Printable View
Humans have rights. Every single one of them. If a human is black, white, red, yellow, purple, straight, gay, handicapped, or living in a fucking jar, they have the same rights. No one deserves special rights, and grouping people is fucking stupid. You want people to stop being hated? Stop pushing special rights or even grouping people in the first place.
BTW, the thread title is purely intended to induce clicking, so shut the fuck up.
No offense, but were I a mod, I would call this trolling.
Thanks for your thought provoking contribution.
You're welcome. It was unwittingly a pun!
Shamelessly stolen from here...
It is a good backhanded question though :p After a full generation of all this gay right shit would a topic like this come around?
Quote:
Man I have been getting aroused by heterosexual porn for months and my best friend Diana makes me so damn sprung. I'm on the verge of my nervous breakdown. If my two Dads find out they will freak and probably kick me out of the chateau. What should I do!?!
For a second I thought it was honorable of you to keep out of the Homosexuality thread. But I guess you're an idiot since they don't want special rights. They want equal rights which they don't have. Perhaps you should try understanding the situation before you sprout idiocy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Bullshit. What equal right do they not have?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thief~Silver
They can't marry with whom they share a mutual love?
A. Marriage is not a right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anomaly
B. Marriage, n. the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law
Don't give me bullshit about you not defining marriage that way, because the law does. I define abortion as murder, but the law doesn't, so I am SOL, and so are you.
Ok... then they can't ride on the Bus with the rest of us?
I explained this concept not once but twice in that thread. I guess he didnt get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I'm a little disappointed, I was hoping for a mention of Playboy, the Dodge Charger... ...or at least Beverly Hills Cop in this thread.
Eh I get it now, I apologize for my thick headedness. They are not being discriminated against in that fact. (Of course most of the reason they aren't given these "special rights" which would in fact become everyone's rights is because people don't like em. At least that's what I see, but I don't know everyone so ignore that.)
I do think that a pair of homosexual lovers deserve the same benefits (Name change, health care etc) as marriage. But you are right in the fact that they are not being discriminated against.
So would I.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
* Rights to their partner's estate upon death in the absence of a willQuote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
* Work-related benefits conferred by their partners (e.g. health)
* Hospital visitation rights
* Preferential tax treatment
Kiss my ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Congratulations. I'd call the other thread whining. Do I get a cookie?Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
I love the equitable moderating at TNL. I suppose this isn't trolling, eh, sleeve?
Sorry, those are results of marriage, which we defined above to be between a man and a woman.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
Nah. Then I might lose some rights, according to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
Green dinosaurs of unspecified genders make me hard.
As well they should.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy
No, it is. And it belongs here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Next time use the report post feature instead of citing it here as a form of passive-agressive whining.
Oh, my mistake. I didn't realize your summary definitions took precedence over the Due Process Clause.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Now, after it has been there for days, he does something. Moderation here is still a complete joke, no matter seriously people think they are taking it.
See above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
And stop being so bitter.
I would also like to add in my 2+ years of moderating this forum, I can count the number of times you have reported posts on one hand with a few fingers left over.
So stop whining.
Aww shit!
this thread sucks
Yoshi, you can say what you want but from where I stand you are a biggot.
There is no logic in saying that a man and a man shouldn't have the same rights as a man and a woman. None.
Opaque you're missing part of the point as I did.. they do have the same rights, Just none of them cater towards the condition of homosexuality. Which I think should be remedied.
Yoshi is right when he says there is no discrimination intended.
It was terrible until Raz0r reminded me about Golden Girls. Man, I'd leave school at lunch in elementary to see that show. Sickness.Quote:
Originally Posted by cka
That said, this thread isn't that interesting. And yes, it looks like trolling.
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by DjRocca
THANK YOU FOR BEING MY FRIEND!
:lol:
Aren't you in North Carolina?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Section 14-177 of the North Carolina General Statutes, derived from an English statute passed during the reign of Henry VIII, provides,
"If any person shall commit the crime against nature, with mankind or beast, he shall be punished as a Class I felon."
The "crime against nature" (abbreviated "CAN") has been defined by North Carolina courts as "sexual intercourse contrary to the order of nature" and includes all "acts of bestial character whereby degraded and perverted sexual desires are sought to be gratified." While this definition may be broad enough to include masturbation or sexual positions once thought "unnatural", the CAN law is now used only in cases involving oral sex (fellatio and cunnilingus) and anal intercourse.
The courts have said that the CAN law makes it illegal for a person to engage in oral or anal sex with any other person.
Guess you never get blow jobs, eh?
Why are you concerned with the way people besides yourselves, who are genuinely good people, live their lives, if it has no effect on you?
