Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Tell me whether you guys vote YES or NO on proposition 8. If you dont know what proposition 8 is, voting yes on it will not let gay people get married in california. If you vote no gays and lezbians can get married freely in california. you may not live in the state, but i would like to hear what you have to say.

Just to let you know, im not gay in any way, but i have no right to tell people what to do, and i would like to see people be happy, so im DEFINITELY NO on 8. i will never change this opinion, because i have no right to control peoples lives.

I voted no on it. No reason for me to stand in the way of gay people being happy, if that's what they want to do.

No.

honestly, this prop was worded so poorly in my opinion. I have a feeling people are gonna skim through it, vote yes on it thinking it's good and won't know what the hell this just did.

i dont vote

Originally posted by Scythe
honestly, this prop was worded so poorly in my opinion. I have a feeling people are gonna skim through it, vote yes on it thinking it's good and won't know what the hell this just did.

That's no mistake.

Almost seems like it was done like that on purpose.

Leave Gays be, love is love, man.

Originally posted by Scythe
honestly, this prop was worded so poorly in my opinion. I have a feeling people are gonna skim through it, vote yes on it thinking it's good and won't know what the hell this just did.

As said previously, I believe the ambiguity is totally intentional.

I'm sick of hearing on Proposition. Can Californians just make a proposition that requires priority? Like gang members getting early parole...or the power defecit California could face again in the next decade....or something to get that idiot Mayor of Los Angeles put the tax money into the city and NOT into his fancy trips? How about harsher punishment for graffitti criminals?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I'm sick of hearing on Proposition. Can Californians just make a proposition that requires priority? Like gang members getting early parole...or the power defecit California could face again in the next decade....or something to get that idiot Mayor of Los Angeles put the tax money into the city and NOT into his fancy trips? How about harsher punishment for graffitti criminals? Nah, I think Gay Marriage should have priority over those. It affects many more people more fundamentally.

I will vote no.

What pisses me off is that the Pro-Prop. 8 people are using schools as a way to get people to pass the proposition. They are low-class individuals.

I don't live in California, but I would vote no.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I'm sick of hearing on Proposition. Can Californians just make a proposition that requires priority? Like gang members getting early parole...or the power defecit California could face again in the next decade....or something to get that idiot Mayor of Los Angeles put the tax money into the city and NOT into his fancy trips? How about harsher punishment for graffitti criminals? Like Bardock said, gay marriage is more important than any of those issues.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
How about harsher punishment for graffitti criminals?

They're putting up those automated talking cameras that have a conviction rate of something like 80%.

Originally posted by Devil King
They're putting up those automated talking cameras that have a conviction rate of something like 80%.

Never heard of'em.

Originally posted by Devil King
They're putting up those automated talking cameras that have a conviction rate of something like 80%.

I haven't been informed on that...gotta look it up. Glad something is been done about the gangs.

Yeah. They're putting up those motion cameras that can video a face or a license plate, even in total darkness, from up to 200 feet away. When they're triggered they make an announcement that the person is being recorded and their picture has been sent to the police. This is in Los Angeles. They bought something like a dozen of them and said they have a conviction rate somewhere in the 80s. If I remember, they were debuted in another city and really helped and L.A. is going to try them out.

The question is...

Anyone sense a conspiracy as Proposition 8 conveniently sounds like "Preparation H"?

Well....anyone?

Originally posted by k1Lla441
Tell me whether you guys vote YES or NO on proposition 8. If you dont know what proposition 8 is, voting yes on it will not let gay people get married in california. If you vote no gays and lezbians can get married freely in california. you may not live in the state, but i would like to hear what you have to say.

Just to let you know, im not gay in any way, but i have no right to tell people what to do, and i would like to see people be happy, so im DEFINITELY NO on 8. i will never change this opinion, because i have no right to control peoples lives.

Isn't it already legal there? So why's it even on the ballot?

It's on the ballot to "eliminate" the right of same sex couples to marry.

Three weeks ago, I registered 300 people to vote, and each pledged to vote No on Proposition 8.

In addition to voting No on Proposition 8 on Tuesday, I will also be campaigning for Equality California.

Don't forget about Proposition R

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Three weeks ago, I registered 300 people to vote, and each pledged to vote No on Proposition 8.

In addition to voting No on Proposition 8 on Tuesday, I will also be campaigning for Equality California.

Equality for who?

Originally posted by KidRock
Equality for who?

http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4026385

Originally posted by Robtard
http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4026385

Oh, the gays.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Isn't it already legal there? So why's it even on the ballot? Nah its not legal here, yet. I hope that prop doesnt pass and i hope it never will. most of teh people who vote yes are scared because they think gay will be taught in schools, which they are mistaken because thats not even part of the prop.

Originally posted by Devil King
Yeah. They're putting up those motion cameras that can video a face or a license plate, even in total darkness, from up to 200 feet away. When they're triggered they make an announcement that the person is being recorded and their picture has been sent to the police. This is in Los Angeles. They bought something like a dozen of them and said they have a conviction rate somewhere in the 80s. If I remember, they were debuted in another city and really helped and L.A. is going to try them out.

http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v234/143/70/694774622/n694774622_845552_8590.jpg

Originally posted by KharmaDog
The question is...

Anyone sense a conspiracy as Proposition 8 conveniently sounds like "Preparation H"?

Well....anyone?



Still, I would not vote...it isn't really the states responsibility to tell people who should get to form a civil union with. Grans should get to have them with their grandchildren. Sisters and brothers should be allowed also-

After all why should marriage be limited to people who love each other? If people want to take advantage of the financial and legal benefits of marriage- shouldn't they be allowed too?

Originally posted by Devil King
It's on the ballot to "eliminate" the right of same sex couples to marry.
Is this one of these so called rights of the Constitution that your so found of?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav


Is this one of these so called rights of the Constitution that your so found of?

Constitution aside, marriage is still a right granted to one group and denied another.

Originally posted by Robtard
Constitution aside, marriage is still a right granted to one group and denied another. Just as god intended I'm sure

I don't even know why gay couples would want to enter such institution as marriage.
By even wanting marriage, homosexual couples are adhering to hetrosxual norms.

I think homosexual couples should make up their own type of institution to celebrate homosexuality.
I don't know what that would look like, but I am sure someone out there might be already thinking of the same idea.

However, If homosexual couples want to be in a marriage, there is no plausable reason to deny them to.
(putting religion aside)

I imagine most of them want it because of the principal. They want the exact same rights as everyone else.

I 'm voting NO..


No one has the right to tell others how to live their life whether it be with another man or woman

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Is this one of these so called rights of the Constitution that your so found of?

No, it isn't a right. It's a symbolic issue. It's an issue that people have been lead to believe they have the right to grant or deny to certain people, while they themselves enjoy it. It's been brow-beaten into the people of this country that they have the say so on what rights are doled out to what people. This is not where those constitutional rights origniated, they didn't come from that piece of paper. Surely during our conversations you didn't assume I did. Those rights I'm so fond of are ours by virtue of existence, not because some one knocked on my neighbours door and asked him if he thought I should have a right he has simply by default. This isn't about the sanctity of marriage, not in a nation that could care less about it. It's about two political parties turning a personal and emotional issue into the chance for miserable, powerless people to have a teenytiny bit of power over another human being. That's why people get hate crimed for being gay. It isn't because god says it's wrong, it's because some thug decided he wanted to show his power over someone else. Every citizen in this state that votes yes to this is commiting their own little hate crime. Every citizen in this country that votes against equal rights for anyone else is commiting their own little hate crime. THAT should be illegal; turning another human being's rights in to the national plaything of bigots.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I think homosexual couples should make up their own type of institution to celebrate homosexuality.
I don't know what that would look like, but I am sure someone out there might be already thinking of the same idea.

It would add another divine between them and other people (plus it seems really dickish). There's also the fact that if gays invented their own form of marriage is would essentially admit that marriage is only for heteroseuxals. The principal of marriage is much more important than the act.

Originally posted by Robtard
Constitution aside, marriage is still a right granted to one group and denied another.

I agree, many groups are denied the right to marry...

Originally posted by Devil King
No, it isn't a right. It's a symbolic issue. It's an issue that people have been lead to believe they have the right to grant or deny to certain people, while they themselves enjoy it. It's been brow-beaten into the people of this country that they have the say so on what rights are doled out to what people. This is not where those constitutional rights origniated, they didn't come from that piece of paper. Surely during our conversations you didn't assume I did. Those rights I'm so fond of are ours by virtue of existence, not because some one knocked on my neighbours door and asked him if he thought I should have a right he has simply by default. This isn't about the sanctity of marriage, not in a nation that could care less about it. It's about two political parties turning a personal and emotional issue into the chance for miserable, powerless people to have a teenytiny bit of power over another human being. That's why people get hate crimed for being gay. It isn't because god says it's wrong, it's because some thug decided he wanted to show his power over someone else. Every citizen in this state that votes yes to this is commiting their own little hate crime. Every citizen in this country that votes against equal rights for anyone else is commiting their own little hate crime. THAT should be illegal; turning another human being's rights in to the national plaything of bigots.

Feeling better?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It would add another divine between them and other people (plus it seems really dickish). There's also the fact that if gays invented their own form of marriage is would essentially admit that marriage is only for heteroseuxals. The principal of marriage is much more important than the act.

Marriage is a hetrosexual norm to potray ''love and commitment''.

Homosexuals shouldn't adhere to hetrosexual norms, since hetrosexuality should not dictate norms for what love or union mean or how they're defined.

Should homosexuals be given right to marriage? Yes.
I have a right to a civil partnership, so gay couples should have right to marriage.

Its not ''segregation'' or devide. Its a different option.

Its the same as the ridiculous ignorant comments to gay couples such as ''who is the guy and who is the girl in the relationship''.

Its because people, regardless of how much they claim they ''don't mind homosexuals'' (like anyone wanted their premission to begin with), still box homosexual couples in hetrosexual box of norms, be it union, relationship, child adoption...etc.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Marriage is a hetrosexual norm to potray ''love and commitment''.

Yeah, because the majority of gay couples can't get married.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Homosexuals shouldn't adhere to hetrosexual norms, since hetrosexuality should not dictate norms for what love or union mean or how they're defined.

No the norm defines the norm. And the norm does exist, so what exactly is your point?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Its not ''segregation'' or devide. Its a different option.

It'd hardly be seen that way.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Its because people, regardless of how much they claim they ''don't mind homosexuals'' (like anyone wanted their premission to begin with), still box homosexual couples in hetrosexual box of norms, be it union, relationship, child adoption...etc.

So homosexuals aren't people then? Just about everyone boxes people into neat little groups, why should gays be excluded. That's stupid at best and actually is discrimination at worst.

Discrimination is necessary in many cases for everyday life. A child cannot legally obtain a drivers license until the age of 16 or 17, which is very fair and that is discrimination.
I'm against gay marriage because of how I view the sanctity of marriage, which stills holds more meaning than one can comprehend to many people. If that means redefining the term marriage today to uphold the more traditional substance, so be it.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I agree, many groups are denied the right to marry...



Feeling better?

Which groups are denied the right to marry? More so, which position on the issue is planing to define marriage as a right enojyed only by themselves?

How I feel is of no importance. Tha'ts apparent from the issue being discussed. How do you feel?

If I were in California,
I'll vote YES.

Nothing against gays, but if I could, I'd vote yes. Leave marriage to women and men, let them celebrate their sexuality in their own way.

here in florida we have a gay marriage prop too, i think it's prop 2? gays wont be able to marry either way but the conservatives felt the need to propose an amendment that specifically defines marriage as a heterosexual union.

anyway if you fight gay marriage you are fighting a losing battle because eventually it will be legal everywhere in the country, get over it.

the only reason your favorite politicians oppose it is because they know you will be dumb enough to vote for them just to stop queers from getting married. but i have the feeling that in the long run all the opposition will have been a wasted effort.

i think the only logical solution is to abolish marriage as any sort of legal contract and leave it to religions and special groups to perform marriages... or just have your own private ceremony... that way there can be no discriminating and no bitching concerning who can get married to who. but as long as it's a legal affair let the gays get married too to be fair.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
Discrimination is necessary in many cases for everyday life. A child cannot legally obtain a drivers license until the age of 16 or 17, which is very fair and that is discrimination.
I'm against gay marriage because of how I view the sanctity of marriage, which stills holds more meaning than one can comprehend to many people. If that means redefining the term marriage today to uphold the more traditional substance, so be it.

"But you do recognize Britney Spears getting loaded and married one night and having it annulled the next morning. Or two total strangers getting married for a million ****ing bucks on television. Is that the sanctity of marriage that you assholes are protecting?"―Deborah Novotony

If what you have to go on are the scandalous marriages that only the press would cover and exploit, because that news sells, then that's too bad for you, Deborah.
Says something of society but not nearly of everyone within it.

Originally posted by Markus Corvinus
Nothing against gays

If you vote anything other than NO, then you clearly have very much against gays.

As for yourself or lil B thinking gays should want their own ritual; the need for one is totally moot. When all is said and don it's two people deciding to share their lives. There's no need to reinvent the wheel. When two people make a commitment to spend the rest of their lives in an exclusive relationship, it's called a marriage. However, unlike lil B, you have expressed this opinion for all the reasons I stated in my previous post; you just like being asked by a people, gays, if they can please have the same rights Mr. THE MAN, you, has? please, please, please....

Who the **** do you think you are?

Originally posted by Devil King
If you vote anything other than NO, then you clearly have very much against gays.

As for yourself or lil B thinking gays should want their own ritual; the need for one is totally moot. When all is said and don it's two people deciding to share their lives. There's no need to reinvent the wheel. When two people make a commitment to spend the rest of their lives in an exclusive relationship, it's called a marriage. However, unlike lil B, you have expressed this opinion for all the reasons I stated in my previous post; you just like being asked by a people, gays, if they can please have the same rights Mr. THE MAN, you, has? please, please, please....

Who the **** do you think you are?

He is a sensible person.

How can marriage be between two men? Its just not what the word means.

A marriage is a union of a man and a woman- that is its definition.

A gay marriage or whatever you want to call it is something else- the fact that he opposes it doesn't mean he is homophobic- and even if he is, why is that wrong? He is also against paedophilia I would reckon, how long until that is made legal?

Who do you think you are? Telling people what they can and can't believe- pretty anti-democratic that, but then again its all contradictory at the end of the day...however there is one simple fact we can all take solace in:

No man can ever ever ever marry another man. He can "marry" another man if he so wishes but it is not real, meaningful, proper legitimate matrimony. Never has been, never will be.

I'm sorry, it just isn't...

Invent another ceremony to express your commitment or whatever, but I demand the right for an equal ceremony to "marry" my house to whom I want everything left to in the event of my death and who are you to deny me that right?

----

I like reg.g.jacks solution.

Abolish marriage in the civil sphere and keep it within personal circles. The can do all the legal stuff in their own way, but the state should not reognise couples as anything more than financial partners...that way we could all marry who we want.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Abolish marriage in the civil sphere and keep it within personal circles. The can do all the legal stuff in their own way, but the state should not reognise couples as anything more than financial partners...that way we could all marry who we want.

Don't forget about the medical stuff, too!


HIPAA n' shit.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
He is a sensible person.

How can marriage be between two men? Its just not what the word means.

A marriage is a union of a man and a woman- that is its definition.

A gay marriage or whatever you want to call it is something else- the fact that he opposes it doesn't mean he is homophobic- and even if he is, why is that wrong? He is also against paedophilia I would reckon, how long until that is made legal?

Who do you think you are? Telling people what they can and can't believe- pretty anti-democratic that, but then again its all contradictory at the end of the day...however there is one simple fact we can all take solace in:

No man can ever ever ever marry another man. He can "marry" another man if he so wishes but it is not real, meaningful, proper legitimate matrimony. Never has been, never will be.

I'm sorry, it just isn't...

Invent another ceremony to express your commitment or whatever, but I demand the right for an equal ceremony to "marry" my house to whom I want everything left to in the event of my death and who are you to deny me that right?

A sensible person does favor the removal of the constitutional rights of another, nor does a sensible person put the constitutional rights of a minority up for popular vote.

You are conflating marriage, a legal contract between two unrelated adults and the government, with matrimony, a religious union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

The government is the sole arbiter of what constitutes a marriage. This is evident in that the government does not recognize a religious union as a marriage unless the couple also petitions the government for a license to marry.

It is further evident that it is the government, not religious faiths that is the arbiter of what constitutes a marriage that the government recognizes divorce and remarriage as well as interfaith marriage, even though many religious faiths do not.

Furthermore, no one stated that Markus Corvinus is not entitled to his beliefs about what constitutes a marriage. Rather that Markus Corvinus is not entitled to restrict others from the institution of marriage on the basis of his beliefs.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
He is a sensible person.

How can marriage be between two men? Its just not what the word means.

A marriage is a union of a man and a woman- that is its definition.

A gay marriage or whatever you want to call it is something else- the fact that he opposes it doesn't mean he is homophobic- and even if he is, why is that wrong? He is also against paedophilia I would reckon, how long until that is made legal?

Who do you think you are? Telling people what they can and can't believe- pretty anti-democratic that, but then again its all contradictory at the end of the day...however there is one simple fact we can all take solace in:

No man can ever ever ever marry another man. He can "marry" another man if he so wishes but it is not real, meaningful, proper legitimate matrimony. Never has been, never will be.

I'm sorry, it just isn't...

Invent another ceremony to express your commitment or whatever, but I demand the right for an equal ceremony to "marry" my house to whom I want everything left to in the event of my death and who are you to deny me that right?

----

I like reg.g.jacks solution.

Abolish marriage in the civil sphere and keep it within personal circles. The can do all the legal stuff in their own way, but the state should not reognise couples as anything more than financial partners...that way we could all marry who we want.

What an astounding pile of shit you just posted.

The definition of marriage is a state decision, in California and Mass. and Connecticut the definition of marriage isn't soley between a man and a woman. Hence why it's on the ballot in California, to MAKE it that definition. And even if what you said were the case, so what? Definitions can and do change through time, words evolve and progress, nothing is stopping marriage from doing the same thing.

You can sit there and say that marriage can't ever be valid if it's between two men all you want, the state in which the marriage took place would obviously disagree with you, and they're the authority, not you.

Really though, your entire post should be thrown down the shitter simply because you made the fallacious slippery slope connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. That alone shows a spectacularly ignorant viewpoint that holds no validity or common sense at all.

And I'm not sure, but I'm also thinking that you just compared someone marrying an inanimate object (your house) to gay marriage. That's even more idiotic than your pedophile comparison.

Originally posted by BackFire
What an astounding pile of shit you just posted.

The definition of marriage is a state decision, in California and Mass. and Connecticut the definition of marriage isn't soley between a man and a woman. Hence why it's on the ballot in California, to MAKE it that definition. And even if what you said were the case, so what? Definitions can and do change through time, words evolve and progress, nothing is stopping marriage from doing the same thing.

You can sit there and say that marriage can't ever be valid if it's between two men all you want, the state in which the marriage took place would obviously disagree with you, and they're the authority, not you.

Really though, your entire post should be thrown down the shitter simply because you made the fallacious slippery slope connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. That alone shows a spectacularly ignorant viewpoint that holds no validity or common sense at all.

And I'm not sure, but I'm also thinking that you just compared someone marrying an inanimate object (your house) to gay marriage. That's even more idiotic than your pedophile comparison.

B...but why?

Why what?

Originally posted by BackFire
Why what?

Well, you made some points- its a fallacy being the big one, but didn't say why it was a fallacy, admittedly I know the answer but I would like you to actually make an argument to refute my original assertion. Not just say, that's not true, that's not true oh and that's a fallacy.

Also, I should perhaps clarify that I was discussing marriage in a religious context, if any of you cared to read I said I was happily in favour of allowing gay/lesbian couples having a civil partnership or whatever. However the logic that "well why should one group get to do something then tell another they can't" leads to everyone getting to "marry" what they want because no group should have the right to tell them not too...(at which point your going to go on about consent and/or how viable such a marriage would be etc etc but it won't change the fact that DK's logic leads to- everyone being able to marry whatever and whoever they want).

Oh, while we're on this wonderful topic of marriage...

should polygamy be illegal?

lol @ anyone who thinks we should use a traditional definition of marriage

sexual revolution? anyone?

men owning women, who their father paid to be rid of the responsibility of?

The use of women as property to create family allegiance and improve inheritance?

Marriage, as in people being ordained by the state to receive certain tax, insurance and property rights has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with "traditional" marriage, lest you want to bring back the possession of women by men.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
should polygamy be illegal?

Probably not....



that has nothing to do with my being a Mormon since I personally think plural marriage is stupid.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Probably not....



that has nothing to do with my being a Mormon since I personally think plural marriage is stupid.

You know why it's a fallacy? Then why did you commit the fallacy in your argument? It's the fallacy of slippery slope, the idea that one thing will somehow lead to something else without giving evidence or reason as to why it would lead to that (I.E. If we allow gays to marry then what's stopping people from marrying kids and toasters?) You offered no evidence as to how gay marriage would lead to such an outcome, so it's a fallacy. But you knew that. So you purposefully committed the fallacy, makes sense.

A civil partnership isn't marriage. Marriage is marriage. The religious context is moot because churches would still be free to refuse to marry gay people if they so wished. Their freedom of religion wouldn't be overruled. Gay marriage would simply make the government recognize the union between a gay couple to be on equal ground as the union between two straight people. Actually has shit to do with religion.

Also, polygamy should be discussed and debated on its own merits, seeing as it's completely irrelevant to gay marriage being legalized.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
B...but why?

Because you just said that two men getting married was a gateway drug to turning the world into Gomorrah. Because you just said that two adult human males who love each other every bit as much as those heterosexual couples can never get married for all the same reasons those heterosexual couples utilize. Because you just compared my marriage to the utterly absurd act of marrying the inanimate object in which you live. T-Th-Th-That's W-wh-wh-wh-why.

But I suppose you realize all that. Instead, you want me to explain why it's absurd for you to marry your home, rather than telling me how it's absurd when two human beings get married, they can never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever be two women? You just say it can't ever, ever, ever happen because it just can't happen? Tell me why it can for a man and a woman? And more importantly, see if you can do it without using your book of ancient Jewish superstitions.

Originally posted by Devil King
Tell me why it can for a man and a woman? And more importantly, see if you can do it without using your book of ancient Jewish superstitions.

Thursday morning I was listening to my favorite radio talkshow on the way to work. The radio personality Dan "The Man" Alvarez, an Atheist, gave his own secular reasoning for his opposition to gay marriage. He argues that the term itself "gay marriage" is inherently an oxymoron. It's origins are political, financial and were between a man and a woman. He says that when we have to tweak and torque things to suit us, they lose their definition. He had an analogy: if kicking the ball, tackling, and travelling are all made legal in basketball just because a small group of people want to make it that way, is it still basketball?

That's clever, but it acknowledges that terms and meanings are what we grant to certain words. That's addressing the word "Marriage", not the commitment and rights detailed by the act. It's still calling my marriage a civil union and yours a marriage. I'm sure that many people think they're playing basketball on their neighbourhood courts, even though they aren't getting paid 7 figure salleries and there's no ref to call the game.

That goes back to my earlier point that words often change and progress through time.

You could make the identical argument back when black people wanted rights or when women wanted the right to vote. "If women voting is made legal because of a small group of people want to make it that way, is it still voting?"

Meaning, it seems the argument is based on 'traditional' grounds. Tradition is not aurhority, because something is traditionally one way doesn't mean it lessens if it changes through time. if anything it becomes greater and more relevant.

Originally posted by Devil King
That's clever, but it acknowledges that terms and meanings are what we grant to certain words. That's addressing the word "Marriage", not the commitment and rights detailed by the act. It's still calling my marriage a civil union and yours a marriage. I'm sure that many people think they're playing basketball on their neighbourhood courts, even though they aren't getting paid 7 figure salleries and there's no ref to call the game.

It's clever because its a good point that doesn't involve Baby Jesus. Yeah, it acknowledges that certain concepts have meanings that they're dependent upon. Basketball was made with clear-cut rules. If you wanna wear pads and kick the ball at the basket, that's fine, but make it a new game and give it a new name. Let's not call it "basketball" and make-believe that it really is just to please a few people. Same thing with "marriage".

Originally posted by BackFire
You know why it's a fallacy? Then why did you commit the fallacy in your argument? It's the fallacy of slippery slope, the idea that one thing will somehow lead to something else without giving evidence or reason as to why it would lead to that (I.E. If we allow gays to marry then what's stopping people from marrying kids and toasters?) You offered no evidence as to how gay marriage would lead to such an outcome, so it's a fallacy. But you knew that. So you purposefully committed the fallacy, makes sense. (Though I note you chose to totally avoid backing up your argument...does shouting and banging get you everything in America?)

A civil partnership isn't marriage. Marriage is marriage. The religious context is moot because churches would still be free to refuse to marry gay people if they so wished. Their freedom of religion wouldn't be overruled. Gay marriage would simply make the government recognize the union between a gay couple to be on equal ground as the union between two straight people. Actually has shit to do with religion.

Also, polygamy should be discussed and debated on its own merits, seeing as it's completely irrelevant to gay marriage being legalized.

You do not see the parallels in the argument then no? As I said, I was arguing in the context of religious marriage- civil partnerships and marriage are one in the eyes of the state...why the big emphasis on what word is used? A civil marriage is a civil marriage...

Originally posted by Devil King
Because you just said that two men getting married was a gateway drug to turning the world into Gomorrah. Because you just said that two adult human males who love each other every bit as much as those heterosexual couples can never get married for all the same reasons those heterosexual couples utilize. Because you just compared my marriage to the utterly absurd act of marrying the inanimate object in which you live. T-Th-Th-That's W-wh-wh-wh-why.

But I suppose you realize all that. Instead, you want me to explain why it's absurd for you to marry your home, rather than telling me how it's absurd when two human beings get married, they can never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever be two women? You just say it can't ever, ever, ever happen because it just can't happen? Tell me why it can for a man and a woman? And more importantly, see if you can do it without using your book of ancient Jewish superstitions.
Aww nice...I'm not the one wanting to change the status quo, I believe the burden of proof is on you to prove me why you should be able to have a religious marriage (Which is what I am saying you cannot have, and probably don't want). You can have a civil partnership all you want, as I said.

Also, don't flatter yourself with the belief that somehow gay marriage being legalized would bring about the destruction of the moral world- as a Christian sees it. Your just not that important...

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
You do not see the parallels in the argument then no? As I said, I was arguing in the context of religious marriage- civil partnerships and marriage are one in the eyes of the state...why the big emphasis on what word is used? A civil marriage is a civil marriage...

No, because there are no parallels to polygamy and gay marriage. They have nothing to do with eachother.

So you're arguing about the wedding part of marriage, as opposed to the marriage part. A common error. They aren't the same thing, you can have marriage without the wedding. And if civil partnerships and marriage are the same thing then why are there two words? They aren't the same.

And your religious context is moot because the only religions it would affect are those who would choose to marry gays. Churches wouldn't be forced, so it doesn't matter.

Originally posted by BackFire
No, because there are no parallels to polygamy and gay marriage.

No, he said "one group of people can't tell another group what they can/can't do" this logic is the slippery slope that leads to people wanting to marry etc whatever they want. I was taking issue with his argument- not his point.

Originally posted by BackFire
So you're arguing about the wedding part of marriage, as opposed to the marriage part. A common error. They aren't the same thing, you can have marriage without the wedding. And if civil partnerships and marriage are the same thing then why are there two words? They aren't the same.

Look, I'll say this one more time- I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT CIVIL MARRIAGE. In a religious context, admittedly my own, I would not, nor can I, recognise a homosexual marriage. Not just wedding- a wedding is a ceremony, a religious marriage is a bond between a man and a woman for life which they swear to before God in order to love each other and, if luck have it, produce kids and form a loving family. (Atleast, thats the ideal) That is what marriage means to me.

Originally posted by BackFire
And your religious context is moot because the only religions it would affect are those who would choose to marry gays. Churches wouldn't be forced, so it doesn't matter.

Its not moot because I was giving my personal stance on the issue- which we are invited to do.

I support civil partnerships/civil marriages/state marriages whatever you want to call them. It does not effect me and I don't believe it is a battle that religious folks can win- or even should.

I would not force my belief in Jesus on a gay couple, so I would not force my perception of marriage on them either.

(Just for the LOLz I am actually going to be working at a gay wedding reception on Saturday- they are having a masked-ball...at the last one the groom number 2 was very emotional...he burst into tears when they played Dancing Queen...)

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Aww nice...I'm not the one wanting to change the status quo, I believe the burden of proof is on you to prove me why you should be able to have a religious marriage (Which is what I am saying you cannot have, and probably don't want). You can have a civil partnership all you want, as I said.

Also, don't flatter yourself with the belief that somehow gay marriage being legalized would bring about the destruction of the moral world- as a Christian sees it. Your just not that important...

I'm not the one that said "Gay marriage: what's next polygamy, pedophilia, marrying inanimate objects?"

So, you would submit to the idea that all those people who get married at a drive thru chapel in Las Vegas do not have a spiritual commitment, only a domestic partnership?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
No, he said "one group of people can't tell another group what they can/can't do" this logic is the slippery slope that leads to people wanting to marry etc whatever they want. I was taking issue with his argument- not his point.

