Well, we can start another debate on what law should or shouldn't be. But if you agree with Cyclo, then I guess you'd probably have no problem with some of the Muslim laws that's based on what they consider morally right.
Well, we can start another debate on what law should or shouldn't be. But if you agree with Cyclo, then I guess you'd probably have no problem with some of the Muslim laws that's based on what they consider morally right.
The only reason government should be involved is because there are laws regarding specific legal rights, privileges, obligations and restrictions associated with marriage. Those laws cover such major issues as defining who has legal power of attorney to speak on behalf of an incapacitated spouse, visitation rights for a spouse who is ill, financial and social responsiblities for children within a family, whether related by blood or adoption, and some limits defining marriage, such as limiting marriage to be a contract between only two people.
I believe the government has a right and a duty to define what constitutes a marriage between two people, but it should be neutral regarding which people should be allowed to enter into a marriage.
No kidding, what an indefensible position Cyclo has built for himself. Let's see ... who else can we not grant equal rights to? Hmmmm, CW? Are there any other groups besides gays you'd like to keep in the civil rights dark ages? How about women?
Other than granting equal rights to all people as our constitution demands, the government should have nothing to do with this topic.
I didn't say anything about whether or not I liked certain laws... just that morality is where everyone's laws come from. (or what they think is morality). Even though some people might be basing their laws off of morality that is stupid and medieval, it's still what they're basing it on.
The law in this country does not impart ANY rights. Everything in this country is allowed unless explicitly forbidden. Things are explicitly forbidden by passing laws against them. Thus, everyone could have their own morality and do wtf ever they want if we had no laws. Obviously this would usher in an era of unrivaled chaos. So, we agree what our communal 'morality' will be and pass laws to make it so.
That person is saying what he/she thinks about a given action. You are saying what you think about their action. Does that make you intolerant? After all, you're judging him the same way you claim he judged gay people with his statement. If I am intolerant for stating my positions, then I am intolerant and will happily bear that title. Hell, if that makes me a bigot, then I'm a bigot. The problem with you is that you want to be able to say whatever you want, but the moment someone else does likewise, you want to label them an intolerant bigot. Pot, meet the kettle.
I'm a single guy - why should I not have these same rights? Isn't this discrimination against single people? The answer is that all of these things exist outside of marriage. There are ways to give someone power of attorney outside of marriage. People have kids outside of marriage all the time. What happens then? Does the whole system break down?
Incest is best, sez I!
How would my proposal keep gays from having the same rights as a heterosexual person? I know it's hard, but you might find it a rewarding experience to think before typing such thoughtless garbage.
Not necessarily, and not automatically. The laws regarding legal rights of people incapcitated by illness, including legal representation and even simple visitation, vary all over the place among various jurisdictions. A spouse is automatically assumed to have such rights and privileges, but they don't exist for committed couples, straight or gay, without a written power of attorney, and in some jurisdictions, that power is not even allowed for gay couples.
Yep. The same problems and conflicts arise when it comes to deciding who is responsible for the best interests of those children of unwed parents. Those problems are worse for the children of gay couples in jurisdictions that don't allow the other partner to legally adopt a child of his or her partner, and they're worse, yet, when individual cases are determined by government officials, courts and juries who may be influenced by their own prejudices.
If your reasoning ability is the result of incest, you are the poster child against it. :laugh:Incest is best, sez I!
Then I am also being discriminated against for being single. What if I am incapacitated? Same thing applies. But, I have the ability to appoint anyone that I choose to have power of attorney for healthcare, or any other power of attorney. Thus, this isn't really an argument for allowing gay marriage: it's just an excuse for lazy bastards who don't want to do the necessary paperwork. Why not just make the boat the same for everyone and force straight couples to do the same thing?
If marriage was taken out of the realm of state control, then what grounds would the state have for declaring someone your 'partner'? Simple - they wouldn't. All of these distinctions are simply fabricated based on the ridiculous system currently in place. That doesn't mean that they would remain once the existing system is gone.
Spin, spin, spin. That person is taking an intolerant position and passing judgment first, and I'm merely labeling his actions appropriately according to the very definition of the word. I passed no judgment on him, he is what he is.
I'm all in favor of all marriage being termed "civil union," all couples who form a civil union receiving the same rights and gov't staying out of it other than to treat all civil unions equally. That didn't seem like what you were proposing, however please re-calibrate me if I'm wrong.
"I think black people are immoral. They do immoral things and I don't approve."
"You're a bigot."
"No! You're the bigot for not respecting my beliefs!"
[Hopefully, this illustrates how silly your argument really is.]
You're right - that's not what I'm proposing. I'm proposing that civil unions and marriages are completely removed from government control. After all, they give rights to those who are 'married' or 'unionized' but not to single people, so it's just another form of discrimination. Why should someone have more rights than me just because they are in a civil union and I am not?Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'm all in favor of all marriage being termed "civil union," all couples who form a civil union receiving the same rights and gov't staying out of it other than to treat all civil unions equally. That didn't seem like what you were proposing, however please re-calibrate me if I'm wrong.
No, but that was at least a nice attempt at a strawman. In the context of your strawman, my argument might be construed as the following:
Gen. Pace: "I think black people killing other black people is immoral. They do immoral things and I don't approve."
You: "You're a bigot."
Gen. Pace: "No, you misunderstood what I said. I said that the actions of murderous black people are immoral, not the black people themselves. How does that imply that I hate black people?
"So you're passing judgment on their lifestyle and you think that's not bigoted? Simply because you're focusing on the sex they have with each other, vs. the actual gay people themselves? Wow, I can see we're not getting anywhere on this issue. I'm sorry, but you can't act like a bigot and then invent some retarded "exemption" that you think gets you out of being a bigot.
See, this is what I don't understand about you. I have yet to pass judgment on anyone or anything in this entire thread, yet now you're saying I'm bigoted. General Pace would probably break down in tears at the end of my previous example because of the failing of the public school system to teach you reading comprehension.
edit: Let me know when you have figured out the difference between 'actions', 'lifestyles', and 'people'. Then we can resume this discussion.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
See, this is what I don't understand about you. I have yet to pass judgment on anyone or anything in this entire thread, yet now you're saying I'm bigoted. General Pace would probably break down in tears at the end of my previous example because of the failing of the public school system to teach you reading comprehension.
edit: Let me know when you have figured out the difference between 'actions', 'lifestyles', and 'people'. Then we can resume this discussion.
When I say "you're passing judgment" I was referring to those who have done so, not you specifically. Sorry for the confusion. My point still stands by the way.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
No, but that was at least a nice attempt at a strawman. In the context of your strawman, my argument might be construed as the following:
Gen. Pace: "I think black people killing other black people is immoral. They do immoral things and I don't approve."
You: "You're a bigot."
Gen. Pace: "No, you misunderstood what I said. I said that the actions of murderous black people are immoral, not the black people themselves. How does that imply that I hate black people?
That is not a fair comparison, you are comparing a rational choice (choosing to murder someone), against what is almost certainly a genetic attribute. People who are gay cannot separate themselves from their homosexuality any more then you can separate yourself from your heterosexuality. Black people are not genetically compelled to murder. (well, unless you're David Duke they aren't)
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
No, but that was at least a nice attempt at a strawman. In the context of your strawman, my argument might be construed as the following:
Gen. Pace: "I think black people killing other black people is immoral. They do immoral things and I don't approve."
You: "You're a bigot."
Gen. Pace: "No, you misunderstood what I said. I said that the actions of murderous black people are immoral, not the black people themselves. How does that imply that I hate black people?
So when one soldier sticks it in another soldier's bum, this is analogous to killing him?
We can finally understand the gay problem in terms of crime, criminal, victim, and hopefully severe punishment - whoever is catching is a victim!
dahunan
Lifer
- Jan 10, 2002
- 18,191
- 3
- 0
Last night South Park had a good episode for this problem
http://www.southparkx.net/episodes/1102-cartman-sucks
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/south_park/index.jhtml
"Pray the Gay Away"
God Is Bicurious
http://www.southparkx.net/episodes/1102-cartman-sucks
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/south_park/index.jhtml
"Pray the Gay Away"
God Is Bicurious
iskim86
Banned
great for him.
what americans lack today is individuality. props for him
but...
what an idiot for saying it public.
dahunan
Lifer
- Jan 10, 2002
- 18,191
- 3
- 0
Maybe someday a Gay person has the chance to save his life and then kicks him in the face and walks away.. that is what he would want.. right?
This neanderthal is like #3 in charge or something.. isn't he.. and he is a homophobe who also thinks God likes the military
This neanderthal is like #3 in charge or something.. isn't he.. and he is a homophobe who also thinks God likes the military
The same could be said about you.
QFT
That neanderthal is like the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 407
-
Facebook
Twitter