You know, we're on the same side of the marriage equality debate. I find anything short of full equality between a straight marriage and a gay partnership to be discriminatory. Part of me questions why we have chosen to perpetuate a tradition that was founded on securing rights to another human being like some piece of property, but that's another topic.
But I am a staunch advocate of open dialog, and I give people much more credit to recognize ignorance and prejudice when they hear it than you do. I think reactionary, discriminatory opinions are best dealt with in full sunlight: it's the best disinfectant, after all.
well thanks for the personal insult...ouch!
Your use of the word "reactionary" seems to imply that those faced with driscrimination based upom sexuality have reached an adequare level of equality and that those who actively look for further equality are actualy overacting...
Some news for you. We have not reached anywhere near a level of adeqaute level of equality.
Day to day we are faced with discrimination in so many ways - at work, at law, by government policy to name a few..and until rights are equal at law (and who gives a flying fuck about religion) then keeping the issue upfront is the way that MANY types of discrimination, social injustice, etc have sucessfully been tackled over the years...how can attitudes be changed, and values that pass on evolve, if issues are kept in the closet...like some on this website...
get of off your high horse...if feel like ur equal in society then good for you...some of us dont.....
Bbucko can defend himself, so if this falls short of a rock-solid defense, so be it.
After reading this exchange, engorged, it is my opinion that you are a dolt. Now that I have exercised my right to express my opinion, you and everyone else on this board has the right to judge both my assessment, and me. I
know you aren't going to like it. But after noticing how little attention you pay to detail, i haven't any inclination to give weight to your opinion. Not even a little inclination.
You see, it seems that you are arguing for censorship, or worse. Buck said he thinks she should be able to express her opinion, but that all others in the world should be able to judge her based on the opinion she expressed. You argued against it. So, I ask you, who's opinion should be expressed, who's should be suppressed, and who gets to decide which is which? You?
Oh, and he wasn't calling YOU a reactionary. He was calling the opinion of those who oppose gay marriage "reactionary." Just so you're aware (the next time you dabble in political discourse) the Oxford dictionary definition of reactionary:
reactionary |rēˈak sh əˌnerē|
adjective
(of a person or a set of views) opposing political or social liberalization or reform.
Until your little outburst above, I wouldn't have included you in that ilk. Neither did Bbucko. Now... I'm going to exercise my right to opine about you again: You, sir, are a reactionary, for the reason I've stated above.
And for the record (though, you'd know if you searched some of my threads, if you weren't too lazy to do so), I'm as PRO gay marriage as they come - being party to a gay marriage myself.