How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

Jarod said:
Wrong, untill the 60's generally all property of a married couple belonged to the Husband.

Things change, history leads to the future, but that is not an excuse not to change things. Some things dont work, limiting marriage to hetrosexual couples no longer works. So we should change it. It does not fit with the evoloved egalitarian ideas about accepting those who are different than us.
Click to expand...

"Generally", perhaps, but as I indicated, not in all cases. Yet in no cases were two men or two women considered in a legitimate marriage.

You have no proof that "limiting marriage to hetrosexual [sic] couples no longer works". Cite evidence of this. Or stop lying.
 
DamnYankee said:
I can make up a certificate that states that you are a racist, vaginaphobe, rapist and bigot, and like your certificate will carry no legal weight within the municipality that you reside. Try taking your "certificate" to a hospital to obtain visitation rights, or an employer to obtain your partner's health care benefits, or to a probate court to obtain inheritance rights. Aren't those the issues that you gay marriage advocates champion? Suddenly they aren't important now, but a piece of paper is.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. Please make up that certificate...so I can hang it on my wall. Certifying to your status as the most retarded member of the forum. You are the one attempting to invalidate the most important aspect of my life. And that simply is unacceptable. Are you trying to convince me as to my folly? That's not happening. You must be trying to convince yourself that you're right. Hence, your delusion. You don't run anything. And sooner or later, the U.S., as a whole, will inevitably recognize gay marriage, much to your chagrin. I don't need a paper to certify my marriage....but it will help in dealing with bigots and naysayers, like you. It's coming, bitch...it's coming.
 
poet said:
Oh, please. Please make up that certificate...so I can hang it on my wall. Certifying to your status as the most retarded member of the forum. You are the one attempting to invalidate the most important aspect of my life. And that simply is unacceptable. Are you trying to convince me as to my folly? That's not happening. You must be trying to convince yourself that you're right. Hence, your delusion. You don't run anything. And sooner or later, the U.S., as a whole, will inevitably recognize gay marriage, much to your chagrin. I don't need a paper to certify my marriage....but it will help in dealing with bigots and naysayers, like you. It's coming, bitch...it's coming.
Click to expand...
I have no power to "invalidate" something that was never valid from the get-go. :D
 
DamnYankee said:
Yet in the past it has always included one man and one woman, and has never included two men, two women, or a man and a tree.
Click to expand...

So you don't care about the other older inclusions, shown by Jarod, that were addressed and changed by society; to get us to where we are today?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So you don't care about the other older inclusions, shown by Jarod, that were addressed and changed by society; to get us to where we are today?
Click to expand...

What?
DamnYankee said:
"Generally", perhaps, but as I indicated, not in all cases. Yet in no cases were two men or two women considered in a legitimate marriage.

You have no proof that "limiting marriage to hetrosexual [sic] couples no longer works". Cite evidence of this. Or stop lying.
Click to expand...

DamnYankee said:
History gives us a road map to the future; you do what has worked and reject what has not. Prior to 1960 it did include equal legal relationship, perhaps there were some states that didn't require that.
Click to expand...
 
DamnYankee said:
What?
Click to expand...

You obviously are only concerned about it being two men or two women; because you fail to recognize that marriage "rights" have been in flux, since recorded time and probably before.

Marriage isn't about sex; because people can and have been having sex, without being married.
Marriage isn't about children; because people can and have been having children, without being married.

Marriage used to be about love and for the most part, it still is; but the legality part of it has to do with society and the Government recognizing that marriage, so that things like inheritance, insurance, responsibility towards each other, and many other things can occur.
And if you're going to try and take the stand that these things can be done with the use of a lawyer, then why not have heterosexual couples required to follow the same regulartions.

All these "discussions" (and I use the word loosely) are not going to change anyone individuals mind, your's, Dixon's, Poet's, etc.; but as a whole, society is once again changing it's parameters and gay marriage is going to occur. Whether you like it or not, is not going to make one iota of difference; anymore then those who complained about inter-racial marriages, stopped that change from occuring.
 
DamnYankee said:
"Generally", perhaps, but as I indicated, not in all cases. Yet in no cases were two men or two women considered in a legitimate marriage.

You have no proof that "limiting marriage to hetrosexual [sic] couples no longer works". Cite evidence of this. Or stop lying.
Click to expand...

Do you have evidence it does work? Cite evidence or stop LYING.
 
poet said:
How so? I'm married. And plenty gay folks are married or getting married. Laws can be changed. Laws are repealed. All the time.
Click to expand...

You claim to be a Christian, yet your Lord and Savior said marriage is a man and a woman.

POET
images
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You obviously are only concerned about it being two men or two women; because you fail to recognize that marriage "rights" have been in flux, since recorded time and probably before.

Marriage isn't about sex; because people can and have been having sex, without being married.
Marriage isn't about children; because people can and have been having children, without being married.

Marriage used to be about love and for the most part, it still is; but the legality part of it has to do with society and the Government recognizing that marriage, so that things like inheritance, insurance, responsibility towards each other, and many other things can occur.
And if you're going to try and take the stand that these things can be done with the use of a lawyer, then why not have heterosexual couples required to follow the same regulartions.

All these "discussions" (and I use the word loosely) are not going to change anyone individuals mind, your's, Dixon's, Poet's, etc.; but as a whole, society is once again changing it's parameters and gay marriage is going to occur. Whether you like it or not, is not going to make one iota of difference; anymore then those who complained about inter-racial marriages, stopped that change from occuring.
Click to expand...

The privilege of state-recognized marriage hasn't been in flux with regards to sexual preference historically. Your argument seems to be that some aspects of marriage have been refined over time, so let's change it completely.
 
poet said:
How so? I'm married. And plenty gay folks are married or getting married. Laws can be changed. Laws are repealed. All the time.
Click to expand...
Except you ain't married, legally. All the whining and wailing in the world won't make it happen in TX. :D
 
DamnYankee said:
Except you ain't married, legally. All the whining and wailing in the world won't make it happen in TX. :D
Click to expand...

Don't you get it? I don't give a shit...I work with the system, as best I can, until the law changes. And change it will. Texas is no different than Massachusetts...except there's more shit to maneuver around here. And it's like two teenagers in love....against their parents' wishes. As much as the parents fuss and fight...nothing can keep two people apart who want to be together. Parents generally lose. You don't have to "get it". It will be "gotten" without you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top