focus on "commitments" instead of gay marriage?

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

If the gays try to hold some kind of bloody revolution, that won't go over well. I don't feel the need to change the law to make 2% of the population feel ok with themselves.

It is way more then 2% of the popualtion.
on average it is 10% of the population.
That 10% has brother, sisters, father, and mother.
They have friends, and relatives.
They have intelligent people who support them.

It is not suppose to go over well.

I'm not advocating revolution. I'm just telling you what anyone that has ever read a history book can tell you. You repress a group of people enough and they will work to make your life miserable. You dismiss them, and eventually they will get mad enough to kill you.
Right now the Gay Rights movement is trying to do it the right way, though the legal system. Take that away from them and they will take it to the streets.
I?ll be right there with them.
Many, many others will join me.
We won?t care if you like it.

See, I think you are dillusional if you think there is THAT much support. You only think there is that much support because those that want the change are those most vocal. The fact that gay people would fight and cause a revolution just over "marriage" as it is defined, when they could take civil unions and be happy, is why a revolution would fail.

I think a large chunk of society would welcome a gay war, because it would make gay people open season. I think that's a scary thought imho.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: K1052
The government should get out of the marriage business altogether and only issue civil unions to all couples upon request. Leave marriage to the various churches.

this.

Well that'd work for the Gays as there are Churches that recognize same sex marriages. :thumbsup:

I agree. I don't believe in gay marriage but I think partners should have the same tax/insurance/financial rights.

I think the gay attack on marriage to get it for themselves shows a massive lack of tact. They're going against the grain of years of cultural and religious foundations and they would be better served to get their unions and have their wedding ceremonies outside of the government. They get their tax breaks, and they can say they are married.

I'd rather that be how it is, period. Couples get civil unions. If they want to have a marriage ceremony to proclaim their vows and love, do it somewhere that sanctions it, be it your church, w/e.

As a function of standing up for my religious beliefs, I'll never sign off on gay marriage though. Sorry.

This then we can agree on. Lets get rid of marriage altogether. It is a religious institution that has no place in government in the first place.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: K1052
The government should get out of the marriage business altogether and only issue civil unions to all couples upon request. Leave marriage to the various churches.

this.

Well that'd work for the Gays as there are Churches that recognize same sex marriages. :thumbsup:

I agree. I don't believe in gay marriage but I think partners should have the same tax/insurance/financial rights.

I think the gay attack on marriage to get it for themselves shows a massive lack of tact. They're going against the grain of years of cultural and religious foundations and they would be better served to get their unions and have their wedding ceremonies outside of the government. They get their tax breaks, and they can say they are married.

I'd rather that be how it is, period. Couples get civil unions. If they want to have a marriage ceremony to proclaim their vows and love, do it somewhere that sanctions it, be it your church, w/e.

As a function of standing up for my religious beliefs, I'll never sign off on gay marriage though. Sorry.

This then we can agree on. Lets get rid of marriage altogether. It is a religious institution that has no place in government in the first place.

Exactly. Gays are stepping on religious grounds and they are going to get burned! Marriage is something held very dear to alot of religous people and trust me, people will fight for religion to the death quicker than a gay person would over marriage. Think about it.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

If the gays try to hold some kind of bloody revolution, that won't go over well. I don't feel the need to change the law to make 2% of the population feel ok with themselves.

It is way more then 2% of the popualtion.
on average it is 10% of the population.
That 10% has brother, sisters, father, and mother.
They have friends, and relatives.
They have intelligent people who support them.

It is not suppose to go over well.

I'm not advocating revolution. I'm just telling you what anyone that has ever read a history book can tell you. You repress a group of people enough and they will work to make your life miserable. You dismiss them, and eventually they will get mad enough to kill you.
Right now the Gay Rights movement is trying to do it the right way, though the legal system. Take that away from them and they will take it to the streets.
I?ll be right there with them.
Many, many others will join me.
We won?t care if you like it.

See, I think you are dillusional if you think there is THAT much support. You only think there is that much support because those that want the change are those most vocal. The fact that gay people would fight and cause a revolution just over "marriage" as it is defined, when they could take civil unions and be happy, is why a revolution would fail.

I think a large chunk of society would welcome a gay war, because it would make gay people open season. I think that's a scary thought imho.

Your dillusional if you think it doesn't. This is not about marriage. Marriage is just the focus point. This is about a group of people demanding that they be treated as decent human beings. Which your reply shows very clearly they are not currently being treated as.
Really, I have no time to talk to an ignorant bigot. You will lose, because in the end hate can never sustain. Love and Reason always wins.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Exactly. Gays are stepping on religious grounds and they are going to get burned! Marriage is something held very dear to alot of religous people and trust me, people will fight for religion to the death quicker than a gay person would over marriage. Think about it.

Our divorce rate certainly attests to that.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Exactly. Gays are stepping on religious grounds and they are going to get burned! Marriage is something held very dear to alot of religous people and trust me, people will fight for religion to the death quicker than a gay person would over marriage. Think about it.

I don't want to change a thing about your religion. I think it is disgusting, and want to have no part in it. It is all that drinking blood and killing all the infidels stuff. It sickens me. I am revolted by the very though that we allow children to be brainwashed by those mentally unstable individuals. I know they will kill for their delusions as they do every time they get a chance. That is what religion is all about, killing anyone that does not agree with you.
You can have your marriage ceremonies, as long as they have no governmental power.
I?ll have my own, also with no governmental power.
Let us just void all marriages right now and start over.
Civil unions for all!

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: wwswimming

i think gay activists would make more progress if they conceded the use of the
word "marriage", and just focussed on equal rights under the law, such as
access to health care for significant others, the same tax treatment as married
heterosexual couples etc.

Hanging a different label on their relationships distinguishes them and holds those citizens apart from others. Even if the rights specified under such a law were "equal," by definition, that would be "separate, but equal," which is unconstituional.

Well, when a gay couple figures out how to biologically reproduce, I will stand up and fight for *all* the rights granted under marriage.

Until then, YES, GAY MARRIAGE IS SEPARATE FROM STRAIGHT MARRIAGE! I didn't create the laws of biology, DON'T BLAME ME! But stop pretending it is the same. Call me a bigot for actually understanding biology, if that makes you feel better. That label doesn't hurt me in the least, because I know it is not true.

FAIL
Not required for any marriage anywhere in the USA.
Please refrain from making up shit to support your bigotry.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: K1052
The government should get out of the marriage business altogether and only issue civil unions to all couples upon request. Leave marriage to the various churches.

this.

Well that'd work for the Gays as there are Churches that recognize same sex marriages. :thumbsup:

I agree. I don't believe in gay marriage but I think partners should have the same tax/insurance/financial rights.

I think the gay attack on marriage to get it for themselves shows a massive lack of tact. They're going against the grain of years of cultural and religious foundations and they would be better served to get their unions and have their wedding ceremonies outside of the government. They get their tax breaks, and they can say they are married.

I'd rather that be how it is, period. Couples get civil unions. If they want to have a marriage ceremony to proclaim their vows and love, do it somewhere that sanctions it, be it your church, w/e.

As a function of standing up for my religious beliefs, I'll never sign off on gay marriage though. Sorry.

Your religious beliefs mean shit to everybody but you. You also didn't understand my point. You Moral Guardians push this bullshit that marriage is a Religious Institution and should only be sanction by the Church so there's no way Gays can be married. I countered your bullshit by pointing out that there are Churches that recognize and perform Gay Marriages so if it's just a Religious institution than Gays can get married because it's accepted by some churches.

Why do you and your ilk insist on telling others whether they can be Married or not? I couldn't care less if two same sex people want to get married as it has absolutely no bearing on my life or my marriage.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: K1052
The government should get out of the marriage business altogether and only issue civil unions to all couples upon request. Leave marriage to the various churches.

this.

Well that'd work for the Gays as there are Churches that recognize same sex marriages. :thumbsup:

I agree. I don't believe in gay marriage but I think partners should have the same tax/insurance/financial rights.

I think the gay attack on marriage to get it for themselves shows a massive lack of tact. They're going against the grain of years of cultural and religious foundations and they would be better served to get their unions and have their wedding ceremonies outside of the government. They get their tax breaks, and they can say they are married.

I'd rather that be how it is, period. Couples get civil unions. If they want to have a marriage ceremony to proclaim their vows and love, do it somewhere that sanctions it, be it your church, w/e.

As a function of standing up for my religious beliefs, I'll never sign off on gay marriage though. Sorry.

Your religious beliefs mean shit to everybody but you. You also didn't understand my point. You Moral Guardians push this bullshit that marriage is a Religious Institution and should only be sanction by the Church so there's no way Gays can be married. I countered your bullshit by pointing out that there are Churches that recognize and perform Gay Marriages so if it's just a Religious institution than Gays can get married because it's accepted by some churches.

Why do you and your ilk insist on telling others whether they can be Married or not? I couldn't care less if two same sex people want to get married as it has absolutely no bearing on my life or my marriage.

I know I'm the only person that cares about my religious beliefs. I just said, from my perspective, I'd never sign off on gay marriage. They can have civil unions, and frankly, I think it should be that way for everyone. Fair, balanced, etc.

My personal belief is that marriage is not for gays, but thats not for me to decide. If they want to have a marriage ceremony, like I've said a few times in this thread, more power to them.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

If the gays try to hold some kind of bloody revolution, that won't go over well. I don't feel the need to change the law to make 2% of the population feel ok with themselves.

It is way more then 2% of the popualtion.
on average it is 10% of the population.
That 10% has brother, sisters, father, and mother.
They have friends, and relatives.
They have intelligent people who support them.

It is not suppose to go over well.

I'm not advocating revolution. I'm just telling you what anyone that has ever read a history book can tell you. You repress a group of people enough and they will work to make your life miserable. You dismiss them, and eventually they will get mad enough to kill you.
Right now the Gay Rights movement is trying to do it the right way, though the legal system. Take that away from them and they will take it to the streets.
I?ll be right there with them.
Many, many others will join me.
We won?t care if you like it.

See, I think you are dillusional if you think there is THAT much support. You only think there is that much support because those that want the change are those most vocal. The fact that gay people would fight and cause a revolution just over "marriage" as it is defined, when they could take civil unions and be happy, is why a revolution would fail.

I think a large chunk of society would welcome a gay war, because it would make gay people open season. I think that's a scary thought imho.

Your dillusional if you think it doesn't. This is not about marriage. Marriage is just the focus point. This is about a group of people demanding that they be treated as decent human beings. Which your reply shows very clearly they are not currently being treated as.
Really, I have no time to talk to an ignorant bigot. You will lose, because in the end hate can never sustain. Love and Reason always wins.

Why is this about me losing? I'm just stating my perspective. If my country votes in favor of all this, my power to everyone, I just know how I feel about it.

This is about "marriage"... what was the thread about? I said civil unions are fine and frankly, thats all there should be for everyone.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: silverpig
Chucky is confusing "equal" with "the same".

A black man is not the same as a white man, however they are equal. Gays are not the same as straights, but they are equal and should be afforded equal rights.

The thing is, if you are stuck on this "the same" bit, you'll soon realize that a straight white man from Oregon is not the same as a straight white man from Florida. No matter how similar two people or two groups might be, there will always be some difference which makes them not "the same". It is these small differences which bigots latch on to in order to justify different treatment. We need to acknowledge differences, celebrate them, and realize that what matters is that we view people as equals.

If you are religious you should know that God creates all men equal. If you are not, the US constitution describes one of the self evident truths as being that "all men are created equal".

They are equal as seperate people, but that's not part of this "debate" at all.

They are not equal - the same - as a straight couple. There is one female there, and one male. Period.

I totally believe gays should be accorded all the rights of a married straight couple, however, I - and most straights - are in reality not going to change our views on what the perception, and with that, the term, of "marriage" means.

If gays don't like that, then it's too F'ing bad. Instead of campaining for equal rights through civil unions, which most straights that aren't rabid right/gay haters would get behind, gays continue to keep insisting their union is equal to a straight union....and, again, it's not.

Get over it, and then finally get some rights. Otherwise, please, STFU. I keep hearing more and more from fellow straight people - ones I don't even know half the time - that they're sick and tired of hearing gays b1tch. Whatever goodwill gays have been getting through the discussion of gay rights, they're fastly using up with the insistence on the marriage term. Talk about shooting oneself in ones foot....

Chuck

Sometime over the next ten years, the United States Supreme Court is going to rule that the equal protection clause applies to gays and marriage. When that happens, it won't matter what your self-absorbed straight friends think about gays and equality and the definition of marriage.

In about fifty years, the notion that "marriage" means "one man and one woman" will be universally regarded as a small-minded artifact of a less enlightened time.

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
If the gays try to hold some kind of bloody revolution, that won't go over well. I don't feel the need to change the law to make 2% of the population feel ok with themselves.

It is way more then 2% of the popualtion.
on average it is 10% of the population.

Not the best source, but the studies listed on Wikipedia suggest that perhaps 3-4% of the US might be able to get married to the partner of their choice if same sex marriage were legal. I'm basing that number on the more recent studies that used less biased sampling methods than the Kinsey Report. I'm also basing that guesstimate on the assumption that only exclusive homosexuals and some bisexuals would choose to marry someone of the same sex. Also, not everyone gets married so the number of same sex marriages must be less than the number of same sex couples.

2% likely underestimates the number of homosexuals by a couple of percentage points. 10% is probably close to double the true number.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: L00PY

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
If the gays try to hold some kind of bloody revolution, that won't go over well. I don't feel the need to change the law to make 2% of the population feel ok with themselves.

It is way more then 2% of the popualtion.
on average it is 10% of the population.

Not the best source, but the studies listed on Wikipedia suggest that perhaps 3-4% of the US might be able to get married to the partner of their choice if same sex marriage were legal. I'm basing that number on the more recent studies that used less biased sampling methods than the Kinsey Report. I'm also basing that guesstimate on the assumption that only exclusive homosexuals and some bisexuals would choose to marry someone of the same sex. Also, not everyone gets married so the number of same sex marriages must be less than the number of same sex couples.

2% likely underestimates the number of homosexuals by a couple of percentage points. 10% is probably close to double the true number.

Probably not, the problem with almost all these reporting methods is they require people who are deeply secretive about their sexuality to openly and honestly discuss it with someone they don't even know. The best they can do is count a tiny subsection of the BGLT community that is not out. My experience is that the vast majority is not out all the time (although that is improving)

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I know I'm the only person that cares about my religious beliefs. I just said, from my perspective, I'd never sign off on gay marriage.

Why do you even care?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK -- I know I'm the only person that cares about my religious beliefs. I just said, from my perspective, I'd never sign off on gay marriage.

I respect your religious beliefs!!
The issue is do you have a right to impose your religious beliefs on others who don`t believe the way you do?

From my point of view this has never been a religious issue....it`s always been about taking away other peoples rights!

Peace!!

 

[chucky2]

Apologies for participating in a thread and then abandoning it...forgot all about it unfortunately.

I guess I'll just say this:

1.) I agree that, legally, only civil unions should be recognized...you want to have a religous ceremony before or after, go for it. But it's for your religion, not the legality of the union.

2.) I know it pains gays and their supporters, but, the average straight person in the US does not view gay unions as equal to straight marriages. Sorry. Get over it.

This does not mean that these same people don't, in the majority, think that gay couples should not enjoy the same legal rights as straight couples.

I know this isn't what gays want. I know this isn't what supporters of gay rights want. I know you'll keep 'being vocal' about it until enough straight people just go, Please, take the term marriage from us and STFU!!!. But, it's not going to really change their minds. Which means you'll eventually be "married", but, people will the whole time be thinking, 'Oh, they've got a Gay Union".

Congrats on the (eventual) success. :thumbsup:

(just know that in the meantime, you could have had actual legal rights a decade or two sooner had you not got hung up on a term the majority will never believe you have anyways. Nice going there.... )

Chuck

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: chucky2
Apologies for participating in a thread and then abandoning it...forgot all about it unfortunately.

I guess I'll just say this:

1.) I agree that, legally, only civil unions should be recognized...you want to have a religous ceremony before or after, go for it. But it's for your religion, not the legality of the union.

2.) I know it pains gays and their supporters, but, the average straight person in the US does not view gay unions as equal to straight marriages. Sorry. Get over it. -- so you get to decide what an average straight person veiws??

This does not mean that these same people don't, in the majority, think that gay couples should not enjoy the same legal rights as straight couples.

I know this isn't what gays want. I know this isn't what supporters of gay rights want. I know you'll keep 'being vocal' about it until enough straight people just go, Please, take the term marriage from us and STFU!!!. But, it's not going to really change their minds. Which means you'll eventually be "married", but, people will the whole time be thinking, 'Oh, they've got a Gay Union". -- nobody will care what people are saying behind their backs!!
Congrats on the (eventual) success. :thumbsup:

(just know that in the meantime, you could have had actual legal rights a decade or two sooner had you not got hung up on a term the majority will never believe you have anyways. Nice going there.... ) What term is that -- fundamental rights???
Chuck

 

[classy]

I live in NJ and I won't be voting in favor of gay marriage. You can live any lifestyle you want, but I don't have to agree with it.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: chucky2
Apologies for participating in a thread and then abandoning it...forgot all about it unfortunately.

I guess I'll just say this:

1.) I agree that, legally, only civil unions should be recognized...you want to have a religous ceremony before or after, go for it. But it's for your religion, not the legality of the union.

2.) I know it pains gays and their supporters, but, the average straight person in the US does not view gay unions as equal to straight marriages. Sorry. Get over it.

This does not mean that these same people don't, in the majority, think that gay couples should not enjoy the same legal rights as straight couples.

I know this isn't what gays want. I know this isn't what supporters of gay rights want. I know you'll keep 'being vocal' about it until enough straight people just go, Please, take the term marriage from us and STFU!!!. But, it's not going to really change their minds. Which means you'll eventually be "married", but, people will the whole time be thinking, 'Oh, they've got a Gay Union".

Congrats on the (eventual) success. :thumbsup:

(just know that in the meantime, you could have had actual legal rights a decade or two sooner had you not got hung up on a term the majority will never believe you have anyways. Nice going there.... )

Chuck

You still don't get it. It is not about the name. We don't care what people think, we don't care if people think homosexual unions are equal, as long as they treat them as equal under the law. The only way to guarantee that is to remove any legal distinction between homo and heterosexual unions. Any attempt at separate but equal is doomed to failure, as is evidence by your statement that straight people will never see them as equal, and will therefore always want to treat them as lesser.
The ?No Legal Marriage / Civil Union for all? at all solution is perfectly fine with every homosexual I know, it is the Christians that fight against it, and the only reason I can see is because they want to discriminate.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: classy
I live in NJ and I won't be voting in favor of gay marriage. You can live any lifestyle you want, but I don't have to agree with it.

Your actions give the lie to your words.
If you felt that way you would vote for gay marriage and then go about disapproving.
But instead you want to force others to live in the way you dictate.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: classy
I live in NJ and I won't be voting in favor of gay marriage. You can live any lifestyle you want, but I don't have to agree with it.

Your actions give the lie to your words.
If you felt that way you would vote for gay marriage and then go about disapproving.
But instead you want to force others to live in the way you dictate.

Actually his words give the lie to his understanding. Homosexuality is not a "lifestyle" choice that people suddenly decide to take up. No one who actually knows gay people in a more than passing way thinks they chose to be gay anymore than I chose to be straight. The divide is between people who understand that this is in fact a civil rights issue, and those who think it's merely some new liberal argument for argument's sake.

