"Equal Rights" is a joke

I'm tired of hearing all these liberals advocating for "equal rights for all people".

Putting things into perspective, everyone is already entitled too equal rights. As a straight man, I still do not hold the right too be married to another man, regardless of the fact that I am not gay. I don't have any rights that a gay man does not have. Neither of us can be married too another male (in the state of Wisconsin for example), but we both have the right too be married too a woman as god intended.

We already have equal rights. What are you whining about?

 

You may be "...tired of hearing..." that, but you darned sure are going to hear it, as long as there are HUMAN beings on this planet. It isn't wrong to 'advocate' for EQUAL rights for all. We will likely always far short of that goal, but it is not wrong to strive for the same. And I think it is GOOD that many do strive for EQUAL rights.

By one's "God" perhaps, but not necessarily as defined by law... as intentionally written by man or as they are enforced.

Bottom line, it is rather arbitrary and capricious that you cannot marry another person, due to their gender. What would be the purpose of such a limitation, by law?

And while I understand your perspective and your interpretation of reality, it is also reasonable to say that there are other ways to look at what you are claiming. In the truest essence, what you're saying is NOT absolutely true. A gay man IS prohibited from rights you can readily enjoy as a person. YOU can marry the type of person (a consenting adult) properly suited to meet your physical and emotional needs... and that is NOT true for a homosexual man (or woman). Homosexuals ARE discriminated against, by the very laws you claim are equal for all, when they truly are not.

As YOUR "god" intends, you claim all is correct. But remember, that not all hold the same 'belief' in your "god"... and might not believe in your "god" at all. After all, why would a homosexual person, have any (truly valid) reason to marry a heterosexual person? Or is the fact they would masquerade themselves as "heterosexual", so important that they would pretend to embrace the unfair/unjust and unequal "laws" which you claim are "equal"?

That question is of paramount importance (in reality); many pragmatic debates (as this one) stem from the same.

Your question is virtually invalid, from any of myriad perspectives other than your own. And while you might find that exceedingly difficult (or near impossible to accept), I am sharing practical truth in presenting it.

As for the whining...
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csPPqdbcVwM"]Here's Some Whining[/ame]

 

Right, keep telling yourself that.

The only difference here in what you've posted is that in reality, you can marry the person you want, while the gay man/woman can't.

Why do you believe that if you parrot this lie that everyone already has equal rights enough that it will become true?

 

Are any of you aware that the whole idea of marriage came from the bible? Marriage is an act of one man and one woman coming together and being recognized by god as being one.

You can get a slip of paper that says your married, your still not married. It's like a couple of five year olds in the backyard playing house and pretending too be husband and wife (your just pretending). God only recognizes marriage between man and woman.

 

That argument was tried when people were trying to change the laws that prohibited a white person from marrying a black person. It was argued that since the law applied equally to everyone, nobody was being discriminated against.

The USSC didn't buy that argument. They ruled that the fact that a law was applied equally wasn't enough. The law also had to serve a legitimate government purpose. In the argument about gay marriage, all the opponents need to do is convince the courts that banning gay marriage serves a legitimate government purpose. IMO, that will be very difficult.

 

I think you are very correct. The laws as they are right now, do NOT ensure equal rights for all. Until they do, they will be brought up for serious review by the American people.

 

You do realize that marriage was around long before the christian version of it came to be? Right?

Pagans were performing marriage ceremonies before the bible was ever conceived.

 

For can vote for anyone you like as long as the candidate is socialist.

Do you see where your arguments falls on the grounds?

 

Nope. Marriage has existed before Christianity, its rather obvious. Marriage is not a Christian construct. It is not a religious institution. It is a legal contract. Period. What you make of it past that is your decision.

God probably doesn't exist fyi. You need an argument with a verifiable premise.

 

The biological requirements of procreation are neither arbitrary or capricious.

 

Nonsense. In both cases the individual can only marry someone of the opposite sex.

 

Do away with state sanctioned benefits for married straight couples and the "gay marriage" argument disappears overnight. That is the only true cure to this never ending bogus debate. We need people to focus on what matters, as our nation is under economic attack.

 

And the argument is valid. Its just that purifying the white race isnt a legitimate governmental interest.

 

correct. From BC Roman law.

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater_semper_certa_est

Youll see across all religions and all cultures, marriage is between a man and a woman

 

Marriage predates the bible

 

Nor relevant to who can marry

 

Its why marriage is limited to a man and a woman in 44 states. Very relevant.

 

And the reasons for that ('limitation'), are the prejudicial and arbitrary laws which are being challenged presently, in cases such as California's "Proposition 8". In essence, it is being revealed that such 'laws' are 'unjust'.

As far as "marriage" is actually concerned, its value (to individuals and the state) is not (and never has been) completely predicated upon 'procreation'. One need not be a scholar in ancient law, to realize and understand that.

Additionally, the manner in which you present the aspect of procreation within this argument/discussion, does cause it to be less-relevant than you are either willing to or capable of admitting. (And few in any venue would disagree with me.)

 

There is no test for procreation before marriage. Therefore obviously procreation is not a requirement to be married.

 

Youve repeated this several times. A fact nobody denies. No one has asserted that there is a test for procreation before marriage or that procreation is a requirement of marriage. You won that strawman. Respond with something relevant if you can or find a new strawman.

 

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY.
(a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;....

This is not prejudicial and arbitrary. Its a grasp on reality. Only women bear children and only a man can make a woman a mother.

 

no it isn't. that's why the ability/intention to procreate isn't required for marriage.

 

already refuted. presumption of paternity is not binding, and is not a marriage law. if daddy isn't the daddy, he has no responsibility.

 

My argument isnt that its binding. My argument is that its limited to a man and a woman. But you are always drawn to the irrelevant, like a moth to a flame.
As well, after 2 years, in many states, it becomes binding.

 

No one is arguing that it is required. Step away from the strawman if you can.