Same-Sex Marriage: Yea or Nay? And Explain!

[Buffett and Colbert]

He said no people opposed to gay marriage were for civil unions. ABSOLUTLY NONE. What better way to disprove it than people I acctualy know who oppose gay marriage and support civil unions?

Because you know perfectly well that he was referring to people in general and that you presenting strawman argument doesn't really serve your purpose?

No, I honestly believ he ment anyone, anywhere. If that is not the case he should tell me.

That'd be idiotic and GnL is not idiotic.

Look up afew posts befor what I'm quoting and say that again.

*says it again*

[Buffett and Colbert]

4) No, my argument is that if people like you get behind it too, it has enough support to be passed into law...

You're big on rhetoric, and insignificant on evidence.

Has anyone tried what I proposed?

a) that makes no sense
b) you haven't provided any sources to prove that it'd work

It makes perfect sence. Unless it is atempted, any "proof" would be supposition.

If any proof would be supposition, doesn't that reflect upon the quality of the proposal?

[Omnicracy]

4) No, my argument is that if people like you get behind it too, it has enough support to be passed into law...

You're big on rhetoric, and insignificant on evidence.

Has anyone tried what I proposed?

They'd better have, really - or you're just making big claims, no?

You said it has enough support - prove it.

Would you vote for what I have proposed?

[Omnicracy]

He said no people opposed to gay marriage were for civil unions. ABSOLUTLY NONE. What better way to disprove it than people I acctualy know who oppose gay marriage and support civil unions?

Because you know perfectly well that he was referring to people in general and that you presenting strawman argument doesn't really serve your purpose?

No, I honestly believ he ment anyone, anywhere. If that is not the case he should tell me.

How do you reconcile that absolutist interpretation with my mention of statistical significance?

Or - do you just ignore the parts that don't work for your argument?

The statistics came after I said the thing about my friends, and they weren't sourced. It seemed like they were made up on the spot to cover your own ass.

[Grave_n_idle]

And people won't stop fighting if gay marriage is allowed?

No - they'll fight.

They fought when multiracial marriage broke in, too - and it became clear that that was a losing argument, because it means fighting the Constitution.

Now almost no one fights against racial equality in marriage.

If marriage equality is allowed, people will fight - but the fight will be shorter, and simpler, because it will mean fighting the Constitution.

And that's the future I want - where there are a tiny vocal proportion of fringe lunatics yelling about it, but they are arguing fruitlessly against the Constitution.

[Dyakovo]

Since you ignored it the first time around I'll repost

But in other states where same-sex marriage failed, civil unions succeeded.

Name one.

[Buffett and Colbert]

4) No, my argument is that if people like you get behind it too, it has enough support to be passed into law...

You're big on rhetoric, and insignificant on evidence.

Has anyone tried what I proposed?

They'd better have, really - or you're just making big claims, no?

You said it has enough support - prove it.

Would you vote for what I have proposed?

No; it's redundant.

EDIT-- That is to say, I wouldn't.

[Blouman Empire]

And people won't stop fighting if gay marriage is allowed?

No - they'll fight.

They fought when multiracial marriage broke in, too - and it became clear that that was a losing argument, because it means fighting the Constitution.

Now almost no one fights against racial equality in marriage.

If marriage equality is allowed, people will fight - but the fight will be shorter, and simpler, because it will mean fighting the Constitution.

And that's the future I want - where there are a tiny vocal proportion of fringe lunatics yelling about it, but they are arguing fruitlessly against the Constitution.

Ok that's what you want.

[Omnicracy]

In real terms - do you honestly believe it's likely... even possible that anyone could pass the sort of legislation you're talking about?

Why do we have to be realistic here? Can't we just discuss the proposal on its pros and cons.

You keep saying marriage is already a civil union, when you get a marriage licence you have a civil union, what Ominocacy has proposed is that we change it to a civil union license for all people regardless of the genders of the two people. Now you say people will still call it marriage, which is fine but it won't be a 'marriage' as known by the government despite other people saying they are married and the gays really aren't. It means naught because even if gays could get marriage license people would still be rejecting it, not to mention that when gays do get a civil union they will still call it marriage despite it not being the fact.

We have to be realistic because people are having very real rights denied to them - or, perhaps even worse - revoked - and that makes it real.

If Omni has an 'argument' that can't work in reality, then it's useless.


Addressing the other part of the question - even if you COULD get all marriage licenses re-written to read 'civil union', as you admit - it won't do anything constructive to the debate. People will still call their civil unions 'marriages'. Some people will still tell other people that THEIR civil unions are inferior. Indeed, without explicit legislation alongside, it probably wouldn't even change anything in REAL terms for homosexual couples - they wouldn't gain equality in rights just because you changed the wording.

And we're still assuming that the people who oppose marriage equality now, would stop fighting against equality if we just change the name.

Now do you see what I've been dealing with? How the middle part just compleatly ignores what it tries toadress?

There is no middle.

If you oppose equality, you're on one side. If you don't oppose it, you're on the other side.

The fact that you're trying to create a middle is irrelevant. And illogical - opponents of equality are not going to meet you halfway just because you change the names.

First of all, there is a middle that has all of the equality whether you admit it or not. I never said all opposition goes away, I said enough would. Second, I was refering to the middle of the quoted post.

[Dyakovo]

And people won't stop fighting if gay marriage is allowed?

No - they'll fight.

They fought when multiracial marriage broke in, too - and it became clear that that was a losing argument, because it means fighting the Constitution.

Now almost no one fights against racial equality in marriage.

If marriage equality is allowed, people will fight - but the fight will be shorter, and simpler, because it will mean fighting the Constitution.

And that's the future I want - where there are a tiny vocal proportion of fringe lunatics yelling about it, but they are arguing fruitlessly against the Constitution.

Ok that's what you want.

Exactly, what GnI (and I) want is equality under the law, not equality under the law but only for those that the fundies approve of.

[Omnicracy]

4) No, my argument is that if people like you get behind it too, it has enough support to be passed into law...

You're big on rhetoric, and insignificant on evidence.

Has anyone tried what I proposed?

a) that makes no sense
b) you haven't provided any sources to prove that it'd work

It makes perfect sence. Unless it is atempted, any "proof" would be supposition.

If any proof would be supposition, doesn't that reflect upon the quality of the proposal?

What proof was there that the U.S. wouldn't collapse in afew years after independence was declared? Lack of proof means nothing close enough has happened befor to give you an idea of whether or not it would work.

[Blouman Empire]

Exactly, what GnI (and I) want is equality under the law, not equality under the law but only for those that the fundies approve of.

I don't think the fundies would approve of Omnicracy proposal anyway

[Dyakovo]

What proof was there that the U.S. wouldn't collapse in afew years after independence was declared? Lack of proof means nothing close enough has happened befor to give you an idea of whether or not it would work.

Going to try answering this?

But in other states where same-sex marriage failed, civil unions succeeded.

Name one.

[Grave_n_idle]

He said no people opposed to gay marriage were for civil unions. ABSOLUTLY NONE. What better way to disprove it than people I acctualy know who oppose gay marriage and support civil unions?

Because you know perfectly well that he was referring to people in general and that you presenting strawman argument doesn't really serve your purpose?

No, I honestly believ he ment anyone, anywhere. If that is not the case he should tell me.

How do you reconcile that absolutist interpretation with my mention of statistical significance?

Or - do you just ignore the parts that don't work for your argument?

The statistics came after I said the thing about my friends, and they weren't sourced. It seemed like they were made up on the spot to cover your own ass.

13 states have statute limitations that prohibit same sex marriages.

Another 10 states prohibit same sex marriage by amended constitution.

19 states have constitutional amendmentsthat heavily limit, or entirely prohibit ANY kind of civil union for homsexual couples.


The difference is statistical.

[Omnicracy]

And people won't stop fighting if gay marriage is allowed?

No - they'll fight.

They fought when multiracial marriage broke in, too - and it became clear that that was a losing argument, because it means fighting the Constitution.

Now almost no one fights against racial equality in marriage.

If marriage equality is allowed, people will fight - but the fight will be shorter, and simpler, because it will mean fighting the Constitution.

And that's the future I want - where there are a tiny vocal proportion of fringe lunatics yelling about it, but they are arguing fruitlessly against the Constitution.

My proposal has that same end, in case you didn't notice. Everyone gets equality and trying to stop that goes against the constitution. Your only opposition is that the law in mine doesn't say the word then?

[Omnicracy]

Since you ignored it the first time around I'll repost

But in other states where same-sex marriage failed, civil unions succeeded.

Name one.

Didn't ignor it. I noticed it was adressed for me so I quoted that person and said, "It was adressed for me." Did you miss that?

[Grave_n_idle]

4) No, my argument is that if people like you get behind it too, it has enough support to be passed into law...

You're big on rhetoric, and insignificant on evidence.

Has anyone tried what I proposed?

They'd better have, really - or you're just making big claims, no?

You said it has enough support - prove it.

Would you vote for what I have proposed?

You entire proposal about changing wording?

No - that's not even a real proposal.

[Dyakovo]

Since you ignored it the first time around I'll repost

But in other states where same-sex marriage failed, civil unions succeeded.

Name one.

Didn't ignor it. I noticed it was adressed for me so I quoted that person and said, "It was adressed for me." Did you miss that?

Nope.
You also haven't answered it.

[Omnicracy]

4) No, my argument is that if people like you get behind it too, it has enough support to be passed into law...

You're big on rhetoric, and insignificant on evidence.

Has anyone tried what I proposed?

They'd better have, really - or you're just making big claims, no?

You said it has enough support - prove it.

Would you vote for what I have proposed?

No; it's redundant.

EDIT-- That is to say, I wouldn't.

Two things; One) how is it redundant?, and two) that would be why it wouldn't work (asuming you are for gay marriage), because the whole of the pro side doesn't cross over.

[Omnicracy]

And people won't stop fighting if gay marriage is allowed?

No - they'll fight.

They fought when multiracial marriage broke in, too - and it became clear that that was a losing argument, because it means fighting the Constitution.

Now almost no one fights against racial equality in marriage.

If marriage equality is allowed, people will fight - but the fight will be shorter, and simpler, because it will mean fighting the Constitution.

And that's the future I want - where there are a tiny vocal proportion of fringe lunatics yelling about it, but they are arguing fruitlessly against the Constitution.

Ok that's what you want.

Exactly, what GnI (and I) want is equality under the law, not equality under the law but only for those that the fundies approve of.

And I want equality under the law too!

[Grave_n_idle]

And people won't stop fighting if gay marriage is allowed?

No - they'll fight.

They fought when multiracial marriage broke in, too - and it became clear that that was a losing argument, because it means fighting the Constitution.

Now almost no one fights against racial equality in marriage.

If marriage equality is allowed, people will fight - but the fight will be shorter, and simpler, because it will mean fighting the Constitution.

And that's the future I want - where there are a tiny vocal proportion of fringe lunatics yelling about it, but they are arguing fruitlessly against the Constitution.

My proposal has that same end, in case you didn't notice. Everyone gets equality and trying to stop that goes against the constitution. Your only opposition is that the law in mine doesn't say the word then?

Your proposal isn't even vaguely realistic. It's not going to happen. It relies on the fact that people would change the law - they won't.

Further - it relies on the fact that people will vote in favour of 'civil unions'. They won't - 19 states have amended their constitutions to that effect, already.

[Buffett and Colbert]

What proof was there that the U.S. wouldn't collapse in afew years after independence was declared? Lack of proof means nothing close enough has happened befor to give you an idea of whether or not it would work.

I love your rational and indisputable reasoning.

[Grave_n_idle]

And people won't stop fighting if gay marriage is allowed?

No - they'll fight.

They fought when multiracial marriage broke in, too - and it became clear that that was a losing argument, because it means fighting the Constitution.

Now almost no one fights against racial equality in marriage.

If marriage equality is allowed, people will fight - but the fight will be shorter, and simpler, because it will mean fighting the Constitution.

And that's the future I want - where there are a tiny vocal proportion of fringe lunatics yelling about it, but they are arguing fruitlessly against the Constitution.

Ok that's what you want.

Exactly, what GnI (and I) want is equality under the law, not equality under the law but only for those that the fundies approve of.

And I want equality under the law too!

But you want to try to change the law until everyone is equal, rather than make everyone legal under the law.

It's not realistic - and it ignores reality.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Two things; One) how is it redundant?, and two) that would be why it wouldn't work (asuming you are for gay marriage), because the whole of the pro side doesn't cross over.

It's redundant because simply changing the terminology of something doesn't make a difference. Most people aren't dumb enough not to realise that legalising civil unions for gays is the exact same thing as granting them the right to marry.

[Omnicracy]

He said no people opposed to gay marriage were for civil unions. ABSOLUTLY NONE. What better way to disprove it than people I acctualy know who oppose gay marriage and support civil unions?

Because you know perfectly well that he was referring to people in general and that you presenting strawman argument doesn't really serve your purpose?

No, I honestly believ he ment anyone, anywhere. If that is not the case he should tell me.

How do you reconcile that absolutist interpretation with my mention of statistical significance?

Or - do you just ignore the parts that don't work for your argument?

The statistics came after I said the thing about my friends, and they weren't sourced. It seemed like they were made up on the spot to cover your own ass.

13 states have statute limitations that prohibit same sex marriages.

Another 10 states prohibit same sex marriage by amended constitution.

19 states have constitutional amendmentsthat heavily limit, or entirely prohibit ANY kind of civil union for homsexual couples.


The difference is statistical.

I asume that is supposed to say somewhere in there the whole "people against gay marriage are also agianst civil unions all the time" justification, but I don't see it. Under purely the informationyou have provided, you've shown 23 states that could accept my proposal. Could you please clarify?