NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes. Now don't get me wrong, as much as I strongly support gay rights, there are more important things at hand. The war in Iraq, our healthcare system, the protection of our constitution, and our economy all will have a bit more impact in the world.

But gay mairrage is the most important campaign issue. Why? Because the answer is so incredibly simple it shouldn't even be discussed. But it is being discussed. And that's why I see Hilary, Obama, and Edwards as too inept to be president. Because they have either no guts or no common sense at all to dance around such an incredibly simple issue.

See how much a simple issue can tell how pathetic a candidate is? If you're too stupid to support gay mairrage without thinking about it, how should I expect you to make choices that will change the entire world?

So I'll ask you, if you support one of the moderate Democratic candidates, how can you have faith in them if they can't answer the most simple issue at hand?

I think we should ban marriage, and make evryone miserable/happy depending on how you see it.

Either allow gays to marry or have the state only issue civil unions leaving what is or isn't a marriage to religions and individuals.

This.

Either allow gays to marry or have the state only issue civil unions leaving what is or isn't a marriage to religions and individuals.

Well my point is basically that if a candidate will dance around such a simple issue, I have no faith in them to decide on complicated things.

I don't care if you call both of them mairrage or both of them civil unions, the point is that I just can't support a candidate who is too stupid/too afraid to give gays equal rights without thinking on it.

Like I said, its such a simple answer, its a reflection of common sense.

Yes. Now don't get me wrong, as much as I strongly support gay rights, there are more important things at hand. The war in Iraq, our healthcare system, the protection of our constitution, and our economy all will have a bit more impact in the world.

But gay mairrage is the most important campaign issue. Why? Because the answer is so incredibly simple it shouldn't even be discussed. But it is being discussed. And that's why I see Hilary, Obama, and Edwards as too inept to be president. Because they have either no guts or no common sense at all to dance around such an incredibly simple issue.

See how much a simple issue can tell how pathetic a candidate is? If you're too stupid to support gay mairrage without thinking about it, how should I expect you to make choices that will change the entire world?

So I'll ask you, if you support one of the moderate Democratic candidates, how can you have faith in them if they can't answer the most simple issue at hand?

I concider myself a Conservative. I believe that Gays and other minorities should not get special treatment( I.E. Affermitive action, where people get rewarded for beng a minority). If they want to be equal i would suggset them trying to bring down hate laws and affermitive action ( if you want to be equal then don't ask for special treatment). Once affermative action and hate laws are outlawed and we are all equal i will support you and all , hince the phrase equal.

Also, spelling is very important too, ie "marriage" in your title ;)

I concider myself a Conservative. I believe that Gays and other minorities should not get special treatment( I.E. Affermitive action, where people get rewarded for beng a minority). If they want to be equal i would suggset them trying to bring down hate laws and affermitive action ( if you want to be equal then don't ask for special treatment). Once affermative action and hate laws are outlawed and we are all equal i will support you and all , hince the phrase equal.

This thread does not address affirmative action or hate crimes. This thread addresses the emphasis people tend to put on same-sex marriage, when it shouldn't be a big issue. Gays should be allowed to marry. Period. Move on with life. And no, allowing gays to get married doesn't count as special treatment before anyone says it.

I concider myself a Conservative...If they want to be equal i would suggset them trying to bring down hate laws and affermitive action ( if you want to be equal then don't ask for special treatment).

What a shock, a conservative who doesn't understand reality. Tell me, do you understand how hate crime laws work?

Also, spelling is very important too, ie "marriage" in your title ;)

typo, sorry

So is the elephant having gay sex in a bathroom stall, or is he having gay sex with teenage pages, or is he having ordinary sex with a prostitute in Louisiana? or is the prostitute in Washington?

Is the elephant too dumb to realize that he's having sex with an inanimate object, and then getting praised by the president for doing a heckuva job?

Is the elephant a cross dresser? Is the elephant lying to congress while he humps the numbers? Is the elephant on methamphetamine?

Is the elephant talking about how things would be better if strom thurmond were president? Is the elephant calling people Macacas?

Is the elephant a gay prostitute who is being paid to pretend to be a news reporter, and getting called on by the president?

How many times has the elephant been divorced? If you multiply the elephant's wife's age by two, is she still much younger than the elephant? Was the elephant bribed to do this?

The symbolism of this new logo is so rich!

Is the Jackass calling our troops murderers?
Is the jackass suporting surrender to our enimies?
Is the Jackass the same party of the south that supported segregationism( Robert "KKK" Byrd, George Wallace,....etc southern dixiecrat)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat
Was the Elephant the freedom of slavery?(Yes, Abraham Lincoln)
Did the Jackass ruin the black family with wellfare? (Lindon B. Johnsons great society)http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-166X(200024)35%3A1%3C116%3AWEOTMD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-5.html
Did the corrupt Jackasses of New Orleans pocket money for decades and not fix the levies?
How homosexual jackass(Barney Frank) runs prostitution ring from his home before being elected in a PRO jackass state.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/tours/scandal/gobie2.htm

I have barely scratched the surfice of Jackass politics.

The Democratic and Republican parties of 150 years ago resemble nothing of what they are now. The accomplishments and downfalls of each during that time our irrelevant.

And if you didn't notice, I was criticizing Obama, Hilary, and Edwards. I won't bother with Republicans.

The US Constitution
was written/amended
to guarantee all citizens equal protection under the law. (most states follow suit in their constitutions)
If equal protection is to be carried out
to a certain constitutional conclusion, the Federal Government should not have standing to make any laws regarding marriage. (gay or straight) That includes taxation (or benefits) affected by marital status.

This thread does not address affirmative action or hate crimes. This thread addresses the emphasis people tend to put on same-sex marriage, when it shouldn't be a big issue. Gays should be allowed to marry. Period. Move on with life. And no, allowing gays to get married doesn't count as special treatment before anyone says it.

