If Marriage Is a Fundamental Right, Then?

[Woodruff]

Exactly Symm. So the definition of marriage remains man and woman, and will not end up meaning "club to bash and ultimately destroy religion" and whither away the 1st amendment.

Thanks for clearing that up

At least you're becoming a bit more transparent about your religiousity...I suppose that should account for something.

[Symmetry]

Nice brainwashing image dump. I do wonder if you have ever actually looked at this issue from a non biased p.o.v.? If you are still posting racist pictures from 50 years ago, that tells me you don't know too much except for how to repeat what gets repeated.

Race and gender are not even close to the same thing. Stop trying to manipulate

You lost this argument a long time ago, dude.

[Phatscotty]

Civil Rights has gone from:

"I guess race has no meaning or definition anymore?"

to

"I guess gender has no meaning or definition anymore?"

to

"I guess words have no meaning or definition anymore?"


This excuse for privilege is ridiculous.

Listen Juan. Almost everything you are trying to quote me on is out of context. That response you are trying to pin on me as my argument, was a response to a troll picture from BBS for crying out loud! And if you are taking me out of context on purpose, then that shows an inability to talk rationally about the issues.

If you want to talk to me, why don't you check your emotions at the door, and your image dominated history knowledge too, and talk like a normal person.

What is it that you don't get? I would be happy to try to help you understand/be introduced to both sides.

[Woodruff]

Nice brainwashing image dump. I do wonder if you have ever actually looked at this issue from a non biased p.o.v.?

Good heavens man, do you even contemplate the words you say?

Race and gender are not even close to the same thing. Stop trying to manipulate

Race and gender are definitely different things and yet bigots like you will still try to discriminate against individuals because of them in exactly the same way.

[Woodruff]

And if you are taking me out of context on purpose, then that shows an inability to talk rationally about the issues.

It's like you don't understand your own words.

If you want to talk to me, why don't you check your emotions at the door, and your image dominated history knowledge too, and talk like a normal person.

And here Phatscotty admits that he's just a troll.

What is it that you don't get? I would be happy to try to help you understand/be introduced to both sides.

If you do actually understand both sides, then you're one of the most dishonest individuals I've ever had the misfortune of meeting.

[Phatscotty]

Nice brainwashing image dump. I do wonder if you have ever actually looked at this issue from a non biased p.o.v.? If you are still posting racist pictures from 50 years ago, that tells me you don't know too much except for how to repeat what gets repeated.

Race and gender are not even close to the same thing. Stop trying to manipulate

You lost this argument a long time ago, dude.

What argument are you talking about? The one that JB just changed the subject to?

[ooge]

Speaking on behalf of trolls everywhere stop using Trolls in a derogatory way

[Phatscotty]

This video pretty much sums up what I feel about marriage and what the values of marriage are.

[Juan_Bottom]

I didn't change the subject, I just finally removed the veil. And I do understand your argument; You've argued yourself into a bad place.

My knowledge comes from history first, and that's why so many of my posts reference it. Sometimes I want to respond to a post with some forgotten story from history, but often I'll stop myself, because no one will know what I'm talking about. Knowing history is supposed to help us avoid repeating the same mistakes, and so here I am with a history lesson.

Your argument is recycled from history, and it's been repeated in each Civil Right's battle. From Women's Suffrage it was "yeah, but women are too weak and emotional to have the vote. Everyone knows that. It's just part of the definition of a woman." Your argument is identical with, "yeah but marriage is between a man and a woman. So gay people can't be married to each other. It's just part of the definition of marriage."

Bigotry thinly veiled by "good intentions" is still bigotry. Stuttering about how definitions never change, or it's just too hard to change them is the dying wail of the old generation. You act like the bedrock of your life is precedent (it's not) and Webster's dictionary (it's not). But you're losing out to the tide of human compassion. If you're disgusted with being compared to a White Supremest, or a Sexist, then you should re-evaluate your position. Because that's how we all view it. All of us.

[Juan_Bottom]

This video pretty much sums up what I feel about marriage and what the values of marriage are.

WOW. This video has to be a troll. It's dripping with hypocrisy.

"It's not just a piece of paper."

[Phatscotty]

This video pretty much sums up what I feel about marriage and what the values of marriage are.

WOW. This video has to be a troll. It's dripping with hypocrisy.

