10 Reasons To Ban Gay Marriage [Pic]

Submitted by: iansquall 3 years ago in

Hanging around tall people makes you feel shorter, so hanging around gays should make you feel straighter.
There are 261 comments:
Male 10,855
[quote] In programming, I`d argue the main group we all share is "union" and the subsets of that are "marriage" (M-F) and then gay unions (F-F and M-M). Go ahead, argue that a penis and a vagina are the same as two penises! Go ahead prove me wrong![/quote]

That is a superfluous criterion. Since marriage is a right, there is no qualification regarding gender of either party. Men are free to marry other men just as women are and vice versa. It is that straightforward.
0
Reply
Male 579
Oh please, 11+ pages of arguments of this ridiculous list? That`s just crazy right there. People that buy this are only what liberals think conservatives are like. I love how the proponents of gay marriage avoid the obvious. Now, I am not saying I hate gays or they should die or anything of the sort; rather just the opposite. I treat them with love and respect. But it is crystal clear that same-sex marriage is different! Let`s be simple; M-F is different than M-M which is different than F-F, Clearly M-F is at least in part for reproduction, correct? Hence, different! They should not be treated the same! That said, gays should not be treated so horribly! In programming, I`d argue the main group we all share is "union" and the subsets of that are "marriage" (M-F) and then gay unions (F-F and M-M). Go ahead, argue that a penis and a vagina are the same as two penises! Go ahead prove me wrong! Then, maybe I`ll change my mind.
0
Reply
Male 661
This has been my most favorite post on IAB ever. We saw some fantastic debating and logical arguments. We saw some low grade trolling, some stupidity, and some epic level space-time warping density.

A sincere "Thank You" to all involved in the logic argument of pages 2ish to 8ish.

Equality for all means equality for all, even when it`s hard. Civil unions do not offer the same (I am almost afraid to use this word...)rights that a marriage does. Separate but equal? Really?
0
Reply
Male 8,547
Gerry1of1-[quote]"My belief is we shouldn`t mix with other races so I will allow black people to shop in my store."
[/quote]
But the Baker was not refusing to service gays in their shop. As noted, sexual orientation was not a prerequesit to shop and/or order cakes there.

The baker did not wish to make a cake for a specific function.

Would you want a law forcing this baker to make a cake for this couple`s wedding?

0
Reply
Male 292
..sure they should be allowed to "marry" All in the name of Disgusting, Filthy, Debauchery. True story.
0
Reply
Male 1,059
These are all very valid arguments as to why gay people should [quote]never[/quote] be allowed to marry.
0
Reply
Male 316
No. This is a reality series.
0
Reply
Male 837
Isn`t that just Will & Grace?
0
Reply
Male 316
There is a positive that we have all over looked.

Gay devorce court TV!
0
Reply
Male 837
@Gerry

My point is that your sentiment is disingenuous.

The baker makes cakes for homosexual birthdays all the time. The florist serves homosexual clients.

This is about a specific function that they do not want to participate in.

This is not "I refuse to serve gays", if it were, I`d be on your side. This is "I do not want to participate in *that* function."
0
Reply
Male 39,929

Change a variable, and if it`s still okay then it`s okay.

"My belief is we shouldn`t mix with other races so I will allow black people to shop in my store."

Would that fly anywhere? But it`s okay when you do it to gays?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]You missed the whole point. Marriage was special, now it`s not.[/quote]

I`ll never accept any reason why government needs to "protect" marriage in the first place. People were getting married before state govs handed out marriage licenses. Marriage was special before then now it`s politicized.


[quote]They do now, now that they`ve hijacked the word marriage they can claim every "marriage" should be equally treated, regardless of the religious objections of the service provider.[/quote]

Again, I`ve never said this was a good thing. The wedding photographers and et cetera were not obligated to serve every wedding during DOMA. Nothing should oblige them to serve gay/lesbian couples.
0
Reply
Male 837
@Gerry1of1

"Some people used to refuse service to blacks."

Going into Crakr`s first link, Masterpiece Cakeshop has made birthday cakes for homosexuals before. They refused to make a cake for the Wedding. Sorry, not a Wedding, Colorado doesn`t have Homosexual Marriage. They refused to make a cake celebrating the relationship.

This is not the same as refusing to serve blacks.

This is more akin to refusing to serve a black supremacist group, though still not a fair comparison.

Ah, I know. Being willing to serve people that you normally would, but not agreeing with the celebration itself.

It would be like being a caterer and turning down an antebellum south themed wedding.

0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: No one is saying to gays can`t have a consenting relationship, that they can`t live together, share their income, pay taxes, etc. You missed the whole point. Marriage was special, now it`s not.

"Two men, or women, seeking marriage do not have the right to make any private party host said marriage."

They do now, now that they`ve hijacked the word marriage they can claim every "marriage" should be equally treated, regardless of the religious objections of the service provider.

Gerry "Please site ONE example where this is happening."
Link 1 Link2
Male 5,620
Wedding cake makers and photographers being sued for not providing services to gay people?

Sh|t.. before you know it black people will want to drink out of the same fountain, vote, and ride on the front of the [email protected] bus!!
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"Now it`s being turned into a sick joke."

Because of gay people? You gotta be pootin` me.
Have you not heard about the million dollar 22 day divorced marriages? Those... are serious time honored traditions?
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"Marriage was special, it meant family..."

Gerry spent 22 years with 1 person.. sounds like "family" to me.
0
Reply
Male 39,929

JadesDitoyr, [quote]"You might not be pushing to force the Church into it, yet, but it is coming."[/quote]
Some people used to refuse service to blacks. And they didn`t approve of mixed race marriages. The law was changed and the businesses cannot refuse service to them and we all said "Yeah!" But no one has yet forced a church to perform a mixed race, or mixed religion marriage service. Churches are not for-profit-businesses {as a rule} and as such are free to discriminate if they choose.

And marriage does affect taxes and such. A wife can draw on her husbands SSI, a girlfriend cannot. Marriage is important at the federal level.
0
Reply
Male 202
Thanks for the tip on posting links, 5Cats.

I do not make a habit of quoting the bible. It is not my expertise. Just trying to make a point of the ridiculous amount of weight it holds on debates such as these. People interpret this BS as they see fit to argue the right or wrong of same sex marriage.

There, now were back on topic. I don`t know what happened there for a while.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
Personally? I like the Hopi Creation Mythos a lot!

Hopi Mythology
0
Reply
Male 40,764
When you hit "link" you can type the words that appear in hyperlink, then paste the source in the next box.

Link Name Here Then the source.

Biblical Passages are ALWAYS subject to interpretation.
Do you think they were originally written in English? Heck no!
There`s lots of different "versions" of the Bible because there`s no condenses as to what the "real version" said!

So the point is: quoting "The Bible" is a fools game! Even if you`re "right"? There`s other versions that say you`re wrong.

Add to that the time between the events of the New Testament and the writings which describe it? It`s a real mess.
0
Reply
Male 202
Sorry my link didn`t work out. Too long I guess.
0
Reply
Male 202
@ 5Cats, You cited Genesis 1 REVISED edition. I was referring to the Old Testament. I was still wrong though. Apparently God created Adam, who was neither male or female, plants and animals all at the same time. Then the gender was created.

http://en.wikipedia.org

/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative
0
Reply
Male 40,764
11:29:51 PM @Gerry1:
I agree, treatment should be uniform and fair across the States. That takes time, however, so a lot of tolerance is required until the optimal result is achieved!

11:30:35 PM @Cajun:
The absolute worst thing Ronald Reagan did was initiate the "War on Drugs" with his "appointed" Drug Czar. I`ve said this since the day it happened. Republicans can be idiots too! But honestly? Democrats outweigh them 5:1...

11:31:56 PM @Gerry1:

Sorry, but many such "nonsense" suits have happened. The only ones which "make the news" are the most outrageous. That`s the reality we find ourselves in...
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@Gerry

There were cases involving a wedding cake baker and wedding photographer getting sued and having to pay damages. To such I certainly stand up and shout "BULL5H17!". But that`s why the Civil Rights act of 1967 should be amended so that only government has to treat everyone equally.
0
Reply
Male 39,929

Crakr, [quote]"It`s as absurd as suing a Jewish deli for not putting bacon on your pastrami sandwich."[/quote]
Please site ONE example where this is happening.
None? Okay so you made it up to prove appoint.

Not valid.....moving on with my civil liberties.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote] that`s the basis of the Democrat Party and Liberalism[/quote]

Certainly, however conservatism suffers from the same problem perhaps not to the extent as you point out. While there`s no "punishment" in the case of gay marriage, there`s plenty of it when it comes to the war on drugs. In fairness it did start out as a Democrat (or really DemoKKKrat of days yonder) idea but conservatives and Republicans have all too happily embraced the idea of jailing people for ingesting narcotics.
0
Reply
Male 39,929

Crakr, Civil Unions didn`t suffice because they were NOT equal. Each state could assign whatever rights they wanted to them. Differing between states.

Are you married in Alaska but not in Texas? Okay in California but not in Maine? You see my point. The Feds must acknowledge the relationship. There is no legal reason not to. I`m sorry if that doesn`t fit in with your religious ideology, but then, I don`t have to life by YOUR ideals.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
@GeoffwasHere: Um, not really!

God created the plants and animals first, then Adam, eh? If you`re going to cite the Bible? Get it right, eh?

Genesis 1

But something I recently noticed? God created light. But that means God came from the darkness...

To me? This has profound philosophical and religious meaning! What exactly? I`m still working that out.

God comes from the darkness...
0
Reply
Male 202
If you want to get biblical... (I am not usually the one to go here, atheist...)

God created man (Adam) and nothing else. No plants or animals. God decided that man should not be alone. God then created plants. This did not suffice. God then created animals. Adam rejected the animals as a potential mate and so God created a woman. Then there was a talking snake and sh~!. Ahh... It`s a good read.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
JadesDitoyr: ah! ic now.
And I quite agree: this sort of "top-down" legislation covers a lot of area. Far too much. Not only Priests but "commoners" as well!

There`s several laws being debated which address this sort of thing. Of course the MSM HATES these laws! But allowing individuals, even if they`re part of a company or corporation, to disagree is the cornerstone of freedom.

Who honestly thinks that "The Government" knows better than "The People"? Sadly, that`s the basis of the Democrat Party and Liberalism: Conform or be punished.

This sort of thinking has never once, in human history, been successful. But they keep on trying to force it upon "the masses"...
0
Reply
Male 837
@5Cats
I mean the ceremony itself. A photographer that now must be there for the wedding and reception, taking pictures. The caterer who must serve the food. The minister who officiates the wedding.
0
Reply
Male 40,764


@Cajun: Pure genius!

@RytWing: Yes, I`ve heard Bonobo Monkeys touted as examples of "natural sexuality". Disgusting! They have sexual relations with infants FFS!
"Mother Nature" is NOT a very good role model!

@JadesDitoyr: In Canada? After gay marriage became fully legal? All Marriage Commissioners (I was dating one at the time) got a letter: I f you refuse to marry gay people? Your commission will be instantly revoked.
No "if`s and`s or but`s".

However? IDK what you mean by "refusing to participate" since it`s not like YOU have to get married, eh? No one can force you to accept gay marriage, but it`s still legal. Two entirely different things.
0
Reply
Male 2,579
Marriage is and always will be a religious institution. If you want a legal contract and the benefits, fine.

But God doesn`t join gay spirits together... sorry folks.
0
Reply
Male 837
@Gerry
"Okay, well no one is making them perform same-gender marriages. We`re just asking eh federal government to alter ssi & tax law."

