RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Gay-rights advocates to challenge Proposition 8

Creating arbitrary rights infringes on everyone.

If marriage was never a right for straight people in the first place (and it's not), but it then becomes a full blown right for gays, not only do you undermine the institutional credibility of marriage, but you're concocting government sponsored discrimination.

On top of this, the morality of homosexual relationships would be forced upon others who don't necessarily agree with them. Lest we forget the case in San Francisco where the first grade public school teacher brought her students to her big gay wedding.

Gay marriage doesn't work because the process wasn't designed to work with two people of the same sex. As a result, the resources allocated by the state to gay marriages prove to be wasteful. There's no possible family to invest in; my taxpayer dollars would go to a vacuum for their irrational desire for superfluous rights.

that wasn't the question. if the actions of another person don't infringe on YOUR rights, why should they be illegal? this goes beyond marriage. how does gay marriage harm YOU in any way? do you need to use the govt to enforce your views of 'normal' on everyone around you? you can't just let others live their lives as long as they aren't taking away your rights?

If you can't see how that paragraph you quoted outlines how gay marriage undermines the rights of others, then you're not thinking about the situation hard enough baby.

But I did edit my post if that helps your myopic POV any honey.

In any event, this post of yours sounds more like apologism for wasteful spending and nonsensical rights than an actual explanation on how gay marriage is practical--Or are you admitting it's not?

I've yet to see an answer (a non-retarded Pariah one anyways) My guess is it just makes some very small people feel better, especially after Obama was just elected.

if you don't want to answer the question, say so. rights aren't being violated or infringed on by gay marriage. if you want the state to exist and you want it to recognize marriage, it has to do so equally to all citizens. i'm arguing more from the point of view that ANY action done by a person shouldn't be illegal UNLESS it infringes on the rights of another.

it goes beyond marriage but i see how you are willing to use the govt to enforce your views on this subject, so i can see how you'd be having problems with the bigger issue of personal freedom.

whether gay marriage (or indeed anything) is "pratical" or not is irrelevant. the only thing that matters is if it infringes on the rights of others, if not, it should not be illegal.

[quote=655321]if you don't want to answer the question, say so. rights aren't being violated or infringed on by gay marriage. if you want the state to exist and you want it to recognize marriage, it has to do so equally to all citizens./quote]

I already answered the question love. Read again.

Marriage is available to all citizens. You just can't morph its institution or else it works improperly and compels the state to unnecessarily nebulize tax status.

I already explained this when I brought up government advocating discriminatory rights. Do try to comprehend next time dear.

How very reactionary of you.

Your welcome.

So can anyone answer how gay marriage would weaken theirs?

it's an oxymoron, gays cant marry.

Sure they can & even legally in some places.

it's not real marriage.

Really, when did you try it?

I have a real marriage. Maybe someday your perversions will subside and you will fall in love with a woman and have a real marriage. I hope for you it happens.

There was a ceremony with ROY BATTY several years back. It ended poorly, as ROY can't be tied down to any one man.

MEM will you fuck Snarf? He's practically begging for it.

So how does gay marriage weaken your alleged "real" marriage?

It doesn't weaken it. you can;t weaken real marriage. I'm just saying you can;t go around accommodating every fetish in the world with marriage.

also when you use quotations it makes it double real.

Really BSAMS it's just sad that you try to dish so much out & throw such big hissy fits when you get some back.

ME-OW!

Snarf even the gay guy wont fuck you, looks like you are SOL.

The guy from the "real" marriage is sounding pretty bitchy to me

I thought it was Pro that had the sandy vag syndrome...?

I'll leave you ladies alone.

no you didn't. the question goes beyond marriage. just admit that you are in favor of using the rule of majority and the govt to enforce your views on others. you can't even answer a simple question about the fundamentals of personal freedom. apparently, because you don't believe in it.

I already explained how creating arbitrary rights infringes on the lives and fundamental rights of others dearest. That's not confined to the "marriage as a right" issue. It will not do you any good to deny that simply because you're unable to comprehend that.



If it's impractical as a right, that means it reinforces discriminative tendencies that push views on society that not everyone would agree with; federal law would be favoring one view more than another rather than remain objective. I even went so far as to give you an example of how a gay school teacher pushed her newly governemnt sponsored morality on school kids and you ignored it. If you'd read more carefully, you'd understand that I stipulated as such pookie.

No need for personal attacks.

Do not laugh at my pain sir!

I'm laughing with your pain bsams not at it

The main argument here against gay marriage is that it's not a "right". I'll grant you that; marriage of any kind, whether it be the traditional marriage between a man & a woman or a civil union, is not a guaranteed right. It's a privilege.



As long as the union in question regards two consenting adults who enter into a legal arrangement stemming from a committed (preferably monogamous, but necessarily) relationship, what's the problem?

Abortion is a privilege. Attending desegrated schools, churchs, and restaurants are priveleges. The Constitution has been interpreted to protect those. Why not gay marriage?

I really hate to wade back into this. First off, I'm not against gay marriage, only court-mandated gay marriage. Second, as mentioned before this subject has been beaten to death here at the RKMBS.

However....

Once you start making the argument that marriage is "right" or "privilege" that is protected by the Constitution and, therefore, can't normally be abridged or regulated, you create legal precedent that binds future decisions by the courts in other areas. When that happens, there is no way to create that precedent without, logically, also opening the door for such things as: (a) marriage between siblings; (b) polygamy.

In each case, you have consenting adults entering into a legal relationship that is at least as committed as a "traditional" marriage. Therefore, just as Snarf asks with gay marriage, a proponent of incest or polygamy can ask "what's the problem?"

yes, what is the problem? if they are both consenting adults, who cares what the make up of the relationship is? it doesn't hurt me in any way for 3 people to be married to each other. or 2 brothers.

also, i'm not arguing this from the view of being constitutionally protected right. the constitution is all well and good but it's not the basis from which we derive our rights. we are born with them. so, as long as the actions of a person do not infringe on the rights of others, it shouldn't be illegal.

No it's not. I already explained this and you agreed.

An institution is not a privilege.

Redefining the purpose of an institution is especially not a privilege.

Just because someone's denied from doing something, that doesn't make it unconstitutional. Just because something's not a right, that doesn't mean it's a privilege.

Even if marriage were considered a privilege, it's not something that's denied to gay individuals. They can still get married. They just can't change the process of marriage according to their irrational whims.

Polygamy and incest are already illegal. I know logic like that ruins your "point" but its true.

So who in your family tree broke the law? Aunt Grandma and Uncle Grandpa?

Dude. I just made a point for your side. How fucking retarded are you?

Puddin', I think you may very well be mentally retarded.

Both polygamy and incest are illegal because they have a way of thickening up the blood.