"It's not just a piece of paper."

what's your point

[Juan_Bottom]

HaHa
BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST A PIECE OF PAPER. THERE IS A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT BE IN ONE'S HEART, THERE IS A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING MARRIED AND LIVING TOGETHER WITH SOMEBODY. LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING: THERE IS A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WORD BOYFRIEND, AND THE WORD HUSBAND. BETWEEN THE WORD GIRLFRIEND AND THE WORD WIFE. EVEN BETWEEN THE WORD PARTNER AND HUSBAND OR WIFE.
IT'S NOT JUST A PIECE OF PAPER.

[Juan_Bottom]

But when the Homos want to get gay married, then it's just a f*cking piece of paper and they can get a civil union instead, but only if the state decides they have that right.

[Phatscotty]

But when the Homos want to get gay married, then it's just a f*cking piece of paper and they can get a civil union instead, but only if the state decides they have that right.

Where has that right ever existed before? And what are you prepared to do if the state does not bow to your demands?

[Phatscotty]

HaHa
BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST A PIECE OF PAPER. THERE IS A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT BE IN ONE'S HEART, THERE IS A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING MARRIED AND LIVING TOGETHER WITH SOMEBODY. LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING: THERE IS A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WORD BOYFRIEND, AND THE WORD HUSBAND. BETWEEN THE WORD GIRLFRIEND AND THE WORD WIFE. EVEN BETWEEN THE WORD PARTNER AND HUSBAND OR WIFE.
IT'S NOT JUST A PIECE OF PAPER.

yeah?.....and? It's NOT just a piece of paper.

Wait, you seriously think marriage is just a piece of paper? Hold on a sec, I think I understand your argument a LOT better now...

[Symmetry]

But when the Homos want to get gay married, then it's just a f*cking piece of paper and they can get a civil union instead, but only if the state decides they have that right.

Where has that right ever existed before?

In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation in the world to grant same-sex marriages.[81] Same-sex marriages are also granted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003),[82] Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010),[83] Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010) and Denmark (2012). In Mexico, same-sex marriage is recognized in all 31 states but only performed in Mexico City and in Quintana Roo State. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.[84] In the United States, nine states and the District of Columbia permit same sex marriage, beginning with Massachusetts in 2004 and Connecticut in 2008.[85] As of 2010, some 250 million people (4% of the world population) lived in areas that recognize and perform same-sex marriages.[86]

[Phatscotty]

But when the Homos want to get gay married, then it's just a f*cking piece of paper and they can get a civil union instead, but only if the state decides they have that right.

Where has that right ever existed before?

In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation in the world to grant same-sex marriages.[81] Same-sex marriages are also granted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003),[82] Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010),[83] Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010) and Denmark (2012). In Mexico, same-sex marriage is recognized in all 31 states but only performed in Mexico City and in Quintana Roo State. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.[84] In the United States, nine states and the District of Columbia permit same sex marriage, beginning with Massachusetts in 2004 and Connecticut in 2008.[85] As of 2010, some 250 million people (4% of the world population) lived in areas that recognize and perform same-sex marriages.[86]

So because a handful of countries interpret rights extremely Liberally over the last 10 years.....that means it's a right all around the world and for everyone in the world?

I think JB is jumping the gun.

[Symmetry]

But when the Homos want to get gay married, then it's just a f*cking piece of paper and they can get a civil union instead, but only if the state decides they have that right.

Where has that right ever existed before?

In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation in the world to grant same-sex marriages.[81] Same-sex marriages are also granted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003),[82] Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010),[83] Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010) and Denmark (2012). In Mexico, same-sex marriage is recognized in all 31 states but only performed in Mexico City and in Quintana Roo State. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.[84] In the United States, nine states and the District of Columbia permit same sex marriage, beginning with Massachusetts in 2004 and Connecticut in 2008.[85] As of 2010, some 250 million people (4% of the world population) lived in areas that recognize and perform same-sex marriages.[86]

So because a handful of countries interpret rights extremely Liberally over the last 10 years.....that means it's a right all around the world and for everyone in the world?

I think JB is jumping the gun

Now you're changing the question. Don't get desperate, Scotty.

[Phatscotty]

But when the Homos want to get gay married, then it's just a f*cking piece of paper and they can get a civil union instead, but only if the state decides they have that right.

Where has that right ever existed before?

In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation in the world to grant same-sex marriages.[81] Same-sex marriages are also granted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003),[82] Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010),[83] Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010) and Denmark (2012). In Mexico, same-sex marriage is recognized in all 31 states but only performed in Mexico City and in Quintana Roo State. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.[84] In the United States, nine states and the District of Columbia permit same sex marriage, beginning with Massachusetts in 2004 and Connecticut in 2008.[85] As of 2010, some 250 million people (4% of the world population) lived in areas that recognize and perform same-sex marriages.[86]

So because a handful of countries interpret rights extremely Liberally over the last 10 years.....that means it's a right all around the world and for everyone in the world?

