Bush Homophobic

[Baron Max]

When the father dies, the daughter inherits. Why marry?

What if there are more than one daughter and the father wants his "wife/daughter" to inherit his estate and not the other?

"Marriage between gays: if the partners complement each other ..... why not?"

Well, because some people in our society seem to want marriage to be between a man and a woman ....NOT of the same bloodline ...that's why.

And I daresay, that the majority of Americans want to keep marriage that way. Yet you and a few others want to force your opinions onto us. Why? You don't seem to like it when we force our opinions onto you, do you?

Baron Max

 

[Mystech]

No, Mystech, it's a matter of Constitutional law! If they make the law for homos, then it WILL BE the law for incest (and possibly other issues,too). See? You're the one who is being narrow and short-sighted, not me. Once that law is decided, that's it ...it's a Constitutional law.

Max, I know this may be a bit personal, but do you have some sort of self-esteem issues that you need to work out? I've had some friends in the past that had sadly low self-esteem, so I'm quite accustomed to seeing this sort of self deprecation. Let me assure you, though, there's no need to fold up and make such blatantly stupid statements in an attempt to make yourself look like the argumentative equivalent of a yapping little poodle. Your grammar and spelling are all good, and you've got great sentence structure, I'm sure that if you really put your mind to it then debating politics could really become something you excel at some time in the future! No need to get fustrated and give up so easily.

In all seriousness, though, what is it about mentioning law that suddenly makes half of all people think they're Harvard graduates? In other words, where did you get these ridiculous ideas about how the laws in the United States are set up, because the picture you've just painted is grossly and negligently false.

This is not a constitutional issue, not in the least. If advocates of same sex marriage get their way then neither the federal constitution nor any state constitution would need to change (save for the very recent additions to some state constitutions prohibiting same sex marriage). This is because when no law of limitation exists, then by default a same-sex marriage shall not be prohibited. It is these prohibiting laws which advocates of same sex marriage seek to eliminate. This in no way opens the door for incestual marriage which will still be prohibited under the laws of most states. There's simply no link to draw here.

As I said, you're jumping at shadows, old boy, do try to calm down, take a breather, and sort yourself out.

 

[Mystech]

And I daresay, that the majority of Americans want to keep marriage that way. Yet you and a few others want to force your opinions onto us. Why? You don't seem to like it when we force our opinions onto you, do you?

You're really turning a blind eye to a crucial distinction here. If advocates of same-sex marriage had their way, then no existing marriage is effected. The idea of marriage between one man and one woman is still every bit as valid as it had been before, and people of the opposite sex will remain married, and quite happily I should hope (though honestly divorce rates tend to suggest otherwise, but something might be able to be done about that eventually).

Conversely if opponents of same-sex marriage have their way, then frankly there are a load of connecting adults who simply can not marry. In other words, the legal implementations of same-sex marriage advocates do not affect anyone but themselves, whereas the will of same-sex marriage opponents effects no one but same-sex couples. Does that sound particularly fair to you?

Another more subtle destination that you’re also leaving out is that same-sex marriages already exist, both legally (at least in a few other nations, and in Massachusetts) and certainly in the spirit and nature of the loving bond between to individuals. Any supposed harm that same-sex unions might cause “traditional marriage” has already been done. The only thing at steak now, is how the government will behave in light of the reality of this situation.

 

[Baron Max]

Conversely if opponents of same-sex marriage have their way, then frankly there are a load of connecting adults who simply can not marry.

Well, there are lots of things in life that some can do, but others aren't permitted to do. Whats wrong with that? It's a normal, perfectly sensible thing to happen in any group of humans or any human society.

People can't drive cars in the US unless they're 16 or over ...but lots and lots of other people DO drive cars. Normal people aren't allowed to drive tanks on the highway, but Army soldiers do it all the time. Some people aren't permitted to drink booze in bars, but others drink it by the gallon perfectly legally.

Some people are permitted certain benefits if they're married ...but some people are NOT permitted those benefits because they are NOT married. What's so hard to understand about that? Some people are permitted to marry, some are not permitted to marry. Simple, huh?

Baron Max

 

[Asguard]

Baron your ignoring reality DELIBRALTLY

Normal people cant drive tanks because they arnt a car, they are a millitry device

16 year olds cant get licences because they arnt responcable enough to drive yet, when they turn 18 and pass there driving tests they will be

each of those situations potentually harms someone else. Marrying the person i want effects you not at all. Sexual descrimination should end, we have other laws against descriminating on race or creed, so why all of a sudden is applying the sexual descrimination act PROPERLY wrong?

I want to know EXACTLY how if i am married to john smith it harms you barron?

 

[Baron Max]

Marrying the person i want effects you not at all.

Oh, sure it does! The law that I like and respect is being changed to suit only ONE group of people. And worse, it's that ONE GROUP that's attempting to force that change onto all of the other people ....and I don't think that's very nice of them.

I see it as the same type of thing that anti-gun people are trying to do .....force their own ideas onto others and change the laws just because they don't like the present laws. I don't think thats very nice of them, either.

As to driving ...I was driving a car on the open roads when I was 14 and I was a better driver than many people on the roads today. Should I have fought, argued on Internet forums, etc. to have that age-law changed? And more to the point, should I have won that battle? Isn't that age-law discriminatory?

>"Sexual descrimination should end,..."<

Oh, I agree ...I think homos should be able to fuck anyone that they want as long as the person gives their consent and they don't do it in public. And I think others should have the same privilege. But what does that have to do with changing the law concerning marriage?

Baron Max

 

[Mystech]

Some people are permitted certain benefits if they're married ...but some people are NOT permitted those benefits because they are NOT married. What's so hard to understand about that? Some people are permitted to marry, some are not permitted to marry. Simple, huh?

Yes, quite simple to understand, thank you Max. It is so simple, in fact, that it's one of the founding premises of the fight for same-sex marriage upon which the whole rest of the argument is built. This is what we generally refer to as "The problem" thanks for taking a moment to let me get back to fundamentals here.

As you pointed out, there are lots of things that some people are not permitted to do, which other people are indeed permitted to do. That’s a pretty simplistic observation about the way society is built, but it’s certainly the truth. Now one think you didn’t point out, for whatever reason, is that these rules of who can do what are generally based on reason. These destinations usually don’t come completely out of nowhere without any reason for existing, or purpose to serve, especially when they cause undue strife and an obstacle to the principals of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Driving a tank is simply impractical for a civilian. There simply isn’t a good infrastructure to support these sorts of vehicles for standard commuting, they’d slow down traffic unbelievably, and cost a ton in maintenance and fuel costs. Children under a certain age aren’t permitted to drive because as a society we simply do not trust their judgement skills enough to be on the road as soon as they can reach the petals. It’s all fairly simple and practical.

However prohibiting same-sex couples the legal protections of marriage is unlike these rules of the road, as there’s no simple distinction which would clearly necessitate it’s prohibition like that of tanks on the highway or five year olds behind the wheel. And being that this prohibition without any great clearly and reasonably limiting distinction is causing a fair bit of upset, and frankly just seems punitive and in bad faith. To make it worse, it’s a thing which genuinely causes some people considerable hardships, so for that reason there are those who stand up to fight for legal recognition of same-sex marriages.

 

[Mystech]

Oh, sure it does! The law that I like and respect is being changed to suit only ONE group of people. And worse, it's that ONE GROUP that's attempting to force that change onto all of the other people ....and I don't think that's very nice of them.

So instead you'd rather have the law specifically discriminating against one group of people? Because that is how these laws are currently written. Also I think you've got this a little backwards, if advocates of same-sex marriage have their way, then the law won't change one bit for you so long as you weren't contemplating marrying someone of the same sex. For everyone who was considering that, however, this is the only group which will notice any change at all, and one quite for the better. Your refusal to accept that comes from nothing but a spirit of ill-will and want of punitive measures taken against this group. Now I don't think that's very nice of you.

I see it as the same type of thing that anti-gun people are trying to do .....force their own ideas onto others and change the laws just because they don't like the present laws. I don't think thats very nice of them, either.

Well you've got this analogy a little backwards, don't you? If same sex marriage advocates have their way, there's no prohibition enforced on you, you can still buy your metaphoric AR-15 with hicap mags and flashider, however if we continue to allow opponents of same sex marriage to have their way then no one with blue eyes can buy military. Sort of sucks, doesn't it? The fact that there aren't as many people with blue eyes as with brown doesn't necessarily offer much comfort or justification, does it?

As to driving ...I was driving a car on the open roads when I was 14 and I was a better driver than many people on the roads today. Should I have fought, argued on Internet forums, etc. to have that age-law changed? And more to the point, should I have won that battle? Isn't that age-law discriminatory?

It is, and perhaps some sort of reform could be made to the system to gauge skill and judgement regardless of age, however fighting too hard for that sort of reform would likely label you as a brat, because all you'd have to do is wait two years anyhow. Same-sex couples have no such luxury.

>"Sexual descrimination should end,..."<

Oh, I agree ...I think homos should be able to fuck anyone that they want as long as the person gives their consent and they don't do it in public. And I think others should have the same privilege. But what does that have to do with changing the law concerning marriage?

Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is gender discrimination quite clearly and simply (the marriage licence is being denied because of the gender of one of the partners, isn't it?). This is already a crime in most places.

 

[Baron Max]

...it’s a thing which genuinely causes some people considerable hardships, ....

What hardships? (And I'm assuming that you mean that it's hardships for gays and lezzies, right?)

>"...that these rules of who can do what are generally based on reason."<

Some are, some aren't ...and that's the simple fact of life. So that's not much of an argument to permit same-sex marriage, is it?

<"...prohibiting same-sex couples the legal protections of marriage is unlike these rules..."<

Well, if it's only the legal protections, we have attorneys who will gladly write up all kinds of protections, including living wills and powers of attorney. Simple ...and it changes no existing laws, nor causes any undue stress for those who don't want gays and lezzies to have a "marriage". And the homos can live happily everafter.

<"...Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is gender discrimination quite clearly...">

Denying 15-yr old kids the right to drive autos is clearly age discrimination, is it not? And yet you seem perfectly willing to go along with THAT law, but not the marriage law ....why?

Baron Max

 

[spidergoat]

If attorneys can duplicate the same rights, then what's the point of making them go through all that legal hassle and cost? If they can get the same rights as married people, then there must be nothing wrong with it, it must not negatively effect traditional marriage or it would have already. Isn't it just, therefore, about the word- marriage?

Age discrimination is based on the fact that humans mature gradually. Once you are of a certain, albeit arbitrary, age, you are legally considered more responsible. Very few children drive cars illegally, but many, many same-sex couples are together, it's a fact of society, not a social problem.

If it was up to the whims of the American people, we would still have slavery, too, and women wouldn't be able to vote. Some rights are non-negotiable.

 

[Baron Max]

Isn't it just, therefore, about the word- marriage?

Yeah, I'd say so ....pretty much, at any rate. But ain't that enough?

How 'bout if we change the definition of "attorney" to be someone who has read more than one law book? See? Changing words ain't no big deal, is it?

Although I do hate it when small "splinter groups" attempt to make major changes in society even when that society does NOT want those changes. That bothers me for some strange reason. Maybe 'cause it reminds me of people like bin Laden and Al-Zarquiwri trying to force their ideals of life onto others with bullets and explosives ...just strikes me as being wrong, ya' know?

Well, with kids driving cars ...as with the gays and lezzies getting married, all we have to do is change the law, right? Even you agreed that it's an arbitrary age, so let's just change it. So in reality, all we're doing is changing the definition of "legal driving age" in the same way we're attempting to change the definition of "marriage". Whats the difference?

Oh, sure, you're going to give me all kinds of "reasons" why kids can't think or do or act "right" until ten seconds after they turn 16, but....does it mean anything? Please don't bother typing a bunch of that kind of stuff, as I probably won't read it.

>"Very few children drive cars illegally, but many, many same-sex couples are together, it's a fact of society, not a social problem."<

So ...if a lot of people do it, then it's okay? And very few kids drive cars 'cause it IS illegal. how many would drive if we said, "Go to it, kids, have fun!" In fact, don't know about where you are, but we've now created a monster here in Texas with those silly-assed, but highly dangerous "mini-choppers" that are apparently legal for toddlers in diapers to drive out on the streets! And it's all because of the way the law is written and vehicle is defined (I think?). But they're doing it, nevertheless.

>"If it was up to the whims of the American people, we would still have slavery, too, and women wouldn't be able to vote. Some rights are non-negotiable."<

You say that like it would have been wrong.

Rights? Rights? Those are things that someone gave us by writing it into the Constitution ...and even while they were writing "...all men are created equal...", most of them owned slaves and they'd never considered that women should vote! They meant MEN were created equal, not women, for god's sake! ...LOL!

By the way, which "rights" are non-negotiable? And why? ....'cause they were written on some piece of paper 200 years ago? That makes 'em non-negotiable?

No, personally I don't much give a damn if gays and lezzies can marry, but I hate crap being jambed down my throat by only a few deviant, loud-mouthed people who want something for themselves without regard to the feelings of others. I just don't think that's very nice.

Baron Max

 

[Asguard]

did you ever stop to think that maybe what THEY hate is a few loud mouths jaming down THERE throats that they are evil and there BFs\ GFs are satan? That because they chose to love someone of the same sex that they are less than you are?

 

[Mystech]

No, personally I don't much give a damn if gays and lezzies can marry, but I hate crap being jambed down my throat by only a few deviant, loud-mouthed people who want something for themselves without regard to the feelings of others. I just don't think that's very nice.

And I hate loud-mouthed brian-dead conservatives who think that any struggle by any oppressed minority is some sort of direct attack to them and their way of life, even if it would have no effect on them. You don't have the God-given right to dictate everyone's life for them, you pompous ass. This nation has long been founded on the idea of "Inalienable rights" the idea that rights are something more than just what the ruling elite are willing to give the common man, but simply being a human entitles you to certain standards of decency and consideration from your fellows. You've revealed your hand here, your inability to give any salient reason as to why same-sex couples should be denied the legal representation of marriage is based upon no hard reason or sound thinking at all, only a hatred and selfish desire for punitive action against a group of people you don't particularly like.

That's just not very nice.

 

[Asguard]

I always LOVE the argument that agy couples should just aplie to (and pay) the 100 or so different agencys that dictate all the rights, responcabilitys and privlages that married couples get automatically. Why shouldnt gay people have the right to be as lasy as the rest of the fucking population

 

[Mystech]

Well also it's something of a fallacy to say that all of the same considerations of marriage can be tied up with a few hundred hours, a few thousand dollars, and a lawyer. This is simply not the case. Take health-care benefits which some companies will provide to the spouse of an employee, for instance, and certainly child custody matters. Without a marriage license the other partner will be treated as though they were just a boy/girl friend. Aside from that judges don't always honor living wills, and it's happened on more than one occasion that the surviving member of a gay couple who considered themselves married ended up having his dead partner's estate going to the family who disowned him years ago rather than to his spouse.

And again, yes, why should there be one standard for most people, and then another standard for another arbitrary set of people? It just doesn't make good sense.

 

[Baron Max]

That because they chose to love someone of the same sex that they are less than you are?

Oh, I never said anything like that. What I said was that they're trying to change laws, trying to redefine marriage to suit their own needs and desires. I see it as no different to me wanting to change laws and redefine marriage so I can fuck and marry goats!

Gays and lezzies can love and have sex (if that's what it is?) with anyone that they wish ...and I'm perfectly agreeable with that as long as it's not in public, of course.

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

And again, yes, why should there be one standard for most people, and then another standard for another arbitrary set of people? It just doesn't make good sense.

Well, we have laws that make it illegal for those under age 21 to drink booze in bars ...are going to change those laws, too, for the very same reasons?

We have laws that make it illegal for those under 16 to drive cars on the highways ...are we going to change those laws, too, for the very same reasons?

We have many, many laws like that in this country. Are we to also do away with them for the reasons that you've stated? If not, why not?

Baron Max

 

[duendy]

not 'sheep' i notice...? hmmmmm

listen Baron, what business Is it of yours whether Gays mary or not?

Why does it offend you to see them togther in 'public'?

comeon...explore your self dude!

 

[Baron Max]

listen Baron, what business Is it of yours whether Gays mary or not?

It's against the law, that's why! And worse, they're trying to change those laws simple in their own self-interest without regard to the wants and desires of the rest of society.

I want to change the laws so I can marry goats and sheep ....why shouldn't I be allowed to do that?? Hmmm? Why should anyone stand in my way? Why should anyone care whether I marry goats or not?

Baron Max

 

[duendy]

It's against the law, that's why!

d))And who made such a silly law? That deems it self fit to tell people they cant marry cause they are the same sex?

And worse, they're trying to change those laws simple in their own self-interest without regard to the wants and desires of the rest of society.

d))))HAH...what about THEIR wants and desires, dont they count? obviously not to the like of you with your homo-fearfull views, right?

I want to change the laws so I can marry goats and sheep ....why shouldn't I be allowed to do that??

d))so now you've included sheep. i am sure a sheep has probably more insight than you anyway....and a goat.

Hmmm? Why should anyone stand in my way? Why should anyone care whether I marry goats or not?

d)))are you daft? be honest now

Baron Max

To the Max