On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Civil Union doesn't mean all that? Again, check the dictionaries. > > > > No. It doesn't. Why are you so against gay people using the word > marriage? > > > > > Yes it does. Why are you insisting they do? If you want to play the > separate but equal route, why not redefine hetro-sexual/homo-sexual since > they are separate but equal. If you don't want any identifiers don't use > the term gay or even same-sex marriage. I'm not sure why your hung up on > defining marriage as between a man and a woman. If you think using a term > that identifies a person as gay is offensive then that is the issue you > need to address. Why are you ashamed of them, why do they have to hide? Or, > do you just think if other peopel know they're gay they will hate? >
I am insisting they don't mean the same thing, you are insisting they are. If 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' are 'equal' in your mind, why can one use the legal term 'marriage' and one cannot? I am not hung up on defining marriage as between a man and a woman, you are. I am not sure where you are going with the rest of the reply. I never said anything about any terms referring to gay people as being offensive, so I am not sure how to reply. > > > > > I don't detest people that don't agree with me (some projection there, > > maybe?) . I never said I 'learned', I said I changed my views. Very > > important distinction. > > > > > Not really, it's just choosing words carefully so you can backtrack if > needed. > No. It telling the truth. If you interpreted that as me saying I 'learned' that is on you, I clearly stated I 'changed my point of view' . Unlike you, and others on the list, both conservative and liberal, I do not claim to have all the answers. Conversations on this list have changed my pint of view on a lot of issues. I cannot recall which, but there was once where something you (or maybe Jerry) posted that actaully made me look at the issue form a different perspective. > > > > > That's like saying instead of giving black equal rights we should just > > call > > > them white. That's not a solution, the real solution is to make them > > equal, > > > not redefine a word. > > > > > > > No. Your 'solution ' of 'marriage' for heterosexuals and 'civil unions' > > for homosexuals is akin to schools for whites and schools for blacks. > mine > > is putting all races into one school. See the difference? > > > > No. One is physical and the other is verbal. My example fit much better. > Both are 'separate but equal'. My example fits much better. > > > > > Honestly, when it comes to the government's meaning of 'marriage' - which > > again is essentially a civil contract - I don't care what it is called, > but > > it should be the same name, and same benefits, for heterosexual and > > homosexual couples. Leave marriage to the churches, synagogues, mosques, > > ect. > > > > > You do care what they call it. You seem to only be able to except marriage. > I say we call it garriage > I don't care what they call it. I care that, for both heterosexual and homosexual couples, it is called the same thing. I already said I think the government should get out of the marriage business. Did you not see that part? > > > > > > > > > > You keep dodging the question. How is this NOT discrimination? > > > > > > > > > But you have not answered the question. Not even close. You refuse to > > answer, but won't speculate as to why you refuse to answer as that would > be > > unfair to you. > > > > > It's like saying the term white is discriminating. It has no logic. > What are you talking about? This is another example of you dancing around answering a question. Let me try one more time. To me, saying gay couples cannot have certain rights, including being able to legally define their relationship as being 'married, simply based on their sexual orientation, is discriminatory. I am perfectly willing to accept that this may be one of those times where I am looking at the issue with blinders on and am asking for a example of how it is NOT discrimination. All I am getting from you on this is either 'I did answer the question' (when you did not) or something I cannot make sense of, like this last reply. This is one of the more frustrating parts of trying to have discussions with you. > > > > You seem to use the word 'hate' pretty freely - and with increasing > > frequency lately. I have tried to be very careful in how I worded my > > responses and I don't really think a reasonable person would take away > from > > any of those comments that I 'hate' someone who disagrees with me - on > this > > subject or any other. > > > > > You're very angry lately whenever you see a conservative or non-progressive > comment. It has an effect after awhile. > Can't really dispute that, I have been a bit more testy lately. However, it seems you have been that way since I joined this list, only against 'liberals'. Anytime someone disagrees with anything you say, you call them an 'Obamabot' or other such attempt at an insult. > > > > Please show me where my comments were hateful. I think I have proven over > > the years that I am more than willing to admit when I have been wrong or > > crossed a line. If I crossed a line into hateful speech, please show me > > where. > > > > I admit that, over the years (and even very recently), I have often taken > > the low road and resorted to name calling and insults - to you, and a lot > > of others. I am trying to be a better person. Trying to understand not > only > > an opposing position, but the rationale that brought someone to that > > position. So, if I have been 'hateful' please show where. > > > > > As I often say, **be tolerant of different opinions. It's a simple request. > > Please quote me in this thread where I have not been tolerant of others opinions? I am not the one who claimed you or anyone else was drinking Kool-aid based on their opinion - that was you. It is funny. When someone disagrees with you, they are brain washed, been fed bullshit, drinking kool-aid, etc. Yet you often sound like a poster child for Fox News, simply reiterating what you heard from Rush, Beck, Hannity or O'Reilly. yet you claim to be 'a thinker'. -- Scott Stroz --------------- You can make things happen, you can watch things happen or you can wonder what the f*&k happened. - Cpt. Phil Harris http://xkcd.com/386/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:365064 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