I`m against any government sanctioned marriage, SSI & Tax Law shouldn`t be impacted by anybody`s marital status.

You might not be pushing to force the Church into it, yet, but it is coming.

Already, we as a nation are forcing Bakers, Florists, and Photographers to participate in these weddings. Why should a priest be any different?

There is no theological difference between my Minister, and myself. He is no more sanctified than I am, he is no more forgiven than I am, he is no holier than I am.

Why should I be denied the privileges he has? Why should he have special rights?

Gerry, if he can refuse to participate in something because he feels it is a Sin, why can I not refuse when I am equally as convicted?
0
Reply
Male 316
I think we can all agree that there are two sides to this coin.
On one hand homosexuality is so prevalent these days that, sure, it`s ok for the gays to marry. On the other side is the question, where do we draw the line?
The line has been drawn. The question is how far are we as a society willing to move that line. All of the aforementioned sexual preferences could be considered "normal" some day.
How far are you willing to move that line? And let me remind you that nudism, public masterbation, and affection for none human objects could all fit under the "it`s natural" umbrella.
Food for thought.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
0
Reply
Male 40,764
@Cajun: Congratulations on 10,000 posts! :-)
0
Reply
Male 40,764
[quote]5 year-olds? I`m not proud of myself right now...[/quote]

@mykunter: That`s "toddler-con" do NOT look it up! Those Japanese have p0rn for every imaginable situation.

Of course I had to check: Google, mercifully, returns very few offensive images based on that search :-)

But no, I was thinking of other things...
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]"ain`t" isn`t a proper word[/quote]

Well, you know...

...it just ain`t.

(That`s funny my spellchecker ain`t complaining)

ANYWAY!!!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Cannot even discuss the topic, folks can e-mail me if they`re really wanting to know...[/quote]

Considering that this discussion is started on this forum, unless you mention it here it has no bearing on this discussion. I`m not going to make extrapolations on answers known only to one party.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
[quote]Marriage was special, it meant family, it was a consecration, a timeless tradition. Now it`s being turned into a sick joke.[/quote]

Well, not really. Marriage has been wavering from
"great" to "awful" depending on the individual situation for thousands of years.

[quote]None of which are going away any time soon[/quote]

That is true! And not the `fault` of gays either. The decline of marriage in Western Society has 99 reasons, but homosexuals ain`t one of them.

I cannot believe my spell-check thinks "ain`t" isn`t a proper word! :-/
0
Reply
Male 2,436
[quote]Actually? I can think of a few things, but they`re even LESS likely to become "legal" than 6 year-olds...[/quote]
5 year-olds? I`m not proud of myself right now...
0
Reply
Male 40,764
[quote]At least she`ll have Sunday`s off.[/quote]

@MeGrendel: Nope. Sunday is "gangbang night"! :-O

[quote]Gee I wonder WHAT exactly could possibly be considered `even worse` than pedophilia?[/quote]

@Cajun247: Actually? I can think of a few things, but they`re even LESS likely to become "legal" than 6 year-olds... I HOPE!

Cannot even discuss the topic, folks can e-mail me if they`re really wanting to know...
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]At least she`ll have Sunday`s off.[/quote]

Nice!

[quote]Gays and lesbians are suing all sorts of places for not hosting or providing services for their marriages on religious grounds. [/quote]

You`re complaining about the wrong law. Two men, or women, seeking marriage do not have the right to make any private party host said marriage.

[quote]Marriage was special, it meant family, it was a consecration, a timeless tradition. Now it`s being turned into a sick joke.[/quote]

None of which are going away any time soon.
0
Reply
Male 2,436
[quote]At least she`ll have Sunday`s off.[/quote]
Laundry day.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]polygamy, bestiality, pedophiles and even worse.[/quote]


Okay... So what? So what?
and...
Considering that this is a relationship between two consenting adults that objection is moot
lastly...
Gee I wonder WHAT exactly could possibly be considered `even worse` than pedophilia?

[quote]When you can`t define marriage legally anymore, then any perverted relationship can become a "marriage".[/quote]

So why should marriage be defined democratically again?
0
Reply
Male 40,764
Pedophile is based on "Age of Consent" I mean:

Wiki: Age OF Consent

So simply changing that alters what`s legal and what`s not.
"In the 21st century, several Western countries have raised their ages of consent recently. These include Canada (in 2008 - from 14 to 16); and in Europe, Iceland (in 2007 - from 14 to 15), Lithuania (in 2010 - from 14 to 16), and Croatia (in 2013 - from 14 to 15)."
See?

@mykunter: I do understand why people want to get married, even if the odds are it will fail. I`m a romantic at heart, eh? :heart:

Society is an adaptable creature, it will accept/reject new ideas, for better or for worse.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Gerry: Civil unions should`ve sufficed. If they didn`t then it would`ve been better to improve them than hijack the tradition of marriage.

"no one is making them perform same-gender marriages."

Yes, it`s already starting to happen. Gays and lesbians are suing all sorts of places for not hosting or providing services for their marriages on religious grounds.

It`s as absurd as suing a Jewish deli for not putting bacon on your pastrami sandwich.

I don`t care about equality for taxes, benefits, etc. you want that, fine, I get it. But this wasn`t about equality. This was about hijacking the definition of marriage and wrecking it, making the term meaningless.

Marriage was special, it meant family, it was a consecration, a timeless tradition. Now it`s being turned into a sick joke.

You can claim that it won`t lead to "unintended consequences", but we were told the same thing about civil unions too.
0
Reply
Male 8,547
mykunter-[quote]Why not one wife and six husbands?[/quote]
At least she`ll have Sunday`s off.
0
Reply
Male 2,436
Crakr, I agree with you. I also think... [quote]pedophiles and even worse[/quote] Wait, what`s worse than pedophiles?

Anyway, I think the whole monetary gain/privileges of `marriage` should be equal... I guess?

I don`t know why gays want to marry... What`s the point? Transfer the car payment? Claim the dead body as Gerry said?

Nobody respects marriage anymore. Stand up in front of all your family and closest friends and declare something you`ll dedicate yourself to for the rest of your life. Until death! If it doesn`t work... well f**k it, divorce.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
Of course that depends on the "Age Of Consent" and the AoC for Marriage too...

In Canada? The AoC used to be 14! But marriage was different. Happily the Conservative Party raised it to 16... but not with opposition from the Liberal Party, who liked 14 = legal for some reason.
And the NDP Party who wanted to lower it to 12...
0
Reply
Male 39,929

@ Crakr - if you want a "Biblical" definition of marriage..... exactly HOW many wives are you allowed?
0
Reply
Male 39,929

@ CrakrJak,
As a rule I like you. Even though we are in different camps you usually have some intelligence behind your thoughts. But I have to say, as a friend, you are dead-wrong on this. I have spent 22 years with the same man so that leads to bestiality? Last time I checked a goat could not sign a marriage contract!

And if it did lead to Polygamy, well so what? YOUR bible promotes polygamy. How many wives did those old lechers have?????

Look, I get it, your church doesn`t like same-sex-marriage. Okay, well no one is making them perform same-gender marriages. We`re just asking eh federal government to alter ssi & tax law.

Now, why do you care so much? Why do you CRAKRJAK think I GERRY am not allowed to claim the same tax return as you??????

It`s between me an YOU mofo so come one ! You want a piece of this!!!
0
Reply
Male 316
I Iive in Utah. Polygamy is not legal here. Anyone that says the Mormons practice polygamy is a fool. There are off shoots of the main church that still try to practice it but those people are c-c-crazy. (Inbreeding)
0
Reply
Male 40,764
[quote]Allowing gay marriage opens up the door to... bestiality... and even worse.[/quote]

HEY! >-( I resemble that remark @CrakrJak!

But really? It`s unlikely to include pedophiles.

Polygamy? Yes. Adult Incest? Yes.

Not `animal lovers` or pedoes though, at least I HOPE NOT! Same for several other "variations" too.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
America is going to regret not keeping marriage between one man and one wife.

Allowing gay marriage opens up the door to polygamy, bestiality, pedophiles and even worse.

When you can`t define marriage legally anymore, then any perverted relationship can become a "marriage".

This sullies the whole definition and tradition of marriage and turns it into a sick joke.
0
Reply
Male 2,436
And who says it`s one husband and six wives? Why not one wife and six husbands?
0
Reply
Male 3,231
11. Reason number 11, havent enough couples been punished enough, why the gays too.
0
Reply
Male 2,436
[quote]One man cannot be a loving, close parent to 12 children that he fathered by 6 wives or a good husband to all six wives at once.[/quote]

Says who? You?

There are many, many men that can`t be a good father/husband to one child/wife.


0
Reply
Male 40,764
@GeoffwasHere: Yes, I really am kidding about marriage to my cats, eh?

But 12 kids by 6 wives is not illegal. Heck, some IAB posts have been about "Moms" with 15 kids by various males or "Dads" with a similar number by various females.
Everyone`s on welfare, of course...

So IDK what the problem with Polygamy is, honestly.

[quote]Touche! Got me.[/quote]

@PirateFish: @Gerry1`s got a rapier wit, keep your butt covered when he`s around!

Also: I`m 100% sure it`s illegal, even in Utah. also here in Canada too.
Several groups, both religious and otherwise, are challenging the illegality of polygamy in both countries. Have been for decades! Same for lots of other "variations" on marriage too!
0
Reply
Male 2,436
@5Cats

Of course I knew you were kidding. But yeah, polygamy is next. It can`t be denied.

[quote]I could be wrong, but isn`t polygamy legal in Utah for people of the Mormon faith? [/quote]

I don`t think so.
0
Reply
Male 679
@Gerry:

"A man and woman don`t have to ask the ENTIRE FREAKING WORLD for acceptance of their relationship. They said so, so IT IS! So why the FRAcK do I have to justify my 22 year long relationsHip? Why do I still... after fighting AIDS, Jerry Fallwell, Anita Briant, The Christian Coalition and my own damn mother do I hav to ague with you sorry lot about my 22 YEAR LONG relationship with someone?"

You have my understanding and complete support, and according to the polls, over half of America`s as well. I just read a recent Gallup poll that shows nearly two thirds of Americans believe the federal government should recognize gay marriage nationally, irrespective of any state`s laws.

Just my opinion, but I think it`s pretty clear what "the governed" want. Most of us think equal treatment is a natural human right, and one that was meant to be protected under our American form of government.
0
Reply
Male 679
@mykunter:

I could be wrong, but isn`t polygamy legal in Utah for people of the Mormon faith?

Also, I doubt there will be as many people pushing for polygamist marriages in the US. Although think of the advantages - three and four income homes, more people pitching in on the housework...you may be onto something. :-)
0
Reply
Male 679
@Gerry:

"piratefish, "What makes you think I`m straight"

What makes you think the comments were directed at you ?

*cough*egomaniac*cough*"

Touche! Got me.
0
Reply
Male 202
As for inter species relationships: The original post said it perfectly. Can an animal of any sort, besides a human read and understand a marriage certificate? No, let alone sign one. Therefor, it is not marriage. As for polygamy, in my mind that does not qualify as a union of marriage simply because of the children. One man cannot be a loving, close parent to 12 children that he fathered by 6 wives or a good husband to all six wives at once.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
@Gerry1:
Beer, beer, beer
Pee.
Beer beer
Pee
Beer
Pee
Beer
Pee
Pee
Beer
Pee
Passout.

A poem by @5Cats!
0
Reply
Male 40,764
Lolz! @Gerry1, it took a moment to figure out what you meant by "lunch" and supper, just got my first sip of beer.

