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 > Gays should be ashamed for protesting democracy

Gays should be ashamed for protesting democracy (Page 2)
Thread Tools
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2008, 09:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by macforray View Post
http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...y/#post3748172

Again, I want to be clear that the issue I have is with the actions of those that lost. It has nothing to do with their sexual orientation or preferences. Please see the link above to one of my previous posts regarding homosexuality.

I voted for McCain / Palin. They lost. I personally don't like the outlook for the next four years as it might affect my family and I. I do plan, as a patriotic American, to stand behind the wishes of the majority and support the new administration.

The people have spoken. Better luck next time.
Yes, how dare people express their Constitutional rights to free speech and free assembly. They soil the good name of America by doing the things our founding fathers fought long and hard to be able to do!
     
macforray
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Central New York
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2008, 09:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Crook View Post
What exactly does "supporting the new administration" entail?
Barry and gang will bring many changes. Some I agree with and many I don't. I will abide by all of these changes, and also try to see the best in those I disagree with. A supportive open mind seeking wisdom I do not yet have, and exercising my rights to vote and speak, will be my support.
macforray
     
BoingoBongo
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2008, 09:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Wow..that's scary. Laws by their very nature are "discriminatory". They discriminate between what society views as permissible and what isn't. There's really nothing "new" there. There is no constitutional protection for sexual behavior or preference, which is why the racial comparisons never really fly in an intellectually honest way.
The racial thing was just to illustrate my point, and I still think it's perfectly valid, but I definitely see what you're saying.

The bottom line is that under Prop 8, Gays are considered to be sub-citizens. It's wrong. End of story.
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2008, 10:10 PM
 
I said the same thing in the 60's. What was the deal with all those pesky black people? Didn't they know the law was the law? The way they acted was downright disrespectful.

Protesting laws you don't like should be illegal. We could solve this problem by rounding up homosexuals and putting them in special containment facilities. Or at the very least by forcing them to wear some sort of badge to identify themselves as gay.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2008, 10:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by BoingoBongo View Post
The bottom line is that under Prop 8, Gays are considered to be sub-citizens. It's wrong. End of story.
I don't see that rationally. You don't become "sub-citizens" just because you choose a lifestyle that doesn't include "marriage" as it's always been defined. You're free not to choose to live that way, but if you do you don't have the right to force everyone else agree with your stance that the unions in question are equal in every substantial way to every other.
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2008, 10:29 PM
 
My wife chose to be allergic to gluten and then has the nerve to complain about it. She could eat bread like the rest of us. You just chew it up and put it in your mouth. What's the big deal?

And you know who else is unpatriotic and anti-democracy? Pro-lifers. Abortions are legal. Get over it. To say anything about it now is downright anti-American.
( Last edited by ort888; Nov 16, 2008 at 11:23 PM. )

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
BoingoBongo
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 12:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I don't see that rationally. You don't become "sub-citizens" just because you choose a lifestyle that doesn't include "marriage" as it's always been defined. You're free not to choose to live that way, but if you do you don't have the right to force everyone else agree with your stance that the unions in question are equal in every substantial way to every other.
No one else has to agree with it. It doesn't affect anyone except those involved. People have been getting gay married in California for the last six months, and no straight marriages have been threatened, the sky hasn't fallen, and kids aren't coming home from school with a raging case of the gay. All that's happened is people are being treated like human beings, and they're even pumping money into a suffering economy. But it's just so icky.

And I think that a group does become sub-citizens when they're specifically targeted and denied rights, especially when they still pay taxes like everyone else.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 02:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
And you know who else is unpatriotic and anti-democracy? Pro-lifers. Abortions are legal.
Depends on what type and where you live.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 06:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
My wife chose to be allergic to gluten and then has the nerve to complain about it. She could eat bread like the rest of us. You just chew it up and put it in your mouth. What's the big deal?
Actually, you've got it in reverse. Your wife was born allergic. If despite that fact she still wants to eat bread like everyone else, I don't think it's up to rest of society to either pay her medical bills when she reacts to eating it, or force the rest of us to start calling mangos or some other food "bread" so she'll feel good about herself and not feel different since now SHE TOO can now eat "bread".
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 07:17 AM
 
Could someone please provide a list of the rights gays do not have currently?

