Stop being a retard, seriously. Deciding to use either the word "gay" or "homosexual" isn't a discrimination in the same sense as denying equal rights based on sexual orientation; not even remotely similar.
Listen, you're bigoted against homosexuals, because of their sexual orientation. Just own up to it an accept you're a bigot.
I'm not denying that they deserve equal rights. Again, read my posts.
(Hypothetical:
"Then let them call it 'marriage'."
"No."
"Then you're denying them equal rights, Aequo."
No, the use of the word "marriage" itself is not necessarily a right as you all have been illustrating these rights to be.)
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Of course not. You're just saying they shouldn't have them. Just like murderers don't kill people they just decide that person shouldn't be alive anymore.
Originally posted by Aequo Animo
Yes, very good. You extrapolated a decisive conclusion from a single strand of a much larger view. You could write fantastic smear ads.
Actually I used a example to prove the manner in which your position is wholly illogical, a method developed by Aristotle. I simply used a divisive one because you're an asshat. I'll give you another if you like.
I don't sandblast graffiti off walls I just use blasts of sand to get rid of graffiti.
or
It's not that you can't go in there, it's that you're physically being prevented from entering.
Originally posted by Aequo Animo
Too bad the election is over.
The election never ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends.
Aequo Animo,
Damn, you are as dense as they come. You're against a gay married couples using the word "marriage", because of their sexual orientation, because you think that's a right only hetero couples should have, that is in itself NOT EQUAL. Understand?
Answer me this, if American's of Mexican hertiage weren't allowed to call themselves "citizens", because someone decided that was reserved for any American of non-Mexican heritage, but they still had the same rights, ie could vote etc. Would they be equal to all others?
You almost wear your bigotry on your sleeve, so it isn't hard, anyone can see it.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actually I used a example to prove the manner in which your position is wholly illogical, a method developed by Aristotle. I simply used a divisive one because you're an asshat. I'll give you another if you like.I don't sandblast graffiti off walls I just use blasts of sand to get rid of graffiti.
or
It's not that you can't go in there, it's that you're physically being prevented from entering.
Originally posted by Robtard
Aequo Animo,Damn, you are as dense as they come. You're against a gay married couples using the word "marriage", because of their sexual orientation, because you think that's a right only hetero couples should have, that is in itself NOT EQUAL. Understand?
[b]Answer me this
, if American's of Mexican hertiage weren't allowed to call themselves "citizens", because someone decided that was reserved for any American of non-Mexican heritage, but they still had the same rights, ie could vote etc. Would they be equal to all others?You almost wear your bigotry on your sleeve, so it isn't hard, anyone can see it. [/B]
As for the question: what are the differences between the citizen and non-citizen?
Originally posted by Aequo Animo
But I've only said that they should have the rights...
So you think they should have equal rights but not equal wording? I think that just makes you an ******* or a bigot or a moron. Something in that range at the very least srug
Originally posted by Aequo Animo
I mean, what you said was a lie.
I never lie.
Originally posted by Aequo Animo
As for the question: what are the differences between the citizen and non-citizen?
Tell me you're just being facetious.
Originally posted by Aequo Animo
I believe it's a term reserved for the heterosexual couples.As for the question: what are the differences between the citizen and non-citizen?
And that's an inequality based on sexual orientation, aka bigotry.
Several, that is irrelevant to the question though. So, are you going to answer or keep dancing?
[Repeat]Answer me this, if American's of Mexican hertiage weren't allowed to call themselves "citizens", because someone decided that was reserved for any American of non-Mexican heritage, but they still had the same rights, ie could vote etc. Would they be equal to all others?
Originally posted by Robtard
And that's an inequality based on sexual orientation, aka bigotry.
Originally posted by Robtard
Several, that is irrelevant to the question though. So, are you going to answer or keep dancing?
The word "citizen" has a particular meaning in a multi-national state such as the U.S. I believe that word can accommodate for every race, and it does. Some people need to meet qualifications to gain citizenship: if you want to be a citizen of the U.S., you have to denounce your allegiance to any other state or nation, no matter how much you love it. A similar principle stands for marriage.
Originally posted by Aequo Animo
Hah, then so is calling them gay or straight!Several! Jeeze. I only say that the term be different, but you, you say there are several differences? So then are you impinging on rights as well? Well then that is not OK. That's bigotry on your part.
But then, I suppose, if you're not labelled a citizen and you don't have the same rights as them...then...we're living your question right now. So in that case there are certain factors that need to be met in order to ensure a green card and citizenship.
Now, if you did mean just the term "citizen" is what makes it different, well you need to provide an appropriate word (not derogatory, mister) to categorize the American-Mexican group. I would also find it appropriate that there would also need to be a much larger word to engulf the two, just as there is "union" for both "marriage" and "[partnership]". And so, since they are afforded the same rights without restrictions, I don't see a problem.The word "citizen" has a particular meaning in a multi-national state such as the U.S. I believe that word can accommodate for every race, and it does. Some people need to meet qualifications to gain citizenship: if you want to be a citizen of the U.S., you have to denounce your allegiance to any other state or nation, no matter how much you love it. A similar principle stands for marriage.
You're being incredibly stupid. Not calling a homosexual man "straight"(heterosexual) is on the simple grounds that they're not heterosexual. Same thing as not calling a woman a "man", because she simply isn't. Now a married couple, homo or hetero, is still a marriage.
Alright, you're either factually unintelligent, or you're dancing around the point in an attempt to draw attention that your refusal to allow gays the use of the term marriage is no different than the scenario I presented, ie they're both bigoted. You're a bigot and you try to uneffectively hide it under the use of a word.
BTW. A citizen of the US has certain rights that a non-citizen has (eg right to vote, can't be deported). That isn't based on bigotry though, as a non-citizen, regardless of sexual orientation, heritage, religion etc can apply to become a citizen. While your stance on marriage is based on bigotry in regards to sexual orientation. Yeah, you're dense, besides being a bigot.
And so you're still differentiating based on sexual orientation. Great, so am I.
I'm not being incredibly stupid, nor dense, but firm in my belief of what the definition of marriage is. Your view that "marriage" is for homosexuals, as well as heterosexuals, is also subjective.
Originally posted by Aequo Animo
And so, since they are afforded the same rights without restrictions, I don't see a problem.The word "citizen" has a particular meaning in a multi-national state such as the U.S. I believe that word can accommodate for every race, and it does. Some people need to meet qualifications to gain citizenship: if you want to be a citizen of the U.S., you have to denounce your allegiance to any other state or nation, no matter how much you love it. A similar principle stands for marriage.
That means "Yes." Read. Or clarify. I assumed that your hypothetical reflected my ideas. What else would the point of it be?
Also, my question on what other differences there are is completely relevant, since you attack me on that front constantly, stating that I don't want them to have equal rights - you are a liar. You call me a bigot - you are still lying. You think that I am out to hurt homosexuals - but I don't provide any proof of this whatsoever, so you are lying even more.
Originally posted by Aequo Animo
And so you're still differentiating based on sexual orientation. Great, so am I.I'm not being incredibly stupid, nor dense, but firm in my belief of what the definition of marriage is. Your view that "marriage" is for homosexuals, as well as heterosexuals, is also subjective.
That means "Yes." Read. Or clarify. I assumed that your hypothetical reflected my ideas. What else would the point of it be?
Also, my question on what other differences there are is completely relevant, since you attack me on that front constantly, stating that I don't want them to have equal rights - you are a liar. You call me a bigot - you are still lying. You think that I am out to hurt homosexuals - but I don't provide any proof of this whatsoever, so you are lying even more.
FFS, not calling a homosexual man "heterosexual" is simply common sense, just as not calling a woman a "man" is. Your comparision in regards to the use of the word "marriage" is nothing but an attempt to hide bigotry.
Yes, you in fact are. It may be subjective, but it isn't based on intolerance, bigotry and inequality; yours certainly is.
While you may not openly hate on gays (insults, attack then etc.), you certainly don't have a problem denying them something you'd freely take yourself; that's bigotry. I haven't lied in here, as I have nothing to be false about. This "you're a liar nonsense an attempt to distract from your bigoted views, as I see you tried using in on Symetrical Chaos.
Like I said early on and Bardock later advised you on, if you have a problem with homosexual married couples being labeled under the term "marriage", then don't call it that yourself, call it anything you like; don't discriminate people based on their sexual orientation.
I tell you what, I'll give them marriage if you refer to all people of all sexual orientations as straight.
Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, you in fact are. It may be subjective, but it isn't based on intolerance, bigotry and inequality; yours certainly is.
Originally posted by Robtard
I haven't lied in here, as I have nothing to be false about. This "you're a liar nonsense an attempt to distract from your bigoted views, as I see you tried using in on Symetrical Chaos.
So this is a truth?:
Originally posted by Robtard
BINGO, you're discriminating and not allowing equal rights on a certain group because of "sexual orientation"; that is illegal and it is an injustice.