Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 8202

[On gay equality]

I accept and agree with equal rights. They already have these though. Every single homosexual is entitled to marry someone of the opposite sex anytime they so choose.

Lyric's Dad, 123 Christian Forums 27 Comments [10/29/2005 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
Spaz

Good job jackass, that's exactly what equal rights mean

10/29/2005 3:16:32 PM

Darth Wang

Is he really that dumb, or is he just being an asshole?

10/29/2005 6:31:10 PM

Jesse Custer

Now, he -does- have a point. The way the law is written right now, everyone -does- have the same right.

I don't have the right to marry a man. I do have the right to marry a woman.

Gay men don't have the right to marry a man. They do have the right to marry a woman.

If they don't -want- to marry a woman, that's not my problem. They're allowed to.

There's plenty of things that I want to do that don't hurt anyone else, and I'm not allowed to do them. *shrug*

10/29/2005 7:27:52 PM

TDR

I think he's just being wilfully ignorant. When a man gets married, generally (in theory, anyway) he doesn't just marry \"a woman\" he marries the woman he LOVES. Gay men love men, gay women love women - in order for them to have a happy loving marriage, they can't marry someone of the opposite sex.

I would have thought that that should be obvious.

10/29/2005 8:52:33 PM

Jesse Custer

It may be obvious ... however, from a legal standpoint, he -is- correct.

It -is- equal protection under the law. The law doesn't say that you can marry whoever you want ... it says that you can marry someone of the opposite sex. If a member of the opposite sex is who you want to marry, that's just a happy accident.

It's interesting - I'd never even thought of that, until I read that post. It's a very interesting point, legally speaking. Whether or not you agree with it in principle, it -does- meet the definition of equal protection.

10/30/2005 12:01:03 AM

Jesse Custer

It may be obvious ... however, from a legal standpoint, he -is- correct.

It -is- equal protection under the law. The law doesn't say that you can marry whoever you want ... it says that you can marry someone of the opposite sex. If a member of the opposite sex is who you want to marry, that's just a happy accident.

It's interesting - I'd never even thought of that, until I read that post. It's a very interesting point, legally speaking. Whether or not you agree with it in principle, it -does- meet the definition of equal protection.

10/30/2005 1:50:07 AM

ooh_child

Actually Jesse, this is a common argument used by anti-choice wingnuts. It's their way of sticking their fingers in their ears & chanting \"la la la\", when confronted with the fact that there are plenty of same-sex couples who are truly committed to each other.

They ignore the fact that if a gay person chose to marry opposite of their preferred gender, it would be fraud.

10/30/2005 2:57:03 AM

Crosis

<<< Is he really that dumb, or is he just being an asshole? >>>

My bet is on \"asshole\".

10/30/2005 3:23:14 AM

Jesse Custer

(First, let me just say up front that I'm playing devil's advocate here. I personally think that if I've got to suffer through marriage, then so should they!)

Yahweh ... the link you posted concerns a law controlling how the government purchases IT gear, in relation to making it usable by disabled people. How is this relevant?

www.section508.gov

As far as \"the benefits of marriage\" goes, exactly what are those? There is no tax benefit to being married - the married filing jointly standard deduction is exactly the same as two people filing singly. And, hell, all you'd have to do is change the wording to \"cohabiting, filing jointly.\"

Are there any other benefits that I'm missing?



10/31/2005 2:36:11 AM

Jesse Custer

Also, your analogy to having to become Christian to marry is flawed from the outset. Such a law would be unconstitutional on the face of it - it would be tantamount to establishing a state religion.

Far more applicable would be an analogy to, say, the Catholic church refusing to sanction (or perform) a marriage in which one (or both) participants was not a Catholic. The marriage is not official until the ceremony is performed, and since the priest has refused to perform it, he's holding up your legal process.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no law against this happening, is there?

10/31/2005 2:39:40 AM

√ėyvind

Except it's such a red herring that it's a joke.

2/8/2007 11:31:46 PM

JP

Yes, but imagine if it worked in reverse.

2/9/2007 9:09:46 PM



Only that they don't feel attracted to them. In which sense is it a "right"?

9/11/2007 5:54:46 AM

agentCDE

I have the right to marry someone I am actually attracted to.

Hypothetical James is attracted to other men. Hypothetical James does not have the right to marry someone he is actually attracted to.

Ergo, he does not have equal rights. QED.

9/11/2007 7:46:00 AM

GigaGuess

@Jesse

Primarily, by the absolute letter of the law, yes, it is equal. But it is not fair. It's a lot like saying you can get any size of jeans you want, so long as it's a waist size of 30 or under. Everyone gets jeans, but not everyone is happy with them.

Next is the "benefits of marriage." I'm not exactly boned up on tax laws, so I'm not gonna try. But a committed gay man will never, as it stands, be a legal next of kin. In the eyes of the law, he is a roommate, and no better. He has no say over health care, if no will is drawn up, he's screwed, he gets no consideration whatsoever as a widower. Again, not fair.

Finally, the Church DOESN'T have to become involved in a marriage. That's why the gay community is so up in arms about this. We are far more concerned with the legal aspect, than the religious. I speak for myself here, but if the church chooses not to recognize my relationship, and my marriage, I don't care. But in terms of a legal standpoint, my relationship is just as valid as Bob and Ethel down the street. So why should I have to take a backseat to them?

9/11/2007 7:58:01 AM

haywood jablomy

I've heard this cliche as often as I hear the "Adam and Steve" line.

9/11/2007 8:49:08 AM

Alena

No, sweetheart, what that means is "all straight people have the right to marry someone they love." We want to change that to "everyone has the right to marry someone they love."

I know that 'love' is almost as hard a concept to grasp as compassion, but maybe you'll get there.

9/11/2007 9:41:24 AM

Oriet

"And if gay marriage was allowed, then heterosexuals would be allowed to marry the same sex anytime they so choose."

Seems that equal rights would be protected there too. Oh, but wait! You can't just marry anytime you so choose anyways, like the people in the Babble could, cause polygamy isn't allowed either.

9/11/2007 9:51:40 AM

GigaGuess

@Oriet

The only granule of fact in this is when the "Ex" gays who are "happily" married may realize that they don't have to continue on with their sham marriages.

9/11/2007 8:45:31 PM

ericm6

its funny when people say this, because they are completly ignoring the other side. it is not equal because they dont have the right to marry somebody of the same sex.

4/14/2009 10:25:10 AM

Mog

"Black people have the same right white people do - to marry someone of the same race."

Oh, oopsies. The argument is so similar, I got a little confused. My bad.

8/25/2009 6:02:34 AM

Shant

I've always enjoyed hearing fundies use this argument, especially when it can be turned back on them so easily.

I'd love to hear what Lyric's Dad would have to say if the United States suddenly decided to ban all religions with the exception of Islam. By his logic, since everyone would have the same freedom to practice Islam, religious equality would be preserved. To throw his own words back at him: Every single American would be entitled to worship and praise Allah anytime they so choose.

How does that sound, LD? =3

8/25/2009 6:14:36 PM

EyeJest

Marriage is about being with someone you love for the rest of your life. It should not have anything to do with sexual orientation.

10/2/2009 10:08:16 PM

HazelHolly

UGH. THAT IS NOT EQUAL RIGHTS. I will now prove that:

Heterosexuals can marry the person they love (provided the other person is consenting) at any time, because the person they love is of the opposite gender to them. However, homosexuals cannot marry the person they love at any time, because that person in of the same gender as them.

Therefore, heteros have the right to marry someone they love but homosexuals do not.

12/27/2009 4:12:49 AM

Kayube

And if same-sex marriage is legalized, straight people will also have the option of marrying someone of the same sex.

2/21/2010 11:40:45 AM
1 2