Notice: All Boston.com forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at Boston.com.

Should Chris Culliver apologize?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

    Oh dear, you really are serious it seems about being Mr. Marriage Police . . .  not only do you want to prevent gays from getting married, you want to stop the childless from being married. 

    I bet you're against contraception too . . . 

    Yep, just what Americans want.  

     

     

     


    I never said I was against the childless being married more than I am against anybody else being married.

     



    So it's not that you're anti gay marriage, it's that you're anti marriage in general.  Ah well, that at least is interesting . . . 

     

     

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     



    I haven't heard anything rational from you all day!

     

     

     



    And what have you provided other than unprincipled pandering?



    Let's review:

     

    I've said:

    (a) people should be free to do what they please as long as it causes no harm to anyone else

    (b) i see no evidence that two people of the same sex being married causes any harm to anyone

    (c) i also see that there are benefits to having a legal arrangement such as marriage exist between two people who live together and want to maintain a lasting partnership, since such an arrangement will clarify their legal responsibilities toward each other and toward any dependent children and also help clarify how their joint property will be treated

    (d) i further said that there are a large number of people living in the US in such same-sex partnerships

    (e) and i said that for all the reasons above, same-sex marriage seems to cause no harm and quite the contrary provides significant benefits to a significant part of the population and therefore should be legal

     

    Meanwhile, what is it exactly that you've said?  Now it's morphed into you being against all marriage?  Yep, rational argument on my side, crazy talk on yours. 

     

     

     

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

    Oh dear, you really are serious it seems about being Mr. Marriage Police . . .  not only do you want to prevent gays from getting married, you want to stop the childless from being married. 

    I bet you're against contraception too . . . 

    Yep, just what Americans want.  

     

     

     


    I never said I was against the childless being married more than I am against anybody else being married.

     

     



    So it's not that you're anti gay marriage, it's that you're anti marriage in general.  Ah well, that at least is interesting . . . 

     

     

     

     




    I would be fine with marriage as it has been historically if not for the bruhaha about gay marriage we are embroiled in these days.

     

    The moral and legal entanglement that is marriage as we know it has become unviable.

    My solution would be to have "civil unions" conveying the same benefits as marriage to ANY two consenting adults that wished to enter into that LEGAL entanglement.

    "Marriage" would be relegated to a ceremonial endeavor and have no legal bearing whatsoever.

     

    But I fear that wouldn't satisfy gays whose agenda has little to do with rights and much to do with forcing the rest to say their behavior is moral.

     



     

    Marriage hasn't become unviable.  You just hate the idea that gays might be recognized as married so much that you would rather abolish marriage (as a legal construct) altogether than let gays get married.  Your reaction is exactly why gays insist on using the term "marriage" rather than "civil union."  They understand that many people don't see civil unions as identical to or as legitimate as marriage and therefore they are wary about accepting anything that might, now or in the future, convey lesser rights than full blown marriage.  To avoid that risk, very sensibly, they insist on marriage and not something similar, but still different, such as a civil union.

     

     

     

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    C'mon junior, gays reek of "accept me morally". Their every move stinks of it. Otherwise they wouldn't rankle at civil unions instead of marriage as they do. Otherwise they wouldn't call anybody a bigot who disagrees with gay marriage on moral grounds. Why label somebody a bigot if you don't care whether they see your actions as moral or not?



    Yeah black people should have been happy with "separate but equal".  The reason that doesn't work is because it rarely actually happens.  Eventually the separate  becomes unequal which is why gays are correctly arguing that they should be a part of the same institution as heterosexuals such that their rights cannot be degraded under the guise of "separate but equal".

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    Your exact same argument could be applied to interracial couples who wanted to get married before it was legal.  Every white person had the right to marry a white person and vice versa.  Unfortunately for you that is not the way the legal system in this country works.

     

    The reason I brought religion/morality into the debate in my original post is that is the only explanation that I have ever seen anyone give for why they actually care about gays getting married.  Otherwise why would they actually care.  Of course those are not legal arguments and are therefore irrelevant to the issue at hand.

    Again you are conflating the institution of marriage (the religious tradition etc.) with the legal institution.  The state can define marriage however it wants in legal terms.  It cannot obligate a church to marry gay people.  This isn't that hard.



    It's interesting that you (and others) seem desperate to make this into an argument about religion.

     

    I have made no appeal to divine law nor Biblical truth.

    I am simply pointing out what is patently obvious to sane people - that marriage for all of human recorded history has been between men and women, because that is normal.

    The mental gymnastics crowd - the ones who feel they must redefine words are indeed insane people. 

    I don't care what their position is on religion - their position on cultural history is moronic.

     

     

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts