How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

Aoxomoxoa said:
Without him the Battle of the Atlantic would have been lost, D-Day wouldn't have happened, the Japanese naval cyphers wouldn't have been cracked...need I go on?
Click to expand...
The war would still have been won, but probably a year and several millions of lives later. Computers and the theory of computation would have developed more slowly, although I'm sure we'd still have them. Probably an internet of some kind too -- it's hard to say for sure. What can be said for certain is that Alan Turing's life has had a dramatic effect upon all of ours.
 
bravo said:
The other viewpoint is special treatment for a group that practices abnormal sex.....ie...sex between men.....no one is trying to prohibit that sex or control it in any way.....
those sex acts have nothing to do with the purpose of marriage, ie...to protect the children and their mothers from exploitation.....


You want to have sex with men, have a ball,.....its your privilege......I don't care how you live your life.....just don't try to demand that I have to accept how you live your life, no matter what you do .......I really don't want to even know about it .
Click to expand...

it is going to be hard for me to respond to all you said since you don't know how to use to the quote function....but i will try.

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with this .....the citizens are the government.....we make the law, in accordance with the Constitution....EQUAL treatment for all.....regardless of sex, race, or religion...( or sexual orientation, hair color, weight, height, eye color, etc.......)
Click to expand...

you start off by saying the 14th "has nothing to do with this", then you end up saying that "we make the law...EQUAL...for all." yet you don't want the law equal for all. what boggles the mind is that you even admit that there should be EQUAL treatment for all - including sexual orientation. yet you don't support those who want to marry the same sex as having equal protection or rights under our government law regarding marriage. i seriously do not understand how you can come to such a disjointed understanding of what EQUAL treatment means.

What isn't American law....? Marriage was created for this reason....it has nothing to do with "American law".....it is historical fact....it is worldwide,
it existed before their was an America......and has endured...
Click to expand...

it is not american law that people can be treated UNequal with regards to marriage, so long as their relationship is legal. it has everything to do with american law. what country do you think you live in? following your logic to its ultimate conclusion.............slavery is a historical fact. it is worldwide. thus, according to you, we should allow slavery.

No one is forced to marry or forced to not marry.....the law that exists, exists for all of us........marriage still protects children and women from abuse..just as it was menat to......
Click to expand...

this a red herring. and please learn to use the quote function.

the rest of your rant is nonsense and has nothing to do with the right to marry.
 
Eye said:
lmao...

no one on the right or left of the aisle knows what dixon's "argument" or "point" is
Click to expand...

There is no violation of the 14th Amendment, as you claimed. Would have been obvious, had you only taken the time to read the post. All but one of the cases cited were challenges to states refusal to license same sex marriages, alleging a violation of the 14th amendment. Every one of them held that there was no violation of the 14th amendment and each of the selected quotes state why there is no such violation of the 14th amendment.

Which part are you having trouble with?
 
dixon76710 said:
There is no violation of the 14th Amendment, as you claimed. Would have been obvious, had you only taken the time to read the post. All but one of the cases cited were challenges to states refusal to license same sex marriages, alleging a violation of the 14th amendment. Every one of them held that there was no violation of the 14th amendment and each of the selected quotes state why there is no such violation of the 14th amendment.

Which part are you having trouble with?
Click to expand...

all untrue.

i suggest you reread what you 'copied and pasted'....it is clear you don't understand what you copied.
 
Disillusioned said:
Ok I can't tell if you're trying to make a point, it appears from these three links that queer may have ended up in the same category as n***** (Which is a stupid category on it's own principle). Ok for homosexuals to use but not ok for others, is that what you were trying to say?
Click to expand...

Precisely? What don't you get?
 
christiefan915 said:
What exactly is your argument, money, non-acceptance of homosexuality, or some combination of the two?

Take this April 2011 study from the Williams Institute.

They found there are "an estimated 3.5% of adults in the United States [who] identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual and an estimated 0.3% of adults are transgender. This implies that there are approximately 9 million LGBT Americans..."

Now. Forty-eight per cent (48%) of hetero Americans are married and receive the tax breaks and government benefits you mentioned. If every one of the 3.5% who identify as LGBT marry, the benefits they'll receive will add just a drop in the bucket to what the hetero marrieds get already. And it also raises the question does every married couple even take all the breaks and benefits they're entitled to. Because as I'm sure you know, some couples file as "Married, Filing Separately" and they get the fewest tax breaks of all. So the financial argument is not as cut-and-dried as you'd think.

I'm inclined to think, from reading your posts, that the tax and entitlement benefit of marriage is not your deciding factor in why gays shouldn't marry. Frankly, I think you don't approve of homosexuality, period, but are trying to cloak that position with a sort of "fairness" mantle, and a fantasy that this country would be overrun with homosexual couples whose incipient marriages will bankrupt us. Whatever. Whether it's money or approval of homosexuality, yours is a pitiful position to take and your snide comment at the end doesn't make your own argument legitimate.
Click to expand...

Wow! I am opposed to homosexual marriage because I am opposed to unconstitutional discrimination. REALLY opposed to unconstitutional discrimination intended to win more respect for homosexuals.
 
dixon76710 said:
???? When did queer become a slur? You are aware that its the term the queers adopted. "Queer Theory" "Queer Nation", its their term.
Click to expand...

dixon76710 said:
Queer Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_theory
Queer Nation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_Nation
Queer Nation Manifesto
http://www.sterneck.net/gender/queer-manifesto/index.php
Click to expand...

Disillusioned said:
Ok I can't tell if you're trying to make a point, it appears from these three links that queer may have ended up in the same category as n***** (Which is a stupid category on it's own principle). Ok for homosexuals to use but not ok for others, is that what you were trying to say?
Click to expand...

Its a question. When did queer become a slur?
 
Eye said:
what boggles the mind is that you even admit that there should be EQUAL treatment for all - including sexual orientation. yet you don't support those who want to marry the same sex as having equal protection or rights under our government law regarding marriage. i seriously do not understand how you can come to such a disjointed understanding of what EQUAL treatment means.
Click to expand...

"Equal Treatment" would involve eliminating the difference in treatment between those who are married, and those who are not. Silly to argue for equal treatment in the context of marriage, which by design, treats the married different from the unmarried. "Equal protection" does not require "equal treatment". Most laws define different treatment for different people. Intentionally UN "equal treatment"
 
Eye said:
you start off by saying the 14th "has nothing to do with this", then you end up saying that "we make the law...EQUAL...for all." yet you don't want the law equal for all. what boggles the mind is that you even admit that there should be EQUAL treatment for all - including sexual orientation. yet you don't support those who want to marry the same sex as having equal protection or rights under our government law regarding marriage. i seriously do not understand how you can come to such a disjointed understanding of what EQUAL treatment means.



it is not american law that people can be treated UNequal with regards to marriage, so long as their relationship is legal. it has everything to do with american law. what country do you think you live in? following your logic to its ultimate conclusion.............slavery is a historical fact. it is worldwide. thus, according to you, we should allow slavery.
Click to expand...

EVERYONE is treated the very same way, regardless of sexual preferences......
Sexual orientation is the red herring.....its irrelevant.....we don't base laws on the likes and dislikes of your personal sex life.....
Some men want to have sex with with 12 years olds.....do we need to change the law to appease their particular perversion.....
Some couples like to have sex in public....do we need to change the law to appease their particular perversion.....
The fact that some men want to have sex with other men is irrelevant......

Marriage was instituted to protect children and their mothers from exploitation...... and even they don't HAVE to get married if they don't want too......

The law can be changed of course and the definition of marriage re-written......you can call men mothers if you want, and transsexual women, men....you can call apples grapes and basketballs gonads if you want.......you can live in your own little fantacy world if you want.....that doesn't mean we all have to join you......
Homo couples will never be fathers or mothers unless they stray......men will not become pregnant and women will not fertilize their female partners eggs to reproduce.....no matter what labels you give them.....Chaz Bono will ALWAYS be a female no matter what operations she undergoes.....

You will probably get your way in the future......conservatives are far too meek and mannered to put up much of a fight to something so stupid ....
it really doesn't matter to most of us if you call your pecker onceler or your wife darla.....your being an idiot doesn't bother me at all......
 
bravo said:
EVERYONE is treated the very same way, regardless of sexual preferences......
Sexual orientation is the red herring.....its irrelevant.....we don't base laws on the likes and dislikes of your personal sex life.....
Some men want to have sex with with 12 years olds.....do we need to change the law to appease their particular perversion.....
Some couples like to have sex in public....do we need to change the law to appease their particular perversion.....
The fact that some men want to have sex with other men is irrelevant......

Marriage was instituted to protect children and their mothers from exploitation...... and even they don't HAVE to get married if they don't want too......

The law can be changed of course and the definition of marriage re-written......you can call men mothers if you want, and transsexual women, men....you can call apples grapes and basketballs gonads if you want.......you can live in your own little fantacy world if you want.....that doesn't mean we all have to join you......
Homo couples will never be fathers or mothers unless they stray......men will not become pregnant and women will not fertilize their female partners eggs to reproduce.....no matter what labels you give them.....Chaz Bono will ALWAYS be a female no matter what operations she undergoes.....

You will probably get your way in the future......conservatives are far too meek and mannered to put up much of a fight to something so stupid ....
it really doesn't matter to most of us if you call your pecker onceler or your wife darla.....your being an idiot doesn't bother me at all......
Click to expand...


Oh oh oh... So much fail.
Ok I admit that current definitions of marriage require one member of each gender(excluding hermaphrodites because really who cares). Not a reason to maintain that definition. Second I seriously doubt that gay men want one of them to be the wife, the definition of a wife a female member of a marriage, gay men would just be husband and husband, same thing with parenting, just have two dads. It's one small rewrite, allow gay couples who marry the same rights as heterosexual couples.

You can stand at a distance and call it unatural but lets face it you guys call women going to college, men who can cook and non christian households unnatural.
 
bravo said:
What makes you say that.......the 'number' of posts ?.....what does the number of posts have to do with anything......?
Click to expand...

If you would stop being all emotional, you would see that it seems to be one of the few reasons that the anti-gay marriage crowd keeps bringing up.
 
Disillusioned said:
Oh oh oh... So much fail.
Ok I admit that current definitions of marriage require one member of each gender(excluding hermaphrodites because really who cares). Not a reason to maintain that definition. Second I seriously doubt that gay men want one of them to be the wife, the definition of a wife a female member of a marriage, gay men would just be husband and husband, same thing with parenting, just have two dads. It's one small rewrite, allow gay couples who marry the same rights as heterosexual couples.

You can stand at a distance and call it unatural but lets face it you guys call women going to college, men who can cook and non christian households unnatural.
Click to expand...


so whats with the "fail, fail, fail" crap......? Your "doubts" about homo men are noted.............. and irrelevant.....

Try your next post in English and on topic.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top