No, what I said is that it's not up to one group to be asked if another group deserves the same right they themselves take for granted. Perhaps you couch all your views on this issue in your religion, but that is simply not why most people oppose it; even when they say it's against god. Most people have a negative opinion on the matter because they've been lead to believe that it's their job to decide which rights others can have.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
No, he said "one group of people can't tell another group what they can/can't do" this logic is the slippery slope that leads to people wanting to marry etc whatever they want. I was taking issue with his argument- not his point.



Look, I'll say this one more time- I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT CIVIL MARRIAGE. In a religious context, admittedly my own, I would not, nor can I, recognise a homosexual marriage. Not just wedding- a wedding is a ceremony, a religious marriage is a bond between a man and a woman for life which they swear to before God in order to love each other and, if luck have it, produce kids and form a loving family. (Atleast, thats the ideal) That is what marriage means to me.



Its not moot because I was giving my personal stance on the issue- which we are invited to do.

I support civil partnerships/civil marriages/state marriages whatever you want to call them. It does not effect me and I don't believe it is a battle that religious folks can win- or even should.

I would not force my belief in Jesus on a gay couple, so I would not force my perception of marriage on them either.

(Just for the LOLz I am actually going to be working at a gay wedding reception on Saturday- they are having a masked-ball...at the last one the groom number 2 was very emotional...he burst into tears when they played Dancing Queen...)

I wasn't talking about civil marriage either, I'm simply talking about marriage. The proposition isn't about 'civil' marriage, it's about marriage. You're creating a differential where there is none. You can reject whatever you want through your religious beliefs, never said you couldn't, but in an earlier post of yours you were saying that it was impossible for two men to have a valid marriage because of the definition of the word, not because of your religious beliefs, that's what I was taking issue with.

It is moot because it won't matter. Moot doesn't mean you can't have your beliefs. Your religious beliefs won't be infringed on, they won't change, you can still belong to a church that doesn't do gay marriage. Won't affect you in any way, shape, or form. Regardless of what you want to call it.

You say you would not force you perception of marriage on others, but yet, as mentioned in an earlier post you said it was purely impossible on technical grounds for a gay person to have a valid wedding, so you just tried to force your perception onto others by stating the falsehood of a technical limitation of them not being able to marry properly because of your made up definition. As if the definition was anything more than your own subjective, religious based definition.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It's clever because its a good point that doesn't involve Baby Jesus. Yeah, it acknowledges that certain concepts have meanings that they're dependent upon. Basketball was made with clear-cut rules. If you wanna wear pads and kick the ball at the basket, that's fine, but make it a new game and give it a new name. Let's not call it "basketball" and make-believe that it really is just to please a few people. Same thing with "marriage".

No, it's clever because it makes you think that. Baseball used to be segregated; they didn't change the name of the game when they founded the Negro League and then Jackie Robinson was eventually allowed to play with the whites. It used to be illegal for blacks and whites to have sex, much less get married. It's not illegal anymore, and they didn't come up with a different name for it when they do get married.

Originally posted by Devil King
I'm not the one that said "Gay marriage: what's next polygamy, pedophilia, marrying inanimate objects?"

So, you would submit to the idea that all those people who get married at a drive thru chapel in Las Vegas do not have a spiritual commitment, only a domestic partnership?

Roman Catholic Priests do not operate drive-thru marriages that I am aware of, and I believe that it is all part of the same slippery slope.

Originally posted by Devil King
No, what I said is that it's not up to one group to be asked if another group deserves the same right they themselves take for granted. Perhaps you couch all your views on this issue in your religion, but that is simply not why most people oppose it; even when they say it's against god. Most people have a negative opinion on the matter because they've been lead to believe that it's their job to decide which rights others can have.
Again, I was just giving my opinion- which you took exception too.

Originally posted by BackFire
I wasn't talking about civil marriage either, I'm simply talking about marriage. The proposition isn't about 'civil' marriage, it's about marriage. You're creating a differential where there is none. You can reject whatever you want through your religious beliefs, never said you couldn't, but in an earlier post of yours you were saying that it was impossible for two men to have a valid marriage because of the definition of the word, not because of your religious beliefs, that's what I was taking issue with.

It is moot because it won't matter. Moot doesn't mean you can't have your beliefs. Your religious beliefs won't be infringed on, they won't change, you can still belong to a church that doesn't do gay marriage. Won't affect you in any way, shape, or form. Regardless of what you want to call it.

You say you would not force you perception of marriage on others, but yet, as mentioned in an earlier post you said it was purely impossible on technical grounds for a gay person to have a valid wedding, so you just tried to force your perception onto others by stating the falsehood of a technical limitation of them not being able to marry properly because of your made up definition. As if the definition was anything more than your own subjective, religious based definition.
However, it does not change the fact, that he can't get married.

Of course he can, can you not read? Any gay person can go get married right now in Mass. CA, or Connecticut and that marriage is perfectly valid and real in those states.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Roman Catholic Priests do not operate drive-thru marriages that I am aware of, and I believe that it is all part of the same slippery slope

You are wrong. That is not slippey slope. It seems you don't know what the fallacy means as evidenced by the fact that you claim that DK is somehow responsible for your use of the fallacy.

lol

bring back dowry!

Everyone remembers, in the "original" or "traditional" forms of marriage, you know, the "basketball" rules?, women didn't have a choice in who they married?

anyone who is in support of "traditional definitions" as a way to prevent homosexual people from being legally married should look at the ultimate end of their own logic. Society today is better because we chose, in the past, not to use traditional definitions of marriage any more. If you think gay marriage violates tradition, you must also think that women having free choice in marriage is wrong, because thats what it used to be defined as.

Indeed, the 'tradition' argument is a magnificently weak and hollow argument that holds very little water when it comes to this issue.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Roman Catholic Priests do not operate drive-thru marriages that I am aware of, and I believe that it is all part of the same slippery slope.


Again, I was just giving my opinion- which you took exception too.


However, it does not change the fact, that he can't get married.

So, you're willing to go even one step further than you have been to say that only Roman catholic marriages that take place in a Roman Catholic chuch are real marriages that involve god?

Yes, I most certainly take exception to your idea that my right to get married is even remotely akin to your absurd comparissons; pedophilia, polygamy and entering into a marriage with an inamimate object.

It also does not change the fact that my sentiments on the subject are correct. As I said, perhaps you cling to these ideas because of your religion, but most people in this country cling to the idea that they have a personal say in the lives of others.

Originally posted by inimalist
Everyone remembers, in the "original" or "traditional" forms of marriage, you know, the "basketball" rules?, women didn't have a choice in who they married?

Neither does Gav's house.

Originally posted by BackFire
Of course he can, can you not read? Any gay person can go get married right now in Mass. CA, or Connecticut and that marriage is perfectly valid and real in those states.



You are wrong. That is not slippey slope. It seems you don't know what the fallacy means as evidenced by the fact that you claim that DK is somehow responsible for your use of the fallacy.

Not that type of slippery slope, honestly- the real type not the argument type. The slippery slope of "Well thats OK" which leads to "I guess this is OK too" and ultimately "This is also now"

The slippery slope that goes

Its ok to show the piano leg >>> Its ok to show a woman's leg >>> Its ok for a woman to be perfectly naked on view to anyone...

Get it?

Originally posted by Devil King
So, you're willing to go even one step further than you have been to say that only Roman catholic marriages that take place in a Roman Catholic chuch are real marriages that involve god?

Yes, I most certainly take exception to your idea that my right to get married is even remotely akin to your absurd comparissons; pedophilia, polygamy and entering into a marriage with an inamimate object.

It also does not change the fact that my sentiments on the subject are correct. As I said, perhaps you cling to these ideas because of your religion, but most people in this country cling to the idea that they have a personal say in the lives of others.

DK, there was once a time when Homosexuality was absolutely forbidden, you would be executed for it...there then came a time when it was a secret pleasure...hidden in the back of society there then came a time when people said- why can't they have relationships...its LOVE! Eventually this became openly acceptable. It now is becoming openly encouraged (i'm not saying thats right or wrong...)

Once there is a time when paedophilia was absolutely forbidden, you would be executed for it...

Don't be so clueless.

Originally posted by BackFire
Of course he can, can you not read? Any gay person can go get married right now in Mass. CA, or Connecticut and that marriage is perfectly valid and real in those states.



You are wrong. That is not slippey slope. It seems you don't know what the fallacy means as evidenced by the fact that you claim that DK is somehow responsible for your use of the fallacy.

Oh and also- I am taking liberties here- DK likes to flaunt around and tell people they live lies and what they do doesn't amount to anything-- I'm just enjoying to see how he feels when people tell him his life is a sham.

Whether homosexual or heterosexual they are all people.

I don't think it would be right for them to get married in any Christian church or in the religious house of any religion that condemns homosexuality though. They still deserve the same rights as anyone else, but I have a hard time understanding how any Christian can claim to be a homosexual. It's clearly stated in the bible that you shan't do things like that to other men if you're a man, and the same with women.

Anyways, if I lived in California I would vote no. Gay marriages are legal here in Norway and I wish things would change in America as well.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Not that type of slippery slope, honestly- the real type not the argument type. The slippery slope of "Well thats OK" which leads to "I guess this is OK too" and ultimately "This is also now"

The slippery slope that goes

Its ok to show the piano leg >>> Its ok to show a woman's leg >>> Its ok for a woman to be perfectly naked on view to anyone...

Get it?

Did you really just waste your time trying to tell him what the definition of "slippery Slope" is in the context of your opinion. You don't really think he's been telling you what he thinks because he's under the impression you're talking about a sliding board with butter all over it, do you?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
DK, there was once a time when Homosexuality was absolutely forbidden, you would be executed for it...there then came a time when it was a secret pleasure...hidden in the back of society there then came a time when people said- why can't they have relationships...its LOVE! Eventually this became openly acceptable. It now is becoming openly encouraged (i'm not saying thats right or wrong...)

Once there is a time when paedophilia was absolutely forbidden, you would be executed for it...

Don't be so clueless.

You think there is a single segment of society that enourages people to turn gay and you're calling me clueless?



Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Oh and also- I am taking liberties here- DK likes to flaunt around and tell people they live lies and what they do doesn't amount to anything-- I'm just enjoying to see how he feels when people tell him his life is a sham.

I've never said you live a lie. I am absolutely certain you believe that there's a man in the sky that is represented by another man that sits on a cushion on top of a throne in Rome. But, I have never said that your religion isn't a real religion because it doesn't follow the prinicples of older religions or that the religions that came out of it aren't real religions because they aren't Catholic religions. If it makes you feel better, I think marriage is a made up institution, just like your wacky hat club. But it is a right everyone has in this country, except for homosexuals. What you're doing is saying that if gays are allowed to marry, that you should be allowed to legally wed your house. I'm fine with you disliking me for telling you your space god theory is not justifiable in the real world, where real people live and real people are told they have the real right to decide what others can and can not do. I'm not sure, however, how you think you saying (whether you actually believe it or not as you are now saying) the same things I've heard a hundred other bigots say on this forum, is going to some how make me reconsider when I tell you your religion is silly. In fact, it seems clear now that you use your religion to exclude other human beings from the same rights you enjoy. At least until you become a priest and start enjoying the secret pleasure in the back of your society.

Originally posted by Devil King
Did you really just waste your time trying to tell him what the definition of "slippery Slope" is in the context of your opinion. You don't really think he's been telling you what he thinks because he's under the impression you're talking about a sliding board with butter all over it, do you?

Spending time talking with people is never a waste of time DK., I'm sorry you think that.

Originally posted by Devil King
You think there is a single segment of society that enourages people to turn gay and you're calling me clueless?
Single segment? Contrasting a time when people were told being gay was a sin and they would burn in hell for it to a time when in Sex Ed classes they are told not to be ashamed of what they are? Yeah I'd say that it is encouraged...(to embrace their sexuality, not to turn gay I mean)

Originally posted by Devil King
I've never said you live a lie. I am absolutely certain you believe that there's a man in the sky that is represented by another man that sits on a cushion on top of a throne in Rome. But, I have never said that your religion isn't a real religion because it doesn't follow the prinicples of older religions or that the religions that came out of it aren't real religions because they aren't Catholic religions. If it makes you feel better, I think marriage is a made up institution, just like your wacky hat club.
Which is why I have every right to say "Sure you can be married in the eyes of the state, but its not a marriage I recognise" just as you say I can have my religion but its not something you recognise as true. Thats fine IMO, its called civility.


Originally posted by Devil King
But it is a right everyone has in this country, except for homosexuals.
Or paedophiles, or polygamists, or brothers and sisters....

Originally posted by Devil King
What you're doing is saying that if gays are allowed to marry, that you should be allowed to legally wed your house.
That was an extension of your argument "One group of people can't tell another group of people what they can or can't do" Reductio Ad Absurdum I know, but still....


Originally posted by Devil King
I'm fine with you disliking me for telling you your space god theory is not justifiable in the real world, where real people live and real people are told they have the real right to decide what others can and can not do.
See now I feel a little silly because I like you, I actually thought we were pretty friendly as far as forums go...I didn't realise that isn't the case...


Originally posted by Devil King
I'm not sure, however, how you think you saying (whether you actually believe it or not as you are now saying) the same things I've heard a hundred other bigots say on this forum, is going to some how make me reconsider when I tell you your religion is silly. In fact, it seems clear now that you use your religion to exclude other human beings from the same rights you enjoy. At least until you become a priest and start enjoying the secret pleasure in the back of your society.

I think your using this whole issue as a weapon now- oh look I've become a bigot...also what rights am I trying to exclude people from which I have? Seriously, what ones?

Heck, I didn't think so. What are your views on it.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Not that type of slippery slope, honestly- the real type not the argument type. The slippery slope of "Well thats OK" which leads to "I guess this is OK too" and ultimately "This is also now"

The slippery slope that goes

Its ok to show the piano leg >>> Its ok to show a woman's leg >>> Its ok for a woman to be perfectly naked on view to anyone...

Get it?

I get it. It's still wrong. The 'real' type of slippery slope is the one I mention, the fallacy, the fallacy that you commit, and the fallacy that DK didn't commit.

That example is silly, no one has said anything similar to that in the context of gay marriage, so it's pointless.

This was supposed to be a new thread.............dunno what happened and sorry.

Originally posted by BackFire
I get it. It's still wrong. The 'real' type of slippery slope is the one I mention, the fallacy, the fallacy that you commit, and the fallacy that DK didn't commit.

That example is silly, no one has said anything similar to that in the context of gay marriage, so it's pointless.

Your still totally misunderstanding me, as far as I can tell.

Must have something to do with you talking nonsense that has nothing to do with anything anyone has said.

Originally posted by BackFire
Must have something to do with you talking nonsense that has nothing to do with anything anyone has said.

So...like are you always so serious? I mean have a little fun, stop stamping your feet telling people that they are wrong...

Let's rape.

Originally posted by BackFire
Let's rape.

There we go!

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
Discrimination is necessary in many cases for everyday life. A child cannot legally obtain a drivers license until the age of 16 or 17, which is very fair and that is discrimination.
I'm against gay marriage because of how I view the sanctity of marriage, which stills holds more meaning than one can comprehend to many people. If that means redefining the term marriage today to uphold the more traditional substance, so be it.
Thats not discrimination, thats just stupidity. giving a chiled the right to drive puts othere ppls lives in danger, which would not make it discrimination. Not letting gays get married because of stupid reasons like its not "natural" or to protect marriage is discrimination. If you hate or love gay people, it still give you no right to tell what other people can do. Do what you want, and let other people do what they want.

And its not rape if they want it!

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Spending time talking with people is never a waste of time DK., I'm sorry you think that.

Telling someone something they already know? Yes, I would consider that a waste of time. How many hours would you waste trying to convert the Pope to Catholicism?


Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Single segment? Contrasting a time when people were told being gay was a sin and they would burn in hell for it to a time when in Sex Ed classes they are told not to be ashamed of what they are? Yeah I'd say that it is encouraged...(to embrace their sexuality, not to turn gay I mean)

You're saying that teachers encourage homosexuality? Parents encourage homosexuality? Was teaching sex ed while kids were and are being told by their parents at home that homosexuals were godless heathens, encouraging heterosexuality? That sounds like the reverse slippery slope.


Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Which is why I have every right to say "Sure you can be married in the eyes of the state, but its not a marriage I recognise" just as you say I can have my religion but its not something you recognise as true. Thats fine IMO, its called civility.

Sure you have every right to say it; no one has said anything to the contrary. But I also have the right to tell you where you're in error and when you're drawing false comparisons.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
That was an extension of your argument "One group of people can't tell another group of people what they can or can't do" Reductio Ad Absurdum I know, but still....

No, it is not. As an inanimate, unliving thing your house has no rights. The rights extended to it are yours, not the the object's. If you want to spend the rest of your life in a marriage to a cinder block, it's okay with me. That's pretty much how I feel about you spending the rest of your life in an imaginary homosexual marriage to your version of Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
See now I feel a little silly because I like you, I actually thought we were pretty friendly as far as forums go...I didn't realise that isn't the case...

That's fine. I don't dislike you. I simply don't place any more stock in you than what you say. But, you did clearly say that much of what you have said in this conversation was based on you telling a gay man that thinks your religion is silly that his rights are invalid as a measure of revenge for his position on your space god. Well, I'm not going to leave this conversation with anything but a firm comitment to my position that your religion is silly, especially since you're using it as a means to condemn homosexual's rights.


Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I think your using this whole issue as a weapon now- oh look I've become a bigot...also what rights am I trying to exclude people from which I have? Seriously, what ones?

Marriage. Remember, the topic of the thread?

Originally posted by BackFire
Let's rape.

Can I come along? I'm not really much of a rapist but the pillaging afterward is always fun.

Originally posted by Devil King
Telling someone something they already know? Yes, I would consider that a waste of time. How many hours would you waste trying to convert the Pope to Catholicism?

Hmm, I might spend a little while trying to see him things he already knows in a different light...well not the Pope, but average joe catholic.

Originally posted by Devil King
You're saying that teachers encourage homosexuality? Parents encourage homosexuality? Was teaching sex ed while kids were and are being told by their parents at home that homosexuals were godless heathens, encouraging heterosexuality? That sounds like the reverse slippery slope.
Dear God you are being stubborn. As i stated, they are encouraged by the state-schools to embrace their sexuality- whatever that may be. They are taught that who a person finds attractive is not under their control and we should accept it. I stated that in my clarification of what I meant.




Originally posted by Devil King
Sure you have every right to say it; no one has said anything to the contrary. But I also have the right to tell you where you're in error and when you're drawing false comparisons.
Sure you have every right to say it; no one has said anything to the contrary.


No, it is not. As an inanimate, unliving thing your house has no rights. The rights extended to it are yours, not the the object's. If you want to spend the rest of your life in a marriage to a cinder block, it's okay with me. That's pretty much how I feel about you spending the rest of your life in an imaginary homosexual marriage to your version of Jesus Christ.



Originally posted by Devil King
That's fine. I don't dislike you. I simply don't place any more stock in you than what you say. But, you did clearly say that much of what you have said in this conversation was based on you telling a gay man that thinks your religion is silly that his rights are invalid as a measure of revenge for his position on your space god. Well, I'm not going to leave this conversation with anything but a firm comitment to my position that your religion is silly, especially since you're using it as a means to condemn homosexual's rights.
That's good then. I didn't think/expect you did. No, it was telling you that his marriage was as invalid from my religious perspective- ironically that shouldn't bother you as my religion is "silly". Also, as I stated I am not trying to denying anyone's rights...I don't know where you are getting that from...

Anyway, it isn't nice is it?

Originally posted by Devil King
Marriage. Remember, the topic of the thread?
oh, funny I thought I said they should be allowed to get married...HA.

to hell with it your being a right dippit about this, so no you can't get married. I am trying to humour you, your evil an abomination, god hates you, i hate you, nature dies everytime you breath.........thats what you would want me to say isnt it? You seem to need to turn opposition to gay marriage into a persecution...(Thank God I don't oppose gay marriage and fully endorse free will). Also, what do you expect me so say when someone asks my opinion on gay marriages? Should I lie so as not to hurt your feelings? Should I lie so that I don't attract controversy and have people think I am a bigot? Or should I tell the truth and say what I beleive?

What type of word would you rather live in DK? One where people can say what they believe or one where people have to lie and hid in closets covering up how they really feel for fear of being attacked and abused?

For those asshats arguing that two men being married is an affront to the definition of marriage, a "marriage" can be defined as simply being "a union" or two.

Also, Inimalist brought up an excellent point which was conveniently skipped, if we're sticking to the traditional definitions of marriage, because that's the "right" way and the way it should be. My father-in-law owes me a dowry for taking his daughter off his hands and I certainly want the state of California to recognize that I both have greater rights than my wife and the final say over her person.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Dear God you are being stubborn. As i stated, they are encouraged by the state-schools to embrace their sexuality- whatever that may be. They are taught that who a person finds attractive is not under their control and we should accept it. I stated that in my clarification of what I meant.

So, there is a state mandate that encourages heterosexuality as well as homosexuality?




Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Sure you have every right to say it; no one has said anything to the contrary.


No, it is not. As an inanimate, unliving thing your house has no rights. The rights extended to it are yours, not the the object's. If you want to spend the rest of your life in a marriage to a cinder block, it's okay with me. That's pretty much how I feel about you spending the rest of your life in an imaginary homosexual marriage to your version of Jesus Christ.

As an non-living thing that belongs to you, your rights are extended to the house. The house itself, independant of an occupying presence or an owner, has no rights.




Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
That's good then. I didn't think/expect you did. No, it was telling you that his marriage was as invalid from my religious perspective- ironically that shouldn't bother you as my religion is "silly". Also, as I stated I am not trying to denying anyone's rights...I don't know where you are getting that from...Sure you have every right to say it; no one has said anything to the contrary.

Yes, your religion is archaic and silly; just like thinking homosexuals are demons or under the influence of satan. But I'm not using silliness to define my argument, you are. As for questioning why I would argue with a concet that is "silly", I argue it because it is the basis so many people use to justify their silliness. Were you given the option to vote on the ability of your fellow countrymen to enter into a civil union?




Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Anyway, it isn't nice is it?

Ha! It's nothing I don't experience on some level everyday or under an imaginable circumstance. It isn't nice or altering. When you're fumbling down the street in your funny hat and getting some measure of reverence from everyone because you have a funny little collar on, then I guess you'll know what it's like to sit across from a guy on the subway that wishes you would die or when one of your friends hates you for becoming a priest. What you're doing is saying that it's justified because you feel like you have always wanted to grow up to be a prienst. Well, that's not what it's like to be gay. In fact, it's totally opposite. There were many times in life when I wished I wasn't gay. I got over it, and now you and the guy on the subway can suck it, as far as I'm concerned.


Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
oh, funny I thought I said they should be allowed to get married...HA.

"They"? They homosexuals that you have spent the last three pages saying should be seperate but not equal? That "they"?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
to hell with it your being a right dippit about this, so no you can't get married. I am trying to humour you, your evil an abomination, god hates you, i hate you, nature dies everytime you breath.........thats what you would want me to say isnt it? You seem to need to turn opposition to gay marriage into a persecution...(Thank God I don't oppose gay marriage and fully endorse free will). Also, what do you expect me so say when someone asks my opinion on gay marriages? Should I lie so as not to hurt your feelings? Should I lie so that I don't attract controversy and have people think I am a bigot? Or should I tell the truth and say what I beleive?

No, you don't endorse gay marriage. You endorse them knowing their place in the hierarchy of your church, which you believe is reality for everyone whether they believe it or not. Don't act the martyr. You're not Jesus. Say what you want about it, but don't act like you're the victim when others point out how wrong you are.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
What type of word would you rather live in DK? One where people can say what they believe or one where people have to lie and hid in closets covering up how they really feel for fear of being attacked and abused?

Don't for a single moment think you are important enough to send all gay people back into the closet. And don't for one second think that gay people today enjoy a single right folks like you gave them. Those rights were taken, at a price. Dead people on back alley streets and barbed wire fences on the heartland plains paid the price. If it were up to people who used your excuse, we'd all still be forced to join the catholic priesthood to get a bit of guilt head from a scared child who was raised to think we had their soul in our hands. What you're saying is that I should be grateful for what little I've been given by people who think like you. What's sad? It's sad you can divorce your own logic from the mental filth you've decided to subscribe to and have not one ounce of remorse for that willful intolerance. It's not a far cry from the angry, powerless bigot that actually does think the way you speak.

Originally posted by Devil King
If you vote anything other than NO, then you clearly have very much against gays.

As for yourself or lil B thinking gays should want their own ritual; the need for one is totally moot. When all is said and don it's two people deciding to share their lives. There's no need to reinvent the wheel. When two people make a commitment to spend the rest of their lives in an exclusive relationship, it's called a marriage. However, unlike lil B, you have expressed this opinion for all the reasons I stated in my previous post; you just like being asked by a people, gays, if they can please have the same rights Mr. THE MAN, you, has? please, please, please....

Who the **** do you think you are?

Calm your nerve little fella, if I did vote, I'd have the right to vote as I please. I don't have to be all for gay marriage because you are, I happen to think differently. It's not like I'm homophobic, I just think marriage should only be for men and women, is all. If you're offended by that, that's too bad.

Originally posted by Markus Corvinus
Calm your nerve little fella, if I did vote, I'd have the right to vote as I please. I don't have to be all for gay marriage because you are, I happen to think differently. It's not like I'm homophobic, I just think marriage should only be for men and women, is all. If you're offended by that, that's too bad.

I'm not asking you to be for gay marriage becuse your're too stupid to be for it; I'm asking you to be for gay marriage because it's as sensical as your own marriage. Yes, you are homophobic, otherwise you could understand the difference between the two. But you can't, which is why you're a tool. You espouse equality but do everything you can to prevent it? **** you and I hope your children suffer from it.


Sure, there are other who defend my poisiotn, but i'm on the side that you people should be punished for your perspective on it.

Thanks for pointing out that you mean nothing to the actual voters on the matter.

Gay marriages have been already allowed since some years, in Quebec and Canada...
It's just an other step to a just and peaceful world.

Originally posted by Devil King
So, there is a state mandate that encourages heterosexuality as well as homosexuality?






As an non-living thing that belongs to you, your rights are extended to the house. The house itself, independant of an occupying presence or an owner, has no rights.






Yes, your religion is archaic and silly; just like thinking homosexuals are demons or under the influence of satan. But I'm not using silliness to define my argument, you are. As for questioning why I would argue with a concet that is "silly", I argue it because it is the basis so many people use to justify their silliness. Were you given the option to vote on the ability of your fellow countrymen to enter into a civil union?






Ha! It's nothing I don't experience on some level everyday or under an imaginable circumstance. It isn't nice or altering. When you're fumbling down the street in your funny hat and getting some measure of reverence from everyone because you have a funny little collar on, then I guess you'll know what it's like to sit across from a guy on the subway that wishes you would die or when one of your friends hates you for becoming a priest. What you're doing is saying that it's justified because you feel like you have always wanted to grow up to be a prienst. Well, that's not what it's like to be gay. In fact, it's totally opposite. There were many times in life when I wished I wasn't gay. I got over it, and now you and the guy on the subway can suck it, as far as I'm concerned.




"They"? They homosexuals that you have spent the last three pages saying should be seperate but not equal? That "they"?



No, you don't endorse gay marriage. You endorse them knowing their place in the hierarchy of your church, which you believe is reality for everyone whether they believe it or not. Don't act the martyr. You're not Jesus. Say what you want about it, but don't act like you're the victim when others point out how wrong you are.



Don't for a single moment think you are important enough to send all gay people back into the closet. And don't for one second think that gay people today enjoy a single right folks like you gave them. Those rights were taken, at a price. Dead people on back alley streets and barbed wire fences on the heartland plains paid the price. If it were up to people who used your excuse, we'd all still be forced to join the catholic priesthood to get a bit of guilt head from a scared child who was raised to think we had their soul in our hands. What you're saying is that I should be grateful for what little I've been given by people who think like you. What's sad? It's sad you can divorce your own logic from the mental filth you've decided to subscribe to and have not one ounce of remorse for that willful intolerance. It's not a far cry from the angry, powerless bigot that actually does think the way you speak.

With all this hate, you will never be happy...I don't think even you will ever accept the validity of your so called marriage.

Originally posted by Devil King
I'm not asking you to be for gay marriage becuse your're too stupid to be for it; I'm asking you to be for gay marriage because it's as sensical as your own marriage. Yes, you are homophobic, otherwise you could understand the difference between the two. But you can't, which is why you're a tool. You espouse equality but do everything you can to prevent it? **** you and I hope your children suffer from it.


Sure, there are other who defend my poisiotn, but i'm on the side that you people should be punished for your perspective on it.

Thanks for pointing out that you mean nothing to the actual voters on the matter.

While I respect your opinion, there are some things wrong with this post:

Becuse should be spelled because.
Your're should be spelled you're
Poisiotn should be spelled position

Now, addressing the actual meaning of the post, I can safely say that I am completely against homosexual marriage, but if I met a gay or had to work with one, I'm not going to shun him because of life choices. One of my flesh and blood brothers is a homosexual, but I love him to death, and just as much as anyone in my family. The fact of the matter is that you can't think that someone has to be for something because you are, and insulting them isn't going to prove your point at all. Neither is trying to say my children should suffer because of my personal views. It only makes you look worse. Pretty much everyone else here has kept a cool head, so try to do the same instead of just spewing insults about someone you know nothing about.

Originally posted by Markus Corvinus
While I respect your opinion, there are some things wrong with this post:

Becuse should be spelled because.
Your're should be spelled you're
Poisiotn should be spelled position

Now, addressing the actual meaning of the post, I can safely say that I am completely against homosexual marriage, but if I met a gay or had to work with one, I'm not going to shun him because of life choices. One of my flesh and blood brothers is a homosexual, but I love him to death, and just as much as anyone in my family. The fact of the matter is that you can't think that someone has to be for something because you are, and insulting them isn't going to prove your point at all. Neither is trying to say my children should suffer because of my personal views. It only makes you look worse. Pretty much everyone else here has kept a cool head, so try to do the same instead of just spewing insults about someone you know nothing about.

He is just angry hence the mistakes.

He longs to be"normal" like the rest of us you see...

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
It's just an other step to a just and peaceful world.

Agreed.

Also, you sound like the Silver Surfer.

Originally posted by Bada's Palin
Agreed.

Also, you sound like the Silver Surfer.

Who says I'm not him?




Behold, the Power Cosmic!

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
He is just angry hence the mistakes.

He longs to be"normal" like the rest of us you see...

Let's not provoke people. Seems terribly unChristian of you anyway.

Originally posted by Bada's Palin
Agreed.

Also, you sound like the Silver Surfer.

Or Emperor Palpatine . . .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Let's not provoke people. Seems terribly unChristian of you anyway.



Or Emperor Palpatine . . .


...


Behold The Force!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Let's not provoke people. Seems terribly unChristian of you anyway.

Well, considering I'm the only person in the thread who has said I can't vote on such an issue as I don't have a right to make laws in respect to what people can and can't do yet I am being accused of wanting to make everyone conform to my own religious ideology and a bunch of other nonsense DK has been spewing about me, what my aims are and the psychology of priests I think I am entitled to a little, psychology of my own.

Originally posted by Markus Corvinus

Now, addressing the actual meaning of the post, I can safely say that I am completely against homosexual marriage, but if I met a gay or had to work with one, I'm not going to shun him because of life choices. One of my flesh and blood brothers is a homosexual, but I love him to death, and just as much as anyone in my family. The fact of the matter is that you can't think that someone has to be for something because you are, and insulting them isn't going to prove your point at all. Neither is trying to say my children should suffer because of my personal views. It only makes you look worse. Pretty much everyone else here has kept a cool head, so try to do the same instead of just spewing insults about someone you know nothing about.

Yeah, I have nothing against blacks; in fact, I have black friends. I don't think black-people should be allowed to marry white-people or allowed to vote for that matter, you know, because that's how it used to be and it was just better, oh, did I mention I have absolutely nothing against blacks?

Originally posted by k1Lla441
it still give you no right to tell what other people can do. Do what you want, and let other people do what they want.

And its not rape if they want it!
Yet you're for telling teens and kids and those intelligent adults without a license that they can't drive because it's illegal.
Yes, it is discrimination, but the good kind.

Originally posted by Robtard
Also, Inimalist brought up an excellent point which was conveniently skipped, if we're sticking to the traditional definitions of marriage, because that's the "right" way and the way it should be. My father-in-law owes me a dowry for taking his daughter off his hands and I certainly want the state of California to recognize that I both have greater rights than my wife and the final say over her person.
****, if you're referring to my statement I didn't mean when men owned women and when dowries were paid. I meant a union between man and woman, and redefining for legal purposes and to accommodate for the term that describes the union between man and man. I view the term marriage to hold sacred, religious weight as well that is not accommodating for homosexuals. I suppose I should have replaced "traditional" for "conservative".

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
****, if you're referring to my statement I didn't mean when men owned women and when dowries were paid. I meant a union between man and woman, and redefining for legal purposes and to accommodate for the term that describes the union between man and man. I view the term marriage to hold sacred, religious weight as well that is not accommodating for homosexuals. I suppose I should have replaced "traditional" for "conservative".

I have to ask, why do YOU get to define how far traditionally (or "conservative" is the word now?) we go back and which "sacred" connotations get applied and which get tossed out in regards to marriage?

Your religious views shouldn't bear any weight on what other people do, especially marriage, as the State does not recognize the religious aspect of it and it is merely for show. I.E. a preist and church do not give you the extra legal rights between you and your spouse, the State does.

Edit: Wouldn't the fair/equal thing to do is make marriage a union between 'consenting people?'

Because it was my statement so I should clarify it.

Also, fair and equal do not always go hand-in-hand.

EDIT: Dammit...but yes, I can see why that's fair. I just don't agree with it being legally applied.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
Because it was my statement so I should clarify it.

Also, fair and equal do not always go hand-in-hand.

I understand your statement; I am asking why do you get this right in denying others in something (marriage) you would take as a God-given right?

Yeah, there's a word for that; it's called injustice.

Edit: In response to your edit: You're essentially denying others legal rights in which you would take yourself and probably fight for if someone tried to deny you one day. That's it also called injustice.

Originally posted by Robtard
I understand your statement; I am asking why do you get this right in denying others in something (marriage) you would take as a God-given right?

Yeah, there's a word for that; it's called injustice.

Maybe these God-given "rights" were not given to everyone?

Though, I believe the only "right" God has given man is that of self-determination, which is why I believe it should be up to every individual person to choose how to live their lives as long as they are not impinging on others...

However, all this talk of rights is a little silly- its a very contradictory discipline.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Maybe these God-given "rights" were not given to everyone?

Though, I believe the only "right" God has given man is that of self-determination, which is why I believe it should be up to every individual person to choose how to live their lives as long as they are not impinging on others...

However, all this talk of rights is a little silly- its a very contradictory discipline.

I wonder who decided that?

Very good; I agree with that in the general sense. So if you could vote to deny others in something you would indulge in yourself, why would you vote to deny those others, hypothetically speaking?

You can argue that marriage shouldn't be a "right" until your face turns blue; the fact is, it is a right and it is denied to some for trivial reasons. Which is why it needs to be debated in that sense.

Originally posted by Robtard
I understand your statement; I am asking why do you get this right in denying others in something (marriage) you would take as a God-given right?

Yeah, there's a word for that; it's called injustice.
Because I view it to be exclusively between man and woman and should be recognized on paper only for them.
I alone do not deny them of it. But if a majority of people who hold a similar or the same view as me do deny the right, then...

Now, I can't legally drink until I'm 21 years old, but my buddy in Canada is allowed at 19 (British Columbia). Before, in the U.S., it varied from state to state at one point. If 18 is considered the age of maturity, why am I deprived the right to drink without consequence, yet I'm responsible and mature. Don't be so black and white in claiming all discrepancies between fair and equal are injustices.

Originally posted by Robtard
You can argue that marriage shouldn't be a "right" until your face turns blue; the fact is, it is a right and it is denied to some for trivial reasons. Which is why it needs to be debated in that sense.

Don't worry, Robtard, those damned conservatives can't keep us from our love for long.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
Because I view it to be exclusively between man and woman and should be recognized on paper only for them.
I alone do not deny them of it. But if a majority of people who hold a similar or the same view as me do deny the right, then...

Now, I can't legally drink until I'm 21 years old, but my buddy in Canada is allowed at 19 (British Columbia). Before, in the U.S., it varied from state to state at one point. If 18 is considered the age of maturity, why am I deprived the right to drink without consequence, yet I'm responsible and mature. Don't be so black and white in claiming all discrepancies between fair and equal are injustices.

Yeah, that's called an "injustice", you're consciously denying others something you would partake in yourself, simply because of your personal bias. There's a difference between not agreeing with gay-marriage and physically making an effort to stop others.

Your analogy fails. Prop 8 would completely deny gays the right to marry, not just postpone it for a few years, due to social sigmas of responsibility/maturity. When it comes down to someone denying others in something they partake in themselves, it is 'black and white.' Try again with another analogy?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Don't worry, Robtard, those damned conservatives can't keep us from our love for long.

Prop 8 could very well pass, but yeah, in the long run of things, you'll be wearing knee-pads for me soon enough.

I can't get into a public university because a racial quota needs to be reached. Thus, an african-american student with a lower GPA than me and fewer community service recommendations is accepted, while I am not (he takes my slot for admission). This is to ensure equality standards, but it is not truly fair.
The Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan's initiative to do so as justifiable, ensuring the security of this system to be used by all universities that choose to employ it.

I do think it's wrong to allow them the title of marriage, but I'm not taking away their right to commit to each other, join in a contract and love each other for the rest of their lives.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
I can't get into a public university because a racial quota needs to be reached. Thus, an african-american student with a lower GPA than me and fewer community service recommendations is accepted, while I am not (he takes my slot for admission). This is to ensure equality standards, but it is not truly fair.
The Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan's initiative to do so as justifiable, ensuring the security of this system to be used by all universities that choose to employ it.

So your argument is:

"I can point out things that I think are unjust, therefore Gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry"

I won't point to the direct hypocrisy, but I will ask, do you even think university admission standards are related in the least to gay marriage? Do you think it is possible to be for gay marriage and against racial quotas?

I wasn't comparing it to gay marriage. I was just trying to illustrate that fairness and equality do not always go hand-in-hand, and that it can still be considered justice/justifiable.

I do believe you can be for one and not the other, and then have that relationship reciprocated. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see if McCain and Obama differed on the opinion of that college admission standard, but both do oppose gay marriage. Also there's me, who believes in one and not the other.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
but I'm not taking away their right to commit to each other, join in a contract and love each other for the rest of their lives.

Just judicial, tax, inheritance, property and family rights that come with the legal title of marriage.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
I wasn't comparing it to gay marriage. I was just trying to illustrate that fairness and equality do not always go hand-in-hand, and that it can still be considered justice/justifiable.

I do believe you can be for one and not the other, and then have that relationship reciprocated. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see if McCain and Obama differed on the opinion of that college admission standard, but both do oppose gay marriage. Also there's me, who believes in one and not the other.

wicked, nothing to do with gay marriage

I'm not even for excluding them from the tax or judicial benefits. I really am just against using the word "marriage" to describe the union between a gay couple. I know that sounds rather small but there is principle.
Also the potential for new words to be added to our wonderfully comprehensive vocabulary. Yay.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
I wasn't comparing it to gay marriage. I was just trying to illustrate that fairness and equality do not always go hand-in-hand, and that it can still be considered justice/justifiable.


Yeah, that's called an injustice too and it doesn't bode well for your stance ongay-marriage as you recognise that soemting like "racial quotas" as being truly unfair. Though those quotas do have reasons behind them, mostly as a means of making up for past injustices/discrimination's, though I don't think two wrongs make a right.

On that note, why would you deny others a right you partake yourself, when you acknowledge that something like "racial quotas" are unjust and possibly have been at the shit-end of the plunger yourself?

I'd imagine that would make you sympathetic.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
I'm not even for excluding them from the tax or judicial benefits. I really am just against using the word "marriage" to describe the union between a gay couple. I know that sounds rather small but there is principle.
Also the potential for new words to be added to our wonderfully comprehensive vocabulary. Yay.

That's petty. Obviously you don't think as some others do that allowing gay-marriage will cause society to crumble, so why the fuss over the use of a word?

Though voting Yes on Prop 8 would be you denying people rights you partake in yourself, which you did, I assume?

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
I know that sounds rather small but there is principle.

what principle?

Don't you dare tell me what I acknowledge until I acknowledge it, ass. I find racial quotas to be just.

And like I said, I can understand the reasoning behind why you want to vote 'no' on prop 8. It is legitimate. I disagree.

I would deny a right to others that I enjoy myself because I think it would be fair. Have I not expressed that enough? Of course there needs to be consensus among many.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
Don't you dare tell me what I acknowledge until I acknowledge it, ass. I find racial quotas to be just.

Didn't you say:

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
I can't get into a public university because a racial quota needs to be reached. Thus, an african-american student with a lower GPA than me and fewer community service recommendations is accepted, while I am not (he takes my slot for admission). This is to ensure equality standards, but it is not truly fair.


Who's the ass, now?

Originally posted by Aequo Animo And like I said, I can understand the reasoning behind why you want to vote 'no' on prop 8. It is legitimate. I disagree.

I would deny a right to others that I enjoy myself because I think it would be fair. Have I not expressed that enough? Of course there needs to be consensus among many.
So are you back-peddling now because finding one thing that affect you unjust and then turning a blind-eye to another similar injustice because of your bias is downright silly?

And as said over and over, you denying others in something you partake yourself for nothing more than your bias and trivialities in factually an injustice.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
I would deny a right to others that I enjoy myself because I think it would be fair.

wow

so, it would be fair if I were denied freedom of speech, even though you are not?

Originally posted by inimalist
what principle?

I'm just saying its between a man and a woman. That is the tradition you've all been running around about. I hold on to that traditional principle (or extremely long, ingrained idea) that it is a heterosexual institution.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
I'm just saying its between a man and a woman. That is the tradition you've all been running around about. I hold on to that traditional principle (or extremely long, ingrained idea) that it is a heterosexual institution.

do you think women should have a choice in who they want to marry?

Originally posted by Robtard
Didn't you say:



Who's the ass, now?


So are you back-peddling now because finding one thing that affect you unjust and then turning a blind-eye to another similar injustice because of your bias is downright silly?

And as said over and over, you denying others in something you partake yourself for nothing more than your bias and trivialities in factually an injustice.

Are you trying to change his mind? If he has his convictions, that's his choice, who cares.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Are you trying to change his mind? If he has his convictions, that's his choice, who cares.

It's called debate. I think you do it in here too, unless you're just here for the pictures?

Originally posted by inimalist
wow

so, it would be fair if I were denied freedom of speech, even though you are not?
Oh, god no. That wouldn't be fair at all.

(Seriously. No sarcasm.)

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
Oh, god no. That wouldn't be fair at all.

(Seriously. No sarcasm.)

would you care to differentiate between denying someone the right to free speech and the right to marry whom one pleases?

Originally posted by Robtard
It's called debate. I think you do it in here too, unless you're just here for the pictures?

Good point.

Originally posted by inimalist
would you care to differentiate between denying someone the right to free speech and the right to marry whom one pleases?

One is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

Originally posted by Robtard
Who's the ass, now?
I still think you are. There shouldn't be any doubt that it isn't quite fair to deny one person admission and then allow it for the other on the basis of race, no after the 1960's. But in that situation the ends can justify the means.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
One is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

indeed, though I'm not sure that the bill of rights mentions anything about marriage...

potentially that supports the idea that government should have nothing to do with marriage, which I prefer, though I concede, doesn't mean there is a specific right to marry whoever you want (though free association, c'mon)

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
One is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

Originally posted by inimalist
do you think women should have a choice in who they want to marry?
Yes.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Good point.



One is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

Because someone had to physically recognize that not allowing it for all would be an injustice.

'Pursuit of Happiness' is an inalienable right.

Edit: You bring up one point about the Constitution, there's one group that's trying to bring the Constition into marriage and amend it so it denies marriage-rights to a group of people, you can guess who.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
There shouldn't be any doubt that it isn't quite fair to deny one person admission and then allow it for the other on the basis of race, no after the 1960's.

There shouldn't be any doubt that it isn't quite fair to deny one person marriage and then allow it for the other on the basis of sexual preference, no after the 1960's

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
Yes.

If you think women should have choice in marriage, then you are not arguing for the traditional definition of marriage.

Marriage is traditionally anti-woman, and it is only in recent decades that the traditional definition was forced to change. The sexual revolution owns your argument.

Originally posted by Robtard
'Pursuit of Happiness' is an inalienable right.
And who is saying that you can't love someone and be with someone and join in a union with someone and hold the same benefits as heterosexual married couples enjoy with someone for the rest of your life? Because it's not me.

Just don't call it marriage.

Originally posted by inimalist
If you think women should have choice in marriage, then you are not arguing for the traditional definition of marriage.
Ughafahjgjhagplease don't allow this to become redundant:
I did clarify, later on, that by traditional, I meant between a man and a woman.

Originally posted by Markus Corvinus
While I respect your opinion, there are some things wrong with this post:

Becuse should be spelled because.
Your're should be spelled you're
Poisiotn should be spelled position

Now, addressing the actual meaning of the post, I can safely say that I am completely against homosexual marriage, but if I met a gay or had to work with one, I'm not going to shun him because of life choices. One of my flesh and blood brothers is a homosexual, but I love him to death, and just as much as anyone in my family. The fact of the matter is that you can't think that someone has to be for something because you are, and insulting them isn't going to prove your point at all. Neither is trying to say my children should suffer because of my personal views. It only makes you look worse. Pretty much everyone else here has kept a cool head, so try to do the same instead of just spewing insults about someone you know nothing about.

Gee, that's so forward thinking of you. You'll be in the same room as another human being, you just don't think he or she deserves the same rights as you.

Your personal story is about as touching as any I've heard. It's nice to know you love your brother. I love mine, too. But, I also think he deserves the same rights I do. In fact, I'm sure you would be totally in favor of granting that single homosexual a right you thinkn is yours to pass out. Now that I know something about you, why don't you suck it, homophobe.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
He is just angry hence the mistakes.

He longs to be"normal" like the rest of us you see...

Yeah, I'm just as normal as any 20 something year old that spends his youth aching to wear a funny hat and a dress and stop having sex.

Originally posted by inimalist
If you think women should have choice in marriage, then you are not arguing for the traditional definition of marriage.

Marriage is traditionally anti-woman, and it is only in recent decades that the traditional definition was forced to change. The sexual revolution owns your argument.

So it kind of went from their nightmare to their dream? If I were a woman, I'd be insulted by their portrayl in tv and movies as these attention-starved whisps that just go through life trying to get a man to give a shit about them enough, to stick around long enough, for them to convince them to ask to get married. It's a far cry from the chick I saw in Africa that has to get married with a pile of shit on her head to symbolize that she is lower than the ground the shit falls to and the man walks over.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
And who is saying that you can't love someone and be with someone and join in a union with someone and hold the same benefits as heterosexual married couples enjoy with someone for the rest of your life? Because it's not me.

Just don't call it marriage.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's petty. Obviously you don't think as some others do that allowing gay-marriage will cause society to crumble, so why the fuss over the use of a word?

Though voting Yes on Prop 8 would be you denying people rights you partake in yourself.

Well there is meaning behind the word. It is reserved for the union between a man and a woman. It is also a word that the church recognizes as sacred and that view has been in history for as long as, I believe, any historian can recall. I guess I bring up the fuss over the use of the word because of what it entails in my mind.

You almost come off McCain when you tell me that voting 'yes' on Prop-8 would deprive gay couples their rights. Yes, it's true, but you're missing the big picture: I want them to have equal rights. But like the lack of a timeline for troop withdrawl in a senate bill, I won't support the proposition because it provides for the use of the word "marriage" to the union of gay couples.
^might be a bit of a reach but I think I got the gist of it.

I've been seeing these advertisements on the sky saying "Vote yes on Prop 8". Written with those ariplanes that write/draw shit in the sky. Funny.

Originally posted by Devil King
Yeah, I'm just as normal as any 20 something year old that spends his youth aching to wear a funny hat and a dress and stop having sex.

yeah, and you have all the temperament of a petulant child...bigot.

Originally posted by Devil King
Gee, that's so forward thinking of you. You'll be in the same room as another human being, you just don't think he or she deserves the same rights as you.

Your personal story is about as touching as any I've heard. It's nice to know you love your brother. I love mine, too. But, I also think he deserves the same rights I do. In fact, I'm sure you would be totally in favor of granting that single homosexual a right you thinkn is yours to pass out. Now that I know something about you, why don't you suck it, homophobe.



Yeah, I'm just as normal as any 20 something year old that spends his youth aching to wear a funny hat and a dress and stop having sex.

Hmm, the fact that you continue to use the word shows your lack of knowledge for the word. As I've said before, I think marriage should be between a man & a woman, just like a few others in this thread, and like plenty of others in the world. I like how you're attempting to attack me when other people have basically said the same thing as me. Don't be a hypocrite, and then try to single out someone to start a losing battle.