Gay marriage - why?

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by BluKitty
Ya because others are sooooooo 'respectful' ... see above ----^


How else do you propose I educate ignorance?  Am I not allowed to call someone ignorant or do you have another word you would prefer I use?

We've had this conversation before, sexes are completly identifiable by biology.

[BluKitty]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
We've had this conversation before, sexes are completly identifiable by bioligy.

Yet agin you show your ignorance.  

http://www.medhelp.org/www/ais/  

Here's an easy to find example of where your 'bioligy' definition fails.

[lukster]

Originally posted by storch
even if it accepts your offer, that may prove somewhat more difficult than you may imagine.

Hmmm. Well here's how I see it:

noodle=male
vagina=female
both=whole lotta fun

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by BluKitty
Yet agin you show your ignorance.  

http://www.medhelp.org/www/ais/  

Here's an easy to find example of where your 'bioligy' definition fails.

Syndrome:  A group of symptoms that collectively indicate or characterize a disease, psychological disorder, or other abnormal condition.


Abnormal:  Not typical, usual, or regular; not normal; deviant

Again Biology clearly defines male and female.  What you posted is an anomaly (a deviation/departure from the norm)

Of course people would seek to redefine everything I posted to suit their agenda but if that's the case lets just throw websters and language as a whole out the window.

[BluKitty]

Isn't your whole problem with gay people that they are 'abnormal'?

So what is abnormal besides a Z score?

It's nice to see how you readily dismiss minorities.  How convienant that when your genrelizations knowen as words fail you, that you call it abnormal or an anomaly.  

Luckily for humans scientific thought came along and broke us away from generalized defenitions.  Scientists use things like statistics to define, not websters.

[GtoRA2]

Gay Marriage -why?



So Nash can can get hitched to an American and then he can vote!

[lazs2]

whoa there eagl....  you are coming at this as if it were a racial thing or as if there were discrimination...  there is none.

everyone has the same right...  they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.   I do...you do... everyone does.   I can marry a woman but not a man...And... what are those rights?

Well... they are finacial and status rights that people fought for.  These were rights fought for and won on the premise that marriage consisted of a union between a man and a woman.   they were voted on as such.   I would venture to say that if people had known that gays were capable of marriage that they would have been a lot less generous with deductions and such.

Now you want to extend the rights to any sexual preference.  you want to just grandfather them in and co opt the institution of marriage...  

What is wrong with gays having a contract and then fighting for the status and rights as they come up?   Why do they have to horn in?

and... constitutional?  the constitution says nothing about children either... do you wish to extend the rights to child molesters?

And... if you are just talking about "fair"  how is it "fair" that a couple get's a 500k capital gains deduction while I only get 350k even tho... I have a houshold with a daughter and grand daughter?   Do I need less of a deduction?  Is is "fair"?

The vast majority of people believe that their is a difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual union... they formed the institution of marriage based on a union between a man and a woman.  

If homosexuals want to have their own type of union I have no problem with that.   they are welcome to introduce legestlation that gives such a union benifiets.   They are not welcome to horn in on an institution that is allready done all the groundwork...

those who believe that the instituion of marriage should be hetero and be given extra rights over, not only homos, but every other kind of relationship (including single parent) those people, we have the right to fight any marginalizeing of marriage by this or that group who want to horn in.

Gays have no right to change the defenition of marriage... they have every right... the same as anyone... to live within it by it's rules and they have every right to contract or invent an institution that sanctifies and gives privilges to their type of relationship.

I wish them luck but would fight their intrussion into an allready established institution....  

Not being able to use the womens bathroom if you are a man is more discriminatory than not being able to marry the same sex.   Some things simply have rules and restrictions and not everyone can allways play.

lazs

[storch]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
Gay Marriage -why?



So Nash can can get hitched to an American and then he can vote!

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by BluKitty
Isn't your whole problem with gay people that they are 'abnormal'?

So what is abnormal besides a Z score?

It's nice to see how you readily dismiss minorities.  How convienant that when your genrelizations knowen as words fail you, that you call it abnormal or an anomaly.  

Luckily for humans scientific thought came along and broke us away from generalized defenitions.  Scientists use things like statistics to define, not websters.

I don't consider gays or consider gender confused people a minority in needing of "special rights" because that is what this is all about.  We are born the way we are born, and in 99% of all cases it is either a male or a female.  These genders have been layed through out most of the animal kingdome since the begining of time.  I don't feel the need to pander to somone because they don't identify with society norms or gender identity.  No one panders to me when I feel something isn't right so what makes them so special?  It seems more and more that these "special groups" are no more than the fun police.  They are unhappy that their life sucks so bad so they want to ruin it for everyone else.