Before you leap to speculation and conjecture, I've long stated that I think there should simply be civil unions for all and let the churches "marry" whom they wish, but upon explaining this to someone they asked; "what rights do gays not have?" and frankly, it was a stumper.
ebuddy
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 07:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by BoingoBongo View Post
No one else has to agree with it. It doesn't affect anyone except those involved.
Not true. When you enact law, you enact it for everyone. Everyone has to recognize laws and abide them. If you enact a law which gives cat owners the right to call their cats "bald eagles" so they can enjoy the endangered species rights of the eagles, it doesn't just effect the cat owners. Everyone has to recognize those cats as "eagles".

People have been getting gay married in California for the last six months, and no straight marriages have been threatened, the sky hasn't fallen, and kids aren't coming home from school with a raging case of the gay.
I'm not saying that this is happening, but the data you've collected which shows this is located where?

All that's happened is people are being treated like human beings, and they're even pumping money into a suffering economy. But it's just so icky.
They were treated like human beings before. Human beings aren't entitled to force other human beings to accept non-equal things as equals.

And I think that a group does become sub-citizens when they're specifically targeted and denied rights, especially when they still pay taxes like everyone else.
I pay taxes. I can't marry my sister. I'm now a sub-citizen. Right.
     
The Crook
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 09:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Could someone please provide a list of the rights gays do not have currently?
Uniform adoption rights
Hospital visitation rights
Wills+trusts+and estate planning rights,
Tax law rights,
Uniform marriage/civil union rights in all states
No constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry

Crooked Member of the MacNN Atheist Clique.
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 10:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Crook View Post
Uniform adoption rights
Hospital visitation rights
Wills+trusts+and estate planning rights,
Tax law rights,
Uniform marriage/civil union rights in all states
No constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry
In the majority of states, they don't have any protection in the workplace either. You can't sue your company if they fire you because you are gay.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
The Crook
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 10:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
In the majority of states, they don't have any protection in the workplace either. You can't sue your company if they fire you because you are gay.
Oh, man!

Right!

No protection under any of the federal anti-discrimination statutes either.

Crooked Member of the MacNN Atheist Clique.
     
BoingoBongo
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 10:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Not true. When you enact law, you enact it for everyone. Everyone has to recognize laws and abide them. If you enact a law which gives cat owners the right to call their cats "bald eagles" so they can enjoy the endangered species rights of the eagles, it doesn't just effect the cat owners. Everyone has to recognize those cats as "eagles".
They have to abide by the law, but they don't have to agree with it. And the thing about gay marriage is that it doesn't affect anyone except those who want to be gay married.


Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I'm not saying that this is happening, but the data you've collected which shows this is located where?
I don't have any hard evidence, but I do live in one of the "gayest" areas of California, and I personally haven't seen any ill-effects of gay marriage. Aside from the fact that everyone is going to Hell of course.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
They were treated like human beings before. Human beings aren't entitled to force other human beings to accept non-equal things as equals.
This is exactly why civil unions are BS (unless like someone else said, you give civil unions t everyone and keep marriage purely religious). They force Gays to accept something that's not equal as equal.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I pay taxes. I can't marry my sister. I'm now a sub-citizen. Right.
Gay marriage isn't the same as incest. At all. That's as goofy as when people say, "If we legalize gay marriage, what's next, bestiality?"


Thanks for the civil debate, by the way.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 10:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I'm not saying that this is happening, but the data you've collected which shows this is located where?
There certainly weren't any on the pro-Prop. 8 sites. If the state was indeed going to Hell in a handbasket all those months, they really should have taken their burden of proof a bit more seriously. The most they could point to was that one guy chose of his own free will to take some kids to a gay wedding. And the objection there seemed to be more that he was introducing them to the concept of homosexuality, which makes no sense in the context of Prop. 8 since he could have introduced the concept anyway.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 11:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
In the majority of states, they don't have any protection in the workplace either. You can't sue your company if they fire you because you are gay.
I can't sue my company if they fire me if I'm short, fat, smelly or ugly either. Life ain't fair, and it's no less for gays then any other non-racial or religious minority.
     
Atheist
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back in the Good Ole US of A
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 11:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Crook View Post
Uniform adoption rights
Hospital visitation rights
Wills+trusts+and estate planning rights,
Tax law rights,
Uniform marriage/civil union rights in all states
No constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry
And to add to the list, gays cannot sponsor their same-sex non-US partner for immigration purposes. Thus forcing them to either live apart or leave the country.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 11:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by BoingoBongo View Post
This is exactly why civil unions are BS (unless like someone else said, you give civil unions t everyone and keep marriage purely religious). They force Gays to accept something that's not equal as equal.
There is no legal or moral requirement for non-equal things to be given equal treatment. You can treat them as such by choice, but it isn't a "right".

Gay marriage isn't the same as incest.
Why not? From a scientific standpoint, single generational inbreeding poses no significant statistical increase in genetic problems. The only thing that really stops single generational inter-family inbreeding is tradition and old fashioned "morality".

I mean...we're talking about consenting adults, right?
     
The Crook
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 11:35 AM
 
Damn, good work guys.

So we now have:

Adoption rights
Hospital visitation rights
Estate planning rights (wills, trusts, etc)
Tax law rights,
Marriage/civil union rights
Constitutional right to same-sex marriage
Federal and state employment and housing discrimination rights
Immigration rights

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Life ain't fair, and it's no less for gays then any other non-racial or religious minority.
...sex, age, disability, national origin, family status (in housing).

Crooked Member of the MacNN Atheist Clique.
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 11:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I can't sue my company if they fire me if I'm short, fat, smelly or ugly either. Life ain't fair, and it's no less for gays then any other non-racial or religious minority.

Actually, you can sue them if they fire you if you are short or fat. Unless your job requires you to not be. Smelly is a different story.

What planet do you live on?

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 11:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Why not? From a scientific standpoint, single generational inbreeding poses no significant statistical increase in genetic problems. The only thing that really stops single generational inter-family inbreeding is tradition and old fashioned "morality".
Nice to see you can copy & paste. That's single generational inbreeding, meaning only once. The original point behind inbreeding between humans is to keep a blood line "pure," and to consolidate and retain property. That means more intermarrying, inbreeding, and increased genetic abnormalities.

Generally, homosexuals don't have offspring. There is absolutely no comparison especially from a scientific standpoint.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
The Crook
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 11:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
Actually, you can sue them if they fire you if you are short or fat.
Based on what, actually?

Crooked Member of the MacNN Atheist Clique.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 12:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
Actually, you can sue them if they fire you if you are short or fat. Unless your job requires you to not be. Smelly is a different story.

What planet do you live on?
I didn't see anywhere in any law where it mentioned being short. Surely it's precisely enumerated? If not, then surely the same means can be used to sue for being discriminated against for things like being gay?
( Last edited by stupendousman; Nov 17, 2008 at 12:25 PM. )
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 12:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Nice to see you can copy & paste.
It's an easy task. Not one I used in the thread in question, but..uh..thanks.

That's single generational inbreeding, meaning only once. The original point behind inbreeding between humans is to keep a blood line "pure," and to consolidate and retain property.
So, if you are going to argue "original point", then that could get us back to the "original point" of marriage which would still leave out gays. I don't know of anyone who marries these days to keep the blood lines "pure" besides some ignorant neo-nazis.

Generally, homosexuals don't have offspring. There is absolutely no comparison especially from a scientific standpoint.
Exactly. The unions in question simply aren't comparable in what they generally provide society. I agree.
     
The Crook
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 12:27 PM
 
I don't see how a long history of discrimination against gays justifies further discrimination against gays.

Crooked Member of the MacNN Atheist Clique.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 12:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Actually, you've got it in reverse. Your wife was born allergic. If despite that fact she still wants to eat bread like everyone else, I don't think it's up to rest of society to either pay her medical bills when she reacts to eating it, or force the rest of us to start calling mangos or some other food "bread" so she'll feel good about herself and not feel different since now SHE TOO can now eat "bread".
A few problems with your stupid analogy. One, the rest of society isn't expected to make any changes what-so-ever to their lifestyle to accommodate homosexuals just because they're granted the right to marry; and two, granting homosexuals the right to marry does not change your meaning of the word marriage. That is, of course, completely sidestepping the fact that the concept of marriage has been around longer than your god, and it was not relegated to that of only between 1 man and 1 woman. Your religious views do not represent everyone They should not represent everyone.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Not true. When you enact law, you enact it for everyone. Everyone has to recognize laws and abide them. If you enact a law which gives cat owners the right to call their cats "bald eagles" so they can enjoy the endangered species rights of the eagles, it doesn't just effect the cat owners. Everyone has to recognize those cats as "eagles".
Despite your example being completely stupid, how would giving cat owners the right to call a cat an eagle affect you? Are you going to suddenly stop calling it a cat because someone else has the right to not call it cat? That law doesn't prevent you from calling it a cat, it enables other people to not call it one.

No one is changing the definition of marriage, they are better understanding what the definition of marriage should be because society's intolerance and bigotry is slowly being eroded by reason and common sense. You're allowed to be as discriminatory as you want, so long as you don't want to make any money off of it.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
They were treated like human beings before.
Well isn't that nice, gays being treated just like human beings.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Human beings aren't entitled to force other human beings to accept non-equal things as equals.
Correct, which is why allowing same sex marriage does not force you or anyone else to accept it as defined by your own bigoted point of view. This is how the State recognizes married couples, not you. Under the law, it should not discriminate against same sex couples.
( Last edited by olePigeon; Nov 17, 2008 at 12:51 PM. )
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
BoingoBongo
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Crook View Post
I don't see how a long history of discrimination against gays justifies further discrimination against gays.
Thank you.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 12:43 PM
 
I want to submit a quick gloss on olePigeon's lengthy post above.

Can anyone who is opposed to same-sex marriage articulate how government recognition of the legal union between two individuals of the same sex will be detrimental to society?
What will happen after recognition of same-sex marriages takes place that is so horrible and terrible for society as a whole that the government must not ever allow such a thing (recognition of same-sex marriages) to happen?


For example, we know that lowering the driving age to 12 would lead to a much higher rate of car accidents because of the physical and mental immaturity of 12-year-olds. (They are both too small and have insufficiently developed cognition to handle the rigors of driving a car.) Are there similar negative repercussions that would result from allowing same-sex couple to marry? If so, what are they?
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Nov 17, 2008 at 12:52 PM. Reason: added example.)
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 12:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
So, if you are going to argue "original point", then that could get us back to the "original point" of marriage which would still leave out gays. I don't know of anyone who marries these days to keep the blood lines "pure" besides some ignorant neo-nazis.
The original point of marriage was to consolidate property between two entities. That did not always include marriage between a man and a woman. It was more often out of necessity than anything else. It wasn't until Constantine that marriage was really defined, and that was because of the emperor's religious view.

The original point of marriage did not exclude gays. Some native american tribes had gay unions, including men who took on the roles of women in every way including child birth. Without going too much into it, they ended up burying their feces in a ritual ceremony that was used for stillborn babies.

So as much as you want to believe in your fantasy world that marriage has always been about a union between a man and a woman, it's not.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2008, 01:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Not true. When you enact law, you enact it for everyone. Everyone has to recognize laws and abide them. If you enact a law which gives cat owners the right to call their cats "bald eagles" so they can enjoy the endangered species rights of the eagles, it doesn't just effect the cat owners. Everyone has to recognize those cats as "eagles".
Utter nonsense, and a strawman argument if there ever was one. Talk about illogical arguments. If a law is passed that allows gays to marry, that doesn't mean everyone has to like it. Your slippery slope silliness is typical of those who can't come up with something solid.



I'm not saying that this is happening, but the data you've collected which shows this is located where?
Another silly slippery slope. If two married gay men move next door to you, are you going to turn gay, or tell your wife your bond isn't as strong because they've cheapened your marriage? I'd love to be around to hear her response.



They were treated like human beings before. Human beings aren't entitled to force other human beings to accept non-equal things as equals.
Once again, no one is going to force you to like it. You also don't have to accept it personally, because it doesn't affect you in any event.



I pay taxes. I can't marry my sister. I'm now a sub-citizen. Right.
That's not what's being discussed here, and you know it. We're talking about two consenting adults willingly joining in a union, not you marrying your sister. So now reply, and tell me that's what's coming next if this is allowed, and show us how irrational you are, which is no surprise.

Time and time again, you come up with the same silliness. I've at least got to give you kudos; you don't give up, no matter how silly you look.


Amazing.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
G Barnett
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 03:14 PM
 
What I find deliciously ironic in this whole situation is that many of the people whining about "Oh no, they're going to boycott Prop 8 Supporters, the barbarians!!" are the very same people who have been loudly calling for boycotts of companies like McDonalds, Ford, etc for daring to even advertise in gay-friendly magazines.

Taste of their own medicine and all that, yes?
Life is like a clay pigeon -- sooner or later, someone is going to shoot you down and even if they miss you'll still wind up shattered and broken in the end.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2008, 08:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Actually, you've got it in reverse. Your wife was born allergic. If despite that fact she still wants to eat bread like everyone else, I don't think it's up to rest of society to either pay her medical bills when she reacts to eating it, or force the rest of us to start calling mangos or some other food "bread" so she'll feel good about herself and not feel different since now SHE TOO can now eat "bread".
That's a stupid analogy as others have point out. It doesn't even apply to the case.

A better analogy.

Just because you like eating hotdogs in a hotdog bun and so do most Americans, doesn't mean you make it illegal for others to eat a hotdog bun without the hotdog. Does the fact that some people enjoy eating a hotdog bun without the hotdog prevent you from enjoying your hotdog? Does it change the definition of hotdog for you? No. You can continuing enjoying your hotdog and calling it a hotdog, while others can enjoy their hotdog bun without the meat.

Yes, Lesbians don't like the hotdog, but they like munching on the bun.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2008, 07:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
A few problems with your stupid analogy. One, the rest of society isn't expected to make any changes what-so-ever to their lifestyle to accommodate homosexuals just because they're granted the right to marry...
Completely false. Right off the top of my head, my children would be falsely taught in schools that the relationships in question are equal in most every substantial way and if I have a business, I'd be forced to treat these unequal relationships equally to those of people who choose to marry which would result in additional monies that would be legally required for me to pay out in benefits, and therefore a reduction in profits which would directly effect my lifestyle. Again, those are just two things which would unnecessarily effect how I lead my life if that were to happen.

and two, granting homosexuals the right to marry does not change your meaning of the word marriage.
I view marriage as an affirmative action to attempt to try and keep men and women who have reproduced or in the course of their lives would normally reproduce together to provide a normal mother/father relationship for children. I see it as the building block of biological families. If not for that, I see little reason for the government endorsing my emotions. I wouldn't get married if I don't plan on having heirs to provide for. I don't need the government to interfere with my how I feel about someone else.

Granting homosexuals the 'right to marry" would most definitely change the meaning of "marriage" as I and other see it. It would simply be the endorsement of emotional attachment and there would be no logical reason to put just about any limits on that. If we aren't dealing with reproduction as part of family building, then there's no real reason for blood relatives not to be allowed the "right to marry" either. If the government has no right to make moral judgments about the nature of the consenting adult participants in regards to the commitments when it has nothing to do with reproduction, then they can't pick and choose one moral argument over another. Right now, first cousins can still fall in love and reproduce. The government just doesn't see a societal interest in giving the people who choose to do that the affirmative action of marriage recognition due to reproduction issues. If marriage has nothing to do with reproduction, then you can't logically use that or morality as a barrier.

That is, of course, completely sidestepping the fact that the concept of marriage has been around longer than your god, and it was not relegated to that of only between 1 man and 1 woman. Your religious views do not represent everyone They should not represent everyone.
At this point, your failure is complete. I've never made a religious argument for my beliefs in regards to marriage. The fact that you have to invent some shows both your clear religious bigotry and your lack of a valid argument.

Despite your example being completely stupid, how would giving cat owners the right to call a cat an eagle affect you? Are you going to suddenly stop calling it a cat because someone else has the right to not call it cat? That law doesn't prevent you from calling it a cat, it enables other people to not call it one.
See above. This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum. If I'm having to pay taxes and live by regulations in regards to endangered species and we call a cat an endangered species, I am effected.
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2008, 09:24 AM
 
Homosexual men have the option to provide a parental relationship for children with adoption. Homosexual women can be biological parents even.

Heterosexual married couples with adopted children are treated equally to those with biological children by the law. So why can't the same apply to homosexual married couples?
     
brassplayersrock²
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2008, 09:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
snipped due to "no need to read trash twice" rule.
does anyone else hear this poster yelling "me me me" ?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2008, 10:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
Homosexual men have the option to provide a parental relationship for children with adoption. Homosexual women can be biological parents even.
If an unmarried homosexual is providing a parental relationship for a child, then we've already failed the goal of encouraging men and women who procreate to stay together and raise their offspring. I don't think we should be encouraging single parents or those who choose not to be married who refuse to provide an opposite sex in-home role model for children (as is the norm) to take on the responsibility of raising children unless there are not other viable alternatives. Again, I don't think there is a societal interest in giving affirmative action for what most would believe should be a "worse case" scenario.

That's not to say that I think that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt. If there's a child who for some reason can't find a loving mother and father to adopt them, then I don't think that there's a rational reason to prohibit someone who is willing to provide a loving home to a child who would otherwise might be a ward of the state. At that point, I think that single heterosexual or homosexual parents should be considered. I just don't see a reason for the government to provide them an affirmative action of making their unequal unions equal in law when they still can't provide the thing that the affirmative action hopes to encourage.

Heterosexual married couples with adopted children are treated equally to those with biological children by the law. So why can't the same apply to homosexual married couples?
Assuming we are talking about responsible adults who love the children, are heterosexual married couples with adopted children providing the child with essentially the very same thing as those who are reared by their own parents? Unless there are racial differences, would there be any reason why the child in question would appear to it's peers to be any different than the norm? Most likely not. On the other hand, a same sex couple rearing a child will never be able to provide that child the same mother/father/child relationship.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2008, 10:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² View Post
does anyone else hear this poster yelling "me me me" ?
I'd say if you are hearing voices in your head that aren't really there, it's best that you seek out help.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2008, 03:47 PM
 
Bat Boy has come out to support the protesters
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2008, 09:06 PM
 
wow where do i start?

or do i even want to be apart of this?

it seems to me the radical right thinks about gays marrying a lot more than i am...

why are you so worried about it? let them marry... they will go to hell right? so they are going... let god/devil deal with it.

to say you can change their feelings and views is to say you can change god's creation... think of it, gays have been around forever.... you even quote your bible about not liking them way back then...and they are still here, so looks to me like god's creation.

anyways meh
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2008, 09:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
If two married gay men move next door to you, are you going to turn gay, or tell your wife your bond isn't as strong because they've cheapened your marriage? I'd love to be around to hear her response.
I don't think you really understand these people. Of course his marriage bond won't be as strong if gays are allowed to marry. I'm sure his wife feels the same way. Till death or gay marriage do us part is the new vow of choice among religious nutjobs.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2008, 04:40 AM
 
Marriage is between a man and woman. Before you quote me out of context, read the following...

Most people will approve of a referendum allowing "civil unions" between same sex couples. Give "gays" the same exact marriage rights as heterosexuals, just change the word "marriage" to "civil union" or whatever, and no one will bat an eye.

Seriously, most people will agree with extending normal rights to homosexual couples. Just change the technical expression from "marriage" to "civil unions". You would have to be pretty ****ing stupid to vote against giving gay men and women normal rights.
( Last edited by Kerrigan; Nov 22, 2008 at 06:00 AM. )
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2008, 07:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
Marriage is between a man and woman. Before you quote me out of context, read the following...

Most people will approve of a referendum allowing "civil unions" between same sex couples. Give "gays" the same exact marriage rights as heterosexuals, just change the word "marriage" to "civil union" or whatever, and no one will bat an eye.

Seriously, most people will agree with extending normal rights to homosexual couples. Just change the technical expression from "marriage" to "civil unions". You would have to be pretty ****ing stupid to vote against giving gay men and women normal rights.
Traditionally defined marriage is between a man and a woman. The history and purpose of marriage has meant different things to different people, and still does. If two men or two women want to join together and call it a marriage, that's no one's business but their own, except of course to those who need to stick their nose in other people's business.

You may not believe this, but there are lots of pretty ****ing stupid people on this planet, many of whom live in states that have banned even civil unions, which means that many gay men and women are excluded from having the same rights. At this juncture in this discussion, given how hot a topic this has been for a few years now, I'm surprised you would make a statement like that. The ignorant will always fight what they see as a threat, even if it isn't one, and that should be obvious by now.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2008, 09:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
Marriage is between a man and woman.
Says who?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2008, 09:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I pay taxes. I can't marry my sister. I'm now a sub-citizen. Right.
Ah, the slippery slope argument. Did you happen to notice who paid $20M to support the passing of Proposition 8? Do you know which church is o.k. with polygamy?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2008, 09:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
why are you so worried about it? let them marry... they will go to hell right? so they are going... let god/devil deal with it.

to say you can change their feelings and views is to say you can change god's creation... think of it, gays have been around forever.... you even quote your bible about not liking them way back then...and they are still here, so looks to me like god's creation.
This has always kind of been my reasoning on this issue. I'm not sure God has endowed us with freewill so we can simply turn around and attempt to take it from one another, but it seems that's what we've been doing from the beginning and not only on this issue. The Bible has generally used homosexuality among other things as a gauge of the times. While it unquestionably regards homosexuality as sin, a great many things are regarded as sin and not one of us is above it. We are all clearly regarded as sinners in Scripture including the mere thoughts of our minds. It does not suggest that one sin is weightier than another, but that we are in the same boat. Many Christians have latched on to this particular sin, but I'm not sure I understand why.

As I always say; if the definition of marriage is truly what we're fighting for here, why are we focused on homosexuals? The heterosexual (and in particular the self-professed believing heterosexual) has redefined it to mean a life-long commitment you make to at least two different people, half the time, and with prenups to protect assets, leaving the children between two homes and 4 parents or one extremely difficult home and one parent. We "straights" are the ones that have twisted this up the most.
ebuddy
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2008, 11:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Ah, the slippery slope argument. Did you happen to notice who paid $20M to support the passing of Proposition 8? Do you know which church is o.k. with polygamy?
Not one I belong to.

Not the church who paid $20m either.

Are we ready for strike three?
     
brassplayersrock²
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2008, 12:07 AM
 
you just made yourself look stupid again
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2008, 01:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Not one I belong to.

Not the church who paid $20m either.

Are we ready for strike three?
You don't get it, do you? The biggest supporter of Proposition 8 and "family values" also has a strong and well documented history of polygamy. Where do you think the slippery slope is?
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2008, 02:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Ah, the slippery slope argument. Did you happen to notice who paid $20M to support the passing of Proposition 8? Do you know which church is o.k. with polygamy?
Polygamy is grounds for being excommunicated from the LDS Church. It's the FLDS and other splinter groups that practice polygamy, and as far as I know they didn't donate a cent to the Prop. 8 cause.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
As I always say; if the definition of marriage is truly what we're fighting for here, why are we focused on homosexuals? The heterosexual (and in particular the self-professed believing heterosexual) has redefined it to mean a life-long commitment you make to at least two different people, half the time, and with prenups to protect assets, leaving the children between two homes and 4 parents or one extremely difficult home and one parent. We "straights" are the ones that have twisted this up the most.
Exactly. IMO, if somebody's really about protecting marriage, they'll make a proposition to eliminate the right of heterosexuals to divorce.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
 
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 12:09 AM.
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.,