IDBillzFan Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 But on the plus side, that's you're first official DC Tom "!@#$ing Moron" insult. How does this work? Do I pay a fee? Say a few Hail Marys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 But on the plus side, that's you're first official DC Tom "!@#$ing Moron" insult. Your Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Your !@#$, !@#$, !@#$ !@#$!@#$!@#$!@#$!@#$!@#$!@#$!@#$!!!!!!! God !@#$ing dammit **** !@#$!!!!! That's hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 !@#$, !@#$, !@#$ !@#$!@#$!@#$!@#$!@#$!@#$!@#$!@#$!!!!!!! God !@#$ing dammit **** !@#$!!!!! That's hilarious. I know, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 How does this work? Do I pay a fee? Say a few Hail Marys? Donate $3 to Obama, in the name of Julia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Your Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Your Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) Thats what your missing. This is the first step. The next one will be application of the 14th Amendment, which will rule this measure illegal. Its a long painful process. But it was designed that way. And in the end it works. Its cold confort for those who will be discrimiated against today, though. As I said above, I don't blame anybody for being emotional and calling people names...today, or even this week. However, if they persist, and are still doing it 6 months from now, then I have no pity for them. They will get owned, and it will be THEIR fault. It's a legal argument for a legal issue. You'd think a F'ing lawyer would understand that, wouldn't you? "Remedial Law for Emotion-driven Lawyers Part 1 starts in the Learning Annex in 20 minutes". It's the mob acting within the rules. I think that was RK's point too. A fair point. Still can't convince me it's a reasonable position. News flash: it's no one's job to convince...you. Heh...but I'm the narcissist, right? IF you had said they haven't created a convincing argument.... But you didn't, did you? I'm saying that the world would be a better place if people relied on logic and reason to make public policy decisions. Keeping marriage the same as it always has been....can be defended with both reason....and logic. Simple really: Unintended consequences. You don't know what they are. We change the law solely because of what gay people want, what happens? Now, in NY, because we seem to be a little smarter than the rest of the country...what did we do? We had to go and put a ton of legal provisions in. For example: specifically barring assclown lawyers from suing churches, and forcing them to marry gay people. Why would such measures be necessary...if the pro-SSM people based their thinking solely on logic and reason? They don't. You should be happy with the NYS law, as it attempts to be fair to gay people....while at the same time....keeps the leftist douchebags in line. Ultimately this is about fairness. I don't see this NC law as fair. In fact I see it as a dumb move. An over-reach. A "I'm gonna rub your nose in it" no different than how the "we WILL redefine marriage" clowns approached this issue in the beginning. But, let's also not blame the LGBT for the "rub your nose in it" part as much. They just want to get married and be left alone. No, the original sinners here are the Democrat politicians and operatives who designed the "rub your nose in it" approach. If they hadn't tried that nationally, then we wouldn't have the NC amendment today....or the 34+ other state laws and amendments banning it. Now, where was the "logic and reason" in their using gay marriage as a political wedge issue? Try craven and cynical, instead. For a bunch of supposedly sophisticated people....the pro-SSM crowd has acted like children, and has been just as ignorant and uncompromising as the Bible thumpers they target. Edited May 10, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 I can't imagine young people are about to change their minds and be against gay marriage by age 40. That's like saying, in the 60s, you expected young people who were for interracial marriage would grow up and be against it later in life. Younger people are just more tolerant of homosexuality. That's not something older people (generally) ever were. That's the change that's coming. It's just a matter of time before we put this embarrassing chapter behind us. Guess I know different young people then you. Just using the word gay would be a step up in the PC ranks for them. There is a world outside the Berkeley campus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 As I said above, I don't blame anybody for being emotional and calling people names...today, or even this week. However, if they persist, and are still doing it 6 months from now, then I have no pity for them. They will get owned, and it will be THEIR fault. You'd think a F'ing lawyer would understand that, wouldn't you? "Remedial Law for Emotion-driven Lawyers Part 1 starts in the Learning Annex in 20 minutes". News flash: it's no one's job to convince...you. Heh...but I'm the narcissist, right? IF you had said they haven't created a convincing argument.... But you didn't, did you? Keeping marriage the same as it always has been....can be defended with both reason....and logic. Simple really: Unintended consequences. You don't know what they are. We change the law solely because of what gay people want, what happens? Now, in NY, because we seem to be a little smarter than the rest of the country...what did we do? We had to go and put a ton of legal provisions in. For example: specifically barring assclown lawyers from suing churches, and forcing them to marry gay people. Why would such measures be necessary...if the pro-SSM people based their thinking solely on logic and reason? They don't. You should be happy with the NYS law, as it attempts to be fair to gay people....while at the same time....keeps the leftist douchebags in line. Ultimately this is about fairness. I don't see this NC law as fair. In fact I see it as a dumb move. An over-reach. A "I'm gonna rub your nose in it" no different than how the "we WILL redefine marriage" clowns approached this issue in the beginning. But, let's also not blame the LGBT for the "rub your nose in it" part as much. They just want to get married and be left alone. No, the original sinners here are the Democrat politicians and operatives who designed the "rub your nose in it" approach. If they hadn't tried that nationally, then we wouldn't have the NC amendment today....or the 34+ other state laws and amendments banning it. Now, where was the "logic and reason" in their using gay marriage as a political wedge issue? Try craven and cynical, instead. For a bunch of supposedly sophisticated people....the pro-SSM crowd has acted like children, and has been just as ignorant and uncompromising as the Bible thumpers they target. As I said above, I don't blame anybody for being emotional and calling people names...today, or even this week. However, if they persist, and are still doing it 6 months from now, then I have no pity for them. They will get owned, and it will be THEIR fault. You'd think a F'ing lawyer would understand that, wouldn't you? "Remedial Law for Emotion-driven Lawyers Part 1 starts in the Learning Annex in 20 minutes". News flash: it's no one's job to convince...you. Heh...but I'm the narcissist, right? IF you had said they haven't created a convincing argument.... But you didn't, did you? Keeping marriage the same as it always has been....can be defended with both reason....and logic. Simple really: Unintended consequences. You don't know what they are. We change the law solely because of what gay people want, what happens? Now, in NY, because we seem to be a little smarter than the rest of the country...what did we do? We had to go and put a ton of legal provisions in. For example: specifically barring assclown lawyers from suing churches, and forcing them to marry gay people. Why would such measures be necessary...if the pro-SSM people based their thinking solely on logic and reason? They don't. You should be happy with the NYS law, as it attempts to be fair to gay people....while at the same time....keeps the leftist douchebags in line. Ultimately this is about fairness. I don't see this NC law as fair. In fact I see it as a dumb move. An over-reach. A "I'm gonna rub your nose in it" no different than how the "we WILL redefine marriage" clowns approached this issue in the beginning. But, let's also not blame the LGBT for the "rub your nose in it" part as much. They just want to get married and be left alone. No, the original sinners here are the Democrat politicians and operatives who designed the "rub your nose in it" approach. If they hadn't tried that nationally, then we wouldn't have the NC amendment today....or the 34+ other state laws and amendments banning it. Now, where was the "logic and reason" in their using gay marriage as a political wedge issue? Try craven and cynical, instead. For a bunch of supposedly sophisticated people....the pro-SSM crowd has acted like children, and has been just as ignorant and uncompromising as the Bible thumpers they target. I just have to wonder- since our country, like others, sanitizes its history. Is this what it felt like to watch the battle over segregation. Gotta wonder if both sides handled it this poorly. I know this will sort itself out at some point, and they will get their right to marriage (as long as the Mayans aren't right). I just hope they aren't left waiting too long, because of it being a wedge issue, as you said. I know we will hear a number of stories about someone dying the day before the laws are taken care of. Politics just plain sucks and I don't see that situation getting better during my lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 I just have to wonder- since our country, like others, sanitizes its history. Is this what it felt like to watch the battle over segregation. Gotta wonder if both sides handled it this poorly. I know this will sort itself out at some point, and they will get their right to marriage (as long as the Mayans aren't right). I just hope they aren't left waiting too long, because of it being a wedge issue, as you said. I know we will hear a number of stories about someone dying the day before the laws are taken care of. Politics just plain sucks and I don't see that situation getting better during my lifetime. Well, you can always take comfort in the fact that JA is here, calling everybody bigot and insulting people...while claiming to be morally superior to them....at the same time. Isn't this interesting? It's not boring, that's for sure. Who else insults gays....and then claims to be morally superior? Hmmm. I know, the Bible thumpers do! The faster we free ourselves from JA, and the Bible thumpers, and of anyone who has to claim morality....rather than just live it, QUIETLY,...the better off we will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 I just have to wonder- since our country, like others, sanitizes its history. Is this what it felt like to watch the battle over segregation. Gotta wonder if both sides handled it this poorly. Worse, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) 1336622663[/url]' post='2462935']Well, you can always take comfort in the fact that JA is here, calling everybody bigot and insulting people...while claiming to be morally superior to them....at the same time. It's just so ridiculous! Isn't this interesting? It's not boring, that's for sure. Who else insults gays....and then claims to be morally superior? Hmmm. I know, the Bible thumpers do! The faster we free ourselves from JA, and the Bible thumpers, and of anyone who has to claim morality....rather than just live it, QUIETLY,...the better off we will be. The difference is that when Jim and Joe marry, it doesn't take away from Steve and Sally the church goers rights. Except for your favorite bogeyman, the church suers. Edited May 10, 2012 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoutbox Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 As I said above, I don't blame anybody for being emotional and calling people names...today, or even this week. However, if they persist, and are still doing it 6 months from now, then I have no pity for them. They will get owned, and it will be THEIR fault. You'd think a F'ing lawyer would understand that, wouldn't you? "Remedial Law for Emotion-driven Lawyers Part 1 starts in the Learning Annex in 20 minutes". News flash: it's no one's job to convince...you. Heh...but I'm the narcissist, right? IF you had said they haven't created a convincing argument.... But you didn't, did you? Keeping marriage the same as it always has been....can be defended with both reason....and logic. Simple really: Unintended consequences. You don't know what they are. We change the law solely because of what gay people want, what happens? Now, in NY, because we seem to be a little smarter than the rest of the country...what did we do? We had to go and put a ton of legal provisions in. For example: specifically barring assclown lawyers from suing churches, and forcing them to marry gay people. Why would such measures be necessary...if the pro-SSM people based their thinking solely on logic and reason? They don't. You should be happy with the NYS law, as it attempts to be fair to gay people....while at the same time....keeps the leftist douchebags in line. Ultimately this is about fairness. I don't see this NC law as fair. In fact I see it as a dumb move. An over-reach. A "I'm gonna rub your nose in it" no different than how the "we WILL redefine marriage" clowns approached this issue in the beginning. But, let's also not blame the LGBT for the "rub your nose in it" part as much. They just want to get married and be left alone. No, the original sinners here are the Democrat politicians and operatives who designed the "rub your nose in it" approach. If they hadn't tried that nationally, then we wouldn't have the NC amendment today....or the 34+ other state laws and amendments banning it. Now, where was the "logic and reason" in their using gay marriage as a political wedge issue? Try craven and cynical, instead. For a bunch of supposedly sophisticated people....the pro-SSM crowd has acted like children, and has been just as ignorant and uncompromising as the Bible thumpers they target. Awesome. So in your opinion, gay marriage should be kept illegal because: 1. A small selection of gays will be overly litigious. 2. You don't like the political tactics and all the other policies of the political side that tends to support gay marriage (the Democrats). How persuasive.... Still waiting for the anti-gay marriage crowd to deliver a cogent argument here. Maybe one of you guys can find some time between watching NASCAR races, pulling out your periodontal diseased teeth, and praying to your Invisible Friend in the Sky to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Awesome. So in your opinion, gay marriage should be kept illegal because: 1. A small selection of gays will be overly litigious. 2. You don't like the political tactics and all the other policies of the political side that tends to support gay marriage (the Democrats). How persuasive.... Still waiting for the anti-gay marriage crowd to deliver a cogent argument here. Maybe one of you guys can find some time between watching NASCAR races, pulling out your periodontal diseased teeth, and praying to your Invisible Friend in the Sky to do so. Want to know what could be the real truth? American's who oppose same-sex marriage do not want the institution turned into a joke, eventually defined as any relationship under the sun, ultimately becoming a relic and nonexistent, nonpracticed institution. You can't have same-sex marriage legal and it not eventually lead to letting polygamy become legal. Saying you can is being very nieve. Hollywood has already been setting the stage for this next fight. A 2006 NRO article on the subject… http://old.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz.asp Polygamous marriages are now recognized in the Netherlands which was the first country to legalize same-sex marriage. These are incremental changes which many American's have an deep seeded instinctual sense in wondering what comes next. They fear that the far left's goal is to destroy the moral fabric of society. Is it? I have no idea. I'm just throwing this out there as a reason why many American's are opposed to same-sex marriages. Right now, I favor keeping these decisions at the state level. Keeping it at the state level will help prevent the "devolution" of an institution many American's feel is the bedrock that keeps society itself intact. It's a tough issue either way and there are valid arguments on both sides. Demonizing people and their religious beliefs are not the way to go on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Awesome. So in your opinion, gay marriage should be kept illegal because: 1. A small selection of gays will be overly litigious. 2. You don't like the political tactics and all the other policies of the political side that tends to support gay marriage (the Democrats). How persuasive.... Still waiting for the anti-gay marriage crowd to deliver a cogent argument here. Maybe one of you guys can find some time between watching NASCAR races, pulling out your periodontal diseased teeth, and praying to your Invisible Friend in the Sky to do so. So, if someone is against gay marriage they are backward, redneck hicks? You sound just like my little bitchy cousin striking out at anybody who might think that taking a dick up his ass might be less than natural. It's your right to swallow whatever you want and it's the state's right to recognize or not recognize your official status as John's swallowee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Want to know what could be the real truth? American's who oppose same-sex marriage do not want the institution turned into a joke, eventually defined as any relationship under the sun, ultimately becoming a relic and nonexistent, nonpracticed institution. You can't have same-sex marriage legal and it not eventually lead to letting polygamy become legal. Saying you can is being very nieve. Hollywood has already been setting the stage for this next fight. A 2006 NRO article on the subject… http://old.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz.asp Polygamous marriages are now recognized in the Netherlands which was the first country to legalize same-sex marriage. These are incremental changes which many American's have an deep seeded instinctual sense in wondering what comes next. They fear that the far left's goal is to destroy the moral fabric of society. Is it? I have no idea. I'm just throwing this out there as a reason why many American's are opposed to same-sex marriages. Right now, I favor keeping these decisions at the state level. Keeping it at the state level will help prevent the "devolution" of an institution many American's feel is the bedrock that keeps society itself intact. It's a tough issue either way and there are valid arguments on both sides. Demonizing people and their religious beliefs are not the way to go on this. So your argument is the slippery slope logical fallacy? If we do ___ it must lead to ___. Anyone that took philosophy 101 can shoot a hole in your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) Awesome. So in your opinion, gay marriage should be kept illegal because: 1. A small selection of gays will be overly litigious. 2. You don't like the political tactics and all the other policies of the political side that tends to support gay marriage (the Democrats). How persuasive.... Still waiting for the anti-gay marriage crowd to deliver a cogent argument here. Maybe one of you guys can find some time between watching NASCAR races, pulling out your periodontal diseased teeth, and praying to your Invisible Friend in the Sky to do so. You really are as much of a dumbass as you showed in those SB YouTube clips...... You'll find hypocrites and disingenuous people on both sides of the political spectrum. And you'll find good people that help others on both sides of the religiosity spectrum. Moving a bit back on topic, I'd like to see someone here who is against gay marriage state their case without invoking any of these 4 arguments: 3. It's just the way things have always been. Thats a perfectly legitimate reason for one being against gay marriage. Marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman since the beginning of time. And thats the definition that millions of people are comfortalble with and have been forever. Custom and tradition are very powerful aspects of humanity. And thats the hole in the argument of those pushing for gay marriage. They REFUSE to acknowledge that they seek to CHANGE the very definition of what marriage is. They are messing with people's customs, traditions, their religious beliefs, societal norms, the whole thing. They are messing with their core belief structures, pushing for massive changes in those things yet refuse to acknowledge that they are doing so and are expecting and demanding all of society just follow along. Its NOT going to be that easy. The SSM set is the one pushing for these huge changes. And instead of just screaming "BIGOT!!!!!" they need to lay out their case for why this change is the right thing to do. Whether or not refusing to accept that change is "bigoted" or infringing upon others rights can be debated. The fact that we are changing the definition of what marriage is, cannot. Edited May 10, 2012 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 The first line of this fundraising letter is priceless: XXXXXXX – Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer: I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. … I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them. If you agree, you can stand up with me here. Thank you, Barack The Washington Post reported earlier this week that one out of six of Obama’s bundlers are gay. Clearly, the campaign is hoping that Obama’s decision to back gay marriage will reap in some new donations. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) So, if someone is against gay marriage they are backward, redneck hicks? You sound just like my little bitchy cousin striking out at anybody who might think that taking a dick up his ass might be less than natural. It's your right to swallow whatever you want and it's the state's right to recognize or not recognize your official status as John's swallowee. No, but I sure can call them a jerk. I have a lot of friends who are backwards redneck hicks. Many of them are in favor of gay marriage. Well, you can always take comfort in the fact that JA is here, calling everybody bigot and insulting people...while claiming to be morally superior to them....at the same time. Isn't this interesting? It's not boring, that's for sure. Who else insults gays....and then claims to be morally superior? Hmmm. I know, the Bible thumpers do! The faster we free ourselves from JA, and the Bible thumpers, and of anyone who has to claim morality....rather than just live it, QUIETLY,...the better off we will be. OC- if I am not mistaken, you are the one who talks about unintended consequences, as far as changing laws. Now I consider that pretty well thought out, but I want to pose a question that may involve things that aren't directly related. Our legal system is known for unintended consequences- the notion of innocent until proven guilty, many times will result in the guilty going free, in order to protect the innocent from a false conviction. So, what do you think about the unintended consequence of the innocent gay community not being able to marry and live like everyone else, because we are worried about when may stem from it (interfamilial marriages, etc...) Edited May 10, 2012 by Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 No, but I sure can call them a jerk. I have a lot of friends who are backwards redneck hicks. Many of them are in favor of gay marriage. So if a time honored tradition of marriage only between a man and a woman is confirmed by a vote by a state's population, the ones that voted that way are jerks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 The Devolution of Marriage FTA: All people, whatever their sexual orientation, have equal dignity, worth, and basic rights, by virtue of being human beings. We have previously explained why we believe that this premise does not entail the conclusion that the marriage laws should be changed (and defended our views from critics). For now, we will merely repeat one point: The only good reason to have marriage laws in the first place — to have the state recognize a class of relationships called “marriage” out of all the possible strong bonds that adults can form — is to link erotic desire to the upbringing of the children it can produce. We have already gone too far, in both law and culture, in weakening the link between marriage and procreation. To break it altogether would make the institution of marriage unintelligible. What possible governmental interest is there in encouraging long-term commitments with a sexual element, just as such? What reason is there to exclude from recognition caring long-term relationships without such an element? (In one of the editorials mentioned above we mention the case of two brothers who raise a child together following a family tragedy; other hypotheticals are easy to devise.) Many people who support same-sex marriage sincerely believe that they are merely expanding an institution to a class of people who have been excluded from it rather than redefining it. But this view is simply mistaken. We will not make our society more civilized by detaching one of our central institutions from its civilizing task. National Review . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoutbox Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Want to know what could be the real truth? American's who oppose same-sex marriage do not want the institution turned into a joke, eventually defined as any relationship under the sun, ultimately becoming a relic and nonexistent, nonpracticed institution. You can't have same-sex marriage legal and it not eventually lead to letting polygamy become legal. Saying you can is being very nieve. Hollywood has already been setting the stage for this next fight. OMG! If we allow them gays to marry, what's next?! Dogs will be marrying cats! It will be total chaos! So, if someone is against gay marriage they are backward, redneck hicks? You sound just like my little bitchy cousin striking out at anybody who might think that taking a dick up his ass might be less than natural. It's your right to swallow whatever you want and it's the state's right to recognize or not recognize your official status as John's swallowee. Yes, I would say that most people who are anti-gay marriage remind me of the locals in Deliverance. Homosexuality - as gross as it may be - is pervasive throughout the animal kingdom. And yes, humans are animals. I know this goes against everything that your Creation Museum tour guide told you...but it's what us elitist triple-digit IQ city folk types find to be the best description of reality. Thats a perfectly legitimate reason for one being against gay marriage. Marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman since the beginning of time. And thats the definition that millions of people are comfortalble with and have been forever. Custom and tradition are very powerful aspects of humanity. And thats the hole in the argument of those pushing for gay marriage. They REFUSE to acknowledge that they seek to CHANGE the very definition of what marriage is. They are messing with people's customs, traditions, their religious beliefs, societal norms, the whole thing. They are messing with their core belief structures, pushing for massive changes in those things yet refuse to acknowledge that they are doing so and are expecting and demanding all of society just follow along. Its NOT going to be that easy. The SSM set is the one pushing for these huge changes. And instead of just screaming "BIGOT!!!!!" they need to lay out their case for why this change is the right thing to do. FYI, the beginning of "time" was ~13.7 billion years ago, not 6 thousand. Again, the argument that gay marriage should remain illegal because of man-made tradition is !@#$ing weak. There are lots of "traditions" that human civilizations have eventually decided are wrong. Slavery, child labor, no rights for women, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 You really are as much of a dumbass as you showed in those SB YouTube clips...... Thats a perfectly legitimate reason for one being against gay marriage. Marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman since the beginning of time. And thats the definition that millions of people are comfortalble with and have been forever. Custom and tradition are very powerful aspects of humanity. And thats the hole in the argument of those pushing for gay marriage. They REFUSE to acknowledge that they seek to CHANGE the very definition of what marriage is. They are messing with people's customs, traditions, their religious beliefs, societal norms, the whole thing. They are messing with their core belief structures, pushing for massive changes in those things yet refuse to acknowledge that they are doing so and are expecting and demanding all of society just follow along. Its NOT going to be that easy. The SSM set is the one pushing for these huge changes. And instead of just screaming "BIGOT!!!!!" they need to lay out their case for why this change is the right thing to do. Whether or not refusing to accept that change is "bigoted" or infringing upon others rights can be debated. The fact that we are changing the definition of what marriage is, cannot. Marriage between same sex people is also a religious institution. Just depends on the religion. Po-tay-toh, po-tah-to. Guess what: Marriage has evolved through ages and it continues to do so. There have been lots of "that's not alloweds" in marriage rules in different religions and still are. But this is not about those religions, it's about the legal rights given to people on getting married, and the bars to those rights that are being put in their way when you prohibit gay marriage. So if a time honored tradition of marriage only between a man and a woman is confirmed by a vote by a state's population, the ones that voted that way are jerks? Pretty much. Just like even though there was a time-honored tradition of interracial marriage prohibition and a majority against allowing whites and blacks to marry, that majority was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 OMG! If we allow them gays to marry, what's next?! Dogs will be marrying cats! It will be total chaos! Yes, I would say that most people who are anti-gay marriage remind me of the locals in Deliverance. Homosexuality - as gross as it may be - is pervasive throughout the animal kingdom. And yes, humans are animals. I know this goes against everything that your Creation Museum tour guide told you...but it's what us elitist triple-digit IQ city folk types find to be the best description of reality. FYI, the beginning of "time" was ~13.7 billion years ago, not 6 thousand. Again, the argument that gay marriage should remain illegal because of man-made tradition is !@#$ing weak. There are lots of "traditions" that human civilizations have eventually decided are wrong. Slavery, child labor, no rights for women, etc. Your sense of your own moral superiority is amazing. Your snarky little bitching is just that. You are losing the vote on a state by state basis and no amount of mocking will change that. No marriage status for Mr. and Mr. Miller isn't quite the same as slavery, child labor and no rights for women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) So if a time honored tradition of marriage only between a man and a woman is confirmed by a vote by a state's population, the ones that voted that way are jerks? By my opinion. Your sense of your own moral superiority is amazing. Your snarky little bitching is just that. You are losing the vote on a state by state basis and no amount of mocking will change that. No marriage status for Mr. and Mr. Miller isn't quite the same as slavery, child labor and no rights for women. The need to claim moral superiority (or any type of superiority) has caused horrible things over the years). The big question here, is that should federal, state or local government have any jurisdiction over this issue at all? Is it really a government issue? If it is left to the churches, how do we prevent a religious war over it. It really isn't the cut and dry issue that people want it to be. Edited May 10, 2012 by Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 No matter how understanding you try to be of liberals, it is hard. To take just one example, when the gay marriage amendment passed yesterday in North Carolina, the liberals were out in force, denouncing the overwhelming majority of citizens who voted against gay marriage, and not in terms of disappointment or disagreement, but in overwhelming statements of vitriol, hate and derision. Which makes you wonder why we hold a vote at all, if the establishment already has its mind made up. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 No matter how understanding you try to be of liberals, it is hard. To take just one example, when the gay marriage amendment passed yesterday in North Carolina, the liberals were out in force, denouncing the overwhelming majority of citizens who voted against gay marriage, and not in terms of disappointment or disagreement, but in overwhelming statements of vitriol, hate and derision. Which makes you wonder why we hold a vote at all, if the establishment already has its mind made up. . Welcome to America. I don't think there should have been a vote at all (and no, I am not saying that in a derisive means of saying that you agree with me, because I don't think that you do.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) OMG! If we allow them gays to marry, what's next?! Dogs will be marrying cats! It will be total chaos! This is a legit reason for allowing it but saying many object to it becuase of traditions that go back thousands of years is "weak." Youre a real peach. Yes, I would say that most people who are anti-gay marriage remind me of the locals in Deliverance. Homosexuality - as gross as it may be - Once again, you prove your own bigotry. You really need to look up the definition of that word. I know this goes against everything that your Creation Museum tour guide told you...but it's what us elitist triple-digit IQ city folk types find to be the best description of reality. So instead of helping those who are against SSM understand why this is the right thing to do, you look down your elitist nose at them, mock them, and minimalize them. Nice. FYI, the beginning of "time" was ~13.7 billion years ago, not 6 thousand. Im aware of that. It was a figure of speech, you !@#$ing !@#$. Again, the argument that gay marriage should remain illegal because of man-made tradition is !@#$ing weak. There are lots of "traditions" that human civilizations have eventually decided are wrong. Slavery, child labor, no rights for women, etc. But thats not what I said. I was trying to explain why people may be against it, without passing judgement on those people. Tried to show you that right or wrong, there is a good reason why people feel the way they do and its goes MUCH deeper than "hatin' on those faggots." It goes to the core of who they are as people and to the core of the society they live in, its cultures and traditions. And such things dont change overnight even when those traditions are odious. But instead of your "triple digit IQ" realizing that, you blathered about dogs and cats living together. Nice work. Edited May 10, 2012 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) Your sense of your own moral superiority is amazing. Your snarky little bitching is just that. You are losing the vote on a state by state basis and no amount of mocking will change that. No marriage status for Mr. and Mr. Miller isn't quite the same as slavery, child labor and no rights for women. You're right: The majority is wrong. Luckily, the older portion of that majority will die off and the problem will fix itself. It's only become an issue in the last decade because the gap between those for and against gay marriage is narrowing. When the generation-self baby boomers finally keel over, gay marriage will be widely accepted and people won't understand what the big deal ever was. Edited May 10, 2012 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 This is a legit reason for allowing it but saying many object to it becuase of traditions that go back thousands of years is "weak." Youre a real peach. Once again, you prove your own bigotry. You really need to look up the definition of that word. So instead of helping those who are against SSM understand why this is the right thing to do, you look down your elitist nose at them, mock them, and minimalize them. Nice. Im aware of that. It was a figure of speech, you !@#$ing !@#$. But thats not what I said. I was trying to explain why people may be against it, without passing judgement on those people. Tried to show you that right or wrong, there is a good reason why people feel the way they do and its goes MUCH deeper than "hatin' on those faggots." It goes to the core of who they are as people and to the core of the society they live in, its cultures and traditions. And such things dont change overnight even when those traditions are odious. But instead of your "triple digit IQ" realizing that, you blathered about dogs and cats living together. Nice work. Would you say that a lot of the hatred on both sides is outright laziness and ignorance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) You're right: The majority is wrong. Luckily, the older portion of that majority will die off and the problem will fix itself. It's only become an issue in the last decade because the gap between those for and against gay marriage is narrowing. When the generation-self baby boomers finally keel over, gay marriage will be widely accepted and people won't understand what the big deal ever was. That's naive. Would you say that a lot of the hatred on both sides is outright laziness and ignorance? Thats my entire point. Nobody is looking into WHY "the other side" feels the way they do. Nobody. Edited May 10, 2012 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoutbox Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Your sense of your own moral superiority is amazing. Your snarky little bitching is just that. You are losing the vote on a state by state basis and no amount of mocking will change that. No marriage status for Mr. and Mr. Miller isn't quite the same as slavery, child labor and no rights for women. Mocking won't change it, but time will: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 That's naive. Thats my entire point. Nobody is looking into WHY "the other side" feels the way they do. Nobody. To me, the problem stems from the same thing that biggotry does (whether it is biggotry or not depends on the individuals definition of it). People just are afraid of that which is different, as it questions the validity of their own way of life and beliefs. That is part of human nature and will continue on, long after the previous generation is dead and gone. Unless, of course, the Mayans are right..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 That's naive. Numbers don't lie. It's the truth. Young people don't see this as an issue like old people do. When the old people die, all the man-woman laws will go away in a blink. It's hot now because attitudes are changing--it's just a matter of time before the majority on this issue favors gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Mocking won't change it, but time will: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States Then I guess it's settled then, you can quit your mocking and just let time settle things. I wonder what will be the next thing to change the conversation in this country away from the terrible job Obama has been doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Numbers don't lie. It's the truth. Young people don't see this as an issue like old people do. When the old people die, all the man-woman laws will go away in a blink. It's hot now because attitudes are changing--it's just a matter of time before the majority on this issue favors gay marriage. Understand. I think it goes beyond just boomer dying off, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoutbox Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Then I guess it's settled then, you can quit your mocking and just let time settle things. I wonder what will be the next thing to change the conversation in this country away from the terrible job Obama has been doing? 10-20 years from now, yes it will be settled and the more enlightened/rational side will win. It would be nice if it could happen sooner because a lot of gay people's lives are affected greatly by this issue, but whatever. Regarding my mocking, no I will not stop mocking those who so openly embrace stupidity and irrationality. And those who are against gay marriage simply because... A. God says gays are evil B. Gay people are different than us. C. Breaking with cultural traditions is bad because change is scary and dangerous ... are being stupid and irrational. We're heading into the 7th page of this thread, and I have still not read a persuasive argument against legalized gay marriage. I fail to see why giving gay people fully equal rights is going to destroy our civilization...or at least at any faster rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) 10-20 years from now, yes it will be settled and the more enlightened/rational side will win. It would be nice if it could happen sooner because a lot of gay people's lives are affected greatly by this issue, but whatever. Regarding my mocking, no I will not stop mocking those who so openly embrace stupidity and irrationality. And those who are against gay marriage simply because... A. God says gays are evil B. Gay people are different than us. C. Breaking with cultural traditions is bad because change is scary and dangerous ... are being stupid and irrational. We're heading into the 7th page of this thread, and I have still not read a persuasive argument against legalized gay marriage. I fail to see why giving gay people fully equal rights is going to destroy our civilization...or at least at any faster rate. So in other words.."Its Mark Miller's way or the highway...and if you dont agree with me youre irrational and stupid." How "tolerant", "compassionate", "empathetic" and "open minded." Why try to understand the other's POV and try to convince them that change is the right thing to do, when you can just mock them and call them names? Edited May 10, 2012 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 I look ahead 15 years and I see this as a done deal. What we're witnessing now is basically the last desperate stand of the old & out of touch. Relatively soon, SSM will be commonplace. That's just where our culture is going. I'm personally very glad to see it. It's progress. Homosexuality has always existed and it's always been repressed and persecuted. Not every tradition is worth upholding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts