Presidential Race

Page 4 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Go down

Which of the two candidates do you favor (or hate least)?

Presidential Race - Page 4 Vote_lcap48%Presidential Race - Page 4 Vote_rcap 48% 
[ 11 ]
Presidential Race - Page 4 Vote_lcap17%Presidential Race - Page 4 Vote_rcap 17% 
[ 4 ]
Presidential Race - Page 4 Vote_lcap35%Presidential Race - Page 4 Vote_rcap 35% 
[ 8 ]
 
Total Votes : 23

Presidential Race - Page 4 Empty Re: Presidential Race

Post by Tylertlat on Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:57 pm

Lord Pheonix wrote:I'm sorry, am I fucking missing something here?


Simply put, Yes.

You have failed to show any understanding of our counter-arguments.


Last edited by Tylertlat on Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
Tylertlat
Tylertlat
Architect of the Flames

Male Number of posts : 624
Age : 29
Location : Detroit, Michigan
Registration date : 2009-02-05

Back to top Go down

Presidential Race - Page 4 Empty Re: Presidential Race

Post by Kasrkin Seath on Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:58 pm

CivBase wrote:LP, there is not a single law that says that. Not a single one! The right to marry has not been denied to homosexuals, the right to same-sex marriage has equally been denied to everyone. It's NOT discrimination. Get it?
I'm sorry for thinking compromise was possible. It has become clear to me that we operate on completely different world views at this point.



_________________
I AM THE LAW
Presidential Race - Page 4 Kasrki10
[00:17:22] @ KrAzY : new law.
[00:17:28] @ KrAzY : the law can now be a person.
[00:17:28] @ XNate02 : The Law, can only be The Law.
[00:17:32] @ Gauz : I'd kick everyone....
[00:17:37] @ KrAzY : and that person is seath
[00:17:39] @ kasrkin seath : YES
------------------------------------------
[02:22:43] @ KrAzY : the reason we all come to TCF is because Seath is too Lord Pheonix damn sexy to stop.
Kasrkin Seath
Kasrkin Seath
The Law

Male Number of posts : 3018
Location : Michigan
Registration date : 2008-07-12

Back to top Go down

Presidential Race - Page 4 Empty Re: Presidential Race

Post by Lord Pheonix on Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:59 pm

CivBase wrote:LP, there is not a single law that says that. Not a single one! The right to marry has not been denied to homosexuals, the right to same-sex marriage has equally been denied to everyone. It's NOT discrimination. Get it?

That may be the single most retarded thing I have ever read.

_________________
Presidential Race - Page 4 Pheonix92
Lord Pheonix
Lord Pheonix
Lord Of The Flames

Male Number of posts : 7572
Registration date : 2008-03-23

https://crimsonflame.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Presidential Race - Page 4 Empty Re: Presidential Race

Post by Tylertlat on Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:03 am

Lord Pheonix wrote:
CivBase wrote:LP, there is not a single law that says that. Not a single one! The right to marry has not been denied to homosexuals, the right to same-sex marriage has equally been denied to everyone. It's NOT discrimination. Get it?

That may be the single most retarded thing I have ever read.

I am entirely convinced that you have not in-fact read that. Or anything Civ, Rot, or I have posted here.
Tylertlat
Tylertlat
Architect of the Flames

Male Number of posts : 624
Age : 29
Location : Detroit, Michigan
Registration date : 2009-02-05

Back to top Go down

Presidential Race - Page 4 Empty Re: Presidential Race

Post by CivBase on Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Lord Pheonix wrote:
CivBase wrote:LP, there is not a single law that says that. Not a single one! The right to marry has not been denied to homosexuals, the right to same-sex marriage has equally been denied to everyone. It's NOT discrimination. Get it?
That may be the single most retarded thing I have ever read.
Says the man who has claimed at least 3 times in this thread that Romney is racist because he's white, rich, and a man.

