Originally posted by Strangelove
Here's a letter that I wrote to my school newspaper in response to a column. It's the argument I've always used, and to date I've never heard a logical refutation.No Debate Needed for Gay Marriage
and the column I was responding to: Politics, Never Right
I can believe that nobody has been able to convince you otherwise... but no logical refutation?
ummm, how about the WHO you are allowed to marry is never discussed in the constitution?
if marrage is truly defined as man and woman, then gays are equally allowed to marry. If marrage is defined as being with a loved one, then they are not.
historically, marrage has been about the owning and trading of women by men.
You are looking to redefine a term in a way which has no legal prescidence before the civil rights era. That whites are allowed to choose black mates is probably the only legislative situation where you could draw a legal argument from.
If marrage is legally defined as man and women, homosexuals currently have legal equality.
(My personal opinion is that there should be no government involvement in marrage, so if you want to marry your sister or a car or a tree, i could care less, just saying, its ridiculous for you to say there isn't a logical refutation to the point you are making)
Maybe the "all men are created equal" and the "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" might have something to do with it, just saying.
Odd that this country wa founded on the principe that people should be free to do what they like, unless of course, you're a ******.
Now, if someone could prove that allowing gays to marry would indeed cause harm to other people's marriage, then I can see the grounds for denial, maybe.
Edit: Yes, I know that's from the Declaration, not Constitution.
Originally posted by Robtard
Calm down and take your meds.
Perhaps you should start a thread to discuss the legality and legitimacy of douchebags, and he'll feel like he has a place to vent his frustration over his life and rights being the providence and talking points of strangers and bigots.
The sad part? Even douchebags can get married.
The sad part, part 2? This is a country full of douchebags.
Originally posted by RobtardJust because it's not from the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't relevant.
Maybe the "all men are created equal" and the "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" might have something to do with it, just saying.Odd that this country wa founded on the principe that people should be free to do what they like, unless of course, you're a ******.
Now, if someone could prove that allowing gays to marry would indeed cause harm to other people's marriage, then I can see the grounds for denial, maybe.
Edit: Yes, I know that's from the Declaration, not Constitution.
Originally posted by Robtard
Calm down and take your meds.
😆 😆 😆
You're for reals with this post?
After two long ass diatribes from DK, you tell ME to calm down and take my meds. 😐
lol look at my post, where do I act "not calm"? 😉
😆 😆 😆
Pull DK's dick out of your butt long enough so you can think straight. (Again, no pun intended.)
Originally posted by Schecter
...and clean the semen off of you chin
...steamy elephant semen.
Originally posted by Devil King
I dismiss your answer given under the pretense of black homosexuals claiming not to be gay for basically the same excuses offered by their white counterparts, as a viable excuse. You can be astonished at the true existence of homosexuality, but your perception is not needed for reality to be true. You are obviously free to cite and express an episode of fiction as a means to debate, but reality exists despite your desire for it to be reality. Homosexuals exist, and they deserve the same rights one would claim another heterosexual are entitled and deserving. To claim otherwise is to claim religious superiority, which is highly questionable....and not the basis on which the "American Dream" claims itself is supposedly based. Are your parents "American" Quiero Mota? Are mine, a generation removed? America serves many who claim "rights" as supposedly inalienable, but dismiss them when it comes to a segment of the population they ignore, resent and relegate and dismiss. As soon as the constitution makes allowances for your existance, I'll consider and vote for the same to be done for your own inability to meet those requirments. Otherise, be grateful for the rights my white, male, land-owning ass has given you. And while you're at it, be greatful I allowed you to eist at all. You have only what I've given you. Be happy with it. Recognize, *****; you 2nd class, up-to-me, hanger-on. You belong to me: just like everyone who isn't me and finds themselves living in this nation.
That was a pretty extensive reply to my correction of Robtard. And it had nothing to do with the scene from Law & Order.
Yeah, my parents are American. And what?
Your post that immediately followed this one was a rant with no real purpose.
Originally posted by dadudemon
😆 😆 😆You're for reals with this post?
After two long ass diatribes from DK, you tell ME to calm down and take my meds. 😐
lol look at my post, where do I act "not calm"? 😉
😆 😆 😆
Pull DK's dick out of your butt long enough so you can think straight. (Again, no pun intended.)
You can say that again.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That was a pretty extensive reply to my correction of Robtard. And it had nothing to do with the scene from Law & Order.Yeah, my parents are American. And what?
Your post that immediately followed this one was a rant with no real purpose.
Everything I say is a rant, according you, man.
And you seem to think everyone that has agreed that the rights of another human being should not be up for debate are somehow, what, sucking up to me, placating me? I don't know what you think. But I'm fairly certain if you saw the vitrues of your life repeatedly being at the center of debate, you'd be irritated. You're hispanic. It doesn't matter if your parents were born in this country or not; many a white American consider you a burden to our nation just because they can look at you and see you're hispanic. And when I dismiss that, it's because it's bullshit. What I know is not bullshit is that you wouldn't tolerate someone bringing up the notion that, citizens or not, there should be one set of rules for hispanics and another for everyone else.
Originally posted by dadudemon
😆 😆 😆You're for reals with this post?
After two long ass diatribes from DK, you tell ME to calm down and take my meds. 😐
lol look at my post, where do I act "not calm"? 😉
😆 😆 😆
Pull DK's dick out of your butt long enough so you can think straight. (Again, no pun intended.)
...steamy elephant semen.
Didn't I tell you to calm down and take your meds? Do it.
Edit: I didn't use one, let alone eight emotes in my post, let me know if that's a problem for you.
Originally posted by Devil King
Lot's of rage, but very little remorse.You're just trying to stir the turd.
Are straight people really concerned about the supposed disappearance of sanctity in their own marriages that they would deny that legality to another couple based on sexual orientation? Yes.
The intimacy of your marriage shouldn't be effected by the marriage of your brother's marriage, yet that is the argument of most who deny rights to homosexuals. Marriage is supposedly sacred only when entered into by a man and a woman, but you can never justify why it can't be sacred between two women, without falling back on god.
No, i was just wondering if Gay people truly care more about the "sanctity of marriage" than they do about the rights marriage brings. Do they care if they are made a union in God's eyes or do they just want the same rights that straight people have. I wasn't trying to stir any fecal matter man
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
No, i was just wondering if Gay people truly care more about the "sanctity of marriage" than they do about the rights marriage brings. Do they care if they are made a union in God's eyes or do they just want the same rights that straight people have. I wasn't trying to stir any fecal matter man
I think that's a good question. But it's not quite the same as asking, "Why would an atheist care about being married?"
Originally posted by Adam_PoE😆
Police on Saturday charged two West Raleigh, North Carolina men with a "crime against nature" for having sex early that morning. Each faces up to two years in prison if convicted of the Class I felony.
That's so ridiculously absurd. They won't do ANY prison time. I guarantee it. On point, they probably could win a "counter"-sue case against the municipality that charged them.
Is there anything they can do against the state for such absurd laws?
'Crimes against nature"?
😆 😆
Originally posted by Robtard
Maybe the "all men are created equal" and the "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" might have something to do with it, just saying.
ok, but gays are equally allowed to marry someone of the other sex.
Liberty and pursuit of happiness, sure, I'll conciede, although again, it is a definition of both that is far more modern than traditional.
Originally posted by Robtard
Odd that this country wa founded on the principe that people should be free to do what they like, unless of course, you're a ******.
preaching at the choir my friend. I'm really glad I'm from Canada. It was a national outrage when the conservatives up here even mentioned bringing the debate about gay marrage back up (gays are allowed to marry here)
Originally posted by Robtard
Now, if someone could prove that allowing gays to marry would indeed cause harm to other people's marriage, then I can see the grounds for denial, maybe.
ya, I'd love a country that only made illegal that which harmed others. Where might I locate this magical land?
Alan Wardle from the gay rights charity Stonewall said: "This is an interesting debate and there may well be a genetic element, but it's not conclusive."It does not really matter whether it is nature or nurture.
"The important thing is getting equality for homosexual people."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3735668.stm
That article is a good read...