liberals and conservatives are both hypocritical

[dpm]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Moonbeam The bigots will vote for Bush as he fully anticipates. People of conscience and intelligence will reject this appeal to bigotry.

Isnt bigotry also when someone holds prejudice against religions?

No, being "open minded" only applies when the so-called "tolerance" crowd says it does. CkG

Is anyone suggesting that your religion should be outlawed? Is anyone suggesting what religions are "OK" with the majority and that you worship only those religions? Nope, I didn't think so. Thanks for playing.

Thanks Is anyone saying homosexuality should be outlawed or that you can only be hetrosexual? Nope, I didn't think so(except for the fringe which also apply to your scenario). Thanks for playing. *note - not being able gain a marriage license doesn't outlaw the practice of homosexuality CkG

So it would be ok if, say, Christians weren't allowed to get married? As long as Christianity itself wasn't outlawed?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dpm

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Moonbeam The bigots will vote for Bush as he fully anticipates. People of conscience and intelligence will reject this appeal to bigotry.

Isnt bigotry also when someone holds prejudice against religions?

No, being "open minded" only applies when the so-called "tolerance" crowd says it does. CkG

Is anyone suggesting that your religion should be outlawed? Is anyone suggesting what religions are "OK" with the majority and that you worship only those religions? Nope, I didn't think so. Thanks for playing.

Thanks Is anyone saying homosexuality should be outlawed or that you can only be hetrosexual? Nope, I didn't think so(except for the fringe which also apply to your scenario). Thanks for playing. *note - not being able gain a marriage license doesn't outlaw the practice of homosexuality CkG

So it would be ok if, say, Christians weren't allowed to get married? As long as Christianity itself wasn't outlawed?

marriage is man&woman. Doesn't matter what qualifiers you try to place on it - a man can marry a woman(according to age restrictions and a few other misc details which represent less than 1% of cases)
Being a Christian is a choice - I'm pretty sure most here on your side of the issue will try to say homosexuality is something you are born being. Just giving you a heads up.

CkG

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
marriage is man&woman. Doesn't matter what qualifiers you try to place on it - a man can marry a woman(according to age restrictions and a few other misc details which represent less than 1% of cases) Being a Christian is a choice - I'm pretty sure most here on your side of the issue will try to say homosexuality is something you are born being. Just giving you a heads up. CkG

Marriage is currently man & woman, subject to the qualifiers you have mentioned. Its not as if marriage is an institution set in stone, never changing for millenia. Rules on marriages, especially of civil recognition of marriages, have changed many times down the years, and will surely change again.

What is the reason that means a marriage can only be between a man and a woman?

Because the Bible says so? The majority of people in America aren't exactly practising Christians, and conforming laws to the Bible would be establishing Christianity as a state religion - a big no no. Wouldn't that mean that non-Christians should not be allowed to marry?

Besides - the Bible tacitly acknowledges polygamy, amongst other things. You see, its a slippery slope! Follow Christianity and the next thing you know we'll be stoning adulterers and burning down cities as punishment

Or is it that marriage can only between a man and a woman because a marriage is meant for procreation? In that case, should infertile people be banned from marrying?

Or is it just because we've always done things that way? If thats the only reason, then its high time we had a look at changing it.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep, more of that wonderful "open mindedness" from the "tolerance" crowd.

Doesn't suprise me though.

CkG

You're like a looped recording, Cad. Do you have a valid reason why gays shouldn't get married beyond the fact you feel they shouldn't? Or do you only have your "talking points?" Reminds me of when Bush gets interviewed. Doesn't surprise me though.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: dpm

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Moonbeam The bigots will vote for Bush as he fully anticipates. People of conscience and intelligence will reject this appeal to bigotry.

Isnt bigotry also when someone holds prejudice against religions?

No, being "open minded" only applies when the so-called "tolerance" crowd says it does. CkG

Is anyone suggesting that your religion should be outlawed? Is anyone suggesting what religions are "OK" with the majority and that you worship only those religions? Nope, I didn't think so. Thanks for playing.

