Pages: 1 … 13 14 15 16 17

 

2011-07-02 09:50:56
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

No the govt. can allow gays the privilege of same sex marriage OR opposite sex marriage. Straight people may not have that same privilege. As I said the only way to ensure no govt. involvement in personal ives is to keep the govt. OUT of personal lives, not  pass yet more legislation.

If it is claimed that the current laws are prejudiced, without specifying any one group, then the new laws can do the same thing.  The bigger picture, and the thing I have ben trying to speak to, is govt. involvement in our lives and how increased legislation is an increase in our lives it is not a detraction from it. IF the govt. is interested in allowing gays to marry same sex, then the govt. needs to release us from ALL regulation regarding marriage, not add more.
What?

Once again, you're wrong.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_m … ted_States

I did link you to Wikipedia ages ago, but clearly you did not bother to read it. Tut tut.
round and round. Ok, although I understand the absurdity of straight same sex marriage, I still recognize it might be a govt. restriction by not allowing them to do so when you allow other groups the freedom to do so. If you absolutely refuse to recognize that, I can not say it in any other terms to further this discussion with you over it.

Stop worrying about WHY any straight people may want to marry same sex and focus on the wether or not they may not be allowed to unlike gay people.
You're arguing an absurdity for starters, and secondly there's no evidence to support some so called "discrimination" for preventing two straight people of the same gender to marry. It says it quite clearly there that it is same-gender marriage and the term "gay marriage" is more a colloquialism, yet you refuse to admit you're wrong in arguing some hypothesis that is unlikely to ever eventuate.

And to not argue why two straight people would want to get married is avoiding the point. Because if it were to ever happen, and the government were to intervene, the first question that would be asked would of course be "Why?"
Fine, then there is no evidence to support discrimination against gays because the laws do not specify that gays only are forbidden to marry same sex. The laws forbid everyone from marry same sex. You simply can not deny that.  You can not have it both ways. Neither law specifies any group yet you insist one law discriminates while the other does not.


And for the govt. to ask WHY? is exactly my point. It is none of the govts. business as to WHY. Besides the govt does not ask gays WHY they would want to marry opposite sex, so already, you are discriminating. Congrats. you now see the point. THe only way for the govt. to make this right is to get out of our lives period and stop asking ANYONE WHY.

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-02 10:12:00)

2011-07-02 19:09:59
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5418|Sydney
That's a bit of a reach. Your argument is full of assumptions to what I think and am saying.

You're basically either deliberately misunderstanding or genuinely don't understand. And only to suit your own argument.

That's a trolling tactic lowing. Little wonder why most the forum thinks of you as little more than one.

Previously it was discriminating against gay people because they could not marry their chosen life partners. If you can't understand that, you fail again.
2011-07-02 19:15:33
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Jaekus wrote:

That's a bit of a reach. Your argument is full of assumptions to what I think and am saying.

You're basically either deliberately misunderstanding or genuinely don't understand. And only to suit your own argument.

That's a trolling tactic lowing. Little wonder why most the forum thinks of you as little more than one.

Previously it was discriminating against gay people because they could not marry their chosen life partners. If you can't understand that, you fail again.
We are not talking about gays remember? We are talking about same sex marriages. Both old and new laws talk about same sex marriages, but you want to say the old laws discriminated while the new laws will not. You can not have it both ways. Were the laws written for ALL people or for GAY people. Which is it?


and there is no "reach", you siad the govt. will ask WHY?

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-02 19:16:27)

2011-07-02 19:22:09
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5418|Sydney
The old laws did not allow same-sex marriage.  The new ones do.

Duh.

Why would two straight people want to marry? You still have not answered that one. Which is kinda the whole point. Or are you going to avoid that question once more?
2011-07-02 19:32:05
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Jaekus wrote:

The old laws did not allow same-sex marriage.  The new ones do.

Duh.

Why would two straight people want to marry? You still have not answered that one. Which is kinda the whole point. Or are you going to avoid that question once more?
You are right the old laws did not allow same sex marriages...FOR ANYONE. Will the new laws all same sex marriages for everyone? You say yes because they call it same sex marriage and not gay marriage, but then you keep running into that wall where the old laws refer to same sex marriage and yet somehow those were discriminatory. That is when you hit your back up argument WHY? and for that argument the answer is simple, if you are not going to ask gays why they would marry opposite sex then it is discrimination to ask straight people WHY they would want ot marry same sex. The govt. should not ask anyone WHY.
2011-07-02 19:37:24
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5418|Sydney
Have you got examples of gay people being asked why they would marry opposite gender?

If you don't, your whole argument is based on nothing.

Avoid and deny. I see your bullshit and am calling you on it.

And whilst you say you are not against same-sex marriage, you sure are banging on this foolish idea that marriage equality is somehow discriminatory. Smacks of closet homophobia.

Last edited by Jaekus (2011-07-02 19:40:40)

2011-07-02 19:53:41
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Jaekus wrote:

Have you got examples of gay people being asked why they would marry opposite gender?

If you don't, your whole argument is based on nothing.

Avoid and deny. I see your bullshit and am calling you on it.

And whilst you say you are not against same-sex marriage, you sure are banging on this foolish idea that marriage equality is somehow discriminatory. Smacks of closet homophobia.
Jaekus, I am really trying to be patient with you and your bouncing around here. No, I do not have examples of gays being asked WHY they would marry opposite sex. THAT is the point, you are the one asking WHY straight people would marry same sex however.  THAT is discrimination.

You are not consistent in your argument nor counter points to what I post.

I am not a homophobe I already stated repeatedly that I am for the govt. getting out of the marriage legislation business all together and to mind its own business. My argument is discrimination not gays marrying gays. I do think you understand what I am saying, but you will flatly refuse to acknowledge it.

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-02 20:22:57)

2011-07-02 19:58:55
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5418|Sydney
Why would two straight people of same gender want to get married?

Answer please.
2011-07-02 20:05:21
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6711
lowing i'm not reading 15 pages of this thread but from what i have seen... you are fucking cynically insane. get help.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2011-07-02 20:06:10
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6711
and yes i meant 'cynically' instead of 'clnically' (pun intended), because your cynicism seems to selectively apply to people whose lifestyle you don't agree with (e.g. gays) instead of straight people (of whom your qualms could equally apply).
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2011-07-02 20:10:09
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Jaekus wrote:

Why would two straight people of same gender want to get married?

Answer please.
It doesn't matter, that is my answer. It is not yours mine or the govts. business. JUST LIKE the govt. would not ask WHY a gay person would marry opposite sex. It does not matter.
2011-07-02 20:12:44
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Uzique wrote:

and yes i meant 'cynically' instead of 'clnically' (pun intended), because your cynicism seems to selectively apply to people whose lifestyle you don't agree with (e.g. gays) instead of straight people (of whom your qualms could equally apply).
lol, you think I have a problem with gays? Got anything I have ever said in the history of this forum to support that? Or were you just piling on for the fun?

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-02 20:22:09)

2011-07-02 20:24:12
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6651|'Murka

Uzique wrote:

and yes i meant 'cynically' instead of 'clnically' (pun intended), because your cynicism seems to selectively apply to people whose lifestyle you don't agree with (e.g. gays) instead of straight people (of whom your qualms could equally apply).
Uzique, it's quite obvious from his line of questioning of Jaekus that lowing's problem is with the government and its hyporisy/double-standard...not with either group involved (gay or straight). It's really not difficult at all to see. Not at all sure why neither you nor Jaek can figure it out, tbh.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-07-02 20:27:54
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

FEOS wrote:

Uzique wrote:

and yes i meant 'cynically' instead of 'clnically' (pun intended), because your cynicism seems to selectively apply to people whose lifestyle you don't agree with (e.g. gays) instead of straight people (of whom your qualms could equally apply).
Uzique, it's quite obvious from his line of questioning of Jaekus that lowing's problem is with the government and its hyporisy/double-standard...not with either group involved (gay or straight). It's really not difficult at all to see. Not at all sure why neither you nor Jaek can figure it out, tbh.
Neh, Jaekus sees it, but what fun would there be in acknowledging that point?  lol
2011-07-02 20:42:23
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5418|Sydney

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Why would two straight people of same gender want to get married?

Answer please.
It doesn't matter, that is my answer. It is not yours mine or the govts. business. JUST LIKE the govt. would not ask WHY a gay person would marry opposite sex. It does not matter.
Avoiding it again I see. This is getting nowhere.

And where is any hypocrisy or double standard? It is all supposition on lowing's part.

Until he can provide a shred of evidence, his point is just a fantasy.
2011-07-03 02:22:56
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6822|SE London

lowing wrote:

Kmar wrote:

lowing wrote:


Because it does not allow straight people the same privilege as gays. Look at it this way, with this new law, gays can marry same sex, or opposite sex, for whatever reason they choose to without question. Straight people may not be able to without govt. interference. THAT is discriminatory.


In short the way to fix this, is for the govt. to take their hands out of personal lives all together, not impose yet another "law". Reasons for marriage do not matter, who the govt. allows to do what is what this thread is about., and this new law may not be a fix if it will continue legislating marriage.

That would be great, if the law is interpreted as anyone can marry anyone. Then again, if that is truly their position or intention, then why do you need a "law" in the first place. The constitution is set up to spell out specifically what the govt. can do. If it is not stated then it is not within  the govts. powers.
Gays should not be allowed to marry the opposite sex if it's for the same fraudulent reasons a hetero would marry the same sex. Fraud is fraud.

The Government has already stepped in the muck with the marriage laws. Either repeal their position to recognize what is a marriage, or open it all up.

You don't need a law in the first place. I think I've made my feelings abundantly clear in that regard.
It's only discriminatory when we give the government the power to discriminate.
But now you are advocating allowing govt. the power to choose for us, and dictate who is allowed to marry and for what reasons. Who is the govt. to define to us what is a moral reason for marriage, and really, how in the world can they govern that without even further discrimination? I would rather that power not exist. It simply is not the govts. business. 

As for the the rest, I offer no argument.
How is it not the governments business? They make the laws that determine this. It has to be defined in law - whose business is it if not the governments?
2011-07-03 03:24:52
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Gays should not be allowed to marry the opposite sex if it's for the same fraudulent reasons a hetero would marry the same sex. Fraud is fraud.

The Government has already stepped in the muck with the marriage laws. Either repeal their position to recognize what is a marriage, or open it all up.

You don't need a law in the first place. I think I've made my feelings abundantly clear in that regard.
It's only discriminatory when we give the government the power to discriminate.
But now you are advocating allowing govt. the power to choose for us, and dictate who is allowed to marry and for what reasons. Who is the govt. to define to us what is a moral reason for marriage, and really, how in the world can they govern that without even further discrimination? I would rather that power not exist. It simply is not the govts. business. 

As for the the rest, I offer no argument.
How is it not the governments business? They make the laws that determine this. It has to be defined in law - whose business is it if not the governments?
Because our govt. is over stepping its bounds. It is there to ensure rights and freedoms equally for all, not pass moral judgement on what we do that has no affect on any other citizen.

and why does marriage, have to be defined by law? What business is it of the govt. who marries who outside immigration laws?

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-03 03:26:38)

2011-07-03 07:52:54
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6651|'Murka

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Why would two straight people of same gender want to get married?

Answer please.
It doesn't matter, that is my answer. It is not yours mine or the govts. business. JUST LIKE the govt. would not ask WHY a gay person would marry opposite sex. It does not matter.
Avoiding it again I see. This is getting nowhere.

And where is any hypocrisy or double standard? It is all supposition on lowing's part.

Until he can provide a shred of evidence, his point is just a fantasy.
He's not avoiding anything, Jaekus. He's taking on the issue directly. Why doesn't matter, except WRT immigration fraud.

In the broader sense, marriage is simply a legal union between two people. Those two people are not required to have certain feelings for each other to enter that union. Hence, "Why?" is irrelevant to the argument, for either the government or you (except, ofc, for immigration issues).
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-07-03 14:22:35
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5418|Sydney

FEOS wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:


It doesn't matter, that is my answer. It is not yours mine or the govts. business. JUST LIKE the govt. would not ask WHY a gay person would marry opposite sex. It does not matter.
Avoiding it again I see. This is getting nowhere.

And where is any hypocrisy or double standard? It is all supposition on lowing's part.

Until he can provide a shred of evidence, his point is just a fantasy.
He's not avoiding anything, Jaekus. He's taking on the issue directly. Why doesn't matter, except WRT immigration fraud.

In the broader sense, marriage is simply a legal union between two people. Those two people are not required to have certain feelings for each other to enter that union. Hence, "Why?" is irrelevant to the argument, for either the government or you (except, ofc, for immigration issues).
But if this is the case then again the earlier point I made that the premise of this thread is "bullshit" is because if the WHY is not important, the government is not going to ask and therefore it will happen regardless.

So it's either no WHY is asked and this thread is pointless, or a WHY is asked and it's a valid question because it could be considered two straight people getting married are doing it for more fraudulent reasons, instead of emotional ones.
2011-07-04 03:24:15
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6651|'Murka

Jaekus wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Jaekus wrote:


Avoiding it again I see. This is getting nowhere.

And where is any hypocrisy or double standard? It is all supposition on lowing's part.

Until he can provide a shred of evidence, his point is just a fantasy.
He's not avoiding anything, Jaekus. He's taking on the issue directly. Why doesn't matter, except WRT immigration fraud.

In the broader sense, marriage is simply a legal union between two people. Those two people are not required to have certain feelings for each other to enter that union. Hence, "Why?" is irrelevant to the argument, for either the government or you (except, ofc, for immigration issues).
But if this is the case then again the earlier point I made that the premise of this thread is "bullshit" is because if the WHY is not important, the government is not going to ask and therefore it will happen regardless.

So it's either no WHY is asked and this thread is pointless, or a WHY is asked and it's a valid question because it could be considered two straight people getting married are doing it for more fraudulent reasons, instead of emotional ones.

