you're a moron who doesnt even know the difference between a freedom and a right, and is incapable on understanding my argument.

copy and pasting a link or anything doesnt show that you know squat.

"freedom IS a right"

if freedom is a right, theres the freedom to kill, and theres the freedom to survive that contradict, so unless international treaties contradict themselves in regard to protecting freedom, you're just making up bullshit. yeah, saying freedom is a right is a stupid as shit thing for you to say. your entire argument is based on these stupid as hell things, that arent worth disputing because they are obviously wrong to anyone who knows the language. i hope, that english is not your native language, and your failure to make a decent argument is because of your lack of proficiency with the language and not that you're a mentally retarded individual, but thats the optimist in me shining through. before you try to make an argument on an english forum, please learn the language better.

You won't get what you are waiting for, you won't get him to tackle your argument head on, what you will get is frustrated as he picks on one tiny point of contention within your argument (but not actually important to it) and argue about that until a new one comes along....

Read back... Deja Vu? Circular argument. It is all Avogadro does, he's just Decimus only not so blunt.

> It is all Avogadro does, he's just Decimus only not so blunt.

Yeah, and at least Decimus was sometimes funny .

> and im still waiting for you to show a knowledge of the
> difference between a right and a freedom.

You are only proving Fokker's point.

Gay people want

1 moral opposition to a lifestyle to evaporate

2 arbitrary reversal of common defintions, preferrably by nonelected judges rewriting century old law

3 universal moral code applauding their lifestyle

4 acceptance that any criticsm of these demands is the return of jim crow, the third reich and the spanish inquisition

As society changes, learns and grows it changes its laws accordingly. Over
time minority groups have slowly been given the right to equality (That is,
they have been given equal rights as the rest). Blacks, natives, women,
now gays.

To oppose giving equal rights to these people might seem absurd to you, but
it WILL happen. And to oppose these rights simply because they are against
outdated laws is stupid -- thats why your constitution has amendments.

I think the most important thing is that people will eventually realise that equality
is an enivitiability. The purpose of a state is not to restrict freedom of choice
or belief it is to protect the foundations of society -- by providing security, emergency
services; and it is to produce quality workers to join the economical cycle. What
a perfectly sane adult chooses to do in their time is their business.

1 you're not arguing that you don't want this. You're arguing we oughta cave. I'm sure you know about the religious proscriptions.

2. In this country they're after the word.

3. Not quite, but they do want applause for standing up and announcing their desire to be buggered.

4. I think I reported accurately

> they already have equal rights. list 1 right that straight people have
> that gays dont. there isnt one, the law doesnt distinguish between
> gays and straights, they have equal rights.

To marry someone, a perfectly sane adult, they are physically (and mutually) attracted to.

> no one has that right.

No, but they (straights) have that ability. The ability specifically given to them by the
government and specifically NOT given to gays.

Gays have the right to equality. Equal treatment in the eyes of the government.

There do not have equal rights...

> i did not ask for an ability that straights have that gays dont. you said that gays dont
> have equal rights, and i asked you to list a single right Straights have that Gays dont.
> and you failed.

Gays have the right to equality, which was explained. Not receiving this right means that
gays don't have equal rights. I know this might be confusing for such a simplistic hypocrite
as yourself, but it does make sense. I could give you an analogy, but my time would be
wasted.

> either state a rigth straights have that gays dont or retract he statement. 

*Sigh*. Since you can't follow basic logic, i'll switch directions. Yes, straights have the right
to marry. That is an extra right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/declaration/16.asp

In many countries, some U.S. states included, straight couples are given the LEGAL RIGHT to marriage.

> it is not not given to gays, it is considered impossible for gays to be married because the
> most popular definition of marriage includes that it is between a man and a woman. it is a
> tiny minority of the population that dont beleive this, and they are only trying to change the
> definition for selfish desires.

- A minority of your countries population.
- Which census proves the populations belief?
- selfish desires = desire for equality? Those bastards!!

"Gays have the right to equality,"

no they dont. no right to equality exists. if someone loses their leg, the government doesnt chop off everyone else's leg in the name of equality; neither straights or gays of the right of equality.

"
*Sigh*. Since you can't follow basic logic, i'll switch directions. Yes, straights have the right
to marry. That is an extra right:"

oh i followed, it, you failed to respond to my point about it though, let me remind you "
the government doesnt distinguish between gays and straights, it is impossible for treatment to be any more equal."

"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanr

"Equality means equal rights and rules. Etc. Etc."

"Gays have the right to equality, which was explained. Not receiving this right means that
gays don't have equal rights."

so you're saying gays dont have equal rights because they dont have equal rights.  thats what your argument is boiling down to.  come on, list a single right gays dont have that straights do, you're still unable to. you just say they dont have equal rights, but are unable to list a right that they dont have, i think thats pretty good evidence that you dont know of any.

"But the rules only allow for straights to be 'happy'."

the rules allow gays to be happy too

"polls and ballots" say that Jesus is the dead undead saviour. Polls and ballots means nothing,
without reference to a particular poll."

no, they say that the majority of the population believes that. which doesnt prove he exists. but showing that the majority of the population considers something to be part of a definition of a word is a more valid argument for that being the definition of the word, then any other.