_________________
Presidential Race - Page 4 Bzsigy2
CivBase
CivBase
Adbot

Male Number of posts : 7336
Location : Etchisketchistan
Registration date : 2008-04-27

http://pathwaygames.forumotion.net/

Back to top Go down

Presidential Race - Page 4 Empty Re: Presidential Race

Post by KristallNacht on Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:07 am

so "everyone has to use their races shitters wouldn't be discrimination?

....what about if only one races shitters met everyone's needs?


I would still call a ban on gay marriage discrimination. Personally I only care about discrimination when its the LAW that's doing it. Individuals have the right to discriminate and be ignorant all they want.
KristallNacht
KristallNacht
Unholy Demon Of The Flame

Male Number of posts : 5087
Location : San Diego, California
Registration date : 2008-06-24

Back to top Go down

Presidential Race - Page 4 Empty Re: Presidential Race

Post by CivBase on Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:09 am

NT, you really think the law is discriminating? Despite all that's been discussed in the last 3 pages?

Again, I would agree that the law is stupid, but it's not discriminating.

_________________
Presidential Race - Page 4 Bzsigy2
CivBase
CivBase
Adbot

Male Number of posts : 7336
Location : Etchisketchistan
Registration date : 2008-04-27

http://pathwaygames.forumotion.net/

Back to top Go down

Presidential Race - Page 4 Empty Re: Presidential Race

Post by Lord Pheonix on Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:40 am

CivBase wrote:The right to marry has not been denied to homosexuals, the right to same-sex marriage has equally been denied to everyone. It's NOT discrimination. Get it?

I have to do this very slowly because the sheer thought of how retarded this is rocked my world a little bit.



Illegializing homosexual marriage ONLY affects homosexuals.


But it is not discriminating against Homosexuals because Heterosexuals also cannot homosexually marry.




The law SPECIFICALLY targets one group and denies them rights that another group gets.

How in the living FUCK is that not discrimination?

_________________
Presidential Race - Page 4 Pheonix92
Lord Pheonix
Lord Pheonix
Lord Of The Flames

Male Number of posts : 7572
Registration date : 2008-03-23

https://crimsonflame.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Presidential Race - Page 4 Empty Re: Presidential Race

Post by Lord Pheonix on Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:50 am

CivBase wrote:Strangely enough, LP, gay people can marry. Anywhere. They just don't receive government benefits. Homosexuals are subject to the same exact laws as everyone else, they just don't qualify for legal benefits.

Tylertlat wrote:Except that, as stated already, Homosexuals and Heterosexuals have the exact same rights regarding marriage.


What God damn country do you people live in?!?!


IT IS ILLEGAL FOR GAYS TO MARRY IN 35 FUCKING STATES.

IT IS ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO BE MARRIED, TO BE IN A CIVIL UNION, TO BE IN A DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP, ANY GOD DAMN SEMANTIC YOU WANT TO SAY


Presidential Race - Page 4 Existing-State-Law-Homosexual-Relationships

See those 15 little states that are colored? THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT ALLOW GAY MARRIAGE. The ones that aren't colored? the 35 other states? IT IS ILLEGAL FOR ALL THE SEMANTICS OF MARRIAGE TO HAPPEN FOR HOMOSEXUALS.


Here is one with more fancy colors so maybe you will fully understand (i'm not holding my breath)

Presidential Race - Page 4 394146_10150632456820399_98658495398_11240215_1479455762_n
Lord Pheonix
Lord Pheonix
Lord Of The Flames

Male Number of posts : 7572
Registration date : 2008-03-23

https://crimsonflame.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Presidential Race - Page 4 Empty Re: Presidential Race

Post by dragoon9105 on Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:53 am

So under Civ's Logic if i ban everyone from freedom of speech it isn't wrong? just stupid ok.

Or if someone Banned Marriage in General, That's not discriminating?

And any law barring Civil unions is discriminatory, As the law only applies to those who would want a Civil Union. Straight couples can simply get married.

BUT Gay marriage is a State issue, Not a National one, So drop it, This is about the Election. If Romney or Obama touched the issue the Supreme court, Again would shoot it down because its already in the constitution, Marriage, Licenses, Civil Unions and other forms of documentation drawn in one state must be recognized by every other state as legal, And of course States retain the rights on how to distribute said documents.

Also Tyler is probably refering to the Above statement, If you are in a Civil Union in New York for example, every other state+Puerto Rico can't do a damn thing about it, which is why you get a Vocal Minority in certain political parties whining their heads off about banning it.

dragoon9105
dragoon9105
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 2839
Registration date : 2009-02-25

Back to top Go down

Presidential Race - Page 4 Empty Re: Presidential Race

Post by Kasrkin Seath on Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:05 am

Tylertlat wrote:
Lord Pheonix wrote:
CivBase wrote:LP, there is not a single law that says that. Not a single one! The right to marry has not been denied to homosexuals, the right to same-sex marriage has equally been denied to everyone. It's NOT discrimination. Get it?

That may be the single most retarded thing I have ever read.

I am entirely convinced that you have not in-fact read that. Or anything Civ, Rot, or I have posted here.

It is true that the law is broadly enforced against all and thus at the basic level NOT targeting a specific group of people. However, since the law is and will only be enforced against a particular subset of society it can be argued that it is discriminatory against that group of people. While the justification presented for it being non-discriminatory is valid, it also seems to ignore the fact that it unequally impacts a specific group of people over others.

Let's flip this around and imagine a US where heterosexual marriage, or normal marriage as you call it, is banned. Or lets change that; marriage now refers to a homosexual union. It also happens to be the only legal union which carries the full benefits of governmental recognition with it. It isn't discriminatory against heterosexual people because it applies to everyone, heterosexual or not. Would that still be okay even though it unequally impacts one group of people over another?

"Homosexuals and Heterosexuals have the exact same rights regarding marriage".

Yes, they do, except under current laws homosexuals can - in most places - never attain the same benefits for a homosexual analogue to marriage because such a thing doesn't exist, all because of the terminology of the fucking word. Are you really that intent on keeping one group of people from expressing themselves in a way that doesn't harm you over a technicality regarding meaning of a word, one that isn't even that specific? Polygamous? Monogamous? Incestual? What kind of marriage are we talking about here? Oh, right, normal marriage. It's all about semantics.

Have you ever considered that "Same-sex marriage" could in fact a term of its own? A modified form of marriage? Water means one thing, and salt water, while it has the word water in it, is something else. So following your argument, Marriage = man + woman. Therefore, Same-Sex Marriage = man + man, or, woman + woman.



Some of you arguing for the ban on gay-marriage suggest that those of us against it don't understand what you are saying, so lets make this clear- You are against gay marriage because:

The term 'Marriage' is explicitly defined as being between a male and female, therefore marriage between homosexuals does not exist.

The only legitimate and key point which does not deal with personal belief regarding a homosexual couple engaged in marriage or an analogue to marriage deals with the very definition of marriage, which itself is a fluid concept. From this you seek that the ban on same-sex marriage remains in place since it doesn't fulfill your definition of marriage.

Am I right or wrong on this?

How do you feel about "Civil Unions" for homosexual couples which carry the same benefits as marriage? Would you vote for it?

_________________
I AM THE LAW
Presidential Race - Page 4 Kasrki10
[00:17:22] @ KrAzY : new law.
[00:17:28] @ KrAzY : the law can now be a person.
[00:17:28] @ XNate02 : The Law, can only be The Law.
[00:17:32] @ Gauz : I'd kick everyone....
[00:17:37] @ KrAzY : and that person is seath
[00:17:39] @ kasrkin seath : YES
------------------------------------------
[02:22:43] @ KrAzY : the reason we all come to TCF is because Seath is too Lord Pheonix damn sexy to stop.
Kasrkin Seath
Kasrkin Seath
The Law

Male Number of posts : 3018
Location : Michigan
Registration date : 2008-07-12

Back to top Go down

Presidential Race - Page 4 Empty Re: Presidential Race

Post by Rotaretilbo on Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:28 am

Lord Pheonix wrote:I'm sorry, am I fucking missing something here?

Were you really drunk when you posted earlier today, because otherwise, no.

Lord Pheonix wrote:"Hey, you are gay. You are not allowed to do this thing because you are gay" is not a fucked up thing anymore?

Oh, I'm sorry. When exactly were heterosexuals allowed to conduct same-sex marriages? We've discussed homosexual marriage to death half a dozen times. If you want to beat the dead horse again, do it in the appropriate thread.

_________________
Presidential Race - Page 4 Rot_cube_Signature-1
Rotaretilbo
Rotaretilbo
Magnificent Bastard

Male Number of posts : 4540
Age : 29
Location : Arizona
Registration date : 2008-07-21

http://cdpgames.com

Back to top Go down

Presidential Race - Page 4 Empty Re: Presidential Race

Post by Rotaretilbo on Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:47 am

Kasrkin Seath wrote:It is true that the law is broadly enforced against all and thus at the basic level NOT targeting a specific group of people. However, since the law is and will only be enforced against a particular subset of society it can be argued that it is discriminatory against that group of people. While the justification presented for it being non-discriminatory is valid, it also seems to ignore the fact that it unequally impacts a specific group of people over others.

Let's flip this around and imagine a US where heterosexual marriage, or normal marriage as you call it, is banned. Or lets change that; marriage now refers to a homosexual union. It also happens to be the only legal union which carries the full benefits of governmental recognition with it. It isn't discriminatory against heterosexual people because it applies to everyone, heterosexual or not. Would that still be okay even though it unequally impacts one group of people over another?

Yes. If marriage referred to two people of the same-sex forming a union, it would be silly to try to change the definition because I happened to be different.

However, in this case, and as I have argued six or seven times now, I believe that the government benefits associated with marriage should be divorced from the term "marriage" and apply equally to all types of union.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:"Homosexuals and Heterosexuals have the exact same rights regarding marriage".

Yes, they do, except under current laws homosexuals can - in most places - never attain the same benefits for a homosexual analogue to marriage because such a thing doesn't exist, all because of the terminology of the fucking word. Are you really that intent on keeping one group of people from expressing themselves in a way that doesn't harm you over a technicality regarding meaning of a word, one that isn't even that specific? Polygamous? Monogamous? Incestual? What kind of marriage are we talking about here? Oh, right, normal marriage. It's all about semantics.

And, as I'm saying for the near seventh time now, if people would recognize that this was an argument about semantics and just change the fucking term, it wouldn't be an issue. Those pushing for gay rights have the opportunity before them to completely and totally remove any valid excuse to oppose them from a federal viewpoint, and they refuse to. Why? Out of pride. Both sides are too caught up in pride to get along.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:Have you ever considered that "Same-sex marriage" could in fact a term of its own? A modified form of marriage? Water means one thing, and salt water, while it has the word water in it, is something else. So following your argument, Marriage = man + woman. Therefore, Same-Sex Marriage = man + man, or, woman + woman.

To some people, referring to it as same-sex marriage would be more analogous to calling gasoline "burny water" because it happens to also be a liquid. Since it's just semantics, if we can just agree on a compromise in which the term is changed and the same government benefits are given to everyone, things would solve themselves. But don't mind me, I'm a Republican, so fuck fags and all that whatnot or whatever it was P said earlier.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:Some of you arguing for the ban on gay-marriage suggest that those of us against it don't understand what you are saying, so lets make this clear- You are against gay marriage because:

The term 'Marriage' is explicitly defined as being between a male and female, therefore marriage between homosexuals does not exist.

The only legitimate and key point which does not deal with personal belief regarding a homosexual couple engaged in marriage or an analogue to marriage deals with the very definition of marriage, which itself is a fluid concept. From this you seek that the ban on same-sex marriage remains in place since it doesn't fulfill your definition of marriage.

Am I right or wrong on this?

I would argue that the definition of marriage has been relatively unchanged for a rather long time, with fluidity primarily existing only in the number of partners you were allowed to have.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:How do you feel about "Civil Unions" for homosexual couples which carry the same benefits as marriage? Would you vote for it?

As I'm pretty sure every reasonable conservative on the site has said in the other thread at least twice each, yes. I believe that whether the couple is homosexual or heterosexual, the government should call it a civil union. In this way, the government doesn't hurt anyone's feelings with the use of a word that has a lot of power and meaning for certain groups of people, allowing all sides to use that word without any of them being pissed at the government.

However, I should note that I would also vote to allow civil unions between people of blood relation. I see no valid reason why their situation is any different from that of homosexuals. Both are labeled "unnatural" due to potential issues with offspring and simple tradition. I feel that anyone who argues that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, but that cousins should not, is a hypocrite.

_________________
Presidential Race - Page 4 Rot_cube_Signature-1
Rotaretilbo
Rotaretilbo
Magnificent Bastard

Male Number of posts : 4540
Age : 29
Location : Arizona
Registration date : 2008-07-21

http://cdpgames.com

Back to top Go down

Presidential Race - Page 4 Empty Re: Presidential Race

Post by KristallNacht on Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:30 am

I'm just gonna keep giving examples of Civ's logic, cause it's just plain stupid.

"It's illegal to have dark skin"

It applies to everyone. Nobody, regardless of race has the right to have dark skin....so its not discriminating.
KristallNacht
KristallNacht
Unholy Demon Of The Flame

Male Number of posts : 5087
Location : San Diego, California
Registration date : 2008-06-24

Back to top Go down

Presidential Race - Page 4 Empty Re: Presidential Race

Post by Tylertlat on Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:17 am

First off, seath, I'd like to thank you for actually responding to the counter-arguments.
Second, I second everything that Rot said in his past post, and between what what Seath said and rot's response, probably everything that has needs to be said to explain people's views has been said.

Spoiler:
Rotaretilbo wrote:
Kasrkin Seath wrote:It is true that the law is broadly enforced against all and thus at the basic level NOT targeting a specific group of people. However, since the law is and will only be enforced against a particular subset of society it can be argued that it is discriminatory against that group of people. While the justification presented for it being non-discriminatory is valid, it also seems to ignore the fact that it unequally impacts a specific group of people over others.

Let's flip this around and imagine a US where heterosexual marriage, or normal marriage as you call it, is banned. Or lets change that; marriage now refers to a homosexual union. It also happens to be the only legal union which carries the full benefits of governmental recognition with it. It isn't discriminatory against heterosexual people because it applies to everyone, heterosexual or not. Would that still be okay even though it unequally impacts one group of people over another?

Yes. If marriage referred to two people of the same-sex forming a union, it would be silly to try to change the definition because I happened to be different.

However, in this case, and as I have argued six or seven times now, I believe that the government benefits associated with marriage should be divorced from the term "marriage" and apply equally to all types of union.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:"Homosexuals and Heterosexuals have the exact same rights regarding marriage".

Yes, they do, except under current laws homosexuals can - in most places - never attain the same benefits for a homosexual analogue to marriage because such a thing doesn't exist, all because of the terminology of the fucking word. Are you really that intent on keeping one group of people from expressing themselves in a way that doesn't harm you over a technicality regarding meaning of a word, one that isn't even that specific? Polygamous? Monogamous? Incestual? What kind of marriage are we talking about here? Oh, right, normal marriage. It's all about semantics.

And, as I'm saying for the near seventh time now, if people would recognize that this was an argument about semantics and just change the fucking term, it wouldn't be an issue. Those pushing for gay rights have the opportunity before them to completely and totally remove any valid excuse to oppose them from a federal viewpoint, and they refuse to. Why? Out of pride. Both sides are too caught up in pride to get along.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:Have you ever considered that "Same-sex marriage" could in fact a term of its own? A modified form of marriage? Water means one thing, and salt water, while it has the word water in it, is something else. So following your argument, Marriage = man + woman. Therefore, Same-Sex Marriage = man + man, or, woman + woman.

