Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Mormons are fucking prompt

1444547495062

Posts

  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    man i love corn

    I play games on ps3 and ps4. My PSN is DouglasDanger.
  • SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    is queermo like the 4th marx brother

    no because I think chico should just be the new buzzword for gay people

    Groucho
    Chicho
    Harpo
    Zeppo
    Gummo



    Am I missing any of them?
    Karl

    It's an easy game to hate
  • Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2009
    Faricazy wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government. Other religions are free to do the same, as are people without any organized religion. If it passes that marriage also means between man and man AND woman and woman, then so be it. The population of our country voted for it and it was because of their ideals that they voted that way. I won't throw a hissy fit and I will still be a citizen of this country.

    So, like I asked you before, you think it's ok for a majority to deny rights to a minority?

    I know you think it's great and that the whole defense of "they voted for it, I'd just accept it if things were different" is noble and everything. But you are looking at is as part of the majority and basically what you're saying is that if these people want to have equal rights their should just be more of them. Which is just silly.

    I don't think its ok for the majority to deny rights. Thats why I have said multiple times lets give them all the same rights, make it a federal law, and unturnable while we are at it. Just don't call it marriage, it effs with my religion and what I believe to be an eternal principle.
    once again, your religion does not have the monopoly on the concept of marriage

    Monopoly would be better if you owned rights instead of property

    AHAHAHAH you want guns fuck you give me some money and we'll see

  • The Otaku SuppositoryThe Otaku Suppository SKREEEEEOOOONKKKKKK Monster IslandRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Faricazy wrote: »
    i like corn

    i love corn

    vote for me and i may do great things for corn

    We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty, and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds'.
  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    corn syrup though is the bane of modern western society
    goddam corn lobbyists just... cornholing the food industry

    I play games on ps3 and ps4. My PSN is DouglasDanger.
  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government. Other religions are free to do the same, as are people without any organized religion. If it passes that marriage also means between man and man AND woman and woman, then so be it. The population of our country voted for it and it was because of their ideals that they voted that way. I won't throw a hissy fit and I will still be a citizen of this country.

    So, like I asked you before, you think it's ok for a majority to deny rights to a minority?

    I know you think it's great and that the whole defense of "they voted for it, I'd just accept it if things were different" is noble and everything. But you are looking at is as part of the majority and basically what you're saying is that if these people want to have equal rights their should just be more of them. Which is just silly.

    I don't think its ok for the majority to deny rights. Thats why I have said multiple times lets give them all the same rights, make it a federal law, and unturnable while we are at it. Just don't call it marriage, it effs with my religion and what I believe to be an eternal principle.

    So we should let your religious beliefs govern our lawmaking.
    Nope, but we should let the majority and their subsequent votes, which almost always ends up being based on their ideals.

    SWTOR Main - Novah (Shadowlands)
    Xbox Live - ObiFett (BF4 / Destiny)
    Other Games - Hearthstone and Diablo 3
  • KrunkMcGrunkKrunkMcGrunk Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Man, this thread exploded.

    What the hell happened here. Did it turn into a religious argument, as projected?

    Yep, this thread turned to shit.

    mrsatansig.png
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government. Other religions are free to do the same, as are people without any organized religion. If it passes that marriage also means between man and man AND woman and woman, then so be it. The population of our country voted for it and it was because of their ideals that they voted that way. I won't throw a hissy fit and I will still be a citizen of this country.

    So, like I asked you before, you think it's ok for a majority to deny rights to a minority?

    I know you think it's great and that the whole defense of "they voted for it, I'd just accept it if things were different" is noble and everything. But you are looking at is as part of the majority and basically what you're saying is that if these people want to have equal rights their should just be more of them. Which is just silly.

    I don't think its ok for the majority to deny rights. Thats why I have said multiple times lets give them all the same rights, make it a federal law, and unturnable while we are at it. Just don't call it marriage, it effs with my religion and what I believe to be an eternal principle.

