Why am I persecuted for NOT accepting homosexuality..

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by LDJ

cguy610 wrote:

---

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

You can not be this dense. Polygamy and homosexual marriage are apples and oranges.
It's like asking why can't we have polygamy if we have heterosexual marriage? Polygamy is marrying two or more people. It's an entirely different argument. No one is allowed to marry more than one person under US law, gay or straight. Gay rights supporters are only arguing for EQUAL treatment to their heterosexual counterparts.

Now that we've tried to compare granting homosexuals the same rights that heterosexuals have to bestiality, incest, pedophilia, and polygamy, I wonder what other irrelevant argument will be thrown in to try to justify continuing inequality.

Ironic that you use the same arguments against polygamy that are used against gay marriage. 

"No one can marry a person of the same sex, so no one is being discriminated against".

"No one can marry more than one person, so no one is being discriminated against"

yes there are ppl who are being discriminated. the ppl who want to marry be in a relationsip with multitudes of ppl are denied doing so.

It's an entirely different argument.
no it isnt the end results are equality for all ppl to choose to be in whatever relationship they so choose to be in. So how is it different. If someone wants to husbands a husband should be allowed the same as if a man wants to be with a man or a woman with a woman a transexual with whoever and hermaphodite so on and so forth.

So how exactly is it different. so long as all parties are consensual. That was everyones major issue yet you bring up beastiality. Hello now what you said is irrelevant. a dog/horse so on and so forth cannot consent nor can it be proven that they want to be in a relationship with a human being.

Can two woman agree that they want to share a man, or two men agree that they can share a woman and all parties agree to it? The answer is yes so um again how is it different. unless you are saying ppl who are for polygamy dont exist. Or are you saying ppl who believe in polygamy arent as important as ppl who believe in monogamy? Or maybe ypou are stating your personal beliefs that ppl can only truely love one person at a time and that the sex of that one person doesnt matter. It seems like thats exactly what your saying and just being evasive and dodging admitting your own personal beliefs by bring in things like beastiality knowing good and well that one beastality is a sexual act and not a relationship, and two there isnt a way to prove consent from a animal.

Honestly, I can't even comprehend half of the stuff you're typing. You're rambling. "Husbands a husband"? I'm not even a grammar nazi but I can't understand what you're trying to say if you aren't even going to make an attempt at punctuation.
The thing you guys aren't getting is that this is a matter of equality under US law. A large part of the reason people get married is because they love the person they are with. That is the biggest and most important part of a relationship obviously. A smaller, but not any less significant, part is the benefits married couples receive from the state. Married couples enjoy benefits that homosexual couples do not receive and that's where the crux of the argument is. Married heterosexual couples get tax benefits homosexual couples do not receive. They can visit their loved ones in the hospital but homosexual couples can not. They can take time off work to take care of their loved ones during sickness but homosexual couples can not. There are a slew of legal rights homosexual couples are not afforded and that is why there is such a push for equality.

This isn't a fight for special treatment. It's a fight for EQUALITY. That's it.

And I would really not like to repeat myself on WHY bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and polygamy are completely different arguments. If you've already gone this many pages and STILL can't see the difference, you're either incredibly dense or you are forcing yourself not to see the difference. I really can't try to convince you further. 

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae


Heterosexual marriage is acceptable whereas polygamist marriage is not. A religion is being discriminated against. You can't say the same for homosexuality which is why your argument fails.

See how we can change things up.  You are arguing semantics. 

Religion and sexual orientation are pretty different. Religious beliefs don't automatically mean you are granted rights that others don't have. So again, I'm failing to see any valid argument from you.

What?  How about the right for people to pray on the job?  What about the right for people to wear their religious clothing?

Semantics, I tell you. 

 

[gambit215]

People actually co signing incest............

Some of yall really dont know the difference between love and straight perversion.............



Nasty...............

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by gambit215

People actually co signing incest............

Some of yall really dont know the difference between love and straight perversion.............



Nasty...............

Anything else you want to add or are you just passing by?

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Originally Posted by frostythepoptart

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

This is Adam he homeschooled his daughter until highschool where she enrolled in an online college.

Adam is a consenting adult. His daughter is a consenting adult. Hopefully incest rights makes more sense.

Or is the line drawn at incest? why?

Y'all realize the children who are the prudct of incest are like 1000% more likely to have congenital birth defects?

 I don't think man booty does that.

 

[00david00]

The "crux of the argument" is Married couples enjoy benefits that homosexual couples do not ?

But if a man wants to get married to more than one woman, and all the in the relationship woman want this as well.... then we can deny them the right to get married. However, for those very same reasons (people love each other) we say homosexuals should be able to get married?

What's the difference? In both cases its human to human, their kids won't face any handicaps, they simply want to get married.

And once again, IF we had the methods to allow people to inbreed with no handicap to the child , then incest would have the same exact arguments for marriage.

Saying that they are all completely different arguments is NOT accurate, they all present the same ideas....

People love each other, they just want the same right to get married right? Then in that case they all deserve the same equality you say homosexuals do?

Shouldn't a woman in a relationship to man be able to visit him at the hospital? are you going to deny them that right simply because that man is also in a relationship with other women as well (with all of them happy with this lifestyle)

it IS the same argument

 

[osh kosh bosh]

People condoning incest are wild man...have you guys ever seen the hills have eyes, amarica will look like that if you do.

 

[quik1987]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae


Heterosexual marriage is acceptable whereas polygamist marriage is not. A religion is being discriminated against. You can't say the same for homosexuality which is why your argument fails.

See how we can change things up.  You are arguing semantics. 

Religion and sexual orientation are pretty different. Religious beliefs don't automatically mean you are granted rights that others don't have. So again, I'm failing to see any valid argument from you.

What?  How about the right for people to pray on the job?  What about the right for people to wear their religious clothing?

Semantics, I tell you. 

Another person would have the same rights..... whether you choose to excercise it is your choice.

 

[ldj]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

You can not be this dense. Polygamy and homosexual marriage are apples and oranges.
It's like asking why can't we have polygamy if we have heterosexual marriage? Polygamy is marrying two or more people. It's an entirely different argument. No one is allowed to marry more than one person under US law, gay or straight. Gay rights supporters are only arguing for EQUAL treatment to their heterosexual counterparts.

Now that we've tried to compare granting homosexuals the same rights that heterosexuals have to bestiality, incest, pedophilia, and polygamy, I wonder what other irrelevant argument will be thrown in to try to justify continuing inequality.

Ironic that you use the same arguments against polygamy that are used against gay marriage. 

"No one can marry a person of the same sex, so no one is being discriminated against".

"No one can marry more than one person, so no one is being discriminated against"

The arguments against or for polygamy are completely different from those of gay marriage.
The fight for equality in marriage is not one for special treatment. Gays just want want heterosexual couples already have. That's it.

and so does polygamous and so does the man/woman wants to be in a relationship with their family member. My personally belief is that 1 the govt shouldnt have a say in who can be with who as far as relationships go so long as all parties are in agreement. And 2 marriage and the concept of it in usa is really a joke.
  

 

[noskey]

Originally Posted by 00david00

The "crux of the argument" is Married couples enjoy benefits that homosexual couples do not ?

But if a man wants to get married to more than one woman, and all the in the relationship woman want this as well.... then we can deny them the right to get married. However, for those very same reasons (people love each other) we say homosexuals should be able to get married?

Gonna stop right there. They can get 'married' all they want imo, but the government wont recognize more than 1 due to the benefits they'll receive. Because then it'd be easy for people to get ridiculous tax breaks, on top of other things. Personally, I dont care how many people you marry. Want to smash 21 women tonight with your last name? Go for it. But dont try and claim 21 dependencies on your taxes.


Sidenote for anyone arguing over the 60's Civil Rights movement: You guys know that Dr. King and Co. were fighting for gay rights, too. Right?

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by cguy610

See how we can change things up.  You are arguing semantics. 

Religion and sexual orientation are pretty different. Religious beliefs don't automatically mean you are granted rights that others don't have. So again, I'm failing to see any valid argument from you.

What?  How about the right for people to pray on the job?  What about the right for people to wear their religious clothing?

Semantics, I tell you. 

How about the right for people to stone others to death for adultery? Oh wait. Religion doesn't grant individuals the right do whatever they want because their beliefs say so.

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Religion and sexual orientation are pretty different. Religious beliefs don't automatically mean you are granted rights that others don't have. So again, I'm failing to see any valid argument from you.

What?  How about the right for people to pray on the job?  What about the right for people to wear their religious clothing?

Semantics, I tell you. 

How about the right for people to stone others to death for adultery? Oh wait. Religion doesn't grant individuals the right do whatever they want because their beliefs say so.

Wow, so now you are comparing marriage to killing another person.  You couldn't come up with a better comparison?

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by 00david00

The "crux of the argument" is Married couples enjoy benefits that homosexual couples do not ?

But if a man wants to get married to more than one woman, and all the in the relationship woman want this as well.... then we can deny them the right to get married. However, for those very same reasons (people love each other) we say homosexuals should be able to get married?

What's the difference? In both cases its human to human, their kids won't face any handicaps, they simply want to get married.

And once again, IF we had the methods to allow people to inbreed with no handicap to the child , then incest would have the same exact arguments for marriage.

Saying that they are all completely different arguments is NOT accurate, they all present the same ideas....

People love each other, they just want the same right to get married right? Then in that case they all deserve the same equality you say homosexuals do?

Shouldn't a woman in a relationship to man be able to visit him at the hospital? are you going to deny them that right simply because that man is also in a relationship with other women as well (with all of them happy with this lifestyle)

it IS the same argument

The reason homosexual couples should be allowed to marry is because heterosexual couples are allowed to marry. It isn't right to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
The reason polygamy is not the same argument as gay marriage is because you can argue for polygamy WITHOUT gay marriage in the equation. Why don't you ask why polygamy isn't allowed since heterosexual marriage is allowed? Of course you wouldn't since that's a ridiculous question. Marrying multiple people is nothing like marrying one person (hence the difference in argument.) None of you guys seriously advocate for polygamy but are just trying your hardest to vilify gay marriage.

In all seriousness, if you can't see by now why granting rights to a subsection of our society that everyone else already has is indeed different than all of the other scenarios you guys have proposed, I'm not sure I'm capable of making you see it. I'm not eloquent or persuasive enough perhaps.

I'm really not here to convince you guys who are set in your beliefs that homosexuality is wrong. I just want to let you guys know WHY gay rights matter and maybe for those that aren't as steadfastly opposed to minorities being treated like equals, they'll be further encouraged to do something. 

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by Noskey

Originally Posted by 00david00

The "crux of the argument" is Married couples enjoy benefits that homosexual couples do not ?

But if a man wants to get married to more than one woman, and all the in the relationship woman want this as well.... then we can deny them the right to get married. However, for those very same reasons (people love each other) we say homosexuals should be able to get married?

Gonna stop right there. They can get 'married' all they want imo, but the government wont recognize more than 1 due to the benefits they'll receive. Because then it'd be easy for people to get ridiculous tax breaks, on top of other things. Personally, I dont care how many people you marry. Want to smash 21 women tonight with your last name? Go for it. But dont try and claim 21 dependencies on your taxes.


Sidenote for anyone arguing over the 60's Civil Rights movement: You guys know that Dr. King and Co. were fighting for gay rights, too. Right?

Bingo.

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by Noskey

Originally Posted by 00david00

The "crux of the argument" is Married couples enjoy benefits that homosexual couples do not ?

But if a man wants to get married to more than one woman, and all the in the relationship woman want this as well.... then we can deny them the right to get married. However, for those very same reasons (people love each other) we say homosexuals should be able to get married?

Gonna stop right there. They can get 'married' all they want imo, but the government wont recognize more than 1 due to the benefits they'll receive. Because then it'd be easy for people to get ridiculous tax breaks, on top of other things. Personally, I dont care how many people you marry. Want to smash 21 women tonight with your last name? Go for it. But dont try and claim 21 dependencies on your taxes.


Sidenote for anyone arguing over the 60's Civil Rights movement: You guys know that Dr. King and Co. were fighting for gay rights, too. Right?

They actually can't.  It's illegal as in they can and will go to jail. 

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by LDJ

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

FrankMatthews wrote:

---

So if a person is bi-sexual should they be allowed to marry a man and a woman?

Polygamy isn't legal. The issue of polygamy is a completely different argument from same sex marriage. At the basis of your question the clear difference is marrying one person as opposed to marrying two or more. Not to mention the tax implications involved in legalizing polygamy on a national scale.

Just because it isnt legal doesnt answer the statement how exactly is it different. All you are stating is things from a society point of view and from a economic standpoint. It isnt about legal/illegal. Its about consentual ppl being allowed to be in whatever type of relationship they choose with out ridicule, mockery, mistreatment, and ostracizing from others.

Ppl should be allowed to be in whatever every type of relationship they so choose so long as it isnt infridging on the rights of others, is malice and cause harm to others, and all parties have the maturation and are in agreement with the terms and condition in which the relationship is founded on period.

If you believe this then how exactly does polygamy not fit into that umbrella? Beastiality doesnt because its a sexual act and no way to gauge maturation and consent from a animal, same applies to having sex/being in a relationship with a child, a inatimate object, a plant, so on and so forth.
Polygamy isn't legal.
   and same sex marriage wasnt either and....
At the basis of your question the clear difference is marrying one person as opposed to marrying two or more
and so is marrying same sex, or marrying a person who changes sex partially, or is both sex and....

Thee same argument you say opposing polygamy, is the same argument used years ago when discussing why/how same sex marriage is different then heterosexual marriage.

How is marrying two ppl or more the same as marrying someone that's the same sex? or marrying a person who changes sex partially or w/e else nonsense you're bringing up?

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by cguy610

What?  How about the right for people to pray on the job?  What about the right for people to wear their religious clothing?

Semantics, I tell you. 

How about the right for people to stone others to death for adultery? Oh wait. Religion doesn't grant individuals the right do whatever they want because their beliefs say so.

Wow, so now you are comparing marriage to killing another person.  You couldn't come up with a better comparison?

Somehow I knew you would fail to understand the point being made. I'm not comparing anything, I'm pointing out that religion doesn't grant religious people the right to do anything their beliefs tell them they can do.

 

[quik1987]

What are you trying to use as your argument?

Law or Religiion.

Both have proved to be equally idiodic.

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by LDJ

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by cguy610


Ironic that you use the same arguments against polygamy that are used against gay marriage. 

"No one can marry a person of the same sex, so no one is being discriminated against".

"No one can marry more than one person, so no one is being discriminated against"

The arguments against or for polygamy are completely different from those of gay marriage.
The fight for equality in marriage is not one for special treatment. Gays just want want heterosexual couples already have. That's it.

and so does polygamous and so does the man/woman wants to be in a relationship with their family member. My personally belief is that 1 the govt shouldnt have a say in who can be with who as far as relationships go so long as all parties are in agreement. And 2 marriage and the concept of it in usa is really a joke.
  

Let's just drop the polygamy angle and agree right here. The government shouldn't be in the business of marriage. Hell, heterosexual marriage should be abolished. What the government should do is issue civil unions to all people and grant all people the same rights. That's essentially what I've been arguing this entire time. It's just it's called 'marriage.' Can't we agree that no one should be discriminated against and that the law should view all equally?

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by quik1987

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Religion and sexual orientation are pretty different. Religious beliefs don't automatically mean you are granted rights that others don't have. So again, I'm failing to see any valid argument from you.

What?  How about the right for people to pray on the job?  What about the right for people to wear their religious clothing?

Semantics, I tell you. 

Another person would have the same rights..... whether you choose to excercise it is your choice.

Before the laws were changed, people couldn't pray on the job.  So these laws were changed specifically to protect people's rights to practice their religious beliefs.  So rights were in fact granted that other people didn't have at the time. 

 

[Jordan8]

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Originally Posted by LDJ

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Polygamy isn't legal. The issue of polygamy is a completely different argument from same sex marriage. At the basis of your question the clear difference is marrying one person as opposed to marrying two or more. Not to mention the tax implications involved in legalizing polygamy on a national scale.

Just because it isnt legal doesnt answer the statement how exactly is it different. All you are stating is things from a society point of view and from a economic standpoint. It isnt about legal/illegal. Its about consentual ppl being allowed to be in whatever type of relationship they choose with out ridicule, mockery, mistreatment, and ostracizing from others.

Ppl should be allowed to be in whatever every type of relationship they so choose so long as it isnt infridging on the rights of others, is malice and cause harm to others, and all parties have the maturation and are in agreement with the terms and condition in which the relationship is founded on period.

If you believe this then how exactly does polygamy not fit into that umbrella? Beastiality doesnt because its a sexual act and no way to gauge maturation and consent from a animal, same applies to having sex/being in a relationship with a child, a inatimate object, a plant, so on and so forth.
Polygamy isn't legal.
   and same sex marriage wasnt either and....
At the basis of your question the clear difference is marrying one person as opposed to marrying two or more
and so is marrying same sex, or marrying a person who changes sex partially, or is both sex and....

Thee same argument you say opposing polygamy, is the same argument used years ago when discussing why/how same sex marriage is different then heterosexual marriage.

How is marrying two ppl or more the same as marrying someone that's the same sex? or marrying a person who changes sex partially or w/e else nonsense you're bringing up?

Because if you're going to change the definition of marriage why stop at catering to only one group of people why not ALL humans.

 

[quik1987]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by quik1987

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Religion and sexual orientation are pretty different. Religious beliefs don't automatically mean you are granted rights that others don't have. So again, I'm failing to see any valid argument from you.

What?  How about the right for people to pray on the job?  What about the right for people to wear their religious clothing?

Semantics, I tell you. 

Another person would have the same rights..... whether you choose to excercise it is your choice.

Before the laws were changed, people couldn't pray on the job.  So these laws were changed specifically to protect people's rights to practice their religious beliefs.  So rights were in fact granted that other people didn't have at the time. 

What you're saying is this right is given to the selected people that prayed on the job. What I'm saying is EVERYONE was given the right to pray on the job.

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Gay Rights Supporter - "Gays are being denied the right to marry the person they want"

Anti gay rights supporter - "No one can marry anyone of the same sex, no ones rights are being denied. A gay man and gay woman can get married, just not two gay men or 2 gay women."

Polygamy Supporter - "Polygamists are being denied the right to marry the people they want."

Anti polygamy supporter (who ironically supports gay marriage) - "No one can marry more than one person, no ones rights are being denied"

Same circular argument over the past 3 pages, I called it in advance. 

 

[foxdawg2000]

OH boy these people just don't get that ...

Heterosexuals get to marry 1 person and reap the benefits..

Homosexuals (in most places) do not get to marry 1 person and reap the benefits..

It's a 1 to 1, that includes the exact same circumstance except a different preference in who you're marrying..One is legal in most places and another is not..

I believe that is wrong and clearly unfair...



It has nothing to do with your personal preference or acceptance.. Simple Math .. jf one man and one woman can be a married couple.. Then one man and one man should be able to be.. Two consenting adults...

both are 1+1 = marriage...If you cannot see that I don't know what to tell you...
hello!


Polygamy may be a desire of many but it's illegality is not exclusive to any particular group... White, Black, Red or Green gay or str8.. Although it may or may not limit the freedoms of some that desire to enact their something the law does not exclude anybody in particular it excludes all...

If polygamy is made legal one day (tax code will obviously have to change) I'd hope that it isn't made legal only for white gays .. or black heteros... It's made legal for all.. Do you see the difference?


If you want to go there we can use prostitution as an example.. Illegal for gays illegal for str8s.. Illegal for children.. Illegal for adults... No group is excluded from the law.. If one group is eventually included all groups should be.. correct? Does that make sense?

 

[quik1987]

I don't see how being denied 1 marriage, is the same as denying multiple marriages.

You are deny 1 group any.

You are denying the other group multiple.

again in numbers

gays, 0

polygamist, > 1