Originally posted by Quiero MotaYeah, I'm sure Gays just want to **** Christianity, I doubt that they could love their partners and want the same rights a married heterosexual couple has (especially since it is oh soo few).
I think that the reason many gays want the right to get married is more so just make a statement by giving the Christian Right the finger, than actually caring about the institution itself.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, I'm sure Gays just want to **** Christianity, I doubt that they could love their partners and want the same rights a married heterosexual couple has (especially since it is oh soo few).
I never said they don't love their significant others, but a lot of Civil Rights movements have a lot to do with making a statement as much as they do with getting the desired rights.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I never said they don't love their significant others, but a lot of Civil Rights movements have a lot to do with making a statement as much as they do with getting the desired rights.
Maybe, but only in order to get equal standing in society. I doubt it is making a point for making a point's sake.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Gays don't have different rights in regards to marriage.
No, they don't have different rights. They have no rights. I addressed this concept at the end of my last post in this thread.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think that the reason many gays want the right to get married is more so just make a statement by giving the Christian Right the finger, than actually caring about the institution itself.
Some do, but that is exactly the attitude that I addressed. Gays getting full of themselves. It couldn't possibly be because they love someone and want to spend their life with that person. Don't let the christian persecution complex take over your ability to think clearly. Spend a little time listening to others debate your rights and the merrit of your existence, and you learn to get pissed off pretty quickly. Ask Feceman, he probably gets tired of hearing people slag off christians.
Originally posted by Bardock42
They can marry exactly everyone I can marry if they are of my gender. They have the same rights as me. Now women have different rights though. And the rights between men and women should be equal (which is really the issue here, btw)No, it's not.
Yes, it in fact is, it's equivalent to being the same.
Gender is the issue at hand, just as religious disposition, economic standing, physical make-up etc., could be. Telling another man/woman he can't marry another consenting man/woman, is really no different than telling rich people, they can't marry poor people, or telling a Christians they can't marry Buddhist, or telling people with physical abnormalities, they can't marry non physically abnormal people. But those wouldn't happen, because they'd all be labled "unconstitutional", yet "gender" is somehow not worthy of being included.
Originally posted by RobtardYeah, see, in your second part you happen to have adjusted your point to be mine, so I won't say no to that. But it is still not a true analogy.
Yes, it in fact is, it's equivalent to being the same.Gender is the issue at hand, just as religious disposition, economic standing, physical make-up etc could be. Telling another man/woman he can't marry another consenting man/woman, is really no different than telling rich people, they can't marry poor people, or telling a Christians they can't marry Buddhist, or telling people with physical abnormalities, they can't marry non physically abnormal people.
Originally posted by Devil King
Some do, but that is exactly the attitude that I addressed. Gays getting full of themselves. It couldn't possibly be because they love someone and want to spend their life with that person. Don't let the christian persecution complex take over your ability to think clearly. Spend a little time listening to others debate your rights and the merrit of your existence, and you learn to get pissed off pretty quickly.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I never said they don't love their significant others, but a lot of Civil Rights movements have a lot to do with making a statement as much as they do with getting the desired rights.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, see, in your second part you happen to have adjusted your point to be mine, so I won't say no to that. But it is still not a true analogy.
WTF? I've been saying that (the same thing) for a few pages now, did you just not read, you baby gorilla?
Also, when I said "gender", I really should have said "sexual orientation", or at least included it into gender.
Originally posted by Robtard
WTF? I've been saying that (the same thing) for a few pages now, did you just not read, you baby gorilla?Also, when I said "gender", I really should have said "sexual orientation", or at least included it into gender.
Well, then it is wrong again. When you said gender you were right. Sexual Orientation is wrong.
The differences are between gender. The victims of the difference are of homosexual orientation. There's a difference.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, then it is wrong again. When you said gender you were right. Sexual Orientation is wrong.The differences are between gender. The victims of the difference are of homosexual orientation. There's a difference.
All men (straight, gay, bi or whatever) and all women (straight, gay, bi or whatever) are equally affected by gay-marriage being illegal, in the sense that we all can't marry the same sex if we wanted too, for what's it's worth, that is true.
