I still want a different word for 'gay marriage'

What constitutional right are you talking about?
Be specific.In Message 130(which you didn't rely to), I linked to a news article that says:

quote:

---

Gay and lesbian couples have no constitutional right to marry in New York

---

So... Aren't you imposing your idea of what society should be like on the rest of us? But isn't that what governing a society is?

If your being intolerant then you not being tolerant. Simple logic. C'mon holmes...I never said that.I'm not talking about actively opressing people here. People who aren't tolerant get bitched at (and called names) by the so called tolerant people. Where's their tolerance?

Look, we can play this all day. But you can't refute A != ~A. (Surely they still teach symbolic logic? I mean I trust that meaning is clear, right?) Tolerance doesn't mean you can't be disagreed with. People have every right to express their vocal disagreement with people who are expressing their vocal disagreement.I guess we've found the hypocrisy, though. You believe that homophobes have every right to speak out against a group, but nobody has the right to speak out against them. Pretty hypocritical, I'd say.

What's being imposed? If you don't want to get gay married, you don't have to. If someone you know gets gay married you can pretend that it isn't real. I mean, what exactly are you being forced into?

No, I don't have a lot of time today sorry. ...and neither can you. But if they are gonna act all holier-than-thou then they shouldn't employ the name calling and bring themselves down to the level they're bitching about. That's the hypocracy I was talking about. That's false, holmes. Please try again.

It's "crashfrog", actually, and I'll simply repeat it, since you didn't refute it: I mean, what else are we talking about, here? Nobody's suggested that we're locking up homophobes - just, telling them what we think about them. Which they feel perfectly free to do in regards to how they feel about gays.So, you're defending the right of homophobes to say what they like, but you don't feel that the opponents of homophobia have the same right. In other words, we've finally discovered some hypocrisy - yours.

but being intolerent of intolerence is better than being just intolerent of something. being that you have a logical reason to be intolerentto stand by and wath someone get oppressed because someone can't tolerate them is purely wrong.
you equate not being able to tolerate gay people with not tolerating homophobes?
people who dislike hate, dislike it because well.. its hate, theres no
real reason for it.to argue this you have to make hating someone you don't know based nothing on their actions or feelings or knowledge, which most people who hate gay people do. equal with hating the actions and feelings of a person who hates a person they don't know a damn thing aboutthe hypocracy isn't there if there is one, its trying to make hating equal in all cases without bothering to look at the object of the hate

quote:

---

Aren't you imposing your idea of what society should be like on the rest of us? But isn't that what governing a society is?

---

I'm not forcing anybody to have a gay marriage.But since your reason for being against it are monetary in nature, I'll say again:Where is it written that you have the right to deny others' rights just so you can continue to enjoy cheaper healthcare?Do not confuse your continued enjoyment of a privilage as equivalent to a right.

quote:

---

What constitutional right are you talking about?

---

The Fourteenth Amendment.Specifically, the Equal Protection Clause.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

The 14th amendment doesn't give gays the right to marry. Actually, in the message you replied to, and the one upthread that you didn't reply to, I gave a link that said that gays had no constitutional right to marry (in New York specifically).The 14th amendment protects gays from things like DOMA, which I'm not supporting. I've never seen that written anywhere and I don't believe that I have any right like that. Then again, you haven't told me what rights I'm denying others anyways, so I don't even know what you're typing about.

I agree. That's true too. I'm not equating the two. I just find it annoying when people preach tolerance through name-calling and intolerance. Well I'm not arguing that.

That's funny. We all know how repeating something makes it true. I forgot. I'll have to read upthread and find out what I was saying and what you thought I was saying and figure it all out, which I don't think I really have time to do today. Not true, I believe that the opponents of homophobia have the same rights as the homophobes.

A more liberal society.

Sure it does. It gives any citizen of the US the same rights enjoyed by any other citizen of the US.Straight citizens of the United States have the right to marry. Therefore, gay citizens of the United States get it too.

As long as laws aren't being passed to prevent gays from getting married then the 14th amendment isn't being violated. By default, gays are not included in marriage. The 14th amendment does not require marriage to be changed to include gays.

So where were you when the last election went down?Regardless... you're wrong. If the government has a system in place to recognize the marriages of one group of people, and not another, then the government is denying a set of people within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.But all that being said... if there can be no laws preventing them from getting married, then they can get married. So there you go. 1) Sez you. There are thousands of gay marriages out there right now. The government just chooses to not recognize them.2) But assuming you're right, then according to the 14th amendment, the default has to change. Otherwise, the law will be favoring one set of citizens over another. Got'cha. Just because it says they need to be treated equally, it doesn't require that the law actually treat them equally.Edited by Dan Carroll, : For clarification of some points.