Stance on Gay Rights/ Marriage

[Mr.Nick]

We don't have an effective way to really communicate with horses and find out what they want, as far as the illiterate mutes maybe sign language?

I suppose we do have an effective way of communication with horses considering the fact individuals possess domesticated horses or animals for that matter and people train them via linguistics.

Training a horse is one thing but I still don't know how we could know whether a horse wants to marry a man or not.

Well, earlier I was just watching Crocodile Dundee III LA and I saw a chimp grab a diet coke and a glass on demand.

 

[High_Gravity]

I suppose we do have an effective way of communication with horses considering the fact individuals possess domesticated horses or animals for that matter and people train them via linguistics.

Training a horse is one thing but I still don't know how we could know whether a horse wants to marry a man or not.

Well, earlier I was just watching Crocodile Dundee III LA and I saw a chimp grab a diet coke and a glass on demand.

Do horses or chimps even understand the concept of marriage? the institution of marriage is a human thing, animals do what they want.

 

[Mr.Nick]

so, this is the condition of your argument now?




Really?

sure why not??

what makes gays any better than an illiterate mute???
laugh all you want.. It shows how liberal you are.

even better!

yeah even bettAH, i even can use BIG LETTERS N SHIT.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Can you prove a horse cannot give consent??

Using that logic an illiterate mute individual cannot get married because they cant give consent...

Being Mute (the inability to verbally make sounds) does not have an impact on mental functioning and does not impede the ability to provide consent.



>>>>

Not being able to talk then being incapable of writing does...

No it doesn't

That doesn't change the fact there are people in this world who have a difficult time talking but don't know how to write because they may have a lower IQ than others for example..

You appear to be confusing being illiterate and mute with having a low IQ, they are not the same thing. IQ is an indication of how the brain is "wired" and the ability for independent thought. "Illiterate" is a function of training. "Mute" simply means someone cannot speak.

A blind person with no exposure to braille is illiterate (liberally meaning non-literate) because they can't read. Lack of sight does not mean that person has a low IQ to the point where they are considered mentally non-functional and able to give consent.

A mute person literally cannot speak, possibly because of deformed or damaged vocal cords. Lack of speech does not mean that person has a low IQ to the point where they are considered mentally non-functional and able to give consent.

A blind person who is also a mute does not mean that person has a low IQ to the point where they are considered mentally non-functional and able to give consent.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Marriage isn't even a RIGHT..

Using your logic it would be discrimination if a state didn't grant a blind man a drivers license...

It is discrimination if a state doesn't issue a blind man a drivers license. Discrimination is defined as ": the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually". Since the decision to limit blind people from driving on public highways is base on they belonging to a category or group it is discrimination. Descrimination is neither good nor bad, discrimination just is. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad.

The question is, is there a valid compelling government interest in allowing such discrimination. The answer of course is, Yes. The compelling reason has to do with public safety since having a blind person operating a multi-ton vehicle on the roads is a clear and present danger to others on the roads.



As it pertains to Civil Marriage, if the government is going to recognize such a legal status and then craft laws around such a status, the question become does the government have a compelling government interest in crafting such discrimination. The decision will eventually based on the comparison of two groups: those allowed to Civilly Marry and those that are denied Civil Marriage. The question will be what is the compelling government interest in denying equal treatment under the law based on gender. Why should the government treat law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adult same-sex couples differently law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adult different-sex couples?


>>>>

Good, let a blind man drive and let an individual fuck a chimp..

It sounds "progressive" to me...

Not to worry, I understand this type of response to a post based on logic to refute a red herring/strawman type of input.


>>>>

 

[Mr.Nick]

Training a horse is one thing but I still don't know how we could know whether a horse wants to marry a man or not.

Well, earlier I was just watching Crocodile Dundee III LA and I saw a chimp grab a diet coke and a glass on demand.

Do horses or chimps even understand the concept of marriage? the institution of marriage is a human thing, animals do what they want.

Chimps yes ....

 

[Mr.Nick]

It is discrimination if a state doesn't issue a blind man a drivers license. Discrimination is defined as ": the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually". Since the decision to limit blind people from driving on public highways is base on they belonging to a category or group it is discrimination. Descrimination is neither good nor bad, discrimination just is. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad.

The question is, is there a valid compelling government interest in allowing such discrimination. The answer of course is, Yes. The compelling reason has to do with public safety since having a blind person operating a multi-ton vehicle on the roads is a clear and present danger to others on the roads.



As it pertains to Civil Marriage, if the government is going to recognize such a legal status and then craft laws around such a status, the question become does the government have a compelling government interest in crafting such discrimination. The decision will eventually based on the comparison of two groups: those allowed to Civilly Marry and those that are denied Civil Marriage. The question will be what is the compelling government interest in denying equal treatment under the law based on gender. Why should the government treat law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adult same-sex couples differently law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adult different-sex couples?


>>>>

Good, let a blind man drive and let an individual fuck a chimp..

It sounds "progressive" to me...

Not to worry, I understand this type of response to a post based on logic to refute a red herring/strawman type of input.


>>>>

Strawman??



What the fuck do you want? a message you agree with?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Good, let a blind man drive and let an individual fuck a chimp..

It sounds "progressive" to me...

Not to worry, I understand this type of response to a post based on logic to refute a red herring/strawman type of input.


>>>>

Strawman??



What the fuck do you want? a message you agree with?

Agree with? No.


.......................That have a basis in reality? Yes.



>>>>

 

[Mr.Nick]

Being Mute (the inability to verbally make sounds) does not have an impact on mental functioning and does not impede the ability to provide consent.



>>>>

Not being able to talk then being incapable of writing does...

No it doesn't

That doesn't change the fact there are people in this world who have a difficult time talking but don't know how to write because they may have a lower IQ than others for example..

You appear to be confusing being illiterate and mute with having a low IQ, they are not the same thing. IQ is an indication of how the brain is "wired" and the ability for independent thought. "Illiterate" is a function of training. "Mute" simply means someone cannot speak.

A blind person with no exposure to braille is illiterate (liberally meaning non-literate) because they can't read. Lack of sight does not mean that person has a low IQ to the point where they are considered mentally non-functional and able to give consent.

A mute person literally cannot speak, possibly because of deformed or damaged vocal cords. Lack of speech does not mean that person has a low IQ to the point where they are considered mentally non-functional and able to give consent.

A blind person who is also a mute does not mean that person has a low IQ to the point where they are considered mentally non-functional and able to give consent.



>>>>

I'm not confusing anything....

I clearly stated "an illiterate mute"

WTF

Really WTF....

 

[Mr.Nick]

Not to worry, I understand this type of response to a post based on logic to refute a red herring/strawman type of input.


>>>>

Strawman??



What the fuck do you want? a message you agree with?

Agree with? No.


.......................That have a basis in reality? Yes.



>>>>

Then don't fuck with me...

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not being able to talk then being incapable of writing does...

No it doesn't

That doesn't change the fact there are people in this world who have a difficult time talking but don't know how to write because they may have a lower IQ than others for example..

You appear to be confusing being illiterate and mute with having a low IQ, they are not the same thing. IQ is an indication of how the brain is "wired" and the ability for independent thought. "Illiterate" is a function of training. "Mute" simply means someone cannot speak.

A blind person with no exposure to braille is illiterate (liberally meaning non-literate) because they can't read. Lack of sight does not mean that person has a low IQ to the point where they are considered mentally non-functional and able to give consent. A person raised in an environment where they have not been exposed to education may be illiterate, doesn't mean they have a low IQ and are therefore unable to give consent.

A mute person literally cannot speak, possibly because of deformed or damaged vocal cords. Lack of speech does not mean that person has a low IQ to the point where they are considered mentally non-functional and able to give consent.

A blind person who is also a mute does not mean that person has a low IQ to the point where they are considered mentally non-functional and able to give consent.



>>>>

I'm not confusing anything....

I clearly stated "an illiterate mute"

WTF

WTF is...

............... Because a person is illiterate (literally cannot read) does not mean they have a low IQ and are unable to give informed consent. A blind person who never learns braille can literally not read, yet many blind people graduate college every year. You realize that people can read to them and with modern text-to-speach technology computers will read to them.

............... Because a person is mute (literally meaning cannot speak) does not mean they have a low IQ and are unable to give informed consent.

............... Because a person is blind/illiterate/mute does not mean they have a low IQ and are unable to give informed consent.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Strawman??



What the fuck do you want? a message you agree with?

Agree with? No.


.......................That have a basis in reality? Yes.



>>>>

Then don't fuck with me...

Not fucking with you.


Blowing holes in hyperbolic statements is not fucking with you, actually it's the application of logic to statements which have no basis in logic.



>>>>

 

[Inthemiddle]

I want three wives (now don't ask me why).

If two guys can marry...then legalize my right to marry three women at the same time.

I am all for this. Three wives is much more its own punishment than anything government can inflict upon you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>


It appears that some people believe people like Helen Keller who was Blind and Deaf - and by being raised on communication isolation) would have been considered mute for many years - are/were incapable from having a high level functioning brain.


Glad to know we have come a long why from those days.


>>>>

 

[Mr.Nick]

>


It appears that some people believe people like Helen Keller who was Blind and Deaf - and by being raised on communication isolation) would have been considered mute for many years - are/were incapable from having a high level functioning brain.


Glad to know we have come a long why from those days.


>>>>

Apparently some twats don't understand there are some less functioning people in this world who have communication problemes at minimum. Democrats usually use them as shields when its convenient for their ilk to raise taxes...

 

[Inthemiddle]

No one has ever held that two people of the same gender could get married.

That's not true. The first known same sex marriage in Spain dates back to 1061. Same sex marriage goes all the way back to ancient times.

It's a fundemental redefinition of marriage.

That would mean that there was an "original" definition of marriage. And if we are to be honest, the most "original" "definitions" of marriage in America forbade inter-racial marriage. Which means that contrary to your claims, the two are perfect comparisons. But what you're REALLY trying to get at is that same sex marriage doesn't fit YOUR definition of marriage, that you've chosen to maintain.

Throughout all of history, the concept of marriage has always boiled down to a simple thing. Joining together with someone you love, to live a life together.

It wasn't a case of a right being taken away after it was given.

Oh, so since the right hasn't been given by the government yet, it should never happen. That makes sense.

 

[grandma27]

Marriage is suppose to be a religious sacrament...the government should not be involved...where is the line between government and religion that so many are fighting for. A domestic partnership should be recognized in any state mainly for reasons of property, and other financial reasons such as insurance...here is where it gets sticky...we would have to re-defined the word spouse where it could be just your partner and or a husband or wife. Me, I believe everyone has the right to love any consenting adult, no matter what the sex. It is not my right to say that they are right or wrong.

 

[Inthemiddle]

It's not a fallacy...

Yes it is, you uneducated sheep fucker. Here, let me google that for you.

Using that logic the word precedence wouldn't exist...

*facepalm* I can't even begin to describe how stupid that was.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

isn't it ODD that people have only started saying that government should get out of the marriage business when teh gheys wanted their equal right to get legally married? ODD.

Actually, the suggestion has been around for several years. Not entirely sure from where it originated. But it's made for some interesting twists to the whole debate. The anti-gay-marriage crowd opposed civil unions, but then becomes in favor of civil unions for all people hoping to prevent gay "marriage." "Purist" conservatives reject those ideas because they don't want to give even an inch toward gay marriage, while "purist" liberals reject it because they don't want to give an inch that might allow their relationships to be delegitimized. The whole thing has developed from two basic polar positions, to a spider web of ten positions:

1. Opposition to gay marriage or government recognition of any form of same sex relationship, to include prohibitions against powers of attorney for medical reasons, allowances of business to extend insurance benefits, etc, to partners. In the most extreme cases, also included may be support for criminalizing gay sex, legal prohibitions to same sex couples occupying single room dwellings, etc.

2. Opposition to gay marriage or legal recognition of any form of same sex relationship, with powers of attorneys and legal recognition of same sex couples by private companies for purposes of insurance, etc, at their discretion.

3. Opposition to gay marriage or legal recognition of any form of same sex relationship, with powers of attorneys and legal recognition of same sex couples by private companies for purposes of insurance, etc as a matter of law.

4. Support for civil unions for gays, retaining marriage for heterosexual couples, with "civil unions" falling short of the benefits of "marriage."

5. Support for civil unions for gays which provide all legal benefits and effects as "marriage," while marriage itself is retained for heterosexuals.

6. Opposition to all legal marriages in favor of legal civil unions, reserving marriage to religious entities.

7. Support for positive homosexual marriage, reserving to officiants the right to discriminate against couples for any reason.

8. Support for positive homosexual marriage, reserving to officiants the right to discriminate based on the officiant's "religious beliefs."

9 Support for positive homosexual marriage, reserving to officiants the right to discriminate based on the demonstrable teachings of the church entity.

10. Support for positive homosexual marriage, and legal prohibitions for an officiant to refuse service based on sexual orientation.

First of all, there is no legal status of "gay marriage" or "homosexual marriage" because none of the laws are based on sexual orientation, legally the question is about Same-sex Civil Marriage.

Secondly, I can't ever remember anyone advocating that Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, Temples, etc., be forced to provide Same-sex Marriages (when such a service would be part of the organizations religious services and also qualifiy as a Civil Marriage). The ONLY people that bring up that possibility are those obosed to Same-sex Civil Marriage in an attempt to use an appeal to emotion fallacy and/or strawman argument.



>>>>

Then you haven't been paying attention. There have been numerous complaints from Homosexuals and from groups that support homosexuals. The argument being that since Marriage is supposedly a "civil right" churches have no right to discriminate.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>


It appears that some people believe people like Helen Keller who was Blind and Deaf - and by being raised on communication isolation) would have been considered mute for many years - are/were incapable from having a high level functioning brain.


Glad to know we have come a long why from those days.


>>>>

Apparently some twats don't understand there are some less functioning people in this world who have communication problemes at minimum. Democrats usually use them as shields when its convenient for their ilk to raise taxes...

I'm glad this doesn't refer to me as I'm neither a "twat" or a Democrat, I've been a Republican since I first started voting in 1978.

No one ever said there were not "less functioning people in this world", there are many types and characteristics of "less functioning people". Some people are born with physical handicaps and may be considered by some to be less functioning. However, this thread is about Civil Marriage, the functioning that is important is this case is mental functioning. Physical handicaps that don't impair mental functioning will have no impact on an individuals ability to consent under the law. Being blind does not preclude someone from entering into Civil Marriage. Being Deaf does not preclude someone from entering into Civil Marriage. Being mute does preclude someone from entering into Civil Marriage.

No physical deformity or handicap prevents someone from being considered "competent" to provide consent. A mental handicap can however could result in someone being able to not function to the required level, and is therefore determined to not be competent, after formal examination and a ruling of a court, to provide provide "consent" from a legal perspective.


Blind, deaf, and mute (physical limitations) nor "illliterate" (lack of formal education) - are not considered reasons under the law to remove a person right to consent from a legal standpoint. Right to consent is removed only for mental impairment.



>>>>