Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seriously, Vizio, this argument is just plain idiotic. Why people like you continue to use it just boggles the mind. A 5 year-old should know better than to pull this argument out of the crap pile (where it deserves to stay).
Let's dispense with the stupidity, shall we? Let's instead admit that, no, there was NOT equality before the SCOTUS decision. Know why? It's because gay people could not marry the people they were actually IN LOVE with!
Can we say "duh," please? Everyone on the anti-gay side repeat after me: "DUH!"
Not only that, but what if the shoe was on the other foot and heteros were only permitted to marry members of the same gender. What would you do then? Would you just shrug your shoulders and happily marry another man, Vizio? Mmm, could you imagine cuddling up every night with a nice warm dude complete with hairy chest, pot belly, and beer farts? Yes, I'm sure you can imagine it -- which is precisely the reason why people like you would be spitting fire if you found yourselves prohibited from marrying women.
So what makes you think it's any different for gays?
This idea that everything was equal because both straights and gays could marry members of the opposite sex is ludicrous in the extreme. It's like a bird telling a fish, "Hey! I'm sorry that swimming is banned but you're free to fly just like the rest of us!"
That is also the reason why your position is inherently fascistic. You think that, as long as everyone must do the same thing, it is equal AND fair. Except it's not. If everyone is treated unfairly, that doesn't suddenly make it fair. There is more than one variable to equality. Making everyone wear a dress with frills and a bow would be equal, certainly, but extremely unfair to men. JUST like opposite-gender-only marriages are unfair to homosexuals. I mean, seriously, this isn't exactly rocket science logic here.
So let's stuff a cork in the whole "but gays have the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender just like I do" argument. It is patently absurd.
And you actually think anyone is fooled by this comment? Seriously?
Of course you don't mind whatever identifying letters a person uses -- just as long as they marry the people YOU expect and demand they marry. Sure, identifying as an LGBTQ or "whatever" is perfectly fine as long as they have a nice straight marriage. Heh, right.
Too bad it's entirely too sensible and honest for Viz to understand.
Seriously, Vizio, this argument is just plain idiotic. Why people like you continue to use it just boggles the mind. A 5 year-old should know better than to pull this argument out of the crap pile (where it deserves to stay).
Let's dispense with the stupidity, shall we? Let's instead admit that, no, there was NOT equality before the SCOTUS decision. Know why? It's because gay people could not marry the people they were actually IN LOVE with!
Why should we just drop it? The fact is, no one was guaranteed to be married for love. That's never been a right in this country. So the point needs to be made that gay people have ALWAYS HAD the same rights as anyone else.
Until you can answer the question of why marriage for love is a constitutional right, the rest is just noise.
Why should we just drop it? The fact is, no one was guaranteed to be married for love. That's never been a right in this country. So the point needs to be made that gay people have ALWAYS HAD the same rights as anyone else.
Until you can answer the question of why marriage for love is a constitutional right, the rest is just noise.
Ok, since you are enamored and more than likely deeply ingrained in the LGBTQ community (president aren't you?)
Marriage for LOVE has nothing to do with it. There is no Constitutional right to love--
Listen &v^i%z$i%o ---- everyone has a PERSONAL RIGHT to marry for love--sorry if your marriage is arranged or one for convenience—that was your RIGHT and CHOICE you have ZERO RIGHT to impose such unhappiness and misery as you experience in your marriage on the rest of us or ANYONE..
Unfortunately, they can still use the very system we have to get their way in the end. I just hope they never organize en masse. If they do, we will really be in for it.
I still believe that the current "push" against them is too hard and too fast. They were softening anyway...shoulda just let it happen of its own accord. Better to leave well enough alone...don't get too hasty.
This is way too close to the election...I hope it doesn't stimulate the vote for a religious zealot type candidate. Look what happened in the mid-terms. I see a boiling pot getting ready to pop its lid. I have way more life behind me than in front of me...it's people your age and younger I worry about.
Most of the GOP candidates this time around are religious zealots of one degree or another. Yet, even if they organized en masse, they still will not have the numbers to truly affect the elections or change any noteworthy laws.
The vast majority of Americans are moderate, middle-of-the-road types who wouldn't want a form of theocratic fascism any more than I would. Plus, the government is still prohibited from establishing, promoting, or supporting any particular religion -- which is just how most Americans want it. The GOP zealots will pander to their bases for awhile, but when it comes time to face off with Hillary for the general election, they'll have to move quite a fair distance toward the left.
Why should we just drop it? The fact is, no one was guaranteed to be married for love. That's never been a right in this country. So the point needs to be made that gay people have ALWAYS HAD the same rights as anyone else.
Until you can answer the question of why marriage for love is a constitutional right, the rest is just noise.
Nobody said it was. LGBT people just now have the same right to marry the person they want to marry, just like everybody else.
Until you can answer the question of why marriage for love is a constitutional right, the rest is just noise.
The Declaration of Independence does articulate the principle that people should be free to engage in "the pursuit of happiness". I think most people reckon interfering with other's happiness, freedom of association, and freedom to be left alone absent some compelling state interest, as unethical. I think you would likely take great umbrage to being told you can't marry the person of your choice ... such that if the tables were turned and you were "free" to marry anyone so long as it was another man ... you would not much care for that, yes? You really need to address Shirina's point there, it is an excellent one.
I don't deny that 250-ish years ago there was probably less of a requirement that marriage be for love. But I doubt that anyone wants to return to a world where marriages are arranged for social advantage and men are reduced to taking sexual favors as their right ... rutting like lower life forms instead of as an expression of love.
The reality is that love is rightfully important to most people and few today want a loveless marriage just to be married. What would be the point in that? And even fewer want their choices constrained for arbitrary reasons decided in some theological cemetery ... er, seminary ... somewhere.
If you want to be thusly constrained then no one is stopping you. The issue is that you can't impose that on others.
Why should we just drop it? The fact is, no one was guaranteed to be married for love. That's never been a right in this country.
Sorry, but it is considered a right in this country. That is why no marriage license has been revoked due to punitive action. Marriage licenses aren't like drivers' licenses; the latter can be revoked or suspended for breaking the law. Yet even a spouse abuser, adulterer, or even a spouse murderer cannot have their marriage licenses revoked or suspended.
No right to marry for love, you say? Well, unless we suddenly flew threw a wormhole and are now living in the age of arranged marriages, you're wrong. Once again, marriage for love is an assumed right even if it isn't specifically stated. The government certainly isn't going to ask why two people are marrying, but a huge percentage will be for love. The only way it could NOT be a protected reason is if the government could force a couple to marry for a reason other than love. And guess what ... there is no such provision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
So the point needs to be made that gay people have ALWAYS HAD the same rights as anyone else.
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Repeating it a second time actually makes the argument dumber. And it will keep getting dumber with each new telling.
I see that you have completely dodged my point about the shoe being on the other foot. Yeah ... what would dear ol' Vizio do in a country where marrying the opposite gender was banned.
Oh what would he do, I wonder? Would he lustfully crawl under those sexy silk sheets with another man? Would Vizio wrap his legs around his husband's legs and kiss him on the nose goodnight? Would Vizio hold his husband's hand as they strolled together through a park and think to himself how delicious it is to be so intimately in love with such a wonderful man? Would ... nay, COULD Vizio feel his heart go all pitter-patter when his husband is near; would he feel almost panicky when his husband stays late for work?
How normal would that be for you, Vizio?
Because something tells me that you wouldn't just sit down and take it. No, you would be fighting for your own rights just as fervently as any homosexual is fighting for theirs. BUT ... because you already get what you want, you want to deny to others that very same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Until you can answer the question of why marriage for love is a constitutional right, the rest is just noise.
LOL! It's only "noise" because you're trying to defend an indefensible position -- and you know it. You're trying oh so hard to ignore 90% of what I say because there simply isn't a good response that makes your position at all tenable.
It's all about walking a mile in someone else's shoes, Vizio ... something you are completely incapable of doing. That means you actually become somewhat of a sociopath given that empathy in this matter completely eludes you. Thus you'll bring up nonsense like whether marrying for love is a Constitutional right -- as if every last thing we're allowed to do in this country needs to be cataloged, labeled, and enshrined in a document that would be billions of pages long.
Uh, are we allowed to take a dump on a Monday evening when Venus is occulting Aldebaran on the night of the Winter Solstice? And can we do it with generic toilet paper and when the temperature outside is 48 degrees F? I dunno ... better get out the Constitution and make sure we're not running afoul of a law. And friggin' hurry! I don't know how much longer I can hold it!
That's Vizio's world for ya. Even the most obvious "rights" must be written down otherwise they don't count. Never mind how many rights are simply assumed. After all, there is no precedent for the government refusing a marriage license because it is a marriage of love. Add to that the fact that the government has never revoked a marriage license due to the couple being in love and what do you have? Yep, you have a de facto right, ladies and gentlemen.
Unfortunately for you, Vizio, you're clouding the issue, obfuscating the obvious in an attempt to defend such a ridiculous canard. How easy it is to suddenly unroll the Constitution and wave it around in our faces but watch what happens when the Constitution becomes ... inconvenient. Just keep watching. It will happen sooner rather than later.
Alas, Vizio, you cannot even answer a simple little question such as how you would react to a world where opposite-gender marriages were considered an abomination, a world where opposite-gender relationships were considered "icky-pooh," a world where HE was the outcast for wanting to marry a woman.
It just goes to show everyone reading this thread that as long as Vizio gets his way, everyone else be damned.
The Declaration of Independence does articulate the principle that people should be free to engage in "the pursuit of happiness".
Yes. It does. And there are still restrictions on who I can marry and who I can't. As with anyone--regardless of their sexual preferences.
Quote:
I think most people reckon interfering with other's happiness, freedom of association, and freedom to be left alone absent some compelling state interest, as unethical. I think you would likely take great umbrage to being told you can't marry the person of your choice ... such that if the tables were turned and you were "free" to marry anyone so long as it was another man ... you would not much care for that, yes? You really need to address Shirina's point there, it is an excellent one.
I don't deny that 250-ish years ago there was probably less of a requirement that marriage be for love. But I doubt that anyone wants to return to a world where marriages are arranged for social advantage and men are reduced to taking sexual favors as their right ... rutting like lower life forms instead of as an expression of love.
The reality is that love is rightfully important to most people and few today want a loveless marriage just to be married. What would be the point in that? And even fewer want their choices constrained for arbitrary reasons decided in some theological cemetery ... er, seminary ... somewhere.
If you want to be thusly constrained then no one is stopping you. The issue is that you can't impose that on others.
So based on that argument, all restrictions on marriage should be cast off...assuming the people getting married love each other?
Sorry, but it is considered a right in this country. That is why no marriage license has been revoked due to punitive action. Marriage licenses aren't like drivers' licenses; the latter can be revoked or suspended for breaking the law. Yet even a spouse abuser, adulterer, or even a spouse murderer cannot have their marriage licenses revoked or suspended.
No right to marry for love, you say? Well, unless we suddenly flew threw a wormhole and are now living in the age of arranged marriages, you're wrong. Once again, marriage for love is an assumed right even if it isn't specifically stated. The government certainly isn't going to ask why two people are marrying, but a huge percentage will be for love. The only way it could NOT be a protected reason is if the government could force a couple to marry for a reason other than love. And guess what ... there is no such provision.
Can you quote the Constitution where it guarantees marriage as a right?
Quote:
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Repeating it a second time actually makes the argument dumber. And it will keep getting dumber with each new telling.
Your opinion aside, the argument is true. Gay people have always had the EXACT same rights I have in regards to marriage. Until recently. Now they have more.
Quote:
I see that you have completely dodged my point about the shoe being on the other foot. Yeah ... what would dear ol' Vizio do in a country where marrying the opposite gender was banned.
Why is it even relevant? It has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument. It's a red herring.
Quote:
LOL! It's only "noise" because you're trying to defend an indefensible position -- and you know it. You're trying oh so hard to ignore 90% of what I say because there simply isn't a good response that makes your position at all tenable.
Let me know when you can give an answer to the first point, then we'll talk. Until then, as I said, it's noise. You're attempting to draw the argument off topic. That's called a "red herring". You can't answer the actual argument so you attempt to change the subject in hopes that we forget you have no answer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
