A question for the okra farmerFollow

Varrus,

You mentioned in a past thread that you have a "*****" friend. You then later went off on a rant when we said that ***** is an offensive term and that there was a homosexual conspiracy to hijack the word gay, but that's another matter.

Assuming that money and travel is no issue, and your friend is going to get married in a legal marriage in a state with gay marriage, would you attend the wedding? Why or why not?

If you say yes, I would wonder why you would attend a ceremony that you are clearly against.
If you say no, I wonder why you wouldn't attend when you've stated that it is a state's decision and if the state supports gay marriage then you're fine with that.

Just curious. Explanations are nice, sources not needed.

Locked,



We're not that close. But I wouldn't. I wouldn't because I don't believe in supporting something I disagree with.

Would it change if you were good friends?

Locked,



I'm for marriage being up to the states to decide.

That's just reading into what he said. He didn't say either way, he just said he's for states deciding the legality of same-sex marriages. That doesn't declare an individual preference to one side or the other.

Not defending Varrus, just seems irrelevant.

I didn't say he did exactly, what I'm saying is that history has shown us that bad decisions can be made by law makers. We argue and questions these laws so we can live in a fair society. In my opinion, if two people of the same sex want to be together, what right has the state to deny them that right?

Where does it say marriage is a privilege, not a right?

I think I should bow-out of this conversation, I'm getting caught up between stupid American law and UK law.

I'm not conversant enough with US law.

You're confusing Civil Rights with Constitutional Rights. Civil Rights (ie. Suffrage) can be afforded or denied for any/all. It protects individuals from state or government power to ensure they can participate in society. Political and Civil rights make up the first portion of Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

People have the civil right to vote.
People have the civil right to a fair trial.
People have protection from unfair discrimination as a civil right.

Just because it can be taken away, or government can intervene on civil rights based on eligibility and/or infringement doesn't make them any less valid as rights. Any indiviual(s) that follows the law of country and/or state and is eligible has the right to vote. You cannot take that right from that person. You're arguement is with intervention on a state or government level. Not with the right, itself.

Ryne,



You're right, at least it sounds right. I stand corrected.

I am assuming that hangten either does, indeed farm okra, or that is some sort of insult based on his/her/its points of view being very conservative?

I can kind of respect this. One shouldn't let friends or family get in the way of what they believe in.

Sad news, looks like Varrus got banned again.

Wonder what his new name will be?

I was starting to wonder, it's odd for no Varrus posts on a Monday by noon. Especially with gbaji's deficit discussion.