Chick-fil-a

[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]

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! ;)

[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.

[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.

[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?!?

[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?

[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.

[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 :)

[Farbin Kaiber]

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.

[rwh11385]

Yes, I said IF they are normal.

That does not equal that I said they ARE normal.

So, are you saying that they aren't normal? And are you saying that they should be treated differently?

And your solution is a separate but "equivalent" term??

[rwh11385]

That makes no sense... I am reading that as the same thing.

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?

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)

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

Therefore, do you consider homosexuals to be as normal as left-handed people?

And based on that, do you understand why they should have the same rights as everyone else?



Or did I lose you again?

[Farbin Kaiber]

Yes, I said IF they are normal.

That does not equal that I said they ARE normal.

[rwh11385]

It's got nothing to do with treating them as humans, that's a given. Nobody is calling them less than human, or even anything less than human. This is about those you speak of wanting to modify the meaning of a word to fit them instead of using a word that does fit that specific group.

Marriage is a fundamental civil right (so has been declared by the Supreme Court). Denying them that is denying that they are equal as humans, like the country did with former slaves and women.

You JUST said that if they are normal, they shouldn't get special treatment - which would include a special new term for a specific group instead of allowing them the term everyone else is allowed.

[Vedubin01]

It's got nothing to do with treating them as humans, that's a given. Nobody is calling them less than human, or even anything less than human. This is about those you speak of wanting to modify the meaning of a word to fit them instead of using a word that does fit that specific group.

thank you

[Vedubin01]

So compare left-handedness to being gay. Most people are right-dominate and most people are attracted to the opposite sex, but there's also less frequently occurring outcomes paired with those. If you treat people who eat with their left hand as human, do the same for guys who love guys. Shouldn't that be easy?? Haven't we learned to do that with minorities and women?


Or do you deny civil rights to lefties??

That makes no sense... I am reading that as the same thing.