Nitrox, that is a very short-sighted argument. Undefining marriage opens the door for all the other things. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Plain and simple. Very finite. What happens when you get fuzzy laws? You end up with shit like these crazy rape and sexual harassment laws.
And you act like discrimination is some evil thing. You know, it might help is people did a little more discrimination.
Gays are a pseudo group. There is no proof whether you’re gay or not, and people change their minds. So you can’t prove marriage fraud, either.
Please tell me why such a pseudo group should get special rights, seeing as they have the same rights as I do.
I wasn’t comparing the plights of the black people to the plights of the homosexual people. I was just saying that the US has a record for allowing people to do what they want as long as no one is getting hurt.
And my scientific info I posted was for people who take that sort of thing seriously. If you can’t see that lableing homosexuality as a mental illness is biased, then debating with you will be pointless.
None of us will be able to change the mind of someone who belives that homosexuals should have less rights than others.
My opinion on this changes daily, I beleive homosexuality is wrong, and yet, who cares as long as I am not affected by the actions of others. But then again, if I am in (Soddam and Gommorah) when it is destroyed, even though I am not one of the wrongdoers, I am affected by it with extreme prejudice. I don’t no!
And my scientific info I posted was for people who take that sort of thing seriously. If you can’t see that lableing homosexuality as a mental illness is biased, then debating with you will be pointless.
Why do you refuse to believe that it could be a mental illness? Do you think that bestiality is a mental illness?
None of us will be able to change the mind of someone who belives that homosexuals should have less rights than others.
I never said that and you know it. You don’t have to resort to lying.
Gays have the same rights that I do and that is how it should stay.
I do think that undefining marriage can result in issues with what was mentioned down the road. HOWEVER…
Let’s just assume for sake of argument that it wouldn’t ever happen. What about the other issues?
Gays have no less rights than I do as a heterosexual.
“Gays” are a psuedo group, who aren’t finite, and a person can change from gay to straight or vice versa at will, and there is NO proof that one is gay, and they are asking for special rights and laws to be changed for them.
Proving marriage fraud is impossible since there is no proof of being gay, and since one can change their orientation at will.
What happens in divorce? What if one decides they’re not gay anymore? What happens?
Homosexuality is still possibly a mental illness resulting from developmental problems, nutritional defficiencies, psychological factors, or a combination of these factors.
I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why this law should be changed and this “group” should get special rights.
Do you know these people personally? If not, how do you know? Are you able to predict the future?
Ever hear of NAMBLA?
Am I able to predict the future? No, but I can come up with possible problems that can result from this. That is not “predicting.” No one has shown that these problems would not occur if ‘gay marriage’ were allowed.
Regardless, so what if some people did want to legalize pedophilia or bestiality? A decision on a gender issue would do absolutely nothing for their argument.
The whole thing about two people that love each other doesn’t have any effect on the argument for those other things? A woman and a dog could love each other, and both could consent to sex. Can you tell me why this is wrong and why it shouldn’t be legalized?
If gays have the same rights you do and that’s the way it should stay
Then you’re saying that Gay marriage is OK, since [1] you’re overtly Het and thus have the ‘right’ to get married and thus [2] by extension, if you can marry - and - gays have the same rights you do then …
Then you’re saying that Gay marriage is OK, since [1] you’re overtly Het and thus have the ‘right’ to get married and thus [2] by extension, if you can marry - and - gays have the same rights you do then …
Nice way of manipulating semantics.
I can marry a woman.
A gay man can marry a woman.
I cannot marry a man.
A gay man cannot marry a man.
Plain and simple. Equal rights. Gays CAN marry…just people of the opposite sex like everyone else.
“Gays” are a psuedo group, who aren’t finite, and a person can change from gay to straight or vice versa at will, and there is NO proof that one is gay, and they are asking for special rights and laws to be changed for them.<<<<
You’re confused. Whether gays are a group or a “pseudo-group” is not an issue here because the law wouldn’t mention “gays” at all. The law would indicate that a “man can marry a man” and a “woman can marry a woman.” It’s not a question of special rights for a particular group.
As for the financial benefits of marriage, they aren’t that significant. Not many rich socialities and investment bankers are marrying to amass their personal fortunes. However, “marriage fraud” is a crime, very commonly investigated by the INS.
Brian Smith said it best when he logically refuted your flawed argument, which you ignored:
Musclerob- “Not allowing gay marriage does not give gay people any less rights than straight people. There is absolutely no argument that they have any less rights than normal people do. A gay guy can marry a woman just like I can, and I can’t marry a guy just like a gay man cannot. There simply is no argument here.”
Brian Smith- “This is a specious argument distorting what is meant by “right.” If I don’t have the “right” to use a bathroom for “colored people” and they similarly don’t have the right to use one for whites, then we must have equal rights?”
The bottom line of this whole debate is that Musclerob would not tolerate a homosexual person having the same rights as he does. He needs some kind of a distinction written into law so he can justify his prejudice towards this group of people.
If: The differentiation between marriage and civil union is religion
Who said that? It’s not.
Anyway: If the separation of church and state is guaranteed…
What? No it isn’t. There is no such thing. There is no mention of “separation of church and state” in the consitution. It is made up to get God out of things like the Pledge of Allegience. Communist cultural deconstruction, that’s what it is.
Your argument doesn’t make sense since marriage isn’t only a religious thing. I
But perhaps now there would be a precident of changing the definition. So what’s next? Three people? Why not? The definition was changed once. Then what after that? Pretty soon it becomes meaningless.
Ok, good point. But again, there is a precident of a change in definition. So what’s to stop it from being changed again to allow more than two people, etc, etc.?
Also, I still see marriage fraud as a big problem since you can’t really prove gayness. Two college guys could marry each other just to get some benefits, but it couldn’t be proven that they’re not gay.
YES, they do. What right do they not have that I do?
Brian Smith said it best when he logically refuted your flawed argument, which you ignored:
Logically? Comparing segregated bathrooms to marriage? C’mon! I see his point, but they’re not the same.
The bottom line of this whole debate is that Musclerob would not tolerate a homosexual person having the same rights as he does. He needs some kind of a distinction written into law so he can justify his prejudice towards this group of people.
I see you have to make up information to suit your beliefs. Very mature. Do you make a habit out of doing this?
Homosexuals do not have the right to marry the person they love.
Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they love.
I know that you are going to be like, “well what if I loved a donkey? I should be able to marry a donkey if I love it.”
Those are not the same things. We are talking about:
HUMANS (there goes the donkey)
Whom are over the age of 18 (there go the five-year-olds)
Whom consent (there goes the donkey, the five-year-olds, and all of the inanimate objects your mind can thinkk of)
Whom are not related (there goes brother-brother, mom-son etc…)
Whom love each other (there goes the couple of college dudes trying to save some money)
I belive that marriage should be limited to the above criteria. Doesn’t sound too “fuzzy”, does it?
You know that the same arguments you (Musclerob and others) make against homosexual marriage are the same arguments people made when interracial marriage was an issue.
