Originally posted by: shilala
The only person who said slavery was "okay" in this thread was you. Twice.Originally posted by: stnicralisk
Originally posted by: VanillaH
flamesuit level3
its funny how these 'supposedely' liberal gay marriage supporters get all upset and furious when someone just expresses he is against gay marriage. never i seen it slip away without name calling trom these people. why are you so passionate about it when its not even your own problem? if you were so humanitarian, why dont you help more starving people in third world countries and quit supporting israeli who murder 13year old kids. and for your record, not everyone against gay marriage is a bible humper. at least most people around me are atheists and against gay marriage.
whenever someone mentions other forms of sexual abberations like incest, you bring up bs argument like retardation... so what, you make it sound like homosexulaity is a form of a retardation too.. who says incestious couples are bound to have retarded, better yet any kids at all? it does not take some kind of unanimous moral agreement to have people set up laws to ban things they find revolting. for instance, try streaking on the streets during a busy day; you are guaranteed to get arrested by the law and the authorities. not like you would be doing any direct harm to anyone... but why?
i would be mildly disgusted to see gays marrying each other openly, but wont hold anything against them. the part i am having trouble understanding is why gay advocators are so hotheadded when they are not even gay. possibly getting ready to come out in the near future?
It is upsetting to me when someone says that slavery was okay because the majority had agreed on it. If this it the way you feel too then let me know so I can bash you. Before this I made no type of move towards bashing. I have made nothing but logical arguements.
I am not gay but I believe in civil rights.
I think that streaking should be okay to religious people. If they have a problem with it and believe in the Bible then I think they should reread some parts of it.
Incest could create genetic defects. Homosexuality cannot.
I never said slavery was okay. Spidey argued that the will of the majority makes a law kosher. I said that by his logic slavery was kosher because the majority agreed to it. HE SAID YES AT THE TIME IT WAS!
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: stnicralisk
Originally posted by: VanillaH
flamesuit level3
its funny how these 'supposedely' liberal gay marriage supporters get all upset and furious when someone just expresses he is against gay marriage. never i seen it slip away without name calling trom these people. why are you so passionate about it when its not even your own problem? if you were so humanitarian, why dont you help more starving people in third world countries and quit supporting israeli who murder 13year old kids. and for your record, not everyone against gay marriage is a bible humper. at least most people around me are atheists and against gay marriage.
whenever someone mentions other forms of sexual abberations like incest, you bring up bs argument like retardation... so what, you make it sound like homosexulaity is a form of a retardation too.. who says incestious couples are bound to have retarded, better yet any kids at all? it does not take some kind of unanimous moral agreement to have people set up laws to ban things they find revolting. for instance, try streaking on the streets during a busy day; you are guaranteed to get arrested by the law and the authorities. not like you would be doing any direct harm to anyone... but why?
i would be mildly disgusted to see gays marrying each other openly, but wont hold anything against them. the part i am having trouble understanding is why gay advocators are so hotheadded when they are not even gay. possibly getting ready to come out in the near future?
It is upsetting to me when someone says that slavery was okay because the majority had agreed on it. If this it the way you feel too then let me know so I can bash you. Before this I made no type of move towards bashing. I have made nothing but logical arguements.
I am not gay but I believe in civil rights.
I think that streaking should be okay to religious people. If they have a problem with it and believe in the Bible then I think they should reread some parts of it.
Incest could create genetic defects. Homosexuality cannot.
If you cannot see or understand that slavery AT THE TIME was OK, then my point is lost on you. We are not the society today that we were then and our collective views are radically different from that time period.
My statement of "slavery at that time was kosher" is factually and historically correct.
Slavery was never okay spidey. If you dont feel that way I am not sure what is wrong with you.
Originally posted by: hotchilisauce
lol i was on my way from the other thread to post this, but you beat me to my own link
I asked if I could use it in the other thread, you must have missed it
What Spidey means to say is: "If you cannot see why slavery was viewed by the masses as being okay at the time...."
Ridiculous. That's not me defending my freedom, that's my nation defending me against a crazy gun-toting american.
First of all, Gun ownership is allowed in Canada. In fact, I have a 256 Newton and Savage 300 Super Sporter. I guess that's what's to stop you from making me your bitch.
Second, you don't need a gun to defend yourself. This is what police are for. Why is it, exactly the the U.S's crime rate is so much higher than Canada's? Is it because they have guns to protect themselves which makes them safer? Makes sense to me...and I can leave my door unlocked.
Ahhh, ignorance. "I don't understand a point of view, so I'm going to mock it."
*sigh* Sometimes I think I can post until my fingers cramp up and people like you still won't even want to understand a point of view that isn't your own.
No counter point to my last argument HUH?
I guess that means I WIN!
With that, I'm done with this thread.
I guess that means I WIN!
With that, I'm done with this thread.
Oh I understand your point. And it's invalid. Both legally by your own constitution and by the principles of your nation.
BTW, I feel the same way as you regarding your "*sigh*"
Did you not read my long post? It addresses the whole thing. I don't see how you could possibly not understand that very simple concept.
I could understand that but his original posting was in response to me saying that just because a majority agrees on a particular law doesnt make it right which was in response to him saying that it was right because we voted on it and the outcome was to ban it. I listed slavery, interracial marriage, jim crowe as examples.
Spidey responded to this by saying yes slavery was okay at that time. I am not sure he understands that I am saying it wasnt okay even though the majority felt it was at the time. I know that it was viewed as okay at the time... by using it as an example of something that was wrong but that the majority endorsed I display this competency.
Most states have the age of consent at 18 or 16. Now, let's say a heterosexual man of age 18 finds a heterosexual woman of age 15 attractive and vice versa. They begin dating, fall in love, and choose to have sex with each other. They both consent to the act and neither is harming the other.
HOWEVER, the majority of people in this country have voted into place a law that makes such a situation illegal. Why? Because most of the voters feel that is morally wrong for a man that age to have sex with a woman that age.
Two days ago this country voted, in many states, about the idea of banning gay marriage. Many places it was banned. Why? Because most of the voters feel that is is morally wrong for two people of the same sex to be allowed marriage.
The simple fact is that the majority of the people voted against it and have decided they do not want such things in their state. If you don't like it, you can a) try to change it or b) move to a place it is accepted.
Insulting those that have an opinion different than your opinion is not going to help you succeed with choice a.
HOWEVER, the majority of people in this country have voted into place a law that makes such a situation illegal. Why? Because most of the voters feel that is morally wrong for a man that age to have sex with a woman that age.
Two days ago this country voted, in many states, about the idea of banning gay marriage. Many places it was banned. Why? Because most of the voters feel that is is morally wrong for two people of the same sex to be allowed marriage.
The simple fact is that the majority of the people voted against it and have decided they do not want such things in their state. If you don't like it, you can a) try to change it or b) move to a place it is accepted.
Insulting those that have an opinion different than your opinion is not going to help you succeed with choice a.
Audiophile: I've lived in both Canada and America, comparing the two is foolish. Comparing the two is also splitting hairs.
I've been through years of US vs Canada arguments and they never really amount to much.
Canada has 1/10th the population of the united states. Want to compare policies? Compare the policies of NY state or California to thoes of Canada.
Same goes for economic, social and socioeconomic aspects. Though most people tend to ignore any of that. They also tend to not ever actually delve into the cultures in which they pass judgements on beyond what media and stereotypes tell them.
I've been through years of US vs Canada arguments and they never really amount to much.
Canada has 1/10th the population of the united states. Want to compare policies? Compare the policies of NY state or California to thoes of Canada.
Same goes for economic, social and socioeconomic aspects. Though most people tend to ignore any of that. They also tend to not ever actually delve into the cultures in which they pass judgements on beyond what media and stereotypes tell them.
No, doesn't mean you will either does it?
Do you still want the freedom to make that choice?
Who made YOU god?
Originally posted by: stnicralisk
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: stnicralisk
Originally posted by: VanillaH
flamesuit level3
its funny how these 'supposedely' liberal gay marriage supporters get all upset and furious when someone just expresses he is against gay marriage. never i seen it slip away without name calling trom these people. why are you so passionate about it when its not even your own problem? if you were so humanitarian, why dont you help more starving people in third world countries and quit supporting israeli who murder 13year old kids. and for your record, not everyone against gay marriage is a bible humper. at least most people around me are atheists and against gay marriage.
whenever someone mentions other forms of sexual abberations like incest, you bring up bs argument like retardation... so what, you make it sound like homosexulaity is a form of a retardation too.. who says incestious couples are bound to have retarded, better yet any kids at all? it does not take some kind of unanimous moral agreement to have people set up laws to ban things they find revolting. for instance, try streaking on the streets during a busy day; you are guaranteed to get arrested by the law and the authorities. not like you would be doing any direct harm to anyone... but why?
i would be mildly disgusted to see gays marrying each other openly, but wont hold anything against them. the part i am having trouble understanding is why gay advocators are so hotheadded when they are not even gay. possibly getting ready to come out in the near future?
