elkabong82 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I do mind my own(pretty damn well even), and am perfectly willing to let Kansas or California do the same....unlike many in this thread Right, because allowing other states to treat citizens unequally as always fared well for us historically. Sometimes the fed. does need to step in. As Americans, we shouldn't support unequal treatment of citizens on the basis of race or gender or sexual orientation even if it hides behind states rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Why just those three? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Why just those three? What else do you propose? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 What else do you propose? ~Bang total equality...each being for themselves the govt can count the remains Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 total equality...each being for themselves the govt can count the remains That means the government would have to enforce it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 total equality...each being for themselves the govt can count the remains Because, after all, if we stop discriminating against gays, then we have to legalize murder, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Because, after all, if we stop discriminating against gays, then we have to legalize murder, too. I just want a pod of wives. Like 5 then I can be 5 times more miserable You shouldn't stop a man or woman from marrying the ones (plural) they love. Maybe it would slow down the divorce rate. Not sure why SSM is desired given the success of OSM in America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I could see the argument for legalizing poly "marriages". I can see arguments against it, too. But I'm not sure that any of those arguments are good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 That means the government would have to enforce it No enforcement would also be equal wouldn't it? we pick and choose based on what is deemed beneficial and needed...just as marriage was deemed something deserving of unequal treatment. if we allow SSM we still are picking and choosing and leaving people out and endorsing discrimination, the same is true for the three he mentioned. it is not equal treatment, it is special treatment/status sought.....one that imo should be extended to every adult of age. we can easily beat the discrimination rap against them since we already limit their rights(the underage) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I could see the argument for legalizing poly "marriages". I can see arguments against it, too. But I'm not sure that any of those arguments are good enough. so now equality depends on the argument supporting that groups need? if so it is not a right, unless of course you provide good argument it causes harm sufficient to justify infringing on it. which way does it need to be good enough? denying it or justifying it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 total equality...each being for themselves the govt can count the remains Oh,, i see. This is what is known as "Stupid". And we don't have to be slaves to "stupid". What we are good at is keeping lines drawn until overwhelming public support causes us to redraw them. (You know, will of the majority.) Now, you get a whole ton of people screaming for "stupid" for 20 years, and maybe there will be reform. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 No, discrimination is picking on someone FOR NO REASON. If there's a good enough reason, it's not discrimination. For example, there are sound reasons for not treating murderers the same as everybody else. (There is no reason for treating gays differently. That's WHY it's discrimination). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Well, that and being gay doesn't hurt anyone, no matter how paranoid a person might be about their own marriage. being a murderer is decidedly anti-social, to say the least. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Well, that and being gay doesn't hurt anyone, no matter how paranoid a person might be about their own marriage. being a murderer is decidedly anti-social, to say the least. ~Bang That's why it's not discrimination, to treat murderers, differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Oh,, i see. This is what is known as "Stupid". And we don't have to be slaves to "stupid". What we are good at is keeping lines drawn until overwhelming public support causes us to redraw them. (You know, will of the majority.) Now, you get a whole ton of people screaming for "stupid" for 20 years, and maybe there will be reform. ~Bang that is the system we designed...one that discriminates No, discrimination is picking on someone FOR NO REASON. If there's a good enough reason, it's not discrimination. people do things for no reason ?.....or just ones found unacceptable? if there is a good reason it is justifiable discrimination....but certainly still discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 that is the system we designed...one that discriminates I don't disagree, the thing is, your opinions and 'values' are not in that designation known as "the majority" anymore. this is how we make these decisions. You can try and change that, of course. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 That's why it's not discrimination, to treat murderers, differently. we treat them differently because of what the law demands...because we discriminate against their actions by law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEANDWARF Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Wait, so all this keyboard abuse was for nothing? Unless your keyboard is into that kind of stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 If murderers want to march and protest and strive for equal rights, they can do so. If enough people want to give it to them, we will. See? there's a nice simple lesson in "stupid", and why it has no place in these discussions. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 we treat them differently because of what the law demands...because we discriminate against their actions by law We don't discriminate against them at all. Despite your continued attempt to push the notion that mandating discrimination against gays, and punishing murderers, are the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEANDWARF Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 If murderers want to march and protest and strive for equal rights, they can do so. If enough people want to give it to them, we will. See? there's a nice simple lesson in "stupid", and why it has no place in these discussions. ~Bang BAM!!!!!!! Depends on what your definition of murder is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Question about using "the majority" as a basis. If the majority of Kansans want this law, should it be allowed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 (There is no reason for treating gays differently. That's WHY it's discrimination) why was the status accorded to heterosexuals forming a family in our history????? it was not because they were the same as same sex couples....it is because they were different and deemed needed. extend it to same sex couples if ya wish....you will still be bigots and discriminating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 BAM!!!!!!! Depends on what your definition of murder is. Point taken. That is another kettle of fish. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 We don't discriminate against them at all. Despite your continued attempt to push the notion that mandating discrimination against gays, and punishing murderers, are the same thing. making laws restricting actions or opportunity is the same,the justification to do so certainly differs. you ain't that dense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.