Now you're bringing up a new debate; if you want to CHANGE the law the accommodate a perversion that you consider socially acceptable that is a different story. But say what you mean; and don't try to say that people are being discriminated against in the eyes of the law when it doesn't.

your attempt at avoiding the discussion over semantics is childish. lmk when you want to actually have the discussion about equal rights.

This post has been edited by blind_chief on Sat - May 28 2011 - 10:47:23

Again trying to patronize me because you have nothing legitimate to say. Classy.

ill patronize you because you have so far avoided the issue due to your literal interpretation of your words instead of being an adult and discussing the actual issue. im clearly going to justify your semantics like steve did.

if im classy whats that make you calling me a moron/idiot? childish, thats what.

so back to the issue at hand. if you want states to decide their own rights then what happens when neighboring states have differing laws? how does the interaction between them change?

lol perversions lol

A perversion is anything outside of the norm.

Itt: Joe forgets I am a libertarian.

"normal" is relative

to a homosexual, attraction to the same sex is normal

for a gay man, having sex with a woman would be a perversion

itt: scott avoids any discussion

I think people should be able to marry someone of the same sex. I don't think the federal government has the right to tell us how to live our lives. However, I don't pretend laws are different than what they are, they do clearly discriminate against gay people, they simply were clearly written to accommodate this certain life choice. That doesn't mean they can be broken in the meantime while legislation is up in the air.

This post has been edited by hedonism on Sat - May 28 2011 - 14:22:11

This isn't about what is socially acceptable, this is about what is legally acceptable. The idea of looking down on same-sex couples by giving them an inherently inferior institution of "civil union" - the only way this could be acceptable is if government offered no status of "marriage" to anyone at all, only civil unions (as marriage is generally considered something religious).

As for considering this a perversion, how is it a perversion? How can you make a "perversion" illegal as just that? What is wrong with this? Who is being offered protection by this law? Private sexual conduct is inherently protected by the due process clause, this is about public recognition of a relationship between two consenting adults, and extending the financial privileges and personal benefits such as emergency visitation, etc.

Steve, if you cannot understand what I'm saying, we can't actually discuss this. Either you're a complete retard, or think straight people are allowed to same-sex marry, and gay people are being discriminated against because they're gay.

That's like saying people who shoot heroin are being discriminated against because heroin is illegal, but if you are a pain patient you can get morphine or oxycontin.

That isn't discrimination!

Marriage originally had a religious sigma because this country was made on Christian ideals. So now as new lifestyles emerge and different things become "socially acceptable", we need to rethink our laws.

scott

what straight people are trying to marry same-sex?

reading the law that literally is terrible, i give a fuck how libertarian you are

Reading the law literally isn't a libertarian thing, it's a common sense thing. Opening up and inviting subjectivity and personal interpretations for the law paves the way for bias and corruption.

because the law in question, the definition of marriage by the government, is pretty open to bias and corruption

right


again, what straight people are trying to marry same-sex?

none

read my previous poops about breaking the law while it is up for legislation

hedonism has attained blackjack status

must be a good thing

Likewise, a woman has the right to choose, and a fetus is part of her body until the umbilical cord is cut and the fetus is physically detached. Gay men don't have abortions.

no way, he actually argues.

>implying either of them actually argues effectively

This post has been edited by MoS. on Sat - May 28 2011 - 21:15:57

I said nothing about effectiveness.

arguing with pseudo-knowledgeable hippie extraordinaires like joe and steve isn't going to be effective, they're too hard headed.

for someone who studied polisci in college I thought he'd develop a more substantial leg to stand on, oh well!

because you have stated a logical argument yet. BUT I STUDIED POLISCI LULZ.

so far you have done nothing but state arguments that only work in a vacuum and done nothing to respond to questions based on your view. gj bro.

steve is the one who studied polisci, clearly me. nice job mocking it though. you're even madder than i am and im the one calling you a faggot and a retard. its a generational thing.

Logical arguments defeated, knocked out the go-to issue, on to personal attacks.

almost forgot to bring Hitler into it.

Hitler went to art school, would you expect him to talk to Mussolini about Jackson Pollock on the internet?

saying that both of you are being hard-headed isn't a personal attack, it's the truth. i stated my point as clear as fucking possible so any 10 year old without a closed mind could understand, but you still shut your eyes and pooped LOL BUT THE LAW DISCRIMINATES AGAINST GAY PEOPLE BECAUSE STRAIGHT PEOPLE HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS WHAT THE FUCK

itt: joe and steve admit they are gay

clearly to mention all 3 of us have the same view on legality that SHOULD exist surrounding same sex marriage, but joe is too wrapped up in semantics of the law, and trying to claim that i'm too wrapped up in semantics.

Should a mother be able to marry her son? Refer to the "two consenting adults" argument.

yes

scott, you think you are very clever, and to that i congratulate you
but you have clearly presented a logical argument, clearly have you responded to the hypotheticals presented to you

being able to reiterate some illogical take on the current law that you heard a talking head say is great, but if you are unwilling or unable to take that to the next levels of discussion you should just stay at home.

and no, im clearly mad, nor have i been mad.

i dont understand how taking the law for what it is is illogical.

and joe, i don't mean to shatter your analysis on my character, but no, i dont just argue to look like i'm clever and to make people look stupid, i actually like bouncing ideas off of others to clearly only reinforce my own, but to learn more about the issue.

unfortunately you have sidestepped everything i've brought to the table and saying something you feel more confident saying, which is a politicians way of debating really.

the law is clearly always logical

but the law is always the law. and until it is changed, it must be followed.

i also live in a state where people can marry people of the same sex.

if throughout history people waited like that clearly much would have gotten done

i'm sure big things are clearly being accomplished and held back because homosexuals cannot marry each other

you havnt bounced any ideas outside of leaving it up to the state. i presented a few questions to which you have ignored repeatedly. i disagree with your interpretation that a gay person has the same rights, specifically to marry who they want. i am focusing on their want, you are focusing on the current given right. that debate will go no where, so whats the point? i figured that much was obvious.

ill ignore your jab as i basically feel you are the one doing the exact thing you are referencing.

pedophiles "want" to have sex with children

at this point im half trolling you half being serious, because you're missing my overall point

i think people should be able to marry others of the same sex, but as of right now the law doesn't allow it. just because the law doesn't focus on the "wants" of people, doesn't make it discriminatory (actually it's quite the opposite).

the law isn't written saying "heterosexuals can marry who they are attracted to", the two just happen to be incidental (because of the historic religious definition of marriage)

a penis goes inside of a vagina

that's it

this also

first time i've heard of this point of view. which random pard member did you adopt this from? nevertheless i'm going to use this argument to troll the next dick lover that tries to get big with me irl.

thank god for hedonism or this topic wouldn't be worth reading

then you should never masturbate, get a hand job, fuck a girl in the ass, or get a blow job because none of those acts directly lead to reproduction

didn't you already tell us? you know everything.

interstate commerce, trade, open roads etc for one.

fucking idiot

men think of a vagina when masturbating
the woman's ''lego hand'' when giving a hand job closely resembles the walls of a vagina.
an anus is similar to a vagina and they are right next to each other. it can be done on accident.
a mouth is basically the same as a vagina except with teeth.

all those are associated with a woman (vagina) so it's all good