Started By
Message
re: .
Posted on 4/25/13 at 12:06 pm to Roger Klarvin
Posted on 4/25/13 at 12:06 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Gay marriage isnt about EQUAL rights, its about NEW rights. A gay man has the exact same marriage rights as a straight man and a straight man has no more right to marry another man than a gay man does. All people have the same ability to marry. This isnt like the civil rights movement where one group was not afforded some of the rights that others were. This is about changing a definitionmand developing new rights, not leveling the playing field.
This.
And people who say gay rights is the same as civil rights are ignorant.
2
Posted on 4/25/13 at 12:06 pm to Randy1375
quote:
A transexual male marries a man? Do you support that?
The question one should always ask themselves is this: How does this affect me?
A tranny marrying a man has absolutely 0 effect on my every day life, so I don't care if they can stay with each other when one is on his death bed.
I prefer to phrase it as, "I don't oppose it." When I think of support, I think of putting forth the effort to help it, which I wouldn't do because I don't care. If others want to do that then go for it because, again, I couldn't care less.
This post was edited on 4/25/13 at 12:07 pm
Posted on 4/25/13 at 12:11 pm to InVolNerable
quote:
I prefer to phrase it as, "I don't oppose it." When I think of support, I think of putting forth the effort to help it, which I wouldn't do because I don't care. If others want to do that then go for it because, again, I couldn't care less.
Same for me, except the other side of the issue. I don't support it, but I'm also not going to go out of my way to stop it cuz I don't really give a shite. I'll answer questions/debate about the issue,but that's as far as it goes irl for me
Posted on 4/25/13 at 12:13 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
Same for me, except the other side of the issue. I don't support it, but I'm also not going to go out of my way to stop it cuz I don't really give a shite. I'll answer questions/debate about the issue,but that's as far as it goes irl for me
Works for me.
Posted on 4/25/13 at 12:14 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
And people who say gay rights is the same as civil rights are ignorant.
I assume you think this because you believe homosexuality is a choice. Well it's not.
To make this concept easier to digest, when did you decide to be straight? This should be an easy question, because it will be the day when you consciously decided to choose vagina over penis.
See how ridiculous that sounds? Guess what, that's how you sound when you claim that civil rights are somehow different than gay rights.
Posted on 4/25/13 at 12:18 pm to TbirdSpur2010
I'll add in my 2 cents.
Gay marriage shouldnt be decided by the federal government because marriage licenses are done by state so the states should be the ones to decide on that. What would be a problem is whether marriage licenses should specify if the marriage is gay or straight and the reciprocality between states and if one state not recognizing one states gay marriage licenses and accept straight ones is discrimination.
Gay marriage shouldnt be decided by the federal government because marriage licenses are done by state so the states should be the ones to decide on that. What would be a problem is whether marriage licenses should specify if the marriage is gay or straight and the reciprocality between states and if one state not recognizing one states gay marriage licenses and accept straight ones is discrimination.
Posted on 4/25/13 at 12:21 pm to Randy1375
NO!!!!!!
Posted on 4/25/13 at 12:27 pm to mwlewis
Well the only federal thing the supreme court is ruling on will be the Defense of Marriage Act. That act prohibits the federal government from providing federal benefits to gay couples in states where gay marriage is legal. It also allows states to not recognize gay marriage licenses issued in states where it is legal.
Edit: Basically if the supreme court rules that DOMA violates the full faith and credit clause, then all states will have to recognize all legal gay marriage licenses.
Edit: Basically if the supreme court rules that DOMA violates the full faith and credit clause, then all states will have to recognize all legal gay marriage licenses.
This post was edited on 4/25/13 at 12:33 pm
Posted on 4/25/13 at 12:28 pm to mwlewis
quote:
Gay marriage shouldnt be decided by the federal government because marriage licenses are done by state so the states should be the ones to decide on that. What would be a problem is whether marriage licenses should specify if the marriage is gay or straight and the reciprocality between states and if one state not recognizing one states gay marriage licenses and accept straight ones is discrimination.
/thread
Posted on 4/25/13 at 12:34 pm to mwlewis
How bout we just make 1 state where all the gheys go? Maybe let em have Alaska. They can get married, do all their ghey shite and leave everyone else the hell alone. That would be the most dysfunctional state in the US but by God it would be the best dressed.
To answer the OP's question: No.
To answer the question about if it were my child: No I would not support my child if we were talking about them. I would love her just the same but I would not support her in attempting to marry another woman.
To answer the OP's question: No.
To answer the question about if it were my child: No I would not support my child if we were talking about them. I would love her just the same but I would not support her in attempting to marry another woman.
This post was edited on 4/25/13 at 12:36 pm
Posted on 4/25/13 at 12:46 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Heres something people need to understand: Gay marriage isnt about EQUAL rights, its about NEW rights. A gay man has the exact same marriage rights as a straight man and a straight man has no more right to marry another man than a gay man does. All people have the same ability to marry.
This isnt like the civil rights movement where one group was not afforded some of the rights that others were. This is about changing a definitionmand developing new rights, not leveling the playing field.
I mean. I guess that is fair, unless you frame it as the person you love. I mean, again, it is a tax bracket issue to me. When we get all about soul mates and God and shite, I don't think government law can be based upon the Bible. I like the Bible and shite, but it isn't a reference point for law. And if we used it as a guidance for law, Leviticus would be a SHITTY place to start.
I think the real issue is... Can one man be in love with a man just like I get all stir crazy in my pans over a beautiful woman for and want to implant her with my seed and make babies with? Well the gays say they love each other that much, so I guess I have to take them at their word. If you love that person, and want to be in their lives, and receive benefits from the government for assuming the responsibility of starting a family? I guess so. I had a lesbian I worked with one summer tell me her girlfriend of four years, couldn't be involved with her medical decisions, and she had a fricked up heart and shite, took all kinds of crazy medications and had surgeries and shite. Well that chick couldn't make any medical decisions for my coworker, and couldn't be in the room as she was passing away, if it ever came to that... and then her entire estate would go to her parents that disowned her for being a lesbian. That was the moment my stance on gay marriage changed. Yeah, I liked having a mom and dad and such, but at the end of the day, the government's stance on only supporting gay marriage is an incredible burden on some people trying to take care of the people they love. And I don't like that.
Posted on 4/25/13 at 12:54 pm to Randy1375
Yes.
As long as the government is going to recognize marriage, it should recognize marriage between gay couples. Knowing the divorce rate and the lack of respect for the institution of marriage by a lot of straight couples, I don't see how we (heterosexuals) can determine what is fit to be a marriage or not. It's like talking out of both sides of our mouths.
If it was up to me the government wouldn't be involved in marriage at all and that would strictly be up to whomever wishes to marry that couple (gay or straight). But that'll probably not happen in my lifetime.
And Tel, I had some family that faced a similar situation when one of my cousins passed away. By law because Kentucky no longer recognizes civil unions or gay marriage, my cousin's boyfriend of 25 years had no rights to be with my cousin at the hospital when he was brought it after a violent attack. Luckily, my Aunt was always very open with my cousin being gay and immediately asked that he be included in any decisions made and etc. Had she not he would've lost the right to be there with him when he died and likely the house he lived in, the car he drove, and many the belongings he shared with him over those 25 years. Whether I agree with what they did in the bedroom or not, it's not my place or the government's to deny that IMO if that is what my cousin wanted.
As long as the government is going to recognize marriage, it should recognize marriage between gay couples. Knowing the divorce rate and the lack of respect for the institution of marriage by a lot of straight couples, I don't see how we (heterosexuals) can determine what is fit to be a marriage or not. It's like talking out of both sides of our mouths.
If it was up to me the government wouldn't be involved in marriage at all and that would strictly be up to whomever wishes to marry that couple (gay or straight). But that'll probably not happen in my lifetime.
And Tel, I had some family that faced a similar situation when one of my cousins passed away. By law because Kentucky no longer recognizes civil unions or gay marriage, my cousin's boyfriend of 25 years had no rights to be with my cousin at the hospital when he was brought it after a violent attack. Luckily, my Aunt was always very open with my cousin being gay and immediately asked that he be included in any decisions made and etc. Had she not he would've lost the right to be there with him when he died and likely the house he lived in, the car he drove, and many the belongings he shared with him over those 25 years. Whether I agree with what they did in the bedroom or not, it's not my place or the government's to deny that IMO if that is what my cousin wanted.
This post was edited on 4/25/13 at 12:55 pm
Posted on 4/25/13 at 12:59 pm to Stonehog
quote:
I assume you think this because you believe homosexuality is a choice. Well it's not.
Your assumption is incorrect.
Posted on 4/25/13 at 1:06 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
Your assumption is incorrect.
So you think we should discriminate against people just because they were born differently than the majority?
Real nice.
Posted on 4/25/13 at 1:09 pm to Stonehog
quote:
I assume you think this because you believe homosexuality is a choice. Well it's not.
The civil rights movement was carried out by a minority group denied the same rights as others with the majority to the nation against them. The gay marriage movement is a quest for new rights being carried out by a minority group with the media and the majority of citizens supporting them.
They are not equivalent. Calling them such is an insult to the black civil rights activists. Gay people dont know anything of oppression by comparison.
This post was edited on 4/25/13 at 1:13 pm
Posted on 4/25/13 at 1:13 pm to Stonehog
quote:
Stonehog
You need to slow your roll. Putting words in my mouth because you disagree with my position. Chill, brah.
Being gay is different from being a minority because you have an option of masking it or not. Whether a gay person takes advantage of that or not is beside the point, and that's the fundamental difference between gay rights and civil rights.
Posted on 4/25/13 at 1:14 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The civil rights movement was carried out by a minority group denied the same rights as others with the majority to the nation amgainst them. The gay marriage movement is a quest for new rights being carried out by aminority group with the media and the majority of citizens supporting them.
You're just getting caught up in semantics now. Your delineation of "same" and "new" isn't valid. The rights being sought by black people during the Civil Rights movement were new to them.
Posted on 4/25/13 at 1:16 pm to Stonehog
quote:
Stonehog
One question. Answer me yes or no.
Are you white?
Posted on 4/25/13 at 1:16 pm to Roger Klarvin
What's the legal verbiage of marriage partners? On all forms isn't the term "spouse" used? Which can refer to a man's wife or a woman's husband. However, technically spouse can also refer to a man's husband or a woman's wife. Spouse simply means "a partner in marriage."
There aren't any new rights being granted. You just hate gay people and interpret things to accommodate your bigotry. It's ok to admit that.
There aren't any new rights being granted. You just hate gay people and interpret things to accommodate your bigotry. It's ok to admit that.
Posted on 4/25/13 at 1:16 pm to Stonehog
Gay people have marriage rights, they are not denied them. They have the same rights as everyone else.
Black people had fewer rights than others. This is the biggest difference. That, and the degree of support.
Black people had fewer rights than others. This is the biggest difference. That, and the degree of support.
Page 7 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News