- 585
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2011
Much Props to Michael Irvin for standing up for marriage equality
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by foxdawg2000,
- Start date
- 585
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2011
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,210
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
Not that a homosexual male couple would want their partner to have a reproductive apparatus like a woman
What you said in this post, is clearly NOT what you said in the original post.....you saw that my argument weakens yours so you refined your original argument.
That's not what I've been doing at all in here, but nice try though. I actually gave you a bit too much credit when I said the statement that a homosexual couple can't create a child. I thought you knew that I was talking about just the couple themselves without having surrogate partner, but you obviously didn't draw that conclusion, so I had to break things down for you more throughout the thread. Not a problem though, remember champ, we are helpers one another, don't ever forget that.
The assumption that homosexuals want to do things EXACTLY how heterosexuals do so is absolutely moronic. The only equality asked for by homosexuals is to be able to marry,
That looks like a contradiction to me my friend. Be it just marriage or even something else later on down the road, homosexuals want to do things exactly the way heterosexual couples do in regards to marriage.
I still don't see how reproduction would be a factor in marriage equality
Not in connection to being married as far as reproduction goes, but just within themselves as a homosexual couple and them wanting equality. I'm sure they want equality and want to be able to do what heterosexual couples can do, but from an equality standpoint in regards to reproduction they simply can't.
You're making stupid assumptions about what gay people want, based on your experiences as a HETEROSEXUAL. You have clearly have no idea what gay people want. Many gay people are ok with raising an adopted child together with their partner. Some who do want a child that is a part of their DNA use surrogates. There is clearly no way to combine the genes of 2 males or 2 females but NEVER say never in science. In the future this may be a possibility. Again I ask, why even bring this up....is this your justification for gays being denied the right to marry?If it isn't why even bring it up at all.
How is saying gays want the same rights as heterosexuals contradiction? Black people wanted to be able to drink from the same fountain as whites and eat at the same restaurants. Does this mean black people wanted to do everything white people do (eg. culturally)? Lemme see how you spin this one, to not be what you meant to say.
THINK CHAMP....THINK!!!
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,210
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
Not that a homosexual male couple would want their partner to have a reproductive apparatus like a woman
What you said in this post, is clearly NOT what you said in the original post.....you saw that my argument weakens yours so you refined your original argument.
That's not what I've been doing at all in here, but nice try though. I actually gave you a bit too much credit when I said the statement that a homosexual couple can't create a child. I thought you knew that I was talking about just the couple themselves without having surrogate partner, but you obviously didn't draw that conclusion, so I had to break things down for you more throughout the thread. Not a problem though, remember champ, we are helpers one another, don't ever forget that.
The assumption that homosexuals want to do things EXACTLY how heterosexuals do so is absolutely moronic. The only equality asked for by homosexuals is to be able to marry,
That looks like a contradiction to me my friend. Be it just marriage or even something else later on down the road, homosexuals want to do things exactly the way heterosexual couples do in regards to marriage.
I still don't see how reproduction would be a factor in marriage equality
Not in connection to being married as far as reproduction goes, but just within themselves as a homosexual couple and them wanting equality. I'm sure they want equality and want to be able to do what heterosexual couples can do, but from an equality standpoint in regards to reproduction they simply can't.
You're making stupid assumptions about what gay people want, based on your experiences as a HETEROSEXUAL. You have clearly have no idea what gay people want. Many gay people are ok with raising an adopted child together with their partner. Some who do want a child that is a part of their DNA use surrogates. There is clearly no way to combine the genes of 2 males or 2 females but NEVER say never in science. In the future this may be a possibility. Again I ask, why even bring this up....is this your justification for gays being denied the right to marry?If it isn't why even bring it up at all.
How is saying gays want the same rights as heterosexuals contradiction? Black people wanted to be able to drink from the same fountain as whites and eat at the same restaurants. Does this mean black people wanted to do everything white people do (eg. culturally)? Lemme see how you spin this one, to not be what you meant to say.
THINK CHAMP....THINK!!!
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,210
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
If they do want to do things as heterosexual couples do, what of it? I would hope gay couples don't want to do marriage exactly like straight couples because more than half of marriages--straight marriages--end in divorce.
Not in connection to being married as far as reproduction goes, but just within themselves as a homosexual couple and them wanting equality. I'm sure they want equality and want to be able to do what heterosexual couples can do, but from an equality standpoint in regards to reproduction they simply can't.
Once again, what of it? Should infertile straight couples not be allowed to get married? If not, then that is a non-factor in any debate on the topic of gay marriage and shouldn't even be brought up.
Dude is assuming because gays want to marry, this somehow means they desire to produce children the way that homosexuals do.The ability of people to look at life from another person's perspective baffles me. And you're asking the same q I've been asking dude.....why the hell is this a factor in the debate of whether gays should marry or not. He keeps beating around the bush.
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,210
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
If they do want to do things as heterosexual couples do, what of it? I would hope gay couples don't want to do marriage exactly like straight couples because more than half of marriages--straight marriages--end in divorce.
Not in connection to being married as far as reproduction goes, but just within themselves as a homosexual couple and them wanting equality. I'm sure they want equality and want to be able to do what heterosexual couples can do, but from an equality standpoint in regards to reproduction they simply can't.
Once again, what of it? Should infertile straight couples not be allowed to get married? If not, then that is a non-factor in any debate on the topic of gay marriage and shouldn't even be brought up.
Dude is assuming because gays want to marry, this somehow means they desire to produce children the way that homosexuals do.The ability of people to look at life from another person's perspective baffles me. And you're asking the same q I've been asking dude.....why the hell is this a factor in the debate of whether gays should marry or not. He keeps beating around the bush.
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,210
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
It's a civil rights issue, for the people it affects homie and the people who are sympathetic to their cause. There are many benefits to beings married, it is clearly a fight for equal treatment and equal "RIGHTS".
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,210
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
It's a civil rights issue, for the people it affects homie and the people who are sympathetic to their cause. There are many benefits to beings married, it is clearly a fight for equal treatment and equal "RIGHTS".
It's not as much of a civil rights issue because people are not being put in jail for trying to get married in a state that does not recognize same sex marriage.
I will admit that it technically is a civil rights issue but not in the same way as the civil rights movement in which Black people were thrown in jail for trying to eat at the same table as whites. (which was the premise of this whole discussion on comparing the two)
It's not as much of a civil rights issue because people are not being put in jail for trying to get married in a state that does not recognize same sex marriage.
I will admit that it technically is a civil rights issue but not in the same way as the civil rights movement in which Black people were thrown in jail for trying to eat at the same table as whites. (which was the premise of this whole discussion on comparing the two)
- 106,727
- 78,562
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2011
Generic response comparing black civil rights to gay civil rights.
Followed by a generic response refuting the comparisons.
Followed by co-signs for both.
Thread goes in different direction.
Thread lock.
Followed by a generic response refuting the comparisons.
Followed by co-signs for both.
Thread goes in different direction.
Thread lock.
- 106,727
- 78,562
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2011
Generic response comparing black civil rights to gay civil rights.
Followed by a generic response refuting the comparisons.
Followed by co-signs for both.
Thread goes in different direction.
Thread lock.
Followed by a generic response refuting the comparisons.
Followed by co-signs for both.
Thread goes in different direction.
Thread lock.
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,210
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
So the definition of "civil rights" has to have a component of jail punishment in it?
We live in the year 2011 so do you want us to revert to actions in the past just to prove another groups fight for equality? People are making the same stupid mistakes in this thread at least you attempted to correct yourself. That isn't the premise of this thread. No one is making a comparison of the "severity" of both struggles.
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,210
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
So the definition of "civil rights" has to have a component of jail punishment in it?
We live in the year 2011 so do you want us to revert to actions in the past just to prove another groups fight for equality? People are making the same stupid mistakes in this thread at least you attempted to correct yourself. That isn't the premise of this thread. No one is making a comparison of the "severity" of both struggles.
- 17,717
- 7,991
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
If they do want to do things as heterosexual couples do, what of it? I would hope gay couples don't want to do marriage exactly like straight couples because more than half of marriages--straight marriages--end in divorce.
Then what about the other half of straight couples that actually stay married. Don't just look at the negative or the bad sides of things, in this example the divorce rate among straight couples, make sure you look at the positives as well. There are going to be negatives in any aspect of life, but don't use the negatives from a situation to try and draw light onto other subject in an attempt to try and make it seem better.
Many gay people are ok with raising an adopted child together with their partner. Some who do want a child that is a part of their DNA use surrogates.
That's because those are the only options they have champ. It's either adopt, have a surrogate partner, or watch the early stages of parenthood from the sidelines as heterosexual couples reproduce since homosexual couples can't.
There is clearly no way to combine the genes of 2 males or 2 females but NEVER say never in science. In the future this may be a possibility
Well as of now, meaning right now 2 males or 2 females can't combine genes. That's just the way it is.
Dude is assuming because gays want to marry, this somehow means they desire to produce children the way that homosexuals do
No assumption involved champ, just ask around as I did and you will see that some homosexual couples would love to be able to reproduce but they can't, they want to but they can't.
The assumption that homosexuals want to do things EXACTLY how heterosexuals do so is absolutely moronic. The only equality asked for by homosexuals is to be able to marry
You said "the assumption that homosexuals want to do things exactly how heterosexuals do so is absolutely moronic" then in your very next sentence you say "the only equality asked for by homosexuals is to be able to marry". According to you my friend homosexuals didn't want to do things exactly the way heterosexuals do, but yet they want to get married just like hetersexuals couple and be recognized as such. That's the contradiction in your statement champ. You took one step forward only to take one step backwards. Not to worry, like I said earlier, we are helpers one of another.
- 17,717
- 7,991
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
If they do want to do things as heterosexual couples do, what of it? I would hope gay couples don't want to do marriage exactly like straight couples because more than half of marriages--straight marriages--end in divorce.
Then what about the other half of straight couples that actually stay married. Don't just look at the negative or the bad sides of things, in this example the divorce rate among straight couples, make sure you look at the positives as well. There are going to be negatives in any aspect of life, but don't use the negatives from a situation to try and draw light onto other subject in an attempt to try and make it seem better.
Many gay people are ok with raising an adopted child together with their partner. Some who do want a child that is a part of their DNA use surrogates.
That's because those are the only options they have champ. It's either adopt, have a surrogate partner, or watch the early stages of parenthood from the sidelines as heterosexual couples reproduce since homosexual couples can't.
There is clearly no way to combine the genes of 2 males or 2 females but NEVER say never in science. In the future this may be a possibility
Well as of now, meaning right now 2 males or 2 females can't combine genes. That's just the way it is.
Dude is assuming because gays want to marry, this somehow means they desire to produce children the way that homosexuals do
No assumption involved champ, just ask around as I did and you will see that some homosexual couples would love to be able to reproduce but they can't, they want to but they can't.
The assumption that homosexuals want to do things EXACTLY how heterosexuals do so is absolutely moronic. The only equality asked for by homosexuals is to be able to marry
You said "the assumption that homosexuals want to do things exactly how heterosexuals do so is absolutely moronic" then in your very next sentence you say "the only equality asked for by homosexuals is to be able to marry". According to you my friend homosexuals didn't want to do things exactly the way heterosexuals do, but yet they want to get married just like hetersexuals couple and be recognized as such. That's the contradiction in your statement champ. You took one step forward only to take one step backwards. Not to worry, like I said earlier, we are helpers one of another.
When someone mentions the civil rights movement, you are making a comparison. Which means that the "severity" is being compared.
Anyways, the main issue behind gay marriage is because it was defined as between a man and woman. That is much different than civil rights in which it was an arbitrary, "I'm not going to serve gays/handicapped/blacks, because I don't like them"
When someone mentions the civil rights movement, you are making a comparison. Which means that the "severity" is being compared.
Anyways, the main issue behind gay marriage is because it was defined as between a man and woman. That is much different than civil rights in which it was an arbitrary, "I'm not going to serve gays/handicapped/blacks, because I don't like them"
- 2,328
- 2,078
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2010
Wow....
You somehow managed to completely fail at understanding my position. Congratulations.
Let's try this one more time, this time a bit more sloooowly. Walk with me.
Completely wrong. Look at my OP. Blacks getting civil rights was a human rights issue. The expansion to include them under the laws covering whites was already mentioned by my in the OP: "equal protection under the law" and equal treatment by public establishments, schools, business establishments etc."
You then go on to errounesly claim that this is analogous to gay rights. Let me show you that is completely wrong. Recognizing and treating humans of differing races as equals, and thus affording them EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW is a fundamental human rights issue. With or without society/civilization, even in a "state of nature" we recognize the inherent equal worth a human regardless of their racial/ethnic background. This is something we view as a fundamental and unchanging truth, a principle that remains (and should remain) under all conditions, regardless of governments, etc. A white person and I have equal worth and thus it is expected (as the civil rights movement pushed for) that I would be afforded the same ability to walk into a business, for example. This is NOT a social construct. I repeat once again, just to make sure you actually comprehend my argument this time, that this is something we view as a fundamental and unchanging truth, a principle that remains (and should remain) under all conditions, regardless of governments, etc.
Hopefully I made that clear enough because I honestly do not know how to dumb it down any further. Now let's move onto how this relates (or doesn't) to gay marriage. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human right. Why ? Marriage is a product of the society which defines how it chooses to recognize (if at all) what the word or concept or entity of "MARRIAGE" is. This has been true since the advent of communal living and the definitions of marriage vary vastly throughout time and geographic region. If you believe you are born with the right to "marry" ... sure, you you and a buddy can wake up one day and decide to get "married" but it can mean nothing all depending on where you are, and if the society you are in even recognizes/defines marriage to fit your arrangement. THIS IS THE DISTINCTION. Marriage is attached to the society because it is simply a product of society and cannot exist without it. Human rights on the other hand (IE: all races being viewed as equal) as I stressed repeatedly in the previous section, is one that is given to you just for being born human, regardless of how a "society" views it, or if a society even exists.
You sound like you're not being malicious though and are just taken leaps in logic that aren't sound. Blacks, at the time, were a minority who were not given certain civil rights for no particularly good reason. Gays, at this time, are a minority who are not given certain civil rights for no particular reason. The particular civil rights in question between the two groups may vary, but they still fall under the same umbrella term of "civil rights" though.
A lot of people need to re-familiarize themselves with what a civil right is before they say that gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.
Obviously I am not being malicious. You would need an incredibly weak intellect to even infer that (and if so, would probably make a good candidate for public office).
You supporting gay marriage is fine. Go out and vote for it. That however is COMPLETELY different from the belief that gay marriage is some inherent human right that would be immoral to deny in the same vein equal treatment for races is. To use such elementary and flawed logic (which I tore to shreds above) would mean to believe that ALL societies have no say in this matter (a matter they define/would not exist without them) MUST recognize marriage, and gay marriage specifically. You remove their autonomy based on a sense of some divine moral superiority (excuse the term divine, I do not use it in a religious/spiritual sense, but you get the point) that it is somehow MANDATED to be as you see it. (this is of course the ultimate conclusion if you truly believe gay rights and racial equality are one in the same).
Bottom line: All societies have the right to define marriage (if at all) how THEY see fit.
I don't know how I could make it simpler/more concise than this. Hopefully comprehension increases this time around
- 2,328
- 2,078
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2010
Wow....
You somehow managed to completely fail at understanding my position. Congratulations.
Let's try this one more time, this time a bit more sloooowly. Walk with me.
Completely wrong. Look at my OP. Blacks getting civil rights was a human rights issue. The expansion to include them under the laws covering whites was already mentioned by my in the OP: "equal protection under the law" and equal treatment by public establishments, schools, business establishments etc."
You then go on to errounesly claim that this is analogous to gay rights. Let me show you that is completely wrong. Recognizing and treating humans of differing races as equals, and thus affording them EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW is a fundamental human rights issue. With or without society/civilization, even in a "state of nature" we recognize the inherent equal worth a human regardless of their racial/ethnic background. This is something we view as a fundamental and unchanging truth, a principle that remains (and should remain) under all conditions, regardless of governments, etc. A white person and I have equal worth and thus it is expected (as the civil rights movement pushed for) that I would be afforded the same ability to walk into a business, for example. This is NOT a social construct. I repeat once again, just to make sure you actually comprehend my argument this time, that this is something we view as a fundamental and unchanging truth, a principle that remains (and should remain) under all conditions, regardless of governments, etc.
Hopefully I made that clear enough because I honestly do not know how to dumb it down any further. Now let's move onto how this relates (or doesn't) to gay marriage. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human right. Why ? Marriage is a product of the society which defines how it chooses to recognize (if at all) what the word or concept or entity of "MARRIAGE" is. This has been true since the advent of communal living and the definitions of marriage vary vastly throughout time and geographic region. If you believe you are born with the right to "marry" ... sure, you you and a buddy can wake up one day and decide to get "married" but it can mean nothing all depending on where you are, and if the society you are in even recognizes/defines marriage to fit your arrangement. THIS IS THE DISTINCTION. Marriage is attached to the society because it is simply a product of society and cannot exist without it. Human rights on the other hand (IE: all races being viewed as equal) as I stressed repeatedly in the previous section, is one that is given to you just for being born human, regardless of how a "society" views it, or if a society even exists.
You sound like you're not being malicious though and are just taken leaps in logic that aren't sound. Blacks, at the time, were a minority who were not given certain civil rights for no particularly good reason. Gays, at this time, are a minority who are not given certain civil rights for no particular reason. The particular civil rights in question between the two groups may vary, but they still fall under the same umbrella term of "civil rights" though.
A lot of people need to re-familiarize themselves with what a civil right is before they say that gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.
Obviously I am not being malicious. You would need an incredibly weak intellect to even infer that (and if so, would probably make a good candidate for public office).
You supporting gay marriage is fine. Go out and vote for it. That however is COMPLETELY different from the belief that gay marriage is some inherent human right that would be immoral to deny in the same vein equal treatment for races is. To use such elementary and flawed logic (which I tore to shreds above) would mean to believe that ALL societies have no say in this matter (a matter they define/would not exist without them) MUST recognize marriage, and gay marriage specifically. You remove their autonomy based on a sense of some divine moral superiority (excuse the term divine, I do not use it in a religious/spiritual sense, but you get the point) that it is somehow MANDATED to be as you see it. (this is of course the ultimate conclusion if you truly believe gay rights and racial equality are one in the same).
Bottom line: All societies have the right to define marriage (if at all) how THEY see fit.
I don't know how I could make it simpler/more concise than this. Hopefully comprehension increases this time around
- 8,878
- 3,399
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2004
Originally Posted by Deuce King
I don't understand what the gif is for, so African Americans shouldn't support other struggles for equality?
In the grand scheme of things of course African-Americans support equality and the struggles of other groups, not just for what WE endured and still endure to this day but just in general. As of now marriage as we know it now is defined as the union of a man and woman in a religious ceremony. With that being said a homosexual couple doesn't really fit into the equation for different reasons. As far as equality goes, homosexual couples just can't do the same things that a heterosexual couple can do, that's just the way it is so that should tell you something.
No, it's not.
Similar threads
