Marriage Now Fabulous, SCOTUS Rules for Same Sex Marriage

[Grenartia]

I think you're somehow laboring under the fallacious assumption thats what we're saying.

How is it not?
I asked if the same "rule" about how wrong it is to break up with someone who is trans* because they are trans* applies to breaking up with someone for other arbitrary reasons (my example being the person is blonde) and the only response I got was "blonde =/= trans*".

That doesn't mean we're saying trans people are owed relationships.

[Cannot think of a name]

Hey, I think this thread has finally ended. No more idiots!

And then you bumped it...

[Stellonia]

Hey, I think this thread has finally ended. No more idiots!

And then you bumped it...

Hip hip hurrah! Hip hip hurrah! Hip hip hurrah!

[Dyakovo]

How is it not?
I asked if the same "rule" about how wrong it is to break up with someone who is trans* because they are trans* applies to breaking up with someone for other arbitrary reasons (my example being the person is blonde) and the only response I got was "blonde =/= trans*".

That doesn't mean we're saying trans people are owed relationships.

If you aren't owed a relationship, how is it unacceptable for someone to view "being trans*" as a deal-breaker when "being blonde" as a deal-breaker is not unacceptable?

[Grenartia]

That doesn't mean we're saying trans people are owed relationships.

If you aren't owed a relationship, how is it unacceptable for someone to view "being trans*" as a deal-breaker when "being blonde" as a deal-breaker is not unacceptable?

I don't see how you're leaping to that conclusion, that unacceptability for somebody's being trans being a dealbreaker automatically means I'm saying we're owed relationships.

[Dyakovo]

If you aren't owed a relationship, how is it unacceptable for someone to view "being trans*" as a deal-breaker when "being blonde" as a deal-breaker is not unacceptable?

I don't see how you're leaping to that conclusion, that unacceptability for somebody's being trans being a dealbreaker automatically means I'm saying we're owed relationships.

What other explanation is there?

[Replevion]

I don't see how you're leaping to that conclusion, that unacceptability for somebody's being trans being a dealbreaker automatically means I'm saying we're owed relationships.

What other explanation is there?

If you had a relationship with a woman with dark hair, and then found out she was really blonde but was just dying it, and you dumped her because you don't like blondes, THAT would be equivalent to doing the same for discovering that somebody was trans.

You don't owe anybody a relationship, it just makes you a shitsack for putting a superficial element above all the substantive aspects that make a human being actually valuable. The effect is the same. Somebody who artificially colors their hair to something you like is going to be functionally and in appearance the thing you claim to like and not the thing you claim not to like. Similarly, if you like vaginas and a trans woman has a vagina and it felt fine before you knew it wasn't original, then to say it's unacceptable due to some abstract thing about history and prejudice... it's shitty hypocrisy. It looked and felt like what you wanted.

What this boils down to is WHY you change your mind. Anything that's truly consistent is a non-issue. Changing your mind about somebody due to abstractions of their past is just shitty in my mind.

My wife used to be a prostitute. There are a lot of guys who finding that out would leave her (indeed, some in her relationship history did exactly that). I maintain those guys are shitbags. I told her I loved her and that it didn't matter to me. You look at somebody's value in the present, not the past. If they are in all functional reality what you want in the present, abstractions of their history shouldn't be important.

[Dyakovo]

What other explanation is there?

If you had a relationship with a woman with dark hair, and then found out she was really blonde but was just dying it, and you dumped her because you don't like blondes, THAT would be equivalent to doing the same for discovering that somebody was trans.

You don't owe anybody a relationship, it just makes you a shitsack for putting a superficial element above all the substantive aspects that make a human being actually valuable. The effect is the same. Somebody who artificially colors their hair to something you like is going to be functionally and in appearance the thing you claim to like and not the thing you claim not to like. Similarly, if you like vaginas and a trans woman has a vagina and it felt fine before you knew it wasn't original, then to say it's unacceptable due to some abstract thing about history and prejudice... it's shitty hypocrisy. It looked and felt like what you wanted.

What this boils down to is WHY you change your mind. Anything that's truly consistent is a non-issue. Changing your mind about somebody due to abstractions of their past is just shitty in my mind.

My wife used to be a prostitute. There are a lot of guys who finding that out would leave her (indeed, some in her relationship history did exactly that). I maintain those guys are shitbags. I told her I loved her and that it didn't matter to me. You look at somebody's value in the present, not the past. If they are in all functional reality what you want in the present, abstractions of their history shouldn't be important.

See, this I can accept. If this is what y'all have been trying to articulate all along, then I apologize for dragging this argument out this long.

[Replevion]

If you had a relationship with a woman with dark hair, and then found out she was really blonde but was just dying it, and you dumped her because you don't like blondes, THAT would be equivalent to doing the same for discovering that somebody was trans.

You don't owe anybody a relationship, it just makes you a shitsack for putting a superficial element above all the substantive aspects that make a human being actually valuable. The effect is the same. Somebody who artificially colors their hair to something you like is going to be functionally and in appearance the thing you claim to like and not the thing you claim not to like. Similarly, if you like vaginas and a trans woman has a vagina and it felt fine before you knew it wasn't original, then to say it's unacceptable due to some abstract thing about history and prejudice... it's shitty hypocrisy. It looked and felt like what you wanted.

What this boils down to is WHY you change your mind. Anything that's truly consistent is a non-issue. Changing your mind about somebody due to abstractions of their past is just shitty in my mind.

My wife used to be a prostitute. There are a lot of guys who finding that out would leave her (indeed, some in her relationship history did exactly that). I maintain those guys are shitbags. I told her I loved her and that it didn't matter to me. You look at somebody's value in the present, not the past. If they are in all functional reality what you want in the present, abstractions of their history shouldn't be important.

See, this I can accept. If this is what y'all have been trying to articulate all along, then I apologize for dragging this argument out this long.

I'm fairly certain that my forum colleagues will sign off on the sentiment, because yeah, this is what we've been saying all along.

[The Rich Port]

Eh, SSM has to deal with affairs with the state. Abortion is another matter. I agree with you that it is BS what many states are doing with regards to abortion rights, but SSM is a government issue, abortion is a private medical decision.

Could churches in some states still opt out of marrying people of the same sex, though?

They were never forcibly opted in...

[Arbitrary Humans]

Ok, this has gone way too far off topic. This one is about gay marriage. If you are going to talk about other things off topic, make another thread.

[Replevion]

Ok, this has gone way too far off topic. This one is about gay marriage. If you are going to talk about other things off topic, make another thread.

If you hadn't bumped this thing it wouldn't have been rekindled. Besides which that line of exchange is already over. Barn door; horses.

[Grenartia]

See, this I can accept. If this is what y'all have been trying to articulate all along, then I apologize for dragging this argument out this long.

I'm fairly certain that my forum colleagues will sign off on the sentiment, because yeah, this is what we've been saying all along.

Yeah, Dya, I'm entirely sure this is what we've been saying all along, and if asked, I could give quotes. You probably just didn't read them well enough. The reason I didn't say any of what Sophia did was because it had already been said and it didn't get through to you, and I'm quite surprised it got through to you this time.