Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae
Uh, okay. I was actually just trying to discuss the topic with you.Originally Posted by Nako XL
idk. i'm tired of arguing with you.
carry on.
I know what he is saying, but the point is that no one can marry multiple people, so they are not being denied equal rights. They have the same rights as everyone else. Homosexual couples were being denied the option to get married because they were gay. Polygamists are being denied the option to marry multiple people because no one can marry more than one person. They are not being discriminated against because they are polygamists.
I know what he is saying, but the point is that no one can marry multiple people, so they are not being denied equal rights. They have the same rights as everyone else. Homosexual couples were being denied the option to get married because they were gay. Polygamists are being denied the option to marry multiple people because no one can marry more than one person. They are not being discriminated against because they are polygamists.
Originally Posted by Tony Montana
The end of the world coming and my city the proof.
Originally Posted by Tony Montana
The end of the world coming and my city the proof.
As far as I'm aware, the only people concerned with whether it's called marriage or not are the religious that feel that they deserve the legal benefits of marriage and the right to exclude who they want based on their beliefs. Why should it not be called a marriage?
As far as I'm aware, the only people concerned with whether it's called marriage or not are the religious that feel that they deserve the legal benefits of marriage and the right to exclude who they want based on their beliefs. Why should it not be called a marriage?
I don't know what's stopping people like him from moving to less liberal places like Alabama and Iran. You don't have to stay in NYC.Originally Posted by CWrite78
Originally Posted by Tony Montana
The end of the world coming and my city the proof.
you should end your life already, if not, you're going to die together with the homosexuals and the rest of us that support them.
I don't know what's stopping people like him from moving to less liberal places like Alabama and Iran. You don't have to stay in NYC.Originally Posted by CWrite78
Originally Posted by Tony Montana
The end of the world coming and my city the proof.
you should end your life already, if not, you're going to die together with the homosexuals and the rest of us that support them.
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey
I don't know what's stopping people like him from moving to less liberal places like Alabama and Iran. You don't have to stay in NYC.Originally Posted by CWrite78
Originally Posted by Tony Montana
The end of the world coming and my city the proof.
you should end your life already, if not, you're going to die together with the homosexuals and the rest of us that support them.
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey
I don't know what's stopping people like him from moving to less liberal places like Alabama and Iran. You don't have to stay in NYC.Originally Posted by CWrite78
Originally Posted by Tony Montana
The end of the world coming and my city the proof.
you should end your life already, if not, you're going to die together with the homosexuals and the rest of us that support them.
The issue IS marrying the person of your choice. A homosexual person had the same right to marry as a heterosexual person BECAUSE their orientation was not taken into account. In order for orientation to come into play, the argument needs to be framed around the individual, i.e. a gay person wants to marry a gay person (or whom they choose). Therefore, the argument becomes about marrying the person that you choose. If we go back to the collective argument: homosexual couple are not allowed to marry because they are a homosexual couple, related couples are not allowed to marry because they are a related couple. A homosexual was allowed the same right as the collective (marry the opposite sex) but were denied the individual. Cousin A was allowed the same right as the collective (marry anyone you're not related to) but were denied the individual (Cousin B). They are denied that right because a right isn't bestowed to a group, it is bestowed to an individual. In the case of polygamy, the collective is allowed (marriage by any definition) but the individual is not allowed (marry someone who is already married). If a gay person can marry a gay person, then the argument has to fall on the individual level.
The issue IS marrying the person of your choice. A homosexual person had the same right to marry as a heterosexual person BECAUSE their orientation was not taken into account. In order for orientation to come into play, the argument needs to be framed around the individual, i.e. a gay person wants to marry a gay person (or whom they choose). Therefore, the argument becomes about marrying the person that you choose. If we go back to the collective argument: homosexual couple are not allowed to marry because they are a homosexual couple, related couples are not allowed to marry because they are a related couple. A homosexual was allowed the same right as the collective (marry the opposite sex) but were denied the individual. Cousin A was allowed the same right as the collective (marry anyone you're not related to) but were denied the individual (Cousin B). They are denied that right because a right isn't bestowed to a group, it is bestowed to an individual. In the case of polygamy, the collective is allowed (marriage by any definition) but the individual is not allowed (marry someone who is already married). If a gay person can marry a gay person, then the argument has to fall on the individual level.
