Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by Pray To Jesus, Nov 1, 2012.
So what you are saying is you are bigoted against people with hot sisters/goats...
Why are you apparently unable to answer questions that make you uncomfortable?
In places were civil unions exist, there's tons of organizations/employers that won't recognize them. That's why separate but equal hasn't worked, and will never work. Creating separate systems inherently makes them unequal. That people come in and think Jim Crow for gays will surely work this time is laughable.
So your goal is to force your beliefs on marriage onto private organizations. I thought only conservatives did that?
EDIT: And if marriage is just a private contract why do you need to force private organizations to recognize it anyway?
What is your question? Everyone currently does enjoy the right to form a "royal court". It is just no one has chosen to exercise that right.
Condoms also prevent pregnancy.
Which is obviously irrelevant for gay people right?
You're a twisted and disgusting individual to think ensuring equality is "forcing beliefs." It's you though so that's expected; there's no point talking rational things with you since you're simply not, and this is exemplary of it. Hint: See the 1960s to see how those sort of arguments worked out.
Do you care to point out where gay couples are not allowed to eat?
Or not allowed to vote?
What you want to do is to force private individuals to recognize other people's "private" contract. Well pretending you do not want to force your beliefs on others.
Oh, because we only limit some of their civil liberties that makes it ok? Your argument still doesn't work if you repeat it. Keep trying troll.
No, it's not irrelevant.
Forcing your definition of marriage onto other 3rd party organizations is not a matter of liberty.
Ok, could you please explain why pregnancy prevention is relevant to homosexuals?
Repeating yourself doesn't make it true. Again reference history to realize your mistake. Why didn't they make interracial marriages "civil unions" to make them palatable to those opposed?
If you were half as bright as you claim to be you'd already know the answer to that question.
And I believe asking for evidence that interracial marriages were considered to be counter to the definition of marriage, as opposed to merely wrong. None has been provided.
Why is it so hard for you to at least be honest an admit you want to change the definition of marriage and force everyone else to recognize it?
I had no idea Anantech had such a large gay population.
Not everyone is a douchebag enough to want to restrict the rights of groups that aren't themselves.
What does it matter that current definitions as some hold them deny someone their rights? The problem is people's rights not being equal, and you're just showing your idiocy or intellectual dishonesty further trying to come up with such a roundabout argument to justify Jim Crow laws.
Condoms are not fullproof. If you're going to have sex, you need to be responsible. Using condoms helps, but using Birth Control also helps to absolutely prevent an unwanted pregnancy.
Everyone has equal rights. Everyone is allowed to marry a single unrelated person of the opposite gender.
Some people want a new right to marry a single person of the same gender.
Some people want a new right to marry multiple people of the opposite gender.
Some people want a new right to marry their sibling.
Some people want a new right to marry their furniture.
Why does only one group deserve a new right? That seems rather unequal to me.
Are you suggesting that standards be set?
Your brain is defective. Its output really isn't relevant.
Nehalem on ignore... wow, that is a nice improvement.
He is irredeemably useless.
Fullproof? Of course they're not foolproof... that's a given.
Furniture is not a person with the ability to make decisions, nor is it recognized by our constitution as having any specific rights, inalienable or otherwise.
When you run down the slippery slope so stupidly it colors your entire argument a very bright shade of Idiotic.