5/14/2013 2:36 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2013 2:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/14/2013 2:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2013 2:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/14/2013 2:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2013 2:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/14/2013 2:12:00 PM (view original):
Mike, I'd argue that the good for the homosexual community vastly outweighs the concerns you have.  Allowing gay marriage and encouraging the "gay is ok" environment on our society does much more good than bad.  And by encouraging "gay is ok" you'll ultimately have less of those locker room experiences you're describing.
Maybe, maybe not.   Right now, in today, I think "maybe not".   I'll admit that I'm 50 and not around the gay enviroment.   But I probably know as many in the 20-30 age group as I do the 50ish.   And, for the most part, many are "Meh.  Whatever.  Just don't tell me about the great time Joe and George had on the couch last week."   But some are "******* freaks.  Try a woman, why dontcha?"
True. When they were considering equal rights for blacks, it definitely mattered that there were a bunch of racists that were going to hate blacks no matter what. We definitely should have catered to the racists.
You seem OK in catering to the gays(which is a much smaller percentage of society than the racists in the 60s).   

Do you get to choose who we cater to?
Size of the group is irrelevant. Gay people want equal rights. Catering to the people that don't like gays because they don't like gays is wrong. Just as wrong as catering to racists during the civil rights movement.
"Gay people want equal rights."

Why do you consider marriage a "right"?

Why do you consider eating at a restaurant a right?

Equal protection under the law is a right.
5/14/2013 2:37 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2013 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Hasn't bad_luck already said that if civil unions had all the same rights as marriage, that still wouldn't be enough?
Of course he has.   That's why I was surprised by his post. 
5/14/2013 2:37 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2013 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Hasn't bad_luck already said that if civil unions had all the same rights as marriage, that still wouldn't be enough?
No, I said they should be allowed to marry because DPs aren't legally the same.
5/14/2013 2:42 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2013 2:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/14/2013 2:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2013 2:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/14/2013 2:29:00 PM (view original):
Ok. We can start by ensuring that everyone has equal rights.
Sure.  SSM is called a "civil union" and comes with all the benefits and rights of marriage.

Glad we could come to an agreement.  Look forward to seeing you in the next 160 page thread where you and biz repeat yourselves for 150 pages of it.
Ok. But right now, civil unions/DPs aren't legally equal to marriage.
Well, they should be. 
Should they? I mean, come on, if we grant them the same legal protection 15 year old boys might give a couple random BJs but then decide they like girls and then live a life quietly suffering everytime they are naked in a locker room with a bunch of other dudes and those dudes start making gay jokes and allowing domestic partnerships the same rights will lead to more gay people and we just don't know if that will completely destroy society. But I'd like to know. Not enough to actually read or think critically about it, though. And what if polygamists want domestic partnerships?!?!? ****, mind blown.
5/14/2013 2:45 PM
CU/DP would not have the same "meaning" as marriage.  Just the same benefits/right.    There would be a different view of them in society. 

But, if you admit that, you can't carry this argument on for another 150 pages, can you?

Do you try to be a dick or does it come naturally?
5/14/2013 2:48 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/14/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2013 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Hasn't bad_luck already said that if civil unions had all the same rights as marriage, that still wouldn't be enough?
No, I said they should be allowed to marry because DPs aren't legally the same.
The joy of the 150 page thread.

No, you said "Separate but equal doesn't work" and then started your completely moronic civil rights fight in the 60s to the current SSM "fight".    I have trouble even calling it a "fight".   More like semi-heated discussion.   Served with latte' and cookies.
5/14/2013 2:50 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2013 2:45:00 PM (view original):
CU/DP would not have the same "meaning" as marriage.  Just the same benefits/right.    There would be a different view of them in society. 

But, if you admit that, you can't carry this argument on for another 150 pages, can you?

Do you try to be a dick or does it come naturally?
Oh, really, mister pot?

Marriage carries special significance for most people. I wouldn't want to tell you that you aren't allowed that significance. Maybe you just like bring able to tell other people how to live their lives?

Why would allowing gay marriage increase society's gayness but allowing civil unions wouldn't?
5/14/2013 2:51 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2013 2:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/14/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2013 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Hasn't bad_luck already said that if civil unions had all the same rights as marriage, that still wouldn't be enough?
No, I said they should be allowed to marry because DPs aren't legally the same.
The joy of the 150 page thread.

No, you said "Separate but equal doesn't work" and then started your completely moronic civil rights fight in the 60s to the current SSM "fight".    I have trouble even calling it a "fight".   More like semi-heated discussion.   Served with latte' and cookies.
Separate but equal doesn't work because they aren't actually equal.
5/14/2013 2:52 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2013 2:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/14/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2013 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Hasn't bad_luck already said that if civil unions had all the same rights as marriage, that still wouldn't be enough?
No, I said they should be allowed to marry because DPs aren't legally the same.
The joy of the 150 page thread.

No, you said "Separate but equal doesn't work" and then started your completely moronic civil rights fight in the 60s to the current SSM "fight".    I have trouble even calling it a "fight".   More like semi-heated discussion.   Served with latte' and cookies.
We can call it a fight. 
5/14/2013 2:52 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/14/2013 2:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2013 2:45:00 PM (view original):
CU/DP would not have the same "meaning" as marriage.  Just the same benefits/right.    There would be a different view of them in society. 

But, if you admit that, you can't carry this argument on for another 150 pages, can you?

Do you try to be a dick or does it come naturally?
Oh, really, mister pot?

Marriage carries special significance for most people. I wouldn't want to tell you that you aren't allowed that significance. Maybe you just like bring able to tell other people how to live their lives?

Why would allowing gay marriage increase society's gayness but allowing civil unions wouldn't?
"Daddy, what's the difference between a civil union and a marriage?"

"Well, son, normal people like me and your mother get married.    Filthy, heathen gays have civil unions because everyone knows two dudes shouldn't get married."
5/14/2013 2:52 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/14/2013 2:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2013 2:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/14/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2013 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Hasn't bad_luck already said that if civil unions had all the same rights as marriage, that still wouldn't be enough?
No, I said they should be allowed to marry because DPs aren't legally the same.
The joy of the 150 page thread.

No, you said "Separate but equal doesn't work" and then started your completely moronic civil rights fight in the 60s to the current SSM "fight".    I have trouble even calling it a "fight".   More like semi-heated discussion.   Served with latte' and cookies.
We can call it a fight. 
Catfight?
5/14/2013 3:01 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2013 2:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/14/2013 2:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2013 2:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/14/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2013 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Hasn't bad_luck already said that if civil unions had all the same rights as marriage, that still wouldn't be enough?
No, I said they should be allowed to marry because DPs aren't legally the same.
The joy of the 150 page thread.

No, you said "Separate but equal doesn't work" and then started your completely moronic civil rights fight in the 60s to the current SSM "fight".    I have trouble even calling it a "fight".   More like semi-heated discussion.   Served with latte' and cookies.
We can call it a fight. 
Catfight?

5/14/2013 3:02 PM
Looks about right.
5/14/2013 3:03 PM
In all seriousness, it is a fight.  Not so much for "equal rights" as much as it is fighting the stigma of being gay, but it exists.
5/14/2013 3:04 PM
As it relates to this conversation? It's for equal rights.  Yes, I'd call marriage something that is a right.
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.