Defacto relationship?Jenspm wrote:
Because the government doesn't have any other way of logging you as a couple. Stupid indeed.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
I don't see why married couples get tax benefits but two people who love each other and have lived with each other and have essentially been married in all but name for 20 years don't.
it's stupid
It isn't in the the context of hate crimes. Would you not already assume that regardless of color any assault would be treated the same?DrunkFace wrote:
And driving your car into someone you don't like is murder. And getting distracted by your kids in the back and driving into someone is also murder. And having your brakes fail and driving into someone is also murder.lowing wrote:
Was there not already equal rights? Assault on a black guy is assault and assault on a white guy is assault. There is no need for any legislation that distinguishes motive. It is STILL assault.Pubic wrote:
Why would two heterosexual men, or two heterosexual women choose to marry? I doubt they'd be excluded from doing so, but they'd have no motivation to do, except perhaps a marriage of technical convenience (eg. to obtain benefits only afforded to the married)
A hate crime is a crime committed against someone based on a factor such as race, religion, gender, sexuality...people have been bashed for being straight, for being white, for being male, and others have been convicted for committing such crimes.
Its not special rights, its special legislation to ensure equal rights.
You're an idiot if you think motive is not important in a crime.
Also, driving your car into some one you do not like is murder, getting distracted by your kids in the back and driving into someone is manslaughter, and having your brakes fail and driving into someone can also be manslaughter, if negligence to maintain the car properly was at fault or it was a manufacturer defect there would be no charges I am sure.
So you are an advocate of discrimination and only allowing GAY people to marry same sex, and now you know why I ask the question. What would keep the govt. for feeling the same way as you?Jaekus wrote:
Not to my satisfaction.lowing wrote:
already been over that Jay, and their reasons are not relevant, only if they will be allowed to.Jaekus wrote:
Why should two straight guys marry? It's just DUMB.
Allowing them to is just dumb. It is an abuse of rights, not exercising them.
Exactly lowing. The motive does matter, thanks for making my argument. The same applies to hate crimes, a crime between 2 races is not a hate crime unless it is racially motivated.lowing wrote:
It isn't in the the context of hate crimes. Would you not already assume that regardless of color any assault would be treated the same?DrunkFace wrote:
And driving your car into someone you don't like is murder. And getting distracted by your kids in the back and driving into someone is also murder. And having your brakes fail and driving into someone is also murder.lowing wrote:
Was there not already equal rights? Assault on a black guy is assault and assault on a white guy is assault. There is no need for any legislation that distinguishes motive. It is STILL assault.
You're an idiot if you think motive is not important in a crime.
Also, driving your car into some one you do not like is murder, getting distracted by your kids in the back and driving into someone is manslaughter, and having your brakes fail and driving into someone can also be manslaughter, if negligence to maintain the car properly was at fault or it was a manufacturer defect there would be no charges I am sure.
No you are talking about different crimes. Assault is not different based on motive, it is STILL just assault. If you want to punish harsher for assault then fine, but to say beating the fuck out of a black guy for being black is WORSE then beating the fuck out of someone else for money, is not consistent.DrunkFace wrote:
Exactly lowing. The motive does matter, thanks for making my argument. The same applies to hate crimes, a crime between 2 races is not a hate crime unless it is racially motivated.lowing wrote:
It isn't in the the context of hate crimes. Would you not already assume that regardless of color any assault would be treated the same?DrunkFace wrote:
And driving your car into someone you don't like is murder. And getting distracted by your kids in the back and driving into someone is also murder. And having your brakes fail and driving into someone is also murder.
You're an idiot if you think motive is not important in a crime.
Also, driving your car into some one you do not like is murder, getting distracted by your kids in the back and driving into someone is manslaughter, and having your brakes fail and driving into someone can also be manslaughter, if negligence to maintain the car properly was at fault or it was a manufacturer defect there would be no charges I am sure.
Last edited by lowing (2011-06-27 04:19:41)
How is it discrimination?lowing wrote:
So you are an advocate of discrimination and only allowing GAY people to marry same sex, and now you know why I ask the question. What would keep the govt. for feeling the same way as you?Jaekus wrote:
Not to my satisfaction.lowing wrote:
already been over that Jay, and their reasons are not relevant, only if they will be allowed to.
Allowing them to is just dumb. It is an abuse of rights, not exercising them.
It's common fucking sense.
Already explained how it is discrimination, we have been way over that.Jaekus wrote:
How is it discrimination?lowing wrote:
So you are an advocate of discrimination and only allowing GAY people to marry same sex, and now you know why I ask the question. What would keep the govt. for feeling the same way as you?Jaekus wrote:
Not to my satisfaction.
Allowing them to is just dumb. It is an abuse of rights, not exercising them.
It's common fucking sense.
common sense? Who are you to dictate what makes sense to someone else? By dictating that it makes sense for one group and not anyone else then by definition, you are discriminating, and now you know the reason for questioning it.
Last edited by lowing (2011-06-27 04:32:37)
Whatever dude.lowing wrote:
Already explained how it is discrimination, we have been way over that.Jaekus wrote:
How is it discrimination?lowing wrote:
So you are an advocate of discrimination and only allowing GAY people to marry same sex, and now you know why I ask the question. What would keep the govt. for feeling the same way as you?
It's common fucking sense.
common sense? Who are you to dictate what makes sense to someone else? By dictating that it makes sense for one group and not anyone else bthen by definition, you are discriminating, and now you know the reason for questioning it.
Keep banging on your retarded notion that this whole thread is about.
I'm sure the forum appreciates such pearls of wisdom.
I've got much better things to do, like eat rice crackers with cottage cheese.
thats not really addressing my response to your admission of wishing to discriminate by dictating your personal views of "common sense" on people based on sexual orientation, gender race etc... or what is stopping the govt. from having the same views, but hey, you are dismissed, go eat your rice cakes.Jaekus wrote:
Whatever dude.lowing wrote:
Already explained how it is discrimination, we have been way over that.Jaekus wrote:
How is it discrimination?
It's common fucking sense.
common sense? Who are you to dictate what makes sense to someone else? By dictating that it makes sense for one group and not anyone else bthen by definition, you are discriminating, and now you know the reason for questioning it.
Keep banging on your retarded notion that this whole thread is about.
I'm sure the forum appreciates such pearls of wisdom.
I've got much better things to do, like eat rice crackers with cottage cheese.
Last edited by lowing (2011-06-27 04:48:38)
And the conclusion was?lowing wrote:
already been over that as well.Varegg wrote:
Is it really special rights when gay people get the same rights as everyone else?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
I don't understand how you could argue allowing the right to same-sex marriage is now considered discrimination.Varegg wrote:
And the conclusion was?lowing wrote:
already been over that as well.Varegg wrote:
Is it really special rights when gay people get the same rights as everyone else?
Mod: Flame removed
I thought you were eating rice cakes? Well since you are back, will you now address your belief that your views of common sense should be used to discriminate?Jaekus wrote:
I don't understand how you could argue allowing the right to same-sex marriage is now considered discrimination.Varegg wrote:
And the conclusion was?lowing wrote:
already been over that as well.
Mod: Flame removed
and no only allowing same sex marriage to homosexuals could be considered discrimination
Two straight guys marrying to get tax breaks, hmm, can I smell fraud here?lowing wrote:
I thought you were eating rice cakes? Well since you are back, will you now address your belief that your views of common sense should be used to discriminate?Jaekus wrote:
I don't understand how you could argue allowing the right to same-sex marriage is now considered discrimination.Varegg wrote:
And the conclusion was?
Mod: Flame removed
Only if you are retarded.and no only allowing same sex marriage to homosexuals could be considered discrimination
And the rice crackers were fantastic
how so? 2 straight people marrying for anything other than love is not fraud, unless it is for immigration violations. Hell you can order a bride through the mail.Jaekus wrote:
Two straight guys marrying to get tax breaks, hmm, can I smell fraud here?lowing wrote:
I thought you were eating rice cakes? Well since you are back, will you now address your belief that your views of common sense should be used to discriminate?Jaekus wrote:
I don't understand how you could argue allowing the right to same-sex marriage is now considered discrimination.
Mod: Flame removedOnly if you are retarded.and no only allowing same sex marriage to homosexuals could be considered discrimination
That is your opinion, and does not address how you think applying your opinion of common sense to ONLY one group of people is NOT discrimination.
Nah, I don't buy it one bit.
Mail order brides aren't for tax breaks, it's for lonely guys to get a wife, to do things married couples do.
Your premise of two straight guys getting married is just silly.
Maybe put the bong down and get some fresh air, dude.
Mail order brides aren't for tax breaks, it's for lonely guys to get a wife, to do things married couples do.
Your premise of two straight guys getting married is just silly.
Maybe put the bong down and get some fresh air, dude.
Still need to address your assertion that what you consider common sense should be used to discriminate. Also, there are plenty of people that think same sex marriage is "just silly", and yet the law exists. Does it exist for everyone regardless of sexual orientation, or is your views on what denotes common sense to be used to allow JUST gays to marry same sex?Jaekus wrote:
Nah, I don't buy it one bit.
Mail order brides aren't for tax breaks, it's for lonely guys to get a wife, to do things married couples do.
Your premise of two straight guys getting married is just silly.
Maybe put the bong down and get some fresh air, dude.
Why are you trying to portray this into something it isn't lowing?
Is that all you have to complain about concerning gay marriage that two boys that aren't gay can't marry eachother? ... are you sure the law excludes that at all?
Is that all you have to complain about concerning gay marriage that two boys that aren't gay can't marry eachother? ... are you sure the law excludes that at all?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
I am not trying to portray anything. I am posing the question wondering if this law will apply to ALL citizens, or all GAY citizens. If the drama queens on this forum would relax and just address that question instead of using this thread as a platform to sling insults and jabs that would be great.Varegg wrote:
Why are you trying to portray this into something it isn't lowing?
Is that all you have to complain about concerning gay marriage that two boys that aren't gay can't marry eachother? ... are you sure the law excludes that at all?
Jaekus already hinted toward discrimination in his response, no reason to think the govt. wouldn't as well
Last edited by lowing (2011-06-27 16:02:55)
It isn't.lowing wrote:
I am posing the question wondering if this law will apply to ALL citizens, or all GAY citizens.
Note: Same Sex Marriage.
Not "Gays only marriage."
Why do you have to ask a forum for it? If you have to create a thread for it, why don't you actually read the fucking bill? Pretty stupid to post a thread asking a question where the answer is readily available to you.lowing wrote:
I am not trying to portray anything. I am posing the question wondering if this law will apply to ALL citizens, or all GAY citizens. If the drama queens on this forum would relax and just address that question instead of using this thread as a platform to sling insults and jabs that would be great.Varegg wrote:
Why are you trying to portray this into something it isn't lowing?
Is that all you have to complain about concerning gay marriage that two boys that aren't gay can't marry eachother? ... are you sure the law excludes that at all?
Jaekus already hinted toward discrimination in his response, no reason to think the govt. wouldn't as well
It was answered PAGES ago either way that it doesn't just apply to gays.
The spirit and intent of the law is to allow gay marriage. That is not conclusive that 2 straight people would not be challenged.13/f/taiwan wrote:
It isn't.lowing wrote:
I am posing the question wondering if this law will apply to ALL citizens, or all GAY citizens.
Note: Same Sex Marriage.
Not "Gays only marriage."
I did read the bill, and it really does not address my question, as the intent of the bill is to allow GAY people the right to marry same sex. I am thinking 2 straight people would be challenged, I am also willing to bet, at some point, it could be.Poseidon wrote:
Why do you have to ask a forum for it? If you have to create a thread for it, why don't you actually read the fucking bill? Pretty stupid to post a thread asking a question where the answer is readily available to you.lowing wrote:
I am not trying to portray anything. I am posing the question wondering if this law will apply to ALL citizens, or all GAY citizens. If the drama queens on this forum would relax and just address that question instead of using this thread as a platform to sling insults and jabs that would be great.Varegg wrote:
Why are you trying to portray this into something it isn't lowing?
Is that all you have to complain about concerning gay marriage that two boys that aren't gay can't marry eachother? ... are you sure the law excludes that at all?
Jaekus already hinted toward discrimination in his response, no reason to think the govt. wouldn't as well
It was answered PAGES ago either way that it doesn't just apply to gays.
The spirit and intention of the law and the text are two very different things lowing ...
If the law opens up for same sex marriage it doesn't matter if you are gay or not ... or do you think that they have to fuck infront of the judge to prove they are gay?
It really doesn't matter what you think lowing, the text in the bill is what matters ... so it's not special rights when the rights are equalled out so everyone has the basic same rights to get married.
If the law opens up for same sex marriage it doesn't matter if you are gay or not ... or do you think that they have to fuck infront of the judge to prove they are gay?
It really doesn't matter what you think lowing, the text in the bill is what matters ... so it's not special rights when the rights are equalled out so everyone has the basic same rights to get married.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
I am well aware of that Varegg, which is why law is challenged in court every single day, because the spirit of the law and text, as well as the interpretation of the text are different things. It is also why I kept saying I WONDER if this law will be challenged. I said nothing was in stones nor was there any outrage over this law by me. The real problem is, you and others can't get over that it was ME that was asking instead of the question being asked so you all go into instant defense/attack mode. Kinda funny really.Varegg wrote:
The spirit and intention of the law and the text are two very different things lowing ...
If the law opens up for same sex marriage it doesn't matter if you are gay or not ... or do you think that they have to fuck infront of the judge to prove they are gay?
It really doesn't matter what you think lowing, the text in the bill is what matters ... so it's not special rights when the rights are equalled out so everyone has the basic same rights to get married.