Same-sex Marriage.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'm sorry, I thought I was in a thread about same-sex marriage. I didn't know Mr. Wade was being esoteric.

- Doc

[_Bob Loblaw]

Does he mean 'Sink me!', an archaic euphemism for 'Damn me!' ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh3N8vuSb0k

(Edited to add: see at the 36 second mark)

Heh. Blakeney is supposed to be a conscious parody of a pretentious and stupid fop, so stupid in fact that no one would suspect he's actually the Scarlet Pimpernel--and that's what Wade is imitating. I'd say he's coming across more like this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3jIE3b-bhY

[_wenglund]

What if a school gave whites free broccoli, but didn't give it to blacks. If somebody asked why, would it make sense to say, "Lots of white kids like broccoli, but I don't know if blacks do or not. So before giving blacks free broccoli too, the wise thing to do is consider the propensity of black students who would eat it."

Shelving for now the issue of whether that course of action would be "wise", it's hard to imagine the Supreme Court thinking such a course of action didn't violate the Equal Protection clause.

Lest one assumes that the Supreme Court believes that equal protection means equal treatment across the board, let's reverse your hypothetical and see if you say the same thing: What if a school gave black kids free broccoli, but didn't give it to whites.

Instead of using a hypothetical, how about in real life examples: What if the government gave "empowerment zone" grants and tax incentives to black neighborhoods and not white? What if the government enacted affirmative action programs for blacks, and not for whites?What if the government structured the tax code to privilege the poor and not the rich? What if the government gave voting rights to adults and not to children. What if the government subsidized corn growers and not potato growers? What if the government funded VISTA programs for the inner cities, and not for rural areas? I could go on and on.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Wade, slightly off topic, what are your views on opposite sex marriage? And on what basis, data, evidences etc are you basing those views?

I believe that opposite-sex marriage provides the optimal base for the fundamental structure of society.

My evidence is thousands if not millions of years of natural and social evolution.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

I believe that opposite-sex marriage provides the optimal base for the fundamental structure of society.

My evidence is thousands if not millions of years of natural and social evolution.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, needless to say, if you believe society is evolving, it makes no sense to mark a particular social structure as being the apex after which no evolution should or can be possible.

It would make about as much sense as trying to stop the Mississippi River in time to insist that at that moment the river was in a perfect state, and any changes to the river afterward would be wrong.

[_wenglund]

I don't know about you but I have no patience for stupidity--but when stupidity is used to hurt other people--like Wade is doing here--it deserves a special kind of contempt.

This accusation of "hurt" keeps getting leveled at me. I have asked before for examples and substantiation, without success.

Could you, or anyone else, please explain how I am supposedly hurting people by listing ways that legalizing gay marriage may hurt people? Is it the case now, in our upside-down world, that information is harmful and ignorance is good?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Bob Loblaw]

This accusation of "hurt" keeps getting leveled at me. I have asked before for examples and substantiation, without success.

Could you, or anyone else, please explain how I am supposedly hurting people by listing ways that legalizing gay marriage may hurt people? Is it the case now, in our upside-down world, that information is harmful and ignorance is good?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You support marginalizing homosexuals and you cite approvingly a guy who thinks gay relationships should be "stigmatized." If these opinions existed in a vacuum they would be excusable but the stigmatizing and shaming you and your cohorts advocate lead to depression, substance abuse, relationship problems, and suicides--your own statistics show that.

But no--nothing you say hurts anyone. You're either the biggest idiot in the world or you are just plain evil. Maybe both.

[_wenglund]

Wade, needless to say, if you believe society is evolving, it makes no sense to mark a particular social structure as being the apex after which no evolution should or can be possible.

It would make about as much sense as trying to stop the Mississippi River in time to insist that at that moment the river was in a perfect state, and any changes to the river afterward would be wrong.

I didn't have in mind that evolution would no longer be possible. I was thinking in terms of opposite-sex marriage as optimal given existing structures, thereby leaving open the prospects for further evolution. Indeed, I believe in further evolution of human marriage, and that towards the divine.

I am for continued marital evolution, and against marital devolution.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Bob Loblaw]

I didn't have in mind that evolution would no longer be possible. I was thinking in terms of opposite-sex marriage as optimal given existing structures, thereby leaving open the prospects for further evolution. Indeed, I believe in further evolution of human marriage, and that towards the divine.

I am for continued marital evolution, and against marital devolution.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

At least you admit it: your opposition to same-sex marriage is about your religious beliefs. Does it feel good to finally be honest about this?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Could you, or anyone else, please explain how I am supposedly hurting people by listing ways that legalizing gay marriage may hurt people?

Wait. We're talking about Gay marriage again? I didn't know Mr. Wade switched topics. If that's the case, Mr. Wade, would mind addressing my post to which you responded that you weren't talking about Gay marriage?

- Doc