What you fail to recognize is, that this law is specially catered to be against a specific group of people and really only that group of people are left without equal rights and it's basis is "sexual orientation", in reality.
How exactly is it just a gender issue, if both genders are equally affected? Putting asisde sexual orientation?
Originally posted by RobtardI wonder whether I fail to realize that, or whether I said exactly that here:
All men (straight, gay, bi or whatever) and all women (straight, gay, bi or whatever) are equally affected by gay-marriage being illegal, in the sense that we all can't marry the same sex, for what's it's worth, that is true.What you fail to recognize is, that it is specially catered to be against a specific group of people and really only one group of people are left without equal rights, in reality, and it's basis is "sexual orientation".
How exactly is it just a gender issue, if both genders are equally affected? Putting asisde sexual orientation?
The differences are between gender. The victims of the difference are of homosexual orientation. There's a difference.
Originally posted by Bardock42
B-because women have different choices than men.
I-in terms of gay marriage, are you sure about that? Because I'm about 99.9% certain that women can't marry women, in the same states where men can't marry men.
Edit: Is there some state that allows female to female marriage, but doesn't allow male to male?
Originally posted by Robtard
I-in terms of gay marriage, are you sure about that? Because I'm about 99.9% certain that women can't marry women, in the same states where men can't marry men.Edit: Is there some state that allows female to female marriage, but doesn't allow male to male?
A-are you slow? Not being allowed to marry men is different from not being allowed to marry women. That's the difference between the genders.
Not sure how to make that any easier, really.
Originally posted by Bardock42
A-are you slow? Not being allowed to marry men is different from not being allowed to marry women. That's the difference between the genders.Not sure how to make that any easier, really.
Are you retarded? Women can always marry men and men can always marry women, regardless of sexual orientation, not gender. The issue at hand is, same-sex marriage, be it male-male or female-female, that is what is illegal, so it's a sexual orientation issue, not gender.
I think you two are splitting hairs at this point.
If one wants to get overly technical, a straight man can't marry a gay man, but a gay man can't marry another gay man either. A straight man can marry a straight woman, but the same straight woman can't marry a gay woman, but she can marry a gay man.
See, it's splitting hairs.
The issue is equal rights for all people.
Originally posted by Robtard
Are you retarded? Women can always marry men and men can always marry women, regardless of sexual orientation, not gender. The issue at hand is, same-sex marriage, be it male-male or female-female, that is what is illegal, so it's a sexual orientation issue, not gender.
No. It's not. It's a gender issue as all women (gay or straight) can only marry men and not like men that can marry women. So it is about gender. That it is the people with a specific sexual orientation that suffer most from it is not the matter for factually assessing what kind of issue it is. Meaning, gay men and straight men can marry exactly the same people. They can't marry the same people as gay and straight women though.
Really, just accept I am right and we can go on. I am right afterall.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No. It's not. It's a gender issue as all women (gay or straight) can only marry men and not like men that can marry women. So it is about gender. That it is the people with a specific sexual orientation that suffer most from it is not the matter for factually assessing what kind of issue it is. Meaning, gay men and straight men can marry exactly the same people. They can't marry the same people as gay and straight women though.Really, just accept I am right and we can go on. I am right afterall.
And all men can marry women, great... so it isn't gender biased. As both sexes can marry the opposite and both are restricted from marrying the same-sex. THERE'S NO INEQUALITY THERE, both have the same positive and negative.
What gay-marriage being illegal does, is target specific people; what distinguishes those specific people from those that wouldn't be effected by it (as it's a non-issue for straights, generally speaking), it's their sexual orientation; not their gender.
Originally posted by Devil King
I think you two are splitting hairs at this point.If one wants to get overly technical, a straight man can't marry a gay man, but a gay man can't marry another gay man either. A straight man can marry a straight woman, but the same straight woman can't marry a gay woman, but she can marry a gay man.
See, it's splitting hairs.
The issue is equal rights for all people.
No, he's being a jack-ass.
Yes, it is equal rights for all, but in reality, which group is the "law" targeting?
To be gender biased, there would have to be a difference in how the law restricted either men OR women differently.