hypocrisy of the gay movement

Originally posted by FabianFnas
No, they weren't. Only men have rights, black wasn't defined as men, rather as slaves, so they wasn't included in the laws as men, but as slaves.
Marriage doesn't include gays in the laws, so they are too excluded. Here it's only a matter of definitions: Who to include, who to exclude.

If the gays have the same rights as straights - why don't they thi ...[text shortened]... mosexual people.
In the future the world will be a better place to live in, than now.

marriage is between a man and a woman.
nobody says the man and the woman needs to be hetero. nobody says the woman needs to have blond hair. nobody says the man needs to have a porsche and a house in Namibia.

man and woman. adults. consenting. probably other conditions too. how are the gays excluded? aaa they exclude themselves because they don't want to marry under these conditions? so how are they discriminated against?
again i ask you to go read my "beer for spongebob" example.

and again i say i support gay marriage. what you are saying however is wrong. when it comes to marriage gays are not discriminated.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
marriage is between a man and a woman.

Yes, according to your definition. Even if it is supported by your law it is just a definition that happens to make your opinion right.

It doesn't have to be like this. A definition can as easily be "marriage is between two people in consent". And then it would include gay people to marry eachother.

Gay people feel themselves as discriminated, as not having the same right as others. Then it's time to change the definition, as has been done in several countries.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Yes, according to your definition. Even if it is supported by your law it is just a definition that happens to make your opinion right.

It doesn't have to be like this. A definition can as easily be "marriage is between two people in consent". And then it would include gay people to marry eachother.

Gay people feel themselves as discriminated, as no ...[text shortened]... t as others. Then it's time to change the definition, as has been done in several countries.

there you go. glad we finaly reached this point. we must change the definition of marriage of course.

now i can finally not explain to you that gays are not really discriminated now and yell at the carrobies for being douches and saying that gays are "destroying the sacred institution of marriage"

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
there you go. glad we finaly reached this point. we must change the definition of marriage of course.

now i can finally not explain to you that gays are not really discriminated now and yell at the carrobies for being douches and saying that gays are "destroying the sacred institution of marriage"

The definition of marriage will change or not whether you like it or not. To suppose otherwise would be Canute-like.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
The definition of marriage will change or not whether you like it or not. To suppose otherwise would be Canute-like.

thank you mr obvious

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
thank you mr obvious

You're welcome mr snarky

Originally posted by twhitehead
The rights are biased in favor of one group, but they are not different for the different groups. As I have already pointed out, rights are never stated in such a way that they are based on the preference of the individual.
Suppose one group of people likes to eat fish and another group likes to eat pork. Further suppose that there is a law that states ...[text shortened]... rly biased in favor of monogamous people and people that don't want to marry their siblings.

I fully support gay marriage, but I am not convinced that they currently have less rights - it is just that the rights that are currently in place are biased in favor of heterosexuals.
-----------------------whitey------------------------------

If someone said in the 1960's in the USA " I fully support black people having access to the same schools as whites but I am not convinced that they currently have less rights - it is just that the rights that are currently in place are biased in favour of whites "

What would you think?

Come on Whitey , this is simply the worst drivel I've ever heard from you. The sooner you admit what a load of double speak this really is the better.

"Do they have different rights depending on whether they are left handed or right handed? Again, no they don't, but that doesn't make it fair." ---whitey----------

Another attack of drivel? The left handed person actually DOES have less rights because they do not have the right to use the hand which they naturally prefer - whereas the right handed person does.

Intellectualising nonesense!!!!!!!

Originally posted by knightmeister
If someone said in the 1960's in the USA " I fully support black people having access to the same schools as whites but I am not convinced that they currently have less rights - it is just that the rights that are currently in place are biased in favour of whites "

What would you think?

That is a false analogy. Nobody is stopping gay people from getting married in the exact same way as heterosexuals.

Another attack of drivel? The left handed person actually DOES have less rights because they do not have the right to use the hand which they naturally prefer - whereas the right handed person does.
As I have said a number of times, rights are never flexible based on personal preference.
If you maintain your position, then do you agree that people who like to marry their siblings are equally being discriminated against? Do they have unequal rights?

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is a false analogy. Nobody is stopping gay people from getting married in the exact same way as heterosexuals.

[b]Another attack of drivel? The left handed person actually DOES have less rights because they do not have the right to use the hand which they naturally prefer - whereas the right handed person does.
As I have said a number of time ...[text shortened]... ke to marry their siblings are equally being discriminated against? Do they have unequal rights?[/b]

Someone who wants to marry their sibling IS discriminated against. It's just that there is a reasonable reason for the discrimination.

If the rights of gay people are not the equal of heterosexuals then there had better be a decent reason for it. As far as I can see there is no reason for it. Therefore , if marriage rights are described in such a way as to favour heterosexuals for no reason other than discriminating on the basis of sexual preference then it's not really on is it?

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is a false analogy. Nobody is stopping gay people from getting married in the exact same way as heterosexuals.

....
If you maintain your position, then do you agree that people who like to marry their siblings are equally being discriminated against? Do they have unequal rights?

Where I live homosexuals are prevented from getting married. At least here, where I live, to say "Nobody is stopping gay people from getting married in the exact same way as heterosexuals." is patently untrue.

There are medical consequences in having siblings procreate. It is reasonable to assume that married siblings would/could have sexual relations and have offspring with serious difficulties. Exactly what medical difficulties do you therefore envision if homosexuals marry? I'd be keen to know.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Someone who wants to marry their sibling IS discriminated against. It's just that there is a reasonable reason for the discrimination.

And what are these 'reasonable reasons'? I think it is largely cultural.

If the rights of gay people are not the equal of heterosexuals then there had better be a decent reason for it.
But their rights are equal, they are just not fair. I am tall ( 6'4" ) and frequently find that I am discriminated against (low doorways, small chairs) even though I have equal rights to everyone else.

As far as I can see there is no reason for it. Therefore , if marriage rights are described in such a way as to favour heterosexuals for no reason other than discriminating on the basis of sexual preference then it's not really on is it?
As I have said, I fully support gay marriage.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Someone who wants to marry their sibling IS discriminated against. It's just that there is a reasonable reason for the discrimination.

If the rights of gay people are not the equal of heterosexuals then there had better be a decent reason for it. As far as I can see there is no reason for it. Therefore , if marriage rights are described in such a w ...[text shortened]... son other than discriminating on the basis of sexual preference then it's not really on is it?

actually they are not. you seem to mistake discrimination for "i won't let you do that because i don't wanna (and it's stupid)"

those that wanna marry their sister, mother, dog, monopoly board are not discriminated against. they would be if the government would let some marry the above and not others. based on some criteria such as religion, ethnicity, race or whatever.

what you are talking about is the law. which may be good or bad. but it is, at least in theory the same for everyone. nobody is allowed to marry their 1st degree relatives and nobody is allowed to marry a 10 year old, and EVERYBODY is allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.

the latter is in my oppinion a bad law as there is no harm in two gays marrying. but until that law is changed gays cannot yell discrimination. because it is not true.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
actually they are not. you seem to mistake discrimination for "i won't let you do that because i don't wanna (and it's stupid)"

those that wanna marry their sister, mother, dog, monopoly board are not discriminated against. they would be if the government would let some marry the above and not others. based on some criteria such as religion, ethnicity, r ...[text shortened]... ing. but until that law is changed gays cannot yell discrimination. because it is not true.

There is/was a similar argument with the miscegenation rules that were around before in the US that you could argue that EVERYBODY is allowed to marry a person of the same race so it wasn't discrimination to disallow white people to marry black people. After all, EVERYBODY had the exact same rights to marry someone as long as they were the same general skin hue.

The question is whether the gender is a legitimate reason to apply that kind of discrimination when you are determining who to marry. It's not just homosexuality, but really gender since two heterosexual males can't marry today either (not that they'd want to, but still).

I think the argument that everyone has the same rights so you can't complain about your rights is a bit disengenuous in that respect and it's used to basically say that there isn't any argument for allowing single-sex marriage.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And what are these 'reasonable reasons'? I think it is largely cultural.

[b]If the rights of gay people are not the equal of heterosexuals then there had better be a decent reason for it.
But their rights are equal, they are just not fair. I am tall ( 6'4" ) and frequently find that I am discriminated against (low doorways, small chairs) even tho ...[text shortened]... reference then it's not really on is it?[/b]
As I have said, I fully support gay marriage.[/b]

But their rights are equal, they are just not fair.
--------------------------whitey----------------------

How come? Can you fill me in on which country we are talking about? I haven't had time to read all the thread.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And what are these 'reasonable reasons'? I think it is largely cultural.

[b]If the rights of gay people are not the equal of heterosexuals then there had better be a decent reason for it.
But their rights are equal, they are just not fair. I am tall ( 6'4" ) and frequently find that I am discriminated against (low doorways, small chairs) even tho ...[text shortened]... reference then it's not really on is it?[/b]
As I have said, I fully support gay marriage.[/b]

And what are these 'reasonable reasons'? I think it is largely cultural.
----------------whitey---------------------------

I think there is an argument that it is genetically not a very healthy thing to do for a society? But maybe it is cultural , I don't know. What I do know is that there is no reasonable reason for discriminating in favour of hetrosexuals. Can you think of one?