QuiGon

I don't ever remember seeing these questions... belileve you me, this is not an argument I run away from... I gotta be honest with you... I don't have the first clue what you are asking here... if you can rephrase the question so that I am able to understand, I will gladly respond. It doesn't. And I have never said it did or it would. My opinion on gay marriage is summed up more eloquently than anything I could ever compose on my own from the words of RealWorld (whom I hope does not object to my quoting him here): "This isn't about the legal ramifications of marriage, as much as it is about the acceptance it represents." That's why the gay lobby is not satiated merely by legalized civil unions.Hopefully the above is satisfactory. I will gladly answer the first question if you elaborate what it is you are asking.

PF1996

It's about "acceptance" to intolerant righties like you. The majority of gays wants their constitutional rights upheld because of the legal ramifications of marriage, not because of a thirst for "acceptance" from bigots. States are not obligated to recognise the civil union laws of another state as they are obligated to recognise marriage. Secondly, gays would have to fight to have civil union laws enacted in every state and then fight to have the relevant legal rights encapsulated in those civil union laws. However, if a gay couple's right to legal marriage is recognised, it would then eliminate the need
for those additional, costly steps.

Having said that - why would it be wrong for a gay person to want "acceptance"? I've yet to hear a rational argument from righties for their opposition to legalised marriage status for gays but your implied "because gays are using it as a way to gain acceptance and we do not want gays to be accepted" would really take the prize as the dumbest yet.


P.S.

Thought you were banned? Not that I'm complaining because I find you quite entertaining

godef

Of course you don't remember, because you blew off my argument in typical QuiGonian fashion, telling me my analogy of a vote against slavery to a vote against gay marriage to be nonsense, but refusing to explain why because it was not even worthy to bother with. I mean, how lame can you be in deflecting a point of argument?

My first question was: How does a vote against gay marriage provide this "right to life and liberty" to gays?

What? Are you illiterate? I hoped the quotations helped. In the thread which you ducked out of, you said, and I quote, "a man has the right to life and liberty". Beyond this, I don't know how to re-phrase that any simpler than I did.

And my second question was: How does a vote FOR gay marriage deny this right to life and liberty from you?

This answer to the second question was only satisfactory in the sense that you admit it doesn't. The basis of the argument and my questions was specifically about your "right to life and liberty" quote, not about any of this legalese that you are attempting to hide behind.

The constutition is the basis for everything considered legal in this country. So please, on this basis, answer the questions, no more misdirection. Because you claim it is your "right to life and liberty" to be able to vote against gay marriage. I believe that such a vote directly impacts the "right to life and liberty" of gays. My questions are intended to show that you are wrong.

__________________
See you at Super Bowl XLVI!

Patters