Scientists use websters just as much as stats.  The stats don't show a need to change gender norms that have been around for centuries.

[Chairboy]

Lazs, back in the 50s, you could make the argument that "The blacks have the same rights as anyone else.  They have the right to use their bathrooms, and we have the right to use our bathrooms.  They have the right to sit in their bus seats, just like _we_ have the rights to sit in _our_ bus seats.  Why do the blacks suddenly want special treatment?  Our country was built on the foundation that everyone has a place, heck, look at the civil war, hundreds of thousands died to establish the rights that the blacks have today.  If people thought they needed to have all these special rights, then they would have said so at the end of the civil war."

I'll tell you something, I don't get it when people talk about the institution of marriage being under assault.  I can't think of anything that gays being married could possibly do to hurt my marriage to my wife.  We've talked about this, and maybe we're lucky, but as far as we know, our marriage isn't a house of cards that'll crumble the moment Joe and Ted or whatever get married.

Perhaps the folks pushing this amendment should spend more time on their OWN houses than trying to tell other people how to manage theirs.

[Gh0stFT]

Originally posted by Nash
Gay marriage - why?

its against nature, unfortunately only a decadent Society
would allow this. Dont trust me? study the past to see
what happened allready.
You are gay? its ok for me, but you dont have the right to
adopt a foreigner child to mimic a normal famaly, at least as
long i live.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Lazs, back in the 50s, you could make the argument that "The blacks have the same rights as anyone else.  They have the right to use their bathrooms, and we have the right to use our bathrooms.  They have the right to sit in their bus seats, just like _we_ have the rights to sit in _our_ bus seats.  Why do the blacks suddenly want special treatment?  Our country was built on the foundation that everyone has a place, heck, look at the civil war, hundreds of thousands died to establish the rights that the blacks have today.  If people thought they needed to have all these special rights, then they would have said so at the end of the civil war."

I'll tell you something, I don't get it when people talk about the institution of marriage being under assault.  I can't think of anything that gays being married could possibly do to hurt my marriage to my wife.  We've talked about this, and maybe we're lucky, but as far as we know, our marriage isn't a house of cards that'll crumble the moment Joe and Ted or whatever get married.

Perhaps the folks pushing this amendment should spend more time on their OWN houses than trying to tell other people how to manage theirs.

The whole white only argument doesn't work here chair and let me tell you why.  Gays have the same EXACT rights as straits.  THey have the right to marry somone of the opposite gender.

The problem is they don't WANT that they WANT same gender marriage.  So we as a society just have to cave in to their every desires?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Gh0stFT
its against nature, unfortunately only a decadent Society
would allow this. Dont trust me? study the past to see
what happened allready.
You are gay? its ok for me, but you dont have the right to
adopt a foreigner child to mimic a normal famaly, at least as
long i live.

If nature is the driver, polygamy would be legal.

[Mr Big]

Nash,

d.)

It's a dog and pony show and is only being done so these jack-holes can go to their constituants and say "hey, look how I argued and voted on this crazy, barbaric threat against gays.

These tools on both sides already know what the vote will be, they just want to spend a good amount of time in the limelight so they can look like heros. It's just showtime, that's all.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Mr Big
Nash,

d.)

It's a dog and pony show and is only being done so these jack-holes can go to their constituants and say "hey, look how I argued and voted on this crazy, barbaric threat against gays.

These tools on both sides already know what the vote will be, they just want to spend a good amount of time in the limelight so they can look like heros. It's just showtime, that's all.

That's the first I've heard about this. Can you point me to some evidence that any Democrat thinks this is a splendid way to spend their time?

I don't mean to single you out, because I hear this "both sides" excuse used all the time. I can understand what the motivation for doing it is, certainly:

"If my party is screwed up, then they're all screwed up. If my party is corrupt, then they're all corrupt. If my party grabbed the wheel and drove the nation over a cliff and into a bad war, then they all did."

But as in this case, it's just not true.

Hell, you're already seeing lazs, over the course of a couple of weeks, trying to build a case by equating the highly political and influential right wing religious fundamentalists to people who think that there might actually be something to this whole global warming thing.

In effect; "If my party has fundamentalists, so do they." That's quite a stretch to put it mildly, but I gotta give it to lazs - he has one hell of an imagination.

I guess the thing is this: The Democrats aren't squeaky clean, so why not use what they actually do against them, instead of repeatedly trying to lay the Republicans' constant missteps at the feet of everyone? I'd have no problem with that at all.

The Democrats didn't ask for this marriage debate, so it'd be neat if you didn't try to imply that they did. That's all.