It does address all those subjects. they are all interrelated. If it were up to me everyone would have to get married and suffer the consequences. Civil unios are an easy way out. I would make everyone have to be married.

Yes. Now don't get me wrong, as much as I strongly support gay rights, there are more important things at hand. The war in Iraq, our healthcare system, the protection of our constitution, and our economy all will have a bit more impact in the world.

But gay mairrage is the most important campaign issue. Why? Because the answer is so incredibly simple it shouldn't even be discussed. But it is being discussed. And that's why I see Hilary, Obama, and Edwards as too inept to be president. Because they have either no guts or no common sense at all to dance around such an incredibly simple issue.

See how much a simple issue can tell how pathetic a candidate is? If you're too stupid to support gay mairrage without thinking about it, how should I expect you to make choices that will change the entire world?

So I'll ask you, if you support one of the moderate Democratic candidates, how can you have faith in them if they can't answer the most simple issue at hand?

You have got it completely backwards. You think a candidate who doesn't support gay marriage is too stupid to be president? Think about it. The truth is that someone who openly supports gay marriage either doesn't think they have a chance and are running to promote issues and stir debate or whatever, or they are too stupid to be president. Because it is extremely unlikely that someone who does would ever be nominated. It is a political decision, nothing more. And from the POV of someone who wants to get elected, it is a damn good and obvious one.

There is a small flaw in your reasoning concerning the unimportance of gay marriage when compared to other issues: namely that you forgot that the whole controversy surrounding gay marriage is merely a symptom.

The underlying causes for the controversy are definitely worth addressing.

If Democrats hope to win, they need to tread carefully on this issue. The simple fact is that, while progressive people are in favor of gay marriage, many people out in "the heartland" are most vehemently NOT. Many of those people are the so-called swing voters that the Democrats MUST win if they are to retake the White House. Polls have shown again and again that a majority of Americans are willing to support civil unions, but not gay marriage -- yet. If civil unions, legally equal to marriage, are enacted, it will only be a matter of time before everyone is calling them "marriages" anyway.

Bill Maher had a good take on this. He said if the straight people want to own the word "marriage," why not let them? Is it really worth throwing away the entire progressive agenda (if that is what you believe in) in an argument over terminology?

The whole marriage thing should be left to the states. I don't believe the federal government should be involve in such matters. After all what is freedom and liberty if the federal government continue to take away power from the states? Let the local people decide what they like or dislike for their own states.

The whole marriage thing should be left to the states. I don't believe the federal government should be involve in such matters. After all what is freedom and liberty if the federal government continue to take away power from the states? Let the local people decide what they like or dislike for their own states.

So... protestant marriage results in taxcuts in state A but no B ? Catholic marriages will be recognised by state C, but not D ?

The whole marriage thing should be left to the states. I don't believe the federal government should be involve in such matters. After all what is freedom and liberty if the federal government continue to take away power from the states? Let the local people decide what they like or dislike for their own states.

What is freedom and liberty when the states take away freedom and liberty?

Bill Maher had a good take on this. He said if the straight people want to own the word "marriage," why not let them? Is it really worth throwing away the entire progressive agenda (if that is what you believe in) in an argument over terminology?

I think that the writer of South Park had it right when with the different terminology one is not treating gays and straights as equals. Or in other words, "Butt Buddies" with the same legal rights as marriage does not a marriage make.

From Wikipedia

A solution to the conflict regarding gay marriages is proposed by a character, who stated that although gay couples should be able to have the same legal benefits that marriage brings, their union should be called something else and treated differrently so as not to offend people who think marriage is a sacred union between man and woman. South Park parodies the real-life "civil union" compromise by proposing gay couples be allowed to have the same rights as married groups, but be called "Butt buddies."

I concider myself a Conservative. I believe that Gays and other minorities should not get special treatment( I.E. Affermitive action, where people get rewarded for beng a minority). If they want to be equal i would suggset them trying to bring down hate laws and affermitive action ( if you want to be equal then don't ask for special treatment). Once affermative action and hate laws are outlawed and we are all equal i will support you and all , hince the phrase equal.

Don't confuse gays with the looney left; I don't want special treatment but at the same time, there is no reason for heterosexuals to receive special treatment because they're a couple or have children.

Everyone should pay the same level of tax irrespective of how many kids they have or what their marriage status is.

There's a lot of truth to that.

For instance, the Republican Party's continued opposition to even a semblance of equality for gays is a pretty clear indication of just how abhorrent and disgusting that party is.

Everyone has the right to be equally as miserable. Why should only straight people have the displeasure of being stuck in loveless miserable marriages?

Yes. Now don't get me wrong, as much as I strongly support gay rights, there are more important things at hand. The war in Iraq, our healthcare system, the protection of our constitution, and our economy all will have a bit more impact in the world.

But gay mairrage is the most important campaign issue. Why? Because the answer is so incredibly simple it shouldn't even be discussed. But it is being discussed. And that's why I see Hilary, Obama, and Edwards as too inept to be president. Because they have either no guts or no common sense at all to dance around such an incredibly simple issue.

See how much a simple issue can tell how pathetic a candidate is? If you're too stupid to support gay mairrage without thinking about it, how should I expect you to make choices that will change the entire world?

So I'll ask you, if you support one of the moderate Democratic candidates, how can you have faith in them if they can't answer the most simple issue at hand?

Gay marriage is a campigan issue because it divides Americans. period. That is the only reason.
The Democrats tip-toe around the issue by saying they support civil unions because most of Americans are against gay marriage, but support civil unions. not really a dumb move by politicians.

I concider myself a Conservative. I believe that Gays and other minorities should not get special treatment( I.E. Affermitive action, where people get rewarded for beng a minority). If they want to be equal i would suggset them trying to bring down hate laws and affermitive action ( if you want to be equal then don't ask for special treatment). Once affermative action and hate laws are outlawed and we are all equal i will support you and all , hince the phrase equal.

I do not know about Affermitive Action to much as I am not an ethnic minority, but as far as hate crime laws, they apply to both sides.

A straight guy beats up a gay guy simply because he is gay, yelling things like fag, he will be charged with a hate crime.
On the other hand if a gay guy beat up a straight guy simply because he was straight, yelling things like breeder, he would be charge as such.

The thing is though, hate crimes, even against minorities, are extremely hard to prove to be hate crimes. Just because people throw the term around in a case doesn't mean the crminal will be charged with or convicted of a hate crime.

I believe that Gays and other minorities should not get special treatment( I.E. Affermitive action, where people get rewarded for beng a minority).

Affirmative action is not "special treatment", it is a (partial and very much insufficient) guarantor of proportionality in a society that already treats minorities disproportionately poorly.

If they want to be equal i would suggset them trying to bring down hate laws

Um... you know that hate crime laws protect whites, too? And sexual orientation hate crime laws would protect straights. Precisely because they are not special treatment.

But don't let facts and logic get in the way of your fantasies of the minority conspiracy to oppress the poor, subjugated straight white majority. :rolleyes:

The whole marriage thing should be left to the states. I don't believe the federal government should be involve in such matters.

I disagree. Equality under law should be left to neither the federal government nor to the states. It should be upheld by the courts.

1- I agree that it shouldn't even be an issue. I also agree that evolution shouldn't be one.

2- However, the fact remains that it is and that Democrats have to win in order, even, to prevent Republicans from keeping the status quo or worsening it for EVERYONE, up to and including gays.

"marriage" has always never been only a religious thing.
So those against gay-marriage lose big-time on that one.
Unless they think the world was created a mere 4000 years ago...,

People should be able to partner up with whomever they want and
call it whatever the f they want. And get all those legal agreements
if they want. This latter thing (marriage "license") is a mere contract, isn't it? Come on people. I bet if two non-gay people of the same sex made some sort
of contract guaranteeing all those 200+ odd legal protections no one would say anything.
Or is it 700+ ?




But yeah.
We've got to end war & prevent it too.

Despite Ahmadinejad saying there is not homosexuality
in Iran like there is in the US (he obviously thinks being gay is a cultural thing or sociological creation), we have to look at other things he has said if we do not want our "dearest leaders" in the US to trick us into enabling them another war.

Here are some Ahmadinejad myths
Designer monsters
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/aer40.htm

Plus the IAEI
International Atomic Energy I...
has stated they get full access to nuclear facilities
and there is no evidence the uranium is being enriched to weapons
grade, which has a lot more to it than the energy form, I've heard.

I don't have the exact quote by IAEI, but here is their site.
http://www.iaea.org/

Another good source for nuclear energy is
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
http://www.thebulletin.org/

As well as
http://www.nukewatch.com/

And of course, Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum
http://www1.city.nagasaki.nagasaki.jp/index.html
http://www1.city.nagasaki.nagasaki.jp/na-bomb/museum/museume01.html
& Hiroshima
http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/e/index-E.html

Yes. Now don't get me wrong, as much as I strongly support gay rights, there are more important things at hand. The war in Iraq,Why should gays care about the war in Iraq? It's not as though we can (openly) serve in the military.

But gay mairrage is the most important campaign issue. Why? Because the answer is so incredibly simple it shouldn't even be discussed. But it is being discussed. And that's why I see Hilary, Obama, and Edwards as too inept to be president. Because they have either no guts or no common sense at all to dance around such an incredibly simple issue.

So I'll ask you, if you support one of the moderate Democratic candidates, how can you have faith in them if they can't answer the most simple issue at hand?

if it were simple, they wouldnt be dancing.

all these people are trying to get elected. at the same time they have to try to consider the opinions of the public, what is right and what will give their opponents ammunition against them.

those who stop short of full marriage rights for same sex couples are doing 2 things. they are advocating what the public wants right now and they are moving along gay rights as quickly as is practical. surely if its impossible to get gay marriage through now civil unions is a good first step.

Is the Jackass calling our troops murderers?
Is the jackass suporting surrender to our enimies?
Is the Jackass the same party of the south that supported segregationism( Robert "KKK" Byrd, George Wallace,....etc southern dixiecrat)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat
Was the Elephant the freedom of slavery?(Yes, Abraham Lincoln)
Did the Jackass ruin the black family with wellfare? (Lindon B. Johnsons great society)http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-166X(200024)35%3A1%3C116%3AWEOTMD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-5.html
Did the corrupt Jackasses of New Orleans pocket money for decades and not fix the levies?
How homosexual jackass(Barney Frank) runs prostitution ring from his home before being elected in a PRO jackass state.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/tours/scandal/gobie2.htm

I have barely scratched the surfice of Jackass politics.

If you had posted this a year ago, I'd be foaming at the mouth right about now, but I'll just say: you, sir, are a jackass.

Well my point is basically that if a candidate will dance around such a simple issue, I have no faith in them to decide on complicated things.

I don't care if you call both of them mairrage or both of them civil unions, the point is that I just can't support a candidate who is too stupid/too afraid to give gays equal rights without thinking on it.

Like I said, its such a simple answer, its a reflection of common sense.

This is entirely subjective though, because you think something is common sense does not make it so, it seems like common sense to not apply mak-ep while driving a half-ton piece of steel down a freeway at 60 mph, but people do it. If you think that Gay rights is the only issue (because of it's apparent 'ease' yet controversy) then don't vote for any candidate that does not support your issue, don't whine incessantly. Again, I will say that just because YOU don't think it is a big deal, that does not mean that other people have no reason or justification for thinking it is a big deal. Please, stop applying your tenuous opinon as complete, and well-established fact.

Bill Maher had a good take on this. He said if the straight people want to own the word "marriage," why not let them? Is it really worth throwing away the entire progressive agenda (if that is what you believe in) in an argument over terminology?

Right.

And during the civil rights movement the white folks should have been molified by being allowed to own the word "citizen". Black people would be given equal rights and called "Civil participants" instead.

"Owning" the word still enshrines the notion of a different class of rights, one being superior to the other. And as long as you are enshrining superiority you have done nothing, really, as far as advancing the social acceptance of equal rights. You've just pretended to.

But gay mairrage is the most important campaign issue. Why? Because the answer is so incredibly simple it shouldn't even be discussed. But it is being discussed. And that's why I see Hilary, Obama, and Edwards as too inept to be president. Because they have either no guts or no common sense at all to dance around such an incredibly simple issue.

See how much a simple issue can tell how pathetic a candidate is? If you're too stupid to support gay mairrage without thinking about it, how should I expect you to make choices that will change the entire world?

So I'll ask you, if you support one of the moderate Democratic candidates, how can you have faith in them if they can't answer the most simple issue at hand?

Love how you try and spin this towards just one party. Like Giuliani's simple answer? Ron Paul, McCain, and Thompson all try and duck the issue by similarly being against marriage and letting states decide on civil unions.

Now, how have the Democrats been unable to answer the issue to your satisfaction as compared to the bulk of the Republican's who just spew out the "Teh fags is teh ebil"? That's less pathetic?

Oh, and gay marriage is NOT a top issue. Well, except to the far right who know that it is a divisive issue that they can raise to sway their voters. This, indeed, is the truly pathetic part of it all - especially as they must know by now that the Congress will continue to duck the issue and make no legislative movement on it whatsoever - no matter who they vote in.

In that regard, conservative groups use this issue as the trigger to get conservative candidates elected for all the other reasons they want conservatives in power, but they don't really want the issue resolved as it would remove that hotbutton issue from their arsenal come the next election.

If you had posted this a year ago, I'd be foaming at the mouth right about now, but I'll just say: you, sir, are a jackass.

He's not a Democrat though...

[QUOTE=Soheran;13110077]Affirmative action is not "special treatment".[QUOTE]

Yes it is, but that isn't what the debate is about however, it is about if the special treatment goes far enough to make the playing field even enough for black labour to get into white founded and operated unions. Er, wait; my misinterpretation, white anything.

Of course, the point I'm trying to make is that everybody realizes and accepts that it is special treatment, even supporters; please, try to keep up.

As for gay marriage, I believe it shouldn't be an issue just because we should burn all the gay people, everywhere, at the stake. I know it sounds a little Darwin, survival of the fittest and all, but there are some good points Darwin makes about homosexuals, namely, couples that cannot breed, and thus help genetics along, really are nothing more then a waste of energy.

Thus, of course, you see the bitter irony of not only Biblical, but also scientific teaching in schools, which was long thought to be something of a defender (or at least not denouncer) of homosexual thought, expressing valid reasons as to why homosexuality is nothing more then a random mutation whose elimination will only better society.

As for gay marriage, I believe it shouldn't be an issue just because we should burn all the gay people, everywhere, at the stake. I know it sounds a little Darwin, survival of the fittest and all, but there are some good points Darwin makes about homosexuals, namely, couples that cannot breed, and thus help genetics along, really are nothing more then a waste of energy.

A pity we have since then discovered that the offspring of a homosexual animals siblings (which have quite a few genes in common) can benefit from having a "third parent"[1].

As well as that we, as silly humans, somewhat oppose natural selection. Dare I mention glasses and clothes ?

[1] Prolly why we do not kill old people either, even though they do not breed anymore.

A pity we have since then discovered that the offspring of a homosexual animals siblings (which have quite a few genes in common) can benefit from having a "third parent"[1].

As well as that we, as silly humans, somewhat oppose natural selection. Dare I mention glasses and clothes ?

[1] Prolly why we do not kill old people either, even though they do not breed anymore.

I don't even respond to un-sourced psuedo-facts that are actually opinions.

We don't oppose natural selection, if we did, I'd be a Olemec, or Native America. While Europe would still be The Roman Empire, and China would have the great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson of Shang.

But they continue to teach, and rear our granchildren, besides, they have already contributed to society and the gene pool. That's enough.

Yes it is

Yes, right, in exactly the same sense that it is "discrimination": that is, a technical sense that applies just as much to any non-arbitrary choice, and utterly fails to provide foundation for the connotation of unfair privilege that goes along with the idea of "discrimination" and "special treatment" as people actually use them.

I know it sounds a little Darwin,

Um, no, it doesn't.

Darwin never described what ought to happen, merely what does. And, anyway, homosexuality does happen in nature... so clearly your understanding of it is rather flawed. :rolleyes:

but there are some good points Darwin makes about homosexuals,

Actually, I don't believe Darwin spoke of homosexuality at all.

namely, couples that cannot breed,

Actually, gays can breed... and same-sex couples can adopt.

and thus help genetics along,

First, why is this a moral imperative that should be enforced with the death penalty?

Second, actually even gays that do not procreate (which they are capable of doing) can help propagate the species by helping to care for other people's children--as they in fact do, in modern society, through the mechanism of adoption.

You make a pretense at rational argument, but since it's clear that you're just struggling to justify your pre-set horrifically bigoted conclusions, that doesn't give you much credit.

Oh, and gay marriage is NOT a top issue.

To me it very much is. Civil rights is the most important thing in a nation that claims to be a nation of freedom. Far more important than the debates on whether or not people who signed a paper agreeing to fight and die are fighting and dieing in appropriate numbers

This is entirely subjective though

No, it isn't.

If straight people get to marry, gay people should get to marry as well, unless a credible basis can be found for the distinction.

Since there's no such basis....

I don't even respond to un-sourced psuedo-facts that are actually opinions.

You just post them yourself ;) ?

Gay marriage is a non-issue. The only important change would be surviving partner benefits, which can already be arranged with a little effort on the part of the individual, except for Social Security benefits, and like that'll be around much longer.

No, I don't even pretend they're facts; I'm honest.

You said "there are some good points Darwin makes about homosexuals".
I am not seeing the source of Darwins points ;)

You just post them yourself ;) ?

No, I don't even pretend they're facts; I'm honest.

No, I don't even pretend they're facts; I'm honest.

No, you're hiding behind Darwin to find an excuse to murder cowardly those that dare be different from you. You're a bigoted psychopath. Unless you want to burn sterile people at the stake as well, in which case you're just a psychopath.

To me it very much is. Civil rights is the most important thing in a nation that claims to be a nation of freedom. Far more important than the debates on whether or not people who signed a paper agreeing to fight and die are fighting and dieing in appropriate numbers

QFT.

I think the rights of the people should be ahead of some quagmire or which way the government can collect money from you.

Yes, right

Thanks for accepting that I'm right.

I stopped reading there, anything additional would be entirely un-needed.



Um, no, it doesn't.

Darwin never described what ought to happen, merely what does. And, anyway, homosexuality does happen in nature... so clearly your understanding of it is rather flawed. :rolleyes:

A little Darwin is not the same as full Darwin; also, he never had the ability to fully see everything, thus he had to only make a theory about what he believed in nature. I'm doing the same, homosexuality is a freak mutation that needs to be wiped out.

Actually, I don't believe Darwin spoke of homosexuality at all.

He spoke of survival of the fit.

Actually, gays can breed... and same-sex couples can adopt.

They just choose not to, which is worse.

Yeah, and screw up another person, great.



First, why is this a moral imperative that should be enforced with the death penalty?

Second, actually even gays that do not procreate (which they are capable of doing) can help propagate the species by helping to care for other people's children--as they in fact do, in modern society, through the mechanism of adoption.

You make a pretense at rational argument, but since it's clear that you're just struggling to justify your pre-set horrifically bigoted conclusions, that doesn't give you much credit.

Because they have no use-

I know a kid with two fathers; he has not friends, no life, no girls. His two fathers have made him just as gay as they are, with him not being gay. So in other words, his life is utterly fucked, no one likes him, only a few people even hang out with, and basically, he is doing himself no favors in trying to find some sort of man in his gay girl world.

And your gay; I wonder who has the upper hand?

No, you're hiding behind Darwin to find an excuse to murder cowardly those that dare be different from you. You're a bigoted psychopath. Unless you want to burn sterile people at the stake as well, in which case you're just a psychopath.

I'm not, he never said to kill homos.

Oh, and they don't 'dare', they make me 'dare' to be differant; to not be some sad, pathetic, gay-boy lover who wants everyone to be 'happy with who they are'.

Nope, just gay's. I'm bigoted.

Nope, just gay's. I'm bigoted.

You think that's something to be proud of?

You think YOU should be happy with who you are? You can't even write.

You're a joke. You're not even worth arguing with, not even for the exercise.

You think that's something to be proud of?

You think YOU should be happy with who you are? You can't even write.

You're a joke. You're not even worth arguing with, not even for the exercise.

It's not something to be anything about, it's there, that's all.

Nope, I'm always striving to be better; I can write.

Then accept I'm right and you will not have too.

Yes. Now don't get me wrong, as much as I strongly support gay rights, there are more important things at hand. The war in Iraq, our healthcare system, the protection of our constitution, and our economy all will have a bit more impact in the world.

But gay mairrage is the most important campaign issue. Why? Because the answer is so incredibly simple it shouldn't even be discussed. But it is being discussed. And that's why I see Hilary, Obama, and Edwards as too inept to be president. Because they have either no guts or no common sense at all to dance around such an incredibly simple issue.

See how much a simple issue can tell how pathetic a candidate is? If you're too stupid to support gay mairrage without thinking about it, how should I expect you to make choices that will change the entire world?

So I'll ask you, if you support one of the moderate Democratic candidates, how can you have faith in them if they can't answer the most simple issue at hand?

Gay marriage is plenty important, I'm sure, but not nearly as important to posting in the forum as sobriety and correct spelling.

Then accept I'm right and you will not have too.

You're not right. You'll never be. I know it, and, if you were my equal, as opposed to my inferior, so would you.

As for knowing how to write, check the bold word.

Don't feed the troll, he's been reported anyway.

More on topic: I'll never understand what the big deal about gay marriage is in the USA. Canada has had gay marriage for years and everything's still fine and dandy over here. No divine retribution, no plague, crickets, rain of burning blood or anything.

Looks like God doesn't care who sleeps with who as long as it's between consenting adults behind closed doors, after all.

personnaly i think marriage is overrated, but... i think that gays should be able to be married. f*ck christianity or any other religion that says gays are bad. they also say that everything that a bunch of old unhorny men wouldnt do is wrong. That includes drugs, sex and murder. if the person wants to be ,married then by god (hypotheticaly of course) they should.

A little Darwin is not the same as full Darwin; also, he never had the ability to fully see everything, thus he had to only make a theory about what he believed in nature. I'm doing the same, homosexuality is a freak mutation that needs to be wiped out.


What? "needs to be wiped out"? Can you provide a credible basis for this assertion?

whats with this troll anyway? Mutation is good. If it werent for mutation huamns wouldnt be here nore would anything else other than the basic organisims. So with out mutation wed all never have been. Maybe homosexuality will save some day. If so then i hope u live to see it. As for ur homophobic attitude, it is discusting, unless u were raped by one then i understand. But 1 gay rape dosnt mean all gay people rape.

whats with this troll anyway? Mutation is good. If it werent for mutation huamns wouldnt be here nore would anything else other than the basic organisims. So with out mutation wed all never have been. Maybe homosexuality will save some day. If so then i hope u live to see it. As for ur homophobic attitude, it is discusting, unless u were raped by one then i understand. But 1 gay rape dosnt mean all gay people rape.
Rape is no more credible a justification for his homophobia as it would be for a woman's claim that all men are pigs who should be executed because she was raped by a man once.

All are not bound by responsibility over one's illegal or immoral acts.

Constantanaple, I regret to inform you that I was not raped by homosexuals. Sorry to disappoint. Yet it seems you were raped by the English language, because now you hate it and refuse to mimic it in any way. Either that, or our a touch dysletsic.

First off, I am not trolling. I'm just providing a extreme right viewpoint backed up by the same thing you several people are backed up with; nothing.

You say nothing bad happens when homosexuals marry and carry on, I say they do. You point out that God has rained destruction upon your country, I say he wouldn't want to kill the majority at the expense of the minority; besides, he's a Libertarian, he lets Hell carry out his dirty work of eliminating sinners.

You point out that Darwin never said anything about homosexuals, and that he only studied nature and based a hypothesis off of it, if he knew about homosexual rabbits, he would have likely... Edited his theory or something. While I say he clearly states that mates that can't breed, don't contribute to the gene pool of its species, and thus, are a waste of space.

So in conclusion, I will stand by my assumptions that you are all gay, and you will stand by yours that I'm a Nazi who likes to do the goose-step down the middle of Gay-Pride parades. Neither has evidence, but it's really the thougt that counts, eh?

Finally, in conclusion; I bow to Heikoku’s superiority, obviously, I'm am not suited to debate, as I added an extra o to my to. May God have mercy on my soul.

He's not a Democrat though...

I wasn't using jackass to say Democrat. I was using jackass to say jackass.

Moorington, you are trolling; Heikoku, you're flaming; and both of you are bouncing off each other like kids squabbling in a schoolyard. Both check your TGs, both of you step back from your computers for a bit and both STOP THE NONSENSE NOW. The ice is thin.

Deriving moral principles from the fact of evolution is like deriving them from the fact of gravity.

What's next--helium balloons are evil because they rise instead of falling?

:rolleyes:

To me there are other important issues besides same-sex marriage. However, I refuse to quantify difference of importance between such.

Simply put, denying the right of same-sex partners to marry, with the consent of their loved, their partner, is legislated inequality; where heterosexual couples enjoy this same capacity. Further:

1. I do not care if a majority oppose it: We are a Republic, as such where the basic tenets of our national foundation contradict the will of the majority, those tenets are superior. One purpose of this being a republic is so that the rights of the minority are nor legislated away by the will of the majority.

2. I do not care why people oppose it, especially on religious grounds. No one is planning on forcing religious organizations to perform these ceremonies, I do not want my, nor anyone else's religious views made into the law of this country.

3. I do not care if it is not "tradition"... "Tradition" itself is no grounds for law.

1. I do not care if a majority oppose it: We are a Republic, as such where the basic tenets of our national foundation contradict the will of the majority, those tenets are superior. One purpose of this being a republic is so that the rights of the minority are nor legislated away by the will of the majority.

2. I do not care why people oppose it, especially on religious grounds. No one is planning on forcing religious organizations to perform these ceremonies, I do not want my, nor anyone else's religious views made into the law of this country.

3. I do not care if it is not "tradition"... "Tradition" itself is no grounds for law.
Hear hear.

Constitution guaranteed rights and equality trumps tyranny of the majority.

Hello,

I agree with those who hold that government should not be in the business of regulating marraige. At all.

If people want to establish a financial union, they can set up a trust.

If people want to establish a religious union, they can visit a church.

There is no reason whatsoever for the government to get involved in the relationships of individuals to any degree.

--Anthony

I don't think I really have an opinion beyond "two consenting adults should be allowed to marry/legalize their partnership, no matter what, if any, their biological gender is". And the "if any" comes from the fact that there are naturally occuring intergender people around, quite a lot more than many people realize.

Group marriages and marrying children (also two children officially marrying one another) are old traditions in many parts of the world, but I don't really approve of those.

Then again, just one person's opinion. :)

marrying children (also two children officially marrying one another) are old traditions in many parts of the world

Also in some animes. :D

(Ranma 1/2) :p

Also in some animes. :D

(Ranma 1/2) :p

Those crazy japenese perverts will always surprise me so. :D

While I say he clearly states that mates that can't breed, don't contribute to the gene pool of its species, and thus, are a waste of space.

When population growth is too fast for the resources of the environment to uphold and encourage, homosexual behaviour would be one way to control the population. Also, with humans, so much of our species' evolution these days is cultural rather then biological, and to that many gay (or celibate) people are able to contribute much more on, than any of the 'breeders', since they generally don't have children and such family trappings to take up their time.

Tell me one biological evolutionary step taken by the breeding human population within the last 10,000 years and I'll withdraw this statement. :cool:

Also in some animes. :D

(Ranma 1/2) :p

They're engaged, not married yet. :p

They're engaged, not married yet. :p

They DO, in the end, attempt, but even that much is somewhat hard to do. :p

The whole marriage thing should be left to the states. I don't believe the federal government should be involve in such matters. After all what is freedom and liberty if the federal government continue to take away power from the states? Let the local people decide what they like or dislike for their own states.

That's what we fought the Civil War for. This states' rights balogna is long dead. If you don't like the laws the federal government enacts, MOVE TO ANOTHER COUNTRY! People with actual moral fiber confront issues like gay marriage, instead of throwing it into someone else's lap.

Deriving moral principles from the fact of evolution is like deriving them from the fact of gravity.

