10-year old Arkansas boy refuses to say pledgeFollow

It's just rather unfortunate that the people who fight the hardest for minority rights often never get to see them achieved.

that'd definitely be a nice change in pace, especially after Maine.

It's only socialism if you don't like it.

You're leaving out a huge amount of tradition and social pressure. It would be hard to overstate the effects, in fact.

I pointed it out before and you ignored it. In the Soviet Union and in communist China, people still got (and get) married. You're kidding yourself if you think the tax break is the only reason for two people to want to stand up in front of family and friends and formalize their union.

The current flap is about equality, not protecting marriage as an institution. It has proven itself to be amazingly durable, even as its "necessity" has diminished.

And... uh... What's all this ruckus I hear about rationing health care?

Same here.

Other than being changed to "unification of a couple" rather than "unification of a man and woman", what are you trying to say here?

Because when you change the definition of something, you change the way people view or treat that something. This is a classic failing, which I see committed on the political Left all the time: A bizarre belief that you can change the rules of the game and the players will continue to play the same way.


If something is highly regarded in society, you cannot pass that high regard onto something else simply by changing the definition of that thing so that it includes the other thing. All you usually end up doing is destroying the thing which started out with high regard. Let me give you an example:

Let's say our society highly prizes gold. It's rare. It's pretty. It makes good jewelry and can be used for various industrial purposes. Thus, we place a high value on it, right? We use expressions like "As good as gold". Now, let's say that we think it's unfair that coal isn't viewed the same way as gold. Afterall, coal has uses as well. It's important too! A liberal's solution to this problem of inequality would be to simply redefine the word "gold" to include coal. Cause it's unfair that they're treated differently, right? Of course, the very things which defined gold were what made it valuable to us. By making the change, we don't improve the image and value of coal, we simply eliminate the value of gold. And no amount of insisting that we should all treat coal just as well as we treat gold will change that.


I'm not making any specific value judgment here, so please don't take it that way. I'm simply explaining what I would assume should be a very basic concept. If you change a definition of something, you can't be surprised when the social view and value placed on that something changes. I can't predict exactly what that will be, but it will happen.


What's going on right now is that gay couples think they can buy or force social acceptance by changing the legal meaning of a label. Specifics aside, it should be pretty obvious that this can't work. And that alone should give us reason to maybe stop and think this whole thing through a bit more completely. Their relationships are what they are. Their value and meaning to society is what it is. No label change will change that for better or worse. And perhaps most relevantly, no amount of insisting that their relationships are or should be no different than those of heterosexual couples changes the fact that they *are* different. It clearly *does* matter to society if a couple consists of a man and a woman or two people of the same sex. You can dispute the reasons, you can insist it shouldn't matter, but at the end of the day it does. And just eliminating the legal distinctions isn't going to change that reality.

That's what she said.

Hey-ooo!

Edited, Nov 17th 2009 9:20pm by Debalic

Except it doesn't and hasn't in any other country that has "expanded the conditions". Therefore, what you're advocating is refusing something to a group that you would fight with everything you have to defend for yourself. Just as I previously said.

Erm.... who is pushing for this today?

No, when you change the use of the word you change how people view or treat the usage of that word. Often this change in usage also alters the definition somehow.



This reads as "We will have less heterosexual marriage if we allow homosexual marriage." A very hefty, and also completely false, claim.



1. Marriage is not "highly regarded" in the sense you're trying to claim.
2. The homosexual population is not trying to backdoor their way into widespread acceptance through same-sex marriage.



Or it won't. I'm going to make the nonsense claim that no one every gives a fuck when the definition of words change. Don't question me here, because I have just as much support for such a statement as you do for this strange idea that EVERYTHING MUST CHANGE when the definition of a word is extended.



If you know a gay person who thinks that same-sex marriage is going to allow gay people to be widely accepted in society, I give you permission to tell them they're a fucking moron to their face. That's not what this is about. I'm not sure how you even came up with this idea, but it's probably just more tinfoil nonsense.

In general, I recommend that you, or any other straight person, stop telling us members of the gay community what we do or do not want, or what we are or are not working for. You sound idiotic.



I dispute your reasons. Do you know why most people don't like the concept of same-sex couples? Their religion. Not what you continue to try to claim are the reasons, but because their pastor told them so and he speaks for God, now doesn't he?



Nobody every claimed they would. It's a start however, and how dare you suggest that it won't make a difference. At the very least, it does to that kid who's suicidal while trying to accept his sexuality in a world that would rather he was dead.

Edited, Nov 18th 2009 12:10am by CBD

IF YOU LIKE ABORTIONS, YOU ARE A COMMUNIST.