[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

No, it's respect for the majority's perception of a term, and an utter disrespect for tyranny of the minority.

How exactly is this tyranny? Is it forcing anyone to do anything? Well, except for accepting something they don't like. It hurts no one and denies them nothing.

Please explain for the class how a gay man does NOT have the right to marry?

I thought that was your position. Oh, no, he can marry who you say he can. What was that about tyranny?

A gay man (or woman) has PRECISELY the EXACT SAME RIGHTS that a heterosexual man has.

Then why can't they marry each other?

ANY MAN can marry a woman.
NO MAN can marry another man.

Why not?

How are those different rights again?

You say he has a right to marry her, but no right to marry him. Those are two different rights, out of your own keyboard.

Bad one? Because, why, you said so?

Because you're trying to drag in all sorts of external comparisons which have no bearing on the question at hand.

It's the same exact situation. But I guess Steve's only for special rights in SOME circumstances, right?

I'm not the one saying that some can marry whom they want and others can't.

So, because YOU don't see any reason to prevent this, no one else's reasoning have any validity?

I guess you didn't bother to read my explanation of how I actually feel about this, and why I take the stance I do. I'm not trying to force you into anything. I mostly question why you are so openly hostile to this. I'm not for it, but I see that it hurts no one. So what are your personal reasons?

Nice attempt at doding the point. I'm pretty sure it was clear to everyone else.

Except of course all the people who have posted differently.

It's called "analogy", not diversion. If you want to rationalize an argument based upon it's correctness somehow being inherent, it only follows that such logic should hold true in an analogue. I am challenging your reasoning - that should have been clear. But, rather than answer that challenge you've attempted to remove it by insisting that you cannot see the parallel.

We both know you're smarter than that, and I believe you know exactly my point, and how it invalidates your inherent reasoning, and that's why YOU, not me, are guilty of the diversion.

No, it's the old arguing trick of changing the subject. "But what about this?" "How do explain this, then?" Yes, it's an attempted parallel, but it has nothing to do with the question at hand.

No you wouldn't. I'm sure I addressed the reasoning why you wouldn't specifically, oh, say, 50 times in this thread.

Yes, you would. If the fact that they can't concieve children is an arguing point, it then directly applies to anyone who can't do the same.

Why WHAT'S a bad thing? Attempting to enforce the definition of a word to mean something other than what it is?

That one's obvious - communication relies upon words having specific meanings. Call it tradition, call it etymology - whatever. But I don't believe that a tiny segment of society should have any right to change the majority's belief in the meaning of a term.

And that takes us back to my question: Is your opposition to gays marrying each other really because of the affect it would have on the dictionary? If so, then it looks to me like a pretty odd reason. If not, then what is your personal stake in all this?

As for making it personal, I'm not trying to and I don't see how, but I apologize if you're taking it that way.

I took the "You're suppose to be the open-minded one here, Steve" that way. If you didn't mean it that way, then there's no problem.

I would suggest taking a deep breath though and relaxing a little bit, because it seems clear to me that you're getting a bit overly worked up over the issue. It still is possible to have valid disagreements, right?

As I've said several times, in my heart I'm against it myself. But I question my heart, and everything else. You say I'm getting worked up, but the truth is I have strong reactions when I see people be openly hostile to any concept.

The bottom line is (and I've said this many times), I'm really not all that passionate about the subject one way or the other. I do however find this debate to be fascinating, even moreso at the resistance people have to the most simple of solutions.

And I can say (and have said) exactly the same thing from the opposite side. I see the simple solution in allowing gays to marry each other, and you seem to virulently hate the idea.

To be honest, I think Skybird's making some excellent points leaning me more and more into opposition to even MY compromise, but still I'm not particularly passionate in any way.

Skybird often makes excellent points. Unfortunately he then refuses to acknowledge anyone else's and insists that he, and only he, is right, and to disagree with him is the action of a recalcitrant child.

Because marriage is between a man and a woman, as that is what the term means.

Again I ask, is the reason for your opposition based solely on the dictionary? That sounds wrong to me.

All laws regarding social concepts and constructs find basis in morality and moral judgement.Have you read what I have been suggesting at all?

We make laws to protect ourselves from each other. Creating legislation based on moral preference is a very different thing, and reeks of attempts at control, which truly is tyranny.

If so, explain to me how it's "lesser", because from where I sit, the word "equal" means, well, "equal".

"You can marry whom you want, except where I say you can't."

That is definitely "lesser".

Unless, of course, you conceed that the terminology holds some sort of intrinsic value in which case you would also have to conceed that one argument for not allowing gays the term "marriage" not associated with tradition would be to maintain said value because that value comes from within the CURRENT meaning of the term. Change the meaning, change the value.

Again, you want to control peoples' lives based on the dictionary? Again, that seems to me to be a cover for keeping a certain segment of society "in their place".

And again, my reason for supporting this is that I see no possible harm in allowing it. It doesn't hurt anyone.