Originally posted by Bardock42
No. I was saying ALL men can marry ALL women (potentially) not that Some men can marry some women while other men can marry other women.Get it? They have the same set to choose from. That's why they are equal. Oh what the heck, I shall draw a picture.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! 😆 😆 😆
I showed this to my coworkers. They thought it was funny too.
Originally posted by Robtard
WTF, your new picture-post was there, but then it vanished.You're still:
I forgot an essential part.
Here you go
As you can obviously see I am not "saying that an exception based on ethnicity in regards to marriage constitutes an inequality, while one based on sexuality is not and therefore equal". It's really just a simple maths problem. If you look at the possibilities gay men are equal to straight men. White men weren't equal to black men looking at their possible marriages.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I forgot an essential part.Here you go
As you can obviously see I am not "saying that an exception based on ethnicity in regards to marriage constitutes an inequality, while one based on sexuality is not and therefore equal". It's really just a simple maths problem. If you look at the possibilities gay men are equal to straight men. White men weren't equal to black men looking at their possible marriages.
And gay men aren't equal to straight men, as straights can marry the person they're sexually desire, while the homos can't. You're splicing hairs and making silly exceptions for the sake of making them. An inequality, is an inequality.
Originally posted by Robtard
And gay men aren't equal to straight men, as straights can marry the person they're sexually desire, while the homos can't. You're splicing hairs and making silly exceptions for the sake of making them. An inequality, is an inequality.
Again you are attacking an argument I never made.
It is not about equal rights. THEY EXIST. End.
They are treated the same under the law, Bardock, but I do have to concur that your argument is splitting hairs as far as the term 'equal rights' is concerned. That normally refers to an aspiration rather than a literal comparison of their legal possibilities, which is rather off the point with something like this.
Homogenous laws don't necessarily bring equality, as most would view the concept of equality. In that the current laws are applied identically to gays and straights, the argument can easily be made that these lawqs give more life opportunities to straights than gays, and so therefore the rights to each are not equal.
This only applies if you feel everyone should have the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice, of course. If you do feel that, then the current system is unequal, with the bias against gays.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
They are treated the same under the law, Bardock, but I do have to concur that your argument is splitting hairs as far as the term 'equal rights' is concerned. That normally refers to an aspiration rather than a literal comparison of their legal possibilities, which is rather off the point with something like this.Homogenous laws don't necessarily bring equality, as most would view the concept of equality. In that the current laws are applied identically to gays and straights, the argument can easily be made that these lawqs give more life opportunities to straights than gays, and so therefore the rights to each are not equal.
This only applies if you feel everyone should have the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice, of course. If you do feel that, then the current system is unequal, with the bias against gays.
But...but...I constantly stated that weep
Why is no one reading what I say 🙁
It is just a matter of definitions. And it doesn't change anything about the movements or anything. Really, such "arguments" should really just go like this "I am for equal rights between gays and straights" - "It's not really about "equal rights" if you look at the words, but I agree with the sentiment" - "Haha, you are right, what a funny little oddity in usage of words" - "Yeah, lol, lets have some gay 69" - "k"
But instead they go something like "I am for equal rights between gays and straights" - "It's not really about "equal rights" if you look at the words, but I agree with the sentiment" - "THAT'S THE MOST DISGUSTING THING ANYONE EVER SAID TO ANYONE ELSE ANYWHERE AT ANYTIME IN ANY WAY. I AM MORALLY OUTRAGED" - etc.
Knowutimsayin?
I did read what you say; my comments above still stand,. Because the centre of your point is still wrong, I'm afraid. You are trying to make out that actually they are equal, in that there isn't one set of laws for straights and one for gays.
But I'm afraid that's not an argument that really makes any sense. Regardless of the sentiment you believe in, yout attempt to say the semantics of equality are already there doesn't actually bear close examination.
I'm afraid they don't have equal rights in the way the term is generally used. They have the same laws; that is not the same thing. No-one is going around saying "The same laws for gays!" If they were, then your point would be valid. Asking for equal rights is different.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Again you are attacking an argument I never made.It is not about equal rights. THEY EXIST. End.
FFS... part of marriage (a big part) is being able to choose someone that you want to be with. Gays don't have that option and/or are gimped in who they can select, ergo, the rights aren't equal.
Same thing as telling a Black man that they can marry, as long as they marry another Black. You're splitting hairs and ignoring the inequality based on a silly technicality.
As far as your claim that people are being illogical, where has someone said in here that they were "morally outraged"?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I did read what you say; my comments above still stand,. Because the centre of your point is still wrong, I'm afraid. You are trying to make out that actually they are equal, in that there isn't one set of laws for straights and one for gays.But I'm afraid that's not an argument that really makes any sense. Regardless of the sentiment you believe in, yout attempt to say the semantics of equality are already there doesn't actually bear close examination.
I'm afraid they don't have equal rights in the way the term is generally used. They have the same laws; that is not the same thing. No-one is going around saying "The same laws for gays!" If they were, then your point would be valid. Asking for equal rights is different.
Oh, fair enough. I disagree though. All I am saying is that there is a factual difference between the equal rights as it was used previously (segregation, women's liberation, etc.) and how it applies to marriage. I am aware of the fact that it is used to describe what you are saying. You apparently subscribe to that usage, I chose to pointed out how it is not correct by the definition of the words and how it is different to, for example, the use in relation to racial marriage laws. To say I am wrong is certainly ridiculous. To say it is splitting hairs and that it is of not much value or impact I fully agree to. 'tis still true.
Originally posted by Robtard
FFS... part of marriage (a big part) is being able to choose someone that you want to be with. Gays don't have that option and/or are gimped in who they can select, ergo, the rights aren't equal.Same thing as telling a Black man that they can marry, as long as they marry another Black. You're splitting hairs and ignoring the inequality based on a silly technicality.
As far as your claim that people are being illogical, where has someone said in here that they were "morally outraged"?
I am NOT ignoring the inequality. FOR ****S SAKE, I pointed it out IN EACH OF MY POSTS ON THE LAST TWO PAGES. CHRIST. You are absolutely right in all things you say EXCEPT for the parts where you make those points out to be my argument. THEY ARE NOT.
Hell, I went awfully Urizen in capitalizing there.