You may not "approve" of mixed race marriages because you think it will make life difficult for the children or whatever, but when you vote against the right of people to choose their lifemate, you are engaging in unfair discrimination. This is no different, and nearly every argument being made now against gay marriage is verbatim from those who opposed interracial marriages:

- we're "redefining" marriage
- it's a slippery slope, if you broaden marriage to allow mixed race, mixed species is surely to follow
- there's no fundamental right to marriage so it's not a civil rights issue
- it's not discrimination because everyone can get married so long as they marry the same race (i.e. marriage laws not discriminatory b/c gays can still get married as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex)

There's no "there" there. Gay marriage hurts no one, and preventing it hurts many, for no good reason other than some people think boys kissing is icky.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: jonks
Actually his words give the lie to his understanding.
...
There's no "there" there. Gay marriage hurts no one, and preventing it hurts many, for no good reason other than some people think boys kissing is icky.

I agree completely with everything you said. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in the statement. Voting against civil libertys is actively attempting to force your way of life on someone else. You are not supposed to vote based on your likes/dislikes but what is right. The poster stated that he believed that the right thing is to let people lives their own lives, but then wants to vote against those very beliefs.
What ever happened to ?I do not agree with what you have to say, but will die to protect your right to say it?? This is the same thing.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: jonks
Actually his words give the lie to his understanding.
...
There's no "there" there. Gay marriage hurts no one, and preventing it hurts many, for no good reason other than some people think boys kissing is icky.

I agree completely with everything you said. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in the statement. Voting against civil libertys is actively attempting to force your way of life on someone else. You are not supposed to vote based on your likes/dislikes but what is right. The poster stated that he believed that the right thing is to let people lives their own lives, but then wants to vote against those very beliefs.
What ever happened to ?I do not agree with what you have to say, but will die to protect your right to say it?? This is the same thing.

So, if I vote against making pedophilia legal, will I hear pedophiliacs saying "I'm actively attemptint to force my way of life on someone else? That I should just STFU and let them live their own lives?"

I know pedophilia isn't the best analogy, but your argument can apply to anybody who doesn't have a law in place allowing them to live their lives the way they see fit. With that argument, all drugs should be legal, etc..

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: jonks
Actually his words give the lie to his understanding.
...
There's no "there" there. Gay marriage hurts no one, and preventing it hurts many, for no good reason other than some people think boys kissing is icky.

I agree completely with everything you said. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in the statement. Voting against civil libertys is actively attempting to force your way of life on someone else. You are not supposed to vote based on your likes/dislikes but what is right. The poster stated that he believed that the right thing is to let people lives their own lives, but then wants to vote against those very beliefs.
What ever happened to ?I do not agree with what you have to say, but will die to protect your right to say it?? This is the same thing.

So, if I vote against making pedophilia legal, will I hear pedophiliacs saying "I'm actively attemptint to force my way of life on someone else? That I should just STFU and let them live their own lives?"

I know pedophilia isn't the best analogy, but your argument can apply to anybody who doesn't have a law in place allowing them to live their lives the way they see fit. With that argument, all drugs should be legal, etc..

No, no it's not. Glad you recognize that. You are comparing a heinous crime committed against children with a demand that 2 people who love each other receive full recognition by the state.

I agree with legalizing all drugs btw. Regulation would be worlds better than prohibition. Get tax revenue, provide treatment, destigmatize it, end the billion dollar war on drugs, eliminate the black market which funnels money to terrorists, etc. Different topic tho.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: jonks
Actually his words give the lie to his understanding.
...
There's no "there" there. Gay marriage hurts no one, and preventing it hurts many, for no good reason other than some people think boys kissing is icky.

I agree completely with everything you said. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in the statement. Voting against civil libertys is actively attempting to force your way of life on someone else. You are not supposed to vote based on your likes/dislikes but what is right. The poster stated that he believed that the right thing is to let people lives their own lives, but then wants to vote against those very beliefs.
What ever happened to ?I do not agree with what you have to say, but will die to protect your right to say it?? This is the same thing.

So, if I vote against making pedophilia legal, will I hear pedophiliacs saying "I'm actively attemptint to force my way of life on someone else? That I should just STFU and let them live their own lives?"

I know pedophilia isn't the best analogy, but your argument can apply to anybody who doesn't have a law in place allowing them to live their lives the way they see fit. With that argument, all drugs should be legal, etc..

Yes.
As long as you are not being harmed, you shouldn't have a say in what I do.
That includes drugs. Pedophilia harms children, therefore society has a say.
Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?