Heterosexuality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Opaque

Laws are in place to protect other people, and allow them to have their own rights. You can't drive drunk because you might injure someone else, and they have a right not to be hurt by you. A young child can't drive a car because mentally, hormonaly, and emotionally they are not responsible enough, nor capable enough to drive without puting others at risk.

---

I know I'm nitpicking but kids can drive. So long as they are tall enough to reach the gas peddal they can do anything with a motor vehical you can, if given the chance to learn how.

The biggest reason they are probably not allowed to by law is that they are not mature enough yet to hold down a job to make money. With out money they can't make car payments, insurance payments, or pay for a law suit if they crash into somebody's elses stuff.

It isn't that they are not mature enough to drive, it is that they are not mature enough for the grown up world that goes with owning a vehical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Like it or not, it is granting special rights for being gay - the right to marry someone of the same sex. That is not something anyone can enjoy at the moment.

---

Oh shit I got you now.

It's not granting special rights for gays. It's granting a right that everyone would have, but gays would take advantage of. Just like your crack and Alcohol analogy. Both have the right to drink alcohol, only crack users prefer crack.

If gay marrage was legal, everyone would have the right to do it. Just, straight people wouldn't.

That's your point you made. So stfu.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Even if beer doesnt kill your brain at the same rate of cocaine, theres no doubt it does it. And even if cigarettes dont kill you at the same rate of heroin, theres no doubt it does it. So, by your own logic (not mine), both of these things should be illegal, too.

---

You seem to be implying that the way laws are now has to be right. By the governments own logic of banning drugs, it would make sense to also ban cigarettes and beer seeing as they are proven to be considerably more fatal than, say, weed. So yes, to not be hypocritical these things should technically be banned also. However, tabbaco happens to be a huge industry, and we know how prohibition went, so they aren't...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Opaque

It's not granting special rights for gays. It's granting a right that everyone would have, but gays would take advantage of. Just like your crack and Alcohol analogy. Both have the right to drink alcohol, only crack users prefer crack.

---

Thats exactly true. So basically... yea, we're talking about granting new rights to everyone - not levelling the playing field for just people who got teh gay.

Thats why I say that current law does not discriminate - because everyone can marry someone of the opposite sex, and nobody can marry someone of the same sex. If the law were changed, then everyone can marry someone of the opposite sex, and everybody can marry someone of the same sex.

Quote:

---

You seem to be implying that the way laws are now has to be right. By the governments own logic of banning drugs, it would make sense to also ban cigarettes and beer seeing as they are proven to be considerably more fatal than, say, weed. So yes, to not be hypocritical these things should technically be banned also. However, tabbaco happens to be a huge industry, and we know how prohibition went, so they aren't...

---

I said that shit to prove Opaque wrong. It doesnt mean I believe it deep in my heart. I mean, come on, I just went through all this when Opaque thought I was saying that gay marriage should be illegal because people get offended. Come on, people! Work with me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Like it or not, it is granting special rights for being gay - the right to marry someone of the same sex. That is not something anyone can enjoy at the moment.

---

Did you read what I said? I think it was coherent enough to understand. It's the exact same situation we're talking about, and extending the right to include people of the same sex is giving them the same right as the only other possible people that could be in this situation. It's no different than allowing interracial marriage, really. Basically if you realize that gay people are capable of loving each other and living together the same as a heterosexual couple, it's that simple. That they do it in the butt shouldn't even come into the argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

I said that shit to prove Opaque wrong. It doesnt mean I believe it deep in my heart. I mean, come on, I just went through all this when Opaque thought I was saying that gay marriage should be illegal because people get offended. Come on, people! Work with me!

---

I realize what you're saying, but you guys keep getting into things that don't need to be debated to understand this issue. Do we need to argue about what constitutes harming someone? Is ANYONE really worried about being harmed if two gay people get married? Like the earth splitting apart and swallowing us all up into hell's gaping maw or something? Gay people have been married in California, I have proven this theory wrong. Hah!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salsashark

I like how Yoshi has stopped responding to Sleeveboy's proving him wrong after every post.

---

I'd be happy to respond had that ever happened. You assclowns have no idea what a "right" is. That is pretty damn obvious throughout this thread.

I find it hillarious that as soon as anyone says that anything is wrong they are a biggot. Hear's a newsflash, chief: People not being able to do whatever the hell they want does not equate to trampling their rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Opaque

Yeah well, you're a biggot.

---

I rest my case. diffx has said nothing biggotted in this thread. Nothing, yet he is the victim of a personal attack. If the mods here actually did anything, that would result in a warning.

I like how "fag" is off-limits but "racist" and "biggot" are continually abused.

Quote:

---

Do we need to argue about what constitutes harming someone?

---

If we are going to discuss the "right" of gay marriage, and someone says that they should have that right based on a definition of how rights should be given... then yes, yes it has to be discussed.

If I say 3+4=8 based on some theorem, then of course that theorem should be analyzed. Same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salsashark

I realize what you're saying, but you guys keep getting into things that don't need to be debated to understand this issue. Do we need to argue about what constitutes harming someone? Is ANYONE really worried about being harmed if two gay people get married? Like the earth splitting apart and swallowing us all up into hell's gaping maw or something? Gay people have been married in California, I have proven this theory wrong. Hah!

---

There are many potential economic impacts of this, which could constitute harm. Imagine if any two people in America could claim a marriage deduction on their income tax return? Imagine the impact to the government's income.

We could have tested the impact, buy Grey Davis killed the economy of CA so badly that nothing else could compare.

Blah, what is all this bullshit about being offended? It isn't the governments job to make sure you arn't offended. It never was, and never should be.

Diff people should be allowed to do anything that does not physically harm others. Even if it harms themselves. People should have a right to themselves. You probably won't find that in any of your material about the founding fauthers. Most likely becuase it kind of goes assumed. I should be able to smoke a blunt while drinking a fifth while dancing with a plugged in toaster in a bathtub if I want.

Quote:

---

There are many potential economic impacts of this, which could constitute harm. Imagine if any two people in America could claim a marriage deduction on their income tax return? Imagine the impact to the government's income.

We could have tested the impact, buy Grey Davis killed the economy of CA so badly that nothing else could compare.

---

I don't buy that. The exact same could be said for heterosexual marriage(because its fundamentally the exact same issue). Sure, I could "marry" my male roommate for tax reasons then, but I could do that now with a female friend too.

You're just retreating back to this because you don't have anywhere else to go, it seems like. I don't think Diffx hates gay people, I'm not sure why he's so set against this, maybe he just likes to argue. I get the feeling you are opposed to the idea of homosexuality, correct me if I'm wrong, and that's okay. It's your right. But setting that aside if it's true, tell me how it's any different for gay people and straight people getting married (besides the wild sex they'll be having on their honey moon). We are talking about an existing right, not creating a new one.

edit:added quote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

If we are going to discuss the "right" of gay marriage, and someone says that they should have that right based on a definition of how rights should be given... then yes, yes it has to be discussed.

If I say 3+4=8 based on some theorem, then of course that theorem should be analyzed. Same thing.

---

You would be right if we were talking about creating a new right. We are not, though. Again, we are talking about allowing people an existing right for people in the same circumstances. It isn't as if allowing them this would create a nationwide movement from people wanting to marry babies, appliances, and donkeys. Maybe Jeff Minter would move for this, but I don't consider that a deciding factor in this debate.