People who said "No Way", please give reasons how a man marrying another man infringes on your rights or disturbs your everyday life.
People opposing murder, please give reasons how some person whom you don't know killing another person you don't know, and never would've met, infringes on your rights or disturbs your everyday life.
You are comparing sexual preference to murder. That makes COMPLETE sense.
Answer the question, buddy. It's called an analogy. I never said they were the same. Now answer it.
Well, first it causes you fear to some degree if it happened near you. Then, if you think about it all of our lives are intertwined in some way, so someone dying on the other side of the world COULD affect you. If the Boston Massacre never happened where would America be today? If Hiroshima and Nagasaki never happened, where would Japan be?
Can't you see how your argument is a little counter-productive? If every life is intertwined, then murder has the same effect as homosexuality....
Okay, fine, fear is a good example, but not that satisfactory, to me.
Let's use something like stealing. I don't mean the petty, pack-of-gum stealing. I mean the CEO's of companies making millions by driving their company into the ground.
Now, you don't know anyone in the company. It doesn't affect you at all. They are complete scumbags, lying like dogs, screwing over lots of families and stealing to their heart's content. Would you agree that these people are bad people? But WHY? Does it affect you? No. You just care, because that is the wrong thing to do.
but being gay isn't wrong.
That's up for debate. I believe it is. But this little tiny argument here is just "why do you care?" I care because I believe it's wrong; not because I'm affected one way or the other.
Some randomer being killed, or some randomer stealing, they don't affect the people who don't know anyone involved (well, not too much), BUT they affect the people who are involved, really badly! Gay marriage doesn't, it only really affects the people getting married, and only in a good way...
every person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. if someone is gay, and marrying someone of the same sex would make them happy, and doing so does not deprive anyone else of those rights, they should have the right to pursue that. and yet this nation where there is supposedly 'separation of church and state' still follows the bible's barbaric discrimination against homosexuals. i just can't comprehend it.
Lolz is it bad all I could think was that this was a conditional statement that uses law of syllogism to reach a valid conclusion? That is assuming the first statement is true. Ughhh too much geometry
I've forgotten about geometry. Took it last year.
Don't worry- it'll disappear once you take your final
All I saw was deductive reasoning. Thats too much ToK
I was going to comment about the law of syllogism. You beat me to it. >.<
Haha I win :)
I agree with this post. It's no skin off my back if two people that love each other get married. It's a shame this topic has become such a big deal.
I'm gay . And I'm proud . BITCH
I really DO agree, and it's awesome this was homepaged :) but i'm just wondering are you gay yourself?
coool! good luck getting your rights :) I support itt!
That's an absolutely wonderful way to sum it up. Maybe we should just copy and paste this to show all the idiots. But I doubt even shoving it in their face would change their baised little minds.
57 people missed the "Yeah you are!" button. Gays should have equal rights.
Law of detachment!
Transitive property, nice
Idk the last time I checked I saw a few gay animals too...
Kind of cheesy but yeah you're right.
I beg to differ with your syllogism.
They have equal rights. What is this, 1549? A gay man cannot marry a man, I cannot marry a man. Tell me where the discrimination is.
You can marry the person you love, a gay person can't.
It's still not discrimination. I can't marry a man, he can't marry a man. Say I loved a duck. Would it be discrimination if I weren't allowed to marry it? Nope.
That isn't discriminatory.
ducks and humans aren't the same believe it or not.
It doesn't change the fact that they aren't treated any differently. They can't marry a guy, I can't marry a guy. The difference is that they want to, where I don't.
This is like saying, I WANT to marry a duck, but can't. And then saying I'm being discriminated against. No, it's called equal treatment.
A woman can marry a man, but a man can't marry a man... I think that is discrimination
Not really. It's not discriminating gays, so much as discriminating EVERY male, and EVERY female in America.
well think about it. who besides the gays are going to marry the same gender??? so it is discriminating against gays and you know it.
It isn't discriminating gays. They have exactly the same marital rights as anyone else. Whether or not they choose to exercise those rights is up to them. But it's not discrimination.
What about not being allowed to openly serve in the military? That's discrimination.
They can serve in the military. They just can't tell their orientation. Neither can anyone else. That isn't discrimination. Also that was for their protection. Nobody wants to stand in a line full of naked guys waiting to shower knowing the guy behind you gets a hard-on looking at wangs. That's just unnecessary.
But mainly, no one could reveal his orientation. Not discrimination. Straights couldn't say they're straight.
Except for the fact that when a straight person is ousted for being straight, they keep their job. When a homosexual person is ousted, they must leave the military. Try again.
When a homosexual is ousted, it is because he broke a rule-don't ask don't tell, NOT because of his sexual orientation.
Except for the people who were asked to leave because they were found out to be gay through NO fault of their own......
Er no, Straight people are allowed to talk about their partners back at home, gay people are not, because if they are found out to be Gay then they get discharged. Over 13 000 people have been discharged from the American millitary for being gay since 1994.
There are army's all over the world, Nearly all of America's allies that allow openly gay people to serve in the millitary and their preformance hasn't been effected since the rules have changed. The UK, Australia and New Zealand are just some of the countries that don't have that stupid rule about not letting people be open about their sexuality.
My boyfriend was in the Australian army, and there were 2 openly gay men serving in his barracks and he said that everyone just got along with their job, and showers wern't a problem apparently, the gay men didn't get hard-ons.
In any case, why would that possibly be brought up? Do you think the army would allow romance between a guy private and a girl private? No. Why, then, would they allow it between two guys? Why does this topic need to be discussed at all?
Don't ask don't tell was a good compromise, one of the only good thing in clinton's sex-filled presidency. Gays have every right to serve. Just don't bring up the topic of orientation.
The gays in question weren't kicked out because they're gay. You could argue that, but you're wrong. They were kicked out for breaking a rule-don't ask, don't tell. That isn't discrimination.
No one is suggesting that two gays in the army be allowed to have a relationship, the same as two straight people can't.
The "don't ask don't tell" was a compromise, you're right. But more to stop people being questioned by superiors if they were gay, and if they answer "yes" then be kicked out. But if a person is found to be gay, say someone finds out about their partner back home, then they can get kicked out. But if somone finds out about a straight person's husband/wife back home then they don't get kicked out. It's unfair. Just like not letting someone be married because they are gay is unfair.
Well I wouldn't have any problem with it if you wanted to marry a duck, and honestly, I think the law would change faster for people being able to marry animals than for gays to be able to marry.
Anyway, I bet none of the people opposing gay marriage would oppose person-duck marriage! :P (Well maybe they would...)
I'm pretty sure most people would not be okay with inter-species marriage.
Really? Okay. Why? :P
Why? Well typically people Have morals. Maybe you don't, but generally someone cares about the well being of others.
...How in the world does the well being of others play into inter-species marriage???
Well, let us think. Can anybody bond emotionally with an animal? Can anyone "make love" to an animal? Would you condone that? What the heck? Even most evolutionists wouldn't condone such abominable acts!
Well you can definitely have an emotional bond with an animal, just think of anyone who has a pet. And yes, it's possible to "make love" to an animal, although it would be kinda gross. You wouldn't have to do that with it even if you were married to it, though... And still, I don't see how that would actually harm anyone...
in the workplace. at school. in everyday language.
Everyday language what the heck? Does that mean that retards have less rights than the rest of us? Being slurred doesn't take away your rights.
In workplace/school... Last time I checked it's illegal to fire/not hire someone based on personal life.
I think by "everyday language" they meant any negative things that people might be saying that could qualify as discrimination or something? I'm just guessing, though.
it's not illegal to fire people based on sexual orientation in tons of places. like utah, where i live.
playing devil's advocate: If all humans deserve equal rights, than all serial rapists/murders deserve the right to be free amongst the public.
humans actions are different than humans rights. if you do something illegal, you should go to jail. gay people didn't do anything illegal.
If I kill a man, I go to prison. If a serial killer kills a man, he goes to prison. Nothing unfair about it.
They do have the right to murder and rape. And cops have the right to lock them up for being fucked up human beings.
you mean they have the ABILITY to do those things. There is not a "freedom of activities"
A right is something you're allowed to do. Unless you are psychically incapable, you have the right to break the law, just as the police have the right to do anything necessary to stop you. To quote George Carlin, "We have either unlimited rights, or we have no rights at all."
A chicken has two legs. A human has two legs. Therefore, A chicken is a human..
You did not just say that..
A chicken has wings, a human doesn't, therefore a chicken is NOT human. Also, chickens and humans are completely different creatures, you can't just go randomly classifying one as the other just because they have one thing in common.
.>'' You took that too seriously...really
.>'' You took that too seriously...really
Kid, take it easy, what he said was a joke lol