the right to *** whoever you want to has nothing to do with civi rights
the right to sneak into this country illegal instead of going about it the right way like a million other people did has nothing to do with civil rights
AFRICANS kidnapped out of their country..forced to abandon their own language and learn new languages to keep them separated...mothers watched their husbands and sons killed for fighting for civil rights...mothers forced to work for the same people that harmed them and then forced to have kiDs with the males that hated them..
WHERE IS THE COMPARISON?
BASICALLLY IT IS NARROWED DOWN TO DO I HAVE THE RIGHT TO LOVE THIS PERSON...WELL YES YOU DO, BUT REMEMBER THAT LOVE ALSO IS A CHOICE...YOU CHOOSE TO LOVE OR YOU CHOOSE TO NOT LOVE REGARDLESS OF IT BEING THE SAME ***... should we compare the right to love someone to that of civil rights???? hell *** naw!!!
should we compare the right to pay for *** workers that illegally sneak into the country and reap the benefits of law abiding citizens to civil rights? hell *** naw!!!
@ Know
Bruh, I gotta admit. When I read your posted comment, I thought the same thing that 357 Maggie thought. What the hell does this have to do with how your libertarian philosophy and how it shapes your position on *** marriage ???
The real issue of this story which I guess you failed to see is this. Is it valid for the mayor to liken *** marriage to the civil rights struggle ? Are these 2 situations comparable and the answer is No !
*** like to compare their struggle with the civil rights movement to give it moral credence and I think that's deplorable to piggy back onto another movement to get you own agenda accomplished.
This is a perfect example of what I mean by you are too smart to be missing *** like this. I think your mind goes off on a tangent to what points you think are important to an issue, and they are not necessarily relevant sometimes.
People do not chose to be ***. They are born ***. The choice is in living truthfully or living a lie. Bayard Rustin chose to love himself enough to live honestly. Eddie Long chose to hate himself and lives dishonestly. No, you can not hide being Black. Yes, sometimes you can hide being ***. No, the struggles are not the same. But African Americans paved the way for the concept of civil rights, be they for women, Latinos, ***, those with disabilities, etc. PS...Dr. King took a page from Ghandi's book so it can be argued the struggle began in India and was moved even further by Black Americans.
@ Prissy - good point about the Holocaust. While *** were tortured and killed by the Nazis as well. But no one in their right mind would compare their personal struggle to that of the Jews in Europe due to the guaranteed firestorm from Jewish groups.
The argument for same *** marriage is the fight against marginalization. *** people can still be fired for being *** in nearly every state. There are similarities but the struggles are not the same. Ghandi influenced King and King has now influenced those fighting for civil rights for ***.
@Katt
"What the hell does this have to do with how your libertarian philosophy and how it shapes your position on *** marriage ???"
Read Maggies post again. She wasn't on topic either.
"The real issue of this story which I guess you failed to see is this. Is it valid for the mayor to liken *** marriage to the civil rights struggle ? Are these 2 situations comparable and the answer is No "
Actually I didn't miss it. I just didn't comment on it. Honestly I thought the conversation would be more about *** marriage than Bloombergs comment. As far the situations being comparable, that's debatable.
Some would say it is, as blacks at the time were fighting for equality and that their rights be recognized and protected. *** are doing pretty much the same. I don't know the counter argument to this. Usually I just hear an absolute statment of "no it isnt!" but no reasoning behind it. I'm not saying they are the same. I honestly haven't spent much thought on the subject to form an opinion, but if you have a counter argument of why they arent the same, I'd like to hear it.
I'm not sure why you think *** have some sort of agenda though. You do know they said the same thing about blacks during the Civil Rights Era right? That's another reason they say the two are comparable. But again, I'd like to hear a counter argument of why it isn't.
I will not trivialize the civil rights movement or struggle but sounds to me like Bloomberg referred to "civil rights" in general rather than the struggle itself not sure if both are one without the other. If it is the *** civil rights being trampled on he referred to then it is true anybody who wish to booty or coochie swap or married is their god darn business. Prissy you sound like a new yawker to me so you know Bloomberg is a covert everything, running that state like a effin dictatorship. He is soon to tell you people in addition not to consume salt, sugar, smoke, what to wear and when to take a *** but that’s what stupid people get for placing a rich Jewish man in power of such a diverse, modern day Woodstock city for eight years.
OK Know
Good point and I will answer that. I think part of peoples resistance to these 2 struggles being equated is part logical, and part moral. Blacks in general are more conservative and religious than say The general American public. And so would resent their struggle being associated with what they consider an immoral lifestyle.
The logical argument, though I agree with the sentiment that there are indeed similarities, there are a few important differences which in my mind make it wrong to these 2 situations that much parity.
I'm born black. Not everyone believes that everyone is born ***. This is a fact. I can hide my sexuality, but not my race nearly as easily. Sexual preference is a private decision or condition, which ever you prefer. No one has to know my sexuality unless I choose to broadcast it. Being discriminated against for something that is completely out of my control, and that cannot be concealed is different than being discriminated for a personal decision that I broadcast to the world, which is choosing to live in society as an openly *** person. I think sexual preference is a private thing and is none of anyones business. I personally think that *** have an agenda, not one of equality, but of acceptance. And since society as a whole still has not accepted *** on a moral level like they accepted blacks, *** want to use discrimination laws to force the public to accept and normalize them. To make it so that if we have a moral objection, that the legal objections supercede the morals ones, so that christian folks are now legally wrong to not accept *** in society. Example: The boy scouts can no longer dis-allow *** scoutmasters. Or lose their tax exempt status due to civil rights violations.
I am all for treating *** equally, including marriage. I am all for same *** unions with the same rights as heteros get. But the definition of the word marriage is the union of 2 "opposite *** people" in matrimony. Not just 2 people. Your not gonna start calling ducks pigeons just to be politically correct and the fact that they are both birds ?
@Katt
Okay I understand what was said, but if that's really the counter argument it's actually quite illogical.
First, it relies on the opinion that race is somehow superior to sexual orientation, by reasoning that a person can "hide" it. Two things wrong with this; One, why SHOULD a person hide their sexuality? Because the majority say so? That's tyrannity of the majority which is against the principles this country was founded on. Two, the implied discrimination can be used for ethnicity as well. For example, why should a person broadcast that they're Jewish? Many Jews did during the holocaust. Should *** do the same today? Why?
Secondly, saying that *** want to use discrimination laws to "force" people to accept them, is the SAME logic of reasoning whites used back in the 60s against the Civil Rights movement. Remember, America didn't always accept the Irish either. Now replace the words *** with blacks and blacks with Irish in this sentence: "And since society as a whole still has not accepted *** on a moral level like they accepted blacks, *** want to use discrimination laws to force the public to accept and normalize them."
And there you have the same reasoning. It's still discrimination no matter how people try to flip it around.
Third, to say that *** have an agenda to make it illegal for christians not to accept *** is a tin-foil hat talking point. No is saying that. Allowing *** to marry doesn't mean people will go out and burn churches the next day. That's just stupid, bro. There is no law the prohibits The BSA from disallowing *** leaders. As a private organization they have freedome of association under the constitution. They simply don't inquire a person's sexaulity.
Fourth, no one is saying to call a duck a pigeon and that's not the argument. You can still call both of them birds, even though they're different types of birds. But they're birds nonetheless.
The definition of marraige is another argument all together. First off, it has several definitions. A union between a man and a woman is only one. As far as the USA goes, the movement is to define it ONLY as union between a man and a woman. Tell me, what article in the constitution gives the federal government a right to do that? What article in the constitution gives states the right to do that?
Christians don't own the concept of marriage. To define it within our view and deny others the liberty to do so by law, is again, tyrannical. I don't believe that's the type of country we should be living in. *** getting married doesn't effect anyone at all. It has nothing to do with being politically correct. It's about protection of liberty. What people before us, MLK included, died for.
"First, He never said that a person "should" hide their sexuality, he simply used the FACT that they CAN to highlight a key difference between race and sexuality. Equating a persons sexual habits to a persons RACE is like equating a persons favorite pair of shoes to the color of thier feet. Shoes can be left in a 'closet', the color of your feet cannot..... And I dont beleive it is illegal to practice *** in America, no more than it is illegal to commit adultry, fornication and other sexual deviance,,,thats their business."
That doesn't answer the question. By saying a person CAN hide something implies that they SHOULD. Why? And actually, *** activity was illegal in many states for a while. It's in recent years that these laws were starting to be overturned.
"Secondly, race/nationality inst a matter of morality...People cannot 'control' what race they are BORN with. They can however choose to partake in same *** relations (just like a ANY PERSON can). Ive met people that were once ***, but CHOSE to no longer live the lifestyle...IT is NOT inevitable. SO, It cannot be used interchangably with being black in this sence..."
The underlying issue however isn't morality, but discrimination. And who's morals are we talking here? You also can't legislate morality. For all the "small government" conservatives talk about, this sure seems to go against that in every sense of the word.
As far as people changing their sexuality, anecdotal evidence is hardly the norm. I've met people who have tried not to be *** and couldn't do it. Bring up Donnie McCurklin and I could easily bring up Ted Haggard.
"Thirdly, it makes perfect sense to say that *** have an agenda to make Christians accept them, thats actually dead on."
The claim was the "agenda" was to make it illegal to speak out against ***. That isn't true. No amount of talking points and tin-foil hat websites will prove that. The 1st Amendment protects Christians rights to speak about what they please, insofar as not threading people. But nice side step there.
"Christian groups are one of the biggest opponents of the *** rights movement. So its easy to see why they would be high on their "agenda". And Christians dont accept *** because it goes against the word of God, which is central to Christianity, not because there is a fear of people retaliating against them for marrying ***.
None of this really addresses anything. But YouTube a video called "Ravi Zachariah answers *** question". It basically summarizes what I feel. And honestly, being accepting is an important tenet to Christianity. Rejecting people isn't what Christ would've done.
"And yes, a *** leader may not be prohibited by the BSA, but being OPENLY *** is certainly NOT promoted by them and may actually be prohibited."
Never said it was. But the original claim was that the BSA can no longer exclude *** leaders or lose their tax exempt status. That's false. The SCOTUS ruled that as a private organization, they can run it however they want.
"Fourthly, althoguh I agree that ducks and pigeons are both birds, it is important to regard the fact that they are COMPLETELY separate species with FUNDAMENTAL differences...one does NOT justify the other...which is what the *** rights movement strives to do with hetero marriage. FAIL."
This entire statement made no sense. You're gonna have to elaborate. I must be missing something.
"The definition of marriage is CLEAR. It is only since the *** rights movement that it has come into question and scrutiny."
That's also false. Marriage never had a clear definition. It wasn't until the *** rights movement that there was a mission to define it as one man one woman. It was always defined as a union between two people until then.
"Regardless of how Webster chooses to define it, mariage has always been the union of a man and a woman."
Also untrue. In ancient cultures marriages used to happen between two houses, clans, tribes, etc. There were also marriages between one man and multiple women.
"Nobody is telling people who to sleep with, thats a matter of choice. But I dont belive that a persons sexuality should be used to redefine an institution that is in place to unite a man to a woman. Its elementry to even get into the logistics of why a man has a *** and a woman has a vagina so I dont understand why *** marriage is such a complicated matter."
No one us "redefining" an institution. Again, it isn't owned by anyone. *** marriage is an issue because an individuals rights and privileges are not being protected and even rejected. That's why it's an issue.
"Nobody "owns" anything but we live in a world that is run on principalites, laws, standards, and 'understood' values....when we tamper with these things, we are pulling the thread that slowley unravels the fibers of our civilization/order. I dont beleive thats a state any one would want to live in.... Even the animnals understand this..."
First, google "*** animals". Secondly, yes we live in a world of laws, order, and values. No one is tampering with the order or values of society. That's the same thing bigots said during the civil rights era. That blacks were tampering with the order and value of society. You're using the same line reasoning. It's a shame that you all simply refuse to accept it. Saying being black is not the same as being *** may be true, but discrimination and bigotry is still the issue at hand the two share. And it's the only issue that should be discussed.
Also, who's values are we talking here? Are yours greater than mine? Or theirs? Why?
"...and I dont think MLK would have defended *** rights....I believe he was a reverend..."
He would've defended CIVIL RIGHTS. It wasn't only for blacks. He said that multiple times when he was alive correct?
Aha !
Know
Just one must be my twin or someshyte cuz that is exactly my response to you. I think your logic falls *** on this one and it seems yur out voted lol.
(That doesn't answer the question. By saying a person CAN hide something implies that they SHOULD.)
My statement implies no such thing at all. That is a leap your making that most rational people would not make. I only make the distinction between something clearly obvious and in-concealable, to something that no one will know unless I openly express it. This is a big difference and you are choosing to act like it isn't.
Point 2. Sexuality may not be a moral question to you, but it is to a very large and significant portion of the United States. I agree, you cannot legislate morality, but indeed in some instances we have ie prostitution laws. It is about discrimination and I am against any discrimination of *** in any way. No matter how disgusting I personally feel *** male *** is, I also feel it is morally wrong to not provide *** the same rights as anyone else. But again, race discrimination and *** discrimination have more differences than similarities in my mind. And on small government, who the hell says I want more legislation on this issue ?
(The claim was the "agenda" was to make it illegal to speak out against ***. That isn't true.)
Dude, I ain't never heard anybody say this was the issue ??? Don't get this one.
(being accepting is an important tenet to Christianity. Rejecting people isn't what Christ would've done.)
Love the sinner and hate the sin is what I say. But on this issue it's hard to separate the 2 since the "sinner" is openly and apologetically committing the sin constantly with no recognition of it's wrongness. Most christian churches I know out in Cali don't ban *** from attending service at all, but they still feel that *** is wrong. So how is that rejection ?
(This entire statement made no sense. You're gonna have to elaborate. I must be missing something.)
Let me take a crack at making this clear to you cuz I understand this point perfectly.
(That's also false. Marriage never had a clear definition. It wasn't until the *** rights movement that there was a mission to define it as one man one woman. It was always defined as a union between two people until then.)
This is what he means. The definition of a duck is different from the definition of a chicken. If a chicken has webbed feet and a bill instead of a beak, chances are it's a duck.
The definition of marriage is the union between one woman and one man, not 2 guys, 2 girls, 3 girls and a guy, a guy his cat and his dog, a woman and her mailbox. The definition of marriage is very clear and has been so since the inception of civilized society on this earth ! Marriage between man and woman was and still is one of core building blocks of civilized society. Example: Take anything to it's extreme to see it's effects and judge it's value, and I imply that hetero marriage is indeed more valuable to civilized society. If everyone on earth got aspired to be in a traditional marriage, you would see much more order on this planet with more stable families and societies. No out of wedlock births, no kids without daddies etc. If everyone on earth turned *** tomorrow it wouldn't be enough test tube babies to support our population and dismal birthrate that would ensue. It would be more chaos. *** male society is the most fickle relationship wise due to how men are and *** mens views of monogamy. *** men are many times less monogamous than straight women. This is a fact.
No mater what, you know it and I know it that the single most common definition of marriage on this earth is one man, one woman, regardless of what other aberrations you can come up with. 2 men or 2 women marrying has never been considered as valid in society until like the last 30 years or so in the history of this earth !
(No one us "redefining" an institution. Again, it isn't owned by anyone. *** marriage is an issue because an individuals rights and privileges are not being protected and even rejected. That's why it's an issue.)
More *** ! The word marriage is a religious term loosely meaning a union of man and woman before God. This is it's typical and historical origin.
And *** marriage is not about rights at all ! This is what the *** left want you to believe. In Cali we had a ballot measure that would give *** the exact same rights as a married couple but not call it marriage and the *** still had a fit ! So don't tell me this *** of it's about rights ! It is about acceptance by "normal society" and *** trying to force it on us to period ! They want to equate *** marriage with hetero marriage and this country ain't havin it.
(.when we tamper with these things, we are pulling the thread that slowley unravels the fibers of our civilization/order. I dont beleive thats a state any one would want to live in)
You can call it hogwash, but this is my main reason for wanting *** marriage called same *** unions. I truly believe that typical marriage is a crucial ideal for society to live up to and that is a critical building block of society and I don't wanna mess with it. You think it's no big deal and won't disrupt ***, after all. Who cares if we tamper with something so crucial. The rights of *** people outweigh the importance of building block of civilization.
And you can say what you want and think King would be consistent and defend the rights of *** to be married. I dont thinks so. I think he would defend them against discrimination, but not on the marriage issue.
*sigh*
This is gonna be a long *** conversation ain't it?
"My statement implies no such thing at all. That is a leap your making that most rational people would not make. I only make the distinction between something clearly obvious and in-concealable, to something that no one will know unless I openly express it. This is a big difference and you are choosing to act like it isn't."
I didn't ignore it. I said the line if reasoning is illogical and it still is. A person being able to hide their sexuality has little to nothing to do with the discrimination against them. You two are still choosing to ignore THAT. Think about it in the context of any other issue and the reasoning falls completely apart. You know that to be true when I used my Jewish example.
"Point 2. Sexuality may not be a moral question to you, but it is to a very large and significant portion of the United States. I agree, you cannot legislate morality, but indeed in some instances we have ie prostitution laws."
Which is why I'm against those laws and the "war" on drugs as well.
"But again, race discrimination and *** discrimination have more differences than similarities in my mind."
And again, the only difference there is is the fact *** can hide it. That doesn't discount their discrimination and the logic is completely flawed.
"And on small government, who the hell says I want more legislation on this issue ?"
I meant conservatives in general. I should've explained that. My bad.
"Dude, I ain't never heard anybody say this was the issue??? Don't get this one."
Your statement:
"To make it so that if we have a moral objection, that the legal objections supercede the morals ones, so that christian folks are now legally wrong to not accept *** in society"
You said it right there.
"Most christian churches I know out in Cali don't ban *** from attending service at all, but they still feel that *** is wrong. So how is that rejection ? " Again, anecdotal evidence isn't the norm.
"The definition of marriage is the union between one woman and one man, not 2 guys, 2 girls, 3 girls and a guy, a guy his cat and his dog, a woman and her mailbox. The definition of marriage is very clear and has been so since the inception of civilized society on this earth !"
Once again, that isn't true. And I have multiple examples. Some marriages happened between entire families and at times more than one woman to one man. The definition has always been assumed. Not defined.
"If everyone on earth got aspired to be in a traditional marriage, you would see much more order on this planet with more stable families and societies. No out of wedlock births, no kids without daddies etc."
That is the stupidest thing you've ever said. None of this can be proven and as a matter of fact is disproven by what we're seeing today. Just because people marry "traditionally" doesn't mean they won't still cheat on their wives, or just *** a bunch of women and not take care of their responsiblilty.
"If everyone on earth turned *** tomorrow it wouldn't be enough test tube babies to support our population and dismal birthrate that would ensue. It would be more chaos. *** male society is the most fickle relationship wise due to how men are and *** mens views of monogamy."
LOL WHUT?? Who said they everyone to turn ***?? This example is so ridiculous I won't even address it. I mean really?!
"*** men are many times less monogamous than straight women. This is a fact."
[citation needed]
It varies from each individual.
"No mater what, you know it and I know it that the single most common definition of marriage on this earth is one man, one woman, regardless of what other aberrations you can come up with. 2 men or 2 women marrying has never been considered as valid in society until like the last 30 years or so in the history of this earth !"
Now you're just being an idiot. Are you gonna tell me David didn't have 2-3 wives? Solomon had about 700. Abraham had three. Don't give me that bs that it was *always* defined as one man one woman. That's absolutely FALSE and you know it.
"More *** ! The word marriage is a religious term loosely meaning a union of man and woman before God. This is it's typical and historical origin."
No you're the one that's ***. Marriage was NEVER a religious term. People were getting married before religion ever came into play. And again, you're ignoring that early Christianity and Judaism had marriage between multiple partners. It's been defined as one man one women during the common era after Christ.
"And *** marriage is not about rights at all ! This is what the *** left want you to believe. In Cali we had a ballot measure that would give *** the exact same rights as a married couple but not call it marriage and the *** still had a fit !"
Are you talking about Prop 8? Cause thats not what I heard it was. Also, it IS about rights and privileges. You have yet to tell me how it isnt.
"So don't tell me this *** of it's about rights ! It is about acceptance by "normal society" and *** trying to force it on us to period ! They want to equate *** marriage with hetero marriage and this country ain't havin it."
You don't have to accept anything. *** are trying to remove the statute that they can't get married and don't have the same rights as a married couple. That is all. They're not trying to force anyone to be *** or be even like them. Take off the tin-foil hat.
"You can call it hogwash, but this is my main reason for wanting *** marriage called same *** unions. I truly believe that typical marriage is a crucial ideal for society to live up to and that is a critical building block of society and I don't wanna mess with it. You think it's no big deal and won't disrupt ***, after all. Who cares if we tamper with something so crucial. The rights of *** people outweigh the importance of building block of civilization."
I'm really close to calling you a *** at this point. *** getting married WON'T DO ANYTHING. *** will just be able to get married! Are you telling me that *** getting married will stop everyone else from getting married?? Your saying that people will go rioting in the streets?? What will happen?? Will the sky fall?? It wont effect anything at all you conspiracy theorist. And again, this is the SAME line bigots used against blacks and secures used against women during the civil tights and suffrage movements respectively.
"And you can say what you want and think King would be consistent and defend the rights of *** to be married. I dont thinks so. I think he would defend them against discrimination, but not on the marriage issue."
The marriage issue = discrimination.
@Just One & Katt (cause I know you're respond as well)
You really are Katt's twin. You fell into the same line of reasoning he does when he side steps or interprets something completely different from what was said. I'll address everything you said, but seriously, keep up with the conversation.
I'm going to explain this ONE LAST TIME. You two are either playing too stupid to understand or simply refuse to. I think it's the latter than the former which is a shame. I can tell you're both too intelligent for that.
A person being able to hid e thier sexaulity is an invalid argument for one key reason. The logic is INCONSISTENT within ANY OTHER CONTEXT. A person can hide their ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, or even their hair color. This is completely irrelavent to the issue of discrimination against them. Secondly, like I said before which you two are still ignoring, stating a person CAN hide something implies that they SHOULD. For example, I live in a house with 10 people and broke a priceless vase. I CAN hide the fact that I broke the vase right? I live in an area where people don't accept folks from the West Indies. I CAN hide the fact that I'm Haitian right?
You see how the line of reasoning you two used is inconsistent now? I've explained it as thoroughly as I can. If you still refuse to understand then I'm done here. There's nothing I can do to make you understand.
I also want to ask something else, when was the day and age you chose to be straight? Go ahead and tell me.
"In many cases they live BETTER than the average person, so I dont know why your acting as if they are the 'victims' here."
[citation needed]
Btw, you say the live "better" than people in many cases?
[link to external website removed]
Yeah, some great living there.
"If they want to get married they can....just not to a member of the same ***. JUST LIKE EVERY ONE ELSE. If I decided tomorrow that I wanted to be a ***, I wouldn’t be able to get married and I UNDERSTAND why."
Fallacious argument is fallacious. I've heard this so many times before. First off, 14th Amendment. Read it. The rights ARE NOT EQUAL. Allow me to explain why; straights can marry whomever they're physiologically/psychologically/whatever attracted to. Correct? You have the right to marry who you're attracted to. This right, this privilege, this LI-BER-TY is DENIED to ***. No way around that. Following your own logic, if *** are given the right to marry the same ***, you'll also have that right to marry the same ***. The reason you don't recognize this as equality is because you have no use for it. You won't marry a woman because you have no need to. Period.
"How are we ‘bigoted’ by simply pointing out the difference between being *** and being black to make a VALID point?"
And here we go with the putting words in my mouth. Just like Katt. Find me a quote where I said you're bigoted. Go ahead. I dare you to find me where I outright called you a bigot. What was said is that you're using the same line of reasoning that bigots used during the civil rights era. I NEVER said that you two yourselves were bigots. But go ahead and find me that quote. And when you don't find one, take it back and apologize.
"The ONLY RELEVENCE of this statement is to demonstrate the inequality between the *** rights movement and the civil rights movement. Although its true that blacks and *** BOTH face discrimination, its not enough to say discrimination is discrimination. The 'objective' behind the discrimination is key. Discrimintation based on sticking your *** in another mans rectum is not the same as discrimination based on YOUR RACE. THAT is what you fail to see."
LOL WHUT? I explained this above, but again you're still failing to see the implication here which I've already explained. Discrimination IS discrimination. The "objective" has no relevance. Being discriminated against is still discrimination. You can twist that however you want, but it will never change the fact discrimination is discrimination period. Put thanks for proving my previous point. Remember I said the line of reasoning is illogical because it assumes race is supeior to sexuality. And again here, you're placing the same assumption. Good job.
"And I don’t know where you live but, marriage in our **modern civilization** has always been known as the union between a 1 woman and 1 man...unless im missing something here....Stating that Solomon had multiple wives is a collosal failure. There were so many things during that time periiod that were competely debacherous and primitive."
This is why I said to keep up with the conversation. The ORIGINAL claim that you BOTH made was that marriage was ALWAYS defined as one man - one woman. I've offically proven that to be false as you yourself has just admitted. The one man - one woman definition has only been pushed in modern times. As a matter of fact as early as the late 60s as their was no clear definition until then either.
"Youre attemting to use polygamy (another form of sexual perversion) to 'justify' another?..... 2 wrongs=wrong. That just further proves the debachery that is *** marriage! SMDH. And since were talking about ther old testement, I recall thats the reason two cities got burned down. But I digres"
No, I'm not. I just showed how the definition of marriage was never clearly defined until the last half of the 20th Century. And you're correct, people have different ideas on what "moral" is. Which is why we *** try to legislate morality.
Oh and I've already answered your first comment. I guessed you missed it. It's right below it.
Oh there's more? Yipee!
"This borders on INSANITY. What? how the hell does it have little to do w. their discrimination if it is not even revealed that the person is even *** for them to be discriminated against in the first place?"
Again, the logic is inconsistent within any other context. I won't explain again.
"Um, this is an OUTRAGE! Read up on black American history...Then TRY AGAIN. Just SICKENING."
Um...what? WTF are you talking about? Read in context of what was said please.
"This is not "stupid". Though his 'theory' hasn’t been proven, it has not been DISPROVEN that hetero marriage is better for the moral fabric of society than *** marriage, because the two have not ever been tested side by side. Next."
Was this as a serious statement? When the hell did I say that hetero marriage isn't good for society? Of course it's good. Propagate the species. The discussion is whether to allow *** to marry. Stop bringing up extreme examples because they're never gonna happen. *** aren't gonna take over the world and force people to marry only the same ***. Not gonna happen.
As far is it "never been tested side by side", did you forget about the entire continent of Europe? *** marriage in just about every country. What about Canada? Or Israel? Come back to reality here. It's already been tested and none of those places are in turmoil or chaos.
"You say we are “conspiracy theorist”?? Ok. But why is your “theory” greater than ours?? How do you know that what you're proposing is true?? You don’t."
I do. Europe. They're fine.
"And no one ever said that it will stop everyone else from getting married or any of those other ravings you mentioned. You are yet again making leaps to support your lunacy. FOCUS please."
You really don't know how to keep up with the conversation do you? I'm getting really close to just dismissing you as an idiot. Read the loony *** example Katt just gave. I'll post it once again.
He said: "If everyone on earth turned *** tomorrow it wouldn't be enough test tube babies to support our population and dismal birthrate that would ensue. It would be more chaos. *** male society is the most fickle relationship wise due to how men are and *** mens views of monogamy..."
Followed by: "I truly believe that typical marriage is a crucial ideal for society to live up to and that is a critical building block of society and I don't wanna mess with it. You think it's no big deal and won't disrupt ***, after all. Who cares if we tamper with something so crucial. The rights of *** people outweigh the importance of building block of civilization."
Understand now? He implied that if *** are allowed to get married, civilization will fall! And I'm the lunatic? Please. You two are the only ones giving outrageous examples that will never happen.
"There you go ONCE AGAIN, using UNEQUAL scenarios interchangeably. Being a woman or being black (or both for that matter) is NOT a matter of lifestyle choice, preference, desire, etc.!! PLEASE SEE ABOVE."
PLEASE READ IN CONTEXT OF WHAT WAS SAID. I'm not going to post and explain it if you're too lazy to understand yourself. I never said the two were the same. I said the line of reasoning you two are using is the same.
"True,it is in fact "discrimination".... but it is discrimination in the right context; one that is in agreement w/the values of a REVEREND I beleive. You see, there is a time and place for EVERYTHING under the sun. It is a matter of 'principles' like a mentioned before. Everything has an underlying principle value. Ex. Wearing a bikini on the beach is generally seen as appropriate. BUT wearing one to a funeral, not so much. Now one can try to reason why those two scenarios are similar and 'interchangable', especially if the person isn’t ’hurting anyone’, but the VALUES of those two scenarios are COMPLETELY different…ducks cannot justify pigeons. Everything has its time and place."
This has to be one of the worse examples I've ever seen. Really? Discrimination NEVER has a "right context". Again, discrimination is discrimination. And your example is bunk.
A beach and funeral can never have a similar scenario. A beach and a pool party, yes. Don't even try to say that *** rights is a beach and civil rights is a funeral. Read the wikipedia link I posted above and you'll see why. Funerals involve death and sadness, not happy time and volleyball. This analogy leads me to believe that *** have it a-okay. Not true.
Secondly, about there being a time and place, are you saying that *** should "stay in their place"? Or are you saying that it'll happen one day, just not now? I think that's what you're saying. And you know what I'm about to say right? That's the same line of reasoning whites used during the civil rights movement. That there's a time and place for it, and it's just "not appropriate" right now. Since when has the rights of a group of people not have a right time?
But maybe I'm just missing something. Please explain to me how the "values" of civil rights is different from *** rights, without using race as your crutch. Go ahead and explain that to me. Throw race completely out of the equation and then tell me how the two are different.
Btw, claiming something as objective truth does not make it objectively true.
"You are not intelligent enough" followed by "I'm not insulting" followed by "you are insane". Good job contradicting yourself.
You say I'm not intelligent enough to hold a debate with you, yet I've backed up everything I stated and explained my position thoroughly. You are the one that needs to step up your "game" because everything you stated has been completely *** down. You have yet to respond to anything I said. I'm still waiting for you to tell me where I called you and Katt bigots.
Just because I disagree with you, it does not make me insane. If you truly believe so then there's nothing more to be said.
