice noticing that you're not even bothering to respond to the messages that completely disprove your points

I'm responding very frequently.

>"traditional marriage" is a nebulous term

Somewhat. But I have a webster's dictionary from the 60's and the definition of marriage quite clearly reads between a man and woman. Marriage having that meaning dates back centuries (millenia even?), back to its original conception. So it's pretty obvious that the "traditional" meaning is the original and longest standing one.

[dragonwriter]

> But I have a webster's dictionary from the 60's and the definition of marriage quite clearly reads between a man and woman. Marriage having that meaning dates back centuries (millenia even?), back to its original conception.

Marriages that are not between a man and a woman (judging both by biological sex), varying in both the number of partners of either sex and whether, among the partners, are not even remotely unprecedented before the modern debate over the current restrictions of marriage to opposite-sex partners.

Its notable that in many cases these were well-established traditional practices that were pushed aside by the advance of Christianity in the effected regions, so that the Christian model of marriage was the one that was redefining marriage away from the its existing "traditional" form.

[Karunamon]

>I think shouting out your opposition is intolerant.

That is not what intolerance means. Saying that I find the fact, that you want to deny same sex couples rights, to be downright reprehensible is not oppressive to you or anybody else. The same cannot be said of your views..

>But I have a webster's dictionary from the 60's and the definition of marriage quite clearly reads between a man and woman.

Really. I'd appreciate it if you were to quote that definition verbatim, because quite honestly I do not believe you.

I also feel I must point out that "appeal to tradition" is a straight up logical fallacy.

[salgernon]

You know, there's something I've been thinking about in relation to people like you. As part of my job, from time to time I'm asked to look at resumes of people fresh out of college (for software engineering jobs), and sometimes they'll list extra-cirricular activities like band or whatever, and I've lately seen resumes where the candidate explicitly and proudly lists gay-and-lesbian related advocacy groups.

I've never seen a resume where the candidate listed anti-gay or anti-gay marriage advocacy groups.

So I wonder, if you were involved in such a group, say, the Prop 8 group in California, would you advertise that fact?

If not, why not?

[jlgreco]

When "in" members of the Phelps family attend universities, by all accounts I have heard they present themselves as regular people. Sure they don't party, but for the most part they pretend to be regular well adjusted people.

Bigots hide what they are when it is advantageous.

[eeky]

>I've never seen a resume where the candidate listed anti-gay or anti-gay marriage advocacy groups.

This very fact should concern people. You rarely see people advertising their support for traditional marriage (especially in california/new york. There is a common misconception that supporting gay marriage is somehow a proud rebellious cause against the status quo. But the reality couldn't be further from the truth - virtually the entire media and up to the president support gay marriage. Organizations supporting traditional marriage will immediately be called "intolerant, bigoted, hate groups" and shouted out of the debate. There is something seriously wrong with that.

So no, I would not put any political organizations on my resume for a software engineering job. I rarely discuss politics/religion at work. I hope you wouldn't hire such people who jump on the bandwagon issue de jour.

[Karunamon]

>Organizations supporting traditional marriage will immediately be called "intolerant, bigoted, hate groups" and shouted out of the debate.

Stop couching your views in pseudo-PC language and call it what it is. You do not "support traditional marriage" because that is a meaningless phrase. Nobody is campaigning for traditional marriage to go away - you can go have one right now!

You are not supporting a thing, you are supporting keeping that thing from someone else.

What you ACTUALLY support is that people who happen to love someone of the same sex should not be able to marry. That they should not receive the same spousal and tax benefits as couples who love someone of the opposite sex.

[eeky]

>You are not supporting a thing, you are supporting keeping that thing from someone else.

Here lies the crux of the debate. You think straight people are keeping something away from gays. But I think its gays trying to take something from straight people.

Let's say I lived in a country that banned marriage entirely. I would still get married and it would be enough for me and my family to recognize that we are married. Gays can do the same thing - they're not restricted at all in what they can do these days. But they want something more - they want everyone to be forced to recognize their marriage. They get infuriated when straight people don't want to recognize them. So they are taking something - our freedom to interpret our own reality. This is a kind of rabbit hole type revelation that spans many other issues and underpins my fundamental opposition to statism/slavery.

[Karunamon]

>But I think its gays trying to take something from straight people.

A gay couple getting married does not in any way, shape, or form impact another striaght person's marriage, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

You arguments are taken nearly VERBATIM from the anti-miscegenation movements of a few decades ago. Blacks marrying whites impacts the sanctity of traditional marriage and will harm children" and on and on and on.

There is almost no argument that marriage equality opponents use that wasn't also used against that back then. That alone should cause you to seriously think twice about the rhetoric you're using, here.

A few decades ago it was race mixing, now it's homosexuals. Same players, same arguments, same justifications.

This isn't really relevant to the point on any logical level beyond trivia, but still, think on it.

>They get infuriated when straight people don't want to recognize them.

The fact that you think this is very telling. It's completely wrong. It's that simple. This has nothing to do with what people think, it has nothing to do with feelings or emotions. It's about actions and causes and effects. Concrete, observable things.

I couldn't give two shits what you think of my relationships - that is your concern. Where I do care is when I am unconstitutionally denied rights for no good reason.

You are telling me that getting the same tax breaks a married couple does, the ability to see my partner in the hospital, that kind of thing, somehow, is SO deleterious to you in some fashion, so negative, that I should be denied those rights.

Fair enough. We're all adults here. Objectively define that negative impact and then we'll talk.

>So they are taking something - our freedom to interpret our own reality.

You can interpret your own reality however you wish.

You can not, however, violate the equal protection clause of the constitution to deny certain people rights just because you feel that it's icky (and I must point out that you haven't brought forward any argument yet that doesn't stem from your personal feelings).

[Karunamon]

8 hours later, no response. Somehow I'm not surprised.

[dragonwriter]

> You think straight people are keeping something away from gays.

I don't think anyone thinks straight people are keeping something away from gays. After all, the proportion of the population that supports marriage equality is much greater than the proportion that is gay.

> But I think its gays trying to take something from straight people.

As someone in a stable, opposite-sex marriage, I'd like to know what it is that gays are trying to take away from me. What that I had before equal marriage came to my state have I lost? Because I don't see it.

> they want everyone to be forced to recognize their marriage.

What they want is for their committed life partnerships to be treated the same way under the law as those of people who happen to prefer a life partner of the opposite gender.

> So they are taking something - our freedom to interpret our own reality.

You are free to "interpret your own reality", and I doubt any equal marriage supporter will argue against your right to do so. Your freedom to do so, however, does not give you the right to deny others equal protection under the law. The concepts aren't even related.

> This is a kind of rabbit hole type revelation that spans many other issues and underpins my fundamental opposition to statism/slavery.

And that is the kind of sentence that doesn't even begin to make sense in context. WTF are you talking about, seriously?

[jackmaney]

By the same idiotic line of reasoning, there should hardly be any infertile people alive at all! Oh, wait...

[jlgreco]

Where do Nuns come from if they don't have babies?!?! /s