TheRealMafoo said:
Seece said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Seece said:
What you said was the dubest thing I ever heard.
|
Sorry that you and I being able to do the exact same thing, meaning we have the exact same rights (all be it less then we should), to be the dumbest thing you have ever heard.
I should have the right to form a union with a man just as you should. It's not a gay right. Your not some special case. You a human. You deserve no more rights then me. Sorry.
|
You have the right to marry your life partner, I don't.
Don't come out with some crap that I can marry a woman, that's BS.
|
I don't have the right to marry your life parter either. You could marry mine. SAME RIGHTS.
I am not saying you shouldn't have the right to marry your life partner, I am just saying our rights are the same.
If my wife died and I decided to just spend the rest of my life living with my father, he would be my life parter, and I should be allowed the same rights between him and I, that I have with my wife.
We both can't do that, because of the rights we both don't have. Same rights. You might not like that answer, but it does not make it less true. |
Let me ask you a different question, then. In Massachusettes (and a few other states, but for the time being, that is irrelevant), gay marriage is legal. So I could marry a partner, and you have your marriage with yours. But, when that tax time comes, we can both file our state taxes as married, but we can't do the same for the federal taxes? Why? What it means is that the federal government is not willing to recognize a same-sex marriage, and this is why it needs to be legalized. What if we both moved to some hick state? Your marriage is still valid, but mine is nullified by the state. Again, why?
There is just too much inequality in this all. The legal definition of marriage is:
To make a valid marriage, the parties must be willing to contract, able to contract, and have actually contracted.They must be willing to contract. Those persons, therefore, who have no legal capacity in point of intellect, to make a contract, cannot legally marry, as idiots, lunatics, and infants; males under the age of fourteen, and females under the age of twelve; and when minors over those ages marry, they must have the consent of their parents or guardians. Source: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m087.htm
So I, a male, 29, of reasonably sound mind and judgment, want to marry another male, say... 26, also of reasonably sound mind and judgment. What in this definition stops us? Yet we're still barred, indicating that the rights are not applied equally. This is where the injustice is. Marriage is a legal contract, that they are deciding to pick and choose whose they will allow. That's not how a contract works. Thus, could I marry a woman? By this very definition, no; I'm not willing to contract with a woman for this. So I am being told that I can't get married. We're not asking for special rights; we're asking for the word of the law to actually be upheld.