How many law changes have you voted for or against in the last week, Baron? The last year? The last ten years? If didn't have such a hard time comprehending what you're reading, you'd understand what everyone like Bells and James R have been saying...if they make same-sex marriage legal, then it's legal for EVERYBODY, not just homosexuals. That way there is no special treatment...ever woman in America would be able to marry another woman, and same for every man. Nobody's saying "Give us special treatment and rights above and beyond what you get!" All they want is to be able to marry the one that they love. Not you, nor society, has any right to tell them that they can't. Even if homosexuality were a personal choice, rather than the way a person is born, who is "society" to tell them no? We are supposed to make laws to PROTECT people, not oppress them. Age of consent laws are in place (though vary throughout the country) to prevent a minor from being mislead and mistreated by an adult. A father and daughter cannot marry one another because it would promote incest as a healthy practice, when it isn't--when direct blood-relatives have a child, the chances of that child being deformed are increased significantly. The government wouldn't want to promote something that is so potentially damaging to the potential offspring. But homosexuality isn't illegal, and it doesn't hurt people. It doesn't hurt society--look around you! Are we any worse for wear "since the homos arrived"? No, we're not. Homosexuality does not lead to deformed offspring. Homosexuality doesn't equate to pedophilia, or any being taken advantage of. There is no "physical and mental damage" cause by homosexuality. They aren't out corrupting others into joining them. I have had gay friends since I was 14 years old--very young, and very impressionable--and never once did I want to have sex with them. Not once! It isn't contageous! It isn't the bane of society. It's nothing more than a part of society. There are animals who display homosexual behavior. It's no surprise that we do, as well. Bottom line here is that homosexuals do not want to marry the opposite sex. It isn't fair that it is their only option. Because marriage can only legally be between a man and a woman, it grants special rights to heterosexuals, while putting homosexuals at a disadvantage. THe whole "Men can't marry men = equal" argument is worthless. If men can't marry men, then who are homosexual men going to marry? I don't expect you to read this...and even if you do, I doubt you'll be able to comprehend my point, because you're obviously not the brightest guy in the world. But just think long and hard about it... If homosexual marriage was the ONLY kind of marriage allowed, how would you--as a straight man--feel about it? Wouldn't you find it unfair? And don't give me the whole "But that ain't da lawz" thing, because if that's your argument, you're a white male, so you've NEVER been oppressed. I'm asking you to turn the tables on yourself here, and try to see it from someone else's perspective.
Well, I was all ready to respond, but then I saw the above, which stopped me from bothering. Baron Max
More to the point, the US is a secular society, and marriage is a secular institution. That's why priests say, "by the power invested in me...". Invested by the state. The example of the civil rights movement should show that American society does not get whatever it wishes, it is limited by the constitution. Although are laws do not currently reflect the ideals of the constitution, this was anticipated, and so laws are meant to change to support minority rights.
Amen. What more needs to be said? You are a champion of the unsupported bon mot, this particular one is self evident. ~String
You mean "special interests". Because, any person who wants to be treated equally in this country is a special interest group. Just ask Baron.
Hetero males can't marry other males; homo males can't marry other males. Perfectly equal rights for both ...unless homo males aren't really males?! Baron Max
Still going with this one, even though I debunked it earlier? Same sex marriage for both heterosexual and homosexual people would also have perfectly equal rights for all. So, your argument is worthless.
"Marriage" is between a man and a woman. It has nothing to do with equal rights, in the same way women's restrooms are for women, and men's restrooms are for men. See? That has nothing to do with equal rights under the law. Hetero males can't marry other males; homo males can't marry other males. Perfectly equal under in the eyes of the law ...and no discrimination whatsoever exists. But, see, homos ain't concerned or satisfied with equality, they want special rights because they think they're special and above the law and everyone else. Sorry, it don't work like that. Baron Max
Shall I remind you of what you said earlier? Again. Huge difference between "special" rights and equal rights. To grant same sex couples the right to legally join together in a civil union (which you seem to agree with) is to grant them equal rights. Special rights would be like giving them the right to do something that no one else would be allowed to do. Therefore, if we were to use your line of argument Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!rolleyes: ), heterosexual couples who wish to marry have special rights compared to everyone else. So why should heterosexual couples have special rights above everyone else? What makes them "special"?
Baron Max: Right now it is. What's under discussion is what it ought to be. Get it? You've changed your tune all of a sudden. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yes, and no discrimination would exist if hetero and homo people could all enter into same-sex marriages. You're going around in circles.
Hetero males don't want to marry other hetero males, making that a meaningless comparison; but then again, so are all of your comparisons on this topic. As has been noted, however, if the legalize gay marirage, then in theory a hetero male *could* marry another hetero male if he so chose, so the laws would still be equal for all. On the other hand if you look at the relevant unit being "Couple that wants to marry" then currently heterosexual couples have "special rights" as compared to homosexual couples. Changing the law would make things equal from both perspectives.
Well, Bells, look at it this way ...why should women and men have their own separate restrooms? That's "special rights", ain't it? So ...would you be so quick to grant men into women's restrooms and vice versa? Marriage is the same way ...it's for a man and a woman ...iin exactly the same way as separating the sexes for shitting and pissing. Baron Max
But if they wanted to for some reason, say for tax purposes or such, they couldn't do it. So the comparison is, as you can see, quite relevant. No, it wouldn't. Or are you willing to allow all "special interest" groups to change the laws that THEY wish to change? Say, pedophiles get to change laws that affect them, that they wish to change? Or pro-life group gets to change the laws on abortion? Or the pro-choice group gets to change the laws that they wish changed? See? I don't think you'd like that, yet for gays, you seem perfectly willing to let them change laws that they want. Why? Why are homos so special, above and beyond those other groups? Baron Max
