Why do gays..

[jimnyc]

Want "equal rights" and equality for all, but so many of them are all for infringing on the rights of others on a list of other topics?

[jimnyc]

Copying from another thread to remain on topic...

I'd hardly call having a gun shoved in your face equality for all. Any gun any time any place must end. What message does a posse of armed gun nuts give a group of high school students in Starbucks?

So you would infringe on the constitutional rights of another to own/carry a gun, but you demand equality for all when it comes to love and marriage? If you want to step on the rights of others, then WHY should anyone care about YOUR rights when you demand them?

[jimnyc]

C'mon WS, if you won't address the subject elsewhere and claim its off topic, address it here. Why is it ok for you to stomp on others rights while making demands of your own out the other side of your mouth?

[darin]

Copying from another thread to remain on topic...



So you would infringe on the constitutional rights of another to own/carry a gun, but you demand equality for all when it comes to love and marriage? If you want to step on the rights of others, then WHY should anyone care about YOUR rights when you demand them?

It's not quite true to claim some gays want 'equality' in marriage. They still support laws governing age, and polygamy, and inter-species marriage. They don't want everyone/thing to be equal, they want special justification for their chosen behavior.

[Noir]

I don't understand the premis of the OP...the point of equality is people are treated equal, if the gays wanted the constitution changed so only gays could carry guns, that would be promoting inequality.

However, if you still consider the point made in the OP to be a decent one then just change the terms...'How can a woman say that she should have the right to vote, if that woman also says that smoking cannabis should be illegal. She only wants her rights, and is happy for the state to crush the rights of others'

Feel free to put in your own 'social activism' issue and 'should be illegal/legal' issue to the above paragraph.

[cadet]

I think the main issue is they want marriage. Unfortunitaly, that's mostly a religious term (in pretty much every religion out there). If they want to, they can live together, share together, get on the same tax's and whatnot, but they want the word.

find a church, cathedral, etc. that will support it. it's against pretty much every religion, so i don't see a point in wanting it. you live together either way. One way just has a special magical ( :facepalm: )word in it.

Who cares what you call it? are you happy? go live together, but don't talk to me about it. Else i'll start talking about how awesome my girlfriend is.

[fj1200]

I think the main issue is they want marriage. Unfortunitaly, that's mostly a religious term (in pretty much every religion out there). If they want to, they can live together, share together, get on the same tax's and whatnot, but they want the word.

find a church, cathedral, etc. that will support it. it's against pretty much every religion, so i don't see a point in wanting it. you live together either way. One way just has a special magical ( :facepalm: )word in it.

Who cares what you call it? are you happy? go live together, but don't talk to me about it. Else i'll start talking about how awesome my girlfriend is.

It's more than a word in society today. The state has control over the definition, not a church.

[fj1200]

Want "equal rights" and equality for all, but so many of them are all for infringing on the rights of others on a list of other topics?

Two different issues Jim, one is being gay the other is being liberal except that both vest power in the state.

[tailfins]

Want "equal rights" and equality for all, but so many of them are all for infringing on the rights of others on a list of other topics?

Somebody explained the traditional New England mentality on the topic. Yes, it's a sin and yes, they are asking for God's judgement in this life and after. However being nosy and a talebearer is also a sin. So basically, it's none of our business up to the point they disrupt our lives. If one of their demonstrations is blocking traffic, I will be one of the first to blare my horn and scream get your @$$ out of my way. And I will be grateful to the cops when they arrest them.

It's not necessary to turn children against homosexuality. The gays do the job for me. My family went cruising Provincetown. If you don't know what it is, look it up. My youngest went into a convenience store to get a soda and a souvenir. He got the soda only. He told me all the souvenirs were "inappropriate". Both my sons said the visit was interesting, but next time we go to the Cape, we don't need to go any further than Hyannis.

[ConHog]

I think some of you are missing Jim's point. And I also think that even he would agree that it isn't just gays who who will fight tooth and nail for their own rights, but don't give a shit about the rights of others.

In fact, I would say that unless Jim now supports gay marriage, recognizing that even gays have rights, that he's as big a hypocrite as Sky is when she rails against the second amendment.

Is it just selfish human nature to only care about our own rights?

[jimnyc]

I think some of you are missing Jim's point.

Yep...

This thread was made in the honor of WS. She DEMANDS rights, and states that it is based on the COTUS. In the very next breath, she wants rights taken away from others, that are granted to them by the COTUS. Pure hypocrisy, and not the first gay person I have saw that wanted these Constitutional rights but wanted to trample on the document at the same time.

[jimnyc]

I don't understand the premis of the OP...the point of equality is people are treated equal, if the gays wanted the constitution changed so only gays could carry guns, that would be promoting inequality.

However, if you still consider the point made in the OP to be a decent one then just change the terms...'How can a woman say that she should have the right to vote, if that woman also says that smoking cannabis should be illegal. She only wants her rights, and is happy for the state to crush the rights of others'

Feel free to put in your own 'social activism' issue and 'should be illegal/legal' issue to the above paragraph.

We're talking about wanting rights and claiming they are afforded by the COTUS - and taking away rights that are very clearly afforded by the COTUS. Cannabis smoking is not in the document. In American, the Constitution is perhaps the single most important part of our government & freedoms. It's not something to toy with when you want something, and then in the next breath try and have rights taken away from others that were in this document for well over 200 years.

[tailfins]

I think some of you are missing Jim's point. And I also think that even he would agree that it isn't just gays who who will fight tooth and nail for their own rights, but don't give a shit about the rights of others.

In fact, I would say that unless Jim now supports gay marriage, recognizing that even gays have rights, that he's as big a hypocrite as Sky is when she rails against the second amendment.

Is it just selfish human nature to only care about our own rights?

I don't know about selfish, but it's just plain stupid. Either the law works or it doesn't. If occupiers can disrupt a CEOs life, they can disrupt yours. If George Zimmerman can be lynched, anyone can. If a woman can use abuse allegation to manipulate divorce proceedings, then children can as well. A crafty teenager could demand a "bidding war" between their parents. Most things have a next step.

[Noir]

We're talking about wanting rights and claiming they are afforded by the COTUS - and taking away rights that are very clearly afforded by the COTUS. Cannabis smoking is not in the document. In American, the Constitution is perhaps the single most important part of our government & freedoms. It's not something to toy with when you want something, and then in the next breath try and have rights taken away from others that were in this document for well over 200 years.

I agree it's not to be toyed with, it is however free to be debated at length and if it's decided so then changed. I'm sure there isn't a single user on this board who wouldn't want some right given, taken, or redefined in some way. Having those opinions isn't limited to gays, and nor is it a negative thing to have.

[jimnyc]

I agree it's not to be toyed with, it is however free to be debated at length and if it's decided so then changed. I'm sure there isn't a single user on this board who wouldn't want some right given, taken, or redefined in some way. Having those opinions isn't limited to gays, and nor is it a negative thing to have.

Absolutely, the ability to debate should always be an open door. But it's still hypocritical to use the document to try and protect yourself while the other side of your mouth is crying to have things removed from the document. The COTUS is about ALL of our rights, not to just any one given group.