Gay Marriage page 100

3390 posts

Flag Post

Darear, it is pretty annoying to see you be so defensive about your “viewpoint”. Discrimination is a real issue. A privilege is something that people can receive by performing a certain procedure. Not everyone is automatically married. You’d have to find a partner you love for that, pay a sum, and appear before some people. It is fair not to call this a right, but also fair not to have it fall under legal protection at all. The biggest problem is that homosexuals are never capable of marrying the person they love, while heterosexuals can.

It is shitty reasoning any way to let something be both legal and a privilege so you can deny it to a certain group of people. You didn’t address this. Instead, you went on a rant on how I call you names and want homosexuals to get “special” privileges. This isn’t even an argument. It’s a weak attempt at maintaining the status quo: discrimination.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darear:
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Quit trolling Vanguarde.

Can someone explain to me what “Vanguarde” means? That a different user or something?

Edit: Alright so I searched Vanguarde and he was apparently a troll on here. Explain to me why he and I have completely different writing styles and how I rarely create threads. Really annoying how you brand all conservatives a troll based on one guy.

Haha. Good cover.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Your arguments consist of “I’m right and you’re wrong, but you’re using the argument that you’re right and I’m wrong, so that’s unfair”. You explain your thinking, I explain mine and why I think you’re wrong, but you immediately go on the defensive and say I’m not allowed. If you’re so easily offended, then it’s impossible to discuss with you.

Honestly, I’ve made my arguments. Reply to them as if you’re not so offended by what you think I seem to do.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Then let’s get back to the basic stances I posted:

1. Privileges should not exist in such a way they can be rejected or denied to a group of people purely because of a feature they cannot willingly control.
2. Legal marriage should either be for all couples or for none.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darear:

I’m just going to ignore you now. I cannot argue with people who think you’re wrong no matter what you do.

AND….YOU aren’t doing this very same thing? I’d say that YOU & jake-o are masters at this. We “opposers” to YOUR ideologies offer strong arguments against them. Yet, for the most part, the two of ya fail to directly address them and merely retreat-to-repeating your same, hackneyed positions.

Argue amongst yourselves.

To what end? We pretty much agree…I guess ya haven’t noticed this. Sure, their is good merit to “comparing notes”. BUT, there is even greater merit to having them challenged….something that YOU seem to resent.

Your whole strategy it seems is driving conservatives and other people who don’t agree with you out anyway.

NO, it’s more like: if ya can’t stand the heat….maybe it’s best to leave the kitchen. OR, if ya feel all that strongly about your positon (strength emboldened by abstinence), then the heat isn’t really problematic.

You have flawed thinking darkruler.

THEN, show where it is. Simple solution…eh?

Jantonaitis, you’re a coward. You insult and mute me like a worthless loser. Ignoring you and the other morons who can’t respect another person’s opinions.

Good grief, how many times are YOU going to repeat this. OH, wouldn’t calling your “opossers” MORONS be some kind of lack of respect for their opinions. Hell, it is even an “ad homeninic” lack of respect for them as a person.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darear:

I will offer this one response. You guys were the ones who labeled and dismissed my argument as stupid, crazy, etc. …

As I said above: do YOU not see that ya’re doing the very same thing…even moreso, and at a greater percentage than any rational rebuttal of yours to counter OUR stupid, crazy ones?

…-than- then, some of you went on to attack me as a homophobe.

Here consider some points in it.
“Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, irrational fear, and hatred.1234 In a 1998 address, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King stated that ”Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood.5

Hell, howzabout that? I just found a great argument for all of those who say homophobia and racism aren’t the same thing. AND, I think YOU can see why we use the term: homophobe.

Darear, when we call YOUR IDEOLOGY homophobic (this pretty much says that YOU are….one isn’t very separate from their ideology), we certainly are walking a very thin line when we “harsly criticize” the ideology. If ya think we cross it…simply flag us.

What do YOU “conservatives” think is gonna happen in a real world (entire world….stop bitching on this, jake-o) setting when ya trot out ideology that is of poor merit…NOT JUST DIFFERENT? If ya think there is actual merit…FUCKING SAY SO. Drop all of this crap that Dark (as well as I & others) is saying ya’re doing. Respond to his (and our) points….do it w/ points of real merit.

I never said you were wrong and I was right. That was about definitions and words.

Not too sure I understand this. BUT, isn’t all of that what SD is about?

Even if I did do that, I didn’t personally insult you or brand you names.

Considering YOU “did do that” and that ya HAVE insluted & branded names to ppl….what’s YOUR point?

Political correctness must die out if there is to be civil debate.

While I question YOUR concept of "civil debate, it appears that from the below that ya’re correct….athough I disagree w/ the definition of both Political correctness and political incorrectness.

“Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies, disability, and age-related contexts, and, as purported by the term, doing so to an excessive extent. In current usage, the term is primarily pejorative,12 while the term politically incorrect has been used as an implicitly positive self-description. Examples of the latter include the conservative The Politically Incorrect Guide published by Regnery Publishing and the television talk show Politically Incorrect. In these cases, the term politically incorrect connotes language, ideas, and behavior unconstrained by a perceived orthodoxy or by concerns about offending or expressing bias regarding various groups of people.”

When I first heard the term, I obiously mistunderstood it because of the assholes who were using it because of how the concept of " language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies, disability, and age-related contexts,…" cut deeply into their ability to attack such civility by saying all of it was " doing so to an excessive extent." I thought this excessive usage concpet was only the perjorative using of PC because they so luved to be just the opposite of civil, unbigoted positions. Little did I know that THEIR USEAGE was actually the correct one. CRAP on a cracker (lol…I hope some of ya see the double entendre).

I think politically INCORRECT, “the term politically incorrect has been used as an implicitly positive self-description. Examples of the latter include the conservative The Politically Incorrect Guide published by Regnery Publishing and the television talk show Politically Incorrect. In these cases, the term politically incorrect connotes language, ideas, and behavior unconstrained by a perceived orthodoxy or by concerns about offending or expressing bias regarding various groups of people.

So yes, Darear…ridding EXCESSIVE civility and good intentions might be a good thing for progress for meaningful discussions. BUT, is the opposite any more conducive to the process?
Much the same can be said for OSHA and building codes. Sure, there most definitely excess in them. BUT, they do correct a whoooole lot of very damaging concequences.

While PI certainly isn’t very “civil” either, I guess that is what is needed to counter and get the attention of the PC’ers. AND, there ya have it….pretty much what is going on in this forum….between the “conservatives”, as YOU see them, and us “vile, mean lefties”.

Unfortunately, some users like Jantonaitis, who’s too much of a coward to insult me here and instead went to my profile to attack me, just continue to impede that.

What was it that YOU said about MY posts? Oh yeah, that ya found them to be laughable. Guess what? lol
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Maine, Washington and Maryland legalise same-sex marriage; Minnesota votes against banning same-sex marriage. Source 1, 2.

 
Flag Post

Do you know if there’s anything for Colorado?

 
Flag Post

I believe there wasn’t any such ballot or referendum or anything in Colorado. But on the bright side, at least you can get high and be happy until whenever it is.

 
Flag Post

I say that if you want to be with someone of the same sex than go ahead. I don’t see why people want to make it illegal. It does not affect you. If that’s what they want then let them.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by kingboy906:

I say that if you want to be with someone of the same sex than go ahead. I don’t see why people want to make it illegal. It does not affect you. If that’s what they want then let them.

Warning: I am about to drop a big o’l Hypothetical here
When a person dies, their spouse gets their property tax free (not including the death tax or many other taxes included in the funeral process). Now lets say I love my pet or child and want to marry them. Well if the homosexuals can get married then I ought to be able to right? So I get a bunch of people who feel the same way and stir up controversy claiming that I should have the right to marry who I please because this is America and the state should recognize it! Then when I die, my children receive my property inheritance tax free and the cycle can continue.

This is a projected problem that has come from this argument. (I am not even arguing for or against this, I am just bringing a point to attention) I’m not saying its 100% probable if gay marriage is legalized but crazier things have been proposed before. To answer your question, its hypotheses like this that make people want to keep it illegal in order to prevent things that might come as a result, but that’s not the only reason. Some just disagree with the philosophy and others just don’t care one way or the other.

 
Flag Post

Benu01, that really goes far beyond “a big ol’ Hypothetical”.
Ya LEAP from the rational arena of two adults (of consenting age) entering into a marriage contract….to the chaotic area of: I want to marry my pickup truck. Seriously, even “hypothetically”…tell me how insane a populace that to become in order to reach the levels-0-lunacy ya’re going for there?

Shit, we’re having a helluva time just getting marriage for Amricans who simply have different sexual orientation than the majority. We only erradicated the last laws (1967) here in the U.S. that banned marriage between races (most specific: Black & White).

So, if ya want to make some form of SERIOUS proposal about RATIONAL objections to Gay marriage…..why not keep it well within the scope of sanity….eh? That ya state that there are “crazy ideas” that have been proposed before is WHAT? NEW? Worthy of note?

NO, crazy ppl & assholes & “fringizies” are always there giving us their esteemed predictions.
We have to slime-climb our way several rungs up the ladder from that cesspool of “bad-brain-chemisty” in order to even approach the somewhat understandable levels of what ya call: “Some just disagree w/ the philosophy…”

Of course, a few rungs below mere “disagree”….we have Westboro Baptish Chruch

Above him, and possibly in the “just disagree” area, we have Hutchinson (pop. 42,000) & Salina (47,000)…small cities 20-30 minutes from Wichita. The disagree margin was significant. Were such discrimination to have been about race….we would call that RACISM. As it is, we just call it homophobia and go on about our bigoted, everyday Kansas shit-headed daily way of being “Christian”.

We’re talking here about a marriage contract that covers a HUUuuuuuge number of issues besides death benefits//issues. Gay “equality” is coming….have no fear (or do have them…I give a fuck). It’s just taking far toooooo long for it to arrive. Americans are being hurt in the meantime. NICE…..eh?
 
Flag Post

Karma, he talks about incest, not his “pickup truck”. Incest isn’t so crazy. Lots of people do it. I’m sure people would get married to their kid if they were about to die, and the inheritance tax were 10% of their property. Let’s say a dude has 100 million worth of property, and he is about to die. He can save his kids 10 million by marrying one of them. So, he gets the marriage and then dies, just for the government benefit. Consider Oregon, where inheritance tax is 40%! You can’t argue he shouldn’t be able to marry his kids, since the whole point of homosexual marriage is to let people do what they want.

This is why I’ve been arguing against government benefits to marriage. It’s totally unnecessary, and exploitable. Drop the benefits, and then there isn’t even a need to have government involved AT ALL. Then we can stop fighting over this.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Benu01:
Originally posted by kingboy906:

I say that if you want to be with someone of the same sex than go ahead. I don’t see why people want to make it illegal. It does not affect you. If that’s what they want then let them.

Warning: I am about to drop a big o’l Hypothetical here
When a person dies, their spouse gets their property tax free (not including the death tax or many other taxes included in the funeral process). Now lets say I love my pet or child and want to marry them. Well if the homosexuals can get married then I ought to be able to right? So I get a bunch of people who feel the same way and stir up controversy claiming that I should have the right to marry who I please because this is America and the state should recognize it! Then when I die, my children receive my property inheritance tax free and the cycle can continue.

This is a projected problem that has come from this argument. (I am not even arguing for or against this, I am just bringing a point to attention) I’m not saying its 100% probable if gay marriage is legalized but crazier things have been proposed before. To answer your question, its hypotheses like this that make people want to keep it illegal in order to prevent things that might come as a result, but that’s not the only reason. Some just disagree with the philosophy and others just don’t care one way or the other.

1. Legalizing Gay Marriage is in no way a door opener for incest Marriages, Polygamy or even Marrying animals/objects. Totally different rules have to be changed and different Arguments apply. Implying otherwise comes from quite a misunderstanding of what Marriage is too the Government.

2. The tax exception you speak of can easily be reorganized or even totally gotten rid of, depending on the needs of society. In some modern countries its already regulated to take more into account the personal situation of the inheritor. For example Tax exception for Spouses is usually based on the idea that one or the other is financial dependent on the other for their livelihood. So in these countries exception inheritance/estate Taxes for Spouses is based A on the financial situation of the Spouse(how much will it hurt to pay the taxes) and B the relative age of the spouse(for example in case of 18 year old girl marrying a 90 year old) and C the part the spouse had indirectly in the acquisition of the wealth to be inherited(for example a housewife getting more, this is usually also covered under A).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Benu01:

Warning: I am about to drop a big o’l Hypothetical here
When a person dies, their spouse gets their property tax free (not including the death tax or many other taxes included in the funeral process). Now lets say I love my pet or child and want to marry them. Well if the homosexuals can get married then I ought to be able to right?

In a similar vein to the others who have posted here, I will say yes, providing you can prove they are a mature, responsible legal adult citizen (or seeking to apply for such status).

So in other words:

You can marry a child, if you can prove they are a mature, responsible adult legal citizen/legal immigrant.
You can marry an animal, if you can prove they are a mature, responsible adult legal citizen/legal immigrant.
You can marry an inanimate object, if you can prove they are a mature, responsible adult legal citizen/legal immigrant.

In each case, you have the responsibility as prospective partners, of showing that both intended partners are legally adult, legally citizens (or prospective ones), and have sufficient mental maturity to meet the legal requirements of consent.

Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, already meet these basic requirements – standard base requirements for all adult contracts, marriage, employment, or otherwise. The onus is then on you, to prove that your ‘beloved other’ in this special case, meets the requirements. A battery of psychological tests may well be required. Good luck with those, in all of your cases – you will need it.

 
Flag Post

So it is illegal to marry someone from a different country? Wow.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

So it is illegal to marry someone from a different country? Wow.

I don’t think she said that. Not directly at least.

And, unless I’m remembering incorrectly, I’m pretty sure that it’s not very legal to marry illegal immigrants, legal immigrants on the other hand…

 
Flag Post

you cannot marry your own child. i believe it is legal up to second cousin, and by exception first cousin.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

So it is illegal to marry someone from a different country? Wow.

It absolutely is if:“…you are caught in a fake marriage, you risk never obtaining legal status in the U.S. along with being deported.”, And,,,

“If you entered illegally or have accrued unlawful presence, then you unlikely can obtain status by marrying a U.S. citizen.”

Read more: How to Obtain Citizenship Through Marriage in the United States | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_5432165_obtain-through-marriage-united-states.html#ixzz2Bt7dsmLb

 
Flag Post

people need to stop being butt hurt and just accept the fact that people can marry who ever they want. (butt hurt shield activated)

 
Flag Post

But if we allow gay marriage we’re allowing government sanctioned butthurt.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Benu01:

Warning: I am about to drop a big o’l Hypothetical here
When a person dies, their spouse gets their property tax free (not including the death tax or many other taxes included in the funeral process). Now lets say I love my pet or child and want to marry them. Well if the homosexuals can get married then I ought to be able to right?

In a similar vein to the others who have posted here, I will say yes, providing you can prove they are a mature, responsible legal adult citizen (or seeking to apply for such status).

So in other words:

You can marry a child, if you can prove they are a mature, responsible adult legal citizen/legal immigrant.
You can marry an animal, if you can prove they are a mature, responsible adult legal citizen/legal immigrant.
You can marry an inanimate object, if you can prove they are a mature, responsible adult legal citizen/legal immigrant.

In each case, you have the responsibility as prospective partners, of showing that both intended partners are legally adult, legally citizens (or prospective ones), and have sufficient mental maturity to meet the legal requirements of consent.

Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, already meet these basic requirements – standard base requirements for all adult contracts, marriage, employment, or otherwise. The onus is then on you, to prove that your ‘beloved other’ in this special case, meets the requirements. A battery of psychological tests may well be required. Good luck with those, in all of your cases – you will need it.

Yes Vika, promote pedophilia. That is exactly what you are doing when you make really ignorant posts like this. I try to use logic with you and make you analyze the folly of your thinking, but you just can’t seem to change. I will keep hoping that you can change.