5 ms·

And my response to the separate but equal argument is literally sitting in my comment above, and part of my argument, remove rights from the word marriage. The

And my response to the separate but equal argument is literally sitting in my comment above, and part of my argument, remove rights from the word marriage. There is ONLY civil unions. There is no separation. You yourself claimed that appropriating the word marriage was a band-aid, and yet you ignore that a band-aid was in place, and a much more rational argument would have been to remove rights associated with marriage. Instead you continue to argue that codifying your beliefs into law was correct, even while you denounce the other side for trying to do that. Come back when you can intelligently make an argument that is internally consistent. I have to agree with the others commenting on your posts, you have some serious cognitive dissonance.

Karunamon 12y ago
>and part of my argument, remove rights from the word marriage. And as I said before, I'm fine with this, but it's a process that takes longer than fixing the inequality now. You could write a law that says all marriages are now civil unions, but in doing so you've broken the dependency chain to any out-of-state agency that uses "marriage" as anything in particular underpinning any kind of contract. The simplest, easiest thing to do is to amend the legal (not religious) definition of marriage to fix this problem. The religious definition of marriage is irrelevant to the legal one. >Instead you continue to argue that codifying your beliefs into law was correct Yeah, fuck me for wanting equality like blacks and women. We're done here.
- bluntly_said 12y ago
  Let me stoop to your level for a moment: Yo, FUCKHEAD: You claimed appropriating marriage was a band-aid. BUT... you ALREADY HAD THE FUCKING RIGHTS. You JUST WANT TO ARGUE ABOUT WHAT MARRIAGE IS. FUCK YOU. You don't give a SHIT about the rights, because you don't even know that you already have them. You JUST WANT TO FORCE RELIGION to let you call it marriage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Califor... --- And we've already had the separate but equal argument, don't even fucking bother with it. You can't stand that you can't make a coherent argument here, because you're a bully. A fucking FUCKHEAD bully.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    I at no point in this entire discussion insulted you. And this is in case you delete/edit your comment: http://gyazo.com/780f9733394829fce3b5577edf4091b5 http://gyazo.com/780f9733394829fce3b5577edf4091b5 Like I said. We're done here.
    - bluntly_said 12y ago
      I'm not going to delete it, it's there for a reason. Maybe you're just so busy arguing with everyone else that you can't remember who said what, or what we were even talking about. But you've intentionally walked in circles, and had problems making a consistent argument. You claim you wanted rights without even knowing that you had them, or acknowledging that my proposed solution also does away with the separate but equal bullshit. And yes, you insult me every time you make derisive comments like "Yeah, fuck me for wanting equality like blacks and women." That's just a plain lie. There's no lack of equality, and I'm even agreeing with you about the separate but equal statements. You still demand that you're right though, and insist that I must be a bigot. That's demeaning to me, and it short circuits a real discussion, like you've been trying to do all along. You're JUST as bad as the supporters of prop 8, and that's what I'm trying to call out.
      - Karunamon 12y ago
        >I'm not going to delete it, it's there for a reason. Demonstrating your hypocrisy when you throw around the word "bully", apparently. > or acknowledging that my proposed solution also does away with the separate but equal bullshit. That particular argument was debunked both by me up top (what about other states? what about federally? what about non-government entities?) and by other people in this thread. Your proposed solution does nothing of the sort considering that you completely ignore the time issue I've brougnt up twice now. >You're JUST as bad as the supporters of prop 8, and that's what I'm trying to call out. More insults? You have shown beyond any doubt that you are incapable of having a mature discussion without pounding the keyboard like an impudent child ("FUCKHEAD", really?) completely ignoring points that are inconvenient for your argument, and all around going well out of your way to misinterpret what I say and lower the standard of discussion here.
AlexMax 12y ago
> Come back when you can intelligently make an argument that is internally consistent. I have to agree with the others commenting on your posts, you have some serious cognitive dissonance. Could it be that you've managed to ferret out hypocrisy in their mental model in just a few short minutes? Or are you (and others) just straw-manning their position to be "Discrimination is bad no matter what!" so you can tear it down easily? I hope you yourself don't subscribe to that mental model, because it's not only overly-reductive, but like you said, it actually just plain doesn't work - neither in favor of the status quo or for changing it.
- bluntly_said 12y ago
  No, his cognitive dissonance is that he claims to only want the word marriage for the rights, ignoring they are already present. He then claims the because the rights aren't present, co-opting the word marriage is ok, because it's only to gain those rights. He's essentially trying to force marriage to mean what he thinks it should, while expounding how terrible those who support prop-8 are when they do the same. That's internal inconsistency. He rejects and demonizes one group for taking the same actions he is. To Sum: ------ Prop-8 "Marriage is only between man and woman" Karunamon: "Marriage is between any two adults" Karunamon: "How dare they say marriage must mean that, it's not what I believe, they are bigots." ------ Rights are not involved, California offered equal rights to both groups. At best he can appeal that separate but equal is not a good state, and I agree with him there.

Karunamon 12y ago

>and part of my argument, remove rights from the word marriage. And as I said before, I'm fine with this, but it's a process that takes longer than fixing the inequality now. You could write a law that says all marriages are now civil unions, but in doing so you've broken the dependency chain to any out-of-state agency that uses "marriage" as anything in particular underpinning any kind of contract. The simplest, easiest thing to do is to amend the legal (not religious) definition of marriage to fix this problem. The religious definition of marriage is irrelevant to the legal one. >Instead you continue to argue that codifying your beliefs into law was correct Yeah, fuck me for wanting equality like blacks and women. We're done here.

bluntly_said 12y ago
Let me stoop to your level for a moment: Yo, FUCKHEAD: You claimed appropriating marriage was a band-aid. BUT... you ALREADY HAD THE FUCKING RIGHTS. You JUST WANT TO ARGUE ABOUT WHAT MARRIAGE IS. FUCK YOU. You don't give a SHIT about the rights, because you don't even know that you already have them. You JUST WANT TO FORCE RELIGION to let you call it marriage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Califor... --- And we've already had the separate but equal argument, don't even fucking bother with it. You can't stand that you can't make a coherent argument here, because you're a bully. A fucking FUCKHEAD bully.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  I at no point in this entire discussion insulted you. And this is in case you delete/edit your comment: http://gyazo.com/780f9733394829fce3b5577edf4091b5 http://gyazo.com/780f9733394829fce3b5577edf4091b5 Like I said. We're done here.
  - bluntly_said 12y ago
    I'm not going to delete it, it's there for a reason. Maybe you're just so busy arguing with everyone else that you can't remember who said what, or what we were even talking about. But you've intentionally walked in circles, and had problems making a consistent argument. You claim you wanted rights without even knowing that you had them, or acknowledging that my proposed solution also does away with the separate but equal bullshit. And yes, you insult me every time you make derisive comments like "Yeah, fuck me for wanting equality like blacks and women." That's just a plain lie. There's no lack of equality, and I'm even agreeing with you about the separate but equal statements. You still demand that you're right though, and insist that I must be a bigot. That's demeaning to me, and it short circuits a real discussion, like you've been trying to do all along. You're JUST as bad as the supporters of prop 8, and that's what I'm trying to call out.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      >I'm not going to delete it, it's there for a reason. Demonstrating your hypocrisy when you throw around the word "bully", apparently. > or acknowledging that my proposed solution also does away with the separate but equal bullshit. That particular argument was debunked both by me up top (what about other states? what about federally? what about non-government entities?) and by other people in this thread. Your proposed solution does nothing of the sort considering that you completely ignore the time issue I've brougnt up twice now. >You're JUST as bad as the supporters of prop 8, and that's what I'm trying to call out. More insults? You have shown beyond any doubt that you are incapable of having a mature discussion without pounding the keyboard like an impudent child ("FUCKHEAD", really?) completely ignoring points that are inconvenient for your argument, and all around going well out of your way to misinterpret what I say and lower the standard of discussion here.

AlexMax 12y ago

> Come back when you can intelligently make an argument that is internally consistent. I have to agree with the others commenting on your posts, you have some serious cognitive dissonance. Could it be that you've managed to ferret out hypocrisy in their mental model in just a few short minutes? Or are you (and others) just straw-manning their position to be "Discrimination is bad no matter what!" so you can tear it down easily? I hope you yourself don't subscribe to that mental model, because it's not only overly-reductive, but like you said, it actually just plain doesn't work - neither in favor of the status quo or for changing it.

bluntly_said 12y ago
No, his cognitive dissonance is that he claims to only want the word marriage for the rights, ignoring they are already present. He then claims the because the rights aren't present, co-opting the word marriage is ok, because it's only to gain those rights. He's essentially trying to force marriage to mean what he thinks it should, while expounding how terrible those who support prop-8 are when they do the same. That's internal inconsistency. He rejects and demonizes one group for taking the same actions he is. To Sum: ------ Prop-8 "Marriage is only between man and woman" Karunamon: "Marriage is between any two adults" Karunamon: "How dare they say marriage must mean that, it's not what I believe, they are bigots." ------ Rights are not involved, California offered equal rights to both groups. At best he can appeal that separate but equal is not a good state, and I agree with him there.