This is no more than a pointless argument about semantics. Try not to derail the thread with a definition, okay?
I'm sorry, I thought you were trying to avoid stagnation. Notice how just about every opinion on this thread, mine included, has been a rehash of the pro gay marriage argument? Argument sharpens our wits. By arguing against each other, we learn both good inductive (the interesting topics are induction based) reasoning and solid rhetoric. We don't fight because we dislike each other (or, I don't dislike Kasic at least), but rather because we do respect each other.
It's not pointless semantics because there is disagreement. There is a difference between the very foundation of our arguments, which in itself is worth comparing, but moreso because these foundations lead us to the same places. Don't you find that the least bit curious? Argument about semantics? Yes. Pointless? Not really.
Regardless, as I alluded to before, the purpose of the argument is largely not for informational purposes. While I think the distinction between whose rights are violated is important, the pragmatic gain here is that fighting about it helps both me and Kasic. The fact that we can go at each other about these things is not what makes us immature, it is what makes us strong.
Or, in a more argumentative form, let's explore ad hominem attacks. These sorts of things are generally made when one has no counter to the actual argument presented.
Anyways, for all the people saying the majority of people in America are against same-sex marriage:
Empiricism? Is that all you have to offer!? /quotingpretentiously
Again, you attempt to act superior to us.
Relax, he was just addressing his error with the quoting system. It was a diplomatic action. Besides, if there was an edit function that he couldn't find, someone would have helped him out, because he mentioned it.
I forget what we're talking about. Wait, I've got it.
And Homosexual does not equal women only. I agree that feminists may have an interest in it, but it is not "solely" a feminist issue. Are we both in agreement?
Largely. Note that
feminism also does not equal women only. Beyond that, I think we're on the same page here.
Actually, one more note: I feel I should also cede that aggressively labeling it a feminist issue may not be, ah, pragmatic. While feminism advocates equal rights for genders, it is deeply rooted in the vindications of the rights of women (see what I did there?). My point is that in a legal sense, the denial of rights is sex-based, not sexuality based.
Will this eventually stop?
Yes. Everything will stop. Someday. But anyway, progress isn't quite that fixed. People becoming more liberal is not a done deal. The Victorian era in Britain was far more sexually repressed than Britain under the Roman Empire... or basically any other time in Britain :P Rather, progress, whatever that is, is something we have to work to make happen.
I think the current political climate does indicate that it will become a non-issue in a few years. It's the next great civil rights movement in America, after racial equality and women's rights. But it won't be because of the march of time. It will be because of the efforts of people like us, arguing about it tirelessly.
