juansavage1

If you read the minutes of the Meeting of the Man, white people decided to let Asians get higher SAT scores than them in 1972.

So, following your logic, the government shouldn't have any restrictions on marriage at all. Marriage is what the individual's belief's are. As long as it doesn't force anybody to marry. What you're saying is that marriage isn't any thing except what the individual thinks it is and, therefore, has no real purpose- as far as the government is concerned, at least. Is that correct? That's a different way of looking at it than in the past, isn't it? How do you think that new message will affect society? Should schools teach kids that marriage is whatever individuals think it is? Is that attitude related to the collapse of marriage in much of the West? "There will be more and new and wonderful kinds of love that won't affect anybody or society."

Do you have any thought at the pop up book level? Let's have it. "Well, how does gay marriage affect your marriage and...uh...love wins...and...no discrimination."

It may or may not be a good idea to change the name. The complicating factor is that this is being discussed in the context of the culture war.

This is an example of another phony argument. Are you against anger?

I'm guessing that it was just a trick. To be against generalization in principal is true ignorance. The trick is to make good, true, and relevant generalizations.

First, I appreciate the non-insulting replies and attempts at serious discussion (over an issue I actually hate talking about) People get more upset at the truth than a lie. You don't even have to be angry or insulting. Just point out facts. The simple fact of the matter is that in any gay relationship, the children will be separated- by design, not tragedy- from either their mother or their father. A further fact is that society can no longer use terms like "the nuclear family" or even suggest that children are the natural result of sexual union and marriage. We have completely deconstructed family and sex. Congratulations. "But you can still marry a woman" Yes, but I'm talking about societal values and momentum, not what you or I can do.

Well, it's more complicated when it's an opposite-sex couple. The children are likely the product of their love. There's also the fact that it's important for men and women to be with each other because they complement each other, make each other better.

Why would anybody use a racial insult as the the name of THEIR team? My guess is that it was never intended as an insult.

Is calling somebody a "person of color" racist?

I bet you the number of children in foster care will remain the same. It wasn't long ago that people on the left said that marriage itself was illogical and/or evil and only a system of oppression. Why the sudden turn around?

For those not committed to social revolution, you've been fooled. Gay marriage is absurd. You know who thinks it's absurd? Gay people. Gay people marry much less than straight people, abuse and "cheat" each other more, and divorce more. Why? Because, it's not a serious thing. Their feelings are serious, but their dedication to the institution isn't. If a man and a woman split up or aren't devoted to each other, it's a mini-tragedy for society. If two dudes split up, it's just sad for them.

My guess is that if there were no Indian names, Indians would complain about the lack of Indian names. This is all about perception. Because it focused on that, the ESPN article was actually pretty good. If nobody thinks the names are racist, which I think nobody did until it became a thing, nobody would care. Did any of you think about it denigrating Indians as you were growing up? Also, who's complaining? Is it the same people who are protesting the Halloween costumes? Yes. Why? Complaint is their Oxygen. If Monster Inc was about SJWs, instead of screams or laughter, the society would be run on bitching about stupid things. It's also about SJWs creating sides in which their smelly asses are the virtuous.

Do people think that those supporting the team name as is hate Indians?

No gay marriage means that marriage makes sense and is an institution to move the country forward, as it's the pairing of two sexes that need each other and make families. Gay marriage means that marriage is nothing more than emotion, people who really like each other and may or may not like to bone. You're wrong that it discriminates against people who like the same sex, since they're not barred from participating in marriage. You're right that it discriminates in favor of conjugal marriage and against sterile by design, emotion-only marriage.

JS: What is it that I'm ignorant of? Nate: Lesbians happen to excel at woodworking. What Dwarves are to mining, lesbians are to carpentry and whittling. JS: That's why I come here- to learn from Nate.

There's only a difference because they say there is, at this moment. I can EASILY see a movement start to rename OK and all the liberals here will say that it's the obvious right thing to do. How many stupid things are going on right now that nobody thought possible a few years ago.

Respectfully, any law codifies a belief. You believe marriage is this and I think its that. One of our definitions is what the government accepts and excludes. Having straight marriage didn't force anybody to do anything and didn't prevent people from considering themselves married or having a ceremony. It just said what the government would accept.

I think objecting to a mascot is fine. I would object to some things. I think the main issue is that what they're fighting for isn't cut and dried issues like a name, but things that are unnameable and unsolvable. It's like protesting over people not being nice enough. Well, what should we do? Should we make people smile 2 times per minute? Should we have a niceness board? Fire administrators who did nothing to make people nicer? Have five niceness sub-deans? Can't people claim that the lack of niceness makes them feel uncomfortable? This only makes sense if you look at the ideology of the people protesting.

First, this is one of the few serious, non-insulting posts disagreeing with me. I don't mind non-serious. Insulting bothers me. Thanks. Now: Can you come up with a law that doesn't force a belief? Your gay "marriage" law forces that belief that marriage is between two people so you can't use that one. Can you come up with a reason any expansion of marriage would impact other people (which would allow for infinite permutations of marriage)? I don't want to start this again, but you should modify your claim to: "I don't think we should allow for any belief I don't believe in, nor consider any impact I don't think is important."

Beliefs dictate law. That's just the way it is. Men are belief-driven. I think what you're talking about and what the founders were most wary of was denominationalism, where one sect gets preference over another.

There are issues with same-sex couples. Let's take these women. Who's putting the bike together on Christmas? What if one of the kid's project requires woodworking? Who will explain the infield fly rule? Who's the battleaxe? Which of the two are going to complain how they could have married somebody richer?

The rest of the article is pretty interesting, although nobody here would like it because it contains generalizations of Evangelicals and Republicans. It also ties their opinions to a philosophy, which also pisses people off.

Risky move. Most professors have it memorized. Here's Salon's take: