Gays already have an equal right to marry and want special treatment

[Steerpike]

I'm posting a thread on this because I've heard this argument from three different places today, and even a little bit of thought demonstrates that it is pure nonsense.

The argument is that gays already have the right to marry people of the opposite sex and gay marriage gives them a special right.

It is true that a gay person can marriage someone of the opposite sex if they want. But does gay marriage give a special right? Obviously not because under a gay marriage system a straight person could marry someone of the same sex if they want. Everyone would still all have the same right and no one has special rights.

Whatever side of the issue people are on, it is best to avoid patently stupid arguments.

 

[R.C. Christian]

The ultimate goal gay marriage is polygamy. That is the only reason to be against it.

 

[Samson]

The ultimate goal gay marriage is polygamy. That is the only reason to be against it.

No the goal of gay marriage is to be "accepted."

Very much like Dwarfs who want to play basketball.

 

[traveler52]

No, Gays and Lesbians DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY. IF such a right did in fact exsist, then the whole marriage argument would be moot.

Seperate but equal is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL.

And for all you far right, wing nut, nazi loving, homo hating cons just so you know. Judge Walker was appointed by.........wait for it.......any minute now......wait............................... George H.W. Bush.

Fucking activist judges.

 

[xotoxi]

The ultimate goal gay marriage is polygamy. That is the only reason to be against it.

And why are you against that?

 

[B. Kidd]

Besides immigration, another ramification of same-sex marriage on a federal level are Social Security concerns. Bob, now a spouse of Larry, will be entitled to Larry's social security survivor benefits, when Larry dies.
KEE-RIHST, we can barely pay entitlements now.
Anyone who believes that same-sex marriage on a federal level won't effect society as a whole, has their head in a sand fukin' hole.

 

[xotoxi]

Besides immigration, another ramification of same-sex marriage on a federal level are Social Security concerns. Bob, now a spouse of Larry, will be entitled to Larry's social security survivor benefits, when Larry dies.
KEE-RIHST, we can barely pay entitlements now.
Anyone who believes that same-sex marriage on a federal level won't effect society as a whole, has their head in a sand fukin' hole.

Good point.

The gays will single-handedly bankrupt our nation by collecting social security benefits.

 

[Steerpike]

No, Gays and Lesbians DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY. IF such a right did in fact exsist, then the whole marriage argument would be moot.

Seperate but equal is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL.

And for all you far right, wing nut, nazi loving, homo hating cons just so you know. Judge Walker was appointed by.........wait for it.......any minute now......wait............................... George H.W. Bush.

Fucking activist judges.

You should try reading a thread before posting in it.

 

[Steerpike]

The ultimate goal gay marriage is polygamy. That is the only reason to be against it.

What makes you think that is the ultimate goal?

 

[rdean]

Right wingers say gays want to be "accepted"? By who, right wingers who want them dead?

Every argument the right has against gays is retarded. It's about about as logical as:

Teaching magical creation as science.

As cutting taxes on the one group of people who don't need the money and saying it will not raise the deficit.

As apologizing to BP.

As blocking unemployment benefits to American citizens whose jobs were victimized by Republican policies.

Funny, you look at the contributions to American society from the gays, and it's all out of proportion to their small numbers. It's enormous.

ON THE OTHER HAND

You look at the contribution to American society from the right and it's almost negligible. You have to go research to find a single thing of importance. And I'm STILL looking for that "single thing". But if you are looking for something negative, that's entirely different. That's easy to find.

 

[R.C. Christian]

You people are preoccupied with non issues like gays and gay marriage. In less than 2 months WWIII could very well start and you're raging about fudge packers? Get a life.

 

[rdean]

You people are preoccupied with non issues like gays and gay marriage. In less than 2 months WWIII could very well start and you're raging about fudge packers? Get a life.

WWIII? With who?

 

[B. Kidd]

You people are preoccupied with non issues like gays and gay marriage. In less than 2 months WWIII could very well start and you're raging about fudge packers? Get a life.

WWWIII is alot more of a conjecture than SCOTUS redefining gay marriage on a federal level. The ripple economic effects of the latter in an already distressed economy is not a non-issue.
Therefore, stay on point, Jack!

 

[RightNorLeft]

Homos dont care about the marriage itself...this is all about one thing and one thing only...getting something for free on all the straight americans dime...Homos want to share their benefits, pass on thier social securit...pay less income tax..get married deductions.. etc etc

All single men and women should ban together and claim their homo lovers...because they are ones that are going to get screwed...they will pay more for everything...so rock on keep on being for homo marriage.

Homosexuality by their own admission is a birth defect....that doesnt give them special rights

 

[R.C. Christian]

You people are preoccupied with non issues like gays and gay marriage. In less than 2 months WWIII could very well start and you're raging about fudge packers? Get a life.

WWIII? With who?

All the cards are lined up with Iran. We have no idea what the ramifications of that scenario will be. I've studied this quit thoroughly and the signs are all there and it's on. I'm simply saying that even without that possibility this nation has far more important things to concern itself with than degenerate gays and their attempts to make a mockery of marriage. Pick your topic, anything is more important except maybe abortion. That's a wasted debate as well given the crisis that we face.

 

[R.C. Christian]

You people are preoccupied with non issues like gays and gay marriage. In less than 2 months WWIII could very well start and you're raging about fudge packers? Get a life.

WWWIII is alot more of a conjecture than SCOTUS redefining gay marriage on a federal level. The ripple economic effects of the latter in an already distressed economy is not a non-issue.
Therefore, stay on point, Jack!

It will be a point if and when SCOTUS ever gets it. That is nowhere near fruition.

 

[R.C. Christian]

I'm done here, carry on with the nondebate.

 

[B. Kidd]

You people are preoccupied with non issues like gays and gay marriage. In less than 2 months WWIII could very well start and you're raging about fudge packers? Get a life.

WWWIII is alot more of a conjecture than SCOTUS redefining gay marriage on a federal level. The ripple economic effects of the latter in an already distressed economy is not a non-issue.
Therefore, stay on point, Jack!

It will be a point if and when SCOTUS ever gets it. That is nowhere near fruition.

It is much closer to fruition than WWIII. Today's decision goes to the 9th circuit appeals court, which will most likely uphold it, and then off to SCOTUS.
If you have some imminent, hot dope, on WWWIII, occuring before, please share it. Otherwise, once again, stay on point, or STFU Johnny.

 

[R.C. Christian]

WWWIII is alot more of a conjecture than SCOTUS redefining gay marriage on a federal level. The ripple economic effects of the latter in an already distressed economy is not a non-issue.
Therefore, stay on point, Jack!

It will be a point if and when SCOTUS ever gets it. That is nowhere near fruition.

It is much closer to fruition than WWIII. Today's decision goes to the 9th circuit appeals court, which will most likely uphold it, and then off to SCOTUS.
If you have some imminent, hot dope, on WWWIII, occuring before, please share it. Otherwise, once again, stay on point, or STFU Johnny.

Well now that you've been a rude little punk I may just opine to spite you but then again that would be pointless. You should learn some manners. I realize that isn't something they teach your worthless generation but you should really try. If you have a complaint call the mods, maybe they can fight your battles for you. I won't waste my time sharing anything with you but feel free to continue wasting yours on this worthless debate Johnny boy.

 

[B. Kidd]

It will be a point if and when SCOTUS ever gets it. That is nowhere near fruition.

It is much closer to fruition than WWIII. Today's decision goes to the 9th circuit appeals court, which will most likely uphold it, and then off to SCOTUS.
If you have some imminent, hot dope, on WWWIII, occuring before, please share it. Otherwise, once again, stay on point, or STFU Johnny.

Well now that you've been a rude little punk I may just opine to spite you but then again that would be pointless. You should learn some manners. I realize that isn't something they teach your worthless generation but you should really try. If you have a complaint call the mods, maybe they can fight your battles for you. I won't waste my time sharing anything with you but feel free to continue wasting yours on this worthless debate Johnny boy.

Sensitive lil' nub, ain't ya' boyo?
You haven't added anything to this thread. If you want to discuss WWWIII, go post an OP titled 'The Unbearable Heaviness of World War' in the 'military' or 'global' sections.