Main > Everything Else
election irony
GGKoul:
TA, the reason groups of people can't marry one person because a person is married to 1 spouse. Not a group of spouses.
The issue is why a person can't marry a same sex spouse.
Also, how's your BYOAC project coming along? Feel free to email me directly should have has any questions.
Be sure to post updates in the Project Announcements section.
Crazy Cooter:
"Only that it devalues what straight people call marriage.
Look, if you work hard for 7 years and finally are awarded your PhD, how would you feel if I ordered my PhD online and got it instantly? Does it really have no effect on you or the value of your PhD? "
Has divorce devalued what straight people call marriage?
If the PhD is marriage, what are you comparing the 7 years to? I'm not seeing the parallelism.
shmokes:
--- Quote from: TA Pilot on November 08, 2004, 08:43:22 am ---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.
--- End quote ---
TA, Why don't you try to have an honest debate. In each of the lines you responded to you completely left out, and did not respond to, the supporting arguments that accompanied those lines in my post.
GGKoul:
No please no more debate. I thought the title was Election Irony, not same sex marriage.
DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: GGKoul on November 08, 2004, 10:38:57 pm ---No please no more debate. I thought the title was Election Irony, not same sex marriage.
--- End quote ---
I thought this was about the state our President hails from and the difference between steers and ....the other one ::)
Here, just to add to the ignorance - according to MrC's "Purple America", this past election was split right down the middle, even in those states Bush "cleaned Kerry's clock" in. The states that had the Gay Marriage proposals on the ballot - let me walk you through it now - 51% Bush, 48% Kerry, and the "against Gay Marriage" thing passed by, on average, 70%. So I guess some of those who were against Bush were also against Gay marriage.
I anxiously await the reply that explains how I'm wrong and that this was all just a Religious Jihad on America by the religious right-wing neocon wackjobs. Will some Mother Jones subscriber explain it to me - and talk down to me, remember, I'm part of the idiot majority ::)