Yoshi, I feel that you're the type of person who shouldn't be allowed to marry or procreate, you're just gonna spawn some dumb ass bumblefuck who might end up being president or something :\
he's going to shit out multi-coloured eggs that will hatch and have to eat 5 koopa troopas to mature.
All the while collecting multi-colored bananas and puzzle pieces.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by cka
No, bad Jeremy!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy
Actually, I don't think that's true. I'll bet I have reported five. Not many more though.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
Try reading the thread. Show me a right they don't have. No one has done that yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
Yoshi, you just need a good assfucking. That will convert you over night.
Jesus, you should read the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I can pick a woman to spend the rest of my life with and when I die she gets my assets, she can visit me in the hospital, we get cetain tax breakes and my work will give her health benifits in some cases.
Why should I and a woman get benifits that a man and a man can't have together? Any two people should be able to have taxe breaks together, hospital visitation rights, and rights to estate. Gender shoudnt matter.
Well, the law is wrong. Interracial marriage was defined as illegal by law for some time in this country - was that a good law as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Or how about when it was legal to own slaves? The Jiw Crow laws? Shall I go on?
You offering?Quote:
Originally Posted by Do You Like Erotic?
There's absolutely no comparison between slavery and gay people asking for the right to be able to marry people of the same sex. Like... no comparison at all. I realize what you are saying (some laws are implicitly unjust), but Id be hard-pressed to think this is one of them, and silly comparisons like that wont win people over.Quote:
Originally Posted by shidoshi
Shit, diffx. They are right. If a 40 year-old man wants to marry 6 year-old girl, and she agrees, that should be legally recognized too. After all, if we draw a line anywhere, we are biggots.
don't bring your love of 6 year old girls into this
... maybe if he had a better personality...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
The difference between two men of legal age and a 40 year old man and a 6 year old girl is a really big one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
If you can't see how adults doing something, and children doing something are two different things, then there really isn't any point in trying to get you to understand our points, because they are obviously above your head.
Homo!Quote:
Originally Posted by Do You Like Erotic?
I always kinda wanted to marry my car.
Now all you need to do is get your drivers permit, your drivers license, then actually not suck at life and be able to afford a car, then maybe a car would even consider you in the runnings. This brings up two questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satsuki
How old are you again? Your brother is like 16 and he has done all this.
and
So you finally figured out that no human being would actually want you, eh?
9__9
If you can't see how men doing something, and a man and a woman doing something are two different things, then there really isn't any point in trying to get you to understand our points, because they are obviously above your head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
You are kidding right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Seriosuly, that's the dumbest point I have ever heard. Classifing people as adults and children is something intelligent people do, to protect the interest of children who haven't developed enough mentally to make sound choices. That's why they have to of legal age to get married, they need to be emotionally and metnally capable to make such a decision.
Men of legal age don't need to be protected from making the decision to get married, and there for they shouldn't be stopped from picking one person to share their life with just as you get to pick one person to share your life with. Gender, something which can infact be changed, shouldn't play a role in wethere or not you can marry someone. Age, which can be faked, but not changed, should play a role in wether or not you can do something.
Learn the difference between protecting a minor and defying an adult of a rights and then we'll talk.
Yoshi, you're going to make my head explode. Seriously.
Opaque, what about a brother/sister?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
You can't murder someone because they have the right to live. Abortion is a delicate issue because in some cases abortion will protect the mother, but at the same time the baby does have the right to live.
Getting to your question, genetically that's an issue because it creates high risk for offspring to have resessive genetic abnormalities. Children have the right not to be put in harm, haveing a hcild with a sibling puts them in harms way before they are even born. However, since not all marriages result in children, this should not stop brothers and sisters from getting married. Even if it is gross.
This isn't about wether or not I think gay marrage is a non gross thing to do. Personally I think it is gross to think of men in a sexual manner together. However, there is no reason it should be illigal, because it doesn't harm anyone else. If you can tell me one way how a Man marrying a man imposess on someone elses rights, then you win. If not, I win.
Heh.
What makes you think that something is "okay" as long as it doesnt "impose on someone else's rights"? Like... seriously? Ive been reading some writing lately from the founding fathers of our country, like James Madison, and this sort of thinking was never invoked.Quote:
If you can tell me one way how a Man marrying a man imposess on someone elses rights, then you win. If not, I win.
Welcome to the real world diffx.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
In this world, if you don't put anyone at harm by doing something, you are allowed to do it.
This is a tenuous, ridiculous argument that will basically indicate that nobody has any rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
Im sure you were one of those that bitched when some Christians (or anyone) might say something like, "its my right not to be offended". Well... okay. By your logic, this is a true statement, and then the offender has to cease what they are doing. Because, hey, here's the definition of harm:
harm n.
1. Physical or psychological injury or damage.
2. Wrong; evil.
Unless you mean like, physical harm, but then that is far too strict of a definition that fails to take into account things that will cause a burden on society, like for example if we legalized all hard drugs and had an army of junkies wandering our streets.
I said harming anyone. This includes harming ther person doing the act. Drugs will harm the people that use them over time. Not allowing a drugy to kill his brain is protecting him. So in that case, the law is still protecting someone, jsut as I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Please, keep trying.
Really, you guys are stretching this further than I thought possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzo
Maybe someone would like to argue about it sometime(I wouldn't), but I'm pretty sure there are some very negative genetic effects caused by incest. Anyway, there would be more of a point to that argument than just denying gay people (who aren't causing any harm whatsoever to anyone) who have comitted themselves to each other what straight people get. It isn't like people that aren't religious in the slightest don't get legally married for the benefits it provides.Quote:
Opaque, what about a brother/sister?
I don't think this has anything to do with religion. If two gay people want to get married in a church well...that's totally different. We do live in a country where state is seperated from religion though, right? It seems to me like 99% of the people who are against gay marriage are against it from a moral or religous standpoint, and yeah...that is discrimination. Comparing two gay people wanting to be recognized as married in their state to wanting to marry an inanimate object is of course a terrible example, because its rediculous.
I like how Yoshi has stopped responding to Sleeveboy's proving him wrong after every post.Quote:
Oh, my mistake. I didn't realize your summary definitions took precedence over the Due Process Clause.
Nice use of selective quoting there, slugger. Your failure to address my first point tells me all I need to know.Quote:
I said harming anyone. This includes harming ther person doing the act. Drugs will harm the people that use them over time. Not allowing a drugy to kill his brain is protecting him. So in that case, the law is still protecting someone, jsut as I said.
Please, keep trying.
edit: The only thing I changed was adding a definition of harm to support my first point.
If you are talking to me, you edited your post after I quoted it, and during my response. Also I was only repsonding to one part, as it was a good summary of your ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
I find no reason to argue with your first point. I don't agree with those Christians but I don't think it should be illigal to offend people. They are not harmed in a physical way. Their life is not indangered. I think you pulled that out of your ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
One final thing: Marriage is a mutual agreement. Both parties have to agree to it. So no saying shit like, I can't marry my dog or my car or my Xbox or whatever. A dog a car and an Xbox can't give their consent to marriage, that's why it can't happen. A young child doesn't have the capacity to understand what they are agreeing to, that's why they can't be married. However, a man and a man of legal age, can both agree to getting married.
So no trying to use the "but I can't marry this" point, it's a stupid one.
Again, you bring up physical harm, but the fact is that definition is far too strict. You are saying that drug use harms the person doing it, but alcohol is legal, its harmful to your body and mind, and people are allowed to drink alcohol, right? What about cigarettes? They definitely cause harm in individuals but I can go to a store 5 minutes from me and buy some and smoke them. Everytime you get in your car there's a possibility you will kill someone or yourself, but youre allowed to drive, right?
Fact, that sentence about harming other people is far too broad a definition to be workable from a legal standpoint. Its a nonsense statement. By your logic, by your very quote, people are allowed to do things that dont do anybody harm. Harm includes, by definition, psychological harm (look at the definition I posted, I got it from dictionary.com). So if doing something happens to offend someone, then youre not allowed to do it.
This includes looking at porn, giving Muslim prayers (because it might offend non-Muslims), being gay, doing the Tomahawk chop at Atlanta Braves games, making racist and blonde jokes, putting those girlie mudflaps on your truck, running over the hand of someone trying to steal your hubcaps while youre in the car, putting a Prince of Persia ad on the side of a bus, and yes, gay marriage. Because all of these things can give someone psychological harm.
Oh noes.
You are a moron.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Physical harm is universal. What cuts my skin, breaks my bones and ends my life also does the same to you. Therefore you can make universal laws that protect everyone from physical harm that effects them the same way.
What offends someone is not universal. I am offended that gay men can't get married, other people would be offended if gay men got married. Therefore you can't make a law that universally protects everyone. It becomes an individuals responsibility to not take part in, or view, things that offend them.
Sorry but I edited it to include:
Again, like I said, the definition of harm includes psychological harm. I just took that definition from dictionary.com, and I didnt start by using the word "harm", you did.Quote:
Again, you bring up physical harm, but the fact is that definition is far too strict. You are saying that drug use harms the person doing it, but alcohol is legal, its harmful to your body and mind, and people are allowed to drink alcohol, right? What about cigarettes? They definitely cause harm in individuals but I can go to a store 5 minutes from me and buy some and smoke them. Everytime you get in your car there's a possibility you will kill someone or yourself, but youre allowed to drive, right?
If you want to exclude psychological harm from this, thats fine, but what about sexual harassment? Verbal abuse in relationships?
BOTTOM LINE: Your statement about, "if it causes nobody harm, it should be a right" is a load of junk. If thats the logic you use for saying gay marriage (or anything else) should be legal... its faulty.
Ok, when you give some a hard hand shake, it somewhat hurts their hand correct? Should you go to jail for doing it? No. But when you stab someone, it causes great physical harm and you should be punished for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Drugs and Alcohol do not harm your body at the same rate. It is much less likely that you will kill your brain with beer, then you will kill yourself with cocaine.
Besides, you missed the point. If laws should protect people from being offended, then how come gay men are allowed to be offended by a law that stops them from getting married? That makes no sense.
Fine, but not allowing gay men to get married harms them mentally and emotionally. So stop pretending that their feelings their being offended matters less then other people.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.
Yea... thats why your statement here:Quote:
If laws should protect people from being offended, then how come gay men are allowed to be offended by a law that stops them from getting married? That makes no sense.
Is unworkable. Its self-contradictory.Quote:
In this world, if you don't put anyone at harm by doing something, you are allowed to do it.
All I did with this silly charade is show how absurd your statement about rights was. So all the points I made was simply to poke holes in it. I obviously dont believe it (which is why I spent all this time proving how wrong it was).Quote:
Fine, but not allowing gay men to get married harms them mentally and emotionally. So stop pretending that their feelings their being offended matters less then other people.
I know people that smoke and drink and have never been mentally or physically effected by it.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
However, everysingle person I know who ever did hard drugs is either mentally slower now, or dead.
There is a difference. Besides, we aren't here to argue this point. Let it go.
Then we will ignore that line, and focus on what you said. You said gay marrage shouldn;t be allowed because it offends people correct? Well how come you get more say in what another person can do , when both outcomes will offend someone?Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
This thread is like Plato and Socrates having a debate ... In a irish pub on free pint night.
One last thing, whoever thinks that this isn't a case of discrimination is just twisting things around. You can argue that it is justified discrimination, but some of you claim not to be doing that.
The fact is, same sex marriage (in just a legal sense) is exactly the same situation as a heterosexual marriage. The only difference being teh gayness. To my knowledge, there is no other way this scenario could arise (barring incest which I think has been hopefully cast aside).
Saying there is no discrimination because gay people can still get married if they want to marry a member of the oposite sex seems like saying while black people can't ride the bus, they could if they were white, therefore there is no discrimination going on. This example is far from perfect, but assuming that gay people aren't lying to us all about their sexual preference, it more or less is parallel.
And if marriage was originally defined as being heterosexual specifically, I don't see how that alone is a reason by itself to keep it that way. We're just talking about being fair, not granting special rights for being gay. Anyone that doesn't see this is bending over backwards trying to keep in the argument.
No, I didnt say that. I used it as an example asto why your logic was faulty.Quote:
Then we will ignore that line, and focus on what you said. You said gay marrage shouldn;t be allowed because it offends people correct? Well how come you get more say in what another person can do then they do, when both outcomes will offend someone?
If you think A is true, and I use A to show B, and B contradicts A, thats a proof technique of showing that A is wrong. It doesnt necessarilly mean that I believe B, or that B is even true. I use this type of proof method a lot in math class (and the point is for B to be an absurdity - B in this case being, "gay marriage shouldnt be because people are offended by it").
Why are we even arguing about that then?Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
The point is this, gay men are offended by not being allowed to get married, some people are offended that gay men might get married.
Someone will always be offended, it's an opinion.
Because youre an idiot who says bullshit, and I called you on it. Fin.
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.Quote:
We're just talking about being fair, not granting special rights for being gay.
Yeah well, you're a biggot.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
So I think at the end of the day I'm the better person.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
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.
Oh shit I got you now.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
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.
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 diffusionx
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
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.
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:
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...
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 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 diffusionx
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salsashark
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
I like how "fag" is off-limits but "racist" and "biggot" are continually abused.
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.Quote:
Do we need to argue about what constitutes harming someone?
If I say 3+4=8 based on some theorem, then of course that theorem should be analyzed. Same thing.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salsashark
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
I wonder, can I move to cali, marry a rich old man then devorce him and take all his stuff? That would be awesome, and by awesome I mean totally sweet.
I could make a movie out of it, complete with the cutting my hair and become a super stud seen like that part of every other chick movie. It could be just like that Princess movie on Disney, except with gayness and me getting a new car =D
Sigh. Get this through your head.Quote:
We are talking about an existing right, not creating a new one.
Gay people, right now, are not being denied anything offered to everyone else only because they are gay. They are just not. They want to marry someone of the same sex, and they cant, but nobody can either. On the other hand, they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else in the United States. Whether they choose to exercise this right is another matter entirely. ^_^
They want something new to be offered to everyone. That is, they want to be able to marry people of the same sex. This is, at the present time, something that nobody in the United States can do, legally.
This is why it is not an existing right, but a new one.
That is why the notion of marrying someone of the same sex is a new right. Now, if you think this is a right that everyone should have, that is fine, but stop framing your arguments in terms of discrimination. Its just wrong.
Gay marriage isnt legal in California, San Francisco or otherwise. A judge ordered Gavin Newsom to stop giving out licenses to gay people a few months back.Quote:
I wonder, can I move to cali, marry a rich old man then devorce him and take all his stuff?
Kinda sort of maybe, not quite. You are only giving them the same right if women and men become equal under the law and are no longer distinguish by their gender. The law recognizes a difference so everyone has the same rights. I have the right to marry a woman, and women have the right to marry men. Until woman = man in the eyes of the law, to allow men to marry men, will require a new law or right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salsashark
I know what a right is. I got mine to party. I had to fight for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
:lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by cka
At least one person has a sense of humor around here.
Look, I get what you're saying. Technically, you're right but I think it's besides the point. To go back to my slightly shakey analogy I had before, that's still a little like saying we had to allow all white people to be allowed to vote if they were black to grant black people the right to vote. Technically it would be a new right applying to everyone when you put it that way, but basically what is happening is it would just be acknowledging a group of people as having the same right as any other. It's a new right allowing people to have an old right, which is what I'm trying to use to convey the complete harmlessness of allowing this to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
You could see this as creating a new right, but really who would be affected by it but gay people? And what would they get besides something straight people already have, in a fundamentally indifferent situation, for the same reasons? When you have one group of people that want a right another has for the same reasons, and they don't have it, they are being denied it. That doesn't mean the government hates gays, it means they don't have this right that straight people have. I just don't understand why people can be so against it, without being against homosexuality in the first place. And if that's the case, they shouldn't be allowed to interfere with anyone elses rights on that basis.
If we can agree that straight people and gay people both have valid sexualities, it doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to see why it's fair that both be offered marriage as an option, considering what marriage actually is in legal terms(I'm too lazy to get a proper definition, I admit it).
I thought my Jeff Minter joke was okay :/Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I would still like someone to tell me what harm would be done by allowing this to pass.
Being rational isn't going to get you anywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
If my assumption is right and this thread was originally about queers marrying, I can't think of a single thing that would be considered harmful. Hell, it may even be beneficial to society. AIDS would keep them under control, and the inherint lack to reproduce would keep the population in check. The worst thing that could happen is them getting more shows on Bravo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salsashark
Not all gays are African.Quote:
Originally Posted by cka
I want to marry you, IP. <3
Yeah, but.... Philidelphia! White people can get aids too!
The only good thing about that movie was the title track.Quote:
Originally Posted by cka
I <3 THE BOSS
I thought Tom Hanks dying was Stellar. Because the world needs less Tom Hanks.
Actually, if we could get some on Nickelodeon this could be a great method for population control. Gay marriage could save the world and some of you are trying to stop it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cka
Are you rich and old? Will you buy me a nice new $80,0000 sports car for my loving? I'm not cheep. Baby needs her bling bling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raz0r
I figured that out a while ago, that's why I stopped debating.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
I'll keep you iced out.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
I thought it was because diffx was kicking your ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
I totally get what you're saying there. That right they are not being denied.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
But check this. (I may be talking out of my ass because I haven't researched anything here, this is just my understanding)
Any heterosexual person has the right to marry, and receive any legal benefits that may include, someone they love. A homosexual person does not have that same right. Because people predominantly of the Christian faith founded our country, marriage was legally defined as a union between a man & woman. But the very same country was founded on the basis of religious freedom and religion was supposed to be separate from matters of state and legality.
I really don't want to get into a huge thing here because it's been my experience that you just can't change the mind of someone who isn't open to it. Anyone with a lick of common sense can see that allowing two men or two women to be legally married and receive the same legal rights isn't going to change the world. Homosexuality has been around for all of recorded history and most likely long before. It's not anything new.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzo
10_10