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.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
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.)
Yes, very good. You extrapolated a decisive conclusion from a single strand of a much larger view. You could write fantastic smear ads. Too bad the election is over.
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.
The election never ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Last edited by Symmetric Chaos on Nov 5th, 2008 at 05:04 AM
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.
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
I never lie.
Tell me you're just being facetious.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
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?
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.
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.
No. Again, you are lying. Mine is certainly not based on intolerance and bigotry, and I call for equal rights.
So this is a truth?:
No, this is a lie.
I want to allow them equal rights but not with this particular proposition as it includes the use of the term "marriage" to describe their union.
Also, I am not denying them equal rights for the reason of their sexual orientation; I am not condemning them.
Last edited by Aequo Animo on Nov 5th, 2008 at 07:17 AM
But as of right now, the votes are saying that Prop 8 is going to pass and gay marriage will be denied until the next time it comes to vote, unless the Supreme Court overrules it or something extreme happens.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 5th, 2008 04:44 AM
