Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 17

 

2011-07-01 02:43:34
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7016|Moscow, Russia

Varegg wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Not sure what you're getting at but being gay is not a choice ...
actually, the scientific community is a little divided in their opinion on this matter. "choice" is also pretty hard do define. besides, i don't think it should matter at all if it's a choice or genetically - or otherwise - defined condition.
I know science is divided concerning being or getting gay depending on enviromental issues etc ... but ask any gay person and he or she will tell you that any same sex relationship felt right and the opposite felt wrong ... they are quite consistant in their answers no matter what science says ... the big if here is actually bisexual people, that baffles science more than gay preference ...
right, but, you know, by asking a person how he/she feels, you only learn of that person's perception of the matter, not of its nature. statistics, surveys - all the empirical shit only gets science so far. until there's logic behind a hypothesis you can't really hope to prove it.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2011-07-01 04:47:48
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6892|USA

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:


Quite correct lowing, it's the governments job to ensure equal rights ... but have you asked yourself why it wasn't equal to begin with? Hence why it's sad that they have equal rights now in 2011 and not from the beginning.
It was equal to begin with. NO ONE could marry same sex, regardless of race or sexual orientation. If you do not believe that law did not include everyone, then how can you believe this new law does? The govt. did not distinguish between straight people or homosexuals. that is a fact. Now we will see if that same stance holds true. Will the govt. allow ANYONE to marry same sex?

What I have been asking myself is, why does the govt. feel they need to make laws regarding personal lives, that do not affect other citizens, period.
So excluding 10% of the populace is equality?
Again, how can you say the previous law was meant for gays without specifically mentioning them, and then claim this law includes everyone without specifically mentioning everyone. Everything was equal, lets see if it remains so.
2011-07-01 04:52:00
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7051|Nårvei

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:


It was equal to begin with. NO ONE could marry same sex, regardless of race or sexual orientation. If you do not believe that law did not include everyone, then how can you believe this new law does? The govt. did not distinguish between straight people or homosexuals. that is a fact. Now we will see if that same stance holds true. Will the govt. allow ANYONE to marry same sex?

What I have been asking myself is, why does the govt. feel they need to make laws regarding personal lives, that do not affect other citizens, period.
So excluding 10% of the populace is equality?
Again, how can you say the previous law was meant for gays without specifically mentioning them, and then claim this law includes everyone without specifically mentioning everyone. Everything was equal, lets see if it remains so.
And how exactly was it equal when same sex marriage wasn't allowed before the bill?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2011-07-01 05:00:56
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6892|USA

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:


So excluding 10% of the populace is equality?
Again, how can you say the previous law was meant for gays without specifically mentioning them, and then claim this law includes everyone without specifically mentioning everyone. Everything was equal, lets see if it remains so.
And how exactly was it equal when same sex marriage wasn't allowed before the bill?
Because the previous law did not specify any one group, so it included everyone, NO ONE can marry same sex, and it rang true, no one could. Yet you claim it was not equal.

Now this new law does not specify one group either, and you are claiming it is NOW equal. My position is, the previous law was equal, now we will see if this new law remains so given the intent or spirit of the law was directed toward the gay community.
2011-07-01 05:10:52
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7016|Moscow, Russia
"nobody can", "everybody can" - it's all semantics, lowing. the "spirit of the law" should also include common sense, don't you think so? mind, i'm not exactly disagreeing with you, just, you know, there's equality and then there's blatant absurd.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2011-07-01 05:19:41
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6892|USA

Shahter wrote:

"nobody can", "everybody can" - it's all semantics, lowing. the "spirit of the law" should also include common sense, don't you think so? mind, i'm not exactly disagreeing with you, just, you know, there's equality and then there's blatant absurd.
The "spirit of the law" IS common sense, the letter of the law, or the interpretation of the law, is what we are talking about. I do not think they are the same thing.

You guys interpret the previous law as excluding gays from marrying same sex, well the letter of previous law excludes EVERYONE from same sex marriages.

The spirit of this new law allows gays to marry same sex, that is common sense, all I am wondering is, will the letter of the law be challenged if 2 straight people try to marry same sex. If it is challenged THAT will be discrimination.

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-01 05:31:17)

2011-07-01 05:37:24
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7016|Moscow, Russia

lowing wrote:

Shahter wrote:

"nobody can", "everybody can" - it's all semantics, lowing. the "spirit of the law" should also include common sense, don't you think so? mind, i'm not exactly disagreeing with you, just, you know, there's equality and then there's blatant absurd.
The "spirit of the law" IS common sense, the letter of the law, or the interpretation of the law, is what we are talking about. I do not think they are the same thing.

You guys interpret the previous law as excluding gays from marrying same sex, well the letter of previous law excludes EVERYONE from same sex marriages.

The spirit of this new law allows gays to marry same sex, that is common sense, all I am wondering is, will the letter of the law be challenged if 2 straight people try to marry same sex. If it is challenged THAT will be discrimination.
discrimination against those with absurd desires. that would definitely be something new
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2011-07-01 05:43:09
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6892|USA

Shahter wrote:

lowing wrote:

Shahter wrote:

"nobody can", "everybody can" - it's all semantics, lowing. the "spirit of the law" should also include common sense, don't you think so? mind, i'm not exactly disagreeing with you, just, you know, there's equality and then there's blatant absurd.
The "spirit of the law" IS common sense, the letter of the law, or the interpretation of the law, is what we are talking about. I do not think they are the same thing.

You guys interpret the previous law as excluding gays from marrying same sex, well the letter of previous law excludes EVERYONE from same sex marriages.

The spirit of this new law allows gays to marry same sex, that is common sense, all I am wondering is, will the letter of the law be challenged if 2 straight people try to marry same sex. If it is challenged THAT will be discrimination.
discrimination against those with absurd desires. that would definitely be something new
Oh I understand, but do you get what I am saying?
2011-07-01 06:09:56
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7051|Nårvei

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Again, how can you say the previous law was meant for gays without specifically mentioning them, and then claim this law includes everyone without specifically mentioning everyone. Everything was equal, lets see if it remains so.
And how exactly was it equal when same sex marriage wasn't allowed before the bill?
Because the previous law did not specify any one group, so it included everyone, NO ONE can marry same sex, and it rang true, no one could. Yet you claim it was not equal.

Now this new law does not specify one group either, and you are claiming it is NOW equal. My position is, the previous law was equal, now we will see if this new law remains so given the intent or spirit of the law was directed toward the gay community.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2011-07-01 06:17:29
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6892|USA

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:


And how exactly was it equal when same sex marriage wasn't allowed before the bill?
Because the previous law did not specify any one group, so it included everyone, NO ONE can marry same sex, and it rang true, no one could. Yet you claim it was not equal.

Now this new law does not specify one group either, and you are claiming it is NOW equal. My position is, the previous law was equal, now we will see if this new law remains so given the intent or spirit of the law was directed toward the gay community.
That is your explanation as to how 2 laws, both non-specific to any one group, and applied to all, can be discriminatory in one and non discriminatory in the other?
2011-07-01 06:48:56
ghostinvisiblex7
Mr Southbeach.
+9|4987|USA.. duhhh
two wrongs dont make a right...

love thy neighboor as you love yourself..
2011-07-01 07:24:19
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6842|132 and Bush

Varegg wrote:

Kmar wrote:

10% that can not marry who they want based on their sexual persuasion... 90% does.
Not sure what you're getting at but being gay is not a choice ...
No you aren't sure at what I was getting at. ..lol
Did you just feel compelled to say that?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-07-01 07:28:32
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7051|Nårvei

Kmar wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Kmar wrote:

10% that can not marry who they want based on their sexual persuasion... 90% does.
Not sure what you're getting at but being gay is not a choice ...
No you aren't sure at what I was getting at. ..lol
Did you just feel compelled to say that?
No

Was more wondering what you meant by that statement, unsure if you perhaps meant that since 90% can marry who they want it's okay that 10% doesn't? ... it didn't quite clearify your opinion if I'm allowed to draw such a conclusion
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2011-07-01 07:32:18
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,979|6873|949

he means 90% of the pop is straight, 10% is gay (general numbers).  He means that previously 90% of people could marry who they wanted, while 10% was left shit out of luck.  Pretty easy to understand, read the sentence in context.
2011-07-01 07:43:24
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6892|USA

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

he means 90% of the pop is straight, 10% is gay (general numbers).  He means that previously 90% of people could marry who they wanted, while 10% was left shit out of luck.  Pretty easy to understand, read the sentence in context.
Guys, you are simply wrong here. NO ONE is allowed to marry who they wanted, EVERY ONE was allowed to marry opposite sex however. The law does not distinguish between gay or straight, therefore it applies to everyone and has been enforced equally to everyone.
2011-07-01 07:47:36
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,979|6873|949

haha thanks for the clarification lowing.
2011-07-01 08:11:06
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5500|foggy bottom
lowing's stupidity quit being funny years ago.  now its just sad and scary.
Tu Stultus Es
2011-07-01 08:12:20
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6892|USA

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

haha thanks for the clarification lowing.
Well if I am wrong, and there is a group of people that are allowed to marry same sex, and just not gays, feel free to correct me.
2011-07-01 08:21:40
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,979|6873|949

yeah, i could marry a dude right now if i wanted in states that allow same sex marraiges.

consider yourself corrected
2011-07-01 08:23:04
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6892|USA

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

yeah, i could marry a dude right now if i wanted in states that allow same sex marraiges.

consider yourself corrected
I was referring to the old law, ya know the law that supposedly applied to only 10% of the population. Try again
2011-07-01 08:25:19
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,979|6873|949

what old law, specifically?
2011-07-01 08:26:54
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6892|USA

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

what old law, specifically?
The law that forbids same sex marriage. You all think that it only applies to gays apparently and not everyone. Or were there no laws that kept same sex marriages all of a sudden? Oh wait, you are just molesting me again aren't you?

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-01 08:37:58)

2011-07-01 08:27:37
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5500|foggy bottom
what law was that?
Tu Stultus Es
2011-07-01 09:00:19
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5419|Sydney

lowing wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

yeah, i could marry a dude right now if i wanted in states that allow same sex marraiges.

consider yourself corrected
I was referring to the old law, ya know the law that supposedly applied to only 10% of the population. Try again
I wish I could be stupid on purpose.
2011-07-01 14:04:34
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6892|USA

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

yeah, i could marry a dude right now if i wanted in states that allow same sex marraiges.

consider yourself corrected
I was referring to the old law, ya know the law that supposedly applied to only 10% of the population. Try again
I wish I could be stupid on purpose.
Look, do the current laws apply to only the gay population or do they apply to everyone? You all claim it applies to the gay population. I claim it applies to everyone. So which is it?

And don't sell yourself short.

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-01 14:09:51)

 

Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 17

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard