If all men are created equal, how come homosexuals get a bunch of their rights taken away? amirite?

Word.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Because according to most people: all men are created equal, but some are more equal than others. It's the sad truth

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That is a weird saying. Like, "All these bits of string are the same length, but some are more the same length than others." What's the logic there?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others." George Orwell's book "Animal Farm" said the same thing, but with animals instead of man.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

To FlyingGuineaPig: Yes it comes from Animal Farm, and the saying doesn't make any literal sense, but I think youll get the point if you read the other comments

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Because the government are hypocrites

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Because what they REALLY meant was all straight, white men are created equal.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Straight, white, wealthy men above the age of 18

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Straight, white, wealthy, Christian, intelligent men over the age of 18.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Who own property

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Straight, white, American born, thin, healthy, educated, Christian, men over the age of 18 with no disabilities.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

what about women?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It means mankind

by Anonymous 13 years ago

i disagree... They have the same rights, like marrying a women just like any other man in the world... what they don't have is MORE rights then others demanding that they can marry whoever they choose... Nobody start getting all mad. I'm fine with queers...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I totally agree with you. People are suggesting that the gays be treated "more equal than others." Go ahead, live your life; the only thing that you can't do is change the very definition of marriage. "Not having rights" would be like African Americans before the civil rights movement.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(mr.e): @986054 (RunnerGirl): they're not talking about the gay mans right to marry someone of the opposite sex, they're talking about the right to marry the person they're in love with. http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs46/f/2009/215/6/c/I_am_a_good_person_by_PaMikoo.jpg

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But if I were in love with, say, my first cousin, I would not be allowed to legally marry him.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"In 1846 the Governor of Massachusetts appointed a commission to study "idiots" in the state which implicated cousin marriage as being responsible for idiocy. Within the next two decades numerous reports appeared coming to similar conclusions, including for example by the Kentucky Deaf and Dumb Asylum, which concluded that cousin marriage resulted in deafness, blindness, and idiocy. Perhaps most important was the report of physician S.M. Bemiss for the American Medical Association, which concluded "that multiplication of the same blood by in-and-in marrying does incontestably lead in the aggregate to the physical and mental depravation of the offspring." because if you had kids they would be deprived of a healthy life, i.e. there is a 100% chance there would be something wrong with them.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

All right, all right. Then answer me this: why don't homosexual people just go to a state where they can get married and do just that?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Why don't you just legalize gay marriage everywhere? Why do the conservative/christians have to be dragged kicking and screaming every step toward equal rights?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Why should they have to move and travel long distances just so they can get married? Why are you so against them getting married?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm not completely opposed, I just wonder if every gay rights activist is seeing the whole picture. I think it's awesome that people can find love in all places, but honestly, some people need to realize that gays don't really have it that bad. This post says that they have "a bunch of their rights taken away" and I don't think that's completely accurate.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How many people have been killed, abused, and made fun of for being straight?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm talking politically, here. Unfortunately, the government can't control evilness in people.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Marriage isn't the only right that is taken from me. Do you know if I had a job, and was discriminated against for being gay, I'm not legally protected? In 19 states, there are no hate crime laws for homosexuals. I also cannot get marriage benefits, unlike heterosexual couples. Heterosexuals get 1,138 benefits to marriage that homosexuals cannot receive. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Because you can't just pick up and move to a different state.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Because there are idiots everywhere, and some of them have somehow managed to place themselves into seats of power.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

b3cuz my Holy, Forgiving, Loving, All-Around Perfect, Undoubtedly Undeniably 100% Correct Heavenly Father, God, t0ld me that m3n c4nt m4rry d00dz & dat teh w0m3ns c4nt marrie oter w0m3ns brb pr4y1ng Lol okay let's just ban atheist marriage while we're at it. Oh, that's right, we can't. Because marriage before the government is not a religious ceremony. Which means that gay marriage is not a problem. PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember people from the Bible talking a lot about hating sinners, but Jesus saying a lot about forgiving them and loving them. Some Christians say that Jesus marked the end of the old law and the beginning of the new law, but when we try to put that into effect, it just doesn't happen. Kinda hypocritical if you ask me.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So we're not allowed to disagree with gay marriage, but you're allowed to blatantly mock us?? That's hypocritical. Look up "marriage" in the dictionary. That's the issue here.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

i love that... It's hiliarious how you worded that, and the fact that it still puts a point across...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

i love that... It's hiliarious how you worded that, and the fact that it still puts a point across...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(RunnerGirl):" a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage." Considering the definition also included gay marriage, I'm not seeing an issue there.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

All right, I'll give you that one. The definition of marriage according to U.S. law is as follows, though: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/7.html So, I guess we are at an impasse. But, technically, a homosexual person could just go to Massachusetts and get married. They don't really have it that bad.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's not the journey itself, it's the principle of the thing. Why should homosexuals have to go out of their way just to earn a right that straight people have every where in America?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Would you like to move away from your family and friends just to marry? It's ridiculous.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

you said that since marriage isn't religious in the eyes if the government gay marriage is fine. who said it was a problem to be focused on rather then just a right that hasn't been provided yet. You say that the bible says forgive sinners and love them. I'm not christian but most religious this topic similiarly. It is true to forgive but NOWHERE does it say that you should let them continue their sinful ways and in fact give them rights in order to allow them to do this easily

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But neither does it say that you should stand in their way. As for my understanding, you're supposed to show them the way to heaven through Christ and let them choose

by Anonymous 13 years ago

*sigh* how many times will this reworded post make the homepage?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Because they're too badass and everyone is scared of them.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ahem, name one "right" (I'd argue that marriage isn't a "right," but whatever,) that has been "taken away" from them.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", not by any government standards, but by prejudice to gays at school and in the workforce

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ahem, where, in the Constitution, does it say that? Also, you do realize that that's insane. They'd have to legalize drugs, rape, pedophilia, and all other insane amounts of illegal crap if "pursuit of happiness" were actually granted.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Drugs, rape, pedophilia and "all other insane amounts of crap" are all involving other people who are guaranteed to get harmed in the process. How many people get hurt because 2 gays get married? Plus "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is the well know American dream. I'm Canadian and I even know it

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's not a law, though, now is it? Secondly, tell me how drugs hurt someone else.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I never said it was a law. And I don't feel like explaining that, so I'll just compare it to alcoholism, the two are basically synonymous

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ah, okay, so what is your argument again?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Drugs can cause someone to do things they are not aware of during the time they are high or wasted. Drunk driving is just one example. High people going and robbing convenience stores and shooting and killing the cashier with a family who loved them will forever change that family's life.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ah, but shouldn't they be punished for their actions, not their potential actions? Because, frankly, potentially, every time you get into a car, you could lose control and run over a child. Or crash into a car. Does that mean that you can't drive?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You are going too far off base. Accidents happen every day, and ever second of our lives. Drunk driving is a leading cause of car related accidents. Are you saying we shouldn't even try to prevent the accidents?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Actually, it's right on base. You're arguing that, potentially, something bad will happen If someone does... Meth. Well, has everyone who's ever done meth done something bad? No. You are punishing someone for a potential consequence. Which isn't just. Which is why you cannot say "It doesn't hurt anyone, why do you care?" Unless you wanna explain your promotion for the legalization of meth.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How exactly am I punishing someone? Legalizing drugs and legalizing gay marriage are COMPLETELY different. Some people cause harm while doing drugs (NOTICE I HAVE NEVER SAID EVERYONE) when they would have NEVER harmed a fly when not on drugs. Just because gays want to express their love for one another though marriage does not mean they will become violent or be so high they think it is a good idea to nap on a train track.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ah, but potentially, couldn't the marriage be a front for human trafficking. You just don't know, do you? But you cannot punish someone for potential actions, could you?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Human trafficking? Are you kidding? You know, church could be front to "human trafficking" too. ANYTHING could when played correctly including marriage between a man and a woman. But you are saying "But you cannot punish someone for potential actions, could you?" when you are saying that gays could be human trafficking and that is the reason they want to get married? You are the one that is saying that due to the potential of human trafficking, that gay marriage should be illegal.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Right. Bolstering my point that potential actions CANNOT be punished. No. I'm simply explaining why "It doesn't affect anyone!" is such an invalid argument.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If potential actions cannot be punished, why can't gays marry? And you are explaining poorly.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Because the government shouldn't advocate sins, and marriage is between a man and a woman. Good one. Also, tell me what "rights" are being taken away? Nobody has done that...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The government is not allowed to force a religion on a person. A.K.A. If they're Jews, perhaps, and gay and want to get married, can they? If they are christian and feel like for any reason like they want to be Muslim or even want to STAY christian, can they get married? Why do you care (one more thing about sins and your complete argument is over and pissed on)? The government can do whatever as long as the majority of the people of the united states agrees even if YOU feel it shouldn't. Get off your high horse and think for ONE second that VERY few and I mean EXTREMELY few people will take your side because this is the 21st century and and this is America. People do what they want (if you bring up drugs again I will be assured you know nothing) contrary to your and my religion. Where is the forgiveness? Where is the understanding on your part? "Good one"? that is the most pathetic comeback to something that wasn't even a joke in the first place.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ah, there we go. You are a real piece of work, aren't you? Long-winded fellow. Anyhow, perhaps you are unaware of this, but the MAJORITY has the ability to make a law based on whatever they want, as long as the MAJORITY wants it, yes? Right. You explained this. Well, then, how is religion involved at all? I personally believe that sins shouldn't be advocated, but in no way is that forcing my religion upon someone, now is it? It's simply a law, voted by the MAJORITY enacted, therefore, religion is not involved at all, now is it? Hmm? Forgiveness? What does that have to do with anything? Understanding? Are you aware that there's a difference between advocation of sins (eg, gay marriage) and acceptance (eg you're gay, that doesn't matter, for we've all sinned, but you don't need to act upon your choices.) Good one. Actually that's what this is about... The post says their "rights" are being "taken away."

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Uh first of all I am not "fellow", so strike one. I'm saying that sins should be advocated by the state because the state does not support religion and therefore does not have "sin" in their vocabulary.I also did not say you were forcing your religion on anyone, perhaps you have a guilty conscience? If religion has nothing to do with this debate why do you keep bringing up sins (strike two)? And finally I mentioned forgiveness and understanding only to see what your morals were, what you were true to beyond religion. I did not try to be a buff on christian values. haha. strike three ( oh you and your hilarious comebacks to nonexistent jokes) I know how to read, thank you, but what we were debating is different then what the post states. We were debating why it isn't legal, not about a lack of rights.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"The government is not allowed to force a religion on a person." By having a laws passed by MAJORITY, in no way is that forcing a religion upon someone. Obviously I meant that, as any half-wit would see, so surely you were just trying to make an unfunny comment, right? That's my personal reason why gay marriage should be outlawed. You asked for it. But once again, as you said, it all relies on the MAJORITY! Religion has nothing to do with it, like you insisted. You know why it isn't legal? Hmm you've said it... The majority of people don't want it legal.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Why must you always insist that everything I say is a joke? And actually in most states in the united states, including the one I live in, has given gays the right to get married, so majority of states = majority of people in said country. The majority's opinion in some states differs then other states. Which is apparently is where you're getting your majority.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I know you misunderstood my point, but I insisted that only a half-wit could do that, and implied that you WEREN'T a half-wit, but now you're insisting that you are... That logic is... Illogical. Suppose (and this is hypothetical) that in every state where it's legal, it won by exactly one vote. Exactly one. That means, even if 49 of the states passed it, as long as the fiftieth state doesn't pass it with more than 49 people, the majority are against it. You need to learn some simple rationality.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Okay i said i wasn't a fellow, i did not in any means say i was a half-wit, sorry if you thought so. 49 out of 50 means that the majority of the country, key word there hope you got it, which i said in the last post. I said that you must be looking at just the majority of that one state, the one out of fifty. yeah that one. And I know rationality, don't assume that I don't. It makes you look ignorant.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I implied you weren't one, but you insisted you were. I said only a half wit could misinterpret what i said, so I attributed your misunderstanding to a joke. But you said it wasn't a joke, and insisted that you were an imbecile. No. You don't understand. That's not the majority of the population, necessarily, as you insisted!!! Learn to rationalize things, seriously! Your stupidity stupefies me! Orly? You've swung-and-missed twice already.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Look, this comment chain is getting nasty and honestly seeing your name pop up in my notifications makes me want to vomit, so this will end.Now. I advise you to read over this twice so you do not embarrass yourself again. I said that what i said in my last post was not a joke, not what you said. I did not call myself an imbecile or a half-wit, nor do I advise you to say that line again. As I mentioned before, I said I was not a fellow and if you know what a fellow is, you should know that it does not mean half-wit (unless you feel the need to insult your own gender). Actually I do understand. I was speaking of the United States. Not the entire world. I said that the majority of the STATES in the UNITED STATES already approved same sex marriage. You do not read context clues apparently. Now you insist that I am stupid? You do not know me and frankly do not know my GPA. You seem to be assuming things again. Have you heard what they say about assuming?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"Obviously I meant that, as any half-wit would see, so surely you were just trying to make an unfunny comment, right?" "Why must you insist everything I say is a joke?" I said only a half-wit wouldn't understand it. Apparently you didn't understand it. Geez. How are you not seeing this? No oh wow how dumb can someone be? Say, hypothetically each state approved it by ONE SINGLE VOTE. ONE VOTE. ONE. So, that would mean that 49 people of 49 states approve it. 49 people majority, okay? Then, if the other state disapproves it by more than 50, then the majority IN THE UNITED STATES disapprove. This is rationality, seriously! Learn to use it!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How do YOU not see it? ... I do not think that you said I was a half-wit, I think you think that you did though. I know you did not say I was a half wit! I SAID I WAS NOT A FELLOW. I did not say "I AM A HALF-WIT". Your whole by one single vote thing is getting annoying. Basically you could be saying "Hypothetically if everyone approved it then it is approved". look. what I was saying is that most states have approved it, 49 out of fifty (hypothetically) means that over half have approved it, 98% actually. THIS IS SIMPLE. Please keep up. in each of the forty nine states that we are using, they pass the vote with 49 pros. 49 x49=2401 pros total. (remember that). then the fiftieth state disapproves with a vote of over fifty, lets say fifty-one. (51x1=51) remember that too. Now which is larger, 2401 pros or 51 nos?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I don't know what you're talking about. Apparently you can't follow a simple chain of events. ono

Lolno. I'm talking about popular vote. You know that, right? Let's say each state has a majority of well, 100. The popular vote votes to pass it, and in each of the 49 states, 100 more people vote yes than no. Follow me? So that means, in the 49 states, 4900 more people approve of it. Right? Right. Then, in the last state, 5000 more people DISapproved of it than approved. That means, in the entire US, 100 more people disapprove than approve. I don't know what kid of math you were doing...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm sorry you don't know how to read. I'm done with that conversation. You will not grant reason.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

http://www.gallup.com/poll/128291/americans-opposition-gay-marriage-eases-slightly.aspx

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Are you his little replacement?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

yup

by Anonymous 13 years ago

And did i say anything about rights?? Wait what was that? Oh right, I DIDN'T.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(scrantoncity) It hurts the person doing the drugs health.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But drugs aren't hurting the cashier, the gun is. The act of doing drugs is a self regarding action that does not infringe on another's autonomy. It could be argued that something you smoke (our friend mary Jane) could infringe on someone's rights though it'd be hard to uphold. This is pretty much the same reason alcohol is legal, because drinking doesn't hurt anyone and it's a sled regarding action, it's the drunk driving that hurts someone.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

True, but being under the influence causes people to do things they would never do in the first place, until they do drugs.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But you punish murder and drunk driving. It cannot be just to punish a self-regarding action that does not infringe on the rights of others in anyway whatsoever. That is the government unjustly violating a person's autonomy.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You mentioned drugs as being a harm in the first place so Kluklayu has no reason to uphold your statement. Also it would seem you're just sinking so you're trying to switch to a debate that you are more familiar with, drugs.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Thank you, your username suits you

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Actually, no. Invalid. Secondly, what? The lack of a response into an unclever insult? That's just pitiful.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You're a dumbass.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You have rights until they infringe on the rights of others.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

And my partaking of meth didn't affect anyone ever. (I didn't do meth; this is an example.) And yet it's illegal. My ACTIONS against someone should be, not potential consequences.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Meth is a threat to society. It turns good people into violent crazy drug addicts. Meth propels violence and crime and makes people unsafe. You can't be a meth addict and be a normal person who contributes to society. Therefore, the government needs to regulate meth use in order to retain peace and order. I don't think the same can be said for marijuana, but that's a whole separate argument.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, meth is just a drug. It harms nobody but the user. However, the ACTIONS should be punished, not the potential actions. Potentially, marriage could lead to abuse. That means all marriage is bad, right?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Meth is a threat to society.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Alcohol is much larger of a threat to society than any other drug will ever be. Also, the prohibition of drugs is much more dangerous and causes much more crime than the drugs do. That's off-topic, though.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How is alcohol a greater threat to society than any other drug? I've never seen Mexican drug lords fight each other over beer.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Alcohol reduces a person's ability to reason more than any other drug (except PCP). Meth and cocaine actually make people more focused and give them energy. People on shrooms, LSD, Ecstacy, or heroin are likely to stay where they are, and aren't going to hurt anyone. Alcohol kills 10 times as many people per year than every illegal drug combined. 60% of murders, 40% of suicides, and 30% of automobile accidents are attributed to alcohol. It's just ridiculously bad shit. I'd pick up a heroin or meth habit over alcohol any day. And as for what you said, that's a direct fault of prohibition, not the drug itself. If you are going to argue against drugs and in favor of the War on Drugs, it is an argument you WILL lose, so just don't do it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I agree that drug related violence is out of control and something needs to be done about but I don't think that legalizing ALL drugs is the best or only way to do it (though we should totally legalize marijuana, get rid of the drinking/smoking age, eliminate all those stupid smoking bans and make all drugs with medicinal value available with a doctor's prescription). I know for a fact however that alcohol is far less dangerous than a lot of other drugs like crack cocaine. It makes sense that more murders, suicides, and automobile accidents happen because of alcohol because alcohol is more common than other drugs. If people consumed crack as much as alcohol I think we'd wee way more violence.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(#986180) Francois: Win.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

What the framers really meant was all straight white male property owners are created equal.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

http://oi52.tinypic.com/aypxxf.jpg

by Anonymous 13 years ago

repost X1000000000000000

by Anonymous 13 years ago

inb4 Scrantocity (or however you spell it)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Fail. You can't inb4 after the fact.

by Anonymous 13 years ago