• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

My "argument" (in quotes because I don't really care about this issue) isn't grounded by religion.

I see this as a rights issue. As long as same sex couples get all of the same legal and financial benefits as opposite sex couples then I'm not sure why this debate still rages?

All over the use of a word?
 
corksens said:
My "argument" (in quotes because I don't really care about this issue) isn't grounded by religion.

I see this as a rights issue. As long as same sex couples get all of the same legal and financial benefits as opposite sex couples then I'm not sure why this debate still rages?

All over the use of a word?
Click to expand...

The debate still rages because they don't get the same rights and benefits in most places in the world, including the state that just passed a constitutional amendment preventing them from getting the same rights and benefits.
 
corksens said:
My "argument" (in quotes because I don't really care about this issue) isn't grounded by religion.

I see this as a rights issue. As long as same sex couples get all of the same legal and financial benefits as opposite sex couples then I'm not sure why this debate still rages?

All over the use of a word?
Click to expand...

Uh, but they're not in NC - that's why the debate is still raging.

And again, I really see literally no good reason to deny them the use of the word.
 
Yes over a word.

If women fought to be considered "persons" it wouldn't be enough to settle on some other word.

corksens said:
My "argument" (in quotes because I don't really care about this issue) isn't grounded by religion.

I see this as a rights issue. As long as same sex couples get all of the same legal and financial benefits as opposite sex couples then I'm not sure why this debate still rages?

All over the use of a word?
Click to expand...
 
Leafovic said:
Yes over a word.

If women fought to be considered "persons" it wouldn't be enough to settle on some other word.
Click to expand...
Well, the absurdity of women not being considered a person isn't a good comparable. Women didn't fight for the use of that word, they fought for the rights than are behind it.

I don't see why we can't have "marriage" and "gay marriage", both enshrined with the exact same rights.
 
So it would be enough to tell women that they will have the rights of "persons" but that they will be called "half-persons"?



corksens said:
Well, the absurdity of women not being considered a person isn't a good comparable. Women didn't fight for the use of that word, they fought for the rights than are behind it.

I don't see why we can't have "marriage" and "gay marriage", both enshrined with the exact same rights.
Click to expand...
 
corksens said:
Well, the absurdity of women not being considered a person isn't a good comparable. Women didn't fight for the use of that word, they fought for the rights than are behind it.

I don't see why we can't have "marriage" and "gay marriage", both enshrined with the exact same rights.
Click to expand...

That's pretty ridiculous though - if women were given all of the same rights as men, but legally weren't defined as "people" they wanted to call them something else, that wouldn't really be acceptable either.

By having to distinguish them with a different legal definition, you're saying they're NOT equal. Separate isn't equal.
 
hockeylover said:
That's pretty ridiculous though - if women were given all of the same rights as men, but legally weren't defined as "people" they wanted to call them something else, that wouldn't really be acceptable either.

By having to distinguish them with a different legal definition, you're saying they're NOT equal. Separate isn't equal.
Click to expand...
Men are men. Women are women. Both are legally persons.

Marriage is marriage. Gay marriage is gay marriage. Both are legally married.

I don't see the issue.
 
no vic didnt. he didnt "sum anything up" there. trying to equate the "persons" case with this is a huge stretch. legally, women weren't considered legal "persons" with basic rights to own property, vote, or hold office. we would all agree thats outrageous.

in this case, the hissy fit over being able to be called "married" wouldn't give them any "rights" that they don't already have. i have already said that "the gays" should be perfectly free to live together, love each other, spend their lives together, be happy, without any persecution from anyone.
 
corksens said:
Men are men. Women are women. Both are legally persons.

Marriage is marriage. Gay marriage is gay marriage. Both are legally married.

I don't see the issue.
Click to expand...

I find this so, so petty. Why? Why fight to NOT let someone call it just "married"? Why is it so important to you that it be distinguished?
 
You can't be this dumb.

Answer a direct question:

If women were given the rights of persons, were equal under the law with men, but it was decided when they were given these rights that they would be called "half-persons", this would be fine?

corksens said:
Men are men. Women are women. Both are legally persons.

Marriage is marriage. Gay marriage is gay marriage. Both are legally married.

I don't see the issue.
Click to expand...
 
That's what its basically come to -- preserving the word 'marriage'. Ownership of the word.

Which makes the debate even more ridiculous.

I don't why they are so worried about preserving the word. Straight people have bastardized it over the last century.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
no vic didnt. he didnt "sum anything up" there. trying to equate the "persons" case with this is a huge stretch. legally, women weren't considered legal "persons" with basic rights to own property, vote, or hold office. we would all agree thats outrageous.

in this case, the hissy fit over being able to be called "married" wouldn't give them any "rights" that they don't already have. i have already said that "the gays" should be perfectly free to live together, love each other, spend their lives together, be happy, without any persecution from anyone.
Click to expand...


Hissy fit.

Kind of sums you up and your argument perfectly here. Talk about people being arrogant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top