Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Americans Care More About Gay Marriage Than Global Warming

Americans Care More About Gay Marriage Than Global Warming (Page 2)
Thread Tools
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2007, 01:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by spacefreak View Post
I son't know what this "equal rights" stuff is all about.
You hit the nail right on the head; you don't know what this issue is all about. Hospital visitation rights, property inheritance rights, rights being denied when they're in a different state than the one in which their union was recognized, tax rights, the rights of families excluding long time partners from retrieving their own property when one partner dies. There are quite obviously many things you don't know about equal rights. Fortunately for you, however, freedom of speech gives you the right to display what you don't know.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2007, 01:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
They aren't. They are discriminating based on their inability to meet the basic requirements that the "marriage" affimrative actions are mean to encourage. There is no moral or legal requirement to treat two unequal things as equals.
Unfortunately for you, it isn't going to be your decision to make the judgement as to what's equal and what isn't. That's going to be left to people who aren't basing their decisions on specious arguments and unfounded fears and twisted "logic." I heard that black people can marry white people nowadays, and that black people and women can vote; can you imagine that? Next thing you know, those uppity queers are going to demand to be treated as human beings; what is this world coming to?
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2007, 01:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob View Post
You can't have accidental children in a gay marriage?

Our economic system depends on constant growth, so if you're denying your ability to have as many children as possible, you're hurting our economy. Why do you hate America?
With a steady stream of Mexicans coming north the population growth thing is covered to the tune of 150,000,000 by the year 2050.

We can all go without children and have more free time and money.


What scares me more though is that 44% of Merikans think the earth is 10,000 years old.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2007, 10:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Unfortunately for you, it isn't going to be your decision to make the judgement as to what's equal and what isn't.
You're right. If they do things properly they will rely on basic logic (which I've outlined and I still haven't seen a credible refutation) and the constitution, neither of which seems to side with forcing "gay marriage".

Unless some high court decides to start unconstitutionally legislating again like it did for about 20 years or so (and I don't see the current SC doing at and it will take quite some time to reverse that), it will be up to the "people" to decide what laws need put into place. Currently, the majority of places that are putting it up to a vote are overwhelmingly creating barriers for this sort of thing.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2007, 10:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by selowitch View Post
"Predjudiced," eh? I guess I forgot to add "illiterate" to the list.
Wow...name calling due to typos. You've got a real arsenal of logical arguments at your disposal, don't you?
     
selowitch
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2007, 11:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Wow...name calling due to typos. You've got a real arsenal of logical arguments at your disposal, don't you?
My remark on the typo was obviously just a bit of mischief, not a serious argument.

Here are two examples of logical arguments that to me are compelling:

The position against gay marriage is tantamount to gender discrimination
This is because we are changing how we treat people based solely on the gender of their chosen partner. If you will allow someone a man to get married, for example, only if his partner is a woman and not if that partner is a man, that is blatant discrimination based on a person's gender, which is something everyone should be against.

The position against gay marriage constitutes religious persecution, and could be violative of the separation between church and state
Because certain rabbis, priests, ministers, et al. and their congregations endorse and perform gay marriages, the state failing to recognize or invalidating those unions is committing an act of religious persecution that ought to be disallowed. Actually, this dovetails with my belief that the government should have no say in ecclesiastical matters such as marriage (in the spiritual sense), but that all marriages should be civil unions in the eyes of the law. That way we avoid entirely the issue of defining what is marriage as a matter of public policy.

Ironically, I actually agree with the conservatives that marriage is worth protecting and that it's sacred. I'm just not stuck in their narrow view of what marriage is. What I think is shameful is that the conservatives (or the anti-gay-marriage crowd) would insist that the thousands upon thousands of children being raised by gay parents be deemed illegitimate under the with all the attendant problems with inheritance and medical decisionmaking, etc.

Those who oppose gay marriage need to come up with a rationale for giving the state the power to decide which churches are legitimate and which are not.

It is typical right-wing hypocrisy to claimthat government should stay out of our lives ... unless, of course, we want to marry someone they don't like. When that happens, they leap right in, guns ablazin', advocating for taxpayer-funded bigotry.
( Last edited by selowitch; Sep 2, 2007 at 11:33 AM. )
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2007, 09:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Incidentally, a coworker of mine just got refused the privilege of adopting her nieces because she's in a homosexual relationship. Not having that **** happen would be a nice start.
Did you see that as the documented reason, or were you simply told that by a jilted rejectee? Who was awarded custody, and what proof do you have that the new guardians are not better suited for custody?

Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
As the Supreme Court figured out more than 50 years ago in the case of race, there is no such thing as separate but equal.
Like I stated before, I see homosexuals at the bank, at work, at bars and restaurants, at the beach, at amusement parks, in my doctor's office, at concerts, etc... Please, tell me where I can witness this "seperate but equal" stuff you write about. I have yet to see a water fountain that says "straights only".

Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
The whole concept is a hoax used to disguise discrimination.
Again, what discrimination? Do you regularly see homosexuals rejected from restaurants?

Is disallowing a 45-year-old man from marrying a 12-year-old girl discrimination in your mind?
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2007, 09:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
You hit the nail right on the head; you don't know what this issue is all about. Hospital visitation rights, property inheritance rights, rights being denied when they're in a different state than the one in which their union was recognized, tax rights, the rights of families excluding long time partners from retrieving their own property when one partner dies. There are quite obviously many things you don't know about equal rights. Fortunately for you, however, freedom of speech gives you the right to display what you don't know.
You're all over the place, and you throw around the word "rights" way too liberally. "Tax rights" is probably the most ridiculous sounding of them all.

Surely homosexuals are allowed to have wills drawn up. That would eliminate many of the problems listed above. Wills involve a whole lot less paperwork than marriage involves. There are kits available online. Can be done in an evening or two. If people truly care about each other, why wouldn't they perform this very basic task?
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2007, 10:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by spacefreak View Post
You're all over the place, and you throw around the word "rights" way too liberally. "Tax rights" is probably the most ridiculous sounding of them all.

Surely homosexuals are allowed to have wills drawn up. That would eliminate many of the problems listed above. Wills involve a whole lot less paperwork than marriage involves. There are kits available online. Can be done in an evening or two. If people truly care about each other, why wouldn't they perform this very basic task?
You throw out all your alleged non-discriminatory examples all over the place. It is a known fact that one of two people who have spent a lifetime together can suddenly find himself/herself being left out of medical decision making processes for an ill partner, literally being legally ignored by both the hospital and the patient's family. There are literally hundreds of benefits that married couples enjoy that homosexual couples don't. That is why uniformity across all states, which is immediately available to married couples no matter what state they move to after they marry, is the only acceptable solution. Fortunately the younger generations are getting it right, in that they recognize that it's none of their business who loves who, as long as they're consenting adults, and who lives with who in the same circumstances. They just don't care, as more people shouldn't, as it doesn't affect anyone except the parties involved. Of course, this won't stop the hell and brimstone crowd from blathering on incessantly about the unfounded dangers of letting two same sex people love each other. You can see it here, and anywhere this issue is discussed. As Bob Dylan once correctly said, "Don't criticize what you can't understand."
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
0157988944
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2007, 10:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
You throw out all your alleged non-discriminatory examples all over the place. It is a known fact that one of two people who have spent a lifetime together can suddenly find himself/herself being left out of medical decision making processes for an ill partner, literally being legally ignored by both the hospital and the patient's family. There are literally hundreds of benefits that married couples enjoy that homosexual couples don't. That is why uniformity across all states, which is immediately available to married couples no matter what state they move to after they marry, is the only acceptable solution. Fortunately the younger generations are getting it right, in that they recognize that it's none of their business who loves who, as long as they're consenting adults, and who lives with who in the same circumstances. They just don't care, as more people shouldn't, as it doesn't affect anyone except the parties involved. Of course, this won't stop the hell and brimstone crowd from blathering on incessantly about the unfounded dangers of letting two same sex people love each other. You can see it here, and anywhere this issue is discussed. As Bob Dylan once correctly said, "Don't criticize what you can't understand."
Most sense anyone's made on this thread.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2007, 10:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by spacefreak View Post
Did you see that as the documented reason, or were you simply told that by a jilted rejectee?
I listened in on the call. The chick said they were being rejected because one of the women had a traffic ticket, and my coworker was like, "Because of one ticket? That makes no sense." And the woman kind of waffled about how there are actually other issues that she had a problem with, but refused to specify. What's your conclusion?

Originally Posted by spacefreak View Post
Who was awarded custody, and what proof do you have that the new guardians are not better suited for custody?
As far as I'm aware, they're staying in foster care (currently with a woman who supported my coworker getting them).

Originally Posted by spacefreak View Post
Like I stated before, I see homosexuals at the bank, at work, at bars and restaurants, at the beach, at amusement parks, in my doctor's office, at concerts, etc... Please, tell me where I can witness this "seperate but equal" stuff you write about. I have yet to see a water fountain that says "straights only".
Look in the title of this thread. Does it say "gay water fountain usage"? You do the math.

Originally Posted by spacefreak View Post
Is disallowing a 45-year-old man from marrying a 12-year-old girl discrimination in your mind?
Yes, it is. It's discrimination that's very well justified in my mind — hardly comparable. Children are a special protected class, and there are very good reasons why they are not allowed all the rights of adults. Barring children from strip clubs is not comparable to barring somebody from a restaurant based on race or sexual orientation. Although actually, marrying a 12-year-old is legal in more states than gay marriage!
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2007, 08:16 PM
 
It tells me Americans still care about moral beliefs.

I guess all is not lost yet.

I see it's another one of SWG's "America sucks" post bombings and then hiding.

There seems to be a lot of Canadians insecure about Canada in the PL.
     
0157988944
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2007, 08:23 PM
 
Nope. AMERICA SUCKS!

I'm still here. Attack me.

America s not founded on one group's moral beliefs. It is founded on the idea that ANYONE'S moral beliefs are acceptable. If my moral beliefs are that gays should be able to marry, than a Christian in a position of power shouldn't be able to say, "No, they can't because it doesn't go with my moral flow."
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2007, 08:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by adamfishercox View Post
America s not founded on one group's moral beliefs. It is founded on the idea that ANYONE'S moral beliefs are acceptable. If my moral beliefs are that gays should be able to marry, than a Christian in a position of power shouldn't be able to say, "No, they can't because it doesn't go with my moral flow."
Likewise, you should accept my moral belief that it's every man's right to walk around in public with a G36 and a full C-Mag. Not to mention my moral belief that all taxes are evil and thus should not be paid.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2007, 08:34 PM
 
Um Christians aren't ones trying to impose a new definition for a word onto everyone.

We aren't the ones attempting to impose anything or change anything.

Most are willing to give equal rights however. How bigoted of us!

Want me to start calling homosexuals heterosexuals now too? Separate is not = or some stuff.

We word things differently to not delude the language. It has nothing to do with intolerance. But the opposite. If something is different, we usually use a different word to describe it. Been going on for centuries. We even have different names for male and female homosexuality. But we don't for heterosexuality! OMG!!1 BIGOTISM!11
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2007, 08:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Most are willing to give equal rights however.
Very true. In fact, the only argument I see with regard to gays is that they shouldn't be allowed to tell us how to run our churches (as they've pretty much done here in the UK). In much the same way that Christians shouldn't be allowed to tell gays how to run their clubs.

No Christian I've ever met is against gay civil partnerships. What gays do with their tackle is of no concern to anyone but the gays and God (as long as they're not doing it on my lawn).
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
0157988944
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2007, 08:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Um Christians aren't ones trying to impose a new definition for a word onto everyone.

We aren't the ones attempting to impose anything or change anything.

Most are willing to give equal rights however. How bigoted of us!

Want me to start calling homosexuals heterosexuals now too? Separate is not = or some stuff.

We word things differently to not delude the language. It has nothing to do with intolerance. But the opposite. If something is different, we usually use a different word to describe it. Been going on for centuries. We even have different names for male and female homosexuality. But we don't for heterosexuality! OMG!!1 BIGOTISM!11
OMG! New definition! All die! LOLZ! Seriously. It's not bigoted, just like it wasn't bigoted to not let a black man and a white woman marry. 10 years from now, most of the US will look back just as we look back on the rampant racism of the early 1900s.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2007, 08:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
No Christian I've ever met is against gay civil partnerships. What gays do with their tackle is of no concern to anyone but the gays and God (as long as they're not doing it on my lawn).
Exactly. But I am told since it's not called a marriage, it's not equal, even though they would get the same rights.

That's an absurd argument. That's more of an argument about forcing society to accept a lifestyle as they see it. Which is what they are accusing Christians of.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2007, 08:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by adamfishercox View Post
OMG! New definition! All die! LOLZ!
See that is you being intolerant of other people's views and beliefs.
Seriously. It's not bigoted, just like it wasn't bigoted to not let a black man and a white woman marry. 10 years from now, most of the US will look back just as we look back on the rampant racism of the early 1900s.
Most people see the absurdity of such a comparison. As such using of the race card in a sexual preference argument is kinda silly.

Not only that, it belittles those that have lost their lives to make such EQUAL RIGHTS available to those people.

Again, no rights are being requested to be taken away. And most Christians are all for gays getting EQUAL RIGHTS.

What gays are doing would be equal to say the African Americans at the time saying "And not only do we want equal rights, we want to be known as being Caucasian too! Separate does not = Equality!!1"

Just as an African American will never be Caucasian (except MJ) No pear tree an apple tree, No grass become cement, nor will two men ever be a marriage.

That isn't being bigoted. That is just being honest. Realistic.

You'd think people that was interested in science and classifications would see this. But like always, that is only of a concern when it's in our best interest I guess.
( Last edited by Kevin; Sep 3, 2007 at 08:55 PM. )
     
0157988944
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2007, 08:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
See that is you being intolerant of other people's views and beliefs.
And that's you blowing something small into an issue, such as the "sanctity" of a WORD.
Most people see the absurdity of such a comparison. As such using of the race card in a sexual preference argument is kinda silly.

Not only that, it belittles those that have lost their lives to make such EQUAL RIGHTS available to those people.

Again, no rights are being requested to be taken away. And most Christians are all for gays getting EQUAL RIGHTS.
So denying things to someone based on skin color is wrong, but it is ok based on who they sleep with. And no, civil unions are NOT a marraige, nor do they give the exact same rights.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2007, 08:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
It tells me Americans still care about moral beliefs.

I guess all is not lost yet.

I see it's another one of SWG's "America sucks" post bombings and then hiding.

There seems to be a lot of Canadians insecure about Canada in the PL.
You mean like the moral beliefs that contribute to pornography being the biggest money making business on the web? You mean like the moral beliefs that come from untold numbers of cheating husbands/wives and the almost 50% divorce rate? You mean the moral beliefs that have thousands of women trafficked into the U. S. annually for sex slavery and indentured servitude? You mean the moral beliefs that allow for legal prostitution in Nevada, where the clientele are predominantly married men, with lots of disposable income, and illegal prostitution everywhere else? Do you mean the moral beliefs that belong to the audiences of much of the crap that is on TV, where we allow our youth to see innumerable people getting killed and injured, for our "entertainment"? Do you mean the moral beliefs of those in Washington and our state governments, who lie to us and are more concerned with lining their pockets than serving the people who elect them? Do you mean the moral beliefs of parents who teach their children that whatever they need to do in life to get ahead is okay? Do you mean the moral beliefs of "upstanding" white collar criminals, who do far more economic damage than bank robbers and thieves? Do you mean the moral beliefs of those who think it's okay to steal from their employer, seeing as how the majority of theft from companies is internally driven? Just curious.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2007, 08:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by adamfishercox View Post
And that's you blowing something small into an issue, such as the "sanctity" of a WORD.
Again you belittling such belief is again intolerance. (if you don't claim to be tolerant, I will stop pointing this out)
So denying things to someone based on skin color is wrong, but it is ok based on who they sleep with.
Not what I said at all. Go re-read what I said. And again, I am not for denying ANYONE rights.
And no, civil unions are NOT a marraige, nor do they give the exact same rights.
Well most people believe civil unions SHOULD have the same rights.

Heck I think the gov should stop recognizing marriages all together and just recognize civil unions. How is that for your equal rights.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2007, 09:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
You mean like the moral beliefs that contribute to pornography being the biggest money making business on the web?
Cause we as Americans as a whole support that? Not at all. As a matter of fact there is a large group of Americans against pornography as a whole.
You mean like the moral beliefs that come from untold numbers of cheating husbands/wives and the almost 50% divorce rate?
Oh wait, I am beginning to see this as just another "America sucks" thread.. lets find out.
You mean the moral beliefs that have thousands of women trafficked into the U. S. annually for sex slavery and indentured servitude?
Because that is what every average American does after work. (In other words, not the norm)
You mean the moral beliefs that allow for legal prostitution in Nevada, where the clientele are predominantly married men, with lots of disposable income, and illegal prostitution everywhere else? Do you mean the moral beliefs that belong to the audiences of much of the crap that is on TV, where we allow our youth to see innumerable people getting killed and injured, for our "entertainment"? Do you mean the moral beliefs of those in Washington and our state governments, who lie to us and are more concerned with lining their pockets than serving the people who elect them? Do you mean the moral beliefs of parents who teach their children that whatever they need to do in life to get ahead is okay? Do you mean the moral beliefs of "upstanding" white collar criminals, who do far more economic damage than bank robbers and thieves? Do you mean the moral beliefs of those who think it's okay to steal from their employer, seeing as how the majority of theft from companies is internally driven? Just curious.
You are describing a minority and painting the majority with the same paint. I was right with my original assessment of this post.
     
0157988944
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2007, 09:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Again you belittling such belief is again intolerance. (if you don't claim to be tolerant, I will stop pointing this out)
Me belittling what you said is exercising the freedom of speech. I will not kill you for your belief, nor do I believe that you should not be able to believe that. In other words, i am tolerant.

Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Not what I said at all. Go re-read what I said. And again, I am not for denying ANYONE rights.
-.-

Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Well most people believe civil unions SHOULD have the same rights.

Heck I think the gov should stop recognizing marriages all together and just recognize civil unions. How is that for your equal rights.
I like.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2007, 09:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by adamfishercox View Post
Me belittling what you said is exercising the freedom of speech. I will not kill you for your belief, nor do I believe that you should not be able to believe that. In other words, i am tolerant.
Tolerance isn't accepting my ability to hold the belief. Tolerance is also how you treat those that hold a different belief.
I like.
And from all the Christians I talk to, most would agree as well. But people see the MINORITY of rebel rousers and suddenly paint all of Christiandom as being like them.

It's simply not the facts.

Free Will, Equal Rights. All good things.

Changing word definitions so that society as a whole must with open arms accept your lifestyle is not a good thing. No matter what side you are on.

No gay person expects to be called straight, or heterosexual. Why would they want to be called married? It's just as absurd. Not only that, it's intolerant to those that hold the word sacred. Regardless of what SOME people treat it like.

In order to be "equal" totally I'd be willing to let the gov not recognize marriages as a whole.

The way I have it, both sides are happy, and no rights are taken away. It's a win win situation.

Unless of course someone has a motive other than just equal rights.
     
0157988944
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2007, 09:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Tolerance isn't accepting my ability to hold the belief. Tolerance is also how you treat those that hold a different belief.
I can criticize the belief as much as I want and still be tolerant toward you.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2007, 09:13 PM
 
I guess that would all depend how one goes about criticizing. Saying you simply don't agree with my beliefs isn't being intolerant. Belittling someone or their beliefs while saying such a thing is however. AKA making fun of someone that holds the word marriage on a high pedestal. That would be intolerant. Saying you don't believe the word is special, not intolerant.
     
0157988944
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2007, 09:16 PM
 
Yes. But "Christians saying that Gays should not be able to marry is stupid as sh*t" is still tolerant of Christians and the beliefs they hold, but not of the belief. (And no, not saying that they all are saying that Gays shouldn't marry....)
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2007, 09:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Exactly. But I am told since it's not called a marriage, it's not equal, even though they would get the same rights.

That's an absurd argument. That's more of an argument about forcing society to accept a lifestyle as they see it. Which is what they are accusing Christians of.
No, they don't get the same rights, and stop saying they do. If I marry a woman, and I become ill, she has the legal right to make medical decisions and property rights decisions if I become incapacitated, and those decisions carry the force of law, no matter what state we were married in, and no matter what state we moved to or took a temporary trip to. Gay couples do not have the same rights, even with civil unions. There are a number of other rights and benefits that gay couples don't have that married couples do! There was a case in the news recently, concerning two men who had lived together for decades. One of them died, and the other was suddenly tossed out of the house, and was not eligible for his partner's pension, which he would have received had they been legally married. This argument that they have the same rights just isn't valid, and its disingenuous of anyone to claim otherwise! Time and time again, the same old tired argument gets thrown in gays' faces that they're trying to force someone to accept their lifestyle, which is patently absurd, and which is based on nothing less than another tired old argument; that of the slippery slope towards all kind of other "deviant" behavior coming down the road if gays are allowed to marry. One more time; two gays getting married affects no one, except the gays getting married, period! If one is secure in his beliefs, it wouldn't matter if 99.99% of the world thought differently, so Chuck and Bob next door wouldn't affect me, period!! The real problem is that people aren't secure in their beliefs, so they preach doom and gloom, which is irrational and unfounded, but they can't be honest with themselves, so they keep up "the good fight." As to your allegation that most Christians are for gays getting equal rights, I would think that the results of the recent state elections banning gay marriage, and civil unions in some states, kind of blows that theory out of the water. That's why it will take the courts to right these wrongs, and why the parallels between civil rights and gay rights, and womens' rights and interracial marriage rights, are intertwined; because people once thought that they could legally, and religiously, justify their opposition to them, and the courts said correctly that they were wrong. I can't wait for the day when I can walk my oldest daughter down the aisle, so she and her partner can enjoy the same rights that my wife and I enjoyed, and that every other married couple enjoys, as I don't feel threatened that my daughter wants to call her union a marriage, because in every sense of the word that's what it would be, and should be!
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2007, 09:27 PM
 