    Why are you okay with non-Mormon straight couples getting married?

    georgersig.jpg
  • FaricazyFaricazy Registered User
    edited February 2009
    Faricazy wrote: »
    i like corn

    i love corn

    vote for me and i may do great things for corn
    corn tortillas in every home

  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government. Other religions are free to do the same, as are people without any organized religion. If it passes that marriage also means between man and man AND woman and woman, then so be it. The population of our country voted for it and it was because of their ideals that they voted that way. I won't throw a hissy fit and I will still be a citizen of this country.

    So, like I asked you before, you think it's ok for a majority to deny rights to a minority?

    I know you think it's great and that the whole defense of "they voted for it, I'd just accept it if things were different" is noble and everything. But you are looking at is as part of the majority and basically what you're saying is that if these people want to have equal rights their should just be more of them. Which is just silly.

    I don't think its ok for the majority to deny rights. Thats why I have said multiple times lets give them all the same rights, make it a federal law, and unturnable while we are at it. Just don't call it marriage, it effs with my religion and what I believe to be an eternal principle.

    Your still denying them equal rights. You are saying that they should be able to have the same rights, but they are not allowed to call it a marraige because you think it's special.

    As far as how it "effs" with your religion, I personally don't give a shit, but I totally disagree. Marriage within the Mormon church would not change one iota if the government passed a law allowing gays to get married and recognizing it as such. A law such as this would have no affect on your religion at all.

    But if you think it would, please tell me how allowing to people of the same gender to get married at a courthouse would affect you personally as a Mormon.

    Dumb Hero wrote: »
    "Okay, you take 2d4 damage from the ogre's dick impaling your 2inch anus"
    Hey, Satan.
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    is queermo like the 4th marx brother

    no because I think chico should just be the new buzzword for gay people

    Groucho
    Chicho
    Harpo
    Zeppo
    Gummo



    Am I missing any of them?
    Karl

    Yes, the Zero'th Marx Brother.

    And also the funniest.

    georgersig.jpg
  • Clint EastwoodClint Eastwood Living Proof That Sometimes Friends Are Mean.Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Faricazy wrote: »
    Cloudman wrote: »
    FUCK CORN AND FUCK YOU
    WHEATFUCKER!
    I roll with flour, BITCH

    OWQbJgI.png
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government.

    America isn't a Democracy. It is a REPRESENTATIVE Democracy.

    That means that we understand that it is a bad idea to make decisions based on the whims of the unwashed, so we allow them to elect representatives for themselves, who will then push the agendas of their constituency, while also being aware that sometimes their constituency is simply worng about something, and they need to go the other way on it.

    Your treating a state matter like it's a federal one, Evander.

    League of Legends: Lamby Cakes | XBox Live: Jon Butters
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    corn syrup though is the bane of modern western society
    goddam corn lobbyists just... cornholing the food industry

    fuck you

    Dumb Hero wrote: »
    "Okay, you take 2d4 damage from the ogre's dick impaling your 2inch anus"
    Hey, Satan.
  • FaricazyFaricazy Registered User
    edited February 2009
    ObiFett wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government. Other religions are free to do the same, as are people without any organized religion. If it passes that marriage also means between man and man AND woman and woman, then so be it. The population of our country voted for it and it was because of their ideals that they voted that way. I won't throw a hissy fit and I will still be a citizen of this country.

    So, like I asked you before, you think it's ok for a majority to deny rights to a minority?

    I know you think it's great and that the whole defense of "they voted for it, I'd just accept it if things were different" is noble and everything. But you are looking at is as part of the majority and basically what you're saying is that if these people want to have equal rights their should just be more of them. Which is just silly.

    I don't think its ok for the majority to deny rights. Thats why I have said multiple times lets give them all the same rights, make it a federal law, and unturnable while we are at it. Just don't call it marriage, it effs with my religion and what I believe to be an eternal principle.

    So we should let your religious beliefs govern our lawmaking.
    Nope, but we should let the majority and their subsequent votes, which almost always ends up being based on their ideals.
    This country has a rather illustrious history of the majority acting on their ideals, which others recognized as immoral and eventually overturned.

    If you're blind to history then I don't know what else to say to you.

  • The Otaku SuppositoryThe Otaku Suppository SKREEEEEOOOONKKKKKK Monster IslandRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government. Other religions are free to do the same, as are people without any organized religion. If it passes that marriage also means between man and man AND woman and woman, then so be it. The population of our country voted for it and it was because of their ideals that they voted that way. I won't throw a hissy fit and I will still be a citizen of this country.

    So, like I asked you before, you think it's ok for a majority to deny rights to a minority?

    I know you think it's great and that the whole defense of "they voted for it, I'd just accept it if things were different" is noble and everything. But you are looking at is as part of the majority and basically what you're saying is that if these people want to have equal rights their should just be more of them. Which is just silly.

    Before anyone calls Godwin (which doesn't apply to me, anyway) the following IS relevant.



    Adolph Hitler was democratically elected. The Nazi regime was popularly supported.

    Democracy is the BEST system out there (or as Churchill put it, it's the worst one, except for all the others) but it is NOT without flaws, and the idea that just because the majority supports something it is the "right" thing DOES NOT ring true.

    Except for the fact that Hitler was never elected. And the Nazi party only took 44% of the vote mostly due to anti-Communist hysteria and still didn't have enough members in Parliament to establish a majority. But please continue.

    We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty, and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds'.
  • Clint EastwoodClint Eastwood Living Proof That Sometimes Friends Are Mean.Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Faricazy wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government. Other religions are free to do the same, as are people without any organized religion. If it passes that marriage also means between man and man AND woman and woman, then so be it. The population of our country voted for it and it was because of their ideals that they voted that way. I won't throw a hissy fit and I will still be a citizen of this country.

    So, like I asked you before, you think it's ok for a majority to deny rights to a minority?

    I know you think it's great and that the whole defense of "they voted for it, I'd just accept it if things were different" is noble and everything. But you are looking at is as part of the majority and basically what you're saying is that if these people want to have equal rights their should just be more of them. Which is just silly.

    I don't think its ok for the majority to deny rights. Thats why I have said multiple times lets give them all the same rights, make it a federal law, and unturnable while we are at it. Just don't call it marriage, it effs with my religion and what I believe to be an eternal principle.

    So we should let your religious beliefs govern our lawmaking.
    Nope, but we should let the majority and their subsequent votes, which almost always ends up being based on their ideals.
    If you're blind to history then I don't know what else to say to you.
    well he IS a mormon

    nah, just kidding obi.

    OWQbJgI.png
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Butters wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government.

    America isn't a Democracy. It is a REPRESENTATIVE Democracy.

    That means that we understand that it is a bad idea to make decisions based on the whims of the unwashed, so we allow them to elect representatives for themselves, who will then push the agendas of their constituency, while also being aware that sometimes their constituency is simply worng about something, and they need to go the other way on it.

    Your treating a state matter like it's a federal one, Evander.

    DOMA is Federal.

    georgersig.jpg
  • The Otaku SuppositoryThe Otaku Suppository SKREEEEEOOOONKKKKKK Monster IslandRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Faricazy wrote: »
    Faricazy wrote: »
    i like corn

    i love corn

    vote for me and i may do great things for corn
    corn tortillas in every home

    maize in every lawn

    We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty, and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds'.
  • FaricazyFaricazy Registered User
    edited February 2009
    Faricazy wrote: »
    Faricazy wrote: »
    i like corn

    i love corn

    vote for me and i may do great things for corn
    corn tortillas in every home

    maize in every lawn
    a mexican in every backyard

  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Hunter wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Faricazy wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.

    If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?

    Because I believe that I have a Heavenly Father and Mother. That principle has extended to Earth through his children in which we are allowed to get married to continue that eternal progression. That union is a sacred eternal principle that is paramount to the happiness of God's children. As such, the institution of marriage should be defended on this Earth.

    That's why it needs to be called something different. It may seem trivial to you, but its not to me.
    You realize you're not the only religion around, right? Other religions have marriages too? Which is no different than gays getting married?

    In short, you're incredibly stupid.

    Well, then what merit does the government have in getting anybody married? Why should it be regulated by the government?

    Because tax laws need to address a union, as well as property laws, next of kin, inheritance, and many other legal decisions. It's just the nature of the beast.

    Before the government had this system set in place, with many perks for getting married, it was handled by the church. Now, tax laws for instance, the government recognizes the benefit of married couples getting together to create families. The value by married couples and families is great, and the government wants to encourage that so it adds perks and incentives to getting married.

    It's not just being nice, its a recognition of an ideal state for its citizens. Gay unions on the other hand, are not as valuable to the state, these citizens do not create a family. Their value to the government is diminished because of that.


    So some things like tax laws do not need to be changed, but other things probably do for the continuation of wealth and powers of attorney etc etc. People don't just deserve intrinsically all the perks of getting married. The perks are set in place because a male/female union is much more valuable then a homosexual union.

    Welcome to the year 2009. There are things you may think, but then you should shut your mouth and not speak.

    How is a gay union less valuable? Is money earned by gays taxed at a lesser rate? Do we not accept gay dollars? Do heterosexual couples without children offer less to the state, and should they be banned? Seriously, just fucking think for a second before opening your pie hole.

    Seriously then, tell me to the state, what is more valuable.

    Average gay married couple or average straight married couple.

    Spoiler:
  • tuggatugga Makin' movies Makin' songsRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    i swear to god everytime my internet goes out for one or two days a thread like this pops up and i feel like im missing something

    66OoDuJ.jpg
  • Clint EastwoodClint Eastwood Living Proof That Sometimes Friends Are Mean.Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    tugga wrote: »
    i swear to god everytime my internet goes out for one or two days a thread like this pops up and i feel like im missing something
    you could not possibly be more wrong.

    OWQbJgI.png
  • BelruelBelruel naw Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    i'ma go read comics, i leave you duders with this in the hope that it will help your debate
    Spoiler:

    3DS friendcode: 2380-4618-2503
  • FaricazyFaricazy Registered User
    edited February 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Seriously then, tell me to the state, what is more valuable.

    Average gay married couple or average straight married couple.
    my dick

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Hitler was never elected.

    I'm sorry, he was a popular appointed official.

    Appointed legally through the Democratic process, though.

    georgersig.jpg
  • Clint EastwoodClint Eastwood Living Proof That Sometimes Friends Are Mean.Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Belruel wrote: »
    i'ma go read comics, i leave you duders with this in the hope that it will help your debate
    Spoiler:
    holy shit, i used to have this comic when i was a kid!

    OWQbJgI.png
  • babyeatingjesusbabyeatingjesus Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    The Nazis were snappy dressers, though.

    hitthatcheeseburgerfatty.gif
  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government. Other religions are free to do the same, as are people without any organized religion. If it passes that marriage also means between man and man AND woman and woman, then so be it. The population of our country voted for it and it was because of their ideals that they voted that way. I won't throw a hissy fit and I will still be a citizen of this country.

    So, like I asked you before, you think it's ok for a majority to deny rights to a minority?

    I know you think it's great and that the whole defense of "they voted for it, I'd just accept it if things were different" is noble and everything. But you are looking at is as part of the majority and basically what you're saying is that if these people want to have equal rights their should just be more of them. Which is just silly.

    I don't think its ok for the majority to deny rights. Thats why I have said multiple times lets give them all the same rights, make it a federal law, and unturnable while we are at it. Just don't call it marriage, it effs with my religion and what I believe to be an eternal principle.

    Why are you okay with non-Mormon straight couples getting married?

    Because they are people. They need the same rights and privileges afforded to everyone else by the government. I just don't want it to screw up something I consider an eternal principle and as such sacred: the family and marriage.

    SWTOR Main - Novah (Shadowlands)
    Xbox Live - ObiFett (BF4 / Destiny)
    Other Games - Hearthstone and Diablo 3
  • Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Faricazy wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.

    If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?

    Because I believe that I have a Heavenly Father and Mother. That principle has extended to Earth through his children in which we are allowed to get married to continue that eternal progression. That union is a sacred eternal principle that is paramount to the happiness of God's children. As such, the institution of marriage should be defended on this Earth.

    That's why it needs to be called something different. It may seem trivial to you, but its not to me.
    You realize you're not the only religion around, right? Other religions have marriages too? Which is no different than gays getting married?

    In short, you're incredibly stupid.

    Well, then what merit does the government have in getting anybody married? Why should it be regulated by the government?

    Because tax laws need to address a union, as well as property laws, next of kin, inheritance, and many other legal decisions. It's just the nature of the beast.

