[Caael]

killercoz, on Jul 27 2009, 06:11 AM, said:

Everyone here does realize that, inevitably, gay marriage will be legalized in America? Right?

And everywhere else. In England we already have domestic partnerships which is basically just marriage with a different name but eventually everybody will be equal. Such is the path of marxism ;D

[Legolastom]

*High fices Tim*

So if two Christians were not allowed to get married would you say that they have equal rights toasty?

[Quacnar]

No, because that would be ignoring a law for a specific group of people. The law applies to everyone. Everyone can marry people of teh opposite sex, making teh rights equal.

[Drizzy Drake]

Toasty, on Jul 27 2009, 12:14 AM, said:

I advise that you go look up the definition of contradictory, GL.

The only part that you're looking at, is that whether a straight person wants to marry the same sex or not is irrelevant. In which case you're right. It is irrelevant. However, you're missing the point that I'm trying to make.

My point was that such a bill/law/etc. would be in effect for all people. Not just a specific group. It would be non-discriminatory. Just as the situation is right now. It may be more detrimental to gays than to straight people to ban gay marriage, but no law states that "gays cannot marry." Only that "gay marriage is illegal."

You can never, ever hope to please everyone. but you can please the majority. That thought has gone through the brains of every president who ever had a high approval rating.
I was solely referring to the gay marriage controversy. Not the grandfather clause, or anything else.

We're talking about gay marriage afterall. Not other bills that have "affected all, but some to a more severe degree."

Wow. hat`d be liek having a law agianst butt-****ing. Straights still cant do it, but they dont ****ing want to. It`s besides the point. Yes it`s applies everybody, but directly, no, it only affects gays and people with gay friends. That`s why this arguement is complete bull****.

Continue.

[Legolastom]

killercoz, on Jul 27 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

No, because that would be ignoring a law for a specific group of people. The law applies to everyone. Everyone can marry people of teh opposite sex, making teh rights equal.

I meant. What if no one was allowed to marry a Christian.

[Quacnar]

Drizzy Drake, on Jul 27 2009, 10:55 AM, said:

Wow. hat`d be liek having a law agianst butt-****ing. Straights still cant do it, but they dont ****ing want to. It`s besides the point. Yes it`s applies everybody, but directly, no, it only affects gays and people with gay friends. That`s why this arguement is complete bull****.

Continue.

A guy can have sex with a girl anally. That law would be more dethtrimental to gays, but it would suck for everyone. Furthermore, such a law would be rather difficult to enforce...

Legolastom, on Jul 27 2009, 11:12 AM, said:

I meant. What if no one was allowed to marry a Christian.

Yes, I understand what you meant. I'm saying, along with Toasty, that Christian people not being allowed to marry is discriminatory against them. Gays can marry, along with everyone else, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. The rule applies to everyone.

[Drizzy Drake]

killercoz, on Jul 27 2009, 11:37 AM, said:

A guy can have sex with a girl anally. That law would be more dethtrimental to gays, but it would suck for everyone. Furthermore, such a law would be rather difficult to enforce...

Yes, I understand what you meant. I'm saying, along with Toasty, that Christian people not being allowed to marry is discriminatory against them. Gays can marry, along with everyone else, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. The rule applies to everyone.

You know what I was trying to get across; don`t a smart ass. And weeds impossible to enforce yet they try; and innocent people get hurt. Not really about gays, just it`s kinda bull.

[Quacnar]

Drizzy Drake, on Jul 27 2009, 11:39 AM, said:

You know what I was trying to get across; don`t a smart ass. And weeds impossible to enforce yet they try; and innocent people get hurt. Not really about gays, just it`s kinda bull.

You're analogy didn't apply, and I pointed it out. Just because you're unintelligent, doesn't mean I'm a smart ass. This also isn't a topic for drugs, so I don't know why you're bringing up pot.

[Drizzy Drake]

killercoz, on Jul 27 2009, 11:41 AM, said:

You're analogy didn't apply, and I pointed it out. Just because you're unintelligent, doesn't mean I'm a smart ass. This also isn't a topic for drugs, so I don't know why you're bringing up pot.

Ha... hahahahaha. Killer killer killer. RYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEERSON, please call this ****** up and tell him I`m coming to you.

And fine, what if they made men kissing men illegal. It effects all men, but no man straight man is going to kiss another man, therefore it only directly applies to gays. Whether the law disallows gays to marry or anybody to marry the same sex, the law is there for gays, that`s it, its there to be discriminatory. Straights wouldn`t have voted for it if it effected them negatively ergo, pfft. Ipso, fatso.

[Quacnar]

Drizzy Drake, on Jul 27 2009, 11:45 AM, said:

Ha... hahahahaha. Killer killer killer. RYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEERSON, please call this ****** up and tell him I`m coming to you.

And fine, what if they made men kissing men illegal. It effects all men, but no man straight man is going to kiss another man, therefore it only directly applies to gays. Whether the law disallows gays to marry or anybody to marry the same sex, the law is there for gays, that`s it, its there to be discriminatory. Straights wouldn`t have voted for it if it effected them negatively ergo, pfft. Ipso, fatso.

Kissing men would suck for everyone that's not a lesbian. Women wouldn't be allowed either, another crap analogy. You really aren't smart enough to come up with one that applies, are you?

[Caael]

killercoz, on Jul 27 2009, 06:18 PM, said:

Kissing men would suck for everyone that's not a lesbian. Women wouldn't be allowed either, another crap analogy. You really aren't smart enough to come up with one that applies, are you?

And you're too stupid to realise that your "equal rights" arguement is 100 percent irrelevant.

Yes, if a straight man could marry a gay man its equal rights, but how is that relevant in any way, shape or form?

[Drizzy Drake]

Drizzy Drake, on Jul 27 2009, 11:45 AM, said:

Ha... hahahahaha. Killer killer killer. RYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEERSON, please call this ****** up and tell him I`m coming to you.

And fine, what if they made men kissing men illegal. It effects all men, but no man straight man is going to kiss another man, therefore it only directly applies to gays. Whether the law disallows gays to marry or anybody to marry the same sex, the law is there for gays, that`s it, its there to be discriminatory. Straights wouldn`t have voted for it if it effected them negatively ergo, pfft. Ipso, fatso.

killercoz, on Jul 27 2009, 01:18 PM, said:

Kissing men would suck for everyone that's not a lesbian. Women wouldn't be allowed either, another crap analogy. You really aren't smart enough to come up with one that applies, are you?

You're a ****ing idiot you know that right?

It affects all men equally; no man can kiss another man; but it doesn't really affect them equally because a straight man wouldn't want to kiss another man. Just like nobody can marry somebody of the same sex affects everybody, but it doesn't because straight people aren't going to marry somebody of the same sex. You really aren't smart enough to comprehend this, are you?

[Quacnar]

You just don't get it. I'm aware of who it effects, I'm simply saying the rights remain equal.

[Caael]

killercoz, on Jul 27 2009, 10:34 PM, said:

You just don't get it. I'm aware of who it effects, I'm simply saying the rights remain equal.

*facepalm*

This whole rights remaining equal thing is totally irrelevant, it brings nothing to the arguement, it's just a side point you've put far too much thought into. Drop it.

[Drizzy Drake]

killercoz, on Jul 27 2009, 05:34 PM, said:

You just don't get it. I'm aware of who it effects, I'm simply saying the rights remain equal.

Okay, then let me put it clearer; **** if the rights remain equal in the very technical sense, it still only affects gays, and therefore shouldn't be a law (forced beliefs). Because for all intensive purposes, no, the rights don't remain the same.

tl;dr what caael said but meaner.

[Quacnar]

killercoz, on Jul 25 2009, 12:19 PM, said:

Let me make an analogy to what you're saying, in regards to people focing their beliefs about not having gay marriages. Let say someone believes it is right to murder people. However, the people as a whole disagree, and make it illegal to kill. Now, by your standards, aren't they forcing their beliefs of not killing on the murderer? You may say it's not the same thing, but it's a perfect parallel. The reason it seems different is you are on a different of the arguement. You think killing is wrong and marriage is right. Just because some people believe something should be illegal, doesn't mean they're forcing their beliefs.

I thought that this post put an end to all of that forced belief ****.

Drizzy Drake, on Jul 27 2009, 05:13 PM, said:

Okay, then let me put it clearer; **** if the rights remain equal in the very technical sense, it still only affects gays, and therefore shouldn't be a law (forced beliefs).

Something being illegal isn't forcing beiefes on anyone.

[Drizzy Drake]

killercoz, on Jul 27 2009, 07:50 PM, said:

Something being illegal isn't forcing beiefes on anyone.

Oh.. my.. god...

So gay marriage being illegal isn't forcing beliefs on gays? That is honestly the dumbest thing that's been said on this forum, post 2008. How is gay marriage being illegal NOT a forced belief? They don't believe gays should marry; but they forced that belief (or lack of) on them by making it illegal. Jesus **** you're retarded.

[Golden Legacy]

Hey, look at this, open hostility and flaming. We've never seen this one before. Yes? I'm right? Boy I hope I'm right.