As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The New GOP Thread: Taking Anti-Intellectualism to a Whole New Level

1545556575860»

Posts

  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Kastanj wrote: »
    "Gay people deserve rights. The fact that they don't is fucking digusting. I say this is as someone who finds homosexual acts to be a sin."

    That last part doesn't change anything. Like, at all. Whether you think homosexuality is a sin or not has no bearing on the importance or weight of your crediting defense of their rights. In fact, if you just plain stopped telling this forum you think homosexuality is a sin, it would not affect anything ever forever.

    I'm implying that my policy positions don't take into account my personal beliefs/religious beliefs, and subtly implying that that's how our voting methodology should be to KL

    Also, I wasn't aware you were Grand High Vizier of Posting Standards. I'll go check with you from now on for pre-approval of any and all posts I make.

    Rent on
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Gay rights can go in another thread methinks.

    Henroid on
  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA
    edited November 2009
    Bama wrote: »
    Can't speak for Delz, but I would. Like he said, at least WBC believe they are trying to protect us from something rather than trying to impose their own backward religious beliefs on other people for no good reason.

    Also, please tell me who the "real Christians" are.

    Really now? Backwards religious beliefs? I could say the same about yours. And those who vote against gay marriage aren't trying to impose their religious beliefs, rather they are trying to prevent the other side from imposing their beliefs

    It's true. Many on the liberal side conveniently overlook the "Enforced butt secks" clauses.

    Bionic Monkey on
    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Tach wrote: »
    Let these intelligent GOP'ers come forth and present their arguments.

    Did somebody say my name?

    No

    Kipling217 on
    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • Darkchampion3dDarkchampion3d Registered User
    edited November 2009
    Bama wrote: »
    Can't speak for Delz, but I would. Like he said, at least WBC believe they are trying to protect us from something rather than trying to impose their own backward religious beliefs on other people for no good reason.

    Also, please tell me who the "real Christians" are.

    Really now? Backwards religious beliefs? I could say the same about yours. And those who vote against gay marriage aren't trying to impose their religious beliefs, rather they are trying to prevent the other side from imposing their beliefs

    It's true. Many on the liberal side conveniently overlook the "Enforced butt secks" clauses.

    Mandatory 3 times a week in all of those gay marriage states. I think it's five times a week in MA though. They are also looking at a social catastrophe with the complete unraveling of their society.

    Except not.

    MA has had EVUL GAY MERRIJ for years, and still has the lowest divorce rate in the united states and ranks within the top 5 of just about any positive metric you can think of. Tolerance is a good thing. I just hope KL and his bigoted acquaintances stay in their backwater red state with their religious purity (along with astronomical divorce rates, horrible education, and very high poverty. Paradise)

    Darkchampion3d on
    Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
  • KastanjKastanj __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2009
    Rent wrote: »
    Kastanj wrote: »
    "Gay people deserve rights. The fact that they don't is fucking digusting. I say this is as someone who finds homosexual acts to be a sin."

    That last part doesn't change anything. Like, at all. Whether you think homosexuality is a sin or not has no bearing on the importance or weight of your crediting defense of their rights. In fact, if you just plain stopped telling this forum you think homosexuality is a sin, it would not affect anything ever forever.

    I'm implying that my policy positions don't take into account my personal beliefs/religious beliefs, and subtly implying that that's how our voting methodology should be to KL

    Also, I wasn't aware you were Grand High Vizier of Posting Standards. I'll go check with you from now on for pre-approval of any and all posts I make.

    And I'm subtly implying that since your position on the sinfulness of homosexuality is not based on anything related to reality that position is irrelevant to how you think about gay rights.

    Also, I really resent people who try to act as if I am trying to set myself as some Ultimate Arbiter when all I am doing is trying to explain that one shouldn't, in mixed crowds, casually bandy about the conviction that a harmless aspect of the phenotype in others is a sin. It is not a thing adults do.

    Kastanj on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Lampshade there's nothing wrong with hate. Right now the GOP is being fueled by hate for it's own sake. Hate without reason becomes rage and rage is the death of discourse.

    I hated GWB but if you wanted me to tell you why I could've written a dissertation about why I hated him. These Tea Party freaks can't even muddle together a coherent sentence about why they hate Obama

    The difference between Obama and Bush, is that Bush really did a lot of the bad things he was accused of.

    The Tea-baggers only go: "He is going to turn America into a socialist fascist dictatorship".

    When they are asked for proof their respons is: "HE IS GOING TO TURN AMERICA INTO A SOCIALIST FACIST DICTATORSHIP".

    Then they pretend that they have proved their point.

    Kipling217 on
    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Kastanj wrote: »
    Also, I really resent people who try to act as if I am trying to set myself as some Ultimate Arbiter when all I am doing is trying to explain that one shouldn't, in mixed crowds, casually bandy about the conviction that a harmless aspect of the phenotype in others is a sin. It is not a thing adults do.

    You don't know many "adults", do you?

    Houn on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Kastanj wrote: »
    And I'm subtly implying that since your position on the sinfulness of homosexuality is not based on anything related to reality that position is irrelevant to how you think about gay rights.
    iTunesIsEvil said it best. It's about engendering sympathy within the person to subtly change their mind. It's easier when you have a degree of connectability with the person on the other end. Empathy, in other words.
    Also, I really resent people who try to act as if I am trying to set myself as some Ultimate Arbiter when all I am doing is trying to explain that one shouldn't, in mixed crowds, casually bandy about the conviction that a harmless aspect of the phenotype in others is a sin. It is not a thing adults do.

    Coming from you, this statement has no meaning. And again, this is Debate and Discourse, not I'm Gonna Tell You How I Think You Should Post, Mmmmkay?

    Rent on
  • edited November 2009
    MA has had EVUL GAY MERRIJ for years, and still has the lowest divorce rate in the united states and ranks within the top 5 of just about any positive metric you can think of. Tolerance is a good thing. I just hope KL and his bigoted acquaintances stay in their backwater red state with their religious purity (along with astronomical divorce rates, horrible education, and very high poverty. Paradise)

    Have you ever been to MA? I guess not judging from your glowing review of the place. Amazing how fast the liberal crowd reverts to the whole "red state vs. blue state" nonsense. Also I live in Connecticut you tool.
    It's true. Many on the liberal side conveniently overlook the "Enforced butt secks" clauses.

    Many would conveniently overlook attempts to get some "GLTB education" BS shoved into the education system as is the case here in Connecticut. At middle school no less. And honestly it does seems that you liberals still can't get over this teabagging fetish of yours. God forbid anybody other than liberals use their 1st amendment rights...
    Bama wrote: »
    Now now, KL doesn't hate soldiers. He just doesn't give a damn about the things that they make enormous sacrifices to protect.

    I hate the soldiers? lol. This is coming from a crowd who would disregard so many munitions and polices for the sake of politically correctness? Come on now, how many of you go on supporting that cluster munitions ban for example.
    Rent wrote: »
    KL, you know soldiers in America defend peoples' rights, correct?

    That means the rights of people that they might have moral disagreements with

    Gay people deserve rights. The fact that they don't is fucking digusting. I say this is as someone who finds homosexual acts to be a sin.

    DADT is just as wrong, because I guaran-fucking-tee you that being gay in the military doesn't affect your capabilities as a servicemember.

    Being against gay marriage or repeal of DADT is being in support of suspension of people's rights. That's fucking wrong

    Gay people have rights. The same as everybody else. They have the right to get legally married just like anybody else. But they do not have the right to decide what marriage is. Same for those who practice polygamy for example. In is a matter of them wanting the laws and established social norms to be rewritten. So many people get caught up in the hollowing claims of "rights being denied", it is disturbing. A brilliant propaganda/PR move from the gay pride side of things however.

    With Don't Ask Don't Tell it is not the concern of the gay soldiers performance as much as how it will effect the unit as a whole. I support revisions to the policy but see no reason to change the basic concept behind it. Yet this is the wrong topic for that.
    Kastanj wrote: »
    I don't "believe" that there are no decent reasons as to why gays shouldn't have the opportunity to marry.
    There simply are no decent reasons as to why gays shouldn't be able to get married.

    And I see no decent reasons as to why gays should be able to get "married", I simply do not, nor will I ever support all of the benefits granted by marriage, nor the use of the term.
    "godless"
    Now you've done it, mighty man.

    Did I offend you with the wrong term? I'm less than concerned...
    Bama wrote: »
    If you can make a secular argument against gay marriage, then go ahead. Your religion should not be considered compelling support for any public policy. Oh, and when those secular arguments have implications that aren't supported with similar force then you really look like a bigot in a shitty disguise.

    I'm still eager to hear who the "real Christians" are.

    If you want to find a secular argument against gay marriage go ahead, the internet is full of them. I am not your source however. If religion inspired moral beliefs shouldn't provide support for public policy, why should the moral beliefs of the other side be considered compelling support? If "homosexuality is immoral" doesn't qualify, why should "homosexuality is moral and gay couples are the same as a married man and woman" qualify?

    Oh and I already told you.

    Those who vote against gay marriage aren't trying to impose their religious beliefs

    Except that they are.

    Except they aren't.

    Quid wrote: »
    What does gay marriage impose on anyone?

    The redefining of the term and part of this push to have the "politically correct" views of homosexuality forced on everybody.
    Oh right, tolerance of something that doesn't negatively affect anyone anywhere.

    Besides society you mean? With your logic we should just tolerate crime and any sort of act deemed immoral and wrong by a significant portion of the population.
    Tach wrote: »
    However, whilst they remain the quiet minority of attendees at these "protests", they will continue to be lumped in with the crazies and the pedantics.

    And yet so many consider you and your ilk crazies as well. You people are not the majority that you think you are.

    The funny thing is I would accept civil unions providing certain things, hospital visits and things like that, yet I am imminently classified as a bigot for opposing their full blown demands. I guess those gays who also want only "civil unions" are also bigots.

    Seriously it is a bit difficult to respond to the dozen or so responses I get for every post. But I chimed in with my views, however disagreeable they are to the hivemind here on these forums.

    KingLampshade on
    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."
    British publisher and writer Ernest Benn [1875-1954]
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    But they do not have the right to decide what marriage is.

    They aren't. YOU are.
    I hate the soldiers? lol. This is coming from a crowd who would disregard so many munitions and polices for the sake of politically correctness? Come on now, how many of you go on supporting that cluster munitions ban for example.

    Yes, how awful of us to not want to kill hundreds of people for no reason. Truly, truly awful.

    SyphonBlue on
    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • Edith UpwardsEdith Upwards Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Having a standing army is unconstituitional you jackass. Fuck, even I know that.

    Edith Upwards on
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    KL, I very specifically said you didn't hate soldiers.

    Also, you told me who the "real Christians" aren't, not who they are.

    I'd respond to particular sections of your post but I don't feel like fixing your bbcode.

    Bama on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    I hate the soldiers? lol. This is coming from a crowd who would disregard so many munitions and polices for the sake of politically correctness? Come on now, how many of you go on supporting that cluster munitions ban for example.

    Yes, how awful of us to not want to kill hundreds of people for no reason. Truly, truly awful.

    We also support not using napalm. Why, how unpatriotic!

    Couscous on
  • Orochi_RockmanOrochi_Rockman __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2009
    So, if someones personal religion believes that marriage is only for a man and a woman, and tries to pass legislation so that people who do not follow this religion still have to be bound to the same rules whether they want to or not.... that isn't forcing your religious beliefs on others? .... 'cause it sure seems like it.

    Orochi_Rockman on
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    education about glbt issues is necessary to raise tolerant people, just as it is necessary to learn about slavery and the nazis. To try and prevent it from repeating itself.

    autono-wally, erotibot300 on
    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Dude, if you want to be taken at all seriously here, implying the D and D fora is a hivemind and being having a general "You're wrong and I'm right" attitude wins you no favors

    Also, dude, the exact reasons for DADT were used to try and keep a segregated military. Like literally the whole "affects unit readiness" one. It has no bearing, and if the military were still segregated 1) I wouldn't be very close friends with a guy who helped me when I was suicidally depressed 2) more importantly, I wouldn't learn how to be a champ at dominoes

    DADT is flawed and stupid. It has no point, people in units aren't idiots we can tell pretty quickly whether or not you're gay. Pretty easy when you have to live with these people, and most in the military have the "As long as you're not trying to fuck me I really don't care if you take it in the ass in your off time" mentality, which is how the general public should see it vis a vis gay marriage.

    Anyways, KL, how would you think of a compromise re: gay marriage? Make all legal unions "civil unions", any two consenting adults can get it, and make "marriage" a purely religious institution. Everyone's happy; gays aren't "taking over marriage" because there's no marriage to take over. Churches can decide who they do or don't want to marry. Plus it removes the whole "church and state" violation that you're de facto arguing if you're arguing that marriage is a religious institution. You know, constitutional violation and all that

    Rent on
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    It is altogether fitting and proper that we pretend that things we find unpleasant simply don't exist.

    Bama on
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    So, if someones personal religion believes that marriage is only for a man and a woman, and tries to pass legislation so that people who do not follow this religion still have to be bound to the same rules whether they want to or not.... that isn't forcing your religious beliefs on others? .... 'cause it sure seems like it.

    Those people are wrongly binding their religious beliefs with what is a matter of business for the government. If these laws were passed there would be no mandate requiring churches that disagree to conduct marriages for homosexuals, much like there is no requirement for a Catholic priest to marry a Jewish couple if it strikes there fancy now.

    No one is forcing this into someone else church, we're essentially adding an additional bubble to the marriage license forms. Its churches that are forcing their policy into the government of the people.

    RedTide on
    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • KastanjKastanj __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2009
    "And again, this is Debate and Discourse, not I'm Gonna Tell You How I Think You Should Post, Mmmmkay?"

    19958.png

    A: "What is adult and civil to say in mixed crowds regarding the sinfulness of other people's lives."
    B: Debate and Discourse.

    I hate the fact that I had to explain this.

    "Empathy, in other words."

    "Hey look, them and I are both unsympathetic enough towards people who have done us no harm that we are willing to call their completely personal business a SIN. SYMPATHY!" This truly is a moderate and mature way to help gay people! Why you gotta be so stuck-up?!

    Kastanj on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2009
    God forbid anybody other than liberals use their 1st amendment rights...
    If you want to find a secular argument against gay marriage go ahead, the internet is full of them. I am not your source however. If religion inspired moral beliefs shouldn't provide support for public policy, why should the moral beliefs of the other side be considered compelling support? If "homosexuality is immoral" doesn't qualify, why should "homosexuality is moral and gay couples are the same as a married man and woman" qualify?

    Okay, so you've clearly never read the first amendment, nor know anything about the rule of law.

    Also, funny that you should name polygamy as a change in the definition of marriage, as the practice has only been taboo for a century of two and is still practiced in many cultures.

    Oh, and I live in MA, and I fail to see how being the best educated in the nation somehow makes someplace a hellhole.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • BullioBullio Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    God forbid anybody other than liberals use their 1st amendment rights...
    No one's saying they can't, or even shouldn't. It is perfectly fine to express yourself, but that doesn't mean that others have to listen or pay attention to you. Additionally, liberals have every right to mock and criticize the teabaggers.

    Those who vote against gay marriage aren't trying to impose their religious beliefs

    Except that they are.

    Except they aren't.

    You're going to have to explain this then, because it really makes no sense.

    Bullio on
    steam_sig.png
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Have you ever been to MA? I guess not judging from your glowing review of the place. Amazing how fast the liberal crowd reverts to the whole "red state vs. blue state" nonsense. Also I live in Connecticut you tool.

    Statistically, red states tend to be lower in most regards compared to blue states. They generally wouldn't be viable without the taxes from the blue states that subsidize them, and so on. As such, it puts in question the value of the opinions of the people who declare themselves part of the political bodies that control those states. Even pointing to the parts of blue states which suck usually means pointing to red regions. Central California is a prime example. That place is absolutely horrible. Moreover, the religious aren't very good at many of the things that they claim to hold dear - atheists are less likely, by ratio, to commit a crime or get a divorce, for instance. It all makes it very difficult to take the opinions of the political body seriously when it fails the most at what it claims most sacred.
    Many would conveniently overlook attempts to get some "GLTB education" BS shoved into the education system as is the case here in Connecticut. At middle school no less. And honestly it does seems that you liberals still can't get over this teabagging fetish of yours. God forbid anybody other than liberals use their 1st amendment rights...

    We get sex education in middle school. GLTB relates directly to sexuality. If you delay it, you only cause confusion. And the teabag thing is an intellectual freak show, so is rightfully found wanting. Your "1st amendment rights" statement doesn't mean fuckall. Nobody is saying that the people have to stop making fools of themselves. You may as well have quoted Shakespeare's opinion on flabby breasts.
    I hate the soldiers? lol. This is coming from a crowd who would disregard so many munitions and polices for the sake of politically correctness? Come on now, how many of you go on supporting that cluster munitions ban for example.

    How do you disregard munitions for political correctness? Do you know what those words mean?

    Cluster Bombs? You mean those things which lead to mass civilian deaths?

    Not killing the innocent is PC? What?

    Gay people have rights. The same as everybody else. They have the right to get legally married just like anybody else. But they do not have the right to decide what marriage is. Same for those who practice polygamy for example. In is a matter of them wanting the laws and established social norms to be rewritten. So many people get caught up in the hollowing claims of "rights being denied", it is disturbing. A brilliant propaganda/PR move from the gay pride side of things however.

    Actually, as citizens of the United States, they do. They and others who uphold the Constitution just have to outnumber the assholes first. In another generation or two, it will be done. Established social norms hold no intrinsic value, especially not bigoted ones which gain the country absolutely nothing.

    With Don't Ask Don't Tell it is not the concern of the gay soldiers performance as much as how it will effect the unit as a whole. I support revisions to the policy but see no reason to change the basic concept behind it. Yet this is the wrong topic for that.

    I realize that the military has low standards right now, but anyone who would have a problem performing because GI Jeff sucks cock while on leave needs deep counseling, considering one of the most famous militaries of all time sucked cock as a matter of course.

    And I see no decent reasons as to why gays should be able to get "married", I simply do not, nor will I ever support all of the benefits granted by marriage, nor the use of the term.

    Fortunately your particular brand of bigotry is slowly on its way out, though surely there will be others.

    If you want to find a secular argument against gay marriage go ahead, the internet is full of them. I am not your source however. If religion inspired moral beliefs shouldn't provide support for public policy, why should the moral beliefs of the other side be considered compelling support? If "homosexuality is immoral" doesn't qualify, why should "homosexuality is moral and gay couples are the same as a married man and woman" qualify?

    Oh and I already told you.

    There is no secular argument that is both rational and accurate. There are only those which rely on false premises, or which are blatantly irrational.

    Except they aren't.

    So you're just a traditionalist then? Oh well, at least that means you won't stone people. Hopefully.
    Quid wrote: »
    The redefining of the term and part of this push to have the "politically correct" views of homosexuality forced on everybody.

    The term has been redefined before. Gay marriage predates America.

    It is not a matter of being Politically Correct, it is a matter of being Ethically Correct.

    Being PC is when you PRETEND to be EC.
    Besides society you mean? With your logic we should just tolerate crime and any sort of act deemed immoral and wrong by a significant portion of the population.

    There is no evidence that gay marriage causes any harm to society.
    Tach wrote: »
    And yet so many consider you and your ilk crazies as well. You people are not the majority that you think you are.

    There are people who think the earth is flat. Their opinions hardly matter. The people who are non-bigoted towards homosexuals are not the majority yet, this is true. But this will not last unless baby boomers gain immortality and start shooting children.
    The funny thing is I would accept civil unions providing certain things, hospital visits and things like that, yet I am imminently classified as a bigot for opposing their full blown demands. I guess those gays who also want only "civil unions" are also bigots.

    You ARE a bigot. Your being a bigot who will make exceptions does not make you any less a bigot.
    Seriously it is a bit difficult to respond to the dozen or so responses I get for every post. But I chimed in with my views, however disagreeable they are to the hivemind here on these forums.

    We disagree on plenty of issues. Just not issues like "don't be a bigot."

    Incenjucar on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Kastanj wrote: »
    "And again, this is Debate and Discourse, not I'm Gonna Tell You How I Think You Should Post, Mmmmkay?"

    19958.png

    A: "What is adult and civil to say in mixed crowds regarding the sinfulness of other people's lives."
    B: Debate and Discourse.

    I hate the fact that I had to explain this.

    "Empathy, in other words."

    "Hey look, them and I are both unsympathetic enough towards people who have done us no harm that we are willing to call their completely personal business a SIN. SYMPATHY!" This truly is a moderate and mature way to help gay people! Why you gotta be so stuck-up?!

    See, I knew this was the stupid fucking reason you were pulling that stupid bullshit in the first place when you posted
    You're wrong, Rent. Both people hurt others mentally and attempt to do so politically as well, for religious reasons. They're all self-entitled, solipsist busy-bodies, and nothing significant occurs when we try to assert which type is worse.

    But I questioned my own beliefs and just thought you were approaching reasonability for once in D and D. Shoulda never gave you the benefit of the doubt.
    Before you even start on what I know you're gonna say, no, I'm not as bad as someone who votes against gay marriage. There are indeed levels of moral culpability and my disregarding my personal beliefs to vote for civil rights makes me less bad than someone who doesn't. Your position is ludicrous and tantamount to moral purging of anyone who doesn't have views that satisfy your ridiculous requirements for "goodness", much like, amazingly, the GOP. And again I say, I really don't think you have any place to start making moral judgements of peoples opinions. Glass houses and all that.

    Rent on
  • TachTach Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Tach wrote: »
    However, whilst they remain the quiet minority of attendees at these "protests", they will continue to be lumped in with the crazies and the pedantics.

    And yet so many consider you and your ilk crazies as well. You people are not the majority that you think you are.

    The funny thing is I would accept civil unions providing certain things, hospital visits and things like that, yet I am imminently classified as a bigot for opposing their full blown demands. I guess those gays who also want only "civil unions" are also bigots.

    Seriously it is a bit difficult to respond to the dozen or so responses I get for every post. But I chimed in with my views, however disagreeable they are to the hivemind here on these forums.
    Asking for the same rights and privledges that in NO WAY harms you. AT ALL. You simply cannot put forth an arguement against gay marriage that doesn't involve "gays are icky". And THAT doesn't qualify as a reason to deny them these rights.
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Tach wrote: »
    Let these intelligent GOP'ers come forth and present their arguments.

    Did somebody say my name?

    Quiet, you. :P

    I was speaking more metaphorically, though. I meant that they (you) shouldn't let these wingers tarnish your collective conservative image. Which they are.

    Tach on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    The key point is that the anti-gay-marriage crowd has never really had a good factual argument. Most of them realize that the pure religious argument won't fly, so they fall back on "redefining marriage" and hope that people just assume there are negative consequences that go along with that.

    But... there aren't. It's nothing but a smokescreen for prejudice.

    Fuck those people.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • KastanjKastanj __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2009
    "I'm not as bad as someone who votes against gay marriage."

    I wasn't going to say that, but I don't think you have a biased position of me. Anyway.

    No, you being willing to stand by homosexuals in words and in actions is to your credit. You saying that homosexuality is a sin will always be to your discredit. I can handle contradictions and ambiguities.

    "Your position is ludicrous and tantamount to moral purging of anyone who doesn't have views that satisfy your ridiculous requirements for "goodness", much like, amazingly, the GOP."

    I think you proudly hoisting a unsympathetic flag in order to win over other, far more unsympathetic people through the magic of sympathy and tolerance of non-sympathy is... Unsympathetic. And just a bit dumb.

    "Your position is ludicrous and tantamount to moral purging of anyone who doesn't have views that satisfy your ridiculous requirements for "goodness", much like, amazingly, the GOP."

    " 'You're now just like the people you dislike because you disliked too strongly!'
    'Oh my god I AM THE REPUBLICANS'"
    And then Kastanj was a REPUBLICAN HOW
    IRONIC! How veeeeeeeeery ironic."

    Kastanj on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Marriage should no longer receive the benefits it does. Marriage should become a religious practice only, since priests are involved.

    Instead, civil unions should be formed for all couples, straight or gay, and the benefits will be the same as they are now. Only extended to everyone.

    So religious people (like me) can have our tradition while not ousting everyone from unfair government support.

    Henroid on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Man, fuck that.

    Marriage does not belong to religion.

    Incenjucar on
  • YamiB.YamiB. Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Marriage should no longer receive the benefits it does. Marriage should become a religious practice only, since priests are involved.

    Instead, civil unions should be formed for all couples, straight or gay, and the benefits will be the same as they are now. Only extended to everyone.

    So religious people (like me) can have our tradition while not ousting everyone from unfair government support.

    Or the people who are opposing same-sex marriage because of religious traditions could stop being ignorant and realize that they have no claim to ownership of 'marriage'. Priests are not always involved in marriage so I don't see how that even comes into it.

    I would support civil unions for everybody if I considered it to be a realistic option. But it seems like extra effort for little discernible gain.

    YamiB. on
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Man, fuck that.

    Marriage does not belong to religion.

    yeah seriously. it's pretty much the word for a concept older than civilization itself. people deciding to share their life to overcome life's hurdles together

    autono-wally, erotibot300 on
    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
  • NarianNarian Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    But they do not have the right to decide what marriage is.

    Are homosexuals citizens of the USA? Then yes they do have the right to decide what marriage is.
    In is a matter of them wanting the laws and established social norms to be rewritten.

    Rewritten is too hyperbolic - it's more the broadening of a term, ie marriage, to include more people than it currently does - which I would like to point out happens all the time! Words and their meaning change!

    Narian on
    Narian.gif
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited November 2009
    Huh, I guess this is a gay marriage thread now.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited November 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    God forbid anybody other than liberals use their 1st amendment rights...
    If you want to find a secular argument against gay marriage go ahead, the internet is full of them. I am not your source however. If religion inspired moral beliefs shouldn't provide support for public policy, why should the moral beliefs of the other side be considered compelling support? If "homosexuality is immoral" doesn't qualify, why should "homosexuality is moral and gay couples are the same as a married man and woman" qualify?

    Okay, so you've clearly never read the first amendment, nor know anything about the rule of law.

    Also, funny that you should name polygamy as a change in the definition of marriage, as the practice has only been taboo for a century of two and is still practiced in many cultures.

    Oh, and I live in MA, and I fail to see how being the best educated in the nation somehow makes someplace a hellhole.

    Oh come on there are two ways to run society:

    1) The way my religion says

    2) Fuckin anarchy

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
This discussion has been closed.