@Catalonia
“Er, let’s see … George Bush is a very mild born-again Methodist, and therefore the entire GOP, from the federal to the state to the local, is automatically transmogrified into fundamentalists endlessly goofing on Jesus while chasing down gays with pitchforks and a length of rope. Egads, George Bush is just one politician, not the entire GOP. I think perhaps you should stop getting all your information from TV and Hollywood movies — they are absolutely the worst sources.”
He wants to ban gay marriage. That turns him into a little more than a religious moderate in my book. He has done everything he can to prop up religion using the government, and has no respect for the separation of church and state. And you know he rode to the White House on a wave of religious fervor.
“Republicans make up only 33% of the population, but approximately 80+% of people in this country describe themselves as Christian, and most people generally, Christian or not, oppose same-sex marriage. And that includes most Democrats. Geez, just what insulated environment did you grow up in that you have these bizarre notions about the demographic make-up of the United States?”
I know that 80% of the country opposes gay marriage, and that is largely because they are Christian and their religion opposes it – but you may notice in that quote that I said “if you can’t see that most Republicans are Christian”. I’m not even trying to say all Christians are Republicans, all Republicans oppose gay marriage, or anything of that sort. But the reason those Republicans both in Congress and around the country oppose gay marriage is because of religion. There are no other good reasons.
“What a strange little narrative you’ve constructed. You must be at the university … or in high school. It sounds to me that your caricatures are more tantrum that careful consideration of the facts. You also seem to confuse the Washington DC shenanigans with the country at large. Again, you need to stop watching so much TV … and look up the word ‘hypocrisy’, since you don’t seem to understand what it means.”
The people in Washington DC have all the power. Their opinion on gay marriage is most important. But really, the people in DC and around the country are united against it. Where is my error here? Most people who oppose gay marriage oppose it for religious reasons. You, on the other hand, being agnostic, have no reason at all.
“Whatever dude. Try to remember that most of the adults to whom you’re speaking are actually married. Do you really think you’re in a position to lecture them about what does and does not constitute marriage and family?”
Yes, I am, because if they are attempting to deny another person the right to marry who they want and have a family like their own, then they are hypocrites.
“I condescend because you deserve condescension. This is a political discussion, and politics is rough.”
All right, then go fuck yourself. Politics is rough, and you deserved to hear that. Do you not see the problem with that? You still haven’t given me one good reason why gay people of the same sex should not be allowed to marry each other.
“If you don’t like it then stop jumping on discussion boards accusing half the country of being bigots and troglodytes. Sheesh. Put more simply: Stop whining.”
If I don’t like it, I can shut up. That’s what you’ve said to me. Again, go fuck yourself. I’ll voice my opinion if I want to, and if you don’t like it, you don’t have to respond.
“Actually, gays have exactly the same rights as I do.”
Bullshit. They don’t have the right to marry the people they want.
“I’m a heterosexual male, and I cannot marry a man, which means I’m in exactly the same position as a gay man. Our rights are EXACTLY the same. If you haven’t figured that out yet you’re way behind the curve on this issue.”
That is such a pathetic argument. They are denied full autonomy in pursuit of happiness – you are not, because you don’t want to marry a man. They are denied the right to marry who they want to marry.
“In this context, it makes no sense to argue that gays “don’t need” to get married to have a family – they want to get married, they should be allowed, and your narrow-minded religious views (which are coming up in the next paragraph, I see) should have no say in the matter whatsoever.”
“When did I suddenly become religious? It’s very interesting that you think the arguments against same-sex marriage are religion-based.”
So give me one reason for your opposition to gay marriage that doesn’t stem from religion. And I remind you, “gays…yuck” is not a reason.
“Some people approach the issue from that angle, of course, but in point of fact religion’s got nothing to do with it.”
Then what in the world is your reason, Mr. Non-Religious Conservative?
“I’m starting to think that you’re anti-Christian bigot. That might be understandable if you’re a baby boomer, but if you’re young, as I suspect, you might want to reconsider. Anti-Christian bigotry is a failing of older liberal generations. Try to get with the program.”
Christians should be free to practice their religion – but NOT to force it on everyone else. When they stop doing that, I might stop hating their religion. Maybe. But I don’t hate Christians themselves.
Now, if I wanted to deny Christians the right to marry…well, then I’d be an anti-Christian bigot. Just like you are an anti-gay bigot.
I will admit, I’m an anti-bigot bigot.
“I knew you were female before you bothered to ‘reveal’ it. The language you use is heavy with emotionalism. Thus the phrase, which is meant to be annoying. It’s also meant to convey that I know you’re young, and therefore in over your head.”
Wow, you are good at making wrong assumptions, aren’t you? I’m a man. I never said I was a woman, either.
By the way, Catalonia is a girl’s name.
Add to that that you are a sexist as well as an anti-gay bigot. “Women are overly emotional” – listen to yourself! That’s a sexist stereotype. There are cool-headed women and emotional men, and for you to think otherwise shows even more firmly what an idiot you are.
A group of people being denied equality because of a religious view pisses me off. I guess that makes me a woman!
What next? Will you assume I’m a gay man because I’m defending gay marriage?
“Wow. That really, er, destroyed my point. Thanks, sweetie, for, um, making such a … powerful argument. Maybe you should start thinking about the difference between describing a single characteristic of someone as normal or abnormal, and ascribing the individual as a whole as normal or abnormal based on this one characteristic. Now re-read what I posted and try to get a handle on what I actually said.”
Your point implies that their “abnormal” is something to be looked down upon. I agree that gays aren’t normal; I was just pointing out that their “normality” is irrelevant. What was your point anyway – that they ought not to be allowed to marry because they are only 3% of the population and you 80% can force them not to? I think it’s time for another “go fuck yourself”!
“A gay man can marry a lesbian. This is called gay marriage. Since we are talking about same-sex marriage, I really don’t see understand why you keep heading off into weird tangents like this.”
I suspect that you are being purposefully obtuse and actually know what a pathetic argument this is. They have the same right to marry someone they don’t want to marry. Great. That’s equality. Can you not see my parallel to interracial marriage? It’s like you’re back in the 40′s saying black men have the same right to marry as you do, because they have the right to marry someone of their own race, just like you do.
“Again, gays have the same rights re:marriage as I do. I can’t marry a man, either. Seems to me you’re the one intent on making gays second-class citizens, even when they’re obviously nothing of the sort. Why are you so insistent on disrespecting them, of believing they need special treatment, like they’re children or something?”
What a load of nonsense. This is the only argument you’ve got, isn’t it? It sounds like a bad joke. “They have the same right to marry a woman as I do.” Well, pat yourself on the back! You completely missed the point.
“If marriage is anything you want it to be, then my definition is as valid as any other.”
Yes, as valid as any other and NO MORE VALID THAN ANY OTHER. You have no right to force your perspective, using the law, onto everyone else. What you are saying is that your definition should apply to all marriages. By not allowing gay marriage, you are saying your definition of marriage is better than a gay person’s definition.
“This is probably a little advanced for you to understand, but something that can be anything is actually nothing.”
You’re a regular Aristotle!
Marriage does have characteristics. It is a legal contract involving consenting adults, often but not always carried out for love. There are commonalities in our definitions. My definition is broader and more inclusive than yours.
“How can you define that which cannot be have any characteristics defined (since it can be anything), and then carry on about how something that is nothing is a great and grand issue of the day? Now before you respond, I want you take another deep draught of your chocolate milk and think for a moment about what I’ve written.”
See my response above. I never said it can be “anything” – you completely misrepresented my point, you disgraceful liar. Are these the tactics you resort to when you face someone you consider to be a mere child? Maybe you can see that I’m obviously smarter than you, and have given a lot more thought to my position.
I said “marriage can be about whatever the people want it to be about”, not that it can be “anything”. I meant that they can get married for whatever reasons they want. I’ll qualify that by saying “if they are consenting adults”. See, marriage is still “something” by my definition. It’s a legal contract between consenting adults.
“I’m agnostic. The only ‘religious rules’ I have are that people should be able to practice whatever religion they desire, free from government interference or anti-religious bigotry.”
Oh, then I see you are a total fool. You are imposing SOMEONE ELSE’S religious rules on all of society. Well played. That would be like if I, an atheist, went around telling people not to forget to take communion, or that all newborns ought to be baptised. It makes no sense whatsoever.
“Oh please. When only 3-4% of the population engages in anything sexual, whether it’s men wearing women’s underwear or homosexuality, it pretty much meets the definition of peripheral. That is not bigotry, it’s just a statement of fact.”
How can you have forgotten your point entirely? Let me remind you, you were arguing that because that sexual orientation is unusual, we ought not to allow gays to get married as a society, and that the only reason they want to get married is to stir up trouble and show off their power. Let’s rephrase that – because gays are a minority, we ought not to allow them to get married. Why not? Where is your reasoning here?
“Unusual sexual proclivities are really nothing to get worked up about. Why do you?”
You are the one who doesn’t want those unusual sexual proclivities to be expressed in a marriage. I’m worked up about equality – I have no idea why you are opposed to gay marriage. The only two possibilities I can imagine are that you, for some perverse reason, support a Christian definition of marriage, or because you just don’t like the idea of gays of the same sex getting married to each other (and I say “each other” so you know, in your stupidity, that I am not referring to the right of gay men to marry a woman or a gay woman to marry a man).
“Again, gays are equal under the law.”
No they are not. They are not allowed to marry the people they want to marry – they must marry someone they don’t want to marry, if they want to get married at all.
“I’d like to remind you that if same-sex marriage is implemented, two hetereosexual men, for instance, can get married.”
Then they have my blessing, but no one is clamoring for that right, are they? That is beside the point. The issue is whether or not gay people of the same sex can marry each other. It is a gay issue because it is gay people who want that right. Straight men do not want the right to marry each other, therefore, that is a side issue of little importance to the debate.
“The gay thing is neither here nor there. I know that sounds counterintuitive, but the reality is that sexual orientation is irrelevant to the arguments for or against same-sex marriage. I realize you’re not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but at least try to understand at this point.”
If I’m not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, then you are a bulb that is completely burnt out. You know that this is a gay issue – there are no straight men clamoring for the right to marry each other. Your argument is a kind of sophistry, really, a lawyer’s trick that attempts to distract from the relevant issues. Nothing in this debate is about the right of straight men to get married to each other.
Let’s broaden it, just so you can see how this foolish side argument leads nowhere – let’s say two straight men really do want to marry each other. Why do you oppose it?
“And here I thought I was an agnostic libertarian”
Maybe you are an economic libertarian, but you are not a social libertarian. Libertarians have been some of the loudest voices clamoring FOR the right to gay marriage. You know what you are? You are a Republican who calls himself a libertarian because it’s trendy…and probably an atheist who calls himself agnostic because “atheist” is too harsh.
“who lived for many years in San Francisco, the gay mecca.”
That’s like saying “I have a black friend so I’m not racist!” You lived in the gay mecca? Oh wow! I guess you must be a tolerant and open-minded person then! You’ve earned your badge, haven’t you? How dare anyone call you anti-gay?!
“Perhaps you need to look up the word bigot, as well, because bigotry extends far beyond the mere Holy Trinity of gender, race, and sexual orientation.”
It does? Are you going to try and slap me with that “political bigotry” bullshit? Maybe I am bigoted against certain belief systems – what, are the ideas hurt by my not liking them? What is the sin in that?
Once again, you have given no good reason why two gay people of the same sex should not be allowed to marry each other. No reason whatsoever. That is the heart of the issue, and you are avoiding it. It is fairly obvious that you have no reason.
