Can straight people under the current law, marry same sex? A law that does not mention specific groups, can straight people marry same sex? FOrget the reasons why. Under the letter of the law, can straight people marry same sex?Jaekus wrote:
Straw Man argument. See below.lowing wrote:
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.Jaekus wrote:
It does not allow gay couples to marry.
Point out where same-sex marriage prevents anyone from marrying.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.As it is now, gay people can marry opposite sex just like straight people, while NO ONE can marry same sex.Show proof.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.
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.
yes and we've told you that a million times. this thread could have ended after the first post if you just read the law. you are a troll.
I am referring to the current law, not the new law that hasn't taken affect yet.13/f/taiwan wrote:
yes and we've told you that a million times. this thread could have ended after the first post if you just read the law. you are a troll.
Yes.lowing wrote:
Can straight people under the current law, marry same sex? A law that does not mention specific groups, can straight people marry same sex? FOrget the reasons why. Under the letter of the law, can straight people marry same sex?Jaekus wrote:
Straw Man argument. See below.lowing wrote:
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.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.As it is now, gay people can marry opposite sex just like straight people, while NO ONE can marry same sex.Show proof.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.
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.
Massachusetts has had same-sex marriage laws for over seven years now. Go find a case where they prohibited two straight people of the same gender from marrying.
Whilst you're there, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_m … ts#HistoryGoodridge v. Department of Public Health was brought by Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies; Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade; Hillary Goodridge and Julie Goodridge; Gary Chalmers and Richard Linnell; Heidi Norton and Gina Smith; Michael Horgan and Edward Balmelli; and David Wilson and Robert Compton; the plaintiffs successfully argued that denying gay couples equal marriage rights was unconstitutional. The court specified that the original marriage law banned homosexuals from marrying. This law was left intact by the Goodridge ruling ("Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief.").[5][dead link] The court gave the Massachusetts Legislature 180 days in which to "take such action as it may deem appropriate" following its November 18, 2003 ruling. Gov. Mitt Romney ordered town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses on May 17, 2004.
And now say there is no where that law prevented homosexuals from marrying. It says it right there that it was written in LAW to ban homosexuals from marrying - not same gender couples, homosexuals.
I've provided more evidence in one post supporting my argument than you have in 16 pages supporting yours.
You also failed to address these points I asked of you earlier:
I've done my homework. Now do yours.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.
We were talking about NY. but unless you can show where MASS allowed straight people to marry same sex you have proven nothing except what we already know. NO ONE is allowed to marry same sex.Jaekus wrote:
Yes.lowing wrote:
Can straight people under the current law, marry same sex? A law that does not mention specific groups, can straight people marry same sex? FOrget the reasons why. Under the letter of the law, can straight people marry same sex?Jaekus wrote:
Straw Man argument. See below.lowing wrote:
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.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.As it is now, gay people can marry opposite sex just like straight people, while NO ONE can marry same sex.
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.
Massachusetts has had same-sex marriage laws for over seven years now. Go find a case where they prohibited two straight people of the same gender from marrying.
Whilst you're there, read this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_m … ts#HistoryGoodridge v. Department of Public Health was brought by Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies; Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade; Hillary Goodridge and Julie Goodridge; Gary Chalmers and Richard Linnell; Heidi Norton and Gina Smith; Michael Horgan and Edward Balmelli; and David Wilson and Robert Compton; the plaintiffs successfully argued that denying gay couples equal marriage rights was unconstitutional. The court specified that the original marriage law banned homosexuals from marrying. This law was left intact by the Goodridge ruling ("Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief.").[5][dead link] The court gave the Massachusetts Legislature 180 days in which to "take such action as it may deem appropriate" following its November 18, 2003 ruling. Gov. Mitt Romney ordered town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses on May 17, 2004.
And now say there is no where that law prevented homosexuals from marrying. It says it right there that it was written in LAW to ban homosexuals from marrying - not same gender couples, homosexuals.
I've provided more evidence in one post supporting my argument than you have in 16 pages supporting yours.
You also failed to address these points I asked of you earlier:I've done my homework. Now do yours.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.
tired of going round and round with you Jaekus, if you purposely fail to acknowledge the FACT that the law applies to everyone and NOT gay people I see no reason to keep going on.
Unless you point out where straight people are allowed to marry same sex while forbidding gays from doing it, you have shown nothing except that no one is allowed to marry same sex. That is an intrusion by govt. but it is not a discrimination. Simple as that.
Hahahahaha! I expected as much
I'll take that as you researched, could not find anything and haven't the strength of character to admit you are wrong.
I don't need to point out a clause in the law that doesn't exist. I've already pointed out where a previous clause that did exist supports my argument.
You have not addressed my points, nor have you acknowledged the evidence I have presented in my argument. Denying and avoiding yet again.
I've proven my point, now prove yours. If you can. Until you do, anything you say is insignificant
I'll take that as you researched, could not find anything and haven't the strength of character to admit you are wrong.
I don't need to point out a clause in the law that doesn't exist. I've already pointed out where a previous clause that did exist supports my argument.
You have not addressed my points, nor have you acknowledged the evidence I have presented in my argument. Denying and avoiding yet again.
I've proven my point, now prove yours. If you can. Until you do, anything you say is insignificant
What is it you want me to find? How can I find that there is no discrimination by any other means that what I have already pointed out, the FACT that there are no cases where straight people are allowed to marry same sex while forbidding gay people from it.Jaekus wrote:
Hahahahaha! I expected as much
I'll take that as you researched, could not find anything and haven't the strength of character to admit you are wrong.
I don't need to point out a clause in the law that doesn't exist. I've already pointed out where a previous clause that did exist supports my argument.
You have not addressed my points, nor have you acknowledged the evidence I have presented in my argument. Denying and avoiding yet again.
I've proven my point, now prove yours. If you can. Until you do, anything you say is insignificant
Do I need repeat myself, are you that dense.lowing wrote:
What is it you want me to find? How can I find that there is no discrimination by any other means that what I have already pointed out, the FACT that there are no cases where straight people are allowed to marry same sex while forbidding gay people from it.
You claim it is FACT, yet you have not provided a shred of evidence. If it such a FACT, prove it.Jaekus wrote:
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.
Again:
Jaekus wrote:
I've proven my point, now prove yours. If you can. Until you do, anything you say is insignificant
Jaekus, you are all over the place pal, and I am tired of trying to keep up. You are actually asking me to prove that 2 straight people of the same sex are forbidden from marrying same sex now? It is not already understood and agreed that that is the case? Forget it, take the last word I am over trying catch you as you wiggle around.Jaekus wrote:
Do I need repeat myself, are you that dense.lowing wrote:
What is it you want me to find? How can I find that there is no discrimination by any other means that what I have already pointed out, the FACT that there are no cases where straight people are allowed to marry same sex while forbidding gay people from it.You claim it is FACT, yet you have not provided a shred of evidence. If it such a FACT, prove it.Jaekus wrote:
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.
Again:Jaekus wrote:
I've proven my point, now prove yours. If you can. Until you do, anything you say is insignificant
how the fuck has this thread survived this long?
and they ban sam
Tu Stultus Es
Am I reading this correctly that lowing is worried that gay marriage will cause straight people of the same gender to marry for tax reasons or whatever marriage gets you?
he's a muttonhead
Tu Stultus Es
That's not what he's arguing, but it's easy to see how it could be taken that way.DesertFox- wrote:
Am I reading this correctly that lowing is worried that gay marriage will cause straight people of the same gender to marry for tax reasons or whatever marriage gets you?
“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
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
that's what I thought this thread was about
inane little opines
My position hasn't changed at all, I just presented an argument you seem to have no rebuttal for, and now you're a little butthurt over it.lowing wrote:
Jaekus, you are all over the place pal, and I am tired of trying to keep up. You are actually asking me to prove that 2 straight people of the same sex are forbidden from marrying same sex now? It is not already understood and agreed that that is the case? Forget it, take the last word I am over trying catch you as you wiggle around.Jaekus wrote:
Do I need repeat myself, are you that dense.lowing wrote:
What is it you want me to find? How can I find that there is no discrimination by any other means that what I have already pointed out, the FACT that there are no cases where straight people are allowed to marry same sex while forbidding gay people from it.You claim it is FACT, yet you have not provided a shred of evidence. If it such a FACT, prove it.Jaekus wrote:
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.
Again:Jaekus wrote:
I've proven my point, now prove yours. If you can. Until you do, anything you say is insignificant
You claim it to be FACT, well FACTS have evidence. So find the evidence. I claimed that prior to same-sex marriage it was a FACT that homosexual people were discriminated against, a claim you refuted, to which I provided evidence to support my claim. Now do so with yours.
That's the premise of the thread (which is bullshit), you've got seven years worth of marriage applications to find a case where two straight people got rejected from marriage.
If you can't, I again restate that you have not got the strength of character to admit when you are wrong. We both know I can do that, but can you?
Last edited by Jaekus (2011-07-04 14:35:58)
I thought he was scared that gay people will marry impulsively.DesertFox- wrote:
Am I reading this correctly that lowing is worried that gay marriage will cause straight people of the same gender to marry for tax reasons or whatever marriage gets you?
I've not been following this too closely TBH.
Fuck Israel
He believes that the term "gay marriage" discriminates heterosexual people.Dilbert_X wrote:
I thought he was scared that gay people will marry impulsively.DesertFox- wrote:
Am I reading this correctly that lowing is worried that gay marriage will cause straight people of the same gender to marry for tax reasons or whatever marriage gets you?
I've not been following this too closely TBH.
He also isn't man enough to admit a good counter argument when he sees one.
2 anti-homo threads from lowing in one page... 2 flat failures... i see a trend in homophobia
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Closet homophobia.Uzique wrote:
2 anti-homo threads from lowing in one page... 2 flat failures... i see a trend in homophobia
Wasn't there results from a study on released recently, linking increased homophobia to increased homosexual leanings? Maybe these gay-hating threads are lowing's way of coming out.
Was there such a study? I haven't seen it tbh.
Pubic wrote:
Wasn't there results from a study on released recently, linking increased homophobia to increased homosexual leanings? Maybe these gay-hating threads are lowing's way of coming out.
Lisa Simpson wrote:
People who accuse others of being gay are often covering up their own blatant homosexuality
Fuck Israel
i hate special rights, i hate gay rights, and i hate crime.
instead of saying "gay rights" lets say "lowing rights"
Tu Stultus Es