Boom! Down go two more states. Same sex marriage is gathering momentum

[K1052]

I could really care less at this point. The gay agenda, and the massive push behind it (haha), are really starting to grind my gears in all honestly. I mean we have real, highly serious, issues we should be focusing on and yet everyday I have to receive the non-stop updates about this nonsense.

I could give two craps what two consenting adults, or even more, do in the privacy of their own home; but when you start pushing this narrative as an important issue while there are very real and very important issues that need to be dealt with....then I have a hard time taking you seriously at that point.

Courage is an inner resolution to go forward despite obstacles.
Cowardice is submissive surrender to circumstances.
Courage breeds creativity; Cowardice represses fear and is mastered by it.
Cowardice asks the question, is it safe?
Expediency ask the question, is it politic?
Vanity asks the question, is it popular?

 

[chucky2]

Interracial marriage is about a person of the opposite sex not being able to marry someone of the opposite sex purely based on the color of their skin - that is, interethnic marriage fits perfectly in the traditional view of marriage.

Gay "marriage" does not. They are not the same. The only way they are similar is a group wanting what they want, that's all.

 

[MrPickins]

*sigh* Yes, go to the most ridiculous extreme and then insult me. Nice argument.

I wasn't so much insulting you as making an analogy in relation to your statements.

My point stands that advocating for a cause is not a zero sum game. Just because someone fights for lgbt rights doesn't mean they don't also speak out against other injustices.


(Also, if you felt that was insulting, you have some awfully thin skin.)

 

[chucky2]

Damn uppity special interest groups whining about their "rights"...

How dare they? Funny, interracial marriage used to be illegal in some states in this country (the south). I don't really see this issue as being any different.

Interracial marriage is about a person of the opposite sex not being able to marry someone of the opposite sex purely based on the color of their skin - that is, interethnic marriage fits perfectly in the traditional view of marriage.

Gay "marriage" does not. They are not the same. The only way they are similar is a group wanting what they want, that's all.

 

[MrPickins]

The only way they are similar is a group wanting equal rights under the law, that's all.

Fixed that for you.

 

[K1052]

Interracial marriage is about a person of the opposite sex not being able to marry someone of the opposite sex purely based on the color of their skin - that is, interethnic marriage fits perfectly in the traditional view of marriage.

Gay "marriage" does not. They are not the same. The only way they are similar is a group wanting what they want, that's all.

It was such a non-issue that it also required a supreme court decision. 🙄

All the same arguments that were deployed against interracial marriage have been exhumed for use aginast gay marriage. I'm not sure how you think they are more valid this go around.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

I wasn't so much insulting you as making an analogy in relation to your statements.

My point stands that advocating for a cause is not a zero sum game. Just because someone fights for lgbt rights doesn't mean they don't also speak out against other injustices.


(Also, if you felt that was insulting, you have some awfully thin skin.)

Here is the OP you made:

Yeah, because advocating for causes is a zero sum game, right? :hmm:

Are you also the guy who tells the traffic cop writing him a ticket to go "catch some real criminals"?

You make a strawman argument against my character in the face of authority and that is somehow not an insult in your opinion. Well, good for you. In the real world, that is a condescending and rather douchebag method of insulting someone. Quite frankly, my skin is fine, it is your elitist attitude that needs adjustment.

Nice job also completely ignoring my point that your argument is the complete 180 extreme argument for the point I made. It is typical extremist partisan garbage that people have somehow equated with being educated and smarter than others, which is ironic in that it shows a complete lack of critical thinking and imagination.

Anyhow, it is just so over the top that I have to see this crap on the news every single day when there are major injustices and real evil in this world.

Courage is an inner resolution to go forward despite obstacles.
Cowardice is submissive surrender to circumstances.
Courage breeds creativity; Cowardice represses fear and is mastered by it.
Cowardice asks the question, is it safe?
Expediency ask the question, is it politic?
Vanity asks the question, is it popular?

You obviously think I said something or implied something that I didn't.

 

[chucky2]

Fixed that for you.

You fixed nothing. Perverting a long understood tradition to include something it never included via duration of whine and social indoctrination isn't fixing anything. It's outlasting the sheeple who are busy watching American Idol and Dog the Bounty Hunter.

 

[chucky2]

It was such a non-issue that it also required a supreme court decision. 🙄

All the same arguments that were deployed against interracial marriage have been exhumed for use aginast gay marriage. I'm not sure how you think they are more valid this go around.

I never said gays not being able to enjoy benefits via civil union wasn't an issue - it is.

Perverting a long standing meaning to eventually get your way was and is the 'agenda'. I don't blame the gays and their sympathetic followers, I'd expect as much. I really blame the straights in power. Rather than doing what was proper, passing civil union legislation for All (not just gays) and dragging their heals, they allowed the gay movement to push the narrative of gay "marriage". Now we have a needlessly perverted term because whine until someone gives in.

