6/19/2013 9:24 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/19/2013 5:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/19/2013 5:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/19/2013 5:22:00 PM (view original):
No. But this is marriage, not pie. The legal definition of marriage is whatever the law says it is.
Why wouldn't a legal definition of apple pie be whatever the law says it is?
Apples and blueberries are tangible things. Marriage isn't.
So laws can only be made about intangible things?

Do you realize how stupid your inability to construct and maintain an intelligent argument makes you look?  Because you just go all over the freaking place when you run into a wall.
6/19/2013 9:46 PM
I don't think I said that. You're the one all over the place with the weird *** pie analogy. Marriage is a legal concept. It doesn't exist without a legal definition. And it is whatever the law defines it to be.

Apples and blueberries are tangible things. They exist whether or not they have a legal definition.
6/19/2013 9:55 PM
Do you understand what an analogy is?

Do you, or do you not, see how that analogy relates to SSM?
6/19/2013 9:59 PM
So is a blueberry pie an apple pie in Washington State?
6/19/2013 10:27 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/19/2013 9:55:00 PM (view original):
Do you understand what an analogy is?

Do you, or do you not, see how that analogy relates to SSM?
I understand an analogy. Do you understand when you've made a terrible one?

No one is taking your "pie." No one is changing your "pie." They want their own pie. Why do you care what flavor it is?
6/20/2013 6:01 AM
Are you intentionally acting dumb, twisting the analogy to try to fit your argument.  Or are you really that dumb that you don't understand it?
6/20/2013 6:14 AM
NO
6/20/2013 8:12 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/19/2013 10:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/19/2013 9:55:00 PM (view original):
Do you understand what an analogy is?

Do you, or do you not, see how that analogy relates to SSM?
I understand an analogy. Do you understand when you've made a terrible one?

No one is taking your "pie." No one is changing your "pie." They want their own pie. Why do you care what flavor it is?
He cares what they're calling the "pie", dumbass.

He doesn't want people calling a blueberry filled pie an "apple pie".

****.  Goddam.   ****.
6/20/2013 8:48 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/19/2013 5:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/19/2013 4:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/19/2013 3:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/19/2013 2:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/19/2013 2:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/19/2013 1:45:00 PM (view original):
Can't believe I'm posting in here again.

Directed towards tec.  Aside from the obvious, do you see a significant difference between a loving relationship between 2 people of the opposite sex and 2 people of the same sex?
OK.  I assume you are talking about a legally formalized and recognized relationship.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

The only difference I see is that one (opposite sex) would be a traditional marriage, and the other (same sex) would be a civil union.  Similar things, different connotations.
Not what I mean.  Take the marriage out of it for now.  Is there a significant difference between a loving, healthy heterosexual relationship and a loving, healthy homosexual relationship?  Aside from the fact that one is homosexual and the other is heterosexual?
Not really, other than one has always been generally accepted and embraced by social norms while the other has not.
OK, so let's say there isn't one.

Why do people get married?  They want to make a commitment to each other, that they'll spend the rest of their lives together.  That they'll always love them and be there for them, etc, etc, etc.  

Unless we're missing something - There isn't a difference in how homosexual relationships work.  So the SOLE reason to prevent SSM is because they are members of the same-sex.  And I suppose that myself and BL and others don't really see that as a good enough reason.  They're people.  Two people of the same sex who are in love with each other want to make a commitment to each other through marriage that they'll always be there for each other, and will commit to each other to be the best possible couple they can be.  I don't see how it's significantly different than 2 people of the opposite sex.

You do.  Changing the definition to include same-sex couples is a major step that changes what marriage is for you.  I do understand that it's a change to the classic definition, but I don't see that in itself as a legitimate reason.  I'd like to think I get both sides of any argument.  I'm still trying to understand yours.  Values and tradition...ok.  But I think we like to celebrate marriage as people showing their commitment to each other for the rest of their lives, and that's the important part of marriage.  The man-woman thing seems less important.

I guess I'm asking you to enlighten me a little bit more.  I went back about 8 pages to see if I missed anything new in your argument and didn't see anything.  I'm missing something here.  What it is about marriage that makes the man-woman part of it so important?
First, let's not lose sight of the fact that I'm NOT denying SS partners from making a lasting, legally formalized and recognized bond with each other.  Civil union.  I'm all for it.  AND I'm all for changes in the laws that ensure that SS couples in a civil union have all the exact same legal rights as OS couples have in a traditional marriage.

It's a word.  Marriage.  It has a connotation that is fundamental since the beginning of human culture and civilization, and has been a constant attribute throughout human history (despite the smokescreen that bad_luck seems to keep trying to throw into the mix with IRM).  That connotation is that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Just like you can't call a pie made of blueberries an apple pie, you cannot call a legal SS union a marriage.  Because it's not.

You're not going to find anything new in my argument since page 1 of this thread, because my argument has been consistent since the beginning.
"Just like you can't call a pie made of blueberries an apple pie, you cannot call a legal SS union a marriage.  Because it's not."


Your argument is simply that you cannot change the definition because it's not the definition.  Because it's always been that way.  

If there was a movement to change blueberry pies to be called apple pies, as dumb as that sounds, I'm confident you wouldn't be too upset about it.  So there's something about marriage, specifically, that's important to you.  What is it?


6/20/2013 9:08 AM
He's stated it over and over again, badlucklite.     He values the traditional meaning of marriage.

Now, why do you care if it's called "marriage" or "civil union"?
6/20/2013 9:12 AM
"I value the traditional meaning of marriage."
"What is it about marriage that's so important to you?"
"I value the traditional meaning of marriage."

I'm asking why.  Why is the traditional meaning so important to him.  Let tec answer.
6/20/2013 9:16 AM

Honestly, in the last 216 pages, do you think he hasn't?

6/20/2013 9:22 AM
Do I think he hasn't what?  Answered this specific question?  Honestly, no.  His argument seems to be "this is the definition, and keeping this the definition is important to me.  Tradition, values, etc."  I'm asking for a little more, but it doesn't really make sense to me.
6/20/2013 9:26 AM
That's funny.

"Why is tradition important to you?"

How the **** do you explain the feeling in your heart that you have about traditional things?

As tec said earlier, say the Yankees go from pinstripes to neon green unis.   That would drive me batty.   Why do I prefer the pinstripes?   Because that's how it's been since way before I was born.   It's a traditional uni.   I like it.     Do I wear pinstripes?  No.   Do I wear neon green?  No.  But I don't want to see my team in neon green unis. 
6/20/2013 9:30 AM
I have a response to this, but I don't want to lead tec in his answer.  Not that I'm looking for a "gotcha" moment, but I'd prefer he'd answer first.  
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.