Dan Savage

[Symmetry]

Nevermind dude....

Nevermind....

It's all good, I didn't think you had a decent argument in the first place anyway.

[Phatscotty]

Nevermind dude....

Nevermind....

It's all good, I didn't think you had a decent argument in the first place anyway.

After 2 attempts, my comment was unable to be started. I wanted to know if you understood beforehand what I was talking about, otherwise you wouldn't understand. We can try for 3...

Have you heard about how in America people can get up to $3,500 tax refund per child? Then, after you say yes or no, I say...
Yes it is sad that marriage is a lot of the time financially motivated (health insurance benefits is a big one!)

I just wanted to add it is also sad that having children and staying unmarried has become financially motivating as well.

[Symmetry]

Nevermind dude....

Nevermind....

It's all good, I didn't think you had a decent argument in the first place anyway.

After 2 attempts, my comment was unable to be started. I wanted to know if you understood beforehand what I was talking about, otherwise you wouldn't understand. We can try for 3...

Have you heard about how in America people can get up to $3,500 tax refund per child? Then, after you say yes or no, I say...
Yes it is sad that marriage is a lot of the time financially motivated (health insurance benefits is a big one!)

I just wanted to add it is also sad that having children and staying unmarried has become financially motivating as well.

I guess I just don't see the relevance of that line of thought. I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it's an argument for or against marriage equality.

[Phatscotty]

Of course you don't see it. You have been bending over backwards to refrain from seeing anything.

What it is (according to the person who see's it) is a similar philosophy that is attached the benefits for having children and remaining single as the benefits for getting married.

They are both highly contrary to anything resembling equality, they are both redistributive in nature, and they both have their roots in the name of "helping people"

Either you want equality or you don't. You can't create special rights for special people in the name of equality.

Overall, the government should not be the final word in a religious tradition like marriage. Some separation of church and state people might even argue the government should have NO word one way....or the other

[Symmetry]

Of course you don't see it. You have been bending over backwards to refrain from seeing anything.

What it is (according to the person who see's it) is a similar philosophy that is attached the benefits for having children and remaining single as the benefits for getting married.

They are both highly contrary to anything resembling equality, they are both redistributive in nature, and they both have their roots in the name of "helping people"

Either you want equality or you don't. You can't create special rights for special people in the name of equality.

Overall, the government should not be the final word in a religious tradition like marriage. Some separation of church and state people might even argue the government should have NO word one way....or the other

That's a little harsh, and of course marriage is not a religious tradition necessarily- civil marriages are also marriages. You would presumably allow for civil (non-religious) marriages be recognised for homosexual couples, right?

[Phatscotty]

Of course you don't see it. You have been bending over backwards to refrain from seeing anything.

What it is (according to the person who see's it) is a similar philosophy that is attached the benefits for having children and remaining single as the benefits for getting married.

They are both highly contrary to anything resembling equality, they are both redistributive in nature, and they both have their roots in the name of "helping people"

Either you want equality or you don't. You can't create special rights for special people in the name of equality.

Overall, the government should not be the final word in a religious tradition like marriage. Some separation of church and state people might even argue the government should have NO word one way....or the other

That's a little harsh, and of course marriage is not a religious tradition necessarily- civil marriages are also marriages. You would presumably allow for civil (non-religious) marriages be recognised for homosexual couples, right?

Seems like they are whatever you want them to be

I am and always have been for the people to democratically decide for themselves how they want to live and what laws they will live under, as much as possible, within the confines of our Republic and within the Constitution.

[Symmetry]

Of course you don't see it. You have been bending over backwards to refrain from seeing anything.

What it is (according to the person who see's it) is a similar philosophy that is attached the benefits for having children and remaining single as the benefits for getting married.

They are both highly contrary to anything resembling equality, they are both redistributive in nature, and they both have their roots in the name of "helping people"

Either you want equality or you don't. You can't create special rights for special people in the name of equality.

Overall, the government should not be the final word in a religious tradition like marriage. Some separation of church and state people might even argue the government should have NO word one way....or the other

That's a little harsh, and of course marriage is not a religious tradition necessarily- civil marriages are also marriages. You would presumably allow for civil (non-religious) marriages be recognised for homosexual couples, right?

Seems like they are whatever you want them to be

I am and always have been for the people to democratically decide for themselves how they want to live and what laws they will live under, as much as possible, within the confines of our Republic and within the Constitution.

So, given that you accept that marriage is not a religious tradition, and that civil marriages are also marriages, I'm not sure where you're objection lies.

[Phatscotty]

stop trying to cram words in my mouth. You should know more than anyone that never works. Your confusion stems from your severe lack of understanding anything about me accept for the stereotypes your media feeds you over there.

[Frigidus]

stop trying to cram words in my mouth. You should know more than anyone that never works. Your confusion stems from your severe lack of understanding anything about me accept for the stereotypes your media feeds you over there.

Well, you are sort of skirting the issue by raising a different one. Assuming that we don't plan to throw out marriage all together do you feel that it is acceptable to restrict marriage strictly to heterosexual couples?

[Phatscotty]

This is the best thing I have seen in a while. (from 2008) Proof Savage has been wrong all along, while smacking down ignorance at the same time. Mixed feelings on this one...like Simm driving off a cliff....in my new Maserati.

[Night Strike]

Don't worry, Savage will spew hate against Christians every time he gives a speech: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/face-of-progressive-hate-gay-rights-activist-dan-savage-goes-on-graphic-rant-about-homosexuality-the-pope/

[Symmetry]

stop trying to cram words in my mouth. You should know more than anyone that never works. Your confusion stems from your severe lack of understanding anything about me accept for the stereotypes your media feeds you over there.

What have I misunderstood? You seem to have left that crucial piece of info out of your reply.

[Phatscotty]

stop trying to cram words in my mouth. You should know more than anyone that never works. Your confusion stems from your severe lack of understanding anything about me accept for the stereotypes your media feeds you over there.

Well, you are sort of skirting the issue by raising a different one. Assuming that we don't plan to throw out marriage all together do you feel that it is acceptable to restrict marriage strictly to heterosexual couples?

Actually....gay marriage rights is the different issue. I haven't had a problem with it, but don't pretend that hasn't derailed this from Dan Savage either.

I feel it's up to the church. It's unfortunate the government is involved with licensing marriage and trying to regulate it. Seriously, the government should not be involved in marriage.

Sure civil unions, whatever. That's not a marriage, and civil unions are not a segway into marriage either.

[Frigidus]

This is the best thing I have seen in a while. (from 2008) Proof Savage has been wrong all along, while smacking down ignorance at the same time. Mixed feelings on this one...like Simm driving off a cliff....in my new Maserati.

Wait...what did he say in that that you disagree with? He was sort of ripping on the people that knew next to nothing about Obama's record, I'd think you'd be siding with him on that one.

[Phatscotty]

This is the best thing I have seen in a while. (from 2008) Proof Savage has been wrong all along, while smacking down ignorance at the same time. Mixed feelings on this one...like Simm driving off a cliff....in my new Maserati.

Wait...what did he say in that that you disagree with? He was sort of ripping on the people that knew next to nothing about Obama's record, I'd think you'd be siding with him on that one.

hence....the mixed feelings

[Symmetry]

stop trying to cram words in my mouth. You should know more than anyone that never works. Your confusion stems from your severe lack of understanding anything about me accept for the stereotypes your media feeds you over there.

Well, you are sort of skirting the issue by raising a different one. Assuming that we don't plan to throw out marriage all together do you feel that it is acceptable to restrict marriage strictly to heterosexual couples?

Actually....gay marriage rights is the different issue. I haven't had a problem with it, but don't pretend that hasn't derailed this from Dan Savage either.

I feel it's up to the church. It's unfortunate the government is involved with licensing marriage and trying to regulate it. Seriously, the government should not be involved in marriage.

Sure civil unions, whatever. That's not a marriage, and civil unions are not a segway into marriage either.

Given that you accept that marriage is not always up to "the church", why do you think that unelected religious folk should have a say on gay marriage?

[Frigidus]

stop trying to cram words in my mouth. You should know more than anyone that never works. Your confusion stems from your severe lack of understanding anything about me accept for the stereotypes your media feeds you over there.

Well, you are sort of skirting the issue by raising a different one. Assuming that we don't plan to throw out marriage all together do you feel that it is acceptable to restrict marriage strictly to heterosexual couples?

Actually....gay marriage rights is the different issue. I haven't had a problem with it, but don't pretend that hasn't derailed this from Dan Savage either.

I feel it's up to the church. It's unfortunate the government is involved with licensing marriage and trying to regulate it. Seriously, the government should not be involved in marriage.

Sure civil unions, whatever. That's not a marriage, and civil unions are not a segway into marriage either.

Given that you accept that marriage is not always up to "the church", why do you think that unelected religious folk should have a say on gay marriage?

I'm actually OK with individual religions defining marriage the way that they want, because there will always be a religion that allows for you to practice your faith the way you want. The problem comes when we choose just one church's rules and apply them to everyone.

[Phatscotty]

I think the state model will work fine. If New York wants to do that, whatever works is fine with me so long as the people had a say. If Texas does not want to do that, fine too.

However, I am guessing that a certain unnamed side will take their marriage license from New York down to Texas and try to force another state to recognize it's legitimacy. Almost sounds like it's by design. the master plan!

[Phatscotty]

stop trying to cram words in my mouth. You should know more than anyone that never works. Your confusion stems from your severe lack of understanding anything about me accept for the stereotypes your media feeds you over there.

Well, you are sort of skirting the issue by raising a different one. Assuming that we don't plan to throw out marriage all together do you feel that it is acceptable to restrict marriage strictly to heterosexual couples?

Actually....gay marriage rights is the different issue. I haven't had a problem with it, but don't pretend that hasn't derailed this from Dan Savage either.

I feel it's up to the church. It's unfortunate the government is involved with licensing marriage and trying to regulate it. Seriously, the government should not be involved in marriage.

Sure civil unions, whatever. That's not a marriage, and civil unions are not a segway into marriage either.

Given that you accept that marriage is not always up to "the church", why do you think that unelected religious folk should have a say on gay marriage?

You keep trying to define me in your own understood boxes of thoughts, like trying to ram a square block through a circle hole...

[Symmetry]

You're not exactly the clearest poster on this site, Scotty. All I can do is ask questions that help clarify your points. Dodge them if you want, but don't attack me for asking them.

[Phatscotty]

You're not exactly the clearest poster on this site, Scotty. All I can do is ask questions that help clarify your points. Dodge them if you want, but don't attack me for asking them.

I was pretty clear here. It's okay some others have the same problem. When responding to me, and you start with..."so, what your saying is ....something else that you didn't say"....it will always turn out the same.

Anyways, Dan Savage sucks. He says "I hate straight guys". That is exactly as bad as a straight guy saying "I hate gay guys". Exactly the same

[chang50]

I feel it's up to the church. It's unfortunate the government is involved with licensing marriage and trying to regulate it. Seriously, the government should not be involved in marriage.


Thats precisely the wrong way round,the government is the only body that should regulate marriage.

[Symmetry]

You're not exactly the clearest poster on this site, Scotty. All I can do is ask questions that help clarify your points. Dodge them if you want, but don't attack me for asking them.

I was pretty clear here. It's okay some others have the same problem. When responding to me, and you start with..."so, what your saying is ....something else that you didn't say"....it will always turn out the same.

Anyways, Dan Savage sucks. He says "I hate straight guys". That is exactly as bad as a straight guy saying "I hate gay guys". Exactly the same

[youtube]0TUg3XHPlzk/youtube]

Not really dude. I'd recommend reading a bit more of his writing. He does get angry, sure, but usually for pretty good reasons. He devotes a fair amount of his writing to heterosexual problems too. I find it difficult to reconcile the view that you have of Mr Savage with the body of his work.

Have you read his columns on any kind of regular basis?

[Phatscotty]

justify it.....then justify it some more

[Symmetry]

He's pretty much ok of you read his stuff,