McClain:
Quote:
|
But then you turn around and say that no rights are being denied to homosexuals?
|
A homosexual man has the same right to marry any woman who agrees or whatever, and a homosexual woman has the same right to marry any man she wants. It might not be WHO or WHAT she wants, but lots of people are denied who or what they want.
There has to be a reason for it besides THEY DONT GET WHAT THEY WANT.
Quote:
|
This isn't about whether or not the average citizen agrees with their lifestyle. It's about humans being denied their civil rights and being human enough to recognize the issue.
|
Well, right. That's not what I'm saying at all. But you're kind of begging the question by saying they are being denied their basic civil rights, and that its wrong, without ever supplying actual reasons. How are they being denied their basic civil rights?
Quote:
|
Please don't lump in this issue with other issues like humans being able to marry goats or have multiple spouses. Those are completely seperate issues and making one akin to the other is an act of rationalization and desperation in lieu of a coherent argument.
|
Actually, it's perfectly coherent. If people should be able to marry in whatever consenting fashion they want, then why not be able to have 50 wives? That's why I'm asking you for your reasons: one reason you've stated is for a basic human and civil right. What about being married to 2 women if all of them consent and agree to it is wrong? Why isn't it as much their civil right as it is homosexuals?
Why wouldn't we let three people marry each other? What's the difference between us limiting marriage between people of the same sex and limiting people from marrying more than one person?
The problem with making any coherent argument is that you have to give a reason which doesn't allow negative things in. If an anti-samesex person said homosexuals can't get married because they can't procreate, then post-menopausal women and sterile men shouldn't be allowed to get married either. It's a natural, logical and even typical extension.
Quote:
|
No. Seperate issue. Sure there will always be people advocating the tolerance or acceptance of gays, but this is a different issue.
|
ok... so... I guess I misunderstood you. i thought you meant their personal convictions as in their ability to marry. But now you are saying they are just trying to spread their what untolerance and unacceptance of gays?
ok.
I don't know usually personally i avoid saying things like that because it's kind of ad hominy and irrelevant.
Quote:
|
I don't give a shit about anyones reasons. This isn't about personal conviction or any of that other shit. It's about our government making rules and allowing the church to maintain exceptions.
|
Ok, you don't care about reasons. You just think laws and institutions should just be started for no reason or on the whims of select persons in society.
not only that but we should just be able to make unsupported statements expressing only an opinion or conclusion.
I get what you're saying about prop 8 itself, though. It seems the people on the no side had no motivation and support; whereas the other side was clearly well motivated. There were also a lot of other important events going on at the time. Not only that, but there is probably a large demographic which really has little interest in marriage but isn't necessarily against samesexmarriage which didn't vote because they had little motivation or time.
But it doesn't really matter. My guess is that it will soon be over-turned in another election, just like prop 8 was designed to over-turn something else. The no side will have more voter turn-out and prop 8 will be just like all those other antisamesex things in california.
also is the church maintaining exceptions or is it a democratic voting process? Anyway, I don't really have anything to say about that stuff. No offense but it reeks of fallacy.
Quote:
|
A union by any other name is a union. As long as it's recognized by the state who fucking cares what it's called? Gays don't give a shit if you call it a Marriage or a Civil Union or MoMatrimony. They want their rights.
|
They don't? Rights and getting married are different. Many gays can obtain their rights through alternate paths easily, but they still call for actual marriage. Which rights are being denied to them, besides not being able to get married?
Its called separate but equal. You know like when black people had to have different schools and stuff -- different instutitions?
look at this article, for example:
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=4866721&page=1
Quote:
Though only a handful of legal rights and obligations differ from those of a same-sex domestic partnership or heterosexual marriage, the court's decision acknowledged that domestic partnership did not carry the same weight as marriage, said Suzanne Goldberg, a Columbia Law School professor and director of the sexuality and gender law clinic.
"Before, California had a separate but equal relationship recognition rule, where straight couples could marry and gay people had domestic partnerships," Goldberg said. "That separate but equal rule is now gone, and equality has taken its place."
|
Not only that but if you're only concerned with them having unions/rights then what's the big deal? I can't remember but does prop 8 say that they can't have civil unions or a separate but equal instutition and/or any of the similar rights obtainable through other means like advanced directives?
i dont know ill just stop here...
Hybrid Mode
