You are a Racist, a Bigot and a Sexist.

[SyntaxSocialist]

Ken, it is you who twists it up. I have no interest in discussing the morality of you touching my willy. As much as I disagree with you, and think that it is not at all wrong for you to touch my willy if you're so inclined (and I say it's okay for you to do it, of course Consent is paramount), I am taking issue with your interpretation of the gay rights movement as anything other than a civil rights movement. The two issues are quite separate.

Just as when interracial marriage became legal, there were people who, much like yourself in this case, felt it was immoral for blacks and whites to marry, there are people who feel it is immoral for gays to marry. You illustrate that. The issue is not one of morality, but one of equality. If you're allowed to have sex with your wife's ass and still get tax credits, why can't two men get the same?

When you respond, please try to remember that this is not about what's right. It's about what's fair. Many believed it wasn't right for blacks and whites to marry, but it was fair. You don't believe it is right for gays/lesbians/etc. to marry. But it's fair. It is very much possible for someone to believe that homosexuality is wrong but that gays should still be allowed to be married (even if only by civil, secular ceremony). I want to know why you don't.

 

[KenHigg]

I don't see how you seperate the issues but if you must dumb it down, have a new law where two men get a tax credit or what ever you want them to have that is deemed 'fair'. Then you have to allow a guy and his girl friend to get the same...

 

[ColinEssex]

Twist it up, call it civil rights, lgbto, or whatever you want, two men who want to kiss on each other and put their hands in each others pants is wrong.

Agreed.

Col

 

[SyntaxSocialist]

I don't see how you seperate the issues but if you must dumb it down, have a new law where two men get a tax credit or what ever you want them to have that is deemed 'fair'. Then you have to allow a guy and his girl friend to get the same...

Fair point, Ken. Let me not reduce it such that marriage is only about tax credits. I am a cynic about marriage and sometimes forget/neglect how important it is to many, indeed most, people. So let me rephrase what I last said:

Ken, it is you who twists it up. I have no interest in discussing the morality of you touching my willy. As much as I disagree with you, and think that it is not at all wrong for you to touch my willy if you're so inclined (and I say it's okay for you to do it, of course Consent is paramount), I am taking issue with your interpretation of the gay rights movement as anything other than a civil rights movement. The two issues are quite separate.

Just as when interracial marriage became legal, there were people who, much like yourself in this case, felt it was immoral for blacks and whites to marry, there are people who feel it is immoral for gays to marry. You illustrate that. The issue is not one of morality, but one of equality. If you're allowed to have your relationship with a woman validated by the state through the institution of marriage, why can't two men or two women have the same?

When you respond, please try to remember that this is not about what's right. It's about what's fair. Many believed it wasn't right for blacks and whites to marry, but it was fair. You don't believe it is right for gays/lesbians/etc. to marry. But it's fair. It is very much possible for someone to believe that homosexuality is wrong but that gays should still be allowed to be married (even if only by civil, secular ceremony). I want to know why you don't.

 

[KenHigg]

If you're allowed to have your relationship with a woman validated by the state through the institution of marriage, why can't two men or two women have the same?

Looks like we are at an impass if you fail to understand why two men are not supposed to have a 'relationship'. Perhaps if we shared a little of each others background we may gain a little more understanding of the others viewpoint(s)?

 

[SyntaxSocialist]

What a terribly general proposition. I'm of course willing to provide context, but context is broad; I'll need more specifics, as this is scarcely the place to lay out my life philosophies.

The sense I'm getting is that your argument against gay marriage has its roots in 'the sanctity of marriage.' Would that be an accurate appraisal, or do I presume too much?

 

[KenHigg]

I would say the root objection is the 'gay' part of gay marriage is wrong. But yes, I think marriage is sacred, just like children.

 

[SyntaxSocialist]

So what do you say about the sanctity of marriages performed by:
- The state?
- Other religions (I'm assuming you're Christian)?
- Other denominations of Christianity?
Do any of these violate the sanctity of marriage, as you understand it?

And what of marriages between:
- Atheists?
- Straight women and gay men?
- Straight men and gay women?
- Gay women and gay men?

And what of marriages that end in divorce? At least 50% do these days; does that not also violate the sanctity of marriage? It certainly violates the vows each party took.

To be clear: I am not trying to challenge your belief in the sanctity of marriage here; I'm trying to understand the extent of it--the bullets you're willing to bite and those you are not.

 

[KenHigg]

Really? After all these posts? You're trying to drive the topic into a legalistic wormhole.

 

[SyntaxSocialist]

It is a wormhole when you look at it from the perspective of the 'sanctity' of marriage. But that simply highlights the inconsistencies in your stances on these myriad topics. They do not each exist in a vacuum; quite often, your stance on one can necessitate a certain stance on another.

I'm not backing you into a corner; I'm trying to show you that you're already in one.

 

[KenHigg]

It is a wormhole when you look at it from the perspective of the 'sanctity' of marriage. But that simply highlights the inconsistencies in your stances on these myriad topics. They do not each exist in a vacuum; quite often, your stance on one can necessitate a certain stance on another.

I'm not backing you into a corner; I'm trying to show you that you're already in one.

Well well, aren't you the clever one. Would you mind bestowing upon me my 'inconsistency'? Maybe I can learn to understand this myriad of topics like you someday.

BTW, why is it a 'terribly general proposition' to want to know more about the person I am debating?

 

[SyntaxSocialist]

I'll happily point out any existing inconsistencies if you'd kindly answer the question that was aimed at uncovering them.

And it's terribly general because you asked for my background, which is an extremely broad subject. I can tell you I'm a straight, liberal, white, male Canadian. That my formal training is in philosophy. That I've sucked a dick before. That I'm an atheist and an adherent to existentialism. But that doesn't mean you know everything that influences my beliefs. So yes, it's terribly broad. But as I said, I'll happily share if you offer more direct queries.

 

[KenHigg]

I'll happily point out any existing inconsistencies if you'd kindly answer the question that was aimed at uncovering them.

? So once you uncover them then you will point them out?

But that simply highlights the inconsistencies in your stances on these myriad topics.

I thought this meant you had already found some?

Edit:

...That I've **** * **** before.

I have to ask this - Think you'll ever do it again?

Edit2: You're right guys, my bad.

 

[RainLover]

Guys

I am not going to make a big deal about it but I think it could be cleaned up a little.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Agreed Rain,
What amazes me is that a discussion about marriage has descended to a discussion about sex, perhaps it says a lot about someone if for them marriage equates to sex.

Brian

 

[KenHigg]

Agreed Rain,
What amazes me is that a discussion about marriage has descended to a discussion about sex, perhaps it says a lot about someone if for them marriage equates to sex.

Brian

Perhaps it says a lot about someone that thinks it doesn't matter.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

My local swimming pool has mixed sessions and M/F only sessions.

I can only attend one type of session with my partner, yet gays can go to 2 together.

Gay couples have twice the access criteria of heterosexual couples.


Discrimination!

 

[RainLover]

have to ask this - Think you'll ever do it again?

Edit2: You're right guys, my bad.

The Man has Class.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Perhaps it says a lot about someone that thinks it doesn't matter.

Wow! How can I possibly compete with such stunning debating skills.

Brian

 

[KenHigg]

You used the 'Perhaps...' thing first, how the heck is me using it any different?