Chick-fil-a

[Vedubin01]

I'm sorry, I'll frame it out more slowly for you...


Do you think that left-handed people deserve the same rights as those who are right-hand dominate? sure

Do you believe that left-hand dominate is "normal" and is the connected pair to being born right-handed? (Like recessive traits are paired with dominate ones)
No left handed would not be a normal or expected outcome (due to total numbers) but it does not make it wrong, less valuable, or defective. Just not normal.

The occurrence of left-handedness is similar to homosexuality. Do you acknowledge that homosexuality is the alternate outcome to heterosexuality? YES

Therefore, do you consider homosexuals to be as normal as left-handed people? Its not the normal but again it does not make it wrong, less valuable or defective

And based on that, do you understand why they should have the same rights as everyone else? yes up until you use the word marriage



Or did I lose you again?

ok smart guy I got ya this time :)

[Cliche Guevara]

Holy shit this thread exploded while I was at work.

Lastly, I still, and will always believe that legalizing gay marriage will( at least in this country) always be wrong. Partially because of my opinions, and half of because the Constitution of the US, and of the many individual states themselves whose constitutions exclusively describes marriage as between a man and female.

You need to defend this statement. You seem to be implying that the Constitution somehow supports you view that gay marriage is wrong, but that is 100% backwards from reality. As I mentioned earlier, the 14th Amendment guarantees us equal protection under the law, which was instrumental in overturning Prop. 8 in California.

Why is there so many members on here that think being a homosexual is normal? Dick in a mans ass does reproduce, but I guess the same goes for when I let a load loose in a girls face. Same sex marriage does not mean a damn thing, they will never have families that were started in a bedroom together.

So you support preventing straight couples who do not or cannot have children from getting married?

Time to stir the pot ;)

Your bible quotes hold absolutely no sway in this discussion. They are only relevant to people who believe in the same invisible man in the sky as you.

[rwh11385]

I didn't say they are, I didn't say they are not.

I do feel a unique term should be used in this situation, one that accurately defines the type of union inferred by the word/title used.

You are aware that the supreme court declared that "separate but equal" isn't actually equal, right?

What is inaccurate about two people joining into marriage, regardless of their genders?

[rwh11385]

ok smart guy I got ya this time :)

So when does a recessive minority outcome become "not normal"?


AND WHY DO YOU CARE IF TWO GUYS GET MARRIED?!?

[Farbin Kaiber]

Constitutional Equality does not mean you get to change the meanings of words to make things more equal. Maybe we need to abolish the word Marriage, and use two different words to describe either Heterosexual, or Homosexual contractual couplings.

[Vedubin01]

So when does a recessive minority outcome become "not normal"?


AND WHY DO YOU CARE IF TWO GUYS GET MARRIED?!?

When the recessive starts populating faster than the dominate.

Kinda like the Spanish in America

I don't care what people do. (As long as they get no special treatment) They can have all equal rights except the use of the "word" marriage.

[Vedubin01]

Constitutional Equality does not mean you get to change the meanings of words to make things more equal. Maybe we need to abolish the word Marriage, and use two different words to describe either Heterosexual, or Homosexual contractual couplings.

That is where I was headed! ;)

[Cliche Guevara]

They can have all equal rights except the use of the "word" marriage.

Why not? Why the fuck do you feel the need to deny them this basic civil right simply because it makes you feel uncomfortable? You're being absurdly selfish.

[Vedubin01]

Why not? Why the fuck do you feel the need to deny them this basic civil right simply because it makes you feel uncomfortable? You're being absurdly selfish.

Constitutional Equality does not mean you get to change the meanings of words to make things more equal. Maybe we need to abolish the word Marriage, and use two different words to describe either Heterosexual, or Homosexual contractual couplings.

[rwh11385]

When the recessive starts populating faster than the dominate.

Kinda like the Spanish in America

I don't care what people do. (As long as they get no special treatment) They can have all equal rights except the use of the "word" marriage.

Wow. Just when I think you can't outdo yourself with RWNJ rhetoric, you throw in some immigrant-hating. Good job, you have exceeded my low expectations for you.

So are left-handed people on the rise and that's why they are not normal??

Constitutional Equality does not mean you get to change the meanings of words to make things more equal. Maybe we need to abolish the word Marriage, and use two different words to describe either Heterosexual, or Homosexual contractual couplings.

How is marriage defined? If it were automatically defined only as between a man and a woman, North Carolina would have had no reason to do just that with an amendment.

Again, your care for the meaning of words (actual or just perceived) vs. someone's freedom to pursue happiness and their rights... you're ridiculous. I really have trouble understanding why you think your definition in your mind is more important than someone's freedom. Are you that selfish?

[Farbin Kaiber]

Why not? Why the fuck do you feel the need to deny them this basic civil right simply because it makes you feel uncomfortable? You're being absurdly selfish.

You sound like those fucking tards on CurrentTV doing expose's on people in Africa not having toilets, and that a toilet is a basic human right. Your righteous high horse, it's time to jump off before you get hurt.

[rwh11385]

You sound like those fucking tards on CurrentTV doing expose's on people in Africa not having toilets, and that a toilet is a basic human right. Your righteous high horse, it's time to jump off before you get hurt.

Ummm, so are you now so far off the reservation that you are going off-topic and trying to make it seem like people who care for the well being and rights of others are the problem, and not people like you and vdub that would rather put their tradition or comfort before someone's rights?

Wow. Just wow.

I'm sure the men who were used to just seeing other men at the polling station were uncomfortable with the term "woman voters", but they got over it.

[Vedubin01]

Wow. Just when I think you can't outdo yourself with RWNJ rhetoric, you throw in some immigrant-hating. Good job, you have exceeded my low expectations for you.

what gets me is how you picked up hate out of that example. You are just arguing to argue at this point!

I think you forget I live in Miami.

[Cliche Guevara]

I'm still calling bullshit that you two are taking your position because of semantics. Fabrin, you must have a terrible short term memory because just last night you failed to demonstrate that allowing same-sex marriage would result in the idea of marriage to completely lose its meaning. Marriage has traditionally (by which I mean in the last century or so and only in the US. It has had very different connotations in the past and has very different connotation elsewhere in the world) been defined as involving heterosexual partners because of our poor understanding of homosexuality. It was previously viewed as a disorder, something that could be cured, or just outright ignored. We now understand that homosexuals are just as capable to long lasting, healthy relationships, as well as being just as capable of raising children as hetero couples. With that new understanding comes the justification for a ever so slightly adjusted definition of marriage, one that is already in effect in numerous states and nations.

[Vedubin01]

I'm still calling bullshit that you two are taking your position because of semantics.

show me where I have disproved this?