May I remind you, even without those forty points, my mind is quite formidable. I can even make myself hear voices just by concentrating hard enough. I'd like to see anyone else who can really do that.
the logic of your thinking is suspect...not better rights my friend...the same rights afforded all citizens...and the voices are coming from the radio..i know cause my dog told me.
No, gays already have the SAME rights as real people. What they are wanting now are "special case rights" which don't apply to actual people--only to gays, and in that sense they are looking for more rights than anyone has now. Granted those rights would extend to those who have no need or desire for them, but that is irrelevant.
if we(gays) had the same rights there wouldn't be this broohaha over same sex marriages...so this is NOT special rights my wounded friend.
Well, being serious for a moment, regardless of anyone's stand on the issue, right now, where I live, both homesexuals and heterosexuals are allowed to marry the opposite sex, NEITHER are permitted to marry the same sex. So on that technicality, we have the same rights, whether or not they are unfair, and if such marriages were allowed that right would be a new right extending to both homosexuals and heterosexuals. So it is just a matter of termonology, but it can be considered "more rights."
if the same law was granted to heteros we wouldn't need a law because we would all be gay...hey that's not a bad idea!
Well, it is true. If homsexual marriages are allowed, heterosexuals wouldn't be forbidden from them, they just wouldn't act on that right... unless they were really confused.
nah, it's a bogus arguement...but i understand your confusion..:-)
I don't know how to do a grumpy face, but just you imagine the grumpiest face possible looking at you. ;|
XOXOXOXOX TO MY GRUMPY FRIEND!
I knew a lesbian who married a gay guy once. Now THAT'S a gay marriage.
SCoates wrote:No, gays already have the SAME rights as real people.
What the ****?
Quote: What they are wanting now are "special case rights" which don't apply to actual people--only to gays,
Again, What?
Are you trying to sound stupid, or does it come naturally?
SCoates wrote:Also, if I was gay I wouldn't want any rights, nor would I deserve them, so why should real gays be treated any better than my hypothetically gay self?
Soooo.... your gay? :wink:
Hobbit, I was actually going for "casually offensive."
Heywood, If loving girls is gay, then I'm the gayest man alive!
Damn it SCoates: You've made me agree with Hobitbob AGAIN
Do you have any idea how uncomfortable that makes us both? I sincerely hope you are merely exhibiting a poor sense of humor.
No one should be that ignorant.
Or that proud of their ignorance.
SCoates: Yes, it's true: gays and straights have equal rights when it comes to marrying someone of the opposite sex. But that's sham equality. As Anatole France pointed out: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
The law, as it currently stands, permits only one class of persons to have state-sanctioned affective relationships and to enjoy the rights and benefits that pertain to those relationships. Heterosexuals, in that respect, are clearly more equal than homosexuals.
.
Joe, as always succinct and marvelous.
I have to believe SCoates is trying to be funny, and I seriously hope he has a day job.
.
I'm against being gay as well. In fact, I'm quite miserable most of the time, and proud of it. No gaeity for me, I say.
