Proposal Requires Straights to Have Kids or Marriages Will Be Voided

Originally posted by Robtard
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.

Devil King can marry exactly the same people as I can. He has exactly the same rights I have. That Sabrea idiot on the other hand as different rights than I do.
So it is, IN FACT, a gender issue.

Which law? The law banning homosexuals from marrying, or the law allowing homosexuals to get married?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You idiot. I am telling you that it targets Gay people, but that it is not a difference between gays and straigths. It's a difference between women and men.

Devil King can marry exactly the same people as I can. He has exactly the same rights I have. That Sabrea idiot on the other hand as different rights than I do.
So it is, IN FACT, a gender issue.

Moron if it were a gender issue, then either men OR women would be affected differently, they aren't, as they both have the same positive and negative.

Negative = both men and women can't marry the the same sex

Positve = both men and women can marry the opposite sex.

Your "difference" is irrelevant and retarded.

Originally posted by Devil King
Which law? The law banning homosexuals from marrying, or the law allowing homosexuals to get married?

Originally posted by Robtard
Moron if it were a gender issue, then either men OR women would be affected differently, they aren't, as they both have the same positive and negative.

Negative = both men and women can't marry the the same sex

Positve = both men and women can marry the opposite sex.

Your "difference" is irrelevant and retarded.

Ugh. It's a problem for gay people and not straights. BUT IT IS DISCRIMINATING GENDERS. Women don't have the same rights as men and men don't have the same rights as women.

GAYS HAVE FACTUALLY THE SAME RIGHTS AS STRAIGHTS!!!

Originally posted by Devil King
Which law? The law banning homosexuals from marrying, or the law allowing homosexuals to get married?

The states where homosexual marriage is not legally recognized, obviously not a state like MA.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ugh. It's a problem for gay people and not straights. BUT IT IS DISCRIMINATING GENDERS. Women don't have the same rights as men and men don't have the same rights as women.

GAYS HAVE FACTUALLY THE SAME RIGHTS AS STRAIGHTS!!!

I see your point, it is still irrelevant to the issue at hand. As both genders have the same pros and cons in regards to opposite-sex and same-sex marriage. So it isn't gender biased, it specifically targets sexual orientation.

Yes, I brought that up to Adam a few pages back and explained how ridiculous that loophole is, we covered it too. "You can marry any consenting adult you want, but as long as it fits these parameters we've chosen." Yeah, same rights.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are not banned from marrying.

You can pick your friends and you can pick yor nose; but you can't pick your friend's nose.

What you guys are talking about is legitimizing homosexuality as a sexual orientation under the law. I can marry any woman who'd have me, but who's getting metaphorically screwed, me or her?

Originally posted by Robtard
I see your point, it is still irrelevant to the issue at hand.

True

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, I brought that up to Adam a few pages back and explained how ridiculous that loophole is, we covered it too. "You can marry any consenting adult you want, but as long as it fits these parameters we've chosen." Yeah, same rights.

It's less a loophole than just a fact. I think we should all be outraged that the ****ing government is telling all of us who the **** we can marry and who we can't.

Originally posted by Devil King
You can pick your friends and you can pick yor nose; but you can't pick your friend's nose.

What you guys are talking about is legitimizing homosexuality as a sexual orientation under the law. I can marry any woman who'd have me, but who's getting metaphorically screwed, me or her?

You can legally marry any woman who'd have you.

Originally posted by Devil King
You can pick your friends and you can pick yor nose; but you can't pick your friend's nose.

What you guys are talking about is legitimizing homosexuality as a sexual orientation under the law. I can marry any woman who'd have me, but who's getting metaphorically screwed, me or her?

Originally posted by Bardock42
True

It's less a loophole than just a fact. I think we should all be outraged that the ****ing government is telling all of us who the **** we can marry and who we can't.

Glad you finally agree.

I am outraged over the ideology behind it, you don't think I'm debating against, because I really want to marry another man. I'd be just as upset if the Gov said Christians can't marry Muslims, or green eyed people can't marry other green-eyed people. Neither of those would personally effect me, but I'd still be against it.

Originally posted by Robtard
You can legally marry any woman who'd have you.

Wouldn't it be a shame if I didn't want to marry a woman.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I figure she wouldn't get screwed metaphorically nor factually.

That is because the answer to my question is that I'd be the one getting screwed.

Originally posted by Robtard
Glad you finally agree.

I never disagreed with that, arseface.

Originally posted by Robtard
I am outraged over the ideology behind it, you don't think I'm debating against, because I really want to marry another man. I'd be just as upset if the Gov said Christians can't marry Muslims, or green eyed people can't marry other green-eyed people. Neither of those would personally effect me, but I'd still be against it.

Originally posted by Devil King
Wouldn't it be a shame if I didn't want to marry a woman.

You don't have to preach to the choir... my "opinion", these laws are specifically catered against gays.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I never disagreed with that, arseface.

Yeah. Well, just that it is actually discriminating against all of us.

If you knew it was irrelevant, then why did you you leave such a long vaginal trail over it, shit-stain.

FFS.. yes, we all know that.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you knew it was irrelevant, then why did you you leave such a long vaginal trail over it, shit-stain.

FFS.. yes, we all know that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I....I am pretty sure that's not true. I would....bet a decent sum on the notion that equivocal in logic means using a fallacious argument through the multiple natures of a word. Basically using homonyms to prove a point, that doesn't logically follow. No idea what you meant, really. I didn't perform an indepth study but I also couldn't find any indication of the way you use it being valid.

No, that is equivocation.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, that is equivocation.

e·quiv·o·cal /ɪˈkwɪvəkəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-kwiv-uh-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. allowing the possibility of several different meanings, as a word or phrase, esp. with intent to deceive or misguide; susceptible of double interpretation; deliberately ambiguous: an equivocal answer.
2. of doubtful nature or character; questionable; dubious; suspicious: aliens of equivocal loyalty.
3. of uncertain significance; not determined: an equivocal attitude.

W-what is it that I do not get?

Originally posted by Devil King
I can appreciate that your example is one of experience in a high school club, but the basic premise of your perspective is one based on the shared opinion of a group of teenagers who have no interest in getting married. Simply because John doesn't want to get married [b]right now, doesn't imply that he won't want to get married, someday. And when he is ready, the right should be available to him. Just like every other citizen of this country.
[/B]

Thank you for supporting gay rights and not knowing what GSA is!!! The Gay-Straight Alliance is one of THE biggest gay rights groups in the united states. It doesn't pertain to *just* high school groups. Our group actually went on constant trips to gay rights functions that consisted of *adults* not *teenagers*. The only teenagers there were our group, and maybe one or two other high school area groups.

Personally, I feel the meaning behind the term marriage would be lost. That's my opinion. A good majority of Americans would side me, unfortunately for different reasons (mostly gay-bashing reasons).

Also, I don't feel that bashing my opinion is really going to get anyone anywhere. I know you (you meaning anyone that has bashed my opinion) feel that I'm am against same-sex marriage because I'm gay-bashing or whatever, basically putting down what they want/think - their opinions. But you're kind of doing the same thing that you think I'm doing. You think I'm bashing the opinion of gay rights, I just don't think the term marriage should be used. Yet you're all bashing my opinion in telling me not to do so, it's slightly hypocritical. You state that they should be able to use the term marriage because America is a free country, yet you're basically telling me that *my* opinion is wrong - so how can you argue for one persons freedom while taking away someone elses to do so?