    Before the government had this system set in place, with many perks for getting married, it was handled by the church. Now, tax laws for instance, the government recognizes the benefit of married couples getting together to create families. The value by married couples and families is great, and the government wants to encourage that so it adds perks and incentives to getting married.

    It's not just being nice, its a recognition of an ideal state for its citizens. Gay unions on the other hand, are not as valuable to the state, these citizens do not create a family. Their value to the government is diminished because of that.


    So some things like tax laws do not need to be changed, but other things probably do for the continuation of wealth and powers of attorney etc etc. People don't just deserve intrinsically all the perks of getting married. The perks are set in place because a male/female union is much more valuable then a homosexual union.

    Welcome to the year 2009. There are things you may think, but then you should shut your mouth and not speak.

    How is a gay union less valuable? Is money earned by gays taxed at a lesser rate? Do we not accept gay dollars? Do heterosexual couples without children offer less to the state, and should they be banned? Seriously, just fucking think for a second before opening your pie hole.

    Seriously then, tell me to the state, what is more valuable.

    Average gay married couple or average straight married couple.

    The same

  • TossrockTossrock too weird to live too rare to dieRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Faricazy wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.

    If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?

    Because I believe that I have a Heavenly Father and Mother. That principle has extended to Earth through his children in which we are allowed to get married to continue that eternal progression. That union is a sacred eternal principle that is paramount to the happiness of God's children. As such, the institution of marriage should be defended on this Earth.

    That's why it needs to be called something different. It may seem trivial to you, but its not to me.
    You realize you're not the only religion around, right? Other religions have marriages too? Which is no different than gays getting married?

    In short, you're incredibly stupid.

    Well, then what merit does the government have in getting anybody married? Why should it be regulated by the government?

    Because tax laws need to address a union, as well as property laws, next of kin, inheritance, and many other legal decisions. It's just the nature of the beast.

    Before the government had this system set in place, with many perks for getting married, it was handled by the church. Now, tax laws for instance, the government recognizes the benefit of married couples getting together to create families. The value by married couples and families is great, and the government wants to encourage that so it adds perks and incentives to getting married.

    It's not just being nice, its a recognition of an ideal state for its citizens. Gay unions on the other hand, are not as valuable to the state, these citizens do not create a family. Their value to the government is diminished because of that.


    So some things like tax laws do not need to be changed, but other things probably do for the continuation of wealth and powers of attorney etc etc. People don't just deserve intrinsically all the perks of getting married. The perks are set in place because a male/female union is much more valuable then a homosexual union.

    Welcome to the year 2009. There are things you may think, but then you should shut your mouth and not speak.

    How is a gay union less valuable? Is money earned by gays taxed at a lesser rate? Do we not accept gay dollars? Do heterosexual couples without children offer less to the state, and should they be banned? Seriously, just fucking think for a second before opening your pie hole.

    Seriously then, tell me to the state, what is more valuable.

    Average gay married couple or average straight married couple.

    what the fuck is wrong with you

  • babyeatingjesusbabyeatingjesus Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government. Other religions are free to do the same, as are people without any organized religion. If it passes that marriage also means between man and man AND woman and woman, then so be it. The population of our country voted for it and it was because of their ideals that they voted that way. I won't throw a hissy fit and I will still be a citizen of this country.

    So, like I asked you before, you think it's ok for a majority to deny rights to a minority?

    I know you think it's great and that the whole defense of "they voted for it, I'd just accept it if things were different" is noble and everything. But you are looking at is as part of the majority and basically what you're saying is that if these people want to have equal rights their should just be more of them. Which is just silly.

    I don't think its ok for the majority to deny rights. Thats why I have said multiple times lets give them all the same rights, make it a federal law, and unturnable while we are at it. Just don't call it marriage, it effs with my religion and what I believe to be an eternal principle.

    Why are you okay with non-Mormon straight couples getting married?

    Because they are people. They need the same rights and privileges afforded to everyone else by the government. I just don't want it to screw up something I consider an eternal principle and as such sacred: the family and marriage.
    What about a boy furry and a girl furry?

    hitthatcheeseburgerfatty.gif
  • VisionOfClarityVisionOfClarity Registered User
    edited February 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Faricazy wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.

    If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?

    Because I believe that I have a Heavenly Father and Mother. That principle has extended to Earth through his children in which we are allowed to get married to continue that eternal progression. That union is a sacred eternal principle that is paramount to the happiness of God's children. As such, the institution of marriage should be defended on this Earth.

    That's why it needs to be called something different. It may seem trivial to you, but its not to me.
    You realize you're not the only religion around, right? Other religions have marriages too? Which is no different than gays getting married?

    In short, you're incredibly stupid.

    Well, then what merit does the government have in getting anybody married? Why should it be regulated by the government?

    Because tax laws need to address a union, as well as property laws, next of kin, inheritance, and many other legal decisions. It's just the nature of the beast.

    Before the government had this system set in place, with many perks for getting married, it was handled by the church. Now, tax laws for instance, the government recognizes the benefit of married couples getting together to create families. The value by married couples and families is great, and the government wants to encourage that so it adds perks and incentives to getting married.

    It's not just being nice, its a recognition of an ideal state for its citizens. Gay unions on the other hand, are not as valuable to the state, these citizens do not create a family. Their value to the government is diminished because of that.


    So some things like tax laws do not need to be changed, but other things probably do for the continuation of wealth and powers of attorney etc etc. People don't just deserve intrinsically all the perks of getting married. The perks are set in place because a male/female union is much more valuable then a homosexual union.

    Welcome to the year 2009. There are things you may think, but then you should shut your mouth and not speak.

    How is a gay union less valuable? Is money earned by gays taxed at a lesser rate? Do we not accept gay dollars? Do heterosexual couples without children offer less to the state, and should they be banned? Seriously, just fucking think for a second before opening your pie hole.

    Seriously then, tell me to the state, what is more valuable.

    Average gay married couple or average straight married couple.


    Neither you god damn idiot.

  • DubhDubh REBEL REBEL Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government. Other religions are free to do the same, as are people without any organized religion. If it passes that marriage also means between man and man AND woman and woman, then so be it. The population of our country voted for it and it was because of their ideals that they voted that way. I won't throw a hissy fit and I will still be a citizen of this country.

    So, like I asked you before, you think it's ok for a majority to deny rights to a minority?

    I know you think it's great and that the whole defense of "they voted for it, I'd just accept it if things were different" is noble and everything. But you are looking at is as part of the majority and basically what you're saying is that if these people want to have equal rights their should just be more of them. Which is just silly.

    I don't think its ok for the majority to deny rights. Thats why I have said multiple times lets give them all the same rights, make it a federal law, and unturnable while we are at it. Just don't call it marriage, it effs with my religion and what I believe to be an eternal principle.

    Why are you okay with non-Mormon straight couples getting married?

    Because they are people. They need the same rights and privileges afforded to everyone else by the government. I just don't want it to screw up something I consider an eternal principle and as such sacred: the family and marriage.

    So are gays.

    Thing_zps6acf1883.png <---DE?AD makes games
  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Cloudman wrote: »
    Faricazy wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government. Other religions are free to do the same, as are people without any organized religion. If it passes that marriage also means between man and man AND woman and woman, then so be it. The population of our country voted for it and it was because of their ideals that they voted that way. I won't throw a hissy fit and I will still be a citizen of this country.

    So, like I asked you before, you think it's ok for a majority to deny rights to a minority?

    I know you think it's great and that the whole defense of "they voted for it, I'd just accept it if things were different" is noble and everything. But you are looking at is as part of the majority and basically what you're saying is that if these people want to have equal rights their should just be more of them. Which is just silly.

    I don't think its ok for the majority to deny rights. Thats why I have said multiple times lets give them all the same rights, make it a federal law, and unturnable while we are at it. Just don't call it marriage, it effs with my religion and what I believe to be an eternal principle.

    So we should let your religious beliefs govern our lawmaking.
    Nope, but we should let the majority and their subsequent votes, which almost always ends up being based on their ideals.
    If you're blind to history then I don't know what else to say to you.
    well he IS a mormon

    nah, just kidding obi.

    Wait, what is this "history" you speak of?