OP wrote:

I would like to continue the discussion of "gay rights", and specifically about NY allowing same sex marriages to only gay people.  To me that is discrimination against everyone else.

Should there be laws that cater to specific groups like the gay community? Allowing them special rights over another person, or even special hate crimes that punish worse for hurting one of them over hurting a straight person?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-07-04 03:48:01
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5418|Sydney
Are you proving my point for me, when you quote this:
I would like to continue the discussion of "gay rights", and specifically about NY allowing same sex marriages to only gay people.
because the law does not state "gay marriage", it states "same-sex marriage". lowing even said he read the bill and it makes no reference to gay persons, only same-sex marriage. The rest is stuff he's dreamed up and arguing as if it is fact.

So yeah, thread is bullshit.
2011-07-04 04:12:28
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Jaekus wrote:

Are you proving my point for me, when you quote this:
I would like to continue the discussion of "gay rights", and specifically about NY allowing same sex marriages to only gay people.
because the law does not state "gay marriage", it states "same-sex marriage". lowing even said he read the bill and it makes no reference to gay persons, only same-sex marriage. The rest is stuff he's dreamed up and arguing as if it is fact.

So yeah, thread is bullshit.
You fail to acknowledge that the current laws also do not mention gay people either, yet it is accused of being discriminatory against gays. Do you feel the current laws are discriminating against gays Jaekus?
2011-07-04 04:13:55
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5418|Sydney

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Are you proving my point for me, when you quote this:
I would like to continue the discussion of "gay rights", and specifically about NY allowing same sex marriages to only gay people.
because the law does not state "gay marriage", it states "same-sex marriage". lowing even said he read the bill and it makes no reference to gay persons, only same-sex marriage. The rest is stuff he's dreamed up and arguing as if it is fact.

So yeah, thread is bullshit.
You fail to acknowledge that the current laws also do not mention gay people either, yet it is accused of being discriminatory against gays. Do you feel the current laws are discriminating against gays Jaekus?
It does not allow gay couples to marry, ie. people of the same-sex who are in a consenting adult relationship are not allowed to be married, unlike two people of opposite genders in a similar relationship.

Point out where allowing same-sex marriage alongside traditional heterosexual marriage prevents anyone from marrying.

Point out how same-sex marriage is more discriminatory than having laws that prevent same-sex marriage.

And yes, point out where two straight people of the same gender (whom are most likely messed up in the head or want to commit fraud) are prevented from marrying under same-sex marriage laws. Not your speculation, because that's not fact, even though you like to think it is.

Last edited by Jaekus (2011-07-04 04:49:18)

2011-07-04 04:50:21
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Are you proving my point for me, when you quote this:

because the law does not state "gay marriage", it states "same-sex marriage". lowing even said he read the bill and it makes no reference to gay persons, only same-sex marriage. The rest is stuff he's dreamed up and arguing as if it is fact.

So yeah, thread is bullshit.
You fail to acknowledge that the current laws also do not mention gay people either, yet it is accused of being discriminatory against gays. Do you feel the current laws are discriminating against gays Jaekus?
It does not allow gay couples to marry.

Point out where same-sex marriage prevents anyone from marrying.
Ok so you do claim the current law is discriminatory to gays ,WITHOUT specifically mentioning gays. Then there is no reason to suspect the NEW law will also be discriminatory toward straight people without mentioning straight people.

As it is now, gay people can marry opposite sex just like straight people, while NO ONE can marry same sex.

Under the NEW law, gay people can marry same sex OR opposite sex without question. Straight people can only marry opposite sex, and will endure govt. scrutiny if they try to marry same sex. This is discrimination.
2011-07-04 04:56:36
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5418|Sydney

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:


You fail to acknowledge that the current laws also do not mention gay people either, yet it is accused of being discriminatory against gays. Do you feel the current laws are discriminating against gays Jaekus?
It does not allow gay couples to marry.

Point out where same-sex marriage prevents anyone from marrying.
Ok so you do claim the current law is discriminatory to gays ,WITHOUT specifically mentioning gays. Then there is no reason to suspect the NEW law will also be discriminatory toward straight people without mentioning straight people.
Straw Man argument. See below.

As it is now, gay people can marry opposite sex just like straight people, while NO ONE can marry same sex.
But they don't want to. They want to marry their partners. Straight people can marry their partners. Gay people can not. If you can't follow the simple logic of that, a high school student would run rings around you.

Under the NEW law, gay people can marry same sex OR opposite sex without question. Straight people can only marry opposite sex, and will endure govt. scrutiny if they try to marry same sex. This is discrimination.
Show proof.

You can't argue that a gay person can marry someone of the opposite gender whilst a straight person can't marry someone of the same gender without being a hypocrite.

 

Pages: 1 … 13 14 15 16 17

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard