10-year old Arkansas boy refuses to say pledgeFollow

Here is where gbaji starts to pretend that it's ok that gay people (hopefully) almost have everything straight people have, but under a different name.

Gbaji would also defend segregation till the bitter end.

Edited, Nov 14th 2009 12:03am by CBD

You're correct. Today you could choose to keep your money if you wanted to and not purchase health care. You are free to roll those dice and decide that it's more important to put the money into Joph Jr's college fund. And if you come down with some major illness and can't afford the medical costs? Well, that's a risk you can take. If you wish.


You will no longer have the freedom to make that choice if the current House health care bill becomes law. So no. You're not "able to". Able to implies you can choose to do it or not. You "have to".

I'm not pretending. It *is* ok. It is perfectly acceptable for the government to use criteria to determine who gets what benefits. It is only unlawfully discriminatory when those conditions are not reasonable with regard to the issue at hand. There is no reason, for example, for restricting marriage rights and benefits based on the skin color of the participants. There is reason to restrict marriage benefits based on the genders of the participants.


So yes. It is perfectly ok to have two different statuses which apply to two completely different things. In the same way that the state can decide that blind people can't drive cars. They aren't violating the rights of the blind. They are placing a reasonable criteria on obtaining a drivers license.



Sigh. No I would not. And frankly, this comparison gets tiresome.

Incorrect! Valiant attempt at bringing up this discussion already. I think it's number C on my list of Topics Gbaji Refuses to Address? "What is it about a child in the homosexual family unit that makes it less valuable to society than a child in a heterosexual family unit?"

"BUT I NEVER SAID THAT!!! THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING!!! SHEESH...!!!"

Don't make me paste the "bananas" thing in here.



In this thread, gbaji claims that gay marriage is as dangerous to society as a blind person trying to drive. Because gay marriage has a high chance of killing people and all that.



Also in this thread, gbaji still has his head stuck in the sand and refuses to realize exactly how what he's saying carries through in a real world application.

Edited, Nov 14th 2009 12:14am by CBD

And yet, this was sufficient for millions of married couples for several thousand years.

So was washing bi-yearly.

Want to share something with the class, gbaji?

Which is a reduction from what I can do now. I can no longer attempt to gain the same recompensation as I could the day before. Keep trying to spin that all you want -- it's a loss of freedom.


So? I'm not the one trying to use "loss of freedom!" as the argument. The GOP wanted it passed. They want to strip me of my freedom.


Have fun with it. Especially while you deny that the GOP is every bit as willing to strip my freedom as the Democrats when it suits their agenda.

That's...no.

I said this already. Some things can be said to occur only when the language is used in the coherent and accepted way through which those things gain conceptual and legal legitimacy.

If I am your boss and want to fire you, I have to tell you at some point, or at least have it done. If you are never given that with the proper words, you can't actually be fired.

If I am expressing remorse about accidentally eating your fish, and I want to appologize, I have to say to you, that I am sorry. Purely in virtue of saying it I have done something substantial and unique.

If I want to marry someone to someone else, I need to pronounce them so by granting them the status of "marriage" or else I have not given them that.

These sorts of words and phrases are inexorably linked to their actions, and cannot be even functionally separated. No matter how much I try to replicate the function and associate it with a new word - "resign" perhaps instead of "fired" - the concept is merely similar, and doesn't approach being indiscernible; I'm probably going to face much less social shame and have more future opportunities if I am allowed to "resign" from something than get "fired", and it's purely because of the word. A "civil union" cannot be even functionally identical to a "marriage for the same reason;" language doesn't work that way.

I think lots of people simply don't recognize the importance of words themselves; if you don't have the word, then you don't have the concept to which it refers, and if you can't participate in the word, then you are being denied a relationship regarding that word, regardless of whether or not you can replace it with some other word which relegates you to an official second-class status.

Edited, Nov 14th 2009 3:32am by Pensive

Really? I thought that much was in the constitution. Article 4, section 1?

Or is there something I'm missing that lets states ignore that somehow? Seriously, I just don't know.

I'm not sure that it's something you're missing, but... oh, well, Wikipedia cite time:



Shame we don't actually have someone with a legal background here, but to my untrained eye that looks like it says... well, that if there's specifically a provision in law that forbids civil unions and the like in state X, that people who enter into one in state Y are kind of boned if they have to pass through state X at any time and something goes wrong.

Easier legally? Yes. Politically? No.

Eh, it's just a "matter of time" thing anyway. It shouldn't be, and that's certainly no excuse to not actively fight for gay rights, but most likely fifty years from now just the fact that we're having this conversation will seem absurd.