Originally posted by Jon Miller
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Republicans really do hate gay people
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Jon Miller View PostIt isn't denying them equal rights!
JM
You think marriage can only be between a man and a woman... and that gay men can marry a woman, therefore, you aren't denying them equal rights.
That's just a load of crap and you know it. It totally ignores reality and is simply a stupid justification of your POV.
"Consenting adults" should be allowed to marry who they want to... pure and simple. To argue a gay man can't marry another gay man is simply discrimination.
You and the woman you love can get married... why can't two men who love each other and want to make a commitment. OH... THAT's RIGHT, they can marry a woman if they want, but not each other... TOTAL BULL**** and PURE DISCRIMINATION.Keep on Civin'
RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron O
Comment
-
Until ~10 years ago, I didn't know that anyone could consider marriage as being between two men. The idea hadn't entered my head. I was not homophobic. The idea of two men having a sexual relationship was A-OK with me.
I am saying the definition should be expanded.
Just because it is already expanded for you, and for others (and if it is expanded, than it is discriminatory not to allow a man to marry another man), doesn't mean it is already expanded for everyone.
Just because the change in definition is obvious for you doesn't mean it is obvious for everyone.
Denying that it is a change of definition is a problem with you.
Not realizing that the change is good, is a problem with them (I think).
JMJon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jon Miller View PostUntil ~10 years ago, I didn't know that anyone could consider marriage as being between two men. The idea hadn't entered my head. I was not homophobic.
I am saying the definition should be expanded.
Just because it is already expanded for you, and for others (and if it is expanded, than it is discriminatory not to allow a man to marry another man), doesn't mean it is already expanded for everyone.
Just because the change in definition is obvious for you doesn't mean it is obvious for everyone.
Again, nobody is saying they have to go marry a person of the same sex... or to allow those kind of marriages in their churches... or show love and understanding to gay couples... but we have freedom in this country, and gays simply want the same basic rights. To not allow them those rights is discrimination.
Denying that it is a change of definition is a problem with you.
This isn't about "definitions"... it's simply about basic rights and freedoms.
Not realizing that the change is good, is a problem with them (I think).
JMKeep on Civin'
RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron O
Comment
-
While, like everybody else who's posted in the past five pages or so of this thread, I support gay marriage, I and I alone support gay marriage for correct and scientific reasons (i.e., so we can hook magnets up to Falwell's corpse and coffin to generate power from him turning over in his grave).
The rest of you ignorant douches are going to hell.
Comment
-
Ming keeps *****ing about gays being denied rights. What rights are being denied? If you mention hospital visitation and all that crap, can't laws just grant those rights separately?
Why are you so obsessed with changing the definition of marriage?
And I would compare gay marriage not to horse marriage, but to 'marriage' with smart aquatics, like whales.
You think marriage can only be between a man and a woman... and that gay men can marry a woman, therefore, you aren't denying them equal rights.
That's just a load of crap and you know it.
Comment
-
You lose every argument you engage in, always being sure to run away rather than acknowledge how stupid you are, and consistently refuse to release your SAT scores and undergraduate transcripts. You're the idiot and everyone knows it. You probably went to a COMMUNITY COLLEGE.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wiglaf View PostThere's nothing prejudiced or nosy about supporting a policy that does not directly affect you. For example, I support decreasing foreign aid, even though it hardly affects the deficit, much less me.It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O
Comment
-
What if I think, as a matter of good public policy, our country's laws should treat definitions and centuries-old civil institutions with respect? Because I believe, if we do not treat them with respect, laws and even personal contracts might lose their intended meaning in front of an activist judge?
This definitional debate affects everyone.
Comment
-
Actually in this case I think it really only affects gays since I haven't seen one REAL reason how this negatively impacts non gays.It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O
Comment
Comment