What's next--helium balloons are evil because they rise instead of falling?

:rolleyes:

I hate to admit when someone displays more STYLE than me. :p

Ah well.

I won't. So there. :D

No, it isn't.

If straight people get to marry, gay people should get to marry as well, unless a credible basis can be found for the distinction.

Since there's no such basis....

Ok, that is your OPINION, making SUBJECTIVE... someone needs a dictionary... (you). Define 'credible basis' to 'Bible-thumping' conservatives the Bible is credible, and is suggestively not pro-homosexual marriage. To a homophobe, their own opinons are credible enough. Now the ball is YOUR court prove why one set of people should get rights that others do. Example; police can carry guns where otherwise prohibited, shouldn't I then be able to do likewise? I am as human as a police officer....

allow me to put something into perspective for this thread. picture if you will, for just a moment, that the majority of people are gay and that is how you reproduce. Now, you had the misfortune to be born straight. Wouldn't you want the right to marry? Just a thought for those of you with brains.

Ok, that is your OPINION, making SUBJECTIVE... someone needs a dictionary... (you). Define 'credible basis' to 'Bible-thumping' conservatives the Bible is credible, and is suggestively not pro-homosexual marriage. To a homophobe, their own opinons are credible enough. Now the ball is YOUR court prove why one set of people should get rights that others do. Example; police can carry guns where otherwise prohibited, shouldn't I then be able to do likewise? I am as human as a police officer....

Unless you can prove to me that straight couples got a certain kind of training (and, yes, restrictions, because the cops do get some of those as well) that gay couples didn't, this one fails. Legally speaking, the Constitution speaks of equal rights to everyone. Ideologically speaking, so do the concepts upon which America was founded, including but not limited to separation between Church and State. The Bible is not a credible source for the inner legal workings of a country, unless EVERYONE (not a majority, EVERY SINGLE PERSON) follows it interpreting it THE SAME WAY. The Constitution isn't there to protect the rights of a majority, it's there to protect the rights of a minority. Furthermore, would you argue that the opinions of a person that believes in burning witches should be taken into consideration with the same care with which the opinion of a reasonable person would be?

Affirmative action is not "special treatment", it is a (partial and very much insufficient) guarantor of proportionality in a society that already treats minorities disproportionately poorly.



Um... you know that hate crime laws protect whites, too? And sexual orientation hate crime laws would protect straights. Precisely because they are not special treatment.

But don't let facts and logic get in the way of your fantasies of the minority conspiracy to oppress the poor, subjugated straight white majority. :rolleyes:

ha, go into your ghetto of where ever you live and get your arse beat and then try and sue the guy who did it as a hate crime.

"African American assaults White, White says it was a hate crime. Is he serious?"
as compared to
"White assaults African American, African American says it was hate crime. White in jail for X number of years."

plus African Americans get off using their own racial terms toward us, like cracker and honky, but THE N-WORD is like forbidden, unless an African American says it tha its fine.

and in all honesty, white people did not steal Africans from Africa and enslave them, the slaves were sold to the whites, by other Africans, and then taken to other countries. So if African Americans are going to blame anybody, blame the people over in Africa dying of AIDS, Malaria and Ebola, or thank the white devil that your not still in Africa dying.

wow i did not mean for that to turn into what it did.

Let the gays marry and be as miserable as the straights who do marry. we had a seperation of church and state so marriage shouldnt be discussed in politics.

They DO, in the end, attempt, but even that much is somewhat hard to do. :p

Ahhh! No spoiling! I haven't read that far yet... >_<

Ahhh! No spoiling! I haven't read that far yet... >_<

Gomen, gomen, gomen!

I myself didn't read that far, it's just hearsay, so...

I am as human as a police officer....

Are you sure? :eek:
And how can we ever know that for sure...? :confused:

Frogs United;13110978']allow me to put something into perspective for this thread. picture if you will, for just a moment, that the majority of people are gay and that is how you reproduce. Now, you had the misfortune to be born straight. Wouldn't you want the right to marry? Just a thought for those of you with brains.

The problem with that conjecture is that gay (meaning HOMOsexual) by definition CANNOT reproduce in a homosexual manner (I understand that almost all gay people are capable of reproducing, but his conjecture is that specifically, homosexual relation impregnate the men or women-which could apparently both bear children)

The problem with that conjecture is that gay (meaning HOMOsexual) by definition CANNOT reproduce in a homosexual manner (I understand that almost all gay people are capable of reproducing, but his conjecture is that specifically, homosexual relation impregnate the men or women-which could apparently both bear children)
May I repeat the term 'imagine'? It's entirely theoretical. it's like a role-playing exercise. understand?

The problem with that conjecture is that gay (meaning HOMOsexual) by definition CANNOT reproduce in a homosexual manner (I understand that almost all gay people are capable of reproducing, but his conjecture is that specifically, homosexual relation impregnate the men or women-which could apparently both bear children)

Okay, let's assume homosexuals developed the ability to reproduce without intercourse (such as in vitro fertilization) while heterosexuals somehow lost that ability. Or assume YOU are a homosexual. And so on. The point being, put yourself in their position.

Unless you can prove to me that straight couples got a certain kind of training (and, yes, restrictions, because the cops do get some of those as well) that gay couples didn't, this one fails. Legally speaking, the Constitution speaks of equal rights to everyone. Ideologically speaking, so do the concepts upon which America was founded, including but not limited to separation between Church and State. The Bible is not a credible source for the inner legal workings of a country, unless EVERYONE (not a majority, EVERY SINGLE PERSON) follows it interpreting it THE SAME WAY. The Constitution isn't there to protect the rights of a majority, it's there to protect the rights of a minority. Furthermore, would you argue that the opinions of a person that believes in burning witches should be taken into consideration with the same care with which the opinion of a reasonable person would be?

Your assuming it is unreasonable to burn witches. And what I argued against was that, for no reason (as none was stated) it should be a universal law that all gay people can marry because all straight people can marry... no other argument was given... Also, police have LESS restrictions on their gun usage, I never said restriction-less, and training doesn't matter ,perhaps there is a psychological difference between straights and gays

I am arguing only from reason not necessarily from my own viewpoints, before people bring out the lighters....

Your assuming it is unreasonable to burn witches.

Uhm, it is. o_o

Okay, I understand the notion of dialectics, but there are some positions that are just plain unreasonable. If one decides to believe that each and every position "can be" a reasonable one, there is no more debate, as everyone may be right. :p

Are you sure? :eek:
And how can we ever know that for sure...? :confused:

I'll be honest, there is no way that I can prove that to you... point 1 for Araraukar....

I'm sorry, that line just stuck out, so I had to do it.

Do what?

Uhm, it is. o_o

Okay, I understand the notion of dialectics, but there are some positions that are just plain unreasonable. If one decides to believe that each and every position "can be" a reasonable one, there is no more debate, as everyone may be right. :p

I'm sorry, that line just stuck out, so I had to do it.

The problem with that conjecture is that gay (meaning HOMOsexual) by definition CANNOT reproduce in a homosexual manner (I understand that almost all gay people are capable of reproducing, but his conjecture is that specifically, homosexual relation impregnate the men or women-which could apparently both bear children)

And this is relevant how exactly?

Sterile people can marry. Menopaused women can marry. Some married couples are not interested in having children and will never procreate.

Reproduction is not a prerequisite for marriage. It is a trait that is, indeed, often seen in conjunction with marriage, but it is by no means an obligation for any married couple.

Furthermore, you forego the adoption or articifial means of reproduction. Quite many homosexual couples, men and women alike in a comitted relationship with a member of the same gender, raise and care for offsprings, be they the result of a precedent marriage, adopted children, or conceived by artificial means.

No, honestly, reproduction can not be considered a significant factor when discussion grounds for being for -or against- same-sex marriage.

Okay, let's assume homosexuals developed the ability to reproduce without intercourse (such as in vitro fertilization) while heterosexuals somehow lost that ability. Or assume YOU are a homosexual. And so on. The point being, put yourself in their position.

The 'imagine your gay' argument would've worked better... and honestly, I can't say, I ma engaged, so being gay would bring about such an enormous life change, who knows where I would stand on anything?

I am not against equality, in the case of the marriage battle, I would say I am anti-any-marriage meaning civil unions (financial+legal togetherness) are given by the state to consenting adults (if we let the gays have it, I suppose the polygamists need it too, lol), and marriage would be a Church affair, a religious official could refuse to marry any couple (or trio, or set of four) as he saw fit for whatever his religious motivations, in which case that couple could find a new church, or miscellaneous religious organization.

*snip, length*

No, honestly, reproduction can not be considered a significant factor when discussion grounds for being for -or against- same-sex marriage.


I didn't actually say that procreation is a req. for marriage, apologies for the implication.

Do what?

'Argue' that burning witches is resonable (well, potentially reasonable)

I didn't actually say that procreation is a req. for marriage, apologies for the implication.

Clarification welcome and apology accepted.

I had to answer this because it's an argument that often comes up in such debates, and for the reasons exposed in my previous post I always resent the intellectual inaccuracy of those who "oppose gay marriage because gays can't reproduce and marriage is about procreation". Glad to hear you were not one of them.

Snip.

Well, seems reasonable, yes, but, since the government is already involved, let it call it marriage to gays as well. The point being, it beats "I'll marry them straights but I'll not marry them gays".

Well, seems reasonable, yes, but, since the government is already involved, let it call it marriage to gays as well. The point being, it beats "I'll marry them straights but I'll not marry them gays".

Well, as a Christian I just don't like the law having it's hands on my word! Jk (kinda?) I think that 'marriage' as I see it is not a matter of the state, but rather of the church, I agree that civil unions (financial and legal togetherness) should exist, hence my opinon for the differentiation.

Well, as a Christian I just don't like the law having it's hands on my word! Jk (kinda?) I think that 'marriage' as I see it is not a matter of the state, but rather of the church, I agree that civil unions (financial and legal togetherness) should exist, hence my opinon for the differentiation.

Of which church ? Can people from other denominations marry ? Can Jews ? Hindus ? Or -shock horror - atheists ?

Well, as a Christian I just don't like the law having it's hands on my word! Jk (kinda?) I think that 'marriage' as I see it is not a matter of the state, but rather of the church, I agree that civil unions (financial and legal togetherness) should exist, hence my opinon for the differentiation.

So you agree with the assertion that the government should only hand out civil unions leaving marriage in the hands of others?

Of which church ? Can people from other denominations marry ? Can Jews ? Hindus ? Or -shock horror - atheists ?

"Church" used in the generic term of religious institution, if an athiest found someone to 'marry' them, then sure....

So you agree with the assertion that the government should only hand out civil unions leaving marriage in the hands of others?

yes....

"Church" used in the generic term of religious institution, if an athiest found someone to 'marry' them, then sure....

Then we go over to the second part: should all "holy marriages" be allowed by the state or should there be restrictions ?
Examples:
1. Two men marrying, as allowed by their "church of the gay" (or for instance a pagan/wiccan coven).
2. Polygamic constructions, as allowed by quite a few religions
3. A 50 year old marrying a pre-teen
4. Arranged marriages
And so on.

Of course, if there are no legal consequences associated with marriage answering "yes" becomes easier for quite a few. One and two I personally would allow even with state benefits. But with 3 for instance you are molding the childs mind into accepting the adult as a partner, even if actual consummation of the relationship remains illegal.

In any case, others will be able to "steal" your word... which was what you wished to prevent in the first place by making marriage a purely religious thing.