Dan Savage

[Phatscotty]

and Dan Savage is connected to the White House!

[Maugena]

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

Hate to correct you... but he said he used to. Oh wait, no, I don't hate correcting you. I hate HAVING to correct you because you lack the cognitive capability to interpret things CORRECTLY.

[thegreekdog]

I thought I adequately explained Phatscotty's position on page 12. Perhaps everyone has me on foe.

[Frigidus]

I thought I adequately explained Phatscotty's position on page 12. Perhaps everyone has me on foe.

Whenever I have the argument about gay marriage I always try to pin someone down so that they'll give a logical reason why gay marriage is a bad thing, and changing the subject to getting rid of all government sanctioned marriage feels sort of like a cop out. There isn't anything wrong with that idea, but it is pretty much a different conversation.

[pimpdave]

Who cares

[Phatscotty]

I thought I adequately explained Phatscotty's position on page 12. Perhaps everyone has me on foe.

Whenever I have the argument about gay marriage I always try to pin someone down so that they'll give a logical reason why gay marriage is a bad thing, and changing the subject to getting rid of all government sanctioned marriage feels sort of like a cop out. There isn't anything wrong with that idea, but it is pretty much a different conversation.

It would be a cop out, if my position on the issue had not always been consistent, not to mention completely in line with my message of "less government" and "true equality"

[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

Hate to correct you... but he said he used to. Oh wait, no, I don't hate correcting you. I hate HAVING to correct you because you lack the cognitive capability to interpret things CORRECTLY.

Oh, he says he doesn't hate people like me anymore? What else would you expect someone to say in public over a microphone?

I'm not fooled.

[thegreekdog]

I thought I adequately explained Phatscotty's position on page 12. Perhaps everyone has me on foe.

Whenever I have the argument about gay marriage I always try to pin someone down so that they'll give a logical reason why gay marriage is a bad thing, and changing the subject to getting rid of all government sanctioned marriage feels sort of like a cop out. There isn't anything wrong with that idea, but it is pretty much a different conversation.

Yeah, except whenever I hear the "we're not doing it for the benefits" argument, I feel like it's a lie. Seriously, all a gay couple is getting from being married (if not benefits) is a certificate from the state. I'm not a champion of gay marriage, but I believe it is a denial of equal protection to not permit gay marriage; but seriously, at least gays should just admit they want the benefits. It's okay to admit that. Seriously.

[Phatscotty]

I thought I adequately explained Phatscotty's position on page 12. Perhaps everyone has me on foe.

Whenever I have the argument about gay marriage I always try to pin someone down so that they'll give a logical reason why gay marriage is a bad thing, and changing the subject to getting rid of all government sanctioned marriage feels sort of like a cop out. There isn't anything wrong with that idea, but it is pretty much a different conversation.

Yeah, except whenever I hear the "we're not doing it for the benefits" argument, I feel like it's a lie. Seriously, all a gay couple is getting from being married (if not benefits) is a certificate from the state. I'm not a champion of gay marriage, but I believe it is a denial of equal protection to not permit gay marriage; but seriously, at least gays should just admit they want the benefits. It's okay to admit that. Seriously.

Any good liberal will tell you, voting for the best interest of your pocketbook makes you a greedy conservative!

[natty dread]

I thought I adequately explained Phatscotty's position on page 12. Perhaps everyone has me on foe.

Whenever I have the argument about gay marriage I always try to pin someone down so that they'll give a logical reason why gay marriage is a bad thing, and changing the subject to getting rid of all government sanctioned marriage feels sort of like a cop out. There isn't anything wrong with that idea, but it is pretty much a different conversation.

Yeah, except whenever I hear the "we're not doing it for the benefits" argument, I feel like it's a lie. Seriously, all a gay couple is getting from being married (if not benefits) is a certificate from the state. I'm not a champion of gay marriage, but I believe it is a denial of equal protection to not permit gay marriage; but seriously, at least gays should just admit they want the benefits. It's okay to admit that. Seriously.

Any good liberal will tell you, voting for the best interest of your pocketbook makes you a greedy conservative!

Why do you have to be so racist, Phatscotty?

[Phatscotty]

I thought I adequately explained Phatscotty's position on page 12. Perhaps everyone has me on foe.

Whenever I have the argument about gay marriage I always try to pin someone down so that they'll give a logical reason why gay marriage is a bad thing, and changing the subject to getting rid of all government sanctioned marriage feels sort of like a cop out. There isn't anything wrong with that idea, but it is pretty much a different conversation.

Yeah, except whenever I hear the "we're not doing it for the benefits" argument, I feel like it's a lie. Seriously, all a gay couple is getting from being married (if not benefits) is a certificate from the state. I'm not a champion of gay marriage, but I believe it is a denial of equal protection to not permit gay marriage; but seriously, at least gays should just admit they want the benefits. It's okay to admit that. Seriously.

Any good liberal will tell you, voting for the best interest of your pocketbook makes you a greedy conservative!

Why do you have to be so racist, Phatscotty?

I asked you to stop trolling and race-baiting me

[Symmetry]

I thought I adequately explained Phatscotty's position on page 12. Perhaps everyone has me on foe.

Whenever I have the argument about gay marriage I always try to pin someone down so that they'll give a logical reason why gay marriage is a bad thing, and changing the subject to getting rid of all government sanctioned marriage feels sort of like a cop out. There isn't anything wrong with that idea, but it is pretty much a different conversation.

Yeah, except whenever I hear the "we're not doing it for the benefits" argument, I feel like it's a lie. Seriously, all a gay couple is getting from being married (if not benefits) is a certificate from the state. I'm not a champion of gay marriage, but I believe it is a denial of equal protection to not permit gay marriage; but seriously, at least gays should just admit they want the benefits. It's okay to admit that. Seriously.

They get the chance to be married, dude. Apart from that, being recognised as a married couple by the state is kind of a big thing. Seperate but equal hasn't cut it for a long while.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I thought I adequately explained Phatscotty's position on page 12. Perhaps everyone has me on foe.

Whenever I have the argument about gay marriage I always try to pin someone down so that they'll give a logical reason why gay marriage is a bad thing, and changing the subject to getting rid of all government sanctioned marriage feels sort of like a cop out. There isn't anything wrong with that idea, but it is pretty much a different conversation.

Yeah, except whenever I hear the "we're not doing it for the benefits" argument, I feel like it's a lie. Seriously, all a gay couple is getting from being married (if not benefits) is a certificate from the state. I'm not a champion of gay marriage, but I believe it is a denial of equal protection to not permit gay marriage; but seriously, at least gays should just admit they want the benefits. It's okay to admit that. Seriously.

You jump down my throat for saying religion is fundamentally about deluding yourself about death but have no qualms reducing marriage to state benefits?

How about all the bullshit fairytale "happily ever after" marriage stories children get fed?
You think gay people might not have been affected by those while growing up same as straight people are?

Edit: For the record I agree that the legal aspect of marriage should be separate from the cultural/religious aspects.

[thegreekdog]

I thought I adequately explained Phatscotty's position on page 12. Perhaps everyone has me on foe.

Whenever I have the argument about gay marriage I always try to pin someone down so that they'll give a logical reason why gay marriage is a bad thing, and changing the subject to getting rid of all government sanctioned marriage feels sort of like a cop out. There isn't anything wrong with that idea, but it is pretty much a different conversation.

Yeah, except whenever I hear the "we're not doing it for the benefits" argument, I feel like it's a lie. Seriously, all a gay couple is getting from being married (if not benefits) is a certificate from the state. I'm not a champion of gay marriage, but I believe it is a denial of equal protection to not permit gay marriage; but seriously, at least gays should just admit they want the benefits. It's okay to admit that. Seriously.

You jump down my throat for saying religion is fundamentally about deluding yourself about death but have no qualms reducing marriage to state benefits?

How about all the bullshit fairytale "happily ever after" marriage stories children get fed?
You think gay people might not have been affected by those while growing up same as straight people are?

Edit: For the record I agree that the legal aspect of marriage should be separate from the cultural/religious aspects.

Nonedit: For the record, I didn't jump down your throat. Jumping down throats is not really my style.

Yeah, I do think people want to get married. And yeah, I think the state should recognize it and perhaps I'm being a little crass by boiling it down the way I've done.

That being said, if the state didn't recognize the marriage I have, I honestly wouldn't care that much (and maybe that's just me). What did I have to do? I went to the courthouse, got a marriage license, and that was it. Is that what marriage is about? I sure hope not. It's primarily about commitment and love. If the people I'm friends with and my relatives recognize my marriage, why is it important for the state to recognize it?

[thegreekdog]

I thought I adequately explained Phatscotty's position on page 12. Perhaps everyone has me on foe.

Whenever I have the argument about gay marriage I always try to pin someone down so that they'll give a logical reason why gay marriage is a bad thing, and changing the subject to getting rid of all government sanctioned marriage feels sort of like a cop out. There isn't anything wrong with that idea, but it is pretty much a different conversation.

Yeah, except whenever I hear the "we're not doing it for the benefits" argument, I feel like it's a lie. Seriously, all a gay couple is getting from being married (if not benefits) is a certificate from the state. I'm not a champion of gay marriage, but I believe it is a denial of equal protection to not permit gay marriage; but seriously, at least gays should just admit they want the benefits. It's okay to admit that. Seriously.

They get the chance to be married, dude. Apart from that, being recognised as a married couple by the state is kind of a big thing. Seperate but equal hasn't cut it for a long while.

Yeah, I'm probably being too crass here. Apologies. I'm projecting my own problems with state regulation of marriage (and state regulation generally) on the gay marriage issue, when I should be emphasizing "equal protection."

[Symmetry]

I thought I adequately explained Phatscotty's position on page 12. Perhaps everyone has me on foe.

Whenever I have the argument about gay marriage I always try to pin someone down so that they'll give a logical reason why gay marriage is a bad thing, and changing the subject to getting rid of all government sanctioned marriage feels sort of like a cop out. There isn't anything wrong with that idea, but it is pretty much a different conversation.

Yeah, except whenever I hear the "we're not doing it for the benefits" argument, I feel like it's a lie. Seriously, all a gay couple is getting from being married (if not benefits) is a certificate from the state. I'm not a champion of gay marriage, but I believe it is a denial of equal protection to not permit gay marriage; but seriously, at least gays should just admit they want the benefits. It's okay to admit that. Seriously.

They get the chance to be married, dude. Apart from that, being recognised as a married couple by the state is kind of a big thing. Seperate but equal hasn't cut it for a long while.

Yeah, I'm probably being too crass here. Apologies. I'm projecting my own problems with state regulation of marriage (and state regulation generally) on the gay marriage issue, when I should be emphasizing "equal protection."

I do understand your point, but I don't really see why letting gay people get married is the right battleground for it.

[patches70]

If the people I'm friends with and my relatives recognize my marriage, why is it important for the state to recognize it?

Well, now understand I'm just "throwin' this out there" is all-

You'll care if you get in a wreck, hooked to a machine and someone needs to make certain medical decisions for you. In that case, you best be hoping the State has recognized your marriage to the person whom I'd hope would have the best idea of what your wishes are to be.

Or.

You freaking die in an accident, your will is inadequate or not up to date. You might want to have the State recognize your marriage so that maybe your dumb ole ex girlfriend don't come out of the woodwork and get a piece of your estate that you would have wished going to your wife.

or

You commit a crime, your wife is a witness who can sink your ass straight to prison and the prosecution wants to put her on the stand to testify against you. At that point, it would be in your interest that the State had in fact recognized your marriage and if you have a competent lawyer you don't have to sweat your wife testifying against you.

Lots of other little scenarios and things where a legally binding document protects you and your family and that document is enforced by the power and coercion of the State. Sure, the tax breaks are nice, but it's more than just that. It's nice having a partner, a partner recognized by The Powers That Be that will enforce the rights entitled to your and your partner in life.

Just sayin' is all.....

[thegreekdog]

If the people I'm friends with and my relatives recognize my marriage, why is it important for the state to recognize it?

Well, now understand I'm just "throwin' this out there" is all-

You'll care if you get in a wreck, hooked to a machine and someone needs to make certain medical decisions for you. In that case, you best be hoping the State has recognized your marriage to the person whom I'd hope would have the best idea of what your wishes are to be.

Or.

You freaking die in an accident, your will is inadequate or not up to date. You might want to have the State recognize your marriage so that maybe your dumb ole ex girlfriend don't come out of the woodwork and get a piece of your estate that you would have wished going to your wife.

or

You commit a crime, your wife is a witness who can sink your ass straight to prison and the prosecution wants to put her on the stand to testify against you. At that point, it would be in your interest that the State had in fact recognized your marriage and if you have a competent lawyer you don't have to sweat your wife testifying against you.

Lots of other little scenarios and things where a legally binding document protects you and your family and that document is enforced by the power and coercion of the State. Sure, the tax breaks are nice, but it's more than just that. It's nice having a partner, a partner recognized by The Powers That Be that will enforce the rights entitled to your and your partner in life.

Just sayin' is all.....

Good points. Further reasons why the government should not be in the business of licensing marriages.

[thegreekdog]

I do understand your point, but I don't really see why letting gay people get married is the right battleground for it.

Because it's one of the only areas where liberals may tend to agree with me. Seriously. I use similar arguments for other things (e.g. free speech); it's more likely that a liberal will agree on less government intervention on social issues. Similarly, it's more likely that a conservative will agree on less government intervention on fiscal issues.

[Symmetry]

I do understand your point, but I don't really see why letting gay people get married is the right battleground for it.

Because it's one of the only areas where liberals may tend to agree with me. Seriously. I use similar arguments for other things (e.g. free speech); it's more likely that a liberal will agree on less government intervention on social issues. Similarly, it's more likely that a conservative will agree on less government intervention on fiscal issues.

I can sort of see where you're coming from on this (sorry if that comes across mealy-mouthed). Essentially, from my point of view, I get your point, but fighting that point on homosexuals getting equal rights is pretty wrong. If you're sincere, then instead you should be arguing against marriage being recognised between heterosexual couples.

I'm a little sceptical as to your true position on this, although I don't doubt your basic credentials.

[Phatscotty]

How did this thread become about gay marriage?

Did Nag derail it or did Symm?

[natty dread]

How did this thread become about gay marriage?

Did Nag derail it or did Symm?

All your threads are belong to gay marriage

[Symmetry]

How did this thread become about gay marriage?

Did Nag derail it or did Symm?

I think it eventually ended up here when a consensus of posters realised that your original point had no real value, and you couldn't defend it, even as a point of principle, and then started asking questions.

Then it became a reasonable discussion, with occasional interjections about from you about how you wanted the thread to be about your issue with a gay agony aunt.

[Phatscotty]

How did this thread become about gay marriage?

Did Nag derail it or did Symm?

I think it eventually ended up here when a consensus of posters realised that your original point had no real value, and you couldn't defend it, even as a point of principle, and then started asking questions.

Then it became a reasonable discussion, with occasional interjections about from you about how you wanted the thread to be about your issue with a gay agony aunt.

I don't have to defend anything. The guy apologized, but his reputation is has suffered much damaged.

[natty dread]

is has suffered much damaged.

LEARN TO SAY THINGS YOU DOOFUS