I think JB is jumping the gun

Now you're changing the question. Don't get desperate, Scotty.

What is the point of your post (without sounding too desperate? ) And I asked the question to JB, not to you, so why would I be desperate for an answer from you? But look at the reality, you jumped in to save JB, kinda desperate looking there...

[Symmetry]

But when the Homos want to get gay married, then it's just a f*cking piece of paper and they can get a civil union instead, but only if the state decides they have that right.

Where has that right ever existed before?

In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation in the world to grant same-sex marriages.[81] Same-sex marriages are also granted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003),[82] Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010),[83] Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010) and Denmark (2012). In Mexico, same-sex marriage is recognized in all 31 states but only performed in Mexico City and in Quintana Roo State. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.[84] In the United States, nine states and the District of Columbia permit same sex marriage, beginning with Massachusetts in 2004 and Connecticut in 2008.[85] As of 2010, some 250 million people (4% of the world population) lived in areas that recognize and perform same-sex marriages.[86]

So because a handful of countries interpret rights extremely Liberally over the last 10 years.....that means it's a right all around the world and for everyone in the world?

I think JB is jumping the gun

Now you're changing the question. Don't get desperate, Scotty.

What is the point of your post (without sounding to desperate?)

It's a list of some of the places where the right existed before. Exactly what you asked for.

[Phatscotty]

okay, so a list of a couple countries (not the ones JB or I live in.....) which didn't even start before the year 2000?

Not a very strong case that same sex marriage IS a right. The correct way to say it, certainly for JB, is "same sex marriage is a right in a few countries, but not mine, and has been for like 4,000 days."

Also, since 2000 is the first time anyone did this, is it fair to say gay marriage was "invented/created" 12 years ago?

[Symmetry]

okay, so a list of a couple countries (not the ones JB or I live in.....) which didn't even start before the year 2000?

It's what you asked for as proof. No doubt you'll demand something else now.

[Phatscotty]

okay, so a list of a couple countries (not the ones JB or I live in.....) which didn't even start before the year 2000? Not a very strong case that same sex marriage IS a right.

The correct way to say it, certainly for JB, is "same sex marriage is a right in a few countries, but not mine, and has been for like 4,000 days."

Also, since 2000 is the first time anyone did this, is it fair to say gay marriage was "invented/created" 12 years ago?

It's what you asked for as proof. No doubt you'll demand something else now.

Symmetry, cmon now. You really think I am not aware that marriage was redefined in Denmark...or Massachussetts, or Mexico and France? What the hell are you smokin man?

You know 100% I did not ask for proof, or need proof. I asked for context, precedent, and perspective.

And you called me desperate.... Look at you! Falling all over yourself to answer a question that was not even asked to you, to provide "proof" of something I have acknowledged myself right here in this very thread repeatedly.

Desperate....

[Symmetry]

okay, so a list of a couple countries (not the ones JB or I live in.....) which didn't even start before the year 2000?

It's what you asked for as proof. No doubt you'll demand something else now.

Symmetry, cmon now. You really think I am not aware that marriage was redefined in Denmark...or Massachussetts, or Mexico and France? What the hell are you smokin man?

You know 100% I did not ask for proof, or need proof. I asked for context, and perspective.

And you called me desperate.... Look at you! Falling all over yourself to answer a question that was not even asked to you, to provide "proof" of something I have acknowledged myself right here in this very thread.

Desperate....

Aye, I think I called your situation correctly.

[Phatscotty]

okay, so a list of a couple countries (not the ones JB or I live in.....) which didn't even start before the year 2000?

It's what you asked for as proof. No doubt you'll demand something else now.

Symmetry, cmon now. You really think I am not aware that marriage was redefined in Denmark...or Massachussetts, or Mexico and France? What the hell are you smokin man?

You know 100% I did not ask for proof, or need proof. I asked for context, and perspective.

And you called me desperate.... Look at you! Falling all over yourself to answer a question that was not even asked to you, to provide "proof" of something I have acknowledged myself right here in this very thread.

Desperate....

Aye, I think I called your situation correctly.

That's fine. but I did want to ask one thing about your post with all the countries. Do all the countries give the title "rights" for same sex marriage? Or do some of them simply recognize same sex marriage, or some of them don't regulate marriage at all, or some of them have different versions of marriage (like we have civil unions and domestic partnerships for non-traditional situations).