Heterosexual Rights & Issues

[Hetalia Dakota 2 II]

Divorce crisis?

Don't even ask. Some people here believe there is one, and that it has something to do with heterosexual rights.

Breaking up of traditional straight marriage isn't a hetero issue?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

There are other issues regarding siblings getting married, as you're likely aware, so let's not pretend that they're the equivalent.

Ignoring second wives still, and infertile siblings.

Polygamy isn't a moral issue so much as a legally complicated one, especially when it comes to inheritance issues, benefits, and power of attorney. Work those things out, and I'm fine with it. Infertile siblings are an even trickier issue, If there's a push to allow for it, then I'll listen to the arguments.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

The only heterosexual issue I can think of from gay marriage being legal are inheritance laws. But that's easily resolved in courts.

I see little use of this thread then.

The first two posts on this thread said that.

Heterosexuals already have all the rights and recognition. Homosexuals don't.

:rofl:
What a joke.

[Godular]

"I can't marry the three people I love so you can't marry even one you love!"

Your logic is im-press-ive.

That's not my logic. I was merely demonstrating whoever it was whose argument started with "you can marry who you love" that that assumption could easily be false.

You were sort of tossing in a slippery slope aspect to it though, on the assumption that there would be nothing to impede the progression.

As long as they're consenting adults, it seems to be that the prevailing opinion is "Whatevs"

[Excidium Planetis]

The only heterosexual issue I can think of from gay marriage being legal are inheritance laws. But that's easily resolved in courts.

I see little use of this thread then.

I think the point of this thread was "You shouldn't force heterosexuals to serve gay customers" and "You shouldn't force churches to marry gay couples".

[Prussia-Steinbach]

"I can't marry the three people I love so you can't marry even one you love!"

Your logic is im-press-ive.

That's not my logic. I was merely demonstrating whoever it was whose argument started with "you can marry who you love" that that assumption could easily be false.

You'd rather no one have that right, if one hundred percent can't?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

There are other issues regarding siblings getting married, as you're likely aware, so let's not pretend that they're the equivalent.

There is no difference under the argument that marrying who you love should be okay. Obviously they are not equal in many ways, but under the premise of free love, they would be.

There are significant legal differences, and in the case of any incestuous relationships, medical issues to be considered, as well as power relationships.

[Pragia]

I'm game with folks doing whatever as long as both are adults and agree, back onto straight issues however.
What sort of STRAIGHT issues would you like to discuss instead of bringing in how others gaining rights hurts you so?
Not directed at you of course.

The only heterosexual issue I can think of from gay marriage being legal are inheritance laws. But that's easily resolved in courts.

Divorce rates, alimony law, how to understand your opposite gender spouse, the merits and pitfalls of a traditional nuclear family, among other things.

Please do not be so shortsighted.

[New Jerzylvania]

Is this a joke thread? It sure seems like one. After all, heterosexuals already have all the rights. Homosexuals don't.

Every so often there is an amazing thread like this. It is a shitposting thread. And for some reason mods are okay with this.

They know you need a place.

[Dyakovo]

Yes and yes.
It's perfectly clear what the purpose of your question was.

The purpose of my question was to show that the argument used a flawed premise. That was perfectly clear.

But if you want to be willfully ignorant and believe that I want to deny homosexuals the right to marry anyone they want, you can have that flawed perception.

Uh-huh. Sure.
Sorry, but the only people that bring marrying inanimate objects and/or animals up in a discussion about legalizing ssm are people who are opposed to ssm.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I see little use of this thread then.

I think the point of this thread was "You shouldn't force heterosexuals to serve gay customers" and "You shouldn't force churches to marry gay couples".

The first one is bigotry and discrimination.

The second one, no one has fucking suggested.

[Hetalia Dakota 2 II]

I see little use of this thread then.

I think the point of this thread was "You shouldn't force heterosexuals to serve gay customers" and "You shouldn't force churches to marry gay couples".

Give homosexuals the same rights in reverse, problem solved. Have fun with separate but legal, it works trust me history shows so.

[Norstal]

I see little use of this thread then.

I think the point of this thread was "You shouldn't force heterosexuals to serve gay customers" and "You shouldn't force churches to marry gay couples".

None of which is a heterosexual issue. Racists are forced to serve members of the race they hate and I don't see anyone up in arms about it.

[Excidium Planetis]

That's not my logic. I was merely demonstrating whoever it was whose argument started with "you can marry who you love" that that assumption could easily be false.

You were sort of tossing in a slippery slope aspect to it though, on the assumption that there would be nothing to impede the progression.

As long as they're consenting adults, it seems to be that the prevailing opinion is "Whatevs"

No, I wasn't using slippery slope. I was merely pointing out that there are plenty of heterosexuals who are not allowed to marry, so saying gays should because heterosexuals can is a flawed argument.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I think the point of this thread was "You shouldn't force heterosexuals to serve gay customers" and "You shouldn't force churches to marry gay couples".

None of which is a heterosexual issue. Racists are forced to serve members of the race they hate and I don't see anyone up in arms about it.

I don't know, that might be New Reutlingen's next thread topic.

[Dyakovo]

I see little use of this thread then.

I think the point of this thread was "You shouldn't force heterosexuals to serve gay customers" and "You shouldn't force churches to marry gay couples".

Neither of which are heterosexual rights issues.

[Hetalia Dakota 2 II]

The purpose of my question was to show that the argument used a flawed premise. That was perfectly clear.

But if you want to be willfully ignorant and believe that I want to deny homosexuals the right to marry anyone they want, you can have that flawed perception.

Uh-huh. Sure.
Sorry, but the only people that bring marrying inanimate objects and/or animals up in a discussion about legalizing ssm are people who are opposed to ssm.

I'm okay with the objects part, animals too as long as they aren't sexually violated etc.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

You were sort of tossing in a slippery slope aspect to it though, on the assumption that there would be nothing to impede the progression.

As long as they're consenting adults, it seems to be that the prevailing opinion is "Whatevs"

No, I wasn't using slippery slope. I was merely pointing out that there are plenty of heterosexuals who are not allowed to marry, so saying gays should because heterosexuals can is a flawed argument.

...that...isn't...how...it works?

[Excidium Planetis]

I think the point of this thread was "You shouldn't force heterosexuals to serve gay customers" and "You shouldn't force churches to marry gay couples".

None of which is a heterosexual issue. Racists are forced to serve members of the race they hate and I don't see anyone up in arms about it.

Racism, to my knowledge, is not a religious belief.

[Norstal]

The only heterosexual issue I can think of from gay marriage being legal are inheritance laws. But that's easily resolved in courts.

Divorce rates, alimony law, how to understand your opposite gender spouse, the merits and pitfalls of a traditional nuclear family, among other things.

Please do not be so shortsighted.

Someone already mentioned divorce rates not increasing. And those are not exclusive to heterosexuals.

[Dyakovo]

Uh-huh. Sure.
Sorry, but the only people that bring marrying inanimate objects and/or animals up in a discussion about legalizing ssm are people who are opposed to ssm.

I'm okay with the objects part, animals too as long as they aren't sexually violated etc.

Neither are capable of informed consent.

[Hetalia Dakota 2 II]

None of which is a heterosexual issue. Racists are forced to serve members of the race they hate and I don't see anyone up in arms about it.

Racism, to my knowledge, is not a religious belief.

Want me to quote Mormonism I'll go get it.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

None of which is a heterosexual issue. Racists are forced to serve members of the race they hate and I don't see anyone up in arms about it.

Racism, to my knowledge, is not a religious belief.

http://www.noi.org/

I won't link to the Klan's website because I'm not sure if it's kosher.

[Excidium Planetis]

That's not my logic. I was merely demonstrating whoever it was whose argument started with "you can marry who you love" that that assumption could easily be false.

You'd rather no one have that right, if one hundred percent can't?

What? I believe the government shouldn't be able to say at all who can and can't marry. Then 100% can have the right.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Don't even ask. Some people here believe there is one, and that it has something to do with heterosexual rights.

Breaking up of traditional straight marriage isn't a hetero issue?

Traditional Straight Marriage is more of a cultural issue, more or less, not a issue at all.