Gays can't marry in Cali or whatever.

[cookiecutter]

I don't see how denying marriage to gays based on historical precedent is any better than denying marriage to blacks based on historical precedent.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Not only is it no BETTER, it essentially no DIFFERENT.

 

[Matt]

I don't think that is fair. What is the point? To convince the other side to comply with you views, or to discuss the issue? You're not often going to entirely change someones ideology, and honestly I have been more willing to reevaluate aspect of my outlook more than anyone else. So why is it pointless?

The problem is that you never listen to anything anyone has to say

At all

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

He does but somehow it doesn't change his mind.

 

[Matt]

I honestly think he just skims over everything and picks out a few things to debate to keep everything going in a circle

 

[AchrisK]

I honestly think he just skims over everything and picks out a few things to debate to keep everything going in a circle

Actually I don't. Have you really read this whole thing? I try to address everything, but as usual I am alone on this side of the issue, trying to respond to many people on the other side. It was especially bad at the start of the whole thing. But regardless, I do read everything. But what are you saying is the evidence that I don't? Is it the fact that I don't change my mind? Consider this: neither are any of you coming around to my point of view. There is no shifting even one iota or conceding of any points. Does that mean you are skimming over my posts and not reading them? No, I don't think so. But things like this do go in circles. The same points have been made over and over for both sides.

Here is how I see it from my side: I make my points and feel they are brushed off simply as, "not good enough to change [insert name]'s mind on the issue", when I am not trying to change minds, I am simply trying to illustrate that there is reason and logic behind these views, and they are not simply bigotry and hate. I get replies, some of which seem to indicate a lack of comprehension of what I meant, so I try to clarify. That makes circles. That's how debates go sometimes. In addition I have conceded points and agreed with some people and even shifted my position to some degree.

How do you see the process from your side?

 

[Alter]

Actually I don't. Have you really read this whole thing? I try to address everything, but as usual I am alone on this side of the issue, trying to respond to many people on the other side. It was especially bad at the start of the whole thing. But regardless, I do read everything. But what are you saying is the evidence that I don't? Is it the fact that I don't change my mind? Consider this: neither are any of you coming around to my point of view. There is no shifting even one iota or conceding of any points. Does that mean you are skimming over my posts and not reading them? No, I don't think so. But things like this do go in circles. The same points have been made over and over for both sides.

Here is how I see it from my side: I make my points and feel they are brushed off simply as, "not good enough to change [insert name]'s mind on the issue", when I am not trying to change minds, I am simply trying to illustrate that there is reason and logic behind these views, and they are not simply bigotry and hate. I get replies, some of which seem to indicate a lack of comprehension of what I meant, so I try to clarify. That makes circles. That's how debates go sometimes. In addition I have conceded points and agreed with some people and even shifted my position to some degree.

How do you see the process from your side?

No, your a fucking asshole who denies rights to those who need them and you hide behind religion as your cover.

 

[AchrisK]

wow

 

[skeptik]

Shut the fuck up Alter.

 

[AchrisK]

I don't see how denying marriage to gays based on historical precedent is any better than denying marriage to blacks based on historical precedent.

I was saying that allowing blacks to marry realigned them with societal and historical definitions of marriage. They were not denied marriage based on wanting something that was different from the norm (as illustrated in history). It was only based on bigotry and seeing them as property. I don't know if that clarified what I was saying.

 

[The Ozzman]

 

[Alter]

Shut the fuck up Alter.

You can add me on ignore if you want. I don't really mind. But first you must answer my dearest question: Do you like those Peste Noire records?


And, Yes he is a fucking asshole. He should have seen that he is wrong by this point;

 

[AchrisK]

I already watched it, and I don't think it offers much substance to this discussion. But I have already decided not to keep "debating" this issue, because it's a) not going anywhere and b) I am somewhat undecided on my position of what is the right thing for me to do if faced with a vote in the future. I think my points have validity, but I am not sure what the practical application of them is at this point.

KINDA LIKE I SAID BEFORE

 

[Alter]

Vote how I would vote. :Smug:

 

[AchrisK]

Um...no

 

[Alter]

Yes.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Shut the fuck up Alter.

.

 

[Matt]

Actually I don't. Have you really read this whole thing? I try to address everything, but as usual I am alone on this side of the issue, trying to respond to many people on the other side. It was especially bad at the start of the whole thing. But regardless, I do read everything. But what are you saying is the evidence that I don't? Is it the fact that I don't change my mind? Consider this: neither are any of you coming around to my point of view. There is no shifting even one iota or conceding of any points. Does that mean you are skimming over my posts and not reading them? No, I don't think so. But things like this do go in circles. The same points have been made over and over for both sides.

Here is how I see it from my side: I make my points and feel they are brushed off simply as, "not good enough to change [insert name]'s mind on the issue", when I am not trying to change minds, I am simply trying to illustrate that there is reason and logic behind these views, and they are not simply bigotry and hate. I get replies, some of which seem to indicate a lack of comprehension of what I meant, so I try to clarify. That makes circles. That's how debates go sometimes. In addition I have conceded points and agreed with some people and even shifted my position to some degree.

How do you see the process from your side?

Fair enough. I often don't even get involved in these debates as I don't really have enough time anymore, but when I read your posts it seems like sometimes you often ignore a lot of what's said. Whatever, though.

Edit: I actually applaud you for staying here. Most people in your position would be long gone by now

 

[cookiecutter]

I was saying that allowing blacks to marry realigned them with societal and historical definitions of marriage. They were not denied marriage based on wanting something that was different from the norm (as illustrated in history). It was only based on bigotry and seeing them as property. I don't know if that clarified what I was saying.

I think you're missing the point. Denying a minority marriage rights because historically they have not had them is not a good argument. Just like it is not traditional for two men to marry, it was not traditional for black people to get married. They did want something different than the norm. Black marriage was not the norm. Interracial marriage was not the norm. Whether or not they were heterosexual marriages is irrelevant. The point is that denying someone rights just because they have not had them before is unjust.

 

[AchrisK]

I think you're missing the point. Denying a minority marriage rights because historically they have not had them is not a good argument. Just like it is not traditional for two men to marry, it was not traditional for black people to get married. They did want something different than the norm. Black marriage was not the norm. Interracial marriage was not the norm. Whether or not they were heterosexual marriages is irrelevant. The point is that denying someone rights just because they have not had them before is unjust.

In fact, I think you're missing my point. My point is not to deny rights based on history, but to understand the definition of marriage based on history, biology, evolution and society, and to think about how it applies to this situation. Based on that definition, there is nothing to preclude blacks from marrying. Thus it was something else (bigotry) that gave someone the idea that they had some right to restrict blacks in that way. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, stray from that definition. That is my only point.