Printable View
i didn't comprehend this correctly...i thought you ment you wern't going to visit here again :lol: that's why no rebuttal.Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman@2 March 2004 - 15:22
And you talk about "writing comprehension". <_<
I will not revisit this.
I believe that the Constitution was supposed to give rights NOT take them away.Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
<!--QuoteBegin-vidcc
It's funny you mentioned about race equality....if Bush tried to change the constitution to make interracial marriages illegal there would be uproar and rightly so (and i would be the loudest shouter). Why do you want to deny human rights to someone just because you don't like their way of life?
I can't think of anything in the Constitution that takes rights away. You didn't have to put the racial card in there.
At the same time I doubt there will be an amendment to give gays the right TO marry in the Constitution either but the Constitution should not take away any rights.[/b][/quote]
Busyman.
If the constitution is not changed to allow gay people to marry then it is denying gay people their rights.
I think this is why your being accused of not answering the question.
On the one hand your saying you dont want gays to be able to marry, but on the other hand your saying that you dont think the constitution should deny people their rights.
Its either one or the other.
1. You think that gay people shouldn't be able marry, this means you want to "deny gay people their rights"
2. You think that gay people should be able to marry, this means you think the legal system/constitution needs to be changed.
It looks like your trying to have it both ways. Effectively your saying...
"I dont think gay people should be able to marry, but I dont think they should have their rights denied"
You cant have both (no gay marriages + no rights denied)
You have to make a clear cut choice. Which is it?
leftism....at the moment the constitution doesn't prevent gay marriage, in fact it is the use of the constitution (freedom, justice and liberty for ALL) that has led to the recent victories for the gay community in the courts. So Bush wants to change it.
However i do get your drift and you are actually putting my question to busyman in the direct way i should have done.
He is in a very tough moral Quagmire (i think that's how it's spelt) because of his religious beliefs so i do fully understand his objections..he believes homosexuality is wrong but as you state he also suggests that he believes in human equality.
I am on record as saying i am not keen on the homosexual way of life (well the sex bit at least) but they still have the same rights to equality as everyone else.
my country often tells the world that we are the best because we have freedom and that they should aspire to emulate us...well we should practice what we preach.
my bad :)Quote:
leftism....at the moment the constitution doesn't prevent gay marriage
I was going by Busymans argument that "I doubt there will be an amendment to give gays the right TO marry in the Constitution either".
Summed up very nicely.Quote:
Originally posted by vidcc@3 March 2004 - 03:30
leftism....at the moment the constitution doesn't prevent gay marriage, in fact it is the use of the constitution (freedom, justice and liberty for ALL) that has led to the recent victories for the gay community in the courts. So Bush wants to change it.
However i do get your drift and you are actually putting my question to busyman in the direct way i should have done.
He is in a very tough moral Quagmire (i think that's how it's spelt) because of his religious beliefs so i do fully understand his objections..he believes homosexuality is wrong but as you state he also suggests that he believes in human equality.
You asked direct questions. I gave direct answers. Some of you guys could not have been lawyers.
Your questions were answered but nevertheless you wanted another question answered without asking it. ;)
Also "I will not revisit this" referred to the subject in the post (reading comprehension). Otherwise I would have said I will not revisit here or revisit this thread. I guess I went back on revisiting it once again. ;) :lol:
Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Summed up very nicely.
You asked direct questions. I gave direct answers. Some of you guys could not have been lawyers.
Your questions were answered but nevertheless you wanted another question answered without asking it.
Also "I will not revisit this" referred to the subject in the post (reading comprehension). Otherwise I would have said I will not revisit here or revisit this thread. I guess I went back on revisiting it once again[/b]
So does that mean stopping gay marriages is more important to you than not denying gay people their rights?
<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman
I believe that the Constitution was supposed to give rights NOT take them away.
.[/quote]
You see, like I said before, your trying to have it both ways but you cant. Thats not what I call a direct answer, its what I call sitting on the fence.
It all depends on your priorities Busyman. Whats more important to you? Stopping gay marriages or making sure the Constitution doesnt take rights away?
btw you definitely havent answered that last one because no ones asked it until now :D
Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman@2 March 2004 - 07:00
Gotta question.
Would anyone on this forum tell their child that there is nothing wrong with them being gay? Better yet, would you tell them, if you had a boy, "it's ok to boys or girls"?
If the boy was young, let's say 7, and he liked a boy would you encourage this "liking"? I'm not saying sexual because he probably isn't thinking, "I wanna have sex with him".
You know how little boys have little innocent girlfriends.
Would it be the same if he liked boys?
You get the generel idea.
I would be as supportive as i could in whatever sexual preference he/she exhibeted a liking in..I dont think u choose..I KNOW i didnt..at NO time did I sit down and look at a picture of a naked guy and a picture of a naked girl and go.."OK..which one do I want?..I mean the guy is cute..but the girl is hot too....I gotta choose tho..dang..." U see what i am saying? I always liked girls...wasnt a 'choice' my body responded the way it was wired to..u could hold a picture of a naked guy up all day long and threaten me with a gun if i didnt get an erection over the guy..but i am sorry to say nothing wuld happen down there...well unless it was brad pitt but that doesnt count..he is really a girl..or is that decapria?..Just jokin..really tho..I hate strawberries..but i didnt choose to hate them..dont break me out..just dont like them...even gays who denied it growing up and dated the opposite sex all say that they always knew that they were lying to themselves...