On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > When a civil union becomes equal to marriage than they will be equal. But you say they will always be separate but equal. Is that correct? > If 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' are 'equal' in your mind, why can one > use the legal term 'marriage' and one cannot? > > They aren't, you are the one hung up on using identifying words. If marriage and civil union, once equal, are still separate but equal, than apply that logic to home/hetro and you have the same problem. > I am not hung up on defining marriage as between a man and a woman, you > are. > I forgot the "not", Should read: I'm not sure why your hung up on not defining marriage as between a man and a woman. 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. > > You think adding a new term to identify someone as gay, like civil union, is separate but equal. That tells me you don't want any identifying labels. Why? Is pointing out someone is gay offensive? What is the problem? > 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. > > You are actually saying you just changed your mind? You admit to being so easily led? You base your rethinking not on new found knowledge but just because someone told you to? I have too much respect for you to believe that. > > > 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. > > Whites and blacks go to the same school. If we call one group Caucasian and the other black it is not "separate but equal." Get it? > 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? > > Why do you care what it's called while you say you don't care what it's called? > What are you talking about? This is another example of you dancing around > answering a question. > > The question is answered. The term civil union is not offensive unless you think categorizing someones sexual preference is offensive. Why would you consider that offensive? > 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. > > The use of a word is not a right. The rights are everything that goes with it, no discrimination, same taxes benefits, inheritance, medical, hospital visitation and decisions etc.What it's called isn't a right. What's involved is. > 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. > > Not true, only only get feisty when people attack different opinions. I'm not about "your opinion is wrong" I'm about stop trying to paint people with different opinions as stupid. > > 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? You have not been tolerant for months. Don't think you can behave on one thread and all's good. > I am not the one who claimed you or anyone else was drinking > Kool-aid based on their opinion - that was you. > > He said people he didn't agree withe were homophobic assholes. I was being polite. > It is funny. When someone disagrees with you, they are brain washed, been > fed bullshit, drinking kool-aid, etc. When people are intolerant of other opinions and don't even know why I might use those terms. You said you changed your mind without learning anything. That sounds like brainwashing. 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'. > > Nothing I've discussed on this thread will be seen on any of the above. Nice try at an insult. . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:365067 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
