"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
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
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.
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
"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.
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
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
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
0
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
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?
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...
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
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]
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.
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!
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.
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
0
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
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
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
"And again, this is Debate and Discourse, not I'm Gonna Tell You How I Think You Should Post, Mmmmkay?"
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?!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
0
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
"And again, this is Debate and Discourse, not I'm Gonna Tell You How I Think You Should Post, Mmmmkay?"
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.
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.
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.
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
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
"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]
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
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.
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.
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
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!
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
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.
Posts
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.
It's true. Many on the liberal side conveniently overlook the "Enforced butt secks" clauses.
No
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)
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.
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.
You don't know many "adults", do you?
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
British publisher and writer Ernest Benn [1875-1954]
They aren't. YOU are.
Yes, how awful of us to not want to kill hundreds of people for no reason. Truly, truly awful.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
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.
We also support not using napalm. Why, how unpatriotic!
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
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.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
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?!
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.
You're going to have to explain this then, because it really makes no sense.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Fortunately your particular brand of bigotry is slowly on its way out, though surely there will be others.
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.
So you're just a traditionalist then? Oh well, at least that means you won't stone people. Hopefully.
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.
There is no evidence that gay marriage causes any harm to society.
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.
You ARE a bigot. Your being a bigot who will make exceptions does not make you any less a bigot.
We disagree on plenty of issues. Just not issues like "don't be a bigot."
See, I knew this was the stupid fucking reason you were pulling that stupid bullshit in the first place when you posted
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.
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.
But... there aren't. It's nothing but a smokescreen for prejudice.
Fuck those people.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
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."
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.
Marriage does not belong to religion.
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.
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
Are homosexuals citizens of the USA? Then yes they do have the right to decide what marriage is.
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!
Oh come on there are two ways to run society:
1) The way my religion says
2) Fuckin anarchy