You totally ignored what I said, and wrote a paragraph (Or lack of) long rant that is irrelevant to what I said.

Congratulations. You just wont the internets.

You are launching an argument against me for things I never said I believed in, or wanted. Again re-read what my idea was for gay marriages. Attack that. Not what you are projecting me believing in. Or what some single minded version of what you believe a Christian thinks.

If you'd do that I'd really appreciate it. It will make your long winded rants seem more coherent with who you are speaking to. Instead of just a random rant. Which is how it came off as.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2007, 09:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by adamfishercox View Post
Yes. But "Christians saying that Gays should not be able to marry is stupid as sh*t" is still tolerant of Christians and the beliefs they hold, but not of the belief.

(And no, not saying that they all are saying that Gays shouldn't marry....)
That made no sense. Again I thought this was about equal rights. As long as everyone is getting treated equally, there should be no problem what anything is called.

I don't see gays demanding to be called straight. Or heterosexuals.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2007, 04:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Gay couples do not have the same rights, even with civil unions.
That's strange Karl - gays in civil unions here have exactly the same rights as straight married people.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Graviton
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2007, 05:20 AM
 
They now have Civil Partnerships here in the UK and people are always colloquially referring to them as marriages. Can't you claim asylum in Britain? The weather can sometimes suck, but we do have excellent beer.

Now I'm no clairvoyant, but I wouldn't be surprised if some time in the future they get around to thinking "Hey, isn't it about time we changed that archaic idea of gay marriages having to be called something different?" and by then not enough people will really care enough to object.

Don't expect some religious people to ever accept your union though. Some religious people can't even accept reality. Be a happy heathen and let it go.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2007, 06:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
That's strange Karl - gays in civil unions here have exactly the same rights as straight married people.
Not to mention under the plan I was arguing, everyone got equal rights. So anyone that was arguing with me saying "OMG THEY DON'T !!!" missed the entire point.

I never said that is how things where NOW.

Have the gov not recognize marriages at all. Give to Caesar what is Caesars. If you want the gov to recognize a union, it will be a civil union for gays or straights. Keep marriages to the churches. That way if a man and a woman want to marry for religious reasons, they can. And everyone gets treated equally when the gov is in concern.

I've used this example to MANY people. Gay, Christian, Atheist, and most people I've talked to, with the exception of a few hard-cores on BOTH sides tend to agree with me.

There are ways to get a group of people equal rights, without being intolerant to another group.

I was in a thread not too long ago where this guy that hated the fact he was gay, and no longer wanted to be so was being slammed by gay people. They were calling him names and treating him like a piece of trash. If that is what he wants, what would make him happy, why shouldn't he go after it?

I don't understand the meaning of tolerance in the way those that call themselves such I guess.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2007, 06:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Graviton View Post
Don't expect some religious people to ever accept your union though.
And they don't have to. Just like you don't have to accept theirs. Within the law of course.
Some religious people can't even accept reality.
We aren't the ones trying to get a word's meaning changed to fit "our" reality of things...
Be a happy heathen and let it go.
Happiness is fleeting. Joy is eternal.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2007, 06:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Not to mention under the plan I was arguing, everyone got equal rights. So anyone that was arguing with me saying "OMG THEY DON'T !!!" missed the entire point.
Never underestimate a leftie's ability to miss the point.

What we have to realise is that leftieism is a social disease, much like Chlamydia. Sufferers generally completely bypass reality and are only able to ingest information given to them by other sufferers. First-hand information (i.e. that which isn't read off a leftie hymnsheet) is very hard for them to process.

Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Have the gov not recognize marriages at all. Give to Caesar what is Caesars. If you want the gov to recognize a union, it will be a civil union for gays or straights. Keep marriages to the churches. That way if a man and a woman want to marry for religious reasons, they can. And everyone gets treated equally when the gov is in concern.
I agree with that.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Graviton
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2007, 06:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Happiness is fleeting. Joy is eternal.


"To learn my teachings, I must first teach you how to learn."

"He who questions training only trains himself at asking questions."

"You must lash out with every limb, like the octopus who plays the drums."


etc...
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2007, 08:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Graviton View Post


"To learn my teachings, I must first teach you how to learn."

"He who questions training only trains himself at asking questions."

"You must lash out with every limb, like the octopus who plays the drums."


etc...
Not like those at all. There is a difference between happiness, and joy. Happiness is a fleeting feeling. One that can go away.

Joy is pure bliss on tap. It's constant.

Though that movie ruled. So I got a chuckle out of it.
     
Graviton
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2007, 09:03 AM
 
I just quoted him because you made a statement that you think is profound, but it actually isn't.

Saying "Joy is eternal" is like saying "Bananas are happy".
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2007, 09:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
What gays are doing would be equal to say the African Americans at the time saying "And not only do we want equal rights, we want to be known as being Caucasian too! Separate does not = Equality!!1"
Kevin, I don't know if you're just not putting in the trouble to think this through or what, but that's nonsense. It's not about the terms, but about the institutions. Africans were against being given special black schools just as gays are against being given special gay marriages. The bitchfest over the word "marriage" is a smokescreen created by people who don't want gays to have marriage rights.

Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Just as an African American will never be Caucasian (except MJ) No pear tree an apple tree, No grass become cement, nor will two men ever be a marriage.
I've pretty fully shown why this is bullshit already. Even if the word marriage weren't already used to refer to more than a woman and a man entering into a specific legal contract — which is a big hypothetical, because it is used for much more than that — the concept of "gay marriage" is obviously clear enough in people's minds that they are able to oppose the idea, so extending the word that way would not be overly confusing. We extend words to refer to related concepts all the time (see e-mail and the electric washing machine).

If you have these two "separate" institutions that work exactly the same except for the sex of the participants, calling them by different names is a sham. We call both men's and women's bathrooms "bathrooms," and they actually do have different facilities! The only reason to oppose calling gay marriage what it is is because you don't want it to be the same institution.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2007, 10:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
That's strange Karl - gays in civil unions here have exactly the same rights as straight married people.
Maybe they do in the U. K., but not in the U. S.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2007, 11:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Graviton View Post
I just quoted him because you made a statement that you think is profound, but it actually isn't.
I don't think it's profound at all. I think it's pretty darn simplistic.
Why does one need to project feelings or beliefs onto people even if that person doesn't share them?

I agree with you it's not profound.
Saying "Joy is eternal" is like saying "Bananas are happy".
Not at all. You simply aren't understanding what I am saying. On purpose or not.

But that's ok. I forgive you for it.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2007, 12:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Kevin, I don't know if you're just not putting in the trouble to think this through or what, but that's nonsense.
Character assassination silliness. This is often the start of a post. It's made in order to demand position of authority. Deserved or not.
It's not about the terms, but about the institutions. Africans were against being given special black schools just as gays are against being given special gay marriages.
The two aren't the same. And this isn't arguing what I am for. If the Gov doesn't recognize marriages at all, it's not giving them anything different. You'd think you'd want the gov out of something like marriage in the first place. Since it does have roots in religion. Take marriage out of the gov completely. And make EVERYONE get a civil union to get said rights. No matter what sex you are.
The bitchfest over the word "marriage" is a smokescreen created by people who don't want gays to have marriage rights.
If what you said were true, there wouldn't be people wanting to give gays the same right married people have now. But there are! They are willing to take marriage out of the gov. and have them not recognize it at all. And only recognize civil unions. And give everyone equal rights. So tell me, how is that smoke screening because they don't want them having the same rights?

The bitchfest over the word marriage is certain extreme fringe groups that don't just want equal rights. They want to force society as a whole to accept their union as legit and perfectly normal. Regardless of what their beliefs is. It's about pushing their own agenda. And it's a agenda of intolerance. Regardless if you think you are right or not.
I've pretty fully shown why this is bullshit already. Even if the word marriage weren't already used to refer to more than a woman and a man entering into a specific legal contract — which is a big hypothetical, because it is used for much more than that — the concept of "gay marriage" is obviously clear enough in people's minds that they are able to oppose the idea, so extending the word that way would not be overly confusing. We extend words to refer to related concepts all the time (see e-mail and the electric washing machine).
Again, why aren't homosexuals upset they are called homosexuals and not heterosexuals? Why are lesbians up in arms that they are called lesbians and not gays? or heterosexuals?

Why is there a distinction made in this instance to categorize the differences, and that is ok, but doing the same thing with the relationship is somehow bigoted? It's not. The only homosexuals that make a big deal about the name marriage are the ones that want to "show the other side" and "get even" for whatever they think they deserve to get even with. It's their way of attempting to force a group of people to accept their lifestyles, like it or not. That is what it's about. My plan gives them equal rights, and no one gets to choose two different "ways" of getting hitched.
If you have these two "separate" institutions that work exactly the same except for the sex of the participants, calling them by different names is a sham.
You simply have no been paying attention to what I have been saying one bit Chuck. Not one tiny bit. This isn't what I am talking about. Not at all. And I've been pretty darn clear as to what my beliefs as to what should be done is. So there is no excuse.

So please, go back and actually read my posts and my ideas as to what should go on before you reply again and I waste my time replying to a post that has nothing to do with what I believe should take place.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2007, 12:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Maybe they do in the U. K., but not in the U. S.
Irrelevant to the argument however. I was giving my opinion as to what I thought should take place to make both sides happy. In this opinion, everyone would get a civil union, and it would be treated equally. The Gov would stop all recognition of marriages at that moment.

People who still want to get married still can however. The Gov just doesn't support it. Secularists should be all over this.
     
Graviton
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2007, 12:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Not at all. You simply aren't understanding what I am saying. On purpose or not.
I understand what you are saying.

Your idea that an emotion is eternal makes no real sense. Like a banana being happy. It's something you have said (or heard) that sounds nice, but it doesn't really mean anything.

Unless you were just being poetic, then you don't have to make sense and it doesn't really matter.
( Last edited by Graviton; Sep 4, 2007 at 12:27 PM. )
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2007, 12:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Graviton View Post
I understand what you are saying.

Your idea that an emotion is eternal makes no real sense.
Funny, it does to me. Tell me. What doesn't make sense about it?
Like a banana being happy. It's something you have said (or heard) that sounds nice, but it doesn't really mean anything.
It means a lot to me. I've been happy, and I have experienced Joy. I know the difference between happiness and joy. So it means a lot to me. You may not have, so to you they are the same, or to you it simply doesn't mean anything.
Unless you were just being poetic, then you don't have to make sense and it doesn't really matter.
Not being poetic at all. First you tell me you understand me, and understand what I am saying, then you finally admit that I am not making sense to you. And that is ok too. I don't expect you to understand what I am saying. Not that what I am saying is mysterious or requires special smarts to understand. Anyone can. Even those that can't point to their own country on a map.
     
Graviton
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2007, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Funny, it does to me. Tell me. What doesn't make sense about it?
The joy being eternal part.

It means a lot to me. I've been happy, and I have experienced Joy. I know the difference between happiness and joy. So it means a lot to me. You may not have, so to you they are the same, or to you it simply doesn't mean anything.
It means a lot to me too.

I've been happy, and I have experienced Joy. I know the difference between happiness and joy. None of which makes what you said make any sense.

Not being poetic at all. First you tell me you understand me, and understand what I am saying, then you finally admit that I am not making sense to you. And that is ok too. I don't expect you to understand what I am saying. Not that what I am saying is mysterious or requires special smarts to understand. Anyone can. Even those that can't point to their own country on a map.
I understand the words that you are saying, but I understand that what you are saying (as a phrase) makes no sense. I asked if you were being poetic, because then it doesn't matter if you make sense or not.

It's not that it doesn't make sense to me. It's that it doesn't make sense at all. It makes as much sense as saying "bananas are happy".

Do you understand me?
     
0157988944
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2007, 03:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
What we have to realise is that leftieism is a social disease, much like Chlamydia. Sufferers generally completely bypass reality and are only able to ingest information given to them by other sufferers. First-hand information (i.e. that which isn't read off a leftie hymnsheet) is very hard for them to process.
THAT'S intolerance for you, Kevin.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2007, 03:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by adamfishercox View Post
THAT'S intolerance for you, Kevin.
No dude, that's what's called an "observation".
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
0157988944
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2007, 03:59 PM
 
Yes, we know, we know...
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:15 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,