NY: Homosexuals Win but Society Loses

[bcp]

The question is, did it really make a difference to your life anyway?

Since they cant get married for the most part in the first place, nope.

as long as it stays this way, things will be good.

I think we would serve them better by getting them mental health care, I would fully support any measure that offered this care to them 100% tax dollar funded.

 

[McGinn77]

Since they cant get married for the most part in the first place, nope.

as long as it stays this way, things will be good.

I think we would serve them better by getting them mental health care, I would fully support any measure that offered this care to them 100% tax dollar funded.

how exactly do you think it will effect you if they can?

(p.s. government funded health care...there's socialism again)

 

[This_person]

To what conversation are you speaking of?

Um...this one

The OP links an article which among other items discusses how such relationships would cause children to suffer.

Repeatedly proven in study after study.

I also didn't realize people could not speak of items that are related to the topic and other postings with your approval of its "appropriateness".

You certainly can. That was the point of my sarcasm, and why I added something about a free society and speaking your mind.

I also believe it is my right to have the opionion that the govenment shouldn't be able to put limits/restrictions on same sex marriages. You will notice that I don't say others can't have their own ideas or opinions, I only share mine and pehaps some of my reasoning.

Well, and that you don't believe others should try and convince people of their opinion, but you should be able to convince people of yours. :shrug: You did say that.

 

[This_person]

The only difference is that they can't have kids (they can adopt) but they cannot have their OWN children...is that reason enough to deny them equal recognition?

To the best of my knowledge, having children is not a requirement for legal recognition of marriage.

Good intentioned?? I can probably name a dozen laws that were'good intentioned' but toally un-constitutional and/or just out-right wrong...the road to hell is pave with 'em

My point exactly.

There are PLENTY of similar things that are treated the same way. And thank you so much for the "mushy, emotional, opinionated" condescension...

And plenty that aren't. Thank you for proving my opinion.

So?

So, not all things are equal because someone emotionally feels they are.

If you can demonstrate that polygamy and same-sex relationships, as well as mother/son/cousin relationships are all equally good to society, then they should all be treated as equals.

I have strong reason to believe this is not true, and therefore I am against treating them all the same.

 

[This_person]

...ummm...they're not married...

But, they looooooovvvvvvveeeeee each other. Shouldn't that be enough for them to be treated the same as married couples (which seems to be the point of your argument)?

 

[This_person]

Doesn't it ever occur to you that the minutia with which you have to argue against gay marriage is a sign that it might just be wrong to deny it? Just sayin' :shrug:

Never crossed my mind.

Your problem isn't with the "minutia", because all of my arguments have been in response to your "points" (so you must be looking for the minutia yourself). The problem is, each of your points is easily demonstrated false, and that infuriates you, so you have a need to strike out against the person proving you wrong instead of facing your basic faulty logic.

 

[This_person]

Late Edit
In other words, if something is not specifically prohibited under the law it is a right that belongs to the people. Who's trying to "change the law" now? If it isn't broke, why fix it, that was your earlier point right?

Done.

A right is not a mandate for governmental action.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

The only difference is that they can't have kids (they can adopt) but they cannot have their OWN children...is that reason enough to deny them equal recognition?

To the best of my knowledge, having children is not a requirement for legal recognition of marriage.

Good intentioned?? I can probably name a dozen laws that were'good intentioned' but toally un-constitutional and/or just out-right wrong...the road to hell is pave with 'em

My point exactly.

There are PLENTY of similar things that are treated the same way. And thank you so much for the "mushy, emotional, opinionated" condescension...

And plenty that aren't. Thank you for proving my opinion.

So?

So, not all things are equal because someone emotionally feels they are.

If you can demonstrate that polygamy and same-sex relationships, as well as mother/son/cousin relationships are all equally good to society, then they should all be treated as equals.

I have strong reason to believe this is not true, and therefore I am against treating them all the same.

Like I said in the other thread...there is nothing that says you - basically - have to prove you deserve equality. This is a dangerous precedent to be setting...

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

...ummm...they're not married...

But, they looooooovvvvvvveeeeee each other. Shouldn't that be enough for them to be treated the same as married couples (which seems to be the point of your argument)?

I guess you missed everyother point I made?

Just for fun...let's say gay marriage was currently recognized as equal to heterosexual. What would be your argument to change that?

 

[McGinn77]

A right is not a mandate for governmental action.

If isn't a mandate for governmental action what the hell is?

 

[JoeRider]

But, they looooooovvvvvvveeeeee each other. Shouldn't that be enough for them to be treated the same as married couples (which seems to be the point of your argument)?

There is a lot of people that "love" their pet....oh, this has been discussed.

 

[JoeRider]

Late Edit
In other words, if something is not specifically prohibited under the law it is a right that belongs to the people. Who's trying to "change the law" now? If it isn't broke, why fix it, that was your earlier point right?

Done.

BTW the Dec. of Indp. is not the law of the land. Second, the question is "is it a right" So far the government has not treated it as that, just like driving, It is a privilege


Law of Privilege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A privilege is a special entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. It can be revoked in certain circumstances. In modern democratic states, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth.

 

[McGinn77]

BTW the Dec. of Indp. is not the law of the land. Second, the question is "is it a right" So far the government has not treated it as that, just like driving, It is a privilege


Law of Privilege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A privilege is a special entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. It can be revoked in certain circumstances. In modern democratic states, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth.

"Privileges were abolished by the National Constituent Assembly on August 4, 1789."

At least the French (who after all invented democracy) got it right...

And I believe the right to be treated fairly regardless of who you want to spend the rest of your life with is an "irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth."

If you don't, that's your failing.

 

[JoeRider]

"Privileges were abolished by the National Constituent Assembly on August 4, 1789."

At least the French (who after all invented democracy) got it right...

And I believe the right to be treated fairly regardless of who you want to spend the rest of your life with is an "irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth."

If you don't, that's your failing.

I think you are confusing privileges with "Privileged Class privileges" ie French Revolution which was a mess and was a failure - second we are a Republic, not a true democracy.

Driving is a privilege. Marriage is a privilege. You need a lic. for both.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



Like I said in the other thread...there is nothing that says you - basically - have to prove you deserve equality. This is a dangerous precedent to be setting...

It's the precedent that has been set for centuries of US law (both of 'em plus). It's why churches, but not bars, Good Will but not Target, etc., are treated as something to encourage.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



I guess you missed everyother point I made?

Just for fun...let's say gay marriage was currently recognized as equal to heterosexual. What would be your argument to change that?

I did not miss every other point you made. Did you miss mine? It seems so.

If there were a reason for it to have become law, I would support it. If there was no reason to support it becoming law, i'd be against it. That holds true.

 

[This_person]

If isn't a mandate for governmental action what the hell is?

Meeting Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution.

See, it's your right to keep and bear arms, but the government does not supply you with guns. It's your right to free press, but the government does not supply you with all newspapers of your choice. A right is not now nor has ever been a mandate for governmental action.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Like I said in the other thread...there is nothing that says you - basically - have to prove you deserve equality. This is a dangerous precedent to be setting...

It's the precedent that has been set for centuries of US law (both of 'em plus). It's why churches, but not bars, Good Will but not Target, etc., are treated as something to encourage.

Target isn't something to encourage? Not a capitalist? By my estimation; govt's indeed encourage businesses to thrive (whether directly or indirectly) as well as charitable organizations. IDK, bailouts generally send a pretty supportive message :shrug:

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



I guess you missed everyother point I made?

Just for fun...let's say gay marriage was currently recognized as equal to heterosexual. What would be your argument to change that?

I did not miss every other point you made. Did you miss mine? It seems so.

If there were a reason for it to have become law, I would support it. If there was no reason to support it becoming law, i'd be against it. That holds true.

You didn't answer my question:

Just for fun...let's say gay marriage was currently recognized as equal to heterosexual. What would be your argument to change that?

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

If isn't a mandate for governmental action what the hell is?

Meeting Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution.

See, it's your right to keep and bear arms, but the government does not supply you with guns. It's your right to free press, but the government does not supply you with all newspapers of your choice. A right is not now nor has ever been a mandate for governmental action.

It would be if a state govt was keeping us from legally getting guns and newspapers...