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.
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! 😄
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.
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?'
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.
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?
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.