Indoril Nerevar Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 Mabey if you would try to open your eyes you would see that freedom was the main topic. I was using the murder as an example. Some people think gays are free to marry the same sex, some don't. it comes down to interpretation of FREEDOM. I hop this will make everyone have a nice day! :smiley: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramul Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 LIFE > LIBERTY > PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS So murder is not acceptable, even if it makes you happy AND you consider it to be an excercise of freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThetaOrionis01 Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 Actually, it's about DISCRIMINATION, not freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indoril Nerevar Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 How is it discrimination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThetaOrionis01 Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 How is denying people equal rights on the basis of gender not discrimination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indoril Nerevar Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 Well i guess we shall find out when congress or all of the states define marrige, Won't we. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThetaOrionis01 Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 Definition or re-definition of a word does not alter the discriminatory aspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark0ne Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 What concession? It would be wise to cease trolling. I think he was saying he had read my point and now understood and agreed. Don't think is was malicious. And in what way does gay marriage lead to murder? Are you stupid, Theta? Everyone knows homosexuals are 52.9 times more likely to commit murder than a normal, sane, coherent, socially acceptable, straight human-being! :laugh2: Definition or re-definition of a word does not alter the discriminatory aspect. If they can't accept that they're homosexual and people are going to call them homosexual then perhaps they should rethink their existence, or atleast their choices. I see no problem with providing homosexuals with a matrimony that is not the same as a man/woman's matrimony. I don't think they should either as long as they gain the same rights. EDIT: post restored Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThetaOrionis01 Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 If they can't accept that they're homosexual and people are going to call them homosexual then perhaps they should rethink their existence, or atleast their choices. I see no problem with providing homosexuals with a matrimony that is not the same as a man/woman's matrimony. I don't think they should either as long as they gain the same rights. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ok - this time I've got the right button I hope :embarassed: I would have a problem with having my matrimonial status referred to differently to that of a homosexual couple, especially if the term used to refer to my matrimonial status had connotations linking it with a religion that has no meaning and no place in my life. I would not want to be mistaken for a Christian fundamentalist, and would find it offensive if a legal term would imply such. What's wrong with just equality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indoril Nerevar Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 Theta if you want total equality then the united states would be pointless. Everyone would be exactly the same in race religion, position of power, age, weight, height, etc. The US is about diversity and letting people come in from all the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.