06 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by BadwaterPeople try very hard to divert my point to self evident matters, as they know I'm right, and they know they have a weak point.
A married couple does have more rights than an unmarried couple. There are rights of medical access, kinship, implied power of attorney, probate, etc.
Fabian has a point. Note how I took homosexuality out of my statement, and it's a true statement.
Heterosexuals can legally marry in the US. Homosexuals cannot (expect for rare circumstances or attempts ...[text shortened]... bverted). Therefore, heterosexuals have rights that homosexuals do no have, by way of marriage.
Those who think they, as straights, has no more rights than the gays to do whatever they want, they are dead wrong. In our hetero normative society everything is built for us, the normal ones, and if the gays doesn't accept it, then (and here it comes) why don't they accept it or behave normally (straight)?
If we believe in equal rights for anyone, then we have to be prepared to give equal rights to anyone. That's my underlying points in this discussion.
06 Nov 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasRights are never, and can never, be based on personal preference. You cannot say that those that like to eat meat should be granted the right to do so, but those that don't like meat should be banned from doing so.
People try very hard to divert my point to self evident matters, as they know I'm right, and they know they have a weak point.
Those who think they, as straights, has no more rights than the gays to do whatever they want, they are dead wrong. In our hetero normative society everything is built for us, the normal ones, and if the gays doesn't accept it, ...[text shortened]... be prepared to give equal rights to anyone. That's my underlying points in this discussion.
The fact is that heterosexuals likes and dislikes are a closer match to the rights that we have, but they do not have more rights. Even heterosexuals cannot marry someone of the same sex.
I know you think I am just arguing a technicality, but your claim is simply wrong, and you would do well to modify it to give a more accurate picture and thus be more persuasive.
There are in fact cases where unequal rights is preferable - such as some differences between the rights of men and women (think sports). Of course there are still many cases where the different rights between men and women is wrong.
To help demonstrate my point, do you believe that you have more rights than people who like to walk around naked?
06 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think he's talking about some having more rights in practice, rather than (cough) in the absolute.
Rights are never, and can never, be based on personal preference. You cannot say that those that like to eat meat should be granted the right to do so, but those that don't like meat should be banned from doing so.
The fact is that heterosexuals likes and dislikes are a closer match to the rights that we have, but they do [b]not have more rights. Eve ...[text shortened]... e my point, do you believe that you have more rights than people who like to walk around naked?[/b]
06 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhitehead"Even heterosexuals cannot marry someone of the same sex."
Rights are never, and can never, be based on personal preference. You cannot say that those that like to eat meat should be granted the right to do so, but those that don't like meat should be banned from doing so.
The fact is that heterosexuals likes and dislikes are a closer match to the rights that we have, but they do [b]not have more rights. Eve ...[text shortened]... e my point, do you believe that you have more rights than people who like to walk around naked?[/b]
Who wants to?
This is a try to divert from the question at hand.
"There are in fact ... some differences between the rights of men and women (think sports)."
Who complains?
This is also a try to divert from the question at hand.
"To help demonstrate my point, do you believe that you have more rights than people who like to walk around naked?"
Yet another attempt to divert the discussion about rights between straights and gays.
If the gays want to marry his or her loved one, to happily live together for their life, to have a mutual legal rights for protecting their togetherness - you (1) deny them this because they are gay, and (2) you think that they have equal rights as straights, then we have a paradox here.
We're not talking about walking naked in the street, we're not talking about men and women sharing looker rooms at the stadium, we're not talking about marrying a 12 year old or any family member, we're not talking polygamy, we're not talking about religious definitions of the word 'marriage'!
What we are talking about is about if gay people have the same rights as the straight people. Instead of admitting it you wiggle and use technicalities to show for me that I'm not 100% right (with lame retorics). Do you mean that I'm nearly right, right up to 90%? Or okay within reaons? Or what?
Because I know that you within your heart agree with me, but happen to be involved in a discussion that you cannot win, and desperately trying to find a way out without losing face.
I'm like a terrier here, knowing that I'm right in its essentials, that the gay people has not the same right to live their life as we the straights have. Because if they do, there would be no gay movements, no Pride Festivals, no rainbow flags, no lobbying for equal rights, no nothing. There are countries in the world that are not allowed to show any, and I mean *any*, indication that they are gay, if they're not willing to risque their necks. In our countries we've come far for equal rights, but we have to struggle with the homophobes, racists ones, and religious ones, having the same phobia.
So to give you a way out of this discussion, without losing anyones face, is that we have come far, we are among the most progressed countries in the world, we are nearly (relatively) there. Agree on this?
06 Nov 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasyup. that is how the legal base works.
So you actually believe that straight people doesn't have more rights than gay people? Honestly?
if i as world king emperor grand poobah say that from now on everyone gets a free chocolate bar every morning, are the diabetics discriminated? they can still get it, not my fault they can't enjoy it.
that is the foundation of the system. if i am really fluffy at heart i will understand their plight and amend the chocolate law: "diabetics will get a sugar free chocolate". which is not chocolate. but close.
06 Nov 09
Originally posted by Badwaterhe doesn't have a point. not a legal one anyway. sure if you stop rationalizing it you realize that what fabian is saying is the right thing to do. but i am saying he goes in the wrong direction.
A married couple does have more rights than an unmarried couple. There are rights of medical access, kinship, implied power of attorney, probate, etc.
Fabian has a point. Note how I took homosexuality out of my statement, and it's a true statement.
Heterosexuals can legally marry in the US. Homosexuals cannot (expect for rare circumstances or attempts ...[text shortened]... bverted). Therefore, heterosexuals have rights that homosexuals do no have, by way of marriage.
the government gives you and me and everyone the rigth to marry a person of the opposite sex. thats it. nobody mentions love, nobody mentions sexual attraction. i am sure that in the marriage certificate the wife isn't obliged to provide sex services twice a week(it costs extra for three times a week). it is just a contract between two people to live together(not even all the time) and get a bunch of tax and other benefits. based on this, how is a gay man or woman denied a right?
sure i could be wrong. the government could define marriage on love. at which point i would require you to produce a quote from a constitution or aprropriate laws
06 Nov 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou are too diverting the question. This is not about eating chocolate and die. It's rather about some get a right, others don't, don't you get that?
yup. that is how the legal base works.
if i as world king emperor grand poobah say that from now on everyone gets a free chocolate bar every morning, are the diabetics discriminated? they can still get it, not my fault they can't enjoy it.
that is the foundation of the system. if i am really fluffy at heart i will understand their plight and amend th ...[text shortened]... hocolate law: "diabetics will get a sugar free chocolate". which is not chocolate. but close.
This diverting of yours, shows clearly that you know that you are wrong.
Are gays allowed to marry one they love? No.
Are straights allowed to marry one they love? Yes.
Does this mean that gays has the same rights as straights? No.
And that is the answer to the question: "Do the gays have the same rights as the straights?" And the answer is clearly: "No, they haven't!"
The next question is: Why?
What will happen if men marry men, or women marry women? What is it that is that dangerous with this?
Because god doesn't like it?
Because you are jealous of their love?
Because it's something new and this we cannot tolerate?
Or just because homophobes lose their right to be homophobes?
06 Nov 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasi think we will stop this discussion until you prove to me that marriage is about love.
You are too diverting the question. This is not about eating chocolate and die. It's rather about some get a right, others don't, don't you get that?
This diverting of yours, shows clearly that you know that you are wrong.
Are gays allowed to marry one they love? No.
Are straights allowed to marry one they love? Yes.
Does this mean that gays has t ...[text shortened]... his we cannot tolerate?
Or just because homophobes lose their right to be homophobes?
like twhite told you, you do not marry the one you love. you cannot marry minors. nor trees, nor cars, nor animals, nor chocolate. marriage is defined. tell me that definition, how it appears in your country's laws.
You are too diverting the question. This is not about eating chocolate and die. It's rather about some get a right, others don't, don't you get that?
i believe you are the one who is not getting "it". this is about a right all people have and some people choose to not use. all people have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex(and apropriate age, and there is a matter of consent). some people choose to not use this right(gays, catholic priests, nuns, monks, doodz that don't want the chain and ball thing).
this is not discrimination. the gays need to stop saying that. the gays need to demand the right to marry a person of the same sex. thats it.
06 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziI cannot prove that marriage is about love. But it usually is. But what differs a marriage from a just living together agreement, is a legal matter. It's about have a security of not to have to leave the house because the other part dies, it's about financial security, it's about well anything that married coples has that just room mates cannot have. So we agree that marriage is an agreement between two people that has a mutual consent to be more than room mates. Right?
i think we will stop this discussion until you prove to me that marriage is about love.
like twhite told you, you do not marry the one you love. you cannot marry minors. nor trees, nor cars, nor animals, nor chocolate. marriage is defined. tell me that definition, how it appears in your country's laws.
You are too diverting the question. This is no ying that. the gays need to demand the right to marry a person of the same sex. thats it.
Who says anything about marry animals? This is the kind of diversion I try to avoid. If you want to discuss marriage between a man and his dog, then start a new thread and we discuss that. But it's pointless, because we agree on that one.
This is about two adult persons, of the same sex or the opposite sex, wanting tho share their lifes together. Some people can by law, some people cannot by law. The question is: Do they have the same rights? This is what the question is about.
If you want to discuss the next matter "Is this good or not?", then we can do that. But let us first agree that they don't have the same rights only because you are born a gay or born a straight.
06 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobiei truly believe that the gay movement is insidious, that it has an agenda, crouched in civil liberties and equality, which goes way beyond civil liberties and equality
i truly believe that the gay movement is insidious, that it has an agenda, crouched in civil liberties and equality, which goes way beyond civil liberties and equality. i truly believe that to be the case, and i have sought to demonstrate it. this is not an 'isolated play', nor an isolated instant, there are many which demonstrate this perspective, ...[text shortened]... is your opinion, i prefer colloquialisms, you of all people should understand a preference 😉
What would this agenda be in your strange little mind then Robbie?
To turn us all gay?
06 Nov 09
A linguistic question:
Homos can be both men and women, right?
Same with gays? They can be men and women too, rigth?
But only women can be called lesbic, right?
If we don't use pejorative wordings, what is the name of male homosexuals that women cannot be? Is there an exclusive word for male homosexuals?
06 Nov 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasWho says anything about marry animals? you did. when you talked about marrying the one you love. many love their dogs very much.
I cannot prove that marriage is about love. But it usually is. But what differs a marriage from a just living together agreement, is a legal matter. It's about have a security of not to have to leave the house because the other part dies, it's about financial security, it's about well anything that married coples has that just room mates cannot have. So w ...[text shortened]... that they don't have the same rights only because you are born a gay or born a straight.
"I cannot prove that marriage is about love. But it usually is."
no, you cannot prove that marriage is about love. because it never is. not from a legal point. because you cannot make a contract out of love. "i, by signing this, agree to love the other". sounds silly on a piece of legal document, doesn't it?
This is about two adult persons, of the same sex or the opposite sex, wanting tho share their lifes together
so you restrict the marriage to humans, being adult, consenting, but stop at same or opposite sex. on what grounds?
"Do they have the same rights?" yes, they all get to marry a person of the opposite sex.
But let us first agree that they don't have the same rights only because you are born a gay or born a straight. i will never agree to this. i support the gay marriage. but i will never say they are discriminated. blacks were discriminated. jews where discriminated. and me and white have already gave you examples of what discrimination means.
here is another: the government gives a free beer to whomever goes to see a spongebob movie. i love beer and i love free, suffice it to say that i would love to get me that beer. but i hate spongebob. i cringe at the thought of him.
so now i have a dilema. i love beer and i hate spongebob. i just have to decide if i want the beer bad enough. i guess i could sit through half the movie and get half a beer. or i could bring my ipod to the theater and watch futurama when nobody is watching. also i could lobby the government if they could offer another viewing that shows futurama and so the people could choose where to go.
but if i decide that beer is not worth the trouble of spongebob or lobbying i would have no right to complain that i am being discriminated. the government is offering beer with spongebob and i choose not to take it. my fault.
06 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzi"Who says anything about marry animals?" You did: "like twhite told you, you do not marry the one you love. you cannot marry minors. nor trees, nor cars, nor animals, nor chocolate. marriage is defined. tell me that definition, how it appears in your country's laws." I haven't brought it up. Let's continue...
Who says anything about marry animals? you did. when you talked about marrying the one you love. many love their dogs very much.
"I cannot prove that marriage is about love. But it usually is."
no, you cannot prove that marriage is about love. because it never is. not from a legal point. because you cannot make a contract out of love. "i, by signing thi d. the government is offering beer with spongebob and i choose not to take it. my fault.
What are you trying to discuss here?
I say that straights and gays don't have the same rights, I use the marriage as an example.
You say that they have the same rights. Right?
Or are you trying to prove other things? Like marriage has nothing to do with love? Okay, it's your opinion, but off topic.
You don't support gay marriages. Okay, that's your opinion, but off topic.
Okay, you love beer and hate spongebob. Okay, that's your opinion, but off topic.
You say much about things that is not related to gay and straight rights. But please do open a new thread and disuss that there.
Let's just agree on that the gay people have not the same rights as the straight people. When we do that, we can discuss further if this is okay or not.
06 Nov 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneactually it is a case i am very familiar with, for prior to the capture of Mr Radar i had taken up the case and was following it with great interest and could not believe that within a month or so a suspect had been apprehended and caught. Now perhaps you shall explain your statement, how a serial killer, whose motivations, he himself claimed to be some mysterious 'factor x', who regularly fed himself on the actions of other serial killers and in full knowledge and intent, stalked, noted details of and perpetrated pre meditated murder on his victims with the utmost cruelty can be construed as being involuntarily and prone to aberration. you have made the statement, now you shall explain yourself.
[b]there are two classes or types of sin, those which are deliberate, in full knowledge and done with intent, and those which are done involuntarily, through aberration and imperfection. Are you able in your understanding, to make the distinction? perhaps you would like it illustrated?
No doubt the BTK Killer also told himself his sins were "done involuntarily, through aberration and imperfection".[/b]