Mud is now clear water...

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I never said gays not being able to enjoy benefits via civil union wasn't an issue - it is.

Perverting a long standing meaning to eventually get your way was and is the 'agenda'. I don't blame the gays and their sympathetic followers, I'd expect as much. I really blame the straights in power. Rather than doing what was proper, passing civil union legislation for All (not just gays) and dragging their heals, they allowed the gay movement to push the narrative of gay "marriage". Now we have a needlessly perverted term because whine until someone gives in.

Mud is now clear water...

Ah, the old separate but equal argument. I'm not against equality, I just don't want them using the same word as me, because "tradition" (excepting all the cultures that have traditionally recognized gay people's right to marry, of course, because what do they know?).

 

[Victorian Gray]

Basically completely agree. :thumbsup: It is highly amusing to watch the social indoctrination being pushed with gay "marriage". Basically the strategery for anything in America now is: Whine long and if necessary loud enough, you will as a group eventually get your way.

The PC social engineering push has worked marvelously...

Yeah, how dare those people expect equal rights. The Bill of Rights is just PC social engineering.

Thanks Founding Fathers! 😡

 

[MrPickins]

Here is the OP you made:



You make a strawman argument against my character in the face of authority and that is somehow not an insult in your opinion. Well, good for you. In the real world, that is a condescending and rather douchebag method of insulting someone. Quite frankly, my skin is fine, it is your elitist attitude that needs adjustment.

You realize this is P&N right? That's about as civil a response as you're going to get.

And yeah, my attitude was condescending, because I have a distinct lack of respect for people who don't think equal rights is a big deal.

Nice job also completely ignoring my point that your argument is the complete 180 extreme argument for the point I made. It is typical extremist partisan garbage that people have somehow equated with being educated and smarter than others, which is ironic in that it shows a complete lack of critical thinking and imagination.

Anyhow, it is just so over the top that I have to see this crap on the news every single day when there are major injustices and real evil in this world.

You want to talk about insults? I'm insulted you call me partisan. One can have a strong opinion on a particular issue without being a member of the party that also supports it.

As for taking your argument to its extreme, I really don't think I did, as you reiterate the same position in the bolded above.

Again, just because a particular cause is being promoted in no way reduces the support for other causes out there.

I'm sure you are sick of it, but that's the nature of any social change. If it's not in your face, nothing ever happens.

 

[Paratus]

You fixed nothing. Perverting a long understood tradition to include something it never included via duration of whine and social indoctrination isn't fixing anything. It's outlasting the sheeple who are busy watching American Idol and Dog the Bounty Hunter.

The indoctrination started with the constitution. I'm sorry but due to equal protection under the law the government cannot discriminate against its citizens based on their gender.

If Alice and Bob can get married so can Alice and Betty. Otherwise the government is illegally discriminating against Betty solely on her gender.

If you have a problem with the marriage of same sex people I suggest joining a church that doesn't allow it. Leave the rights of US citizens alone.

 

[MrPickins]

Interracial marriage is about a person of the opposite sex not being able to marry someone of the opposite sex purely based on the color of their skin - that is, interethnic marriage fits perfectly in the traditional view of marriage.

Gay "marriage" does not. They are not the same. The only way they are similar is a group wanting what they want, that's all.

Ahh, the old appeal to tradition logical fallacy.

Tradition shouldn't get in the way of critical thought...

 

[chucky2]

Ah, the old separate but equal argument. I'm not against equality, I just don't want them using the same word as me, because "tradition" (excepting all the cultures that have traditionally recognized gay people's right to marry, of course, because what do they know?).

Ahh, the old appeal to tradition logical fallacy.

Tradition shouldn't get in the way of critical thought...

They are seperate because they are not equal. Two men in a union or two women in a union is not equal to a man and woman in a union, aka marriage. Multitudes of cultures over thousands of years and societies have understood this. Then again, they were not as tolerant of whiners and PC BS as the US has become.

Logical fallacy not found...

 

[K1052]

You obviously think I said something or implied something that I didn't.

I don't think so. You're minimizing a struggle for equal rights simply because you claim it's is not important to you personally. I find that pretty ironic in light of the quote in your sig.

You say you couldn't care less yet here you are posting about it. Your actions would seem to indicate the opposite of your stated position.

 

[chucky2]

Yeah, how dare those people expect equal rights. The Bill of Rights is just PC social engineering.

Thanks Founding Fathers! 😡

The indoctrination started with the constitution. I'm sorry but due to equal protection under the law the government cannot discriminate against its citizens based on their gender.

If Alice and Bob can get married so can Alice and Betty. Otherwise the government is illegally discriminating against Betty solely on her gender.

If you have a problem with the marriage of same sex people I suggest joining a church that doesn't allow it. Leave the rights of US citizens alone.

They should expect equal rights, just don't expect to re-define thousands of years understood words and concepts because someone whines long and loud enough (and of course engages in social engineering, yay for Hollywood!)...which is what has been done.

I don't have one problem with same sex couples (or more than couples, i.e. poly) entering into a civil union. Because that's what they're in, a civil union. And I believe that civil union should not only enjoy all the rights of a traditional marriage, but that only civil unions should be recognized as it pertains to rights. What I'm not in favor of is bowing to a compaign of social indoctrination and whining so a word that actually has a clear understood meaning and context can be perverted because we have become too PC in this country to say, STFU, we're not changing it no matter how much you whine.

And even on that note, it's far less of a word change issue for me than the decay of American backbone issue. Basically we have entered into a phase of American where literally anything goes/can be changed as long as you can whine and cry about it enough. We have now seen it run its course basically with the perversion of the word marriage, we continue to see it runs its course with AGW, gun control, etc. I don't blame the people pushing it - that's their goal so of course they will. I just blame the sheeple that are too dense to see it, and/or too lazy to educate their children against it (hence leading to more sheepily swayed people)...

 

[First]

They are seperate because they are not equal. Two men in a union or two women in a union is not equal to a man and woman in a union, aka marriage. Multitudes of cultures over thousands of years and societies have understood this. Then again, they were not as tolerant of whiners and PC BS as the US has become.

Logical fallacy not found...

People of African decent are distinctly genetically different from whites or Asians, just as men and women are distinctly different from each other genetically. So your line of thinking applies precisely the same, without any difference whatsoever, to inter-racial marriage.

Leave the deep thinking to the thoughtful and well educated. Much like car nuts on a Prius, critical rumination doesn't look good on you.

 

[CitizenKain]

They are seperate because they are not equal. Two men in a union or two women in a union is not equal to a man and woman in a union, aka marriage. Multitudes of cultures over thousands of years and societies have understood this. Then again, they were not as tolerant of whiners and PC BS as the US has become.

Logical fallacy not found...

Multitudes of cultures also thought anyone a different skin color was subhuman filth, but people like yourself seem to cozy right up to them the minute you have someone else to look down on.

 

[K1052]

They are seperate because they are not equal. Two men in a union or two women in a union is not equal to a man and woman in a union, aka marriage. Multitudes of cultures over thousands of years and societies have understood this. Then again, they were not as tolerant of whiners and PC BS as the US has become.

Logical fallacy not found...

You are appealing to tradition, again.

 

[chucky2]

People of African decent are distinctly genetically different from whites or Asians, just as men and women are distinctly different from each other genetically. Your exact same line of thinking applies, without any difference whatsoever, to gay marriage.

Leave the deep thinking to the thoughtful and well educated. Much like car nuts on a Prius, critical rumination doesn't look good on you.

Multitudes of cultures also thought anyone a different skin color was subhuman filth, but people like yourself seem to cozy right up to them the minute you have someone else to look down on.

I can tell when there is no arguement to be had when the interracial marriage is trotted out. Need to tie it to a racial issue to lend it credence. Good fail...

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I don't have one problem with same sex couples (or more than couples, i.e. poly) entering into a civil union. Because that's what they're in, a civil union. And I believe that civil union should not only enjoy all the rights of a traditional marriage, but that only civil unions should be recognized as it pertains to rights. What I'm not in favor of is bowing to a compaign of social indoctrination and whining so a word that actually has a clear understood meaning and context can be perverted because we have become too PC in this country to say, STFU, we're not changing it no matter how much you whine.

Oh, OK, everyone (gay, straight, poly, whatever) should be able to get a civil union through the government, but "marriage" is strictly the domain of churches and religion. Is that what you're saying? So you'd support two men calling their relationship a marriage if they were to get married by one of the religions that performs gay marriage, correct? I mean, that's the crux of your argument, right? Or is it that only your definition of marriage should be allowed to define what other people view their relationships as?

 

[First]

I can tell when there is no arguement to be had when the interracial marriage is trotted out. Need to tie it to a racial issue to lend it credence. Good fail...

Your wimp-out on the very precise differences between the two says it all. People generally don't pussy out of defending their position if they have any pride or conviction on said subject matter.

 

[chucky2]

You are appealing to tradition, again.

I can't read any of this, tradition defined these words, if I don't appeal to it, can't read it. 🙁 Sometimes there's a reason for tradition other than just tradition...

 

[CitizenKain]

I can tell when there is no arguement to be had when the interracial marriage is trotted out. Need to tie it to a racial issue to lend it credence. Good fail...

You entire argument is that you and people who think like you are too stupid to understand that meanings change. Its tied to interracial marriage because the arguments against it are exactly the same, but you don't care, you aren't smart enough to think for yourself.