Proposition 8- Allowing gay marriage in Califorina

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
I wasn't comparing it to gay marriage. I was just trying to illustrate that fairness and equality do not always go hand-in-hand, and that it can still be considered justice/justifiable.

I do believe you can be for one and not the other, and then have that relationship reciprocated. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see if McCain and Obama differed on the opinion of that college admission standard, but both do oppose gay marriage. Also there's me, who believes in one and not the other.

wicked, nothing to do with gay marriage

I'm not even for excluding them from the tax or judicial benefits. I really am just against using the word "marriage" to describe the union between a gay couple. I know that sounds rather small but there is principle.
Also the potential for new words to be added to our wonderfully comprehensive vocabulary. Yay.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
I wasn't comparing it to gay marriage. I was just trying to illustrate that fairness and equality do not always go hand-in-hand, and that it can still be considered justice/justifiable.

Yeah, that's called an injustice too and it doesn't bode well for your stance ongay-marriage as you recognise that soemting like "racial quotas" as being truly unfair. Though those quotas do have reasons behind them, mostly as a means of making up for past injustices/discrimination's, though I don't think two wrongs make a right.

On that note, why would you deny others a right you partake yourself, when you acknowledge that something like "racial quotas" are unjust and possibly have been at the shit-end of the plunger yourself?

I'd imagine that would make you sympathetic.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
I'm not even for excluding them from the tax or judicial benefits. I really am just against using the word "marriage" to describe the union between a gay couple. I know that sounds rather small but there is principle.
Also the potential for new words to be added to our wonderfully comprehensive vocabulary. Yay.

That's petty. Obviously you don't think as some others do that allowing gay-marriage will cause society to crumble, so why the fuss over the use of a word?

Though voting Yes on Prop 8 would be you denying people rights you partake in yourself, which you did, I assume?

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
I know that sounds rather small but there is principle.

what principle?

Don't you dare tell me what I acknowledge until I acknowledge it, ass. I find racial quotas to be just.

And like I said, I can understand the reasoning behind why you want to vote 'no' on prop 8. It is legitimate. I disagree.

I would deny a right to others that I enjoy myself because I think it would be fair. Have I not expressed that enough? Of course there needs to be consensus among many.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
Don't you dare tell me what I acknowledge until I acknowledge it, ass. I find racial quotas to be just.

Didn't you say:

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
I can't get into a public university because a racial quota needs to be reached. Thus, an african-american student with a lower GPA than me and fewer community service recommendations is accepted, while I am not (he takes my slot for admission). This is to ensure equality standards, but it is not truly fair.

Who's the ass, now?

Originally posted by Aequo Animo And like I said, I can understand the reasoning behind why you want to vote 'no' on prop 8. It is legitimate. I disagree.

I would deny a right to others that I enjoy myself because I think it would be fair. Have I not expressed that enough? Of course there needs to be consensus among many.

And as said over and over, you denying others in something you partake yourself for nothing more than your bias and trivialities in factually an injustice.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
I would deny a right to others that I enjoy myself because I think it would be fair.

wow

so, it would be fair if I were denied freedom of speech, even though you are not?

Originally posted by inimalist
what principle?

I'm just saying its between a man and a woman. That is the tradition you've all been running around about. I hold on to that traditional principle (or extremely long, ingrained idea) that it is a heterosexual institution.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
I'm just saying its between a man and a woman. That is the tradition you've all been running around about. I hold on to that traditional principle (or extremely long, ingrained idea) that it is a heterosexual institution.

do you think women should have a choice in who they want to marry?

Originally posted by Robtard
Didn't you say:

Who's the ass, now?

So are you back-peddling now because finding one thing that [may] affect you unjust and then turning a blind-eye to another similar injustice because of your bias is downright silly?

And as said over and over, you denying others in something you partake yourself for nothing more than your bias and trivialities in factually an injustice.

Are you trying to change his mind? If he has his convictions, that's his choice, who cares.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Are you trying to change his mind? If he has his convictions, that's his choice, who cares.

It's called debate. I think you do it in here too, unless you're just here for the pictures?

Originally posted by inimalist
wow

so, it would be fair if I were denied freedom of speech, even though you are not?

(Seriously. No sarcasm.)

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
Oh, god no. That wouldn't be fair at all.

(Seriously. No sarcasm.)

would you care to differentiate between denying someone the right to free speech and the right to marry whom one pleases?

Originally posted by Robtard
It's called debate. I think you do it in here too, unless you're just here for the pictures?

Good point.

Originally posted by inimalist
would you care to differentiate between denying someone the right to free speech and the right to marry whom one pleases?

One is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

Originally posted by Robtard
Who's the ass, now?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
One is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

indeed, though I'm not sure that the bill of rights mentions anything about marriage...

potentially that supports the idea that government should have nothing to do with marriage, which I prefer, though I concede, doesn't mean there is a specific right to marry whoever you want (though free association, c'mon😉)

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
One is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

Originally posted by inimalist
do you think women should have a choice in who they want to marry?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Good point.

One is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

Because someone had to physically recognize that not allowing it for all would be an injustice.

'Pursuit of Happiness' is an inalienable right.

Edit: You bring up one point about the Constitution, there's one group that's trying to bring the Constition into marriage and amend it so it denies marriage-rights to a group of people, you can guess who.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
There shouldn't be any doubt that it isn't quite fair to deny one person admission and then allow it for the other on the basis of race, no after the 1960's.

There shouldn't be any doubt that it isn't quite fair to deny one person marriage and then allow it for the other on the basis of sexual preference, no after the 1960's