Why It’s Futile To Argue With Close Minded People.

Share Button

I don’t mean to pick on one particular party here, and anyone who has followed this blog for the last few years knows I have had it out with members from both parties. But this one deals with same sex marriage. And since I’m for that, well, you know which ideology I’m going to have trouble with.

You know how Conservatives against same sex marriage always complain about redefining marriage? I was in a blargument (argument on the comments section of a blog) this week-end with one especially annoying opponent of SSM, going by the nom-de-plume NDT, who always complains about redefining the definition of marriage. He thinks that homosexuals are not capable of having life long relationships. He stated:

1) Marry only if you’re planning to spend the rest of your life with this person

2) Given 1), it behooves you to think about your choice BEFORE you marry

3) Realize that 1) means what it says — so refer again to 2).

Inferring that gays are just too impulsive to plan and think about getting married, and anyway they can’t / won’t stay together because they are too selfish and slutty.

I then pointed out that, you know, many straights get something called a prenuptial agreement, which of course, is a contingency plan for someone who recognizes that this might not be a life-long commitment, and asked his if, therefore, he was against the concept of a prenupo.

His reply?

“What happens in the event of death comes immediately to mind; a pre-nup allows you to distribute property or assets differently than the standard marital “default”. A pre-nup in common-property states like California allows one person to shield another from the effect of bankruptcy — such as when one is a sole proprietor of a business and wants to make sure any negative business judgments don’t take out the other spouse.”

Um, no. Death is covered by something called a will. The other examples, maybe sometimes those are dealt with in prenups. But the main reason for getting a prenup is to protect assets in the event of a divorce. Another commenter, who is not a lawyer but has dealt with this personally, chimes in and notes:

Pre-nups are exactly what you say they are Sonic. NDT is not correct. Declarations of separate property or separate property agreements are used in the examples he cited, not pre-nups.

In any case, even if NDT is right, that prenups can be used for those other purposes, still, it’s main purpose is to protect assets in case of divorce:

Yes, and you can also use olive oil to loosen a rusty bolt or maybe even in the bedroom, if your tastes run in that direction, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s main purpose, its main use, is for cooking!

Now, don’t get me wrong, I do think that marriage should be a commitment for life. But NDT makes it seem as if heterosexuals do that religiously, and gays, when allowed to marry, do not. Seeing that there are now several states that allow same sex marriage, and he offers no statistics showing that the divorce rate is higher among gay married couple does not help his case. But the funniest thing about this exchange is that the guy who is SOOOO violently offended by the prospect of “redefining” the term marriage, has absolutely no problem redefining the term prenuptial agreement!

To conclude, this is how he characterizes my efforts to pull him into the reality that heterosexuals often get married with the contingency plan in case of divorce, that many heterosexual fail the “Marry only if you’re planning to spend the rest of your life with this person” test.

Sonicfrog, you’re just making the point. You and yours are so desperate to legitimize your whiny want for gay-sex marriage that your only hope is to drag down and delegitimize heterosexual marriage.

Really?????????

You don’t have any concept of WHY society gives these things to heterosexual relationships. All you see is that someone else is getting something you’re not, and like a bratty teenage girl, you start bawling and screaming that you’re being made to feel “inferior”, and that Mommy and Daddy are mean because they won’t buy you the BMW that someone else is driving.

Grow up!

Sign… Why do I even try?

The thread in question is here.

PS. Did I forget to mention that I’m not a big BMW fan – yeah, they are great cars, but I’m quite happy with my old 1987 Subaru Turbo-Wagon – and that NDT is also gay?

2 Comments to “Why It’s Futile To Argue With Close Minded People.”

  1. By David in N.O., February 14, 2012 @ 7:14 pm

    Sonic, I just want to let you know I am not a lawyer. Estate planning is something that has always been part of my life, thus I have gained a great deal of knowledge in area of the law. I don’t do it professionally. As to NDT, you just have to ignore him. Rarely have I ever witnessed a greater need to be right than his. What’s wrong with him?

  2. By Sonicfrog, February 17, 2012 @ 4:50 pm

    Psychotic?… I don’t know. I’ve known him for almost seven years, and it’s gotten much much worse since he moved to San Fran five years ago.

    Seven years ago, when I started bloggong, Gay Patriot was one of the first blogs dealing with gay stuff and the world that I felt a connection to. I am not liberal, voted for GWB, and can’t stand the expectation that all gays are supposed to be Uber-liberal and no variation from this can be tolerated. Dan B and Bruce were among my first blog-pals, and I consider Dan to be one of my best blog friends. GP was a fun place to hang out. Yes there were some scuffles, but, back then, dissent was generally respected by the majority of commenters. Now, if you step out of line, you get blasted by the majority. Levi, Cas, Pat, and others, even if they happen to have had a good point to make, just get reamed simply because they dare to have a differing opinion on something. There is no debate or give and take anymore. Either you agree with them, or you’re a “libtard”. I hate to say it, but I’m about ready to step away from that site, and I really don’t want to, because I like and respect Dan and Bruce so much. But there are few thoughtful discussions within the comments anymore, no exchange of ideas there. Unfortunately, though Dan and Bruce try to prevent it, the Gay Patriot comments section has become just as stifling to the injection of differing points of views and ideas as so many of the liberal gay sites that belches venom at anybody who comes in with a view that steps outside the partisan comfort zone.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply