Hehe...Take that haters.

dont bullshit me prof. I answered it. I said it would be a waste if he did that. you are the one pulling this from your ass.
 
Professur said:
and you didn't answer. Thanks for playing, have a nice day.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the discussion, and it was time to go home. :shrug:

Nobody in this mess is suing anyone for anything. They are simply acting as if they were equal under the law. Regardless of your personal feelings, are they or not?
 
Gonz said:
I am neither a homophobe nor a supporter of homosexual marriage. Thus, you are wrong.
Click to expand...
Who was it that started the whole "slippery slope argument? Claerly, that person is under the (IMO) mistaken belief that homosexuality is in the same vein as pedophilia, beastiality, etc. In other words deviant behavior. The very defintion of a homophobe. Sorry, you seem to have a phobia about being phobic.
Professur said:
Thanks for playing, have a nice day.
Click to expand...
 
chcr said:
Somebody said something about rights???

I was speaking of equal treatment earlier.
Click to expand...

Then they are treated equally.

In this day & age it's highly unusual to have a marriage license rejected but it happens. Less than in times past yet, it does happen. If the state has legal authority to withhold a marriage license from a heterosexual couple they have equal authority to withhold marriage licenses from anyone. If marriage was a right then the homosexual community would have a valid argument. Since it is not, they don't have a leg to stand on.

The ramifications of granting homosexuals the priveledge to marry are very troubling & exceptionally deep. If it ended here, I'd be all for it. I once was a supporter of homosexual marriage. After looking at how case law goes well beyond its intended target I can no longer hold that position. The slope is much to steep & far too slippery.
 
chcr said:
Claerly, that person is under the (IMO) mistaken belief that homosexuality is in the same vein as pedophilia, beastiality, etc. In other words deviant behavior. The very defintion of a homophobe. Sorry, you seem to have a phobia about being phobic.
Click to expand...


Get a new dictionary. That one is broken.
 
Gonz said:
I've asked before, show me where marriage is a right.
Click to expand...



I am sure youll get me for this but it was you and Gato that explained it is not a right but a privledge. but in any case I think they sould have that same privledge that we have
 
chcr said:
Sorry, HomeLan, but a few times each generation a question will arise to which the answer is obvious. This is such a case. If you are going to purport to treat homosexuals equally under the law then you must let them marry. If you don't wish them to be treated equally, admit it and go on about your business.
Click to expand...

Try, and try again, but, if civil unions are legalized with the same rights as marriage, would that be acceptable?
 
freako104 said:
doesnt common law marriages count?
Click to expand...

Common law marriages are not recognized in every state. If they were, 99% of this would just go away, because those homosexual unions could be declared to be just such...a civil union.




eric said:
someone should have told Prof that
Click to expand...
Didn't read all the posts when I first responded. Should've followed my own guidance. :blush:

BTW...chcr...why do you always bring up your wife's inability to have children whenever a debate of gay marriage comes up. It has no bearing on the argument in question, and only serves to muddy the debate with useless information. Not to make light of your wife's condition, but, unless you and your wife are gay, it shouldn't be used as a test case. ;)
 
Common law marriages are not recognized in every state. If they were, 99% of this would just go away, because those homosexual unions could be declared to be just such...a civil union
Click to expand...

ah ok. Since that didnt occur to me :blush: I had thought they were recognised and as such made me think its hypocritical.


He is allowed to bring it up since it has come up a few times in this debate.
 
Gato said:
why do you always bring up your wife's inability to have children whenever a debate of gay marriage comes up. It has no bearing on the argument in question, and only serves to muddy the debate with useless information.
Click to expand...

I may have had a hand in that. I've stated, the only reason for a legal marriage is the legitimization of children. Who cares what two adults do with each other.
 
Gonz said:
I may have had a hand in that. I've stated, the only reason for a legal marriage is the legitimization of children. Who cares what two adults do with each other.
Click to expand...


Nobody had a hand in that except chcr. I mentioned that a biological coupling to produce offspring was one of the main reasons that marriage exists. He then asked about heterosexuals who couldn't produce children. I promptly ignored him on that argument, but he keeps briniging it up like some kind of flag. He is confused as to can and cannot. Heterosexuals, regardless, can produce children. Homosexuals, by definition, cannot. :shrug:
 
Gato_Solo said:
What has his wife's condition got to do with gay marriage?
Click to expand...
It's okay Gato. Gonz (and Prof) are certainly entitled to your belief that marriage is only for legitmization of children, some of us have other reasons. Does this then make our decision less legitimate. Not unless we're gay, evidently.

I'll say this one more time. If gays are entitled to equal treatment, in my opinion, you must let them marry. If you are against them marrying, stop pretending they're equal. This is the simple, black and white (right or wrong if you prefer) question that everyone seems to think I oversimplify, but it is just that simple to me. Someone elses homophobia (or lack thereof) is a separate question (although a related one) and I won't bring it up again.

Edit: Note that in this instance I brought up the procreation thing in direct response to another post. :shrug: Sorry, I won't bring it up again.
 
The only problem I have is this...You can't make something legitimate unless you go through the proper channels first. When those channels offer no relief, then, and only then, do you resort to what's known as civil disobedience. Anything less makes the whole 'movement' a charade with an ulterior motive.
 
Gato_Solo said:
The only problem I have is this...You can't make something legitimate unless you go through the proper channels first. When those channels offer no relief, then, and only then, do you resort to what's known as civil disobedience. Anything less makes the whole 'movement' a charade with an ulterior motive.
Click to expand...

I've always understood that we mainly disagree on methodology, Gato :) I feel like they are acting as if, as the government purports, they are equal citizens. It should have been legitimate without question, IMO. You feel they are using civil disobedience when it isn't called for (yet). I respect someone elses opinion even if I disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top