@Petrolstone
> Married couples are given tax incentives because their relationships benefit
> society. Why would the government through money at an investment that
> doesn't do anything. Gay marriage is a money pit. Delusional politicians are
> trying to convince the public that same-sex marriages aren't allowed because
> people hate gay people. Same-sex marriage isn't supported because its a bad
> investment. Get the fairy-tale love crap out of your mind and think about the money.

This has already been explained. And quite frankly, you are wrong. A gay couple
can contribute just as much as a straight couple -- the only difference is they can't
GIVE BIRTH (Well, two men anyway). By adopting they don't tie the system down with
maternal leave anyway.

So they can contribute. And two gay females CAN have a baby. So your notion of
giving marriage only to straight couples goes straight out the window.

@avogadro
> i plready explained, that Straight people and Gay people face the same regulations
> for marriage. it is only the gay's reluctance to go by those regulations that prevent
> the majority of gays from getting married.

Thats like saying in the 30s (or whenever) blacks and whites were treated the same. They
both had the same rules -- only whites sit at the front of the bus. If a black wanted to sit
at the front of the bus, he should be white...

> it isnt absurd at all, there are plenty of Gays that have gotten married.

All over your country and mine? To other gays? I think not.

> what is wrong with my analogy?

It doesn't fit -- hence its wrong.

To Petrolstone's point: shall we stop those who can't/choose not to have kids getting married?

i am not using circular arguments; do you even know what circular arguments are? i am arguing that in the US, there is no discrimination against Gays because Gays are treated by the law the same way that Straights are. there is nothing Straights can do, that Gays cant; the law doesnt distinguish between gays and straights.

if this statement is wrong, then prove it; list a single law that distinguishes between gays and straights, in the US.

Its not about gay rights, its about gay equality.

And @avogadro straight people can marry their sexually desired partner. Gays cant. That removes
the gays right to equality and freedom.

If you take something from person A, and before you do that person has the same as person B, then
obviously afterwards person B has more of that something. So by logics standings, person B who has
more then person A meaning that person A has less then person B. We can pretty much work out that
gays have less rights. They want equal rights.

Stop beating around the bush.

"If you take something from person A, and before you do that person has the same as person B, then
obviously afterwards person B has more of that something. So by logics standings, person B who has
more then person A meaning that person A has less then person B."

we havent taken anything from person A that we havent taken from person B.

"Its not about gay rights, its about gay equality."

the law doesnt distinguish between gays and homosexuals, it is only about equality if being gay is inherently worse then being straight, inwhich case, homosexuality is a disease, and there should be steps taken to prevent it, it shouldnt be encouraged and allowed to grow.

>>And @avogadro straight people can marry their sexually desired partner. <<

> unless they're insane

This fits. I don't believe anyone unable to make informed, sane choices on who they
want to marry should be able to marry. This is closely related to my belief of having
a sound mind in order to have sexual 'relations'.

> unless they're fourteen

Read above.

> unless they're already married

I don't disagree with this...i think people should be able to marry multiple partners
(if thats what you are talking about).

> unless they're brother-sister-father-mother

Thats incest, and has shown to create abnormalities within the next generation. Just
look at any hillbilly American state .

> unless they're the same gender
> you only object to one of the five being on the list??

I object to two, and you comparing the others has been shot down. Sorry, fail, try again.

> http://i28.tinypic.com/33tikit.jpg
> Thread->closed

So you are suggesting that certain groups should be allowed freedom, based
on what YOU believe? Its not about the severity on the restrictions of freedom,
its about the general point OF freedom.

And if ANYONE thinks that you only earn freedom after centuries of suffering, then they
need to take a LONG hard look at themselves in the mirror.

> they dont have less rights. greeter freedom does not equal more rights. stop
> acting like an idiot and interchanging freedom and right, its making any possibility
> of an intelligent discussion disappear.

Yes, greater freedom does equal more rights. Its an obvious comparison, one even the
most basic mathematician will make with the most basic tools of logic.

Do people not have a right to freedom? Liberty? No? Odd. In my country, thats something
that i believe in. Maybe not everyone does, but i do. So i will interchange lack of freedom
with less rights anytime i wish. Try and stop me.

> people who wear boxers dont have more rights then someone wearing briefs; despite people
> wearing boxers having more freedom. dude, dont defend it, you're just afraid of being wrong.
> its nothing to argue over, just stop interchanging rights and freedom, because they mean two
> completely different things. until you recognize this simple fact, we cant continue.

You are comparing personal, political and civil freedom to the physical freedom of underwear?
You sir, are an idiot. And not the typical idiot either...

How can we continue when your arguments are miscalculated and misinformed? How can we
continue when you allow the rights to some, but not all?

The matter of the fact is that gays aren't contagious. They aren't a disease. They aren't a parasite
on the back of an economy, they don't want supremacy, they just want to be treated as equals.

> obviously you are too dumb to know the difference, so we cant continue
> this discussion because you are unable to understand very very basic English.

That must suck for you then, because freedom IS a right. And its a right protected by
a number international treaties and declarations:

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/Human_Rights/religion/index.html

So please, after you pull that dictionary from your arse and actually read it -- please,
please, tell me this list of rights gays want that will elevate them above equals to
us (assuming your straight, of course).

Yes, because i'm the one without a solid argument...

lol dumbass

My understanding is that a freedom of something is what is physically allowed.

"I have the freedom to move around"

A right is what's protected by some law or treaty.

"I have the right to property"

I can go wherever I want, move to wherever I want (hi avo), but obviously not into someone else's property.

Correct me if I'm wrong...please.