You realize that when you put quotes around "identify" you are quoting me? I never said identify. If you live in Portland, and the team travels around as the Portland Trail Blazers, they are representing you. Maybe not as you, the person, but they represent your city, and they reflect on the city that you live in. When they were the Jail Blazers, they reflected poorly on the city. It's not a personal choice that every person makes, it just is what it is. They affect how people from the outside view the city. They affect our sense of place.
You appear to be viewing gay marriage as a "political agenda" rather than a civil rights issue. Supporting the right to marry is waaaaay different than if the Blazers had come out as supporting Political Candidate X, Y, or Z. If you support the civil rights of the queer community, then you should be happy when banal things like sports teams start to support those civil rights as well, as that is a good indicator that progress is being made. Or we could all just sit on our hands in fear of offending all the republican grandpas.
And you're not understanding that I'm talking about sports teams and divisive politics in general. I just don't want to see sports teams venture into that arena. I see this as the opening of a door that I don't really want to see opened. I'm not really talking about a specific politician. While those can be divisive, I don't think it's even close to the same level as gay marriage, abortion, or the death penalty. I'm probably forgetting a couple, but those are the really big ones that I view as extremely divisive in this country.
Actually, I didn't say I'd be upset, I said I'd be offended. I also said I'd be equally offended if the came out with a statement against straight marriage or against interracial marriage. My position is 100% consistent. BNM
Your example is inconsistent and illogical. In your example you're talking about taking away someone's existing rights. A pro gay marriage stance does not take away or threaten anyone's existing rights. Being pro gay marriage does not take away the right for straight people to marry. Do you not see the fundamental difference? BNM
I don't think he was quoting you. I'm sure John Boehner will come up with a "really great" solution to the financial crisis. Nobody is being quoted there. barfo
My example is not meant to be comparative to the exact same issue. It's meant to illustrate another example of the Blazers picking a divisive issue. It's meant to be an example of an issue that, for me, would be a line in the sand that I would be unwilling to support. I'm not comparing apples to apples. I get it, gay marriage is about equal rights. That's why I support it. Do you not agree that gay marriage is a divisive issue in this country? There are people that support it and there are people that do not support it, no?
I think this would be correct if he wasn't already quoting my post above, but because he was using the "originally posted by" quote box, and then also using quotations around "identify," it implied that he was quoting me. If it was just a post that wasn't directly quoting me, I think you'd be right.
Agreed. And am sure people will say it's just because I support it. But I view it as a civil rights/equal rights issue. Sure, it's political in nature, because there are currently laws limiting some people's rights. But I view it less so than a politics issue. And more a basic human equality issue. I was opposed to the war in Iraq, but would have been pretty annoyed if the TBs came out against the war. Even though I fell on the same side politically, something like that, IMO, should stay out of sports. I view this differently, but again, am sure people will say that's just because I support the issue.
He quoted your post (without an FTFY), and then wrote his own post, in which he used "identify". If he'd changed the text in the Originally Posted by box, then you'd have a claim that he was misquoting you. From context, it seems quite clear that he wasn't claiming you used the word "identify", just as I was not claiming you used the words "really great". barfo
The strange part was that he put quotations around "identify" but he didn't put quotations around "represent" which is a word I did use.
So, in your opinion, gay marriage is an issue that is above politics? That's basically what you guys are saying, correct?
Have you really never seen someone use quotes in a manner not just to specifically quote someone? Almost like using air quotes while talking.
Since he'd quoted your comment in its entirety, there was not really any need for him to further quote any of the words you used, unless he wanted to indicate disagreement with your usage of the word or to call out a specific passage. barfo
Doesn't come out right saying it that way, but I suppose you can say that. Many opponents of it oppose it because of religious reasons. Not because of politics, and the laws on the books currently, but because of what their god tells them, which puts it "above" or outside of politics on both sides, I suppose, no?
If I want to put emphasis on a word, I use bold or sometimes I caps it. I only use quotations when I'm using something that the person said. Air quotes are similarly used, but you know what? I really don't want to start debating the usage of quotations and air quotes. Just really not in the mood
Sadly, it's intrinsically connected to politics because of the governmental aspect of marriage. If there were no benefits or rights included with marriage, it would be entirely religious and then it would become a completely different argument, don't you think? Because there are governmental benefits attached to marriage, it puts it squarely in the realm of politics, also with the inclusion of needing the public to vote on the issue for it to become officially accepted. The religious aspect, not to mention the whole tradition of marriage, is what makes the issue so emotional for people. I really wish the government would just remove the benefits from marriage entirely. Just put it all on civil unions, so anyone can be joined in the eyes of the government, and you remove most of the issues facing gay marriage. Government should be out of it completely.
