NY: Homosexuals Win but Society Loses

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted

Well you can just bend anything to say what you want it to say can't you? That's ok the reasonable people know what my post actually means.

You're right, I understand what your post means. That's why I responded to it.

Your post has only a few possible meanings:
You believe same-sex, traditional, and polygamist relationships actually are all equal, and therefore should be treated equally under the law.
or
You recognize they are not equal, but believe they should be treated as equal anyway.


Which is it?

 

[McGinn77]

Wirelessly posted

Your right it's dismissal of your point.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted

Your right it's dismissal of your point.

When you have no counter-point, that's about the only thing you can do and think you're saving face.

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



So the part about all men being created equal, you just want to ignores that?

As I previously answered, I believe all men were created equal in the eyes of the law.

That's why there's no sexual orientation clause to getting married. You just can't call chicken prime rib and have it be so.

So they are equal but they can't mary who they love or if they do their relationship isnt equal. Yep, that's pretty equal

 

[McGinn77]

Wirelessly posted

No, I'm not saving anything but time. I don't care enough about your opinion because it doesn't matter. Soon either the courts or the Respect for Marriage act will change everything and America and Tolerence will win. I can do things to ensure that happens. Talking to you isn't one of them.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



So they are equal but they can't mary who they love or if they do their relationship isnt equal. Yep, that's pretty equal

They can marry whomever they want. If they want that marriage recognized, they simply need to demonstrate why that relationship actually is equal to society as traditional marriage. :shrug:

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted

No, I'm not saving anything but time. I don't care enough about your opinion because it doesn't matter. Soon either the courts or the Respect for Marriage act will change everything and America and Tolerence will win. I can do things to ensure that happens. Talking to you isn't one of them.

Of course not. The more you let me talk, the more people will realize your point of view is inaccurate.

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



So they are equal but they can't mary who they love or if they do their relationship isnt equal. Yep, that's pretty equal

They can marry whomever they want. If they want that marriage recognized, they simply need to demonstrate why that relationship actually is equal to society as traditional marriage. :shrug:

That's total bs. Unless you are now going to require all marriages to prove their value to society that's isn't equality.
Btw, many many opposite sex marriages provide no tangible benefit to society.

Again your argument is total bs

 

[McGinn77]

Of course not. The more you let me talk, the more people will realize your point of view is inaccurate.

you've not convinced anyone to change their mind anymore than I have. If I though you would, don't worry, I'd be there to argue back. Thus far, anyone who wasn't already on your side has found your arguments as non-compelling as you have found mine.

 

[UNA]

Why should similar things be treated as equal things?

why not?

You're refusing to address the issue of liberty...please tell me whether you are against liberty or just prone it ignore it?

 

[UNA]

Then. Provide. A. Good. Viable. Peer-reviewed. Accurate. Reason. To. Change. The. Criteria.

It should never have been set to what it is now. I have to ask whether you would have asked proponents of interracial marriage for similar proof. I'm still waiting, BTW, for your proof that allowing equal recognition would be harmful.

 

[UNA]

Which, again, I agree with. And, the reason for that is that same-sex couples do not have an equal legal footing to gain that equality.

So now you see that there isn't equality?

Things have to be equal to have equality.

Ooooh...so every adult is equal EXCEPT homosexuals? And what EXACTLY is it that makes their relationship 'not equal'? EXACTLY what benefits are you claiming their union won't have on society that you seem to think mine does? ('round and 'round...)

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



That's total bs. Unless you are now going to require all marriages to prove their value to society that's isn't equality.
Btw, many many opposite sex marriages provide no tangible benefit to society.

Again your argument is total bs

(A) No specific marriage needs to prove its value to society. Statistically, traditional marriage has been a benefit to society. This is like requiring each and every Good Will store to prove its value - the government doesn't do that, because statistically those types of stores have already proven their value. This is so simple a concept I would have thought you'd have gotten it the first two times I posted this response to that same inaccurate accusation.

(B) Yes, anecdotally many traditional mariages provide no tangible benefit to society. Anecdotally, many same-sex relationships do the same. And, I understand the price of tea in China is unchanged today compared to yesterday. All equally important pieces of information to this discussion.

 

[This_person]

why not?

You're refusing to address the issue of liberty...please tell me whether you are against liberty or just prone it ignore it?

I am for liberty - you can mark me in the "for it" column.

 

[This_person]

It should never have been set to what it is now.

Based on what evidence?

I have to ask whether you would have asked proponents of interracial marriage for similar proof.

Absolutely not. See, by restricting marriage based on race, there is actually a discrimination. NOT requiring a sexual orientation means there's no discrimination.

I'm still waiting, BTW, for your proof that allowing equal recognition would be harmful.

I do not have any proof. I do not need any proof. I have no proof that it will be good or bad. Sans proof, there is no reason to change the law from what it is now.

 

[This_person]

Ooooh...so every adult is equal EXCEPT homosexuals? And what EXACTLY is it that makes their relationship 'not equal'? EXACTLY what benefits are you claiming their union won't have on society that you seem to think mine does? ('round and 'round...)

It's round and round because I answer these questions and yet you ask them again. Please read the answer.

No, there is no prohibition against a homosexual marrying, based on the current criteria of marriage. What EXACTLY makes their relationship (I presume you mean same-sex relationships, regardless of sexual orientation) not equal is that it does not fit the current criteria, and by current I mean "for the entire time the United States has been in existence." See, "same" sex and "opposite" sex are two different things, and I think it's reasonable to expect there to be differences in those relationships.

I'm not now, nor have I ever, claimed those differences are proven. In fact, I'm asking you to prove that those differences don't exist, based on the plethora of potential knowledge out there based on the areas for which same-sex relationships have existed. I'm what you call "open minded" on the concept, but my mind is closed when it comes to treating different things as equals simply because they're similar, without any study into the idea.

 

[McGinn77]

See, by restricting marriage based on race, there is actually a discrimination. NOT requiring a sexual orientation means there's no discrimination.

And the difference between saying a White person has to marry a White person vs. A man has to marry a woman is......?

 

[UNA]

I am for liberty - you can mark me in the "for it" column.

For everyone? Or just those that fit withing a specific definition?

 

[UNA]

Based on what evidence?Absolutely not. See, by restricting marriage based on race, there is actually a discrimination. NOT requiring a sexual orientation means there's no discrimination.I do not have any proof. I do not need any proof. I have no proof that it will be good or bad. Sans proof, there is no reason to change the law from what it is now.

OK, I'm actually starting to get tired of your circles.

You've been told how it's discriminatory but since you don't agree you've decided that you haven't been told.

You've been provided with the constitutional argument for gay marriage but since you don't agree you've decided that you haven't been told.

You've been told that the issue is men being able to marry men and women being able to marry women (NOT gay men marrying women ) but if you recognized that then you would be forced to publicly admit you're in favor of discrimination.

You made accusations without proof only to deny ever making an accusation.

You require proof that gay marriage recognition provides social benefits because apparently heterosexual marriage had proven this, then back pedal by saying individual heterosexual marriages don't have to provide proof thus avoiding the issue.

You (for a time) refused to provide links to your citations because you found them on a religious website, then claim religion has nothing to do with it.

You rely solely on your conservative talking points and dance around the true issue by accusing myself (and others) of being 'emotional', then claim you weren't belittling our arguments.

So...why don't you just keep going, then when you are ready for a response go back and read the thread, then you can respond again. I'm tired of repeating myself only to be ignored. You should be proud though, I'm a very stubborn person and you've managed to bore me

 

[This_person]

And the difference between saying a White person has to marry a White person vs. A man has to marry a woman is......?

One discriminates based on race, though keeps with the same centuries-old definition of marriage (two and no more people, old enough, not too closely related already, opposite sex, willing).

The other maintains that same definition without discrimination.