Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
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

1454648505162

Posts

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC HARM IN ALLOWING GAYS TO MARRY?

    georgersig.jpg
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    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.

    Prop 8 isn't though and that's what is being discussed. As far as I know the Mormon church doesn't have anything to do with DOMA.

    League of Legends: Lamby Cakes | XBox Live: Jon Butters
  • tuggatugga Makin' movies Makin' songsRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Cloudman wrote: »
    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.

    how can i possibly be wrong about what i know im thinking

    66OoDuJ.jpg
  • OrikaeshigitaeOrikaeshigitae Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2009
  • Clint EastwoodClint Eastwood Slip Like Freudian. Playing Yourself Like Accordion.Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC HARM IN ALLOWING GAYS TO MARRY?
    have you ever seen two women?

    suckin on each other's tittieballs?

    DISGUSTING!

    5UZDe2J.jpg
  • FaricazyFaricazy Registered User
    edited February 2009
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Wait, what is this "history" you speak of?
    Faricazy wrote: »
    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.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Butters wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    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.

    Prop 8 isn't though and that's what is being discussed. As far as I know the Mormon church doesn't have anything to do with DOMA.

    We've been discussing Gay MArriage as a whole, not just Prop 8.

    georgersig.jpg
  • DubhDubh "FLÄSHYN!" Y.V.'s mansionRegistered 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.

    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.

    You know what, insults aren't getting us anywhere.

    Thing_zps6acf1883.png <---DE?AD makes games
  • TossrockTossrock too weird to live too rare to dieRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    ObiFett wrote: »
    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.

    ...

  • JigrahJigrah Registered 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.


    Neither you god damn idiot.

    If they are both equally valuable, and since the capacity for both being 100% is a potential. Society then could exist with both 100% straight couples and 100% homosexual couples.

    That is not true, at all, they are not equally valuable. There is value to homosexual couples but not nearly the value as straight couples. There is no argument to that.

    Spoiler:
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    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.

    Prop 8 isn't though and that's what is being discussed. As far as I know the Mormon church doesn't have anything to do with DOMA.

    We've been discussing Gay MArriage as a whole, not just Prop 8.

    As it pertains to Mormons. This is a mormon thread after all.

    League of Legends: Lamby Cakes | XBox Live: Jon Butters
  • FaricazyFaricazy Registered User
    edited February 2009
    jesus christ jigrah

  • Clint EastwoodClint Eastwood Slip Like Freudian. Playing Yourself Like Accordion.Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    tugga wrote: »
    Cloudman wrote: »
    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.

    how can i possibly be wrong about what i know im thinking
    you are only missing out on pedantic arguments that go around in circles, also Deacon will usually make a trollish post about how black people should have stayed enslaved or something equally stupid, and then Jigrah will talk about how if you look at it THIS way, you'll realize gays are subhuman.

    EDIT: Naturally right after I start typing this, Jigrah proves me 100% correct, as usual.

    5UZDe2J.jpg
  • FaricazyFaricazy Registered User
    edited February 2009
    i'm going to go take a shower to wash off jigrah's stupid

  • TossrockTossrock too weird to live too rare to dieRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    This kind of shit is what breeds anti religious sentiment among the mean ol' atheists of the internet

    where are all the moderate, compassionate Christians to defend their progressive beliefs

  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Faricazy wrote: »
    jesus christ jigrah

    You're doing it wrong.

    League of Legends: Lamby Cakes | XBox Live: Jon Butters
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    That is not true, at all, they are not equally valuable. There is value to homosexual couples but not nearly the value as straight couples. There is no argument to that.

    Actually, divorce rates are higher among straight marriages than among gay marriages, so you get an offset there.

    And since Gays can adopt, they have kids going for them as well.



    Also, just because one thing might be more beneficial to society does not mean that we can't have both. Gay marriage does not cause harm.

    georgersig.jpg
  • tuggatugga Makin' movies Makin' songsRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    what the fuck jigrah

    66OoDuJ.jpg
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Tossrock wrote: »
    This kind of shit is what breeds anti religious sentiment among the mean ol' atheists of the internet

    where are all the moderate, compassionate Christians to defend their progressive beliefs

    Yo.

    bar-cc-1.jpg
  • VisionOfClarityVisionOfClarity Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    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.

    If they are both equally valuable, and since the capacity for both being 100% is a potential. Society then could exist with both 100% straight couples and 100% homosexual couples.

    That is not true, at all, they are not equally valuable. There is value to homosexual couples but not nearly the value as straight couples. There is no argument to that.

    Yes there is in that you have provided no basis for your argument. Unless your argument really is that gay couples don't create families, which many do, and that hetero couples do, which many don't.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Butters wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    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.

    Prop 8 isn't though and that's what is being discussed. As far as I know the Mormon church doesn't have anything to do with DOMA.

    We've been discussing Gay MArriage as a whole, not just Prop 8.

    As it pertains to Mormons. This is a mormon thread after all.

    This is SE++.

    Stop trying to declare the thread to be about a specific thing.

    DOMA is a valid thing to bring up in a gay marriage discussion.

    georgersig.jpg
  • TossrockTossrock too weird to live too rare to dieRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Javen wrote: »
    Tossrock wrote: »
    This kind of shit is what breeds anti religious sentiment among the mean ol' atheists of the internet

    where are all the moderate, compassionate Christians to defend their progressive beliefs

    Yo.

    could you please make the rest of your brethren stop being so retarded

  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Evander 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 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?

    I read your initial text wrong. My bad.

    But it still stands, everyone in this country are human beings (my brothers and sisters, to be exact), therefore they deserve the same rights. BUT that can be done without calling it marriage. That's all most Christians are asking at this point in the debate.

    I can't explain how its wrong without resorting to theology. And as a result of that, someone wrote a wonderful post detailing our government and discussing this exact point. I conceeded and said I needed to do some research because he made some wonderful points. So I guess we are back at that point.

    SWTOR Main - Novah (Shadowlands)
    Xbox Live - ObiFett (BF4 / Destiny)
    Other Games - Hearthstone and Diablo 3
  • DubhDubh "FLÄSHYN!" Y.V.'s mansionRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    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.

    If they are both equally valuable, and since the capacity for both being 100% is a potential. Society then could exist with both 100% straight couples and 100% homosexual couples.

    That is not true, at all, they are not equally valuable. There is value to homosexual couples but not nearly the value as straight couples. There is no argument to that.

    Yes there is in that you have provided no basis for your argument. Unless your argument really is that gay couples don't create families, which many do, and that hetero couples do, which many don't.

    Don't forget that lesbians can get artificial insemination.

    Thing_zps6acf1883.png <---DE?AD makes games
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    tugga wrote: »
    what the fuck jigrah

    Stop it!

    League of Legends: Lamby Cakes | XBox Live: Jon Butters
  • Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    If they are both equally valuable, and since the capacity for both being 100% is a potential. Society then could exist with both 100% straight couples and 100% homosexual couples.

    That is not true, at all, they are not equally valuable. There is value to homosexual couples but not nearly the value as straight couples. There is no argument to that.

    What the fuck

    What the fuck

  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Cloudman wrote: »
    Cloudman wrote: »
    oh great, Jigrah has arrived to pinch a huge smelly loaf right in the middle of the thread.
    called it.

    You being successful in calling that is like me saying your mom is going to slob on my knob, then in fact she does.

    Reputation precedes both.

    Spoiler:
  • VisionOfClarityVisionOfClarity Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Dubh wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    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.

    If they are both equally valuable, and since the capacity for both being 100% is a potential. Society then could exist with both 100% straight couples and 100% homosexual couples.

    That is not true, at all, they are not equally valuable. There is value to homosexual couples but not nearly the value as straight couples. There is no argument to that.

    Yes there is in that you have provided no basis for your argument. Unless your argument really is that gay couples don't create families, which many do, and that hetero couples do, which many don't.

    Don't forget that lesbians can get artificial insemination.

    It's not even just biologically having a family, many adopt.

  • Darth WaiterDarth Waiter Cowboy Fwankenstein Livin' That DreamRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Javen wrote: »
    Tossrock wrote: »
    This kind of shit is what breeds anti religious sentiment among the mean ol' atheists of the internet

    where are all the moderate, compassionate Christians to defend their progressive beliefs

    Yo.

    You have fallen for my trap; time to die, Iron Eagle.

    darthsig.jpg
  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Faricazy wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Wait, what is this "history" you speak of?
    Faricazy wrote: »
    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.


    It was a joke. I was sarcastically agreeing with the guy who said I don't actually know history because I'm mormon. :|

    SWTOR Main - Novah (Shadowlands)
    Xbox Live - ObiFett (BF4 / Destiny)
    Other Games - Hearthstone and Diablo 3
  • Clint EastwoodClint Eastwood Slip Like Freudian. Playing Yourself Like Accordion.Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Cloudman wrote: »
    Cloudman wrote: »
    oh great, Jigrah has arrived to pinch a huge smelly loaf right in the middle of the thread.
    called it.

    You being successful in calling that is like me saying your mom is going to slob on my knob, then in fact she does.

    Reputation precedes both.
    Hilarious your mom jokes won't cover up the fact that you are intellectually bankrupt, as is your argument in this thread.

    Brah.

    5UZDe2J.jpg
  • tuggatugga Makin' movies Makin' songsRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Butters wrote: »
    tugga wrote: »
    what the fuck jigrah

    Stop it!

    i have to deal with people like him everyday

    my poster of obama in my kitchen creates way more turmoil then say, one of my friends beating his girlfriend to a pulp

    the gay conversation is sort of ridiculous cause one person always ends up looking like a retard

    66OoDuJ.jpg
  • Spectre-xSpectre-x Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Belruel wrote: »
    but all of this is useless masturbation anyways, anything i say won't convince you, because you have your eyes firmly shut, feeling righteous in your cause, and that what you are offering is fair.

    it's the same with my extended family, i was furious when they donated money to the yes on 8 campaign, but their church leaders sent down the command, and they, like a nice little flock, go and obey without thinking it out logically. but nothing i say will make them look at it with a fair even view, they are far too skewed.

    it makes me very very sad.

    That bolded phrase is an impossibility. :winky:

    I personally don't feel like my eyes are shut. I am very much a free thinker (Philosophy major) and welcome any viewpoints. I don't think I have been unreasonable or illogical in my statements so I'm not sure why you are comparing me to sheep, but whatev. Regardless, thanks for the convo and for not getting pissed off. Most people just get all angry when having any sort of debate.

    Of course you don't feel your eyes are shut. This is like Plato's cave. You don't know any better so you don't realise that what you see or think isn't at all rational or fair.

    And you're obviously not a free thinker because you twist and turn in your logic to desparately cling to your backwards beliefs.

    No offense intended.

    Sig_link_image.jpg
  • DubhDubh "FLÄSHYN!" Y.V.'s mansionRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Dubh wrote: »
    Don't forget that lesbians can get artificial insemination.

    It's not even just biologically having a family, many adopt.

    I hope married-straight couples adopt as well. A family is a family.

    Thing_zps6acf1883.png <---DE?AD makes games
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Evander 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 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?

    I read your initial text wrong. My bad.

    But it still stands, everyone in this country are human beings (my brothers and sisters, to be exact), therefore they deserve the same rights. BUT that can be done without calling it marriage. That's all most Christians are asking at this point in the debate.

    I can't explain how its wrong without resorting to theology. And as a result of that, someone wrote a wonderful post detailing our government and discussing this exact point. I conceeded and said I needed to do some research because he made some wonderful points. So I guess we are back at that point.

    All the "research" you need to do is read the First Amendment. It says right there, clear as day, that Congress shall pass no law respecting religious institution.

    So the argument that Christians somehow should own the word marriage is nullified from that alone.



    Moving beyond that, Marriage existed before Christianity, so how do you defend the idea that Christians hold ownership of it? What if a Wiccan Gay couple wanted to have a Wiccan Gay Marriage, or a Jewish couple a Jewish Gay Marriage. Why Should Christianity define what Jews are allowed to do?

    georgersig.jpg
  • SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    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.
    ObiFett wrote: »
    As far as laws and civil rights not being based on faith, aren't many of our laws based on religious ones? Thats a hard line to draw also considering that a majority of this country believes in a god or belongs to some sort of faith. And considering we are the ones that make the laws according to our own conscience, most laws and civil rights WILL be based on some sort of faith until the majority of the country is no longer religious.
    It's really not a hard line to draw at all. If the law applies to everyone, then it needs to be based in (or at least defensible) in a secular, reasonable (i.e. non-faith based) argument. The argument against legalizing gay marriage has never been defensible from a purely secular standpoint.

    It's an easy game to hate
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    tugga wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    tugga wrote: »
    what the fuck jigrah

    Stop it!

    i have to deal with people like him everyday

    my poster of obama in my kitchen creates way more turmoil then say, one of my friends beating his girlfriend to a pulp

    the gay conversation is sort of ridiculous cause one person always ends up looking like a retard

    No no no! You're supposed to say "Jigrah please!"

    League of Legends: Lamby Cakes | XBox Live: Jon Butters
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    That is not true, at all, they are not equally valuable. There is value to homosexual couples but not nearly the value as straight couples. There is no argument to that.

    Actually, divorce rates are higher among straight marriages than among gay marriages, so you get an offset there.

    And since Gays can adopt, they have kids going for them as well.



    Also, just because one thing might be more beneficial to society does not mean that we can't have both. Gay marriage does not cause harm.

    We definitely can have both and should, but should all benefits apply to both? Should they be the same thing? I am sure some things need to be changed before we take that step, not sure what though because it isn't really important for me.

    Spoiler:
  • FaricazyFaricazy Registered User
    edited February 2009
    all jewish marriages are gay

    so gay

  • tuggatugga Makin' movies Makin' songsRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Butters wrote: »
    tugga wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    tugga wrote: »
    what the fuck jigrah

    Stop it!

    i have to deal with people like him everyday

    my poster of obama in my kitchen creates way more turmoil then say, one of my friends beating his girlfriend to a pulp

    the gay conversation is sort of ridiculous cause one person always ends up looking like a retard

    No no no! You're supposed to say "Jigrah please!"

    ugh

    you should be ashamed
    Spoiler:

    66OoDuJ.jpg
This discussion has been closed.