No AJ. I responded to your intellectually dishonest arguments. Simply because you dislike the ramifications of your faulty reasoning. Now, as per your logic, you can either reply that I am correct, or you can choose not to reply. See? You have the complete freedom of response as long as you don't do anything outside of the restrictions. And because those are the rules, you can't ever consider them to be restrictive of your right to respond until I decide to create that right for you.
Well, if you take what I'm saying out of the context it is being used for, it does seem faulty. That's why I gave you the option to ask me questions so I can better explain my standpoint to you.
That's why King has my respect for being able to bring a challenging counter-argument to my arguments without directly insulting me.
You've done nothing but insult gay people by saying that they already have equal rights they can marry the opposite sex. Along with its ok to hate a group with out knowing them personally. Why the hell would I want your respect. You disgust me
That's the problem AJ. I am not taking your arguments out of context. It is you who are refusing to acknowledge that those arguments are false and dependent on a "context" that ignores the internal logic and reason the argument is based on. The only "context" in which those arguments make any sort of sense is by choosing a result beforehand and ignoring the arguments themselves. if you truly believe the "equal rights" argument, then you must agree that a law granting "the choice to worship or not worship Satan (meaning you are not allowed to worship Jesus or anyone else)" would be "equal rights" under religion, even for people who want to be Christians. If you think the Court creates rights which do not exist until they are law, then you agree that slavery, segregation, and a whole host of other things, did not restrict a persons "rights" until the Court said so. These are your (current) arguments. And they are fatally flawed.
We'll just have to agree it's a matter of opinion then. I agree. As long as believing in him doesn't mean you can legally harm others. The courts say whether or not this law is legal or not. Because it hasn't been decided before in the supreme court, we can't say it's denying a specific class their rights. ----------- Slavery - You had no choice but to do it. You had no means to fight against it. And you had to just do it. Segregation - Pushes the button a bit. See, even when slavery was over, African Americans were discriminated against because of the color of their skin. They were still beaten by everyone and treated as a lesser human en mass. They separated them out from everything good. For gays now, it isn't even close to being on a mass scale like that. You cannot deny gays a job/treat them a certain way/deny services now like during segregation. They just want to marry. I agree that they should. But to say they are solely being denied the right to marry when the court hasn't said anything on it to give them the right or not give them the right is wrong. Because everyone equally does not have the right to marry someone of the same sex.
At least you are consistent. You have just agreed that a law that would punish you for worshiping Jesus instead of Satan would still qualify as "equal rights" and religious freedom. You have also set forth your belief that there was no "right" to freedom for slaves, and that the jim crow laws and prohibitions against voting were never restrictions on a person's "rights" because the Supreme Court had not created it then. Your definitions of "rights" is perfect for an oppressive totalitarian regime, and you have no understanding of the Supreme Court and its role in protecting the rights of the people. But at least you are consistent. Now try this: A man has the right to marry a woman, but a woman does not have that right. In what way is that not discrimination against women? (For those who actually understand the law and the Court, gender discrimination is subject to strict scrutiny, because freedom from gender discrimination is a recognized and protected right).
Actually, they were violating the rights of others with slavery. Y'all seem to think that rights are something the government can give you. They're not. The rights in the Constitution were said to be "endowed by the Creator"- meaning that the government doesn't give you the rights you have in the Constitution. You have a birthright to everything outlined in the Bill of Rights and the Amendments, no matter what country you live in. The people in North Korea, for example, have a right at their birth to free speech. The reason they don't have free speech is not because their government didn't give it to them. Their government took away that right they would have had even in North Korea. The government doesn't give anyone any rights- they can only stop themselves from taking that right away. So in slavery, they were denied rights that they were born with, because they had those rights not because of the government, but by them being alive, they had those rights, and they were taken away by those owners. They weren't given rights- their rights simply ceased to be taken away. Just saying.
My bad on that law. I thought you meant that christians can worship God if they want and people who want to worship satan can if they want to without either being denied the right to not worship. Only under those guide lines do I agree. I misread and you made it just a tad tricky. Continue to bring up other topics into this. I remember earlier you were stauch in not changing the subject. This is just our opinions clashing now.
No, it isn't tricky. And we are not arguing beliefs. This is a discussion on law, logic, and argumentation. I respect your right to an opinion. But I cannot respect false arguments. However, I appreciate your now understanding of how incorrect the false "equal rights" argument is. And as we are talking about rights, my question is not a departure from this conversation at all. In fact, it is a logical response to the mischaracterization of rights being committed. So, how is that not discrimination against women to allow men to do something that women cannot, based solely on their gender? Also, it was more of your former biased characterization of the two sides on which you based your change of topics that I was opposed to rather than a pure different discussion. But that may be a bit to much of a subtle difference, much like a legal technicality.
How is not discrimination to allow women to do a job they don't qualify for? Like physical jobs. Jobs that they can't complete the training for, but yet get the job. Especially rescue type of jobs. Like firefighting for example. It's a two street. Well no it's not. It's a one way street, with anyone disagreeing being a bigot. Gay marriage will be a good thing. The HIV/Aids should fall if the people getting married stick to monagomy. We will still have issues with bi's having duel relations and spreading transmitted viruses. Which is a issue right now. It's costly. The numbers are out there if you choose too look them up. That's why you see push back on gay propaganda. Which DOESN'T include gay marriage, but rather the endorsement of bisexual relationships with multiple partners.
There are no physical criteria for marriage. There is no training anyone has to complete, and no one is competing for a job. The only difference above is purely based on gender - which I included, and you ignored or didn't understand. Why may a man do something, like marry a woman, which a woman is restricted from doing solely because of her gender? How is that not gender discrimination? I really can't be bothered with the rest of your homophobic lunacy. Edited once for grammar.
Yeah, this thread has gotten out of hand. This is a fairly sensitive topic, and there are some strong beliefs on both sides. To prevent it from getting any further out of hand or from turning into a flame war I'm going to be locking it.