Biden: Gay Marriage 'Inevitable'

[burnsattornincan]

So I ask again, why should they have to come up with another term?

I equate this logic with someone who wants their cake and to eat it too. Countless groups cry every day about wanting to be equal with the norm yet want to keep all their baggage also. There obviously is an error somewhere in the sequence. The world was not started with gayness. It would be impossible to think so. Therefore, equality is not possible. I have no idea what you mean by "having two terms for the same thing". What is the same about man/woman vs woman/woman or man/man? These relationships are easily distinguishable by even a 2 year old. I like your word "elitism". What is elite about a normal couple of meager means objecting to the use of the term marriage for an unnatural relationship? There is an important piece of business I need to take care of but I shall return.

Mr. RDT sir, thank for your summation however I think I have the situation well in hand.

[magichat]

Burns you did get something right, the word marriage was not started with equality in mind. In fact it was started with the idea that a man could marry many women and make them his property. Is this the tradition you are proposing?

[floridayankee]

Dec 28, 2010 14:30:58 GMT -5 @magichat said:

Burns you did get something right, the word marriage was not started with equality in mind. In fact it was started with the idea that a man could marry many women and make them his property. Is this the tradition you are proposing?

Actually, the practice of "marriage" predates recorded history and has traditionally meant different things to different societies. No one really knows the original reason behind the creation of such civil unions.

[ChiTownVenture]

original reason behind the creation of such civil unions.

Also through out history there are instances of same-sex marriages in Roman times and in Ancient Asia. Same-sex marriage is not a new idea or use of the word.

[reformeddaytrader]

Dec 28, 2010 16:34:15 GMT -5 ChiTownVenture said:

original reason behind the creation of such civil unions.

Also through out history there are instances of same-sex marriages in Roman times and in Ancient Asia. Same-sex marriage is not a new idea or use of the word.

Were the Ancient Greeks the first to have Don't Ask Don't Tell ?? Just asking..?? And after the Spartans kicked their butt they did away with that rule..

[stats45]

It shouldn't be inevitable that government policy has to decide what types of relationships have meaning, importance, or tax benefits.

Remove this power from the government and let people make their own decisions about what they think about their own relationships and other people's relationships.

[dmsm]

Everyone should b allowed to be married. I see no reason for it not to be except bigotry. Love is love and is never bad between adults.

[billisonboard]

Dec 28, 2010 19:03:20 GMT -5 @dmsm said:

Everyone should b allowed to be married. ...

Yes, why should only some have to suffer.

[burnsattornincan]

In fact it was started with the idea that a man could marry many women and make them his property. Is this the tradition you are proposing?

Absolutely not. Muslims can do what they like on their own turf but keep this garbage out of the west, or it will be extinguished.

[chiver78]

Dec 28, 2010 19:27:35 GMT -5 burnsattornincan said:

In fact it was started with the idea that a man could marry many women and make them his property. Is this the tradition you are proposing?

Absolutely not. Muslims can do what they like on their own turf but keep this garbage out of the west, or it will be extinguished.

wow, that didn't take long.

what makes your hate any different from the radical Middle Eastern hate of Western culture??

[burnsattornincan]

what makes your hate any different from the radical Middle Eastern hate of Western culture??

Ms. chiver78, I am sorry to have led you astray. I do not wish to get into a Muslim debate here. I was simply pointing out I do not agree with that part of their culture Mr. magichat referred to. I do not "hate" them, in fact I have worked closely with some in the past. The thing I do "hate" is their infiltration of the west and in too many cases their non-assimilation to western culture. I do not understand why they come to the west and hold on to everything they had in the middle east. Well, perhaps I do understand it. As do more and more good patriotic Christian people from all western nations.

[chiver78]

"I do not understand why they come to the west and hold on to everything they had in the middle east."

I assure you, you have not led me astray. I am perfectly fine right where I am, thank you. I was taught quite young not to follow strangers, and you are quite strange. conversing with you (such as that is) is relatively safe, given the anonymous board.

I have to pause on this point here. in order to properly respond to this particular quote, I'm curious as to your views on Eastern European immigrants that choose to live largely amongst themselves, and marry only other Eastern European immigrants from the same origins....thus "holding onto everything they had" in the old country.

I use Eastern European as an example, because there are large Greek and Armenian communities in my area. This marriage limitation is still in large practice, and is no different than a Muslim seeking to maintain his own marriage practices from his homeland.

[chiver78]

but natural-born Atheists and Agnostics are safe? good to know, thanks.

[traelin0]

Stay Put, the above two messages regarding immigrants could be considered threatening. Mr. Burns has a more "tactful" approach at expressing his dislike for immigrants. Follow his lead.

chiver78, I edited your post to remove the quoted comment.

[Shirina]

Countless groups cry every day about wanting to be equal with the norm yet want to keep all their baggage also.

So what you're essentially saying here is that, in order to be accepted by society, one has to conform to the factory mold. In other words, if you do not look, act, and believe as the majority does, they should not be allowed to enjoy the same rights as everyone else. This seems like a thinly veiled justification for intolerance and bigotry than any real logic.

The world was not started with gayness.

Who said it was? I fail to see any relevance.

Therefore, equality is not possible.

Of course it is. Only bigotry prevents it.

I have no idea what you mean by "having two terms for the same thing". What is the same about man/woman vs woman/woman or man/man?

Marriage is marriage, whether it's between opposite or same genders. You can invent other words and pretend one is different from another, but that is delusional thinking. Wanting two different words for the same thing - marriage - is wrapping yourself in a cloak of fantasy as if, somehow, calling gay marriage something different actually makes it different. Unfortunately, calling a "piano" a "cat" doesn't mean the piano will suddenly start meowing.

What is elite about a normal couple of meager means objecting to the use of the term marriage for an unnatural relationship?

You answered your own question when you called it an "unnatural" relationship. Wanting the term for your own kind because you disagree with those different than yourself is, inherently, elitist. By wanting this semantic separation, you are claiming to be better than they are, and that defines elitism in a nutshell.

Oh, by the way, the "it's unnatural" argument is also a logical fallacy. That's three so far in this debate. At least you haven't used the slippery slope fallacy, but I suspect that will be making its rounds shorty.

[burnsattornincan]

Dear Ms. Shirina, you use the word "bigotry" quite liberally. Does such a word help propel your twisted agenda? Why don't you step it up a notch next time and throw out the tried and true racism label? Might as well go for it all.

I did not say anyone has to conform to the factory mold. I simply wanted to make the point that anyone different need not encroach on traditional practices. Laws need not be changed to acknowledge non normal behavior unless the minority becomes the majority or it is put to a vote. Oh wait a second, I guess Kalifornia took care of that one.

I do not "disagree" with anyone different than myself, I just take exception to them wanting 2 things at once. I do not think I'm better than anyone, I just like to ignite passion and imagination.

[ungenteel]

<<You answered your own question when you called it an "unnatural" relationship. Wanting the term for your own kind because you disagree with those different than yourself is, inherently, elitist. By wanting this semantic separation, you are claiming to be better than they are, and that defines elitism in a nutshell.

Oh, by the way, the "it's unnatural" argument is also a logical fallacy. That's three so far in this debate. At least you haven't used the slippery slope fallacy, but I suspect that will be making its rounds shorty.>>

Please don't confuse knee jerk right wingers with logic

[Tennesseer]

Absolutely not. Muslims can do what they like on their own turf but keep this garbage out of the west, or it will be extinguished.

Fiscan-you are Canadian. How's that working out for you up there - the extinguishing of gay marriage (legal in Canada) and Muslims in Canada coming along? I haven't read a thing about gay marriage in Canada being banned or Muslims being 'extinguished' in Canada.

[burnsattornincan]

Thank you for your input here Mr. Tennesseer administrator, it does make me feel impotent to have you chime in. I was not referring to gay marriage when talking about extinguishing. Totally different topic there. I will let fiscan know you have been thinking about him.

[ChiTownVenture]

liberals bite the big one
Guest

"Guest" Can you post without being a member?

[sanityjones]

The post (by said guest) was not relevant to the topic at hand and has been removed.

[Shirina]

Dear Ms. Shirina, you use the word "bigotry" quite liberally. Does such a word help propel your twisted agenda?

Do you deny being a bigot? If so, then how do you explain calling my so-called agenda a "twisted" one? You just keep hanging yourself every time you post.

Why don't you step it up a notch next time and throw out the tried and true racism label? Might as well go for it all.

Is homosexuality a race? No? Then why would I use the term "racist?"

I did not say anyone has to conform to the factory mold. I simply wanted to make the point that anyone different need not encroach on traditional practices.

Why not? Because those practices are traditional? Now we're back to the "Appeal to Tradition" fallacy.

Laws need not be changed to acknowledge non normal behavior unless the minority becomes the majority or it is put to a vote.

Non-normal behavior. What is that, exactly? Is not being able to walk considered normal? How about the behavior exhibited by those with autism? Dementia? Alzheimer's? Depression? Yet they are all allowed to enjoy even "traditional" practices without fuss and bother. Why draw the line at gay marriage? Was it necessary to vote on whether people with Asperger's Syndrome be allowed to marry despite their "non-normal" behavior? I didn't think so.

Oh, I know - you'll say, "But those people aren't asking to marry same-sex partners!" True, but they're still exhibiting "non-normal" behavior, and that is the root of it, is it not? Or is there something else? And let's not forget all of the non-normal or anti-social behaviors that do not prohibit marriage: wife and husband abusers, adulterers, rapists, pedophiles, murderers. They're all allowed to marry. I guess it's a specific non-normal behavior you're not fond of. I guess allowing wife beaters to marry women is more appealing than allowing two loving gay people to do the same.

I do not "disagree" with anyone different than myself, I just take exception to them wanting 2 things at once.

So ... in order for them not to have two things at once, a gay person must either forgo marriage or somehow become straight like the majority. Correct? Except, if it is correct, then you just contradicted this statement:

I did not say anyone has to conform to the factory mold.

It's either conform or you are denied the rights and privileges afforded to those so-called "normal" people.

I do not think I'm better than anyone, I just like to ignite passion and imagination.

Even though your posts to me have indicated something quite different, in the interests of peace and civil debate, I'll take your word for it ... despite it being against my better judgment. I just hope I'm not being played the fool.

[burnsattornincan]

Dear Ms. Shirina, you are beginning to put up a better argument for your cause however you still fall a little short. Your interpretation of "non-normal" behavior is a decent attempt however the problem is that these groups have always been "allowed" to marry because quite simply we are talking about man/woman. It does not matter what mental state any one of the couple is in, at least to any authority. Same sex marriage was a bizarre and probably unthinkable concept not too long ago. It is still hard to accept for many people but the reality is that the numbers are quite honestly staggering. However it still does not warrant changing the definition of the term marriage (union between man and woman), sorry.

And you are not a fool by any means and I don't expect you to agree with me and the rest of the populace who think the same. Curiously you did not respond to prop 8 I brought up earlier. I would like to know your take on how a democratically reached decision by millions of people was overturned by a single individual.

[chiver78]

Dec 29, 2010 20:46:08 GMT -5 burnsattornincan said:

Same sex marriage was a bizarre and probably unthinkable concept not too long ago.

what you continue to fail to acknowledge was that as recently as the last century, so was interracial marriage. times change, and the laws should reflect that.

[burnsattornincan]

Ms. chiver78, I actually very much appreciate your comment. I will ask you this and please think very carefully before answering. Do you think we are any better off today both morally and financially than 100 or more years ago? I await your response.

[chiver78]

Dec 29, 2010 21:03:40 GMT -5 burnsattornincan said:

Ms. chiver78, I actually very much appreciate your comment. I will ask you this and please think very carefully before answering. Do you think we are any better off today both morally and financially than 100 or more years ago? I await your response.

personally, I think there are very different problems now than then. some are due to morals, some to changing financial rules, some to greedy people finding financial loopholes, and others have come about from things that weren't even on the radar 100+ years ago.

that said, I think we are in a much better place now in that we recognize that women can, in fact, excel in the sciences and aren't too delicate to survive the material. we are better in that we acknowledge that the races are not in fact superior or inferior to one another as far as intelligence goes. we are far better because we can see that we are further enriched by experiencing those that follow the beat of a different drummer, by which I mean that we are exposed to things outside our routine.

now that I've thought about this so carefully, please do me the same favor.

[billisonboard]

Dec 29, 2010 21:03:40 GMT -5 burnsattornincan said:

Ms. chiver78, I actually very much appreciate your comment. I will ask you this and please think very carefully before answering. Do you think we are any better off today both morally and financially than 100 or more years ago? I await your response.

I want to play.

Financially, I believe we are working our way towards the more extreme have/havenots of pre-Depression America.

Morally, I don't believe that behavior is any different than 100 years ago.

[burnsattornincan]

now that I've thought about this so carefully, please do me the same favor.

Sure. Everything in your second paragraph is wrong. Yes, everything. The odd woman has excelled at most anything throughout history, nothing has changed there. As far as race goes, well one only need to look at a certain continent mired in hopelessness for as long as history has been documented. Experiencing different things is always enriching but like the old saying goes, nice place to visit but....

[ungenteel]

<<Ms. chiver78, I actually very much appreciate your comment. I will ask you this and please think very carefully before answering. Do you think we are any better off today both morally and financially than 100 or more years ago? I await your response.>>

In case you hadn't noticed .. '"morality" is a value judgment ... not an absolute that can be measured .. your above challenge demonstrates your inadequate grasp of the essence of the argument

[burnsattornincan]

Joe, did you just fart?

No, was I supposed to?