special rights, gay rights, hate crimes

2011-07-01 16:17:46

#226

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6842|132 and Bush

lowing wrote:
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.

It's the right to marry who you want to. It's the right to be able to choose. If one section of the population is allowed to marry who they want, why shouldn't the other?

Being gay is a social class. It's not a choice, just like being a woman is not a choice. Should we take away the right for women to vote because not all women want to vote?

You're on much better ground when you are arguing against the government being involved at all. They are the ones who created the inequality in the first place.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-01 16:20:59

#227

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5500|foggy bottom

the supreme court does not recognize gays as a suspect class (a class of people that require special treatment by the government). the only suspect classes the court has acknowledged are race, religious following, country of birth and immigration status.

Tu Stultus Es

2011-07-01 16:24:00

#228

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6842|132 and Bush

eleven bravo wrote:
the supreme court does not recognize gays as a suspect class (a class of people that require special treatment by the government). the only suspect classes the court has acknowledged are race, religious following, country of birth and immigration status.

I hear at one point blacks were only counted as two thirds of a man when it came to voting also.

We're talking about what the law should be, equal. Not what it currently is.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-01 16:27:34

#229

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5500|foggy bottom

3/5th actually

Tu Stultus Es

2011-07-01 16:28:03

#230

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5500|foggy bottom

we should all get puppies and gold bricks too

Tu Stultus Es

2011-07-01 16:28:27

#231

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6842|132 and Bush

Yea, that. You get the point.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-01 16:29:33

#232

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5500|foggy bottom

i know. women dont even get a suspect class rating. it all has to do with the various doctrines of jurisprudence used by the court

Tu Stultus Es

2011-07-01 16:32:12

#233

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7013|PNW

lowing wrote:
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.

How are we wrong? Because people aren't allowed to marry into the same sex makes it an imposed limitation of freedom by default. I used to think it wasn't that great of an idea either, but now I'm thinking "who the hell gives a crud?" With everything else going on, will it really hurt society if they get the right and call it marriage rather than a civil union?

This is pretty much akin to throwing out ideas like "women shouldn't vote" or that "blacks should be subservient to whites."

2011-07-01 16:33:21

#234

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6842|132 and Bush

eleven bravo wrote:
i know. women dont even get a suspect class rating. it all has to do with the various doctrines of jurisprudence used by the court

If you want to cut the whole argument down at the knees then ask why we expect the government to recognize any marriage. We only empower them to discriminate when we give them the authority to do so.

*Basic civil rights excluded of course.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-01 16:39:33

#235

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5500|foggy bottom

one of my finals i did last month was a 10 page fictional supreme court opinion on proposition 8. this info is still fresh in my mind. im for gays marrying. the government should allow people of the same sex to marry.

the court has established that marriage is a right. ones ability to marry falls right in line with pursuing liberty. marriage is considered a big part of an indivudals autonomy.

the court also has established the right to regulate some aspects of private life. like antisodomy laws. although most antisodomy laws have been struck down, the court did this without recognizing homosexuals as a suspect class, thereby leaving room for future regulation of private activities. what the court has determined is that being homosexual does not mean one participates in homosexual activities.

Tu Stultus Es

2011-07-01 16:43:14

#236

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6893|USA

Kmar wrote:
lowing wrote:
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.
It's the right to marry who you want to. It's the right to be able to choose. If one section of the population is allowed to marry who they want, why shouldn't the other?

Being gay is a social class. It's not a choice, just like being a woman is not a choice. Should we take away the right for women to vote because not all women want to vote?

You're on much better ground when you are arguing against the government being involved at all. They are the ones who created the inequality in the first place.

IF 2 straight people wanted to get married same sex, for whatever reason, they would not be allowed to do so. So no, nobody can marry who they want. The law does not specify between gay and straight, if there is no distinction then there is no discrimination.

2011-07-01 16:48:49

#237

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5500|foggy bottom

what law is that again, lowing? ive been waiting for that answer for a minute

Tu Stultus Es

2011-07-01 16:49:21

#238

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6893|USA

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
lowing wrote:
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.
How are we wrong? Because people aren't allowed to marry into the same sex makes it an imposed limitation of freedom by default. I used to think it wasn't that great of an idea either, but now I'm thinking "who the hell gives a crud?" With everything else going on, will it really hurt society if they get the right and call it marriage rather than a civil union?

This is pretty much akin to throwing out ideas like "women shouldn't vote" or that "blacks should be subservient to whites."

You are right, it is an imposed limitation of freedom, I agree, however it is an imposed limitation of freedom on everyone equally. NO ONE can marry same sex regardless of sexual orientation. There is a limitation of freedom but there is not discrimination. Now I hope this new law is not supposed to only give gays the right to marry same sex, but for everyone, basically, the govt. getting the fuck out of everyone's business.

2011-07-01 17:20:49

#239

13/f/taiwan: Member; +940|5940

lowing is just making up laws. you guys know that right?

2011-07-01 17:22:32

#240

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5500|foggy bottom

he keeps on bringing up a specific law about marriage before this new one in new york. im curious what the name of that law is, he seems to know so much about it.

Tu Stultus Es

2011-07-01 17:31:00

#241

13/f/taiwan: Member; +940|5940

i don't know how people can defend this guy. he will just make up shit or redefine a word if it doesn't suit him. complete bullshit.

2011-07-01 17:53:30

#242

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6893|USA

You mean there are no laws in NY forbidding same sex marriage? Well then, I stand corrected, but if there are no laws forbidding same sex marriage, what are all the people that want to marry same sex bitching about, and more importantly, what are they waiting for go ahead and marry already.

2011-07-01 17:54:14

#243

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5500|foggy bottom

so youre harping about the specifics of laws without having any specific laws in mind. gotcha, moving on.

Tu Stultus Es

2011-07-01 18:12:26

#244

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6779|Long Island, New York

lowing wrote:
what are they waiting for go ahead and marry already.

Probably because the bill is effective 30 days from it being signed.

Mega-derp.

2011-07-01 18:14:50

#245

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6893|USA

Poseidon wrote:
lowing wrote:
what are they waiting for go ahead and marry already.
Probably because the bill is effective 30 days from it being signed.

Mega-derp.

Why do they need a bill? I have already been corrected in my thinking that there are no laws preventing same sex marriages.. get caught up

2011-07-01 18:17:01

#246

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5500|foggy bottom

he's falling apart

Tu Stultus Es

2011-07-01 18:17:16

#247

13/f/taiwan: Member; +940|5940

how about you get caught up and do some research on this subject before talking shit. people like you are the worse. if you want to discuss something do your fucking homework.

2011-07-01 18:17:56

#248

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5420|Sydney

This thread is basically a forum educating one person who refuses to learn or listen or understand.

In short:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/7/73/20110128203738!Trollface.png

2011-07-01 18:18:02

#249

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6779|Long Island, New York

Not anymore. Because the fucking bill was signed, which takes 30 days to become effective.

And you wonder why even someone like Kmar calls you a troll?

2011-07-01 18:19:19

#250

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6779|Long Island, New York

I have never, in my 2 decades of life, ever seen someone be so resistant to accepting the fact that they were wrong even when consistently faced with the fact that they are.

Narcissus would be fucking jealous.

BF2S Forums special rights, gay rights, hate crimes

lowing wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

lowing wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

Kmar wrote:

lowing wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

lowing wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Board footer