sapphi_snake said:
osamanobama said:
so, because you dont have an answer to other groups that cant marry other groups, you call it irrelevent. So you think that since a man cant marry a man, they dont have rights that i do, even though i too cant marry a man (therefore we have the same rights), but when it comes to marrying your cousin, it doesnt matter if they cant marry each other. hypocritical much.
its too funny you dont have any facts to back up you silly illogical statements
so, because you doubt something, it makes history untrue. lol.
so, you are basically calling Clinton and all the gay people of yesterday, brainless.
So again, your reading comprehension permitting, what rights do i currently have that gays do not? please tell me, im dieing to know (im sure your dying to know this too, you probably hoping that someone else can think of one, since you clearly cannot). try learning something about my country and our laws and recent history, it will serve you well, or just stay silent on topics you know nothing about. either one
|
No, I call it irrelevant because it's irrelevant.
I already explained why gays not being allowed to marry is discriminatory. It's also plain obvious why. The problem is that your reading comprehension is lacking (another case of you seeing your own faults in other people). With you a conversation is you asking the same question over and over again, despite the fact that you already got the answer (either you're purposely ignoring it, because you don't like it, or you can't put your head around it).
Also, maybe you should learn a little more about your own country. First cousin marriage is permitted in over half the states in the US (and most allow half cousin marriages, or marriages with first cousins once removed).
And Clinton wanted to allow gays to serve in the military, but congress wouldn't allow him, so he created DADT as a 'compromise', but in reality the law didn't change things at all, since gays still weren't allowed to serve in the military (he had promised that gays would be allowed to serve, but he caved due to pressure fro manti-gay groups). As I said, this is plain obvious, and if you can't see this, then I assume euphanisms in general manage to decieve you. And considering that gays were compaigning to get DADT repelled, I do wonder where you get that they ever agreed with it. Maybe they saw it as a 'step in the right direction', but definately not the desirable solution.
Look at me, most of this post is actually a repeat of several things I've already said. I will not be repeating nay of this again. So if you still haven't gotten it, tough luck.
|