    SWTOR Main - Novah (Shadowlands)
    Xbox Live - ObiFett (BF4 / Destiny)
    Other Games - Hearthstone and Diablo 3
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government. Other religions are free to do the same, as are people without any organized religion. If it passes that marriage also means between man and man AND woman and woman, then so be it. The population of our country voted for it and it was because of their ideals that they voted that way. I won't throw a hissy fit and I will still be a citizen of this country.

    So, like I asked you before, you think it's ok for a majority to deny rights to a minority?

    I know you think it's great and that the whole defense of "they voted for it, I'd just accept it if things were different" is noble and everything. But you are looking at is as part of the majority and basically what you're saying is that if these people want to have equal rights their should just be more of them. Which is just silly.

    I don't think its ok for the majority to deny rights. Thats why I have said multiple times lets give them all the same rights, make it a federal law, and unturnable while we are at it. Just don't call it marriage, it effs with my religion and what I believe to be an eternal principle.

    Why are you okay with non-Mormon straight couples getting married?

    Because they are people. They need the same rights and privileges afforded to everyone else by the government. I just don't want it to screw up something I consider an eternal principle and as such sacred: the family and marriage.

    So Gays aren't people?

    That CAN'T be what you mean.



    Explain to me why Gay marriage is wrong WITHOUT relying on scripture and theology. What is the ACTUAL harm that it would do?

    georgersig.jpg
  • Clint EastwoodClint Eastwood Living Proof That Sometimes Friends Are Mean.Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Cloudman wrote: »
    oh great, Jigrah has arrived to pinch a huge smelly loaf right in the middle of the thread.
    called it.

    OWQbJgI.png
  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Dubh wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government. Other religions are free to do the same, as are people without any organized religion. If it passes that marriage also means between man and man AND woman and woman, then so be it. The population of our country voted for it and it was because of their ideals that they voted that way. I won't throw a hissy fit and I will still be a citizen of this country.

    So, like I asked you before, you think it's ok for a majority to deny rights to a minority?

    I know you think it's great and that the whole defense of "they voted for it, I'd just accept it if things were different" is noble and everything. But you are looking at is as part of the majority and basically what you're saying is that if these people want to have equal rights their should just be more of them. Which is just silly.

    I don't think its ok for the majority to deny rights. Thats why I have said multiple times lets give them all the same rights, make it a federal law, and unturnable while we are at it. Just don't call it marriage, it effs with my religion and what I believe to be an eternal principle.

    Why are you okay with non-Mormon straight couples getting married?

    Because they are people. They need the same rights and privileges afforded to everyone else by the government. I just don't want it to screw up something I consider an eternal principle and as such sacred: the family and marriage.

    So are gays.

    Exactly.

    SWTOR Main - Novah (Shadowlands)
    Xbox Live - ObiFett (BF4 / Destiny)
    Other Games - Hearthstone and Diablo 3
  • FaricazyFaricazy Registered User
    edited February 2009
    women shouldn't be allowed to marry because they are aliens from venus

  • VisionOfClarityVisionOfClarity Registered User
    edited February 2009
    Dubh wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government. Other religions are free to do the same, as are people without any organized religion. If it passes that marriage also means between man and man AND woman and woman, then so be it. The population of our country voted for it and it was because of their ideals that they voted that way. I won't throw a hissy fit and I will still be a citizen of this country.

    So, like I asked you before, you think it's ok for a majority to deny rights to a minority?

    I know you think it's great and that the whole defense of "they voted for it, I'd just accept it if things were different" is noble and everything. But you are looking at is as part of the majority and basically what you're saying is that if these people want to have equal rights their should just be more of them. Which is just silly.

    I don't think its ok for the majority to deny rights. Thats why I have said multiple times lets give them all the same rights, make it a federal law, and unturnable while we are at it. Just don't call it marriage, it effs with my religion and what I believe to be an eternal principle.

    Why are you okay with non-Mormon straight couples getting married?

    Because they are people. They need the same rights and privileges afforded to everyone else by the government. I just don't want it to screw up something I consider an eternal principle and as such sacred: the family and marriage.

    So are gays.

    But they're different so it needs to be called something different. Or Obi will get all upset because it doesn't fit his personal view on family and marriage.

This discussion has been closed.