I got married even though I was getting the milk for free. I didn`t want other bulls in MY pasture!

@mykunter: I know, I hope you know I`m just kidding too.
I agree about polygamy: it`s exactly the same as hetero or homo marriage, yet it`s illegal! Wth? Then comes incest, which is another kettle with the same fish in it... well? Bring them on! It`s going to happen sooner or later.

@BuckEyeJoe: I do enjoy a good discussion, and @PirateFish was actually more polite than most.

I don`t know why people have a hard time understanding me sometimes. To me it`s pretty obvious. Oh well!

I`m honestly expressing what I believe, I dislike "devil`s advocate" & only do it if the "sarcasm" /tag is used.

I haven`t bothered to "troll" for ages now! No need to.
0
Reply
Male 39,929

elkingo, [quote]"I am a white, straight, conservative republican, Christian, heterosexual male. I fully support gay rights and marriage. equality is greater than division = > / [/quote]
You were brought up right.
0
Reply
Male 39,929

My mother-in-law is a "literal interpretation of the Bible Christian". But I, the homo, am her favorite son-in-law because...
Her neighbor got cancer and her husband left her.
The lady at church got breast cancer, her husband left her.
My husband got stage 5 lymphoma and it never even occurred to me to leave. . . But my relationship is not "real"?

What is wrong with you straight people?

P.S. He lived. 4 years and counting.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
I am a white, straight, conservative republican, Christian, heterosexual male.

I fully support gay rights and marriage.

equality is greater than division = > /
0
Reply
Male 39,929

1 beer and I`m fine.
2 and I`m pleased.
3 and I`m happy.
4 and I pee.
5 and I`m arguementative
6 and to hell with the world.

I have had SEVEN! {7} so now I`m pissed!

A man and woman don`t have to ask the ENTIRE FREAKING WORLD for acceptance of their relationship. They said so, so IT IS! So why the FRAcK do I have to justify my 22 year long relationsHip? Why do I still... after fighting AIDS, Jerry Fallwell, Anita Briant, The Christian Coalition and my own damn mother do I hav to ague with you sorry lot about my 22 YEAR LONG relationship with someone?

End Part One
0
Reply
Male 156
@5Cats,

Oh I see, you just like a good debate. Fair enough, but following your arguments is a bit challenging, perhaps precisely because they are just a devil`s advocate exercise, or a...troll?

And I meant catbox. Sure you can use it if you want, but....maybe....therapy instead?

I`m all for the catnip. BTW. FTW.
0
Reply
Male 2,436
*beastiality

For some reason that word is not in my spell check?
0
Reply
Male 39,929

5Cats, [quote]@Gerry1: I thought you got married ages ago![/quote]
It`s not so easy for gay couples as it is for straights. The straights get it all in one hand basket called "marriage". Gays get part, but not all. A state acknowledges the relationship - but other state does not so if you move you are no longer married. WTF?!

Until the Feds accept same gender marriage it`s not "real". I cannot claim HIS ssi benefits the way a straight couple could. I can only claim his tax liability in a joint tax return. To HELL with that! I`ll take the liability of marriage when I get the benefits of marriage!

So, last year, when he asked me if I would marry him I said "no". Why should he be stuck with my car loan when he doesn`t have the right to claim my body if I died?

Wait... did I get side-tracked? It`s the beer..... Well it`s all true anyhow.
0
Reply
Male 2,436
So, we`re FINALLY on to polygamy! I mean, if gay marriage gets universal acceptance, then `logically` (did I use that word correctly?) polygamy is the next step. Right?

I`m not sure bestiality could ever be considered consensual. Sorry 5Cats.
0
Reply
Male 39,929

[quote]" I`m talking about polygamous, inter-species marriage rights!"[/quote]
Let me start by saying "Huh? what?"
Who are you to dictate that all relationships MUST be polygamous? I don`t care where my husband has lunch as long as he comes home for supper
0
Reply
Male 39,929

piratefish, [quote]"What makes you think I`m straight"[/quote]
What makes you think the comments were directed at you ?

*cough*egomaniac*cough*
0
Reply
Male 40,764
@Gerry1: I`m talking about polygamous, inter-species marriage rights!

Heterosexually of course, they`re both female cats!
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]no hard feelings on my end[/quote]
No worries. I enjoy arguments and I see them as a sign of respect. If someone did not respect you, they would dismiss your argument instead of trying to refute it.

[quote]I hope, after all this, you now have a better idea of what my argument is.[/quote]
Honestly, I really don`t. XD

[quote]Have a great night.[/quote]
... and you as well.
0
Reply
Male 39,929

I set up life insurance.
I set up a living will.
I set up a will.
I set up medical power of attorney.
I set up power of attorney.
I set up inheritance statute.
I put everything I own in his joint name so we don`t pay inheritance tax for all the schit we already own.

Gosh, this would all have been easier if we just got married.
0
Reply
Male 679
@Gerry:

What makes you think I`m straight? :-) :-)
0
Reply
Male 40,764
[quote]This was one of the very first posts...[/quote]
@PirateFish: And you`ve utterly misunderstood it. And taken it entirely OUT of context too!
The "double whammy" of ignorance!

[quote]I wouldn`t trust humans to reliably spread His message over hundreds of years.[/quote]
@broizfam: As a Deist, I completely agree!

Luckily no one has resorted to the Bible in this discussion... yet.

Hummm, only 1 beer in the fridge, and no I haven`t had anything to drink yet! I should go get some, eh?

@Gerry1: I thought you got married ages ago! You should be able to file joint returns if you like.

Actually? The Government should try to get OUT of the marriage business as much as possible, but that`s NOT likely to happen, ever.
Sorry to talk about *should* eh?
0
Reply
Male 679
Well, gents, it`s been real, but WAYYYY too much time has gotten away from me.

@HumanAction - no hard feelings on my end. I hope, after all this, you now have a better idea of what my argument is.

I am sure we agree on far more than we disagree on. And I am sure you`re a very intelligent person who can do circles around me on many topics. I respect your opinions and you as a person. Have a great night.
0
Reply
Male 39,929

:-) :-) look at all the straight people arguing gay rights :-) :-)
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]And you clearly mocked my reference to the Constitution.[/quote]
I still do.

You were stating that some rights exist that transcend the government, law, and man. Then, you try to prove it by using a law written by men.

Again, I think this is silly and will continue to mock it.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]was that our Constitution was founded on the idea that we have inalienable rights.[/quote]
OK. Well, I certainly agree that it was founded on that concept.

[quote]And you mocked the notion of inalienable rights[/quote]
... and I still do regardless of the person saying it. It`s utter nonsense that a right simply exists. How could it? If you say it exists because it`s in the Constitution, then you admit that it is a legal right, as the Constitution is law.

Otherwise, you`d be suggesting that a right simply exists regardless of whether or not it`s enforced, protected, or obstructed. Do you suggest this?
0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanAction:

"@piratefish

Are they also as ignorant as I am?

My God; do you really not know what the appeal to ignorance fallacy is? Yet you preach to me about logic. Fantastic.

The argument I quoted was an appeal to ignorance. You cannot explain where we get these rights from, so you merely conclude that `they just exist in nature by virtue of our birth`.

It`s even in our Constitution.

Appeal to authority. You`re on a roll. I like how you`re using the Constitution (a law) to explain how laws (like the Constitution) don`t define rights."

Sound familiar? These are your words - exactly. And you clearly mocked my reference to the Constitution.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]This was one of the very first posts from me in our exchange...it was made about 6 and a half hours ago.[/quote]
I have a good memory.
0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanNature:

"No, I mocked your stance that they were granted by "nature" or "principles".

In fact, in several instances, you specifically state that you think the rights transcend or supersede the law and the Constitution. You`re clearly flip-flopping now, and I`m not sure if it`s for trolling purposes, or something else."

You really need to back up and read the conversation again. I have never flip-flopped. You did not listen to what I was saying and jumped to conclusions on your own.

My argument from the very beginning (see my last post where I directly quote myself) was that our Constitution was founded on the idea that we have inalienable rights. And you mocked the notion of inalienable rights - a principle that I openly stated several times was not my own, but was much older than either of us. Still, you mocked it.
0
Reply
Male 202
Different strokes for different folks... Oh boy, I really did not have a pun intended with that statement.

This argument, as far as I have seen it in media, boils down to religious interpretation of scripture throughout the ages. The interpretation of these writings has always changed as we always evolve as a society.

If we grant a "Same Sex Union" across the board, around the world, with the same rights as any "traditional" marriage, would this new moniker make both parties happy? Probably not, but it would be a step.

I am straight, but I have learned enough to know that being gay is not a chosen life style it is a natural part of life that has been around since the beginning of human life.
0
Reply
Male 39,929

hello.... Hello.... HELLOO!!!!!

I`m the Phycking Phag getting married. I`ve lost track of this conversation!!!!!! Let`s bring it back around ME!

Look, I got someone I like. Someone I spent the last 22 years with building a life with. We just took out a car loan "together". Or old car we`re giving to the niece who married to the dirt-poor youth minister at church. {They need a new car what with 2 babies and all.} I just got jury duty and he`s working overtime. We`re just like you. So answer me in a simple question; what the phuck is your problem if we file our tax returns jointly????? ?????? ??????
0
Reply
Male 40,764
[quote]We have rights independent of any laws, and irrespective of any government.[/quote]
So, @PirateFish? Is "marriage" one of those rights?

[quote]Actually, in this Country, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness ARE inalienable rights.[/quote]
@BuckEyeJoe: Hi! Glad that you`ve stuck around!

I`m not "anti-gay marriage" at all! I do know this is about "marriage rights" despite @PirateFish`s sudden change of position...

I have mentioned "polygamy" several times. It`s a form of marriage that is currently illegal too. @PirateFish (and others) have conspicuously ignored it... so I included some other things, which they happily paid attention to! Funny how that works...

I think the expression you`re looking for is: "Stay out of the catnip" eh? It`s my right to use the litterbox!!
0
Reply
Male 6,077
@Gerry,
Excellent selection! Also, re: your earlier question - I think it`s because of how fallible humans accept, blindly, the word of other fallible humans regarding the "Word of God". Even if there is a God, I wouldn`t trust humans to reliably spread His message over hundreds of years.
0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanAction:

"My view is more similar to that of our forefathers...further, I believe, as did the framers of our Constitution, that it is a government`s obligation to protect these natural rights. So my answer to your question of whether or not a right can legally be denied to someone (on any basis, let alone sexual orientation) is - YES. And, sadly, history is chock full of examples of this very kind of oppression."

This was one of the very first posts from me in our exchange...it was made about 6 and a half hours ago.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]That has been one of the key points of my argument from the beginning: one that you openly mocked an hour or two ago. [/quote]
No, I mocked your stance that they were granted by "nature" or "principles".

In fact, in several instances, you specifically state that you think the rights transcend or supersede the law and the Constitution. You`re clearly flip-flopping now, and I`m not sure if it`s for trolling purposes, or something else.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]The very nature of this discussion demands a conversation on and a look at what should be.[/quote]
I couldn`t have been much clearer that I was arguing about "what is" as opposed to what should be.

If you go back, I specifically state so several times to clarify.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
[quote]I have NEVER argued that marriage is a right - not once, not ever.[/quote]
@PirateFish: Liar, I just quoted you!

[quote] I have, however, argued that gays have a right to the same treatment under law[/quote]
And I`ve pointed out that others, including heteros, do NOT have the "right to marriage" either! So I`ve asked you (twice, iirc) why gays should have more rights than others.

If it`s a privilege? Then what`s your point? Why are you even arguing? I`ve never once claimed "gays should not get married". Not f-ing once!

@Gerry1: So society agrees and changes the law about gays having privilege of getting married?
I`m fine with that! It already happened in Canada.

Plenty of conservative gays out there @Gerry1! Don`t believe the MSM`s lies. Blacks, women, gays, lots of different groups have conservatives hiding among them.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

Here are two of your statements thus far in this conversation. I`m interested to understand how you marry the two:

1. "In other words, we all have natural rights, which would include the right to pair with one another as we see fit."

2. "No one (and certainly not me) is arguing that marriage is a right."

To me, these are contradicting. My argument up until this last page has been entirely under the assumption that you were arguing on behalf of the first point above.
0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanRights:

"Now your argument is changing.

Are you now saying that some rights exist that are inalienable because they are in the Constitution (guaranteed by the government) as opposed to magically existing?"

Seriously? Where have you been this entire time. That has been one of the key points of my argument from the beginning: one that you openly mocked an hour or two ago.
0
Reply
Male 156
@5Cats

Actually, in this Country, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness ARE inalienable rights. Anti-gay marriage proponents must demonstrate that selective marriage laws do NOT impede the liberty of those involved. The burden of proof is on them. They of course always fail to do so, hence often fall back on religious arguments. Or claim that allowing this will somehow impede THEIR liberty, although no thinking person really buys this anymore.....

Your line of reasoning about marrying cats is...absurd, since obviously consent from a feline cannot be determined -- thus the impact on its liberty cannot be evaluated.

I have a feeling you are in fact smarter than these silly arguments belie. Why don`t you give us the real 5Cats: stop being purposefully obtuse -- it is not necessary.

Stay outta the catbox.
0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanNature:

"Now, up until now, I`ve specifically avoided saying what *should* be, what I wish would be, or anything really about my ideal outcome. Since you`ve now brought it into the conversation - as to confound my argument I assume - I will express my views now."

The very nature of this discussion demands a conversation on and a look at what should be. It is at the heart of the matter, and it would be impossible to discuss it without talking about what should be versus what is. The whole point is that "what is" violates basic human rights, and therefore should be changed.

Arguing about "what is" is completely pointless. No one disagrees on "what is"; we disagree that "what is" is incorrect and goes against basic human rights: the right to be treated equally and to "pursue happiness" in a manner that does no harm to anyone else.
0
Reply
Male 39,929
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]rights that were held sacred by our nation`s founders and specifically enumerated under our Constitution as being inalienable and PROTECTED.[/quote]
Now your argument is changing.

Are you now saying that some rights exist that are inalienable because they are in the Constitution (guaranteed by the government) as opposed to magically existing?
0
Reply
Male 39,929

I`m a conservative republican. I believe in Family Values.

And my homo-Husband does too!
0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanNature:

"These are the points you`ve been arguing with me about thus far."

No, they`re not. That`s what you`ve been circling back on time and time again. I moved past those notions when I told you that I believe the issue is about equal treatment under the law; which is a matter of natural (self-evident) rights - rights that were held sacred by our nation`s founders and specifically enumerated under our Constitution as being inalienable and PROTECTED.

That has been what I have been arguing all along. We have rights independent of any laws, and irrespective of any government. One of those rights is the right to be treated equally and not to be discriminated against on the basis of homosexuality.
0
Reply
Male 39,929

It`s Friday...I`ev had too many beers.
0
Reply
Male 39,929

There are 7 pages of posts already to this topic. It`s great people so passionately debate the topic, but way more than I want to read. I was busy outside drinking and laughing with my hispanic neighbors. {I have minority friends `cause I`m so liberal.} 555
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

Now, up until now, I`ve specifically avoided saying what *should* be, what I wish would be, or anything really about my ideal outcome. Since you`ve now brought it into the conversation - as to confound my argument I assume - I will express my views now.

Ideally, marriage should not licensed by any government. Rather, it should be an agreement between/among any consenting adults.

If marriage is to be licensed by a government, then it must be available to all people equally. Under law, every person should be treated equally and I think it is despicable to single out "groups" of people in legislation. You will find that this is consistent in all of my other arguments too, including tax discussions for instance.
0
Reply
Male 39,929

P.S. the majority of people now support marriage between 2 people. Gender doesn`t matter. Source

I say "gender doesn`t matter" `cause I`m tired of saying same-sex marriage. Of course it`s the same. It`s the same sex years before you get married. But you like them anyhow and get hitched.
0
Reply
Male 679
@5cats:

Look, you f-ing idiot, this is the last time I say it to you (and the last time I even acknowledge your trollish existence):

I have NEVER argued that marriage is a right - not once, not ever. I have, however, argued that gays have a right to the same treatment under law (whether that has to do with marriage, voting, driving, property ownership, gun ownership, tax treatment, etc.).

Can you get that through your thick f-ing skull? It`s so simple a kindergartner with brain damage can understand it.

Now go troll someone else with your constant, utter nonsense.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

Either way, since my mistake is the point of confusion, I will clarify my point now. You will find that this is consistent with every previous comment I`ve made thus far, save for the one error.

1. Marriage is not currently a right because it is not freely available to everyone equally.
2. Marriage is a privilege because it can be revoked, denied, and licensed by a third party (government).

These are the points you`ve been arguing with me about thus far.
0
Reply
Male 39,929

Many of you may not be awar that I am a homosexuwalay. I know, it`s a shocker I know, but it`s true. Now I understand everyone has their own values and belief system, so I understand why some people don`t like same-sex marriage. But what I don`t get - and puhleez! explain it to me - is why they think everyone else has to live by their standard. Or as the philosophers say, who schit and left them in charge?

0
Reply
Male 40,764
[quote]Do not speak for me. I say nothing of the sort.[/quote]

Sorry @HumanAction, I thought it was implied in your arguments. My bad!

@FerdyFred: Goodnight "Jim-Bob" (lolz! I had to look up the names of the other Walton kids...)
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]you`ve claimed marriage is BOTH a right AND a privilege[/quote]
Ah yes, you`re correct. The first part (most recent) is a mistype as I am multitasking. Sorry, I do not have the time to sit here and devote all of my attention.

I have held consistently throughout this discussion (save for the last error) that marriage, in its current state, is a privilege and is not a right.

Also, I`ve held that this is not to say that it is the way is *should* be as opposed to the way it is.
0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanAction:

"I said that marriage was a right and you lit into me about it." - a direct quote from you.

"...we can clearly see that marriage is, in fact, a privilege offered by the government..." - also a direct quote from you.

How did I extrapolate anything else from your statements? You tell me...you`ve claimed marriage is BOTH a right AND a privilege. So which is it? You`ve been all over the place with your statements.

0
Reply
Male 40,764
"Rights don`t exist until they`re granted by the bigots in power?" 2:56:00 PM

@PirateFish: You`re discussing marriage here as if it were a "right" yes?
There`s TONS more where you`re ranting on about rights and denial of rights, YOU are the one claiming marriage is a right, ok?

If it`s a privilege? Then your dragging the Founding Fathers into this is... stupid.

"who could effectively argue that, in our modern society, marriage is not a right" 2:51:27 PM

Right before you say that heterosexuals are ALSO denied this `right`... undermining your own argument, lolz!

You need more proof?
0
Reply
Male 13,630
piratefish

Know where your coming from..

Just smile and nod your head....

and mutter ..TWAT, under your breath sir
0
Reply
Male 679
@ferdyfred:

I know you`re right. It`s just that sometimes I run across someone who is so stupid and ignorant, they remind me of why there are so many unresolved problems in the world. It`s like the entire screwed up reasoning on the planet suddenly gets a face, and I just can`t help myself. Then I realize I probably sounded just as ignorant 25 years ago, and that 25 years from now I`ll realize how ignorant I seem just now.
0
Reply
Male 13,630
Off to bed now, and I love all of you
Tis what IAB is, rather like a disruptive extended
Walton family !
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@5Cats

[quote]WE say you need a darn good reason to change it![/quote]
Do not speak for me. I say nothing of the sort.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

Marriage is a privilege in its current construct; you agreed to that below. I have no idea how you extrapolated anything more from it, but you`re clearly mistaken.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
[quote]I`m not the one arguing that homosexuals should not be treated the same as everyone else, that they do not deserve to enter into marriage.[/quote]

Neither are we!
What YOU are really arguing is that the LEGAL Definition of "marriage" should be changed.
WE say you need a darn good reason to change it!

You list your reasons, and we point out how illogical they are. Not that "gays should never marry" BUT that your logic sucks! Donkey balls!

And since plenty of other "sexual preferences" also want legitimate, legal marriages, THEY TOO want the laws changed. You are on their side, like it or not.

If you argue (and you have!) that ONLY gays and heteros be allowed to have legal marriages, and other "sexual preferences" NOT? It makes you... ignorant and bigoted!
Your own words, eat them.
0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanAction:

"If marriage were currently a right, then it could not be denied due to a persons sexual orientation. Since we are having this discussion, we can clearly see that marriage is, in fact, a privilege offered by the government so long as you follow their rules."

Ring any bells? This is a direct quote from you. You CLEARLY state that marriage is a PRIVILEGE. And this was your very first post on this thread.

And your entire argument has been that gays do not have the same right to equal treatment under the law, because the law doesn`t allow for it. Believe it or not, that is EXACTLY what you have been arguing. But don`t take my word for it - read back through the posts.
0
Reply
Male 13,630
piratefish
When your 12 you think you know everything, 21 you know everything, Im 45 now and finally come to the conclusion life is too short to know everything, so I do not `try` to bang on about things which are close to heart, I just settle down in the knowledge that in my own mind I `Know` and let the rest fight amongst themselves
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]I`m not the one arguing that homosexuals should not be treated the same as everyone else, that they do not deserve to enter into marriage. [/quote]
Who has? Please refer to the specific comments.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
[quote]No one (and certainly not me) is arguing that marriage is a right.[/quote]

HAHAHAHA!!!
(dies laughing)

You skipped "polygamy" in your round-up there, @PaperTiger...

What`s inherently "illegal" about incest? Why are incestuous couples (or groups) denied the same rights as gays?

[quote]nor am I aware that these other groups are clamoring for marriage[/quote]
Then you are ignorant, because they ALL are! And more besides those you`ve listed.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]It shouldn`t be that foreign of a concept to you if you have grown up in the U.S. and have studied its history or government much at all.[/quote]
Humor me. Please give me your definition.
0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanAction:

"Right? I`m glad you`re finally seeing the light."

I`m not the one arguing that homosexuals should not be treated the same as everyone else, that they do not deserve to enter into marriage.

Have you been in a different discussion?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]No one (and certainly not me) is arguing that marriage is a right.[/quote]
Bullsh*t. That`s what we`ve been arguing about this entire time. That`s what first started the argument between you and me.

I said that marriage was a right and you lit into me about it.

If you can`t even be honest about this, then that really says something about you.
0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanAction:

"Also, you STILL have not defined what you think a right is."

Read the preamble to the Constitution of the United States. You`ll get a pretty good idea of what I (and nearly every other American) believe a right is.

It shouldn`t be that foreign of a concept to you if you have grown up in the U.S. and have studied its history or government much at all.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]Ignorance and bigotry are disgusting.[/quote]
Right? I`m glad you`re finally seeing the light.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
@ferdyfred: I don`t think I`ve mentioned the Original Post before, I`ve just been pointing out how wrong @PirateFish and others are on the subject it raises. The OP is no skin off my teeth...

"paper tiger" means it`s a fake argument presented so the creator can easily "shoot it down" without ever being in danger. You knew that, right? ;-)

@WhoDat: But some groups, based on their "sexual preferences" alone, are DENIED the right. You`re OK with that? What laws have they broken to justify the restriction of their human rights?

A Mother wishing to marry her Daughter, for example?

[quote]Ignorance and bigotry are disgusting.[/quote]

They sure are @PirateFish! I wish you`d stop doing/being both!! :-P
0
Reply
Male 679
Again - one last time for everyone who seems to be missing the point:

No one (and certainly not me) is arguing that marriage is a right. What we are arguing is that if you grant it as a matter of course to heterosexuals in 99.99% of the cases, you should also grant the same to homosexuals. It`s the right to EQUAL TREATMENT!

And comparing homosexuals to felons, inter-species sex, necrophiliacs, pedophiles, and incestuous couples is absolutely ridiculous. They are hardly parallels, nor am I aware that these other groups are clamoring for marriage. Not to mention that there is no legitimate, modern reason to deny homosexuals the bond of marriage beyond simple bigotry.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

Also, you STILL have not defined what you think a right is.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]To pretend to know better or more than them is, quite frankly, absurd and makes you look either A) like a fascist, or B) very uneducated and naive.[/quote]
To pretend that they were infallible is naive.

[quote]So, to be clear, you do not have the right to defend yourself or you property or family until the government gives you that right?[/quote]
No. You need someone sufficiently capable of ensuring/protecting/guaranteeing a right for it to be a right.

Additionally, you need to make sure that those who are sufficiently capable of revoking that right do not do so.

So, in the case of self-defense:

You need to be able to defend yourself and you need to make sure you will not be punished for doing so.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
[quote]We have certain rights at all times, regardless of whether or not the law officially recognizes or protects them.[/quote]

But "marriage" is not one of them.
It is an artificial "social construct" based on traditions. NOT an "inalienable human right" at all.

If it were the latter? You`d support ALL forms of "marriage" and my cats and I would have your blessing! ;-) Right?

But you seem to agree (with me!) that certain laws banning certain forms of marriage are justified. Banning any group to deny their RIGHTS... if it was a right... but it`s not!
0
Reply
Male 679
@freedyfred:

The post was certainly funny, but I find it hard to ignore bigotry and stupidity.

My flaw is thinking that I can actually reason with someone who has no idea how to argue, and who thinks they know it all by the time they`re 18-29.
0
Reply
Male 3,908
"That doesn`t make marriage a RIGHT does it? It`s still restricted, denied to some."

I consider it a right to the same extent as our right to vote and bear arms. Voting is considered a right but it can, in fact, be taken away. (felony disenfranchisement) Same goes for felons being denied their 2nd amendment right. A hetero couple that is getting married so one of them can get citizenship is denied on the grounds that they`re trying to f*ck the system. They`re all rights and, depending on your actions, you can be denied those rights justifiably.
0
Reply
Male 679
Ignorance and bigotry are disgusting.
0
Reply
Male 13,630
5cats
@ferdyfred: Yeah, it`s mildly funny, but really like shooting a "paper tiger" eh

No like 99 percent of you flamers
the post went right over your heads
Its a piss take - capital funny
or for the tin hat brigade like you lot arguing over feck all.... a TROLL
Jeebus you lot .....
0
Reply
Male 679
@5cats:

One last time, you idiot:

The right being violated is the right to receive equal treatment under the law - NOT marriage. Please try to pay attention and keep up.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
@mrtoms: oh? Do enlighten us on how you`ve reached your conclusion.

@ferdyfred: Yeah, it`s mildly funny, but really like shooting a "paper tiger" eh?

@PirateFish: You`ve failed to demonstrate why marriage is a "human right". We`ve pointed this out to you countless times. Your `arguments` are entirely illogical & based on fallacies or fantasies.

Reality is: Marriage is a social construct. Subject to local laws, not "universal (human) rights" at all!

@WhoDat: Refer to: 5:33:23 PM
@PirateFish also uses the term: "sexual preferences" correct? That it`s WRONG to deny something based on that. THAT is what I was basing my reply to, so I am right after all.
Again.
Unless you want to be a "typo-Nazi" about it...

Oooo, IC! I corrected that post because it wasn`t very good. (5:52:24 PM)
I removed the offending line, lolz!
Much ado about nothing, eh? :-)
0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanNature:

"A right is only a right if we currently have it."

We have certain rights at all times, regardless of whether or not the law officially recognizes or protects them. Our forefathers believed very strongly in this principle and founded our society upon it. To pretend to know better or more than them is, quite frankly, absurd and makes you look either A) like a fascist, or B) very uneducated and naive.

So, to be clear, you do not have the right to defend yourself or you property or family until the government gives you that right? Correct? Because that is exactly your argument. I say I have that right (and many others) regardless of what my government says. And I think you will find that nearly every American will agree with me on that argument.

0
Reply
Male 13,630
ArgusTuft
-----
Ok I`ll sit from a distance and watch the fight with a beer
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]A right is something we SHOULD have[/quote]
A right is only a right if we currently have it.

[quote]because it is self-evident[/quote]
Fallacy-street.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
[quote] I have been talking about from the beginning: that we all have a fundamental, self-evident right to be treated equally, but that the law is (once again) interfering with that right for a group of people.[/quote]

Wait @PirateFish: "we all" (in the above quote) has nothing to do with "sexual orientation". Which is it that you`re talking about?

So long as some groups ARE denied marriage, and YOU agree with it, it`s either:
- not a right
- you`re the bigot here

And how can "bi-sexuals" properly marry if it`s restricted to 1 partner? Hey @WhoDat? Wouldn`t it require 2 partners? One of each gender? Hey? Discrimination!
0
Reply
Male 1,253
@Ferdy...hush! These guys are funny. We are amused.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]Really, how so?[/quote]
Your line about self-evident principles is full of fallacies.

Foremost, it`s special pleading. Your claim that these principles are self-evident is unverifiable and cannot be tested. The "self-evident principles" cannot be defined in any objective sense.

Next, this reeks of fait accompli. You act as if this is an accomplished fact that need no explanation.

Which leads us to the part where you plead to authority. Inevitably, you follow my rebuttals by pleading to some historical figure.

Here to help, my friend. Here to help.
0
Reply
Male 679
@5cats:

You`re obviously either very drunk or stupid. It`s difficult to even follow what you might be trying to say.

You haven`t made a lick of sense since your first post on this thread.

I think you`re simply trolling and trying to turn this into something that it`s not and never was.
0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanNature:

"Actually, no - it means that you don`t know the difference between a right and a privilege."

Are you really that dense, or just trolling? A right is something we SHOULD have (as even you claim), because it is self-evident. A privilege is a mechanism of law or rules. Again, (and please pay attention this time) they are two COMPLETELY different things.

If you SHOULD have something, it is not a privilege, but a right you are being denied. If it were a privilege only, *should* doesn`t even factor in.

You cannot have your cake and eat it, too, but you are too caught up in being right to recognize that this is EXACTLY what you`re trying to do.
0
Reply
Male 13,630
Not read the whole 99 comments but ..
Be fecked ... Its a pisstake funny funny post
Ya know Monty Python esque
for fu cks sake lighten up and laugh at it
far too up tight you yankee sorts
0
Reply
Male 40,764
@Whodat: So heterosexuals can still be denied the right to marriage, correct? And gays too if a man wanted to marry his Dad, eh?

You`ve caught me on a technicality, I was indeed referring to "sexuality" or other forms of the term.
I still am referring to the same thing, and my point still stands, so...

The POINT @PirateFish keeps saying is equal rights for all. If he wishes to restrict granting rights to "sexual orientation" that`s his problem.

That doesn`t make marriage a RIGHT does it? It`s still restricted, denied to some.
0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanNature:

"Either way, you, and anyone else who agrees with you - dead or alive - is committing a number of logical fallacies in declaring so."

Really, how so? It`s obvious you are confusing validity with something else. Besides, if you really want to split hairs, everything boils down to epistemology and NOTHING can be proven as a fact. If that is truly the basis for something to be considered as true, nothing can ever be known, much less "proven".
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]By saying we SHOULD be able to do something indicates that you DO in fact subscribe to the idea I have been talking about from the beginning: that we all have a fundamental, self-evident right to be treated equally, but that the law is (once again) interfering with that right for a group of people.[/quote]
Actually, no - it means that you don`t know the difference between a right and a privilege.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]And having another uneducated person chime in on your side only proves that there is more than one unread fool on the planet. It is obvious that neither you, nor he, have done any reading on the topic, and that neither of you have had so much as a single principles of logic course at your local community colleges.[/quote]
Like I said already - we get it. You`re just so damned educated and intelligent that you can just dismiss everyone else. I wish I was that cool. Sadly, I`m stuck here just arguing away with facts and logic and whatnot. *sigh*

Still though, I wish you could tell me where the rights actually come from. Nature, God, Principles? Well, I guess I`m just not educated enough to know.

[quote]Your thinly disguised bigotry is pretty obvious.[/quote]
Ha! You clearly do not know me. I`m further left when it comes to civil rights than any liberal I know.
0
Reply
Male 679
By saying we SHOULD be able to do something indicates that you DO in fact subscribe to the idea I have been talking about from the beginning: that we all have a fundamental, self-evident right to be treated equally, but that the law is (once again) interfering with that right for a group of people.
0
Reply
Male 3,908
"No, no they do not! Pedophiles, for example. Necrophiles, lots of "sexual orientations" are illegal."

Pedophilia and Necrophilia are NOT a "sexual orientation".

By definition, sexual orientation refers to the gender a person is attracted to.
0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanNature:

"On a side note, just to clear up any confusion for people, I am only arguing the semantics involved. I believe that everyone *should* have the right to marry whoever the hell they want to. However, as we know to be the case, that is currently untrue."

Oh, and one other thing: you`re above statement just summed up my argument beautifully, but you obviously haven`t been paying attention enough to understand it.

The very fact that you qualified your statement with *should* means that you agree we NATURALLY have the right to equal treatment under the law. Either that, or you don`t really mean what you just said and are simply pandering to the majority who see things differently than you on the topic of gay marriage.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]One mistake you seem to be making is in the assumption that natural means "by nature". When in fact, natural law and natural rights are derived from self-evident principles[/quote]
Either way, you, and anyone else who agrees with you - dead or alive - is committing a number of logical fallacies in declaring so.

There is no possible evidence you can present to back this theory. Rather, your only hope is to rely on the preaching of others throughout history who thought similarly.

Unfortunately, the people you`re referencing most often cited God when referring to nature. Again, this is neither a defensible nor testable position. In other words, it`s a subjective opinion not routed in logic or facts.
0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanNature:

"On a side note, just to clear up any confusion for people, I am only arguing the semantics involved. I believe that everyone *should* have the right to marry whoever the hell they want to. However, as we know to be the case, that is currently untrue."

Trying to have your cake and eat it, too?

Your argument of semantics has failed completely. You haven`t even demonstrated that you grasp the argument, but have declared yourself correct.

And having another uneducated person chime in on your side only proves that there is more than one unread fool on the planet. It is obvious that neither you, nor he, have done any reading on the topic, and that neither of you have had so much as a single principles of logic course at your local community colleges.

Your thinly disguised bigotry is pretty obvious.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
[quote]Oh really, and who are these groups?[/quote]

@PirateFish: Polygamists? Incestous? Necrophiles? Me! They keep denying my licence to marry my 2 cats! I don`t know why...

Are you being dumb on purpose?
0
Reply
Male 40,764
@PirateFish: Thomas Paine wrote that Gay Marriage is a Human Right??

Gee, I was unaware of that...

Marriage isn`t a human right, it`s a societal construction.
0
Reply
Male 679
@5cats:

"There`s LOTS of groups of people being "denied marriage rights" currently."

Oh really, and who are these groups?
0
Reply
Male 40,764
@HumanAction: I totally agree! If you`re going to hold and defend a position? At least TRY to base it on facts & reality.
Or just admit that it`s opinion, that`s cool too.

But stating an opinion, passing it as fact and insulting others who disagree (or simply point out it`s wrong) is not cool.

Gays marry? Who cares! Polygamy? Have a party!

I really love my cats... >^,.^<
0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanAction:

"You don`t need to provide any evidence that we get our rights from nature. Simply saying that some people you never met from hundreds or thousands of years ago said so is totally sufficient."

It is not my job to educate you on everything. You have a responsibility to do your own reading. But I will offer some suggestions on where to start:

Anything by the philosopher John Locke

George Mason "Virginia Declaration of Rights"

Francis Hutcheson "Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue"

Anything by Georg Hagel

The United States Declaration of Independence

Thomas Paine "Rights of Man"

John Finnis "Natural Law and Natural Rights"

One mistake you seem to be making is in the assumption that natural means "by nature". When in fact, natural law and natural rights are derived from self-evident principles, not fro
0
Reply
Male 40,764
[quote]that equal treatment under law is being denied to a group of people solely based on their sexual orientation.[/quote]

@PirateFish: Which group are you talking about? There`s LOTS of groups of people being "denied marriage rights" currently.

[quote]...of their natural sexual preferences.[/quote]

So, again, homosexuals should have rights that others don`t? This is the backbone of your position, yes?
Since society justifiably denies SOME groups the right of marriage, how can it even considered a "right"? It is, in fact, something else, correct?

[quote]everyone has the RIGHT to equal treatment regardless of their sexual orientation.[/quote]

No, no they do not! Pedophiles, for example. Necrophiles, lots of "sexual orientations" are illegal. Rightfully so!

Cripes man, think before you pontificate!
0
Reply
Male 2,357
Lol, thanks Mech.

On a side note, just to clear up any confusion for people, I am only arguing the semantics involved. I believe that everyone *should* have the right to marry whoever the hell they want to. However, as we know to be the case, that is currently untrue.
0
Reply
Male 813
Also my new signature:
"You don`t need to provide any evidence that we get our rights from nature. Simply saying that some people you never met from hundreds or thousands of years ago said so is totally sufficient."
0
Reply
Male 679
@5cats:

I`ll break it down for you.

The issue is precisely what patchouly has stated: that equal treatment under law is being denied to a group of people solely based on their sexual orientation.

The right in question is the right to be treated equally - not to marry. The argument is simple: if you allow one group to marry, then you should not deny that privilege to another group based solely on the strength that you do not approve of their natural sexual preferences.

It has nothing to do with hiding behind artificial, man-made laws that have a history of oppression and discrimination. It has everything to do with treating an entire group of people as having no right to equal treatment in society. In short, it`s bigoted and elitist no matter how it`s dressed up.

I don`t expect to change your mind, but I do hope to earn respect for the idea that everyone has the RIGHT to equal treatment regardless of their sexual orientation.
0
Reply
Male 813
piratefish = owned beyond comprehension. Well done guys.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

We get it man; you`ve convinced me. You just simply know so much that you don`t need to offer any evidence. I get it now.

You`re so awesome. Your logical skills are simply unmatched. If someone suggests that you`ve made a logical error, you don`t even need to defend it. All you need to say is "nuh uh" - that`s how awesome you are.

You don`t need to provide any evidence that we get our rights from nature. Simply saying that some people you never met from hundreds or thousands of years ago said so is totally sufficient.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
@PirateFish: So your answer is:

Marriage is a human right that can be denied to certain groups.

Cool!
0
Reply
Female 231
Reading through "debates" on IAB is like watching two dudes trying to hammer the same nail, miss and hit their thumb and then immediately blame the other.

Like, what is my life? Good lord.
0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanAction:

Seriously, you may want to look at the history and thought behind the concept of natural and inalienable rights. It goes back well over 2,500 years, and has been supported by thousands of very bright people from various societies and points in history. There is actually a very sound logical and philosophical basis to it (and even a religious one, as well). It is very unlikely that you know more than everyone who has contributed to this particular idea over the millennia.

To claim that this concept is, in fact, a logical fallacy demonstrates a staggering level of ignorance on the topic.

It is impossible to have a discussion about logic when one doesn`t even have a grasp on the subject matter being used as a premise.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
[quote]You may want to look into the whole history and thought behind natural and inalienable rights...[/quote]

Oh? Is "marriage" on the list? Which KIND of marriage? Eh?

[quote]A group of people are being denied equal treatment by law.[/quote]
You mean heterosexuals? Because heteros do NOT have a "right" to marriage...

Again I ask, when did you prove "marriage" is a "human right"?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

Look, I get that you`re butthurt here. Hey, you thought you were the IAB King of Logic (KoA) and got a little embarrassed. Well what did you honestly expect?

I mean, so far you`ve:

1. Claimed some mystical force grants us rights;
2. Use the definition of natural rights from a law to explain why laws don`t define rights (hilarious, btw);
3. Told everyone how awesome you are (several times);
4. Refused to define your arguments;
5. Refused to address rebuttals of your definitions.

Maybe you jumped the gun on this. Maybe you were unprepared. I don`t know. Either way, furiously typing about how awesome you are at logic and how nobody else understands you isn`t really a good argument.
0
Reply
Male 679
@5cats:

"We`ve both agreed that SOME marriages are denied or ruled invalid, legitimately, based on LAWS, correct?"

Again, try to follow this time, I am talking about rights, NOT laws. They are two totally separate things.

A group of people are being denied equal treatment by law. That is an infringement on natural rights. It`s really a very simple concept: we all are born with the right to equal protection and privileges under the law until we do something (like commit a crime) to have those protections revoked.

In the U.S., our Constitution was written to PROTECT our natural rights, NOT grant them.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
[quote]You may want to look into the whole history and thought behind natural and inalienable rights...[/quote]

Oh? Is "marriage" on the list?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]The notion that rights are natural and inalienable is NOT a logical fallacy of any kind[/quote]
Just Because Fallacy.
0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanAction:

"Special Pleading. Let me know when we can be done with this please."

I rest my case. This is exactly why I don`t want to debate logic with someone who has no education in it nor understanding of it.

The notion that rights are natural and inalienable is NOT a logical fallacy of any kind, no matter how many logical fallacy lists you look up on the internet.

It is not fait accompli, it is not special pleading, and it most certainly is not argument from ignorance. You may want to look into the whole history and thought behind natural and inalienable rights before you start invoking some terms you looked up on the internet.

It`s like using a medical dictionary to try to convince a doctor you`re on the same level as her, or a law dictionary to convince an attorney you went to law school. You`re not interpreting or applying them correctly, but you don`t know any better than to be embarrassed for it.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
[quote]that inalienable, natural rights are ignorant.[/quote]

When have you demonstrated that "marriage" is an "inalienable right"?

We`ve both agreed that SOME marriages are denied or ruled invalid, legitimately, based on LAWS, correct?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]Are they also as ignorant as I am?[/quote]
My God; do you really not know what the appeal to ignorance fallacy is? Yet you preach to me about logic. Fantastic.

The argument I quoted was an appeal to ignorance. You cannot explain where we get these rights from, so you merely conclude that `they just exist in nature by virtue of our birth`.

[quote]It`s even in our Constitution.[/quote]
Appeal to authority. You`re on a roll. I like how you`re using the Constitution (a law) to explain how laws (like the Constitution) don`t define rights.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
[quote]The truth is, I can go to the court house and get married to the person I love...[/quote]

Really @patchouly? Anyone? ANY person? No? There are in fact, restrictions?

Well, gosh golly...
0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanAction:

"`They are not dependent on the recognition of a government or other groups; they just exist in nature by virtue of our birth.`

Argument from ignorance. Could also be fait accompli."

Have you ever read the Constitution? That is EXACTLY the argument on which our forefathers based the entire document. Are they also as ignorant as I am?

And also, I am curious to know how you have concluded that inalienable, natural rights are ignorant. A lot of very smart people completely disagree with you on that one. I seriously doubt you are smarter and wiser than the likes of Mills, Bentham, Franklin, Jefferson, Kante, and any number of hundreds of other philosophers, sociologists, or even most of the founding members of our nation. The idea of natural, inalienable rights have been around far longer than either one of us has been alive, and it has been endorsed by some pretty brilliant minds. It`s even in our Constitution.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]a fundamental right we are born with[/quote]
Special Pleading. Let me know when we can be done with this please.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
[quote]One can have a right, yet the law can (and historically often does) deny that right. Get it?[/quote]

Yes, I got that from square one.

So denying homo-rights is bad, and they should change the laws = @piratefish argument.

But heteros don`t have that `right` = @5Cats` observation.

Do YOU `get it` now? You`re arguing that the laws should change based on human rights, but you`ve failed to notice that other groups (heteros) do NOT enjoy such rights, so... why?

What`s your solution? "Open Season" for marriage?
0
Reply
Male 679
"This has nothing to do with the semantics you guys are tossing around. The truth is, I can go to the court house and get married to the person I love; but in some places, someone else can not. Simple as that. One person is being denied the same privilege that I have."

Exactly! LAW has encroached upon a fundamental right we are born with, and the right to equal treatment.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

Sadly, you sound more ignorant than smug. Either way, so be it.

"They are not dependent on the recognition of a government or other groups; they just exist in nature by virtue of our birth."

Argument from ignorance. Could also be fait accompli.
0
Reply
Male 679
@5cats:

*sigh*

Have you not been paying attention to anything I have said?

Laws and rights have nothing to do with each other. They are NOT the same thing.

One can have a right, yet the law can (and historically often does) deny that right. Get it? It`s not that tough of a concept.

And yes, heterosexual couples do occasionally get denied the right to marry - I`m not that naive. These (obvious) cases would be where they are too young, too closely related, or in very rare circumstances, have already been married to each other too many times before. (I personally know a couple who are on their 4th marriage to each other - yes, they have married 4 times and divorced each other 3 times. The state informed them on their last marriage that it will no longer issue a marriage license to them to remarry each other if they divorce this time. However, I suspect another state may still issue one - who knows for sure).
0
Reply
Male 4,745
This has nothing to do with the semantics you guys are tossing around. The truth is, I can go to the court house and get married to the person I love; but in some places, someone else can not. Simple as that. One person is being denied the same privilege that I have.
0
Reply
Male 316

Polygamy here we come!
0
Reply
Male 40,764
[quote]But do we have to call it `marriage`? Can we call it a `civil union` or something?[/quote]

@mykunter: No. The homosexualist lobby REFUSES that option.
What you describe should be implemented for all citizens: A separation of Church Marriage and State Marriage, eh?

Unfortunately few people understand that it`s `de facto` that way right now. You aren`t "legally married" until you fill out the Government paperwork, correct?

And yes, lots of other "special interest groups" are waiting for legalization too...
0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanAction:

"Are you really sure you want to go down the road of logical fallacies with me?"

Not to sound roostery, but based on a number of your statements, it`s obvious you don`t have the education to "go down that road" with me - at least not where formal logic is concerned.

I really don`t want it to sound so smug, but after reading your comments, it is pretty obvious you have never studied the principles of logic, or if you have, you certainly don`t understand them.

But that`s perfectly okay, I know there are plenty of topics you could go circles around me on - this just isn`t one of them. Formal logic is a very complex discipline that people earn PhDs in; it`s not a seat of the pants topic - there are very specific rules to it, and what you have written so far demonstrates that you do not know even the most basic rules. I`m afraid a debate on logic with you would be totally pointless.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
*sigh*
@PirateFish: Are you just being obnoxious?

You said "marriage is a right"
Then you said "denying homo- marriage violates their human rights"
Then you said: But some hetero-marriages are denied

So what is it? A right which cannot be denied? Or something else which has valid reasons for society (laws) to regulate?

Your claim, as made, is that homosexuals cannot justifiably be denied their `right to marriage` but heterosexuals can. Simple.

If you`re claiming that homosexuals and heterosexuals should have "equal" (identical) rights? Then homo- marriages should be subject to applicable laws, until such time as those laws are amended.

As well as several other groups besides gays, right?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

Before I go any further on this, I want you to define a natural right. So far, you seem to making it up on the spot to suit your argument.

1. Where do natural rights come from?
2. How are they granted?
3. Can rights be added or removed?
3b. If so, through what mechanism?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@mykunter

[quote]How do you all feel about polygamy?[/quote]
I`m fine with it. Of course, I also think that, if we`re going to have an income tax, then it should be applied to the individual. I don`t understand how being married should change the way taxes are assessed against your income.
0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanAction:

"Again, you`re confusing `is` with `should be`."

Okay, do you think that is what should be defining of a right? AND do you think that`s what does (is) define a right?

Careful, because our Constitution (which all laws are subject to measure) says the law CANNOT define a right. At least not in the US.

And this is precisely why we`re having this discussion: because current laws are infringing upon natural rights.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

Are you really sure you want to go down the road of logical fallacies with me?

Remember, your entire premise is that `nature did it` (See: God did it).
0
Reply
Male 2,436
I don`t have a problem with gays having the same rights, such as taxes, bank accounts and whatever other stuff goes along with marriage. But do we have to call it `marriage`? Can we call it a `civil union` or something? Just some sort of way to differentiate from normal marriage... you know, two people, from separate genders, that mate and spawn? Not that that`s what is required (spawning) to define marriage, but just as a societal ideology of sorts?

How do you all feel about polygamy?

0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanAction:

"Would you like me to rewrite them and allow you to answer them?"

If you look back, I already did.

And I applauded chalket because he actually used the pure form of a syllogism, and his premises were not invalid.

A caveat to this, however, is that a syllogism can have valid premises and a valid conclusion, but still not be sound. The validity of an argument does not depend upon whether its premises or conclusions are true. It merely depends on the formal relation between the premises and conclusion. Valid syllogisms can have false premises or false conclusions. An argument is sound when it is valid and has true premises. Validity is only part of what it takes to make an argument sound.

No hypocrisy here, just recognition of a valid syllogism. Yours wasn`t. No offense, just a simple fact.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]And you think that is what should define a right?[/quote]
Again, you`re confusing `is` with `should be`.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]By this definition, there are NO rights whatsoever.[/quote]
You`re ignoring time. There are no absolutely permanent rights. However, we currently enjoy many rights that are afforded to us.

[quote]if the government declared it illegal for you to eat chicken tomorrow, does that mean you lost the right to do it?[/quote]
Yes, of course.
0
Reply
Male 679
@5cats:

"And these "rights" you ascribe to gays do NOT apply to heterosexuals in America, so what`s YOUR point?

Remember, you said it yourself: "Almost" every hetero- couple can get married? But not all, it`s true."

What??? What rights only apply to homosexuals and not to heterosexuals? What are you talking about?????? You have completely lost me.
0
Reply
Male 1,678
I couldn`t care less who marries who, but whoever wrote this must at least be borderline retarded.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

Simply put, your definition of a right relies on an invisible, undeterminable, untestable, unknown, and unchallengeable force.

Do you see the issue here?
0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanAction:

"Exactly! Which is why we must conclude that marriage is not a right."

So for something not to be a right, by your reasoning, all that needs to be so is the ability (and not the actual doing) of a group to strip you of it? By this definition, there are NO rights whatsoever. Literally, anything can be made illegal and taken from us by the government. And you think that is what should define a right? I call that very scary thinking.

Follow the logic through: if the government declared it illegal for you to eat chicken tomorrow, does that mean you lost the right to do it? Not only would I disagree with that idea, but I am pretty sure most other Americans would too.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]A logical fallacy, by very definition, invalidates a premise.[/quote]
The answers given were put there in parentheses to denote my answer to the questions given; this is standard fare on the internet.

This was done mockingly as @chalket, who you praised, had done the same. Therefore, your criticism is a bit hypocritical here.

Would you like me to rewrite them and allow you to answer them?
0
Reply
Male 40,764
@PirateFish: And these "rights" you ascribe to gays do NOT apply to heterosexuals in America, so what`s YOUR point?

Remember, you said it yourself: "Almost" every hetero- couple can get married? But not all, it`s true.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
Funny thing is the people preaching for equality here support special taxes and privileges for couples that put their faith in each other onto a piece of paper and usually an overpriced ceremony. Just to tell everyone their going to be together forever....Over 50 percent of the time it fails. Want equality take away the benefits of that ceremony and leave it for what it is. There`s plenty of people who just don`t feel the need to do that to prove they love someone and they don`t get special treatment.
0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanAction:

"It was done purposefully and it has no bearing on the legitimacy of the premises offered. Thus, it does not invalidate the logic given."

What? Seriously? Do you understand syllogisms and logic? A logical fallacy, by very definition, invalidates a premise. Your major premise (the first in your syllogism) introduced a logical fallacy. As a matter of operation, it invalidates your conclusion.

However, arguing logic (a subject that is one of my favorites) is, per se, a red herring in the current discussion.

Again, simply put: law does not grant rights (at least not according to the framers of our Constitution, who I happen to agree with). Laws are meant to protect our rights, so when they fall short, it is our obligation to address them.

Laws do NOT equal rights. I cannot say it any simpler than that.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

The problem is that your definition of `natural rights` is wholly subjective, untestable, undefinable, and unchallengeable.

If I argue that something is not a right, you`ll just pull out the magic trump card: it`s a natural right provided by some mystical force.

We can`t use logic, reason, or really any sensible analysis to test your natural rights theory; it`s akin to saying that God exists. We can`t test that in any meaningfully manner.

Forgive me, but I won`t entertain an argument with someone who holds the "some magical force did it" trump card.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
[quote]Who said anything about denying rights to heterosexuals? Where did this idea even come from?[/quote]

@PirateFish: You said it, here: 2:51:27 PM
"...deny a marriage certificate to almost any heterosexual couple..."

So there ARE heterosexual couples who ARE denied the `right` of marriage, correct?

I even gave a non-religious example: 3:34:24 PM = Citizenship marriages.

If hetero- couples CAN be denied this `right`, you literally have no case.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]Our forefathers wholeheartedly disagreed with this idea.[/quote]
Well... somewhat. Keep in mind that the entire Constitution is written as an instruction manual for running a government. As such, it is a declaration that some rights cannot be denied by government.

Also, oftentimes, such arguments fall to "God gave us these rights" which seems... unlikely. In your case, you suggest that "nature" is playing the role of God in providing us these rights which is equally absurd.

[quote]neither can they take them away[/quote]
Exactly! Which is why we must conclude that marriage is not a right.

1. Government cannot take away rights.
2. Government can take away marriage.
C. Marriage is not a right.
0
Reply
Male 679
Bottom line: rights and laws are two different things. They are NOT synonymous.

I`m arguing for rights, some of you are responding with laws. They are not one and the same. Unless you feel Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Caligula, Kim Jong Un, Kim Jong Il, etc. were all on the moral high ground and set the rights for human beings.

And this doesn`t even begin to answer the question of "whose laws are the authority?" It gets just as tricky as religion then. For instance, is Russian law superior to US law, but inferior to Thai law? And which parts?

That`s why pointing to law to define human rights is fundamentally flawed and impossible to sort out.
0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanAction:

"Natural rights deal with what should be rather than what currently is, and thus, are completely subjective and undefinable."

Our forefathers wholeheartedly disagreed with this idea. And it`s a damn good thing, too.

Also, I completely disagree with the notion that people in other countries do not have the right to free speech. They are born no differently than us, and simply because their governments oppress their rights does not mean they do not have them.

Also, look at the wording of the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. The language is very specific and very clear: rights are natural, God-given things. The government DOES NOT grant them, neither can they take them away (that is what inalienable means). Further, our Constitution claims it is the obligation of our government to PROTECT (not grant) these natural rights. The idea (at least in the US) is that rights are natural, not government provided.
0
Reply
Male 679
@5cats:

"So this "right" can be denied to heterosexuals, but not to homosexuals? Colour me confused"

What? You completely lost me? Who said anything about denying rights to heterosexuals? Where did this idea even come from?
0
Reply
Male 679
@MeGrendel:

"It does not matter what people argue, it matters what is the law."

I completely disagree. Never forget that everything Kim Jong Un does in North Korea, everything Hitler did in Nazi Germany, and that everything Stalin did in the Soviet Union were completely 100% legal in their nations. The law does not make something infallible or morally right.

In fact, the law is inferior to morality. If not, then one must conclude that anything that is legal is morally correct. Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Chavez, and Kim Jong Un would be thrilled to enjoy this degree of justification.

Laws are, after all, built my man, and often do not reflect justice, equity, nor morality. History is full of such examples.

Also, literally EVERY single poll done clearly shows that the majority of Americans not only support same sex marriages, but even more also feel that the federal government should recognize them regardless of state laws.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]It`s a common and very well documented fallacy. [/quote]
It was done purposefully and it has no bearing on the legitimacy of the premises offered. Thus, it does not invalidate the logic given.

However, if you`d prefer, I could certainly rewrite it in a manner that retains the meaning while restraining from begging the question.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

No worries; I tend to respond in kind.

Regarding natural rights, I think any such classification is dubious - at best. Natural rights deal with what should be rather than what currently is, and thus, are completely subjective and undefinable.

Rather, I view rights as entitlements guaranteed to us by sufficiently powerful entities.

For example, we currently enjoy the right to free speech. However, the people of many other countries do not have such a right. Why? Well, we enjoy it because it is afforded to us by our government. There is no entity more powerful than our government willing to take that right away.

That being said, I can`t think that anything is a right if you need to pay a fee, follow arbitrary rules, and obtain a license before having it. Driving, which is very similar in this regard, is most definitely a privilege as opposed to a right.
0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanAction:

"You know what? You`re right; syllogisms are fun."

Syllogisms are only as valid as their premises. If the major or minor premise is flawed, the conclusion is also. That is why quite a few different logical fallacies have been identified and defined.

In your syllogism, the major premise contains a logical fallacy known as "begging the question". It`s a common and very well documented fallacy.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
[quote]My view is that a right is a natural right; it exists by virtue of birth and is (in the words of our forefathers) inalienable.[/quote]

So this "right" can be denied to heterosexuals, but not to homosexuals?
Colour me confused :-/

"Marriage" is a political construct. It`s also part of some religions too. They (religious marriage and political marriage) should be (ideally) entirely separate, but they`re not.

Now in Canada? We have "common law marriage" where a person can sue for divorce without actually getting married!
There`s plenty of crazy laws to go around, why ad more to the pile? Fix what`s broken first, then add to that, eh?
0
Reply
Male 679
@HunanAction:

"In your opinion, if something is a right, can it legally be denied to you as a result of your sexual orientation? (Answer: No) "

I think this is where we may be experiencing our difference in what we consider to be the definition of a right.

My view is more similar to that of our forefathers in that certain rights are natural and inalienable. They are not dependent on the recognition of a government or other groups; they just exist in nature by virtue of our birth.

Further, I believe, as did the framers of our Constitution, that it is a government`s obligation to protect these natural rights. So my answer to your question of whether or not a right can legally be denied to someone (on any basis, let alone sexual orientation) is - YES. And, sadly, history is chock full of examples of this very kind of oppression.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
[quote]Are gays human? Yes.
Is marriage a right? Yes.
Therefore 3 gay men + marriage = human + right.[/quote]
Fixed it @Chalket! After all, polygamy is every bit a right as gay marriage! It`s even supported by the Bible and by Muslims!!

[quote]piratefish-I doubt there is a court in this land that would deny a marriage certificate to almost any heterosexual couple[/quote]

Almost? ALMOST?? So they would deny SOME couples, yet you claim this proves/disproves something? It does prove OUR side, eh?

I can list lots of couples who would instantly be denied, mostly based on incest... marriages for citizenship are denied or overturned frequently too.
Thanks for proving our point dude! :-)
0
Reply
Male 679
@MeGrendel:

"You`re recongnition of what constitutes `logic` is as flawed as his logic."

Really? You might want to look up syllogism in the dictionary. By very definition, chalket used a formal, deductive argument that is one of the most fundamental aspects of logic. It is usually one of the first things taught in a introductory logic course at most universities.

Logic is not a subjective term, but a very definite, objectively defined discipline.
0
Reply
Male 679
@HumanAction:

First, let me apologize for coming across so strongly; it is a trait of mine that I need to work on. Your opinions are just as important as mine.

To elaborate on what I am saying is kind of simple. My view is that a right is a natural right; it exists by virtue of birth and is (in the words of our forefathers) inalienable. I believe certain rights exist irrespective of the current government`s willingness to recognize or protect those natural rights. In my view, rights come from nature itself, and not the rule and whim of a minority of bigots who happen to be in control at a given time.

In other words, we all have natural rights, which would include the right to pair with one another as we see fit. Then we have rights as recognized or protected by our governments. However, the latter do not diminish the former in any way. In fact, they are inferior to, and predicated upon the former (or at least, should be).
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@MeGrendel

[quote]Actually, that answer is incorrect.[/quote]
... how so?

Currently, some marriage laws are written in a manner that exclude homosexual couples. Therefore, homosexual couples governed by those laws cannot obtain marriage.

Perhaps I`m missing something but I do not see how that is different from my statement:

"Is marriage currently denied to some people as a result of their sexual orientation? (Answer: Yes)"
0
Reply
Male 3,908
@MeGrendel - Because I enjoy f*cking with adults who believe in fairy tales and jump at any chance I get to do so, looks like it worked.
0
Reply
Male 8,547
HumanAction-[quote]Is marriage currently denied to some people as a result of their sexual orientation? (Answer: Yes) [/quote]
Actually, that answer is incorrect.

Every consenting adult, even homosexuals, can get married, as long as it meets the legal definition of marriage. (what, are you saying people marry someone other than their love? for reasons other than love?)
0
Reply
Male 8,547
Piratefish-[quote]find any reasonable person in the U.S. in 2014 who could effectively argue that, in our modern society, marriage is not a right[/quote]
It does not matter what people argue, it matters what is the law. I think you`re overestimating those who agree with you (of course, you threw in the disclaimer of `reasonable`, which to you means `anyone who agrees with me is `reasonable`. anyone who doesn`t agree with me is `unreasonable`.`)

piratefish-[quote]I doubt there is a court in this land that would deny a marriage certificate to almost any heterosexual couple [/quote]
If a couple meets the requirements to legally marry, they would not. (Not that many couples are required to take it to court). If, on the other hand, they do not, they will.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

Hey, here`s another one!

In your opinion, if something is a right, do you first need to seek a license from an authorized body to obtain it? (Answer: No)

Do you currently need to acquire a license from an authorized body to become married? (Answer: Yes)

Therefore, can we conclude that marriage is not a right? (Answer: Yes)

Hey, thanks for playing.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

Let`s do this the easy way.

In your opinion, if something is a right, can it legally be denied to you as a result of your sexual orientation? (Answer: No)

In your opinion, if something is a privilege, can it legally be denied to you as a result of your sexual orientation? (Answer: Yes)

Is marriage currently denied to some people as a result of their sexual orientation? (Answer: Yes)

Therefore, do you conclude that currently, marriage is not a right? (Answer: Yes)

You know what? You`re right; syllogisms are fun.
0
Reply
Male 8,547
@whodat
Why do you keep bringing religion up when none of us are arguing based on religion? Strawman perhamps?

Piratefish-[quote]someone who appears to have actually had a logic course in college.[/quote]
You`re recongnition of what constitutes `logic` is as flawed as his logic.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@piratefish

[quote]That is the most flawed logic I have ever seen.[/quote]
Well if you say so, then it must clearly be so.

[quote]It is the same as claiming that the human rights of blacks weren`t being violated while they were slaves or during segregation, before we recognized their natural rights as human beings.[/quote]
Can you expand on how you`ve reached this conclusion?

In my case, I imply that a right only exists if it cannot be denied and is freely available. Marriage does not fit this criteria.

Perhaps your definition of a right is something like this:

"That which can be denied to people as a result of their sexual orientation."

Please advise.


0
Reply
Male 679
@Human Action:

"If marriage were currently a right, then it could not be denied due to a persons sexual orientation."

That is the most flawed logic I have ever seen. It is the same as claiming that the human rights of blacks weren`t being violated while they were slaves or during segregation, before we recognized their natural rights as human beings.

Seriously? That is an argument? Rights don`t exist until they`re granted by the bigots in power? Good thing our forefathers didn`t feel the same way.
0
Reply
Male 679
@chalket:

YES! I love it! Finally someone who appears to have actually had a logic course in college. A simple syllogism, but perfect. The only thing you forgot was the QED at the end.

@MeGrendel

Your argument is flawed as it mostly relies on outdated ideas and/or ideas from other societies. I doubt you will find any reasonable person in the U.S. in 2014 who could effectively argue that, in our modern society, marriage is not a right. I doubt there is a court in this land that would deny a marriage certificate to almost any heterosexual couple (at least not in the vast majority of modern U.S. counties).

And the Constitution does guarantee each of us the right to "the pursuit of happiness". If marriage is not part of that pursuit, please tell me what else qualifies?

0
Reply
Male 3,908

0
Reply
Male 679
Even as flawless as these arguments are, they will still fall on the deaf ears of the ignorant.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@chalket

[quote]Is marriage a right? Yes.[/quote]
If marriage were currently a right, then it could not be denied due to a persons sexual orientation. Since we are having this discussion, we can clearly see that marriage is, in fact, a privilege offered by the government so long as you follow their rules.

The simple fact that you cannot enter an official marriage without going through a 3rd party (in this case, government) demonstrates that it is not a right.
0
Reply
Male 8,547
chalket-[quote]Are gays human? Yes. [/quote]
Yes. No one`s stating otherwise.

chalket-[quote]Is marriage a right? Yes.[/quote]
There`s actually two issues there:
Is marriage a right? That`s debatable. It`s not a `constitutional` right. Many debate that it`s not a human right. Many recognize it as a civil institution societies have recognized and used as the best way to legitimize raising children and for political connections (latter part not relevent here).
Also, based on the historical definition, `marriage` is between a man and a woman. So, legally, in most places a same-sex union does not constitue a `marriage`.

chalket-[quote]Therefore gay + marriage = human + right.[/quote]
Sorry, if half of your equation if wrong, all of it is wrong.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
@MeG"always on the wrong side"rendel

Are gays human? Yes.
Is marriage a right? Yes.
Therefore gay + marriage = human + right.

Ergo, "if you are opposed to gay marriage you are opposed to human rights" is a factual statement, not an opinion. I find it somewhat amusing that you could see it otherwise.
0
Reply
Male 6,153
I actually heard a reverend say "If Gay couples are allowed to marry, They will bare and raise gay children and soon out number normal people." Which is scientifically impossible without cloning.
0
Reply
Male 8,547
patchouly-[quote]Tolerance for people against human rights? [/quote]
Sorry, the `against human rights` is opinion, not fact.

BuckeyeJoe-[quote]The same arguments used by religion against same sex marriage are the exact ones used during civil rights [/quote]
Okay, but I don`t argue religion. Nor am I arguing gay marriage. I`m arguing that his statement that anti-gay marriage = against human right is an opinion, not a fact.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]So McGovern are you anti-gay marriage or are you just picking on Patchouly?[/quote]

Not anti gay marriage I`m anti hypocrite but I wouldn`t call for the execution of him imagine that! Kind of a violation of human rights......
0
Reply
Male 892
So McGovern are you anti-gay marriage or are you just picking on Patchouly?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]TheZigRat - That`s easy.
Take half of everything from each man, and give it all to a lesbian couple.[/quote]

Hmmm and if it`s a lesbian couple vice versa?
0
Reply
Male 156
@MeGrendel

Sadly, patchouly`s statement is not an opinion. The same arguments used by religion against same sex marriage are the exact ones used during civil rights and during women`s suffrage. Not close...but the SAME, I`m talking verbatim -- same passages in the Bible, same old rhetoric.

We are tired of this song and dance, and are quickly waking up to how oppressive and immoral these ideals are. We do not tolerate bigotry, oppression, or sexism, no matter what nonsensical "be tolerant of our religion" argument is used.
0
Reply
Male 4,891

Cmon guys! Don`t pick on NickelBack.
0
Reply
Male 4,745
McGovern1981:
"So you`re pro gun now!?!?!?!?"
-----
To some degree, I have always been.
0
Reply
Male 4,891

TheZigRat - That`s easy.
Take half of everything from each man, and give it all to a lesbian couple.
0
Reply
Male 4,745
MeGrendel:
"Can just feel the tolerence flowing."
----
Tolerance for people against human rights? Nope. None to be found here.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
TheZigRat, I think you`ll find that the law is changing in those areas. Slowly but surely. And that`s what needs to happen, the law needs to change. If a law is wrong (e.g. one that prohibits gay marriage), it should be changed. Bad laws are no excuse for bigotry and hate.
0
Reply
Male 6,153
Gay Marrage I believe is not a problem but I can see Major Legal complications with gay divorce. Since Law tends to favor the wife in a marrage for things like property division,support and child custody. In a gay devorce would the couple have to determine who is the "wife"? Or would that be based on Who`s on top?
0
Reply
Male 3,908

0
Reply
Male 4,431
Amen, patchouly. I`ll plant a red fern for anyone who needs a`shootin`. ;-)
0
Reply
Male 8,547
patchouly-[quote]If you are opposed to gay marriage you are opposed to human rights.[/quote]
Meaningless statement. Opinion, not fact.

patchouly-[quote]need to be taken out somewhere and shot like ol` Yeller.[/quote]
Can just feel the tolerence flowing.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]You are a throw back to the old days and need to be taken out somewhere and shot like ol` Yeller.[/quote]

So you`re pro gun now!?!?!?!?
0
Reply
Female 4,428
equal opportunity suffering
0
Reply
Male 31
Ouch.. Owned!
0
Reply
Male 4,745
If you are opposed to gay marriage you are opposed to human rights. No different than those bigoted asshats that opposed blacks being allowed to drink from our water fountains and sit anywhere they like on the bus. You are a throw back to the old days and need to be taken out somewhere and shot like ol` Yeller.
0
Reply
Female 601
Link: 10 Reasons To Ban Gay Marriage [Pic] [Rate Link] - Hanging around tall people makes you feel shorter, so hanging around gays should make you feel straighter.
0
Reply