Yes you did ignore my post. We're here to discuss issues, not to talk without listening. I have read every single one of your posts in its entirety, and I expected the same in return from you. I was trying to tell you that I understand your point of view, and was trying to tell you my viewpoints on those matters. Why are you ever here if you're not going to read the posts? The fact is, Baron, you just act like you're stupid when an argument is made that you can't counter. Once you know you can't answer effectively, you just crawl into your shell and hide with things like "Your post was bullshit," and "Man, you're stupid." OH, and for the record, you said you haven't insulted anyone in this thread... Yeah, that wasn't insulting or anything. I try to have a conversation with you, and you call me stupid. That is how you operate, Baron; when you are presented an argument that logically makes more sense than your argument does, you either resort to name-calling or you outright ignore the post entirely...like you did in on the first page, and like you did to my last post.
But why would we do that? Why change a perfectly good, perfectly equal law? Ahh, so homos can have special rights above and beyond that of heteros, that's why! And that ain't nice. Part of the problem here, guys, is that you want homos to be treated differently to regular males. Yet whenever I bring that up, you say, no, you don't want to be differnt to other males ....you're males, not females, not anything different, ....you're males. Okay, if you're males, then the law is perfectly equal. If you're something else, then say so, and we can have a different kind of argument. Baron Max
Also, note that currently it is not necessary for a man and a woman to prove that they are heterosexual, or have had sex, in order to get a marriage licence. In fact, many homosexual people are married already. So, it is already the case that being homosexual doesn't rule out marriage under the current law. What the marriage law does do is unnecessarily restrict the sex of the person who somebody is allowed to marry. That's an archaicism with no defensible justification in the modern world.
It's not perfectly good. That's just your biased opinion. No. Read my previous posts again. There'd be no preferential or special rights. Everybody would be treated equally. No. I want same-sex marriage permitted for ALL males, regardless of sexual orientation. Like I said.
Just more worthless banter from Baron. Refuses to see the world from anywhere but his back porch. It's ridiculous. What don't you understand about this, Baron? If allowing gay marriage is "letting the homos get rights above and beyond" then only allowing straight marriage is giving heterosexuals rights above and beyond those of homosexuals! How does that not make sense?
I know it's kinda' odd, but, James, I think most people can tell by lookin' at people whether they're male or female, don'tcha' think? Oh, I don't know, James, I think I defended it pretty well so far. If not, no one would be making any comments in response to my posts. I also think that gays wouldn't be fighting this issue so hard if it wasn't defensible in the modern world. The facts remain ...gays can't get married. Why not settle for civil unions? Or is it something that homos want to prove to us inferior heteros? ...to prove that you can force something that we don't want or like or need? Make us bow to the pressure of the gay rights movement? Force it upon us to teach us a lesson? Baron Max
Yeah, by changing present laws! If you can do that, why can't we change the laws for age of consent, then the pedos can have their fun, too? Why not? Special laws for special people, right? If the law don't fit you, change the laws! Good, I'll announce that to the pedo community and see if they like it, too. Baron Max
"Marriage" is between a man and a woman. It's not between two men ...that's something else. So let's call it something else ..civil unions? Gay-rriage? Baron Max
Baron Max: Yes. And that is relevant to marriage because...? It's only defended on the grounds of "tradition" and religious objections. WHen I take about indefensible I usually mean on rational grounds. Forgive me for the misunderstanding. A moment ago you were preaching the merits of equality for all. Now you want two separate systems - discrimination. So, which is it? How does it affect you whether two homosexual people get married or not? It doesn't. You're just sticking your nose into other people's business, for no good reason. Because pedophilia harms children. Gay marriage does not harm anybody. No. Equal rights to marry for all. Like I said. Yes! Now you're getting it. That's how the US legal system has evolved since its inception. I'm not sure what leads you to imagine that laws are immutable. What do you think legislators do? What do judges do? What do lawyers do? That's a very weak straw man, and you're smart enough to know it. Hell, I dismissed it in one sentence.
That's the situation now. But we can change that. That's what this discussion is about. There's really no need to remind people what the status quo is: they already know that. So, stop wasting time and start discussing the issue.
I agree. And I don't think the law should be changed for the special interests of a few people ...that just ain't right, no matter how you cut it. The other thing you have to remember is that the greater majority of voting citizens don't want gays to marry ...that's been shown in poll after poll and in street rally after street rally. Laws should not be changed on the whims of a few people ...without the consent of "the people". And I can't get through to y'all the similarities ....if YOU can change the marriage laws, why can't pedos change the age of consent laws? YOU want speical interest in the law, but you don't want other to have the same. That ain't very nice of y'all. Baron Max
That's because there are no similarities, Baron. You're comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing pedophiles to a group of people who have support from those who aren't like them. Things like this happen for a reason--just like when black people wanted equal rights, they marched with the support of white people. When women who wanted equal rights marched with men. Gay people are marching with heterosexual people. And they have support of the government. Not overwhelming support, or majority support, but support nonetheless. This is another step in our nation's progress. Gays are no different from blacks or from women--they are another group wrongfully oppressed by a society that can't see things from their point of view. But eventually they will.
It is not "special interest". It is equal interest. It is not illegal to be homosexual. Therefore they are not being given any "special" rights to be allowed to marry. People also marched against the end of slavery. But right won over wrong. Laws are constantly being ammended and changed without your even knowing about it, let alone consenting to it. What's your point? If you can see the similarities between two consenting adults wishing to marry and an adult having sex with a minor (to the extreme detriment of that minor), then there is something wrong with you. Again. Not "special". Only equal. In many instances the marriage laws were recently changed to specifically deny homosexuals the right to marry. They did this without the consent of the 'people' and in some cases, without you even knowing about it. Therefore, the laws were changed to deny equal rights to homosexuals. Yes. That's what they want. So what's the problem? You agree that homosexuals should be legally allowed to have a civil union. Problem solved.
So ...hetero males can marry hetero males now in the USA???? When did that happen? And if hetero males can't marry hetero males, then how is it NOT special rights if homo males can marry homo males?? Are they not males? If not, what are they? What makes them different? No, they want to get "married". I have no problem with "civil unions" or any other type of legaleze so the homos can pretend to be "hitched". But I have a problem with calling it "marriage". Baron Max
Then they have no problems getting what they want. So why are we having this discussion? I think we fought a very bloody, very deadly civil war in part because of the rights of blacks. I don't think of bloody civil wars as ...progress. Baron Max
They can and should be allowed to if they so choose. Why? A marriage is a union between two people. Same thing really. They refer to it as 'marriage' to make it simple for people to understand. Now at least we agree that gays can 'marry' or join together in a civil union under the law. If it is just the term "marriage" you have issues with, then so be it. But they only wish to be legally allowed to join together in a civil union and do so legally. Good to see you don't have a problem with that. So why are you arguing against this again?
Can, should,.... those are just words of idealists, with little or no connection to the realities of the world. Society, our society, does NOT want males to marry other males (or ditto for females). It's exactly that ideal that is what makes social laws and rules for the societies of the world. Well, Bells, read the title of this thread ...perhaps then you'll see why we're arguing about "marriage" as opposed to "civil unions". Baron Max
Hey, if they want to get married let'em. They have the right to be miserable like everyone else. You wouldn't give a damn either if you hadn't been brain washed by religion.
Not if the society doesn't want them to get married. And just how would you know that about me? And when have I ever raised any religious objections about homos getting married? Baron Max