To some people, referring to it as same-sex marriage would be more analogous to calling gasoline "burny water" because it happens to also be a liquid. Since it's just semantics, if we can just agree on a compromise in which the term is changed and the same government benefits are given to everyone, things would solve themselves. But don't mind me, I'm a Republican, so fuck fags and all that whatnot or whatever it was P said earlier.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:Some of you arguing for the ban on gay-marriage suggest that those of us against it don't understand what you are saying, so lets make this clear- You are against gay marriage because:

The term 'Marriage' is explicitly defined as being between a male and female, therefore marriage between homosexuals does not exist.

The only legitimate and key point which does not deal with personal belief regarding a homosexual couple engaged in marriage or an analogue to marriage deals with the very definition of marriage, which itself is a fluid concept. From this you seek that the ban on same-sex marriage remains in place since it doesn't fulfill your definition of marriage.

Am I right or wrong on this?

I would argue that the definition of marriage has been relatively unchanged for a rather long time, with fluidity primarily existing only in the number of partners you were allowed to have.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:How do you feel about "Civil Unions" for homosexual couples which carry the same benefits as marriage? Would you vote for it?

As I'm pretty sure every reasonable conservative on the site has said in the other thread at least twice each, yes. I believe that whether the couple is homosexual or heterosexual, the government should call it a civil union. In this way, the government doesn't hurt anyone's feelings with the use of a word that has a lot of power and meaning for certain groups of people, allowing all sides to use that word without any of them being pissed at the government.

However, I should note that I would also vote to allow civil unions between people of blood relation. I see no valid reason why their situation is any different from that of homosexuals. Both are labeled "unnatural" due to potential issues with offspring and simple tradition. I feel that anyone who argues that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, but that cousins should not, is a hypocrite.


KristallNach wrote:
I'm just gonna keep giving examples of Civ's logic, cause it's just plain stupid.

"It's illegal to have dark skin"

It applies to everyone. Nobody, regardless of race has the right to have dark skin....so its not discriminating.

"It's illegal to have dark skin" = "It's illegal to be homosexual"

Your cute little metaphor you guys keep bringing out? It doesn't work.
Tylertlat
Tylertlat
Architect of the Flames

Male Number of posts : 624
Age : 29
Location : Detroit, Michigan
Registration date : 2009-02-05

Back to top Go down

Presidential Race - Page 4 Empty Re: Presidential Race

Post by CivBase on Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:22 am

Lord Pheonix wrote:I have to do this very slowly because the sheer thought of how retarded this is rocked my world a little bit.

Illegializing homosexual marriage ONLY affects homosexuals.

But it is not discriminating against Homosexuals because Heterosexuals also cannot homosexually marry.

The law SPECIFICALLY targets one group and denies them rights that another group gets.

How in the living FUCK is that not discrimination?
The law made an action illegal for everyone. Once again, your logic would also entail that the law discriminates against killers because murder is illegal and only killers murder people. Yes, the law right now is STUPID. It's NOT discrimination, though.

Homosexuals are still allowed to marry people of the opposite sex in any state. Marriage for them is no more restricted than it is for everyone else.

dragoon9105 wrote:So under Civ's Logic if i ban everyone from freedom of speech it isn't wrong? just stupid ok.
Woah woah woah. I never said the law was right.

Yes, removing freedom of speech WOULD be stupid. It wouldn't be discrimination, but it would be very stupid.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:However, since the law is and will only be enforced against a particular subset of society it can be argued that it is discriminatory against that group of people.
No, that's really not how the law works. The only people ANY law targets are the people who break it or want to break it. Homosexuals happen to be those people in this case. So now we must qualify whether or not the law is appropriate, and I would agree that it is not. That doesn't make it discrimination.

KristallNacht wrote:I'm just gonna keep giving examples of Civ's logic, cause it's just plain stupid.

"It's illegal to have dark skin"

It applies to everyone. Nobody, regardless of race has the right to have dark skin....so its not discriminating.
Having dark skin isn't an action, it's a physical characteristic. Not even close to breaking my logic.

_________________
Presidential Race - Page 4 Bzsigy2
CivBase
CivBase
Adbot

Male Number of posts : 7336
Location : Etchisketchistan
Registration date : 2008-04-27

http://pathwaygames.forumotion.net/

Back to top Go down

Presidential Race - Page 4 Empty Re: Presidential Race

Post by CivBase on Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:25 am

Look, this is very simple. Discrimination is when the law's application is limited to a target group of people because of some characteristic.

Homosexuals are allowed to do everything we are. Marriage laws apply to everyone.

_________________
Presidential Race - Page 4 Bzsigy2
CivBase
CivBase
Adbot

Male Number of posts : 7336
Location : Etchisketchistan
Registration date : 2008-04-27

http://pathwaygames.forumotion.net/

Back to top Go down

Presidential Race - Page 4 Empty Re: Presidential Race

Post by Nocbl2 on Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:28 am

Holy fuck, train wreck.

Is gay marriage seriously all you can debate? Go do it in the appropriate thread.

And for the record, Rot, I am the third party. Have fun, kiddos.
Nocbl2
Nocbl2
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 4814
Age : 20
Location : California
Registration date : 2009-03-18

Back to top Go down

Presidential Race - Page 4 Empty Re: Presidential Race

Post by Vigil on Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:38 am

Having dark skin isn't an action, it's a physical characteristic. Not even close to breaking my logic

You do realise that being homosexual is a mental characteristic right?

Many of them say they didn't choose to be gay one day, they were born one and there's plenty of evidence to back that up.

It would be like banning Depression or other mental illnesses, and claiming it's fair because it covers everyone.

Seriously this whole argument is ridiculious.

_________________
Presidential Race - Page 4 Viggy
Presidential Race - Page 4 House

A still more glorious dawn awaits.
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way

You can fight like a Krogan, run like a Leopard
But you'll never be better than Commander Shepard
Vigil
Vigil
Dark Knight of the Flames

Male Number of posts : 4810
Age : 30
Location : Unknown.
Registration date : 2009-01-12

Back to top Go down

Presidential Race - Page 4 Empty Re: Presidential Race

Post by Tylertlat on Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:04 am

Vigil wrote:
Having dark skin isn't an action, it's a physical characteristic. Not even close to breaking my logic

You do realise that being homosexual is a mental characteristic right?

Many of them say they didn't choose to be gay one day, they were born one and there's plenty of evidence to back that up.

It would be like banning Depression or other mental illnesses, and claiming it's fair because it covers everyone.

Seriously this whole argument is ridiculious.

Vigil, no one here will disagree with you. That isn't the argument. This is not about some conspiracy to inconvenience homosexuals "because fuck you faggy"(Lord Pheonix, 10/4/20112). This is about a social institution with a long-standing status quo of being one thing, and people saying it should also encompass another similar thing, and it's about people who are tired off being called Jim Crow type homophobics for understanding that.
Tylertlat
Tylertlat
Architect of the Flames

Male Number of posts : 624
Age : 29
Location : Detroit, Michigan
Registration date : 2009-02-05

Back to top Go down

Presidential Race - Page 4 Empty Re: Presidential Race

Post by CivBase on Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:23 am

Vigil, that's beside the point. The current law doesn't make being a homosexual illegal, so the 'what if dark skin was illegal?' idea doesn't fit.

_________________
Presidential Race - Page 4 Bzsigy2
CivBase
CivBase
Adbot

Male Number of posts : 7336
Location : Etchisketchistan
Registration date : 2008-04-27

http://pathwaygames.forumotion.net/

Back to top Go down

Presidential Race - Page 4 Empty Re: Presidential Race

Post by dragoon9105 on Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:22 am

It restricts them from a right enjoyed by others, Being Homosexual isn't illegal because a law like that in itself is illegal, so people find workarounds.

And dont say it doesn't the example has been used before, If marriage was Illegal and same sex civil unions were legal you'd feel pretty infringed upon.

dragoon9105
dragoon9105
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 2839
Registration date : 2009-02-25

Back to top Go down

Presidential Race - Page 4 Empty Re: Presidential Race

Post by Tylertlat on Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:35 am

dragoon9105 wrote:
And dont say it doesn't the example has been used before, If marriage was Illegal and same sex civil unions were legal you'd feel pretty infringed upon.

Well then, I could demand to be allowed to have a same-sex union with someone of the opposite sex and not be content with it's equivelent. I could say, " I, a man, demand to have a man-man relationship with this woman".

And none of you would understand why that doesn't make sense.
Tylertlat
Tylertlat
Architect of the Flames

Male Number of posts : 624
Age : 29
Location : Detroit, Michigan
Registration date : 2009-02-05

Back to top Go down

Presidential Race - Page 4 Empty Re: Presidential Race

Post by Kasrkin Seath on Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:42 am

Tylertlat wrote:
dragoon9105 wrote:
And dont say it doesn't the example has been used before, If marriage was Illegal and same sex civil unions were legal you'd feel pretty infringed upon.

Well then, I could demand to be allowed to have a same-sex union with someone of the opposite sex and not be content with it's equivelent. I could say, " I, a man, demand to have a man-man relationship with this woman".

And none of you would understand why that doesn't make sense.

I think you either completely missed the point of drag's statement or completely affirmed it.

_________________
I AM THE LAW
Presidential Race - Page 4 Kasrki10
[00:17:22] @ KrAzY : new law.
[00:17:28] @ KrAzY : the law can now be a person.
[00:17:28] @ XNate02 : The Law, can only be The Law.
[00:17:32] @ Gauz : I'd kick everyone....
[00:17:37] @ KrAzY : and that person is seath
[00:17:39] @ kasrkin seath : YES
------------------------------------------
[02:22:43] @ KrAzY : the reason we all come to TCF is because Seath is too Lord Pheonix damn sexy to stop.
Kasrkin Seath
Kasrkin Seath
The Law

Male Number of posts : 3018
Location : Michigan
Registration date : 2008-07-12

Back to top Go down

Presidential Race - Page 4 Empty Re: Presidential Race

Post by CivBase on Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:04 am

dragoon9105 wrote:It restricts them from a right enjoyed by others, Being Homosexual isn't illegal because a law like that in itself is illegal, so people find workarounds.

And dont say it doesn't the example has been used before, If marriage was Illegal and same sex civil unions were legal you'd feel pretty infringed upon.
1.) They have the same right as everyone else. The details of that right restrict them from doing something which they, in particular, want to do but that doesn't make the law discriminatory.
2.) Also, I'm not sure if you've seen my opinion on the issue, dragoon, but I WANT all legal relationships to be considered civil unions.

Yes, I would be quite angry with the current law if I were a homosexual. Again, I agree that the law is stupid and needs changed. But that doesn't make it discriminatory.

I can't tell you guys how many times I've pointed this out in this thread: homosexuals are subject to the same laws and rights as everyone else. The exact same. They are allowed marriage in the exact same way everyone else is. You could argue that the definition of marriage needs to be expanded, but it wouldn't change the target of the law's enforcement. EVERYONE is subject to it.

I'm about to blow your minds here, so listen up. Back in the civil rights movement, laws were segregated. Blacks and whites were subject to different laws and rights. This isn't true now. Everyone has the same laws and rights. Some groups want to expand those rights, but the laws as they are do not discriminate.

The law is wrong, but not because it is segregated; the law is wrong because the government should have no say in a religious (or social) binding such as marriage. Friendships aren't legally enforced, and marriage should be treated likewise.

_________________
Presidential Race - Page 4 Bzsigy2
CivBase
CivBase
Adbot

Male Number of posts : 7336
Location : Etchisketchistan
Registration date : 2008-04-27

http://pathwaygames.forumotion.net/

Back to top Go down

Presidential Race - Page 4 Empty Re: Presidential Race

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum