Main > Everything Else
election irony
mahuti:
Personally, I don't care who marries who... but I think you have to admit, when you think of the gamut of social, legal, and monetary issues affected by a change in what's allowable as a legal marriage, it should have some thought and discussion behind it.
--- Quote ---The idea that gays and straights have the same rights because both a gay and a straight man can marry a woman and neither can marry a man is retarded.
--- End quote ---
TA Pilot:
TA, that's the worst definition of rights ever
And yet, its the theory upon which our govenrment is based. Inalienable rights, endowed by the creator.
But the state, obviously, can create rights.
No. The state gets its power from us, where we cede some of our rights to it. It cannot give to us what we did not already have.
Anyway, labeling something a "privelege" instead of a right doesn't shield it from the 14th Amendment.
Perhaps... but then, no one's privelege is being denied. Gays still have the ability to marry.
The idea that gays and straights have the same rights because both a gay and a straight man can marry a woman and neither can marry a man is retarded.
People have always been limited as to whom they can be married. These limitations always been an inherent part of marriage. Suddenly, these limitations are a problem?
Why?
Apply that line of reasoning to a group that you don't hate....
Psst.... I dont hate gays.
But then, liberals charatcerize anyone that disagrees with them as a 'hater', so I guess I'l ignore the insinuation - its a genetic trait with you guys, and you can't help it.
TA Pilot:
Man1 marries woman1. They have a kid and get divorced. Man1 dies, woman1 meets woman2 and they live together 10 years as a couple. Then woman1 dies. Who gets the kid?
Did W2 adopt the kid? If not, then not W2.
If woman1 had married man2, chances are good that the court would allow man2 to keep the kid.
Did M2 adopt the kid? Then probably he wont.
I don't think we can tell a couple of chicks they can't get married anymore than we can tell a guy and girl they can't get divorced.
Why stop there?
Why not 4 guys and 6 girls?
patrickl:
--- Quote from: TA Pilot on November 08, 2004, 08:43:22 am ---The idea that gays and straights have the same rights because both a gay and a straight man can marry a woman and neither can marry a man is retarded.
People have always been limited as to whom they can be married. These limitations always been an inherent part of marriage. Suddenly, these limitations are a problem?
Why?
--- End quote ---
Why? Because people aren't as ignorant as they were a millenium ago. Homosexuality was considered a disease or choice a hunderd years ago. Nowadays people know better so you would change rules that were based on those outdated beliefs.
Your "eliza" approach to discussing is getting boring. Of course you can ask random questions to divert from the original question, but it doesn't prove a point. It's only annoying.
TA Pilot:
Nowadays people know better so you would change rules that were based on those outdated beliefs.
So, how about 5 men and 4 women?
Any reason why they should not all be allowed to marry one another?