Thanks Is anyone saying homosexuality should be outlawed or that you can only be hetrosexual? Nope, I didn't think so(except for the fringe which also apply to your scenario). Thanks for playing. *note - not being able gain a marriage license doesn't outlaw the practice of homosexuality CkG

So it would be ok if, say, Christians weren't allowed to get married? As long as Christianity itself wasn't outlawed?

marriage is man&woman. Doesn't matter what qualifiers you try to place on it - a man can marry a woman(according to age restrictions and a few other misc details which represent less than 1% of cases)
Being a Christian is a choice - I'm pretty sure most here on your side of the issue will try to say homosexuality is something you are born being. Just giving you a heads up.

CkG

More idiocy from Caddy. Clearly you know nothing at all about Christianity. A Christian is saved by grace. It has nothing to do with choice. You can't choose to be saved. You already are. You find that out by grace. You can do nothing personally to force that grace. Once you have it you are a Christian. You have no choice because you can't undo what is done. When you are saved you are saved and there's no going back. You are saved whether you like it or not. You can't choose to be a Christian and you can't un-choose to be one. Sorry. It would be bigotry not to outlaw Christianity but to prevent Christians from marrying. The real ones have no choice just like gays. I hope this helps you to see you are a bigot, but I doubt it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: dpm

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Moonbeam The bigots will vote for Bush as he fully anticipates. People of conscience and intelligence will reject this appeal to bigotry.

Isnt bigotry also when someone holds prejudice against religions?

No, being "open minded" only applies when the so-called "tolerance" crowd says it does. CkG

Is anyone suggesting that your religion should be outlawed? Is anyone suggesting what religions are "OK" with the majority and that you worship only those religions? Nope, I didn't think so. Thanks for playing.

Thanks Is anyone saying homosexuality should be outlawed or that you can only be hetrosexual? Nope, I didn't think so(except for the fringe which also apply to your scenario). Thanks for playing. *note - not being able gain a marriage license doesn't outlaw the practice of homosexuality CkG

So it would be ok if, say, Christians weren't allowed to get married? As long as Christianity itself wasn't outlawed?

marriage is man&woman. Doesn't matter what qualifiers you try to place on it - a man can marry a woman(according to age restrictions and a few other misc details which represent less than 1% of cases)
Being a Christian is a choice - I'm pretty sure most here on your side of the issue will try to say homosexuality is something you are born being. Just giving you a heads up.

CkG

More idiocy from Caddy. Clearly you know nothing at all about Christianity. A Christian is saved by grace. It has nothing to do with choice. You can't choose to be saved. You already are. You find that out by grace. You can do nothing personally to force that grace. Once you have it you are a Christian. You have no choice because you can't undo what is done. When you are saved you are saved and there's no going back. You are saved whether you like it or not. You can't choose to be a Christian and you can't un-choose to be one. Sorry. It would be bigotry not to outlaw Christianity but to prevent Christians from marrying. The real ones have no choice just like gays. I hope this helps you to see you are a bigot, but I doubt it.

If you want to get in to "predestination" - sure. But one still has to make that choice as to accepting Christ - predestined or not. You can continue to try to call me names and try to rile me up by calling me a bigot, idiot, homophobe but I really could care less because you haven't the slightest clue if I am any of those. But I don't expect the "tolerant" and "open minded" crowd to understand that other people might hold a differing opinion

DM - Like I stated before - there is an option that should please almost everyone(minus a few hardliners on both sides) but no one wants to address the situation head on. They play these "marriage" or "unions" games without addressing the whole issue. "Marriage" is between a man and a woman - No amount of double speak or psychobabble will change that - heck even a LAW won't change it's true meaning. But like I said - "civil unions" run afoul of the Constitution and the "separate but equal" issue. Think about it - you might see. The answer is really quite simple although I'm sure a few details might be trouble but nothing we can't sort out. But like I said - until people want to address this issue seriously I'll continue to enjoy people spinning circles around themselves trying to redefine marriage or supporting an Unconstitutional "civil union".

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
DM - Like I stated before - there is an option that should please almost everyone(minus a few hardliners on both sides) but no one wants to address the situation head on. They play these "marriage" or "unions" games without addressing the whole issue. "Marriage" is between a man and a woman - No amount of double speak or psychobabble will change that - heck even a LAW won't change it's true meaning. But like I said - "civil unions" run afoul of the Constitution and the "separate but equal" issue. Think about it - you might see. The answer is really quite simple although I'm sure a few details might be trouble but nothing we can't sort out. But like I said - until people want to address this issue seriously I'll continue to enjoy people spinning circles around themselves trying to redefine marriage or supporting an Unconstitutional "civil union".

I *still* don't see you providing a valid reason why gay marriage should not be allowed. The only thing you're arguing is: "Well, marriage is between a man and a woman because I say so." That may be fine for your 4-year old, but please humor us, why can't same-sex marriages happen?

I understand perfectly well all of the constitutional shortcomings of civil unions, that's why I'm in favor of outright same-sex marriage. Frankly, I really shouldn't care so much -- I mean none of this affects me directly, however it angers me to see such outright bigotry and those who would deny any segment of our population the same rights and/or privileges as everyone else.

Frankly Cad, you're the one chasing your own tail. Your talking points, as usual, fail to provide adequate reason for why you favor assigning second class status for gay couples.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
DM - Like I stated before - there is an option that should please almost everyone(minus a few hardliners on both sides) but no one wants to address the situation head on. They play these "marriage" or "unions" games without addressing the whole issue. "Marriage" is between a man and a woman - No amount of double speak or psychobabble will change that - heck even a LAW won't change it's true meaning. But like I said - "civil unions" run afoul of the Constitution and the "separate but equal" issue. Think about it - you might see. The answer is really quite simple although I'm sure a few details might be trouble but nothing we can't sort out. But like I said - until people want to address this issue seriously I'll continue to enjoy people spinning circles around themselves trying to redefine marriage or supporting an Unconstitutional "civil union".

I *still* don't see you providing a valid reason why gay marriage should not be allowed. The only thing you're arguing is: "Well, marriage is between a man and a woman because I say so." That may be fine for your 4-year old, but please humor us, why can't same-sex marriages happen?

I understand perfectly well all of the constitutional shortcomings of civil unions, that's why I'm in favor of outright same-sex marriage. Frankly, I really shouldn't care so much -- I mean none of this affects me directly, however it angers me to see such outright bigotry and those who would deny any segment of our population the same rights and/or privileges as everyone else.

Frankly Cad, you're the one chasing your own tail. Your talking points, as usual, fail to provide adequate reason for why you favor assigning second class status for gay couples.

Yep - more "open minded" and "tolerant" screeching about bigotry and some deluded notion of people being second class citizens.

The reason as I've stated it time and time again is because marriage is, always has been, and always will be man&woman no matter who makes a law or states otherwise.
Continue to spin circles around yourself trying to "prove" gays are being denied "rights" because they can't be "married" though. Maybe someday people will want to address this issue without having to resort to clamoring for "rights" that don't exist or fight against positions and arguments that aren't there. But remember...I'm the one who's chasing his own tail

Oh, and don't forget that I'm a bigot, homophobe, and I eat babies too - that'll help.
Maybe sometime I'll lay out the plan(which really isn't "new" or exciting but hasn't been fully laid out and thought through) that should put this to rest but as of now, the issue is too "hot" and people don't want to think about how things actually work or will work -they just hurl supposed insults and such for reasons I'm not quite sure of.

Have a great "tolerant" evening.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep - more "open minded" and "tolerant" screeching about bigotry and some deluded notion of people being second class citizens.

I refuse to be tolerant of your intolerance. I refuse to be open minded about your closed-mindedness. Don't forget, *you're* the one trying to make people live the way you've approved for them to live.

The reason as I've stated it time and time again is because marriage is, always has been, and always will be man&woman no matter who makes a law or states otherwise.

You should join the flat earth society. I tell you it's flat! It's always been flat and will always will be flat until the end of time! Flat, flat, flattity flat flat. Flat. Yup.

Continue to spin circles around yourself trying to "prove" gays are being denied "rights" because they can't be "married" though. Maybe someday people will want to address this issue without having to resort to clamoring for "rights" that don't exist or fight against positions and arguments that aren't there. But remember...I'm the one who's chasing his own tail

Oh, and don't forget that I'm a bigot, homophobe, and I eat babies too - that'll help.

Well, at least you finally admitted you're a bigot. That's a step forward. Not sure if you're afraid of gay people or not, but it would make sense. What you do with babies is your own business, I'd rather not hear about it. Ahhh yes, more talking points and things in "quotes" --- oooh, compelling argument that is. Well, I guess you missed the fact that I've been talking about privileges not rights. Although there is the whole constitutional equal-but-seperate issue. Are gays equal or not?

Maybe sometime I'll lay out the plan(which really isn't "new" or exciting but hasn't been fully laid out and thought through) that should put this to rest but as of now, the issue is too "hot" and people don't want to think about how things actually work or will work -they just hurl supposed insults and such for reasons I'm not quite sure of.

If it has anything to do with government getting out of marriage, I'm all for it. The feds and the states can view all marriage as a civil union, boost the status of civil union so it means the same as marriage and let communities and/or the churches decide who gets married under what circumstances. That would be ideal, but who knows if it will happen?

Have a great "tolerant" evening.

. . . and a blessed day to you. The buses are leaving for SF at sun-up tomorrow, so be sure to get to the church parking lot extra early and bring your own "Jesus Hates Gays" sign, we're not providing those this year.

 

[nutxo]

I refuse to be tolerant of your intolerance. I refuse to be open minded about your closed-mindedness. Don't forget, *you're* the one trying to make people live the way you've approved for them to live.

hello pot, meet kettle.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
If it has anything to do with government getting out of marriage, I'm all for it. The feds and the states can view all marriage as a civil union, boost the status of civil union so it means the same as marriage and let communities and/or the churches decide who gets married under what circumstances. That would be ideal, but who knows if it will happen?

You are pretty close but not quite. Like I said, the solution is relatively simple, and you identified most of the "simple", however it goes a bit deeper than that, IMO Keep in mind I'm not a Religious Conservative, I'm a Conservative who is a Christian - big difference. Now, IF the gov't could get itself out of marriage, why not take the extra step of ridding it of most of this "union" benefits BS. Taxes, SS, and etc. Remember, I'm a small gov't type of Conservative and wish to rid it of the ever growing bureaucratic mess it has grown into. Still a lot more to it, but that should suffice for now.

Notice I ignored the rest of your grandstanding because you offered the above glimpse of rational discussion.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: nutxo

I refuse to be tolerant of your intolerance. I refuse to be open minded about your closed-mindedness. Don't forget, *you're* the one trying to make people live the way you've approved for them to live.

hello pot, meet kettle.

Hello jack, meet ass.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
You are pretty close but not quite. Like I said, the solution is relatively simple, and you identified most of the "simple", however it goes a bit deeper than that, IMO Keep in mind I'm not a Religious Conservative, I'm a Conservative who is a Christian - big difference. Now, IF the gov't could get itself out of marriage, why not take the extra step of ridding it of most of this "union" benefits BS. Taxes, SS, and etc. Remember, I'm a small gov't type of Conservative and wish to rid it of the ever growing bureaucratic mess it has grown into. Still a lot more to it, but that should suffice for now.

Notice I ignored the rest of your grandstanding because you offered the above glimpse of rational discussion.

CkG

Well, if you would stop trying to keep the gay couples down, I wouldn't have to smack you around so much.

Besides, the libertarian trapped in your conservative republican body knows it's not right for the gov't (or by extension, anyone else) telling people how to live their lives . . .

 

[Moonbeam]

"Marriage" is between a man and a woman - No amount of double speak or psychobabble will change that - heck even a LAW won't change it's true meaning.

This is a demonstration of your bigotry Caddy. You offer opinion as fact, bigoted opinion. Check this out, it may help you see:

Caddy is a bigot. No amount of double speak or psychobabble will change that - heck even a LAW won't change that. Caddy is a bigot because a bigot is Caddy.

You are completely blind, Caddy, and remain totally unaware of your bigotry. Your dishonesty and self deception is evil and you insulate yourself from that realization and accompanying organic shame. And what's this manure about accepting. Grace jumps over that. You can't accept what is already done. So your insistence that you and only you through some mysterious divine revelation know the true definition of marriage is just as absurd as my true realization that Christianity doesn't have to be outlawed, but Christians by definition can't marry. Still no inkling yet, is there, that you're completely insane. You talk of others spinning around, Caddy, because it's what you're doing.

You are like a spoiled child that has a tantrum when he doesn't get his way. I know what marriage is, I do I do I do. You know what your bigotry tells you. You sh!t on other people's desire to express their love. Shame on you, you small minded bigot.