Reply #17: no ox to gore [View All]

[iverglas]

... or axe to grind here -- but really. This thread really is just someone else taking the opportunity to say "I don't like ____ but I think ____".

Really and truly, who cares?

Wouldn't One Big Thread where we ALL say:

My personal preferences are irrelevant and I oppose denying anyone the equal protection of the law and I therefore support extending the legal institution of marriage to include same-sex couples.

... really be enough?

And if anybody didn't want to sign on to that position statement, s/he could then be prevailed upon to offer justification for denying the equal protection of the law and reasons to oppose extending the legal institution of marriage to include same-sex couples ... and to leave his/her religious beliefs or personal tastes or favourite colour out of the discussion unless s/he could demonstrate their relevance.

And no, I'm not suggesting that anybody should be censored, or that anybody should not be perfectly free to say whatever s/he wants. I'm suggesting that people use common sense and a little more humility, and maybe read a bunch of what has already been said on the board about an issue (and hell, even respond to it if what one wishes to say has already been spoken to repeatedly on the board instead of just starting something up all over again as if nothing had ever been said to/about what one is saying), before starting yet one more thread saying nothing new whatsoever.

I *agree* that it is an issue of considerable importance. I have contributed to a number of threads about it. I am adamantly opposed to the denial of equal protection/due process in this area, and have been for, oh, decades.

But I'm at a loss to know why there is any need for yet one more person to express his/her personal preferences, whatever they may be and for whatever reasons s/he may hold them, in yet another thread in which nothing novel is said.

Ignoring people and ignoring threads, by individual option, does not address the fact that the discourse itself is sometimes dragged down, and dragged pointlessly out, by some people and some threads (and here I speak generically).

There are issues within this issue that are worth putting some joint thought into. Is issuing marriage licences strategically wise? What are the implications of the proposed amendment to the US Constitution? Even: is there really justification for denying equal protection by excluding same-sex couples from the institution of marriage? (There can indeed be justification for violating constitutional rights, and it is worth knowing what kind of justification is recognized by the courts, and demanding that anyone proposing such violations meet those standards.)

But much more of this "I don't like ___ ..." stuff and this place just looks more and more like Yahoo.

.