Issues concerning gays -- part XXXVVV

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Arrian
MrFun, I read a few pages of Giancarlo v. Wiglaf, with occasional insights from Sava. For your own good: leave this thread and never come back. It's been Wisafezzed.

-Arrian

edit: there ya go, Savita

WTF? I thought I was having a constructive debate with Wiglaf? Ming even joined in. That's rare for him to join in a debate with me involved.. unless he's restricting me. And I'm still here.

[Wiglaf]

Just because something is tradition doesn't make it right. Remember slavery? Was that right? At the time, you'd have probably wanted to retain slavery because it is tradition and would shake the foundations of society. But no, because you have the power of hindsight. What makes this different?

First of all, the government did not simply endorse slavery or non-slavery; it imposed slavery on people, making the government a far more active moral agent (note that now it only passively refused to grant gays special legal rights. It is not restricting them from being gay or doing gay things.) Quite a difference.

Note that marriage is a government sponsorship. To maintain a reasonable definition of so fundamental a concept, the government chooses, as is its moral right, to avoid the chill affect and preserve its pretty basic tradition.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


In a divorce, there are exactly three people who can get the kids - the mom, dad, or State. With polygamy, there can be MANY more parties than there are people involved.

So your opposition to polygamy is that it might be complicated? Thats not much of an argument for keeping something illegal.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Note that marriage is a government sponsorship. To maintain a reasonable definition of so fundamental a concept, the government chooses, as is its moral right, to avoid the chill affect and preserve its pretty basic tradition.

Yep, the Government can choose, and the law change in the near future to allow it.

And again, the "chill affect"...
Maybe for you, but a lot of people would disagree and see it as the government moving to a higher moral ground if they change the law by treating people fairly.

Remember, many people don't agree with your personal "moral" code... especially since it is one based in bigotry and hate

[Wiglaf]

Maybe for you, but a lot of people would disagree and see it as the government moving to a higher moral ground if they change the law by treating people fairly.

Well **** ming, if some people disagree, it must be right. Legalize away.

The core issue is whether or not you're going to treat everyone fairly. No one here has come out supporting polygamists, or alternative takes on marriage as an institution. You just have to if you want to justify gays getting married. That's your problem...

Remember, many people don't agree with your personal "moral" code... especially since it is one based in bigotry and hate

If you want to call someone a bigot fifty times make it interesting.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Well **** ming, if some people disagree, it must be right. Legalize away.

Yep... and that's the point. It should be up to the people and the government... not religions. If the people support it, it will happen. To treat couples FAIRLY, it should be allowed. And it will eventually happen. So they will get the last laugh on all the bigots...

[Giancarlo]

The point being of this entire debate, Wiggy Piggy, is that you cannot push your moral ideas on others. This isn't the United States of Wiglaf.

[Provost Harrison]

Wiggy Piggy? Gian, if you are going to use an insult, use something a bit less lame, OK?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Wiggy Piggy? Gian, if you are going to use an insult, use something a bit less lame, OK?

I'm not going to waste the effort on someone like Wiglaf.

[Wiglaf]

The point being of this entire debate, Wiggy Piggy, is that you cannot push your moral ideas on others. This isn't the United States of Wiglaf.

It's legal to be gay. This isn't slavery.

You want to push your ideas onto the government, entirely obscuring what marriage as an instiution even is. Again, polygamy, etc are logical corollaries.

Yep... and that's the point. It should be up to the people and the government... not religions. If the people support it, it will happen. To treat couples FAIRLY, it should be allowed. And it will eventually happen. So they will get the last laugh on all the bigots...

Well in many states it isn't happening. But that's not the point, is it?

Just because we dropped a bomb on Hiroshima and it was popular doesn't make that right either. While gov would be within its rights to make gay marriage legal, the effects of their decision are what's in play here.....

[Giancarlo]

And what are you doing? You are pushing your ideas on government and on the lives on gay couples. I have no room for a fascist who thinks he can compare homosexuality to polygamy. You again are being a total illogical person. Damn bigot.

[Wiglaf]

In twenty years, people will say I am a fascist for thinking I can compare cat sex with toaster weddings.

If you want that slippery slope, you're the "total illogical person."

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
In twenty years, people will say I am a fascist for thinking I can compare cat sex with toaster weddings.

If you want that slippery slope, you're the "total illogical person."

Again, you aren't being a fascist in this regard, but MR IRRELEVANT. IRRELVANT IRRELEVANT AND IRRELEVANT. And it is starting to get on my nerves. Cat sex and toaster weddings has nothing to do with homosexuality, nice try mr. irrelevant.

[Kuciwalker]

Twenty years? People'll call you that now. And they'll be exaggerating. Slightly.

[Wiglaf]

Giancarlo: why can't a man get married to sixty other men? Hypothetically speaking, of course.

And Kuciwalker, Thanks for your support