California and Gay Marriage

The definition of the words is in how it is used, bardock.

And when people talk about 'rights' in this context, they generally mean a set of aspirations that all people should have. And if one of the things in that list is what I mention above, that people should have the right to marry the consenting adult of their (mutual) choice, then the rights of straight people are currently met by the American legal system and the rights of gay people are not, even though the law is the same for both.

Hence inequality. Hence a demand for equality.

Laws are a means to an end, after all.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The definition of the words is in how it is used, bardock.

And when people talk about 'rights' in this context, they generally mean a set of aspirations that all people should have. And if one of the things in that list is what I mention above, that people should have the right to marry the consenting adult of their (mutual) choice, then the rights of straight people are currently met by the American legal system and the rights of gay people are not, even though the law is the same for both.

Hence inequality. Hence a demand for equality.

Laws are a means to an end, after all.

I never denied inequalities. I just denied inequalities in current rights.

I really don't feel like constantly having to block the strawmen from now on. I stand by what I said, it is absolutely correct. I am sure most what you two say is as well, but I am not concerned with it, as it is not the issue I addressed.

Actually, if we were to get into the semantics of it, heterosexual males would gain the right to marry another man and heterosexual females would gain the right to marry another woman. It would simply be a right in which they do not induldge. Much like my right to own a gun, but I do not. See, everyone wins in theory. Rights for everyone!

Originally posted by Devil King
Actually, if we were to get into the semantics of it, heterosexual males would gain the right to marry another man and heterosexual females would gain the right to marry another woman. It would simply be a right in which they do not induldge. Much like my right to own a gun, but I do not. See, everyone wins in theory. Rights for everyone!

Exactly.

The point is we are all stolen rights. Not just gays. Lets take them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Exactly.

The point is we are all stolen rights. Not just gays. Lets take them.

Stolen rights? What does that mean?

Originally posted by Devil King
Stolen rights? What does that mean?

Meant freedoms. My bad.

Let me rephrase "Every single one of us is denied freedoms by these outrageous laws"

I hate laws... 😠

Originally posted by Bardock42
Lets take them.

I've always been for that. I think it would be a wonderful thing if the validity of someone elses life were mine to dictate and define. However, as it is, I can't really understand why mine is up for debate, so to actually do so would make me a hypocrit.

And you guys have spent three pages debating each other, and you all understand exactly what the other is saying, and Bardock, you are more than fully aware that there is an inequity. Men, regardless of sexuality, enjoy the ssame rights. However, since sexuality is a defining characterist of a homosexual's personality, just as is sexuality a defining characterist of a heterosexual's personality, one group exists with a right that is denied to the other. Life, liberty, happiness, et al.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Meant freedoms. My bad.

Let me rephrase "Every single one of us is denied freedoms by these outrageous laws"

Ah, yes. I get that. When you get right down to it, most laws are an infringment on rights. But, many are in place to prevent personal infringment of another citizen's rights. This is not one of those cases, it's only packaged and sold that way.

Originally posted by Devil King
Bardock, you are more than fully aware that there is an inequity.

Originally posted by Bardock42
they are not equal because they can't marry who they want, and I get that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I never said that it was socially or morally equal.

Originally posted by Bardock42
[QUOTE=10634492]Originally posted by Strangelove
[B]I am not equal to a straight man because of my sexuality.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am NOT ignoring the inequality. FOR ****S SAKE, I pointed it out IN EACH OF MY POSTS ON THE LAST TWO PAGES.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I never denied inequalities. I just denied inequalities in current rights.

What gave you that impression?

Originally posted by Devil King
Ah, yes. I get that. When you get right down to it, most laws are an infringment on rights. But, many are in place to prevent personal infringment of another citizen's rights. This is not one of those cases, it's only packaged and sold that way.

Preaching to the choir, my man.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What gave you that impression?

Three pages of you guys arguing a technicality of definition that fundamentally illustrates a disparity in considering the reality of the right in question.

Originally posted by Devil King
Three pages of you guys arguing a technicality of definition that fundamentally illustrates a disparity in considering the reality of the right in question.

Its entertainment for them. I do the same thing, sometimes.

Originally posted by Devil King
Three pages of you guys arguing a technicality of definition that fundamentally illustrates a disparity in considering the reality of the right in question.

As much as there shouldn't be an issue of people marrying whomever they want (consensually), it is an issue in regards to homosexuals, so the semantics have to pointed out/debated.

Originally posted by Robtard
As much as there shouldn't be an issue of people marrying whomever they want (consensually), it is an issue in regards to homosexuals, so the semantics have to pointed out/debated.

Only as a matter of justifying the debate to those people who are fundamentally against it because they feel it their right and place to deem another human being worthy of a right they themselves already enjoy.

Originally posted by Devil King
Much like my right to own a gun, but I do not.

Why not? Would doing so be "too to the right"?

Ther conservos have a new crusader against gay/equal marriage rights, a (supposed) gay-rights supporting liberal named David Blankenhorn

Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It's Bad

“Across history and cultures . . . marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law.”

-

Essentially, he's pulling out the "the children, the children!" trump card.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why not? Would doing so be "too to the right"?

Uhhh...no. I don't own a gun because I have no need for one.

Originally posted by Devil King
Uhhh...no. I don't own a gun because I have no need for one.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What if the Queen of England comes into YOUR house...pushing you around...giving you no representation whatsoever...what then?

Then I'll give QM a call and he can come over and pop a cap in her ass.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What if the Queen of England comes into YOUR house...pushing you around...giving you no representation whatsoever...what then?

You want that? Huh? Do ya!?