Support for same-sex marriage reaches record high

[nehalem256]

Holy shit.

The creepy factor on this guy just shot through the roof.

I see you missed the point completely.

 

[fskimospy]

I see you missed the point completely.

lol no. The fact that you don't understand what was wrong with what you said is frankly creepy as all hell. Seek professional help.

 

[nehalem256]

lol no. The fact that you don't understand what was wrong with what you said is frankly creepy as all hell. Seek professional help.

You apparently fail to understand sarcasm. And lack the ability to think outside of your own moral system.

 

[zinfamous]

I see you missed the point completely.

speaking of missed points...

 

[mikeymikec]

Saying homosexual activity is immoral is one thing. Saying we should oppress them and treat them as scum is quite another.

Except the topic is SSM, so let's stick to that. Let's take a hypothetical scenario and revoke the right to marry from couples who adhere to certain religions. Are you saying that this isn't a method of oppression, and they wouldn't label it as that?

And there are non-religious reasons for thinking homosexuality is immoral.

Of course there are, but you weren't talking about those.

 

[BUnit1701]

You're welcome to your strawman liberals. I'm sure in your mind the actions of a few crazies represents the position of the entire party.

Try making your pathetic arguments to someone really, really stupid; maybe they'll believe you. Oh, wait, that's the entire Republican party.

Edit: On second thought, there's a big difference between those who simply oppose SSM and those who contribute $500 to an anti-SSM group. The latter pretty clearly have an active homophobic agenda. I heartily approve if they end up as marginalized in society as they want gays to be.

It amazes me, you cant put all liberals or Democrats into one category, but buy golly, every single conservative and Republican is a homophobic racist misogynist Koch-sucker. And all in the same post none the less.

 

[shira]

Just wanted to show how atheidiots like to sensationalize and totally misrepresent ours (and many others religions) belief systems.

I don't see how "cosmic intervention" is a misrepresentation of the spiritual beliefs of deists. Can you enlighten me?

 

[nehalem256]

Except the topic is SSM, so let's stick to that. Let's take a hypothetical scenario and revoke the right to marry from couples who adhere to certain religions. Are you saying that this isn't a method of oppression, and they wouldn't label it as that?

(1) Gay people can legally marry someone of the opposite sex. They just don't want to.

(2) The right to marry someone of the same sex wasn't revoked. It was just never created.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Just wanted to show how atheidiots like to sensationalize and totally misrepresent ours (and many others religions) belief systems.

No one really gives a fuck about your belief system until you start to demand that society should be adapted to follow it. Crap like "only Christian prayers for our elected representatives" and "discrimination should be legal cuz Jesus hates black ... I mean gay people" and "this is a christian nation" is not gonna get you any favours. It'll just ensure that you will eventually have to be marginalized for being too stupid to have a voice in society.

 

[nehalem256]

No one really gives a fuck about your belief system until you start to demand that society should be adapted to follow it. Crap like "only Christian prayers for our elected representatives" and "discrimination should be legal cuz Jesus hates black ... I mean gay people" and "this is a christian nation" is not gonna get you any favours. It'll just ensure that you will eventually have to be marginalized for being too stupid to have a voice in society.

You mean like throwing out the millennial old definition of marriage being between opposite-sex individuals because gay people feel butt-hurt?

Note that this definition of marriage spans across essentially all society. Even ones clearly not christian like Japan and China.

It is unquestionable that it is same-sex marriage supporters that are the ones demanding that society adapt to their belief system.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

(1) Gay people can legally marry someone of the opposite sex. They just don't want to.

(2) The right to marry someone of the same sex wasn't revoked. It was just never created.

The right to marry WHOEVER YOU CHOOSE was established in Loving vs Virginia as a basic human right. It should be obvious to any thinking human being how this works, discrimination in law can only be applied when there is sufficient evidence of harm to support it. To my knowledge there isn't even an argument based on harm for discriminating against homosexuals marrying a partner of their choosing. Your argument can and has been used before to discriminate, it was deemed stupid then and it's still as stupid today.

 

[Retro Rob]

I don't see how "cosmic intervention" is a misrepresentation of the spiritual beliefs of deists. Can you enlighten me?

Atreus is not a deist, AFAIK.

Saying "cosmic intervention" is not the same as saying, "praying to God", for example, or "godly wisdom" for instance, which are not only less offensive, but truly represents what believers do.

All I was saying.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

You mean like throwing out the millennial old definition of marriage being between opposite-sex individuals because gay people feel butt-hurt?

During the last 1k years marriage has been defined in a LOT of ways, this isn't an argument in your favour. Should we discriminate against ssm only because christians get butt-hurt if they don't get to rule society and discriminate against gays or is there any other actual reason for NOT allowing it? Can you present a case where it's harmful?

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Atreus is not a deist, AFAIK.

Saying "cosmic intervention" is not the same as saying, "praying to God", for example, or "godly wisdom" for instance, which are not only less offensive, but truly represents what believers do.

All I was saying.

Of course he isn't, he has to be a Muslim because as we all know Muslims are the ones that want religious law to apply when it comes to secular society.

 

[shira]

(1) Gay people can legally marry someone of the opposite sex. They just don't want to.

(2) The right to marry someone of the same sex wasn't revoked. It was just never created.

Rights never get created. What happens is that the Supreme Court recognizes that a right exists. In essence, the SCOTUS is saying "The country wasn't ready yet to acknowledge this right, but we're ready now" OR "There was no real need before now to acknowledge this right, but it's needed now."

The SCOTUS will soon recognize that a right to marry exists for same-sex couples. The good news is that you'll be able to continuing arguing your BS points all you want. Enjoy!

 

[nehalem256]

Rights never get created. What happens is that the Supreme Court recognizes that a right exists. In essence, the SCOTUS is saying "The country wasn't ready yet to acknowledge this right, but we're ready now" OR "There was no real need before now to acknowledge this right, but it's needed now."

The SCOTUS will soon recognize that a right to marry exists for same-sex couples. The good news is that you'll be able to continuing arguing your BS points all you want. Enjoy!

Funny as recently as the 1970s I can point out court cases showing that the idea of same-sex marriage is essentially as laughable as marrying a porn filled macbook.

I think its pretty clear that the right to same-sex marriage is invented.

 

[nehalem256]

During the last 1k years marriage has been defined in a LOT of ways, this isn't an argument in your favour. Should we discriminate against ssm only because christians get butt-hurt if they don't get to rule society and discriminate against gays or is there any other actual reason for NOT allowing it? Can you present a case where it's harmful?

No it really hasn't.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

No it really hasn't.

It really has, it's included polygamy and same sex marriage, there have been limitations based on gender, limitations based on ethnicity, limitations based on religion and probably a few more that i can't remember right now. So yeah, it really has.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Funny as recently as the 1970s I can point out court cases showing that the idea of same-sex marriage is essentially as laughable as marrying a porn filled macbook.

I think its pretty clear that the right to same-sex marriage is invented.

The right exists between two legally consenting adults of opposite sex, to discriminate against same sex you still have to show harm. To discriminate against parties where one party cannot legally consent doesn't have to be shown to be harmful because contractual law already takes care of the matter. I can't believe that you are actually so stupid that after having had this discussion a multitude of time you don't know why you're wrong. You have to be trolling (or a baptist).

 

[nehalem256]

It really has, it's included polygamy and same sex marriage, there have been limitations based on gender, limitations based on ethnicity, limitations based on religion and probably a few more that i can't remember right now. So yeah, it really has.

If a state changed the law so you had to be 17 instead of 16 to get a driver's license would you say the definition of a DL had been changed?

 

[Atreus21]

Except the topic is SSM, so let's stick to that. Let's take a hypothetical scenario and revoke the right to marry from couples who adhere to certain religions. Are you saying that this isn't a method of oppression, and they wouldn't label it as that?

Of course that's oppression. Is keeping polygamists from marrying oppression?

 

[MasterOfUsers]

If a state changed the law so you had to be 17 instead of 16 to get a driver's license would you say the definition of a DL had been changed?

I don't get your point, you were talking about the concept of marriage for the last 1k years or don't you know that a millennia is actually 1k years? I would say that the definition of who may or may not get a licence depends entirely on where you live and it always has.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Of course that's oppression. Is keeping polygamists from marrying oppression?

I can demonstrate harm with polygamist marriages, can you demonstrate harm with SSM?

 

[Atreus21]

I can demonstrate harm with polygamist marriages, can you demonstrate harm with SSM?

Not the question. The question is if restricting polygamist marriages is oppressive to polygamists in the same vein that restricting marriage to people of, for example, a certain religion is oppressive.

 

[Zaap]

Good. The sooner we're done bickering over this useless issue (and I mean it's useless because any two non-related adult human beings should be able to get married- it's no one else's business) the better.