4/3/2013 9:41 AM
Posted by bistiza on 4/3/2013 8:51:00 AM (view original):
I'm all for equal rights, but when you take a step back and look at it, everyone already has equal rights - any person can marry someone of the opposite sex. That's equality.
What?  I fixed that for you.

Any person can marry any other person. That's equality.
Any person can hire any other person.  That's equality.
Any person can vote for any other person.  That's equality.

4/3/2013 10:37 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 9:40:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 9:30:00 AM (view original):
Back on topic.  Back to this (I took out the word we didn't like in the statement):

Take a step back and consider this statement: "Two consenting adults love each other and want to get married." What person would want to prevent that?
Someone who objects to their union for whatever reason.

For instance, I don't want siblings getting married.   I don't care if they're 30 years old and sterilized.   I don't want that to become commonplace.   I don't care if they're consenting, love each other and want to get married.
I actually get this argument.  My reaction to it is "Ew, that's gross, no" and then I understand that would be a reaction to many people who think about homosexual marriage.

I think the difference is that these siblings have another option, which is a member of the same sex of your sibling.  This person isn't only attracted to their sibling.  If you ban gay marriage, you're really banning the only option of marrying someone you have an attraction to.
4/3/2013 10:40 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 9:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 9:28:00 AM (view original):
I'm not fighting any fight against religious fanatics.  Just that they can't make their thoughts into law based on religion.

If we're against making a child's life tougher, we should ban adoption to minorities and poorer people.  And should we allow marriage to people with IQs under 90? They're just going to make dumb kids.  They might be great parents, but they can't protect their kids from his peers 24/7.
They can have their opinion.   And, if they want to fight to make it law, well, that's their choice, right?   I don't think we can just dismiss it as "religious fanaticism".

IMO, yes on everything you just asked.  I have no problem setting children up to succeed rather than fail.   But you have to keep in mind that I'm for required abortions for anyone who can't afford a child.   Why bring a child into the world in a bad situation?   I don't see the "Right to bear children" in the BoR.
They can have their opinion, yes, but if laws are made based on religion, again, I don't think it's a smart thing to do.

Re: required abortions...damn.  Let's just say it's an argument I don't feel like having with you right now.
4/3/2013 10:43 AM
Whoa, wait a second.   "This person isn't only attracted to their sibling"?    Who are you to say that?   I get your argument but it's pretty ****** up. 

For instance, I dated a lot of women that I had no interest in marrying.   They were attractive but they were not "the one".    It's entirely possible that one could believe, correctly, that only their sibling could be their "life partner".   

Using your argument, I could say a gay man needs to give a some women a chance before deciding that he's found "the one" in a dude. 
4/3/2013 10:46 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 10:40:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 9:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 9:28:00 AM (view original):
I'm not fighting any fight against religious fanatics.  Just that they can't make their thoughts into law based on religion.

If we're against making a child's life tougher, we should ban adoption to minorities and poorer people.  And should we allow marriage to people with IQs under 90? They're just going to make dumb kids.  They might be great parents, but they can't protect their kids from his peers 24/7.
They can have their opinion.   And, if they want to fight to make it law, well, that's their choice, right?   I don't think we can just dismiss it as "religious fanaticism".

IMO, yes on everything you just asked.  I have no problem setting children up to succeed rather than fail.   But you have to keep in mind that I'm for required abortions for anyone who can't afford a child.   Why bring a child into the world in a bad situation?   I don't see the "Right to bear children" in the BoR.
They can have their opinion, yes, but if laws are made based on religion, again, I don't think it's a smart thing to do.

Re: required abortions...damn.  Let's just say it's an argument I don't feel like having with you right now.
I'm sure religious folk think it's the ONLY thing to do.   I may not agree but, again, they are entitled to their opinion.

No one wants to have that argument with me.  And I know why.
4/3/2013 10:47 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 10:43:00 AM (view original):
Whoa, wait a second.   "This person isn't only attracted to their sibling"?    Who are you to say that?   I get your argument but it's pretty ****** up. 

For instance, I dated a lot of women that I had no interest in marrying.   They were attractive but they were not "the one".    It's entirely possible that one could believe, correctly, that only their sibling could be their "life partner".   

Using your argument, I could say a gay man needs to give a some women a chance before deciding that he's found "the one" in a dude. 
You:  "Ah, c'mon dude.  There are a lot of women out there.  Why you gotta pick your sister?"
Me: "Ah, c'mon dude.  There are a lot of women out there.  Why you gotta pick another dude?"

See?
4/3/2013 11:07 AM
I'd say to find another life partner.  There are billions of people in this world.  Gay men and women have millions of people to choose from.  

At the end of the day, I guess my argument allows for people to marry their infertile brother or sister.  I think we both understand why it's different, though.
4/3/2013 11:17 AM
So I can't tell a gay man to "find a woman partner"?

I know you understand what I'm saying.    This person, forbidden to marry the person they believe to be their "soul mate", is being told "Nah, find someone else."

THAT'S EXACTLY what homosexuals were told forever.
4/3/2013 11:41 AM
Mike, why do you care if gay people get married?
4/3/2013 11:50 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 5:57:00 AM (view original):
I did not give "inability to raise children as well" as a reason not to allow gay marriage.  Somebody else mentioned gays adopting children and I responded, as a tangental discussion.
So we agree that children have nothing to do with the gay marriage argument.
4/3/2013 11:53 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 11:17:00 AM (view original):
So I can't tell a gay man to "find a woman partner"?

I know you understand what I'm saying.    This person, forbidden to marry the person they believe to be their "soul mate", is being told "Nah, find someone else."

THAT'S EXACTLY what homosexuals were told forever.
I know you understand what I'm saying.  It's one person they are insisting on choosing.  Gay men and women have millions.
4/3/2013 11:58 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 11:50:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 5:57:00 AM (view original):
I did not give "inability to raise children as well" as a reason not to allow gay marriage.  Somebody else mentioned gays adopting children and I responded, as a tangental discussion.
So we agree that children have nothing to do with the gay marriage argument.
Sure.
4/3/2013 12:13 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 11:58:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 11:50:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 5:57:00 AM (view original):
I did not give "inability to raise children as well" as a reason not to allow gay marriage.  Somebody else mentioned gays adopting children and I responded, as a tangental discussion.
So we agree that children have nothing to do with the gay marriage argument.
Sure.
Cool.

And your argument is that allowing gays to marry is a change to marriage?
4/3/2013 12:20 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 11:58:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 11:50:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 5:57:00 AM (view original):
I did not give "inability to raise children as well" as a reason not to allow gay marriage.  Somebody else mentioned gays adopting children and I responded, as a tangental discussion.
So we agree that children have nothing to do with the gay marriage argument.
Sure.
Cool.

And your argument is that allowing gays to marry is a change to marriage?
Yes.
4/3/2013 12:43 PM
Any person can marry any other person. That's equality.

Any person being able to do anything another person is legally able to do is equality. So while your statement is true, the statement "any person can marry any person of the opposite gender" is ALSO equality.
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.