Do you agree with same sex marriages? Whats your view on same sex relationships?

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] Men and women are equal but have different rights. HoolaHoopMan

What fundamental rights differ between men and women? HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] What fundamental rights differ between men and women? HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] Women don't have to sign up for selective service

UT_Wrestler

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] Women don't have to sign up for selective service

SolidSnake35

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] That's a fundamental right? HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] That's a fundamental right? HoolaHoopMan

Poor families have the right to free money, etc etc.. equality doesn't exist. SolidSnake35

That doesn't prove anything. Rich families don't have the right to free money, either.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Poor families have the right to free money, etc etc.. equality doesn't exist. Barbariser

That doesn't prove anything. Rich families don't have the right to free money, either.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] Marriage is fundamental? SolidSnake35

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] Marriage is fundamental? SolidSnake35

So because equality dosn't exist that means we shouldn't at least strive for it? Well I know who I'd vote for President next election, hint hint nudge nudge.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] They have the right to not serve in the military even if WW3 broke out; whereas a man does not have that right; any able-bodied adult male under 35 could be potentially drafted.UT_Wrestler

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Poor families have the right to free money, etc etc.. equality doesn't exist. SolidSnake35

That doesn't prove anything. Rich families don't have the right to free money, either.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] Yeah it is. At least the Supreme court thinks so.

HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Barbariser"]

That doesn't prove anything. Rich families don't have the right to free money, either.

toast_burner

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Poor families have the right to free money, etc etc.. equality doesn't exist. SolidSnake35

That doesn't prove anything. Rich families don't have the right to free money, either.

You've proven that there is an inequality in U.S. law (which is justified). How does this prove that "equality doesn't exist" in U.S. law?

Furthermore, I have not been following your debate, but how does this all relate to same-sex marriages, exactly? None of this changes the fact that there are no valid reasons not to permit consenting adult individuals to marry homogendered adult individuals.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] Yeah it is. At least the Supreme court thinks so.

WasntAvailable

So because equality dosn't exist that means we shouldn't at least strive for it? Well I know who I'd vote for President next election, hint hint nudge nudge.

Oh and equality can be both good and bad. It's a worthless term, really.

Sure i agree with it as it doesn't hurt anyone

whatever makes them happy should make this 'god' happy too

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Barbariser"]

That doesn't prove anything. Rich families don't have the right to free money, either.

You've proven that there is an inequality in U.S. law (which is justified). How does this prove that "equality doesn't exist" in U.S. law?

Equality would imply that all individuals are treated the same regardless of race, gender, or economic status. If the government gives more money to one type or favorable employment consideration to another based on these factors, then equality doesn't exist.UT_Wrestler

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] Poor do.. rich don't. Unequal.UT_Wrestler

You've proven that there is an inequality in U.S. law (which is justified). How does this prove that "equality doesn't exist" in U.S. law?

Nothing is that simple. By your logic, the United States has "no equality" - so does Saudi Arabia. Do you believe that both nations are equally discriminating, being that 0 equals 0?

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Barbariser"]

That doesn't prove anything. Rich families don't have the right to free money, either.

Barbariser

You've proven that there is an inequality in U.S. law (which is justified). How does this prove that "equality doesn't exist" in U.S. law?

Furthermore, I have not been following your debate, but how does this all relate to same-sex marriages, exactly? None of this changes the fact that there are no valid reasons not to permit consenting adult individuals to marry homogendered adult individuals.

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Poor families have the right to free money, etc etc.. equality doesn't exist. SolidSnake35

That doesn't prove anything. Rich families don't have the right to free money, either.

You're, not your. And I hope you're not implying that what I say is untrue.UT_Wrestler

You know when you make grammatical mistakes (You see that second 'm' there that you missed?) you arn't really supposed to patronise people for making grammar mistakes, not that you should be doing it in the first place. It's extremely rude and immature actually.

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]

You've proven that there is an inequality in U.S. law (which is justified). How does this prove that "equality doesn't exist" in U.S. law?

You misrepresent me. I think interracial marriage laws do nothing to ruin equality. I never said whether it's morally permissible. They are separate issues and equality cannot be used to argue for gay marriage.

SolidSnake35

Bolded: They aren't separate issues. They both involve one group not allowing two consenting adults to marry one another based on discrimination, and in both cases people cannot control their race or orientation.

Just to put it into perspective this is what the Surpreme Court said on overturning interracial marriage laws:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

now with some minor changes:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as sexual preference classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious sexual preference discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of the same gender resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"][QUOTE="Barbariser"]

You've proven that there is an inequality in U.S. law (which is justified). How does this prove that "equality doesn't exist" in U.S. law?

Barbariser

Nothing is that simple. By your logic, the United States has "no equality" - so does Saudi Arabia. Do you believe that both nations are equally discriminating, being that 0 equals 0?

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]You're, not your. And I hope you're not implying that what I say is untrue.WasntAvailable

You know when you make grammatical mistakes (You see that second 'm' there that you missed?) you arn't really supposed to patronise people for making grammar mistakes, not that you should be doing it in the first place. It's extremely rude and immature actually.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Barbariser"]

That doesn't prove anything. Rich families don't have the right to free money, either.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]You're, not your. And I hope you're not implying that what I say is untrue.WasntAvailable

You know when you make grammatical mistakes (You see that second 'm' there that you missed?) you arn't really supposed to patronise people for making grammar mistakes, not that you should be doing it in the first place. It's extremely rude and immature actually.

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] Poor do.. rich don't. Unequal.SolidSnake35

You've proven that there is an inequality in U.S. law (which is justified). How does this prove that "equality doesn't exist" in U.S. law?

Furthermore, I have not been following your debate, but how does this all relate to same-sex marriages, exactly? None of this changes the fact that there are no valid reasons not to permit consenting adult individuals to marry homogendered adult individuals.

And just because something is the "way it is", that in no way implies that that's the "way it should be". By that logic we should never have allowed interracial marriage because the law used to say that marriage was exclusively homogeneous. And if we follow your overly technical outlook on things, that was perfectly equal back then.

Also, if equality is meaningless, then please justify why all races and genders in the U.S. are given the right to vote.

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] Equality would imply that all individuals are treated the same regardless of race, gender, or economic status. If the government gives more money to one type or favorable employment consideration to another based on these factors, then equality doesn't exist.SolidSnake35

Nothing is that simple. By your logic, the United States has "no equality" - so does Saudi Arabia. Do you believe that both nations are equally discriminating, being that 0 equals 0?

Irrelevant. I never attempted to relate Saudi Arabia's relative lack of freedoms to the relative equality between the two. According to both of you, ANY inequality results in having no equality at all, and this implies that the U.S. is equally inequal to a nation which practises far more sexual and religious discrimination than the U.S. Consequently, your statements also suggest that the modern U.S. is equally inequal to the U.S. of centuries ago, despite the fact that one of them bats a very large eye at the idea that you should be allowed to enslave any member of a particular race.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] Poor do.. rich don't. Unequal.SolidSnake35

Unfortunately some things cant.

[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]You're, not your. And I hope you're not implying that what I say is untrue.UT_Wrestler

You know when you make grammatical mistakes (You see that second 'm' there that you missed?) you arn't really supposed to patronise people for making grammar mistakes, not that you should be doing it in the first place. It's extremely rude and immature actually.

How can you not see the irony in that comment? Can you really not see it, or do you just enjoy digging yourself a hole you can't get out of? Well I guess that's not true, you could of course do us all a favour and just stop posting your inane "arguments".

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Barbariser"]

You've proven that there is an inequality in U.S. law (which is justified). How does this prove that "equality doesn't exist" in U.S. law?

Furthermore, I have not been following your debate, but how does this all relate to same-sex marriages, exactly? None of this changes the fact that there are no valid reasons not to permit consenting adult individuals to marry homogendered adult individuals.

Barbariser

And just because something is the "way it is", that in no way implies that that's the "way it should be". By that logic we should never have allowed interracial marriage because the law used to say that marriage was exclusively homogeneous. And if we follow your overly technical outlook on things, that was perfectly legal back then.

Also, if equality is meaningless, then please justify why all races and genders in the U.S. are given the right to vote.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Nope that is "not the same", not "unequal".

Teenaged

Unfortunately some things cant.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Barbariser"]

Nothing is that simple. By your logic, the United States has "no equality" - so does Saudi Arabia. Do you believe that both nations are equally discriminating, being that 0 equals 0?

Barbariser

Irrelevant. I never attempted to relate Saudi Arabia's relative lack of freedoms to the relative equality between the two. According to both of you, ANY inequality results in having no equality at all, and this implies that the U.S. is equally inequal to a nation which practises far more sexual and religious discrimination than the U.S. Consequently, your statements also suggest that the modern U.S. is equally inequal to the U.S. of centuries ago, despite the fact that one of them bats a very large eye at the idea that you should be allowed to enslave any member of a particular race.

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"][QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

You know when you make grammatical mistakes (You see that second 'm' there that you missed?) you arn't really supposed to patronise people for making grammar mistakes, not that you should be doing it in the first place. It's extremely rude and immature actually.

How can you not see the irony in that comment? Can you really not see it, or do you just enjoy digging yourself a hole you can't get out of? Well I guess that's not true, you could of course do us all a favour and just stop posting your inane "arguments".

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] 2 and 4 are not the same but they are equal.SolidSnake35

Unfortunately some things cant.

That is for instance if we want to render two groups of people equal then rights should be attributed not 100% the same way but also considering the differences of the two groups.

[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] I only accompany the corrections with otherwise weak statements. "aren't" btwUT_Wrestler

How can you not see the irony in that comment? Can you really not see it, or do you just enjoy digging yourself a hole you can't get out of? Well I guess that's not true, you could of course do us all a favour and just stop posting your inane "arguments".

I think we allowed interracial marriage because it benefited both sides. Also, I think there are reasons to why it should be restricted to one man and one woman. I can't think of any for limiting it to the same race. Because those voted for must represent our differences. You don't vote because you're my equal. You vote because you're different to me and we need to know what you think.SolidSnake35

Elaborate on those reasons. I have not seen a single piece of evidence to suggest that same-sex marriage would at all be detrimental to any other nonaffiliated group of people, and basic math dictates that if there are no negatives and a number of positives, then the overall effect is beneficial.

Besides, there's nothing that says you need to "benefit more than one group" to have a good legal precedent for passing a law. After all, our whole discussion is about the fact that the U.S. exclusively legalized straight marriage which exclusively benefits heterosexuals.

And how does the "need to know what I think" relate to the right to vote? I'm perfectly capable of expressing my opinion (which reminds me, I have the exact same boundaries of speech and expression that you do. If not for equality, then why do we have identical limitations?) without needing to drop something into a ballot box. Even then, your voting laws assign an equal authority and legislative power to my opinion as it does yours.

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"][QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

How can you not see the irony in that comment? Can you really not see it, or do you just enjoy digging yourself a hole you can't get out of? Well I guess that's not true, you could of course do us all a favour and just stop posting your inane "arguments".

[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] I only accompany the corrections with otherwise weak statements. "aren't" btwUT_Wrestler

How can you not see the irony in that comment? Can you really not see it, or do you just enjoy digging yourself a hole you can't get out of? Well I guess that's not true, you could of course do us all a favour and just stop posting your inane "arguments".

Chrome spell checks for me anyway, I've always used arn't as a habit. Also because I like it, and I don't really care what you think about that. Frankly I don't care what you think about anything, the only reason I'm calling you out on this issue is because there is so much ignorance about homosexuality that needs to be dealt with. Aside from that I have not made any spelling mistakes, unlike yourself ironically. Want to know a good example of a straw man argument for future reference so you actually know what it is the next time you use it? Calling someone out on grammar mistakes instead of answering the questions that are being asked of you. Or saying you've answered the question several times, when in reality you've answered an entirely different question. These are prime examples of a straw man, and as you should know straw men are indicative of a weak argument. Maybe you should think about that one for a bit before posting again.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] I'm glad to see that you used a spell-checker this time; nice try, though.UT_Wrestler

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] They could both be equal... in terms of equality, for want of a better phrase. Thing is, certain equality is better than others. Clearly it's better that, to use an example from previous posts, that everyone should have the right to interracial marriage. But if everyone lacked that right, society would still be equal; just less.. free.SolidSnake35

Irrelevant. I never attempted to relate Saudi Arabia's relative lack of freedoms to the relative equality between the two. According to both of you, ANY inequality results in having no equality at all, and this implies that the U.S. is equally inequal to a nation which practises far more sexual and religious discrimination than the U.S. Consequently, your statements also suggest that the modern U.S. is equally inequal to the U.S. of centuries ago, despite the fact that one of them bats a very large eye at the idea that you should be allowed to enslave any member of a particular race.

Don't dodge the point. What we're arguing is whether or not the existence of an inequality invariably leads to the conclusion that there is no equality at all, which is what you said. Do you believe that the U.S. has equal equality/inequality to Saudi Arabia?

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"][QUOTE="toast_burner"] I lol'd. It seems that with every post you're just proving him to be more right about you.

toast_burner

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]I think we allowed interracial marriage because it benefited both sides. Also, I think there are reasons to why it should be restricted to one man and one woman. I can't think of any for limiting it to the same race. Because those voted for must represent our differences. You don't vote because you're my equal. You vote because you're different to me and we need to know what you think.Barbariser

Elaborate on those reasons. I have not seen a single piece of evidence to suggest that same-sex marriage would at all be detrimental to any other nonaffiliated group of people, and basic math dictates that if there are no negatives and a number of positives, then the overall effect is beneficial.

Besides, there's nothing that says you need to "benefit more than one group" to have a good legal precedent for passing a law. After all, our whole discussion is about the fact that the U.S. exclusively legalized straight marriage which exclusively benefits heterosexuals.

And how does the "need to know what I think" relate to the right to vote? I'm perfectly capable of expressing my opinion (which reminds me, I have the exact same boundaries of speech and expression that you do. If not for equality, then why do we have identical limitations?) without needing to drop something into a ballot box. Even then, your voting laws assign an equal authority and legislative power to my opinion as it does yours.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] Wow, he's proven that he disagrees with me. How righteous!UT_Wrestler