Bachmann proves she has no sense; alienates Fox News host - Page 2

AshleyO · 08-14-2011, 07:14 PM

So do you think it's fair that heterosexuals have a constitutional protection for their right to marriage but homosexuals have to answer to the popular vote?

Deadman... if you were gay, would you be okay with not having the right to marry the one you love BECAUSE and only because a heterosexual voter whome you don't know, just doesn't understand or like your lifestyle?

Grausamkeit · 08-14-2011, 07:14 PM

Quote:

So that way everyone has a say.

In a way it's like firearms rights (some states are super restrictive and others are really lax)

No, everyone should not have a say in the private lives of two consenting adults. Owning firearms can be dangerous, being gay normally isn't. At least...I've never heard of dangerous gay people.

AshleyO · 08-14-2011, 07:17 PM

And since I'm bringing up the constitution and you seem to be one hell of a state's rights kinda guy, how important is the constitution to you, Deadman? And when it comes to that document, should it not represent EVERY American? Or is it okay for it to just represent some Americans?

AshleyO · 08-14-2011, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grausamkeit

No, everyone should not have a say in the private lives of two consenting adults. Owning firearms can be dangerous, being gay normally isn't. At least...I've never heard of dangerous gay people.

Graus, stay out of this. I know what he's saying might get to you a bit, but I'm trying to see where he's going with this.

Deadmanwalking_05 · 08-14-2011, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AshleyO

So do you think it's fair that heterosexuals have a constitutional protection for their right to marriage but homosexuals have to answer to the popular vote?

Deadman... if you were gay, would you be okay with not having the right to marry the one you love BECAUSE and only because a heterosexual voter whome you don't know, just doesn't understand or like your lifestyle?

What I'm saying is a foothold can be established in a few states and it can grow from there .

Look at how the C.C.W. movement started (It is a bit of a stretch I'll give you that) but if enough states sign on to Gay marriage being completely legal,the better chance you have of an amendment being passed in your favor.

And with such an amendment the rights of future generations will be protected by the B.O.R. (Bill Of Rights).

AshleyO · 08-14-2011, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

What I'm saying is a foothold can be established in a few states and it can grow from there .

Look at how the C.C.W. movement started (It is a bit of a stretch I'll give you that) but if enough states sign on to Gay marriage being completely legal,the better chance you have of an amendment being passed in your favor.

And with such an amendment the rights of future generations will be protected by the B.O.R. (Bill Of Rights).

Deadman.

Does HOMOSEXUALS, by constitutional language DESERVE the right to marry? I'm not going to ask you about state's rights. I'm asking you what you think is actually FAIR for a person, not a state.

Deadmanwalking_05 · 08-14-2011, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AshleyO

And since I'm bringing up the constitution and you seem to be one hell of a state's rights kinda guy, how important is the constitution to you, Deadman? And when it comes to that document, should it not represent EVERY American? Or is it okay for it to just represent some Americans?

In my mind it does protect the rights of EVERYONE (no matter the race,religion,lack of religion,gender,or sexual oreintation)

Deadmanwalking_05 · 08-14-2011, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AshleyO

Deadman.

Does HOMOSEXUALS, by constitutional language DESERVE the right to marry? I'm not going to ask you about state's rights. I'm asking you what you think is actually FAIR for a person, not a state.

People make up the population of a state.

And the B.O.R. protects the rights of the people.

AshleyO · 08-14-2011, 07:26 PM

Deadman.

Does a homosexual DESERVE to have the right to marry?

Deadmanwalking_05 · 08-14-2011, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AshleyO

Deadman.

Does a homosexual DESERVE to have the right to marry?

Yeah.

As far as my interpretation goes.

Further more the B.O.R. makes no mention of sexual orentation as an issue (as far as my reading of it).

AshleyO · 08-14-2011, 07:32 PM

So now that you agree that Homosexuals deserve to have the right to marry, then why not have the federal government and supreme courts put it in the constitution as an amendment? It's CLEARLY a human right. Correct?

So now I want you to answer me this question.

Why is it okay for say... Colorado to ban gay marriage and New York legalize it? Why are both decisions fair in regards to the person (the homosexual)?

Deadmanwalking_05 · 08-14-2011, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AshleyO

So now that you agree that Homosexuals deserve to have the right to marry, then why not have the federal government and supreme courts put it in the constitution as an amendment? It's CLEARLY a human right. Correct?

So now I want you to answer me this question.

Why is it okay for say... Colorado to ban gay marriage and New York legalize it? Why are both decisions fair in regards to the person (the homosexual)?

Well if you want to get down to brass tacks.

Why shouldn't say California recongnize my right to C.C.W.?
My state honors California permits,but if I were to carry concealed In Cali. with my state issued permit I would then be seen as a felon?

If you think about it, it's really the same issue,both deal with the civil rights of human beings.

AshleyO · 08-14-2011, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

Well if you want to get down to brass tacks.

Why shouldn't say California recongnize my right to C.C.W.?
My state honors California permits,but if I were to carry concealed In Cali. with my state issued permit I would then be seen as a felon?

If you think about it, it's really the same issue,both deal with the civil rights of human beings.

I don't want rhetoric, Deadman. I want you to answer my question.

Also, Deadman. You can choose to own a gun. Correct?

Can you choose to be gay or not gay?

Deadmanwalking_05 · 08-14-2011, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AshleyO

I don't want rhetoric, Deadman. I want you to answer my question.

Also, Deadman. You can choose to own a gun. Correct?

Can you choose to be gay or not gay?

Hey I answered your question I think it's only right that you answer mine in kind.

Yes a person can choose to own a gun,that isn't the issue.

The issue is that both are civil rights.

AshleyO · 08-14-2011, 07:49 PM

Can you choose to be gay or not gay, Deadman?

You can choose to own a gun.

Deadmanwalking_05 · 08-14-2011, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AshleyO

Can you choose to be gay or not gay, Deadman?

You can choose to own a gun.

As far as I know it isn't a choice.

But don't you agree that both are civil rights issues?

And I really would like for you to answer my questions

Deadmanwalking_05 · 08-14-2011, 07:56 PM

Gun ownership is a choice.

But does that make it any less of a civil right?

AshleyO · 08-14-2011, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

As far as I know it isn't a choice.

Okay. It's not a choice. It is who the person is. Now. Why is it okay for Colorado to ban gay marriage and New York to legalize it if the person the debate is about can not control their sexuality but is actually exactly who they are?

Quote:

But don't you agree that both are civil rights issues?

I know you love to talk about guns, but that's not what this is about. I agree. They're both a civil right. However, the problem here so far, is that I can choose to own a gun. You can choose to own an armory of guns. You can't help that you're straight. I can't help that I'm bisexual.

So again, answer me this very simple question:
Why is it fair to have an unequal standard of rights for EQUAL human beings in regards to things we have no control over?

Quote:

And I really would like for you to answer my questions

I don't have a reason to debate with you on the merits of gun ownership. I don't disagree with you on that.

I think this conversation is almost over. Once you answer that last question of mine, I'll let you know what I think.

Deadmanwalking_05 · 08-14-2011, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AshleyO

Okay. It's not a choice. It is who the person is. Now. Why is it okay for Colorado to ban gay marriage and New York to legalize it if the person the debate is about can not control their sexuality but is actually exactly who they are?

I know you love to talk about guns, but that's not what this is about. I agree. They're both a civil right. However, the problem here so far, is that I can choose to own a gun. You can choose to own an armory of guns. You can't help that you're straight. I can't help that I'm bisexual.

So again, answer me this very simple question:
Why is it fair to have an unequal standard of rights for EQUAL human beings in regards to things we have no control over?

I don't have a reason to debate with you on the merits of gun ownership. I don't disagree with you on that.

I think this conversation is almost over. Once you answer that last question of mine, I'll let you know what I think.

It isn't fair.

AshleyO · 08-14-2011, 08:04 PM

So when a state chooses to do something that is CLEARLY unfair to its citizens, then why is it bad for the federal government to get involved and set them straight?

Deadmanwalking_05 · 08-14-2011, 08:08 PM

It wasn't fair to own slaves either and look what happend after more states signed anti-slavery laws,and as a result more states signed on and following the civil war there were amendments to the consitution that protected the rights of future generations of former slaves.

I support the rights of LGBT though I am not of their number.

They are still U.S. citizens and they have the rights to be as they are.

AshleyO · 08-14-2011, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

It wasn't fair to own slaves either and look what happend after more states signed anti-slavery laws,and as a result more states signed on and following the civil war there were amendments to the consitution that protected the rights of future generations of former slaves.

No. That was a war maneuver by the north. The federal government initiated the Emancipation Proclamation in order to undermine the Southern economy. It had nothing to do with state's rights AND I might add, the southern states DID go to civil war because they didn't think their state's rights were being respected (because they were wrong). Is that what you think should be the solution? Should we once again, have a civil war over the equal treatment of our nation's constituents?

Quote:

I support the rights of LGBT though I am not of their number.

I doubt it, Deadman. You equate being gay to being able to choose to own a gun. I'm not sure if that means you support them or not.

Quote:

They are still U.S. citizens and they have the rights to be as they are.

You're right. They do deserve to have equal rights. This isn't a state's right debate. This is a human right's debate. State's rights don't mean shit when human decency is on the line.

Deadmanwalking_05 · 08-14-2011, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AshleyO

No. That was a war maneuver by the north. The federal government initiated the Emancipation Proclamation in order to undermine the Southern economy. It had nothing to do with state's rights AND I might add, the southern states DID go to civil war because they didn't think their state's rights were being respected (because they were wrong). Is that what you think should be the solution? Should we once again, have a civil war over the equal treatment of our nation's constituents?

I doubt it, Deadman. You equate being gay to being able to choose to own a gun. I'm not sure if that means you support them or not.

You're right. They do deserve to have equal rights. This isn't a state's right debate. This is a human right's debate. State's rights don't mean shit when human decency is on the line.

I'm looking at it purely from a civil rights perspective.

The federal govenment got involved because they had the backing of?....

OTHER STATES that were aginst slavery,and saw it for what it was.

Alan · 08-14-2011, 08:21 PM

But not all. And those others didn't respect one of the most fundamental human rights.
But hey, states rights!

AshleyO · 08-14-2011, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

I'm looking at it purely from a civil rights perspective.

The federal govenment got involved because they had the backing of?....

OTHER STATES that were aginst slavery,and saw it for what it was.

So was it okay for the south to have slavery, Deadman? Is a state's right to be horrible to its people more or equally as important as a human being that deserves equal rights and protections by law?