It is upsetting to me when someone says that slavery was okay because the majority had agreed on it. If this it the way you feel too then let me know so I can bash you. Before this I made no type of move towards bashing. I have made nothing but logical arguements.
I am not gay but I believe in civil rights.
I think that streaking should be okay to religious people. If they have a problem with it and believe in the Bible then I think they should reread some parts of it.
Incest could create genetic defects. Homosexuality cannot.
If you cannot see or understand that slavery AT THE TIME was OK, then my point is lost on you. We are not the society today that we were then and our collective views are radically different from that time period.
My statement of "slavery at that time was kosher" is factually and historically correct.
Slavery was never okay spidey. If you dont feel that way I am not sure what is wrong with you.
I am sure that in the future we'll all look back and say "gee, why did they think/act that way in 2004. I simply cannot fathom it". Much the way we look back on our past/history.
Here's another example - the 60s. Free love and screwing everything in sight. While I'm all for screwing everything in sight it does have damaging effects.
Why should we promote homosexuality as a "natural thing" by supporting gay marriage?
Just because you lack morals, and common sense; don't come crying to us when we turn our noses up.
Just because you lack morals, and common sense; don't come crying to us when we turn our noses up.
The comic is a good way to sum up an arguement. The discrimination of gays today is on par with the discrimination against women or slaves in the past. It is pointless bigotry. There is no reason to defy gay marriage in a constitution. The constitution is supposed to guarantee equal rights but instead you want to discriminate against one group of individuals.
You're an idiot. 'Morals'?!
Surely you must know that different people have a different set of morals and that your morals are not absolute.
We don't mind you 'turning your nose up.'
It's the legislating your morality in contradiction to the principles of your country and your own constitution which restricts our rights that we get upset.
You need to read this as you obviously haven't. It's the only point so far which hasn't had anything close to approaching a counter:
Any free society is based on the idea that everyone is free to do whatever they wish as long
as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
Pedophilia is illegal because it infringes on the rights of the child.
Homosexuality is NOT illegal because it's between two consenting adults and hurts no one.
Now, the U.S. constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Yet, Gay couples don't
get equal protection for property rights (ie. one partner dies, house is inherited by kids,
not partner) and they don't have the same protection for power of attourney as straight
couples who are married (ie. emergency medical procedures and decision power.)
The Mass supreme court ruled that banning Gay Marriage was unconstitutional and if you had
two brain cells to rub together you'd realize that such a banning would also trample over
everything your 'free' society stands for. I used quotes on 'Free' because in order for a society to
be free, all of its people must be free, not just the 97% 'moral majority.'
Note that the Term 'Moral Majority' doesn't mean that the Majority is moral and the minority is not. What it means is that each group has their own set of moral values and one group is larger than the other therefore has the ability to enforce their morals on the minority...kind of like slavery or the repression of other religions...
What you're talking about here is legislating morality. This is obviously wrong.
Now, Marriage may be a religious thing to you, but it's not to everyone and it's not in the
eyes of the law. If you wanted it to stay a religious thing, you needed to step up to the
plate when it became accepted for non-religious Justices of the Peace to perform
non-religious ceremonies for non-religious people. What about hindus and muslims (who, btw
outnumber Christians in this world)?
Sorry, but Marriage is "The Union of Two People" and is a legal institution seperate from
religion. You can certainly make it a religious ceremony but in the eyes of the law it is
not. You don't get your marriage licence from God, you get it from your state.
After the Mass ruling Bush didn't know what to do. Ammending the U.S. constitution is his
attempt to hold onto the last bastion of biggotry and discrimination in the U.S.
The constitution is NOT used to lay out specific limitations. That is what law is for.
The constitution is for broad and sweeping rights and freedoms.
The last time the constitution was abused in this way - the only time - was prohibition and I
seem to remember that not working out too well.
Of course, this ammendment will not pass as you can't ammend the constitution in a fashion
which is contradictory to the rest of the document. This proposed amendment will be used for
toilet paper by the Supreme Court.
Why are you against gay marriage? how does it hurt you? How does it hurt anyone? What's the
gay agenda? They want the same rights and to be left alone? I can see how that would bother
you. It sounds downright 'free' and 'American' to me!
Maybe you should realize that you're a biggot and what you're doing is discrimination of the highest order.
quote:
but apparently a majority of folks outside of california don't want to taint the union of a man and woman.
And if a majority of people voted to reinstate slavery or ban buddhism or burn crosses on the lawns of muslims? Doesn't matter. It's still wrong and against the constitution and what your nation stands for
Hey Audiophile, why dont' you post that ten more times and